Proposed Amendments.

1. To define the terms "intimidation," "persistently follows," and "besets," in the text of the Act.

2. That the said definition of intimidation should include such threats only as are accompanied by actual physical violence.

3. That the said definition should include such acts only as are calculated to put a man in reasonable bodily fear, or as would justify a magistrate in binding over the offender to keep the peace.

4. That the said definition should cover the moral intimidation exercised by the assemblage of more than three men at a given spot for the purpose of picketing, the explanatory clause, "attending at or near the house," etc., being repealed, and the liberty of "giving information" being confined to the right of holding public meetings and canvassing the workmen's own homes.

5. To make it illegal to strike against the employment of free labourers.

6. To disallow cumulative penalties under the Act.

7. To increase the penalties for offences under the Act.

8. To deprive judges of the power of withholding the option of a fine, except for what a jury may consider to be an aggravated offence.

9. That the punishment for "intimidation"

should be imprisonment without the option of a fine.

10. To make the definition of intimidation cover the following acts on the part of employers: blacklisting, eviction at less than three months' notice, dismissal without assignment of a valid reason, and engagement of men during a strike without informing them of its existence.

11. To make collection of subscriptions in the streets illegal.

12. To repeal the entire section 7.

The Commission received much evidence in the case of strikes connected with dock and maritime labour, of picketing which caused, or was, at any rate, accompanied by, much violence and intimidation. It was also clearly brought out by employers that, "inasmuch as the number of persons who may attend to communicate information......is not limited by the Act, it is practically very difficult to fix the point at which communication of information becomes intimidation, and that for this reason it is not easy to obtain any conviction for intimidation," and in this way the effect of the 7th section is virtually nullified. On the other hand, the employed objected to the clause as being too loose, and affording scope for convictions against innocent persons.

The Commission, therefore, made the following recommendations :

"(1) That non-unionist workmen should in all cases be protected, so far as possible, by the public

authorities from anything approaching to violence or forcible obstruction.

"(2) That the first sub-section of section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, should be amended so as to read thus: 'Use, or threatens to use, violence to such other person, or his wife or children, or injures his property,' omitting the ambiguous word 'intimidate.'' To these suggestions the Commission added the following important remarks:

"It was suggested on the part of the employers that picketing is apt to become collective intimidation, and such intimidation is not the less effective though not directly addressed to any person in particular, and a desire was expressed that the law might in some way be strengthened in order to meet this evil. We are of opinion, however, that the existing law is sufficient if impartially and firmly administered; but there is reason to doubt whether it is in all cases completely understood. Where the practice of picketing' exceeds the bounds of information and peaceable conversation, and takes the shape of besetting the entrance or approaches of a factory or works in a threatening manner, we are advised that, apart from any threats addressed to individuals, the offence of unlawful assembly is committed."

The offence of unlawful assembly is thus defined, and in accordance with the authorities, in the late Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's "Digest of the Criminal Law":—

"An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons

"(a) With intent to commit a crime by open

force; or,

"(b) With intent to carry out any common

purpose, lawful or unlawful,

in such a manner as to give firm and courageous persons in the neighbourhood of such assembly reasonable grounds to apprehend a breach of the peace in consequence of it."

It is a somewhat significant criticism upon the value of the Labour Commission Minority Report that in it no mention is anywhere made of this particular subject. This fact in itself is sufficient to prove that the socialist agitators consider the present state of the law eminently suited to their purposes.

IV. CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF

"INTIMIDATION."

IT is desirable, at this stage, to supplement official utterances by testimony from miscellaneous quarters— by some direct evidence as given before the Labour Commission, by decisions given from the Bench, by suggestions from persons really acquainted with picketing practices, and, finally, by a brief glance at the legal customs and extent of picketing, and similar practices, in foreign countries, and the attitude of the Legislature towards them.

The following is Sir Frederick Pollock's interpretation of section 7, prepared for the use of the Labour Commission:

"There is no doubt that the intention of this section was to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate picketing......The enactment is sufficiently clear, with one exception; and, subject to that exception, the difficulties that occur in its application are such difficulties in obtaining sufficient evidence against ascertained persons as cannot be abolished by the wisdom of any Legis