severally belong,' for damages, and also for an injunction to restrain the trade unions and joint committees from molesting him in the conduct of his business. It was held by the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Hawkins that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue the trade union officers, who were defendants in their representative character, but only as individuals; and this decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. Damages were subsequently recovered in this action against the officials of the three trade unions, and an injunction obtained restraining the defendants. This case shows that persons injured by the action of trade unions. and their agents can only proceed against the agents personally, and, whilst they may obtain verdicts against them, they may, in many easily conceivable cases, be unable to recover adequate damages. This difficulty is one which illustrates the inconvenience which may be caused by the existence of associations having, as a matter of fact, very real corporate existence and modes of action, but no legal personality corresponding thereto."

The case of Bailey v. Pye, and other recent cases referred to in chapters iv. and vii., give additional weight to this paragraph.

Sir William Erle, in his report on trade unions, 1869, puts the whole matter in a nutshell: "At common law every person has individually, and the public also have collectively, a right to require that the course of trade

should be kept free from unreasonable obstruction. Every person has a right under the law, as between him and his fellow-subjects, to full freedom in disposing of his own labour, or his own capital, according to his own will. It follows that every other person is subject to the correlative duty arising therefrom, and is prohibited from any obstruction to the fullest exercise of this right which can be compatible with the exercise of similar rights by others."

(c) Unlawful Assembly and Riot.

The following reference to the legal aspect of unlawful assembly and riot may, it is hoped, be found convenient. An unlawful assembly is any assembly of persons attended with circumstances calculated to excite alarm; but, in order that it be unlawful, there must be either an illegal object, or, if the object be legal, the mode of carrying it out must be tumultuous. If persons assemble together to obstruct the police, they are all guilty of unlawful assembly, whether a riot takes place Where persons assemble together for a purpose, which, if executed, would make them riotous, and separate without accomplishing their purpose, they are, nevertheless, guilty of unlawful assembly.

or not.

A riot, a graver offence, is a tumultuous disturbance of the peace by three persons or more unlawfully assembling together, and who, being together, continue together for the common purpose of executing some unlawful act, or of executing any act whatsoever in such a manner or under such circumstances of violence, threats, tumult,

numbers, display of arms, or otherwise, as are calculated to create terror and alarm among the Queen's subjects, and who, in either case, wholly or in part execute such purpose.

Riot is at common law a misdemeanour, but under certain circumstances it may constitute a felony. To constitute the crime of riot, three persons at least must be convicted, and the tumult must be calculated to inspire alarm. If one person can be shown to have been, in fact, alarmed, that is sufficient to support the indictment. It is not necessary that there should be any actual display of violence. The reading of the Riot Act is not necessary to constitute the assembly a riot, for at common law a riot is a misdemeanour, and punishable as such; and if the Riot Act be read, and the assembly, consisting of twelve or more persons, do not break up and disperse within one hour after the reading of the proclamation, the offenders are guilty of felony, and are punishable with a maximum penalty of penal servitude for life or three years' imprisonment with hard labour. Before the proclamation can be read there must be a riot. It is also a felony to oppose or obstruct the reading of the proclamation. When a mob proceed to commit felonious destruction of property within 24 and 25 Vict., c. 97, sec. 11, a riot, though not felonious in its inception, becomes so, even though the Riot Act may not have been read.

VII.-FREE LABOUR v. TRADE UNION

TYRANNY.

THE case of Bailey v. Pye has re-opened the old question of the legal responsibility of trade unions. It is a question that only indirectly comes within the scope of this work. We cannot but recognise the extreme difficulty of increasing the already complex legislation dealing with trade combinations. Our suggestions deal mainly with a nefarious practice-legal, but a risky expedient-directly arising out of modern trade unionism, and we urge them because we believe them practicable, and immediately so. "Whether it would be desirable that trade unions should be capable of suing and being sued as trade unions may be a difficult question; but it should be borne in mind, when it is sought to amend or modify the law with regard to picketing or conspiracy, that this anomalous position of theirs is of material importance in making them more powerful for mischief than they otherwise might be,” says a leading Scotch daily newspaper. We hope that the complement to our suggestions-an Act of Parliament giving a clear statement of the legal position of trade unions—may speedily be passed. With this end in view, while summarizing

the position with regard to picketing, we shall finally refer briefly to this larger question which is involved.

The points we have sought to bring out are, that although "peaceful picketing" is legal, it does not really exist, and that picketing as a deliberate act should therefore, by the indirect means we have indicated, be made illegal, because

(1) The difficulty, delay, and expense of putting the existing remedial machinery into motion renders existing law almost valueless;

(2) As there is no definition of "intimidation," and as judicial decisions in various parts of the country are therefore inconsistent one with the other, it is not possible that justice can be impartially administered as regards either employers or employed;

(3) Although you cannot punish "the black looks and rough words which citizens occasionally cast at each other," nor compel the majority to have a good opinion of those who dissent from them, the law can, and should, protect their property and persons, and should refrain from deliberately encouraging, by permitting inconsistency of interpretation, such looks and words;

(4) Labour contracts should be held as inviolate as any other legal contracts;

(5) Much dissatisfaction with the present law exists on both sides, and public opinion asks for Parliamentary action.

To this end we have suggested that section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act should be so amended as to read :