the completion of his term of service, or had been guilty of any other misconduct or misdemeanour respecting his work, then on the master making a complaint on oath, a Justice of the Peace could issue his warrant for the apprehension of the offending servant, and on proof of the facts supporting the complaint could commit the servant to the House of Correction for a period of hard labour not exceeding three months. In other words, the servant had merely a civil remedy against the master, while the master had a criminal remedy against his servant. It will be noticed that these powers were entrusted to a single justice who could sit in private. Until the passing in 1848 of Jervis' Act, workmen were always brought up on warrant. In 1867 Lord Elcho's Act was passed, abolishing imprisonment for breach of contract, except in case of what was called aggravated breach of contract, or disobedience to an express judicial order to perform the contract. Complete equality between master and man was brought about by the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, which is dealt with on p. 323.

Secondly, the Common Law was prepared to apply the principles of negligence to injuries suffered by the servant through negligence of the master, but on the footing that the master was liable only for his personal negligence, and not for the negligence of another servant. This was the famous defence of common employment,' and it was of great importance till the passing of the Employers' Liability Act in 1880 (see p. 98). In the case of accidents arising through negligence on the employer's part, it is still open to the workman to assert any rights he may have under the Common Law. A statement in detail of the Common Law doctrine has therefore to be given in the chapter on Employers' Liability for Accidents.

Thirdly, the Common Law had adopted the general principle that restraints of trade were against public policy. This was applied in two directions. As regards an individual who entered into an agreement of service which fettered his liberty to work or trade after the expiration of his agreement, strict rules were laid down to harmonise the master's interest and the interest of the public. These

rules exist to-day, and have never been the subject of legislation (see p. 43).

As regards groups of workmen or masters who were prepared to fetter their liberty of working or trading in the interests of their class as a whole, this principle was used in connexion with the law of conspiracy to crush effective combination amongst workmen to improve their position by anything in the nature of a strike. Up to 1824 the Common Law position was supplemented by very severe legislation against combinations. Through the skilful efforts of Place and Hume the combination laws were repealed in that year, but when Parliament realised what it had done, it once more strengthened the Common Law by the Combination Act of the year 1825, though the bare right of workmen to combine was admitted. This Act of 1825 was in force until 1871. The repealing Act of 1824 substituted for the earlier combination laws other provisions, "for the purpose of protecting the free employment of capital and labour, and for punishing combinations interfering with such freedom by means of violence, threats, or intimidation." The Act of 1825 recited the Act of 1824, pronounced it ineffectual, and proceeded to state that "such combinations are injurious to trade and commerce, dangerous to the tranquility of the country, and especially prejudicial to the interests of all who are concerned in them," and that "it is expedient to make further provision as well for the security and personal freedom of individual workmen in the disposal of their skill and labour, as for the security of the property and persons of masters and employers, and for that purpose to repeal the said Act, etc."

The chief of these further provisions was the creation of two new offences, viz. " molestation" and "obstruction." The section defining these offences may be summarised as follows. If any person by violence to the person or property, or by threats or intimidation or by molesting or in any way obstructing another, (a) forced or endeavoured to force any master or workman to depart from his work, or (b) prevented any master or workman from accepting work, or (c) forced any person to belong to any club or association or to contri

bute to any common fund, or to pay any fine for not complying with resolutions or regulations made to obtain an advance or to reduce the rate of wages, or to lessen or alter the hours of working, or to decrease or alter the quantity of work, or to regulate the mode of carrying on any manufacture, trade, or business, or (d) forced any manufacturer to alter the conduct of his business, or to limit the number of his apprentices or the number or description of his workmen, he was to be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months. By other sections workmen and other persons were allowed to hold meetings to discuss wages and hours of labour, and the mere entering into an agreement among themselves on these points was not to render them liable to any penalty. Unfortunately the moment workmen took any steps to give effect to their resolutions they were criminally liable either under the section creating these new offences or under the Common Law doctrine of conspiracy. In 1857, in consequence of the very wide interpretation given to these new offences, the Molestation Act, 1857, was passed, enacting that no workman or other person, whether actually in employment or not, should by reason merely of his entering into an agreement with any other workman for the purpose of fixing the rate of wages at which they should work, or by reason merely of his endeavouring peaceably and in a reasonable manner and without threat or intimidation, direct or indirect, to perşuade others to cease or abstain from work in order to obtain the rate of wages or the altered hours of wages so fixed or agreed upon, should be deemed to be guilty of molestation' or obstruction,' within the meaning of the Act of 1825, and should not therefore be subject or liable to any prosecution or indictment for conspiracy; but nothing in the Amending Act was to be held to authorise any workman to break or depart from any contract, or to authorise any attempt to induce any workman to break or depart from any contract.

There was nothing in either of the Acts of 1825 or 1857 to negative the Common Law view of Trade Unions as illegal associations. "They had no legal means of preserving or recovering their own property, indeed had no legal right to

obtain their own money from their own bankers." The history of Trade Unions from 1871 onwards will be found in Chapter XX.

Industrial Legislation before 1867.-So far we have been concerned with labour under the Common Law, and in connexion therewith with certain statutes that imposed inferiorities and disabilities on workmen. We must now turn to such legislation as there was for protecting workmen against unscrupulous employers. This protective legislation was confined to three matters: (a) The protection of labourers, both male and female, in manufacturing industries from payment in goods instead of cash; (b) the compulsory introduction into certain trades of tickets for piece-work so that workers should know what their earnings were; and (c) the protection in certain industries (some factories and all mines) of women and children.

Payment in goods is now known as 'truck,' and Truck Acts are to be found in the Statute Book as early as 1464, but the actual word truck does not appear till 1725.2 The Act of 1464 applied to woollen clothworkers, and after reciting that the labourers have been driven to take a great part of their wages in pins, girdles, and other unprofitable wares, it ordained" that every man and woman being clothworkers, from the feast of S. Peter shall pay to the carders, spinsters, and all such other labourers in any part of the said trade, lawful money for all their lawful wages and payment of the same." Other industries obtained similar Acts, and the Truck Act, 1701, extended the principle to woollen, linen, fustian, cotton, and iron manufacture, and enacted that all payments and satisfactions . . . shall be by lawful coin of the realm, and not by any cloth, victuals, or commodities thereof." As new industries arose fresh legislation became necessary, as there was no general enactment against the system of truck. Thus in 1817 an Act was passed on behalf of the labourers "employed in the manufacture of articles made of steel, or of steel and iron combined, and of plated articles, or of other articles of cutlery." 1 A Century of Law Reform, p. 250. Report of the Truck Committee, 1908, Cd. 4442.

In 1831 all these Acts were repealed, and in their place the Truck Act, 1831, was passed. This Act consolidated the law, but effected this by an enumeration of specific trades. Before very long the enumeration was found to be incomplete, but no amendment had been made at the close of the period we are considering. The Truck Act, 1831, is still law, and a statement of the extensions and amendments of it will be found in Chapter VI.

The second group of Acts is small and of no great importance, except as foreshadowing the "particulars clause" of the Factory Act, which to-day applies to a very large group of industries. Reference has already been made to the Act of 1824, which repealed the Combination Laws. A companion statute was an "Act to consolidate and amend the laws relative to the arbitration of disputes between masters and workmen." One of the objects of this latter Act was to put an end to disputes about piece-work. Where piece-work is at all complicated, the educated master can easily take advantage of an uneducated workman in the process of computing the money earned. In the cotton industry this was soon discovered, and the settlement of the lists of piece-work prices necessitated the employment by the Trade Unions of skilled professional advisers.1

A safeguard against fraud, which is at once simple and in ordinary cases effective, is for the master to supply particulars in writing of the work to be done and the price to be paid when the work is given out. These particulars are usually written on a ticket, which is fastened to the work. The Arbitration Act of 1824 approved of this system, but did not make it compulsory. It enacted that "with every piece of work given out by the manufacturer to a workman to be done, there shall (if both parties are agreed) be delivered a note or ticket in such form as the said parties shall mutually agree upon."

Nothing further seems to have been done until 1845, when two Acts were passed, one dealing with the hosiery trade and the other with silk weavers.

The Hosiery Act, 1845, dealt with hosiery, whether

1 Webb, Industrial Democracy, p. 196.