they are merely to ensure, as an act of precaution, that deserved punishment will unfailingly accompany such actions as dumb-show threatening and the terrorism of mass meetings, even when no inflammatory speech or actual violence is added. What is wanted is not to extend the principle of the existing Conspiracy Act, but to render the provisions of that Act more directly applicable to modern commercial and trade difficulties.

Strikes have been defined by Mr. William Allan, who may be taken to represent a high type of employer, as "the natural outcome of discontent on the part of organized labour." From Mr. H. M. Hyndman, who, personally, deplores strikes, but otherwise represents the advanced Socialists, we have the definition that strikes are "the unconscious manifestations of the revolt of the wage-earners against their conditions of life." With suggested remedial measures for strikes we are not now concerned. One of the most frictional accompaniments to every strike is picketing, which we have seen is only lawful when it does not exceed the act of watching to inform or to gain information. In this connection, therefore, a few words on strikes will not be out of place.

Strikes are a direct outcome of trade unionism and the system of "collective bargaining." Under the earlier and natural system of individual contracts there existed an antagonism between employer and employed only so far as such antagonism was natural to every kind of negotiation. And even this would in time have worn itself out with the growth of education, of reasoning

power, and of common sense. allowed to wear itself out.

But it has not been Trade unionism has not

only fostered it, but it has created a new and more dangerous, because irreconcilable, antagonism between itself and the whole body of employers. The friction produced by "collective bargaining" is thus much greater than when no such method existed. Collective bargaining now exists as part of our present industrial system of work and wages; not a necessary adjunct to that system, but an artificial growth that certain modern forces have developed to assist in their own evolution, but by no means a permanent or essential part of the system. Under our present system, so long as we contract in this manner for our labour supply, strikes are inevitable. When under the individualist system a workman desires, for instance, higher wages, he transfers his services to the place where he can obtain higher wages: that is, as an individual, and acting on his own initiative and responsibility, he strikes work. Similarly, when under the collective system a body of men desire -no matter for the moment whether justifiably or nota change in their conditions of work, and an employer does not see his way to grant such a change, they strike. In the latter case, however, there are added contingencies to be considered. A fusion, as it were, of simple elements has taken place, and the result is a substance which contains several new features not to be traced in the original simple elements, while other characteristics, present perhaps in each one of the simple elements, are lacking.

There is nothing immoral in the broad fundamental principle of the right to strike; but in its certain issues lies the immorality. No individual, unless he were an utter fool, would quit fair work with fair remuneration, which he once agreed to accept, without the certainty of better. In the case of a body of men such certainty rarely exists, and striking then becomes the action of a set of misguided fools. "All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient." Freedom of combination and the right to strike are indisputable possessions, but so also must every individual man have liberty to join a trade union or not, to strike work or not, as he himself chooses.

The act of striking cannot reasonably be made illegal, although it is invariably foolish. If, however, a man on strike compels by objectionable means—and what means in the heat of the struggle, with the exception of friendly converse of man with man in privacy, are not objectionable?-compels his late fellow-worker to strike against his will, such action can rightly be considered immoral and illegal. For the act consists in inciting a man to deliberately injure himself, it being no extenuation to urge that the instigator is also himself injuring himself. And this incitement to labour-suicide is the act known as picketing.

It is argued, with much truth, that the explanatory clause of the 7th section of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act has the practical effect of nullifying the whole section in its value to employers during the excitement of a strike; but legislative efforts to amend

the section have hitherto failed. Under this section, certain acts-e.g., intimidation, picketing, etc.—done with a view to compel any person (i.e., either workman or master) to do or not to do anything which such person has a legal right to abstain from doing or to do are offences punishable with a maximum penalty of a fine of £20, or three months' imprisonment with hard labour. But waiting about merely for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information is not offence within the section. In 1893 (February 16th) Mr. Secretary Asquith, Mr. Attorney-General, and Mr. Herbert Gladstone brought in a Conspiracy and Breach of the Peace Bill. The Bill proposed to extend section 3 of the Conspiracy Act of 1875 by repealing the words, "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen." By another clause it provided, by a fine of £20 or three months' imprisonment, against the occasioning or intentionally promoting of a breach, by the use of threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour, or the sending of any threatening, abusive, or insulting letter. Bill, which never reached its second reading, failed because it was promoted in anticipation of the Labour Commission Report, and the "Liberals " of the Session of 1893 had only the idea of making political capital— as in the case of the formation of the Labour Department-by a betrayal of the confidential matter at that time under the consideration of the Commission appointed by a Conservative Government. The premature birth of the Labour Department, an heir which

The

the late Mr. Mundella hoped would bring him great political renown, gave to an ungrateful country a child of a weakly Socialist constitution, an object not so much of scorn as of pity. And it is no doubt a fortunate circumstance that this Bill was killed in its very early stages. It died because its time was not ripe, and because the promoters were visibly actuated by self-seeking motives.

At the present time there is a public demand for some Parliamentary action upon this question of picketing. Probably the large number of recent cases in which the Bench has decided against the trade union officials accounts in part for it. The following resolution, passed in February last under the auspices of the Aberdeen Trades Council, is backed by far more than merely local support :—

"That this meeting of trade unionists and workers of Aberdeen agree to petition Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill during this session to amend the law relating to Conspiracy, Intimidation, and Breaches of the Peace, so that a more definite and uniform interpretation of the law may be arrived at.”

And it is more than a coincidence that about the same time a Conference, called by the National Free Labour Association, should resolve :

"That this Conference of representative working men from all parts of the country, in view of the alarming results from intimidation during labour