The Express.
London, England, 1855-06-21 00:00:00

COURT OR QUERN'S

serums nil

NM nen= COLBEIDOI. WISIT
AND CSONFTON.

MILTON V. SOILIMISLwr.—.
The judgment in this case bad bees postponed from bell
term
Wt. Juliet Brie said the question whether the and
declared on was void, was raised under' the efeeMMOWIll
appembeg in the medition, which stated that the
were workmen at Wigan and Headley ; than
dew es workmen peramuneg free labour, Wading with
the massemeat of their manatactorit a, ail& =
blastisse were maintained by funds entreated lissia
asts employsil by the obligees, sad that for their grelledieS
the ebligese bound themselves toregulate the &mews. ell
wages, tie periods of eagagemest, the bolus elf
week. and the general 'assessment of their estate.
Uththente, wad to act is conformity with the lawful
..eludes to be passed by • ea jority of the °billion premat
at a maim and declared that bond should be void if then
airman( should not be pariermed. The masters had tams
esetrumed to co-operate for their mama protection Wiwi
the sembinations of workmate. It was °sounded that this
argument was unlawful, as Wag a minim on trade; but
es the usher aide it was said be be for the advancement ell
Issas. The workmen, by . '4' tegegahetesemaster,and
=dby wages °blabs* ken *tint masters, might
esperately, and seism Ms masa= sea/4 Faust
themselves more effectually Mee ley ladiellsoat. dam tee
doers of the trade Wag imaroyed. Alm, as the apes-
moat tom be sass the reseinetme of the
taajority. it
hemgh
be that these resdatione MMlglit require trade to ear. I
riled as te ins hiss extent. It could not therefore be said
to be a minis{ on trade, males it could be shows
that it did so operate. Bees if it was construed to be am-
orals% ea trade became it interfered with the free will of
the mum, still it did not follow that it was illegal, ee
agthemiests foe restraint of trade were legal if required fee
the of the lawful interests of the seatraethes
Taus masters might ciatract to restrain their ses,
Mate sad apprentices from trade in a certain seighbonis
bead, and when a person purchased the goodwill of a basis
ass be might restrain the vendor from Wadies within a
Week district, asd the landlord of a hose* might /We
Ms Wan from trading M that bow, if it lives likely be
Moss is velem. Is the present ease, the obligors ram
*MPS by the recital to have an important interest, for the
posessillea of which this agreement was necessary, and these
ernamersesos for saying that the restraint wee more then
was wisswarry for that purge. The epiaisa. that
this was gelid at common law en _duets by a mad
tiosaties el the statute law. The logielatare, by maim
eintams pseud from the reign of Edward I. to that of
ids IV. prohibited agreements either of masters on
asikaisa, for the purpose of either raising Or low=
erg ring hours, or otherwise altering
Mhetl Those agreements were declared by
Hine IMO= Ile be illegal, and the parties entering isto
them Mete Sabin to pani•lsment. By the 6th George IV. an
enelre theme of the law was made. By the 2nd section all
One statutes were absolutely repealed. By the 3rd section
Maim prohibition was cruised to endeavours by force,
anal; intimidation, or obstruction. to alf.ct wages or
Moe, which were made illegal and punishable, and by the
deb sad kb sections it was declared Met neither muter' nor
sermate should be punishable did no
resting
meg** or hours, provided they did not infringe the 3,1 see
11114 Biwa these statutes had bees repealed, it •ss
only seder the commies law that these agreements
weld be illegal, but no principle or decided ease had
been adduced showing such to hags been the law before
the paikag of these statute., and it appeared • tri him that
gee toredatere isteuded by the statute of deo. IV. to make
aM Mesa agreements lees' if nor comprised elude the sta.
tate of prohibition, the statute repealing as well the claws
of former statutee which rendered those agreements illegal,
as these which made theca puaishable. If these agreements
were legal, then they might be enforced by law. It was
mowed that an attempt to affect wages by intimidation
would be more rare, and that the misery moulting from
strikes would be diminished if it were held that se arm-
ours fop the purpose or affecting wages sheald be enforced
by law. Bat it seemed to him that the opposite effect
would emelt. It all such agreements were emauded from law
be erased that they would still be made, because they had
bees frequently made lame they were prohibited soder
severe penalties, and were sow is mutant see, and the.
legislature probably thiamin them imoseable by prohibi-
tins. Thu, if whet made they meld not be enforced by
law, the etarties making them matted to persecution and
form for their enforcement, and as the moral, where law'
wee azeladed, frequently devolved apes sea sapeiscipled
ee ill-lieforused, greater misery arose than would take place
if shah agreements were •enettonerl by law. If these agree-
ments could be manned by law, there would be a grater
regard of rights and ibehilities,ald the eufereement of them
would be within the limits of um law, and for the most part
free from putpoeslies evil. If the law pretested them
it would be for the law to say whether they
were la restraint of trade beyond what wee required for