The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-11 00:00:00

2 Denison's Crown Cases. In the Queen v. Per-
ham, which is now an authority itself, not on ac-
count of my opinion, but because my judgment was
confirmed at the sessicns, and afterwards by the
Courts of Queen's Bench and Exchequer, I held
that it was an offence within this section for the
defendant to threaten workmen that if they ac-
cepted employment under this declaration the
unionists would not work with them, In the pre-
sent case the thTeat is made to the master, but
directed against both master and workmen, and is
eNpressly within the authority of the Queen v.
Rowlands, 2 Denison. lam clearly of opinion that
the present case is also an offence under this sec-
tion ; indeed it is the very case that the act was
passed to meet. It is a threat that if the master
should continue to employ that description of
workmen who had worked under the declara-
tion the defendants would strike, and their
endeavcur was, in the very words of the
prohibition " to force the master to limit the de-
scription of his workmen." Having arrived at a
clear unhesitating opinion that the defendants are
guilty of the offence charged in the information, it
becomes necessary, with reference to the punish-
ment which it will be my duty to inflict, to con-
sider more particularly the nature of the offence
of which I find them guilty. It is now matter of
history that last year the unionist workmen made
a strike for the purpose of compelling the masters
to pay the same ss ages for nine hours' work as had
before been paid for ten hours' labour. It is also
matter of history that the men failed in that object'
In the course of that unfortunate dispute the mas-
ters determined that they would not employ any
man who would not consent to work under the de-
claration. The present is the same declaration as
the one mentioned in the threat of the defendants.
I must keep in mind that it is the master who has
himself required the labourer to work under this
declaration. Mr. Anley says he had no workmen
who had not made the declaration last year; and
therefore, whatever might have been its terms, it
would have been cowardly and mean on the part of
the master had he consented to sacrifice the poor
non unionist workmen to the demands of the union-
ist worknien. Let us, however, see what this decla-
ration is. The workman declares as follows :—" I
declare that lam not now, nor will I during the
continuance of my engagement with you, become a
member of, or support any society which directly
or indirectly interferes with the arrangements of
this or any other establishment or the hours or
terms of labour; and that I recognise the right of
employers and employed individually to make any
trade engagements on which they may choose to
agree." Now, I say, as a lawyer, that it did not
require an act of Parliament to make illegal any
association or combination of men which attempts
to interfere with such matters—they were illegal
combinations at common law. Then it comes to
this—all the masters have asked their men to pro-
mise is, that they (the men) will not belong
to an illegal society. All that the men
have declared is, that they will not be
guilty of a crime. Now, sitting here to adminis-
ter the law indifferently between the masters'and
the men, and between one class of workmen and
another, between the "unionists and the declara-
tionists,"then I say that " societies with such objects
are," adopting the words of the prosecuting counsel,
" tyrannies." I say that nothing can be more
monstrous or illegal than the conduct of the defen-
dants, who have combined together and threatened
the prosecutor that they would strike, and who
have in fact struck work, with a view to prevent
him from carrying on his business unless he will
discharge men whose only offence, as far as I can
see, is that, at the request of their employer, the',
have promised not to break the law. I have said
that 'nothing can be more monstrous and illegal,
and I add that few crimes can be named which are
more wicked. The object which the defendants
have in view is to deprive innocent men of the
means of getting their living, and thus to drive
their wives and families into the workhouse, unless
those poor men will also offend against the law by
joining these illegal societies. -In Perham's case
the object was to dictate to the masters by prevail-
ing on the men not to work. In the present case
the defendants attempt by threatening the masters
to compel them to discharge and thus ruin the
workmen, no doubt with the ulterior intention,
having thus obtained full power over the masters_,
of again dictating to them on all. occasions and
whatever they may please. Having authority to
administer the law, I tell the defendant and their
associates that the law of England will not tolerate
such tyranny, and that all such combinations and
conspiracies will be put down by the strong arm of
the law. I gave distinct notice in Perham's case
that if illegal threats of this kind were again
brought before me I would infict upon the offenders
the most severe punishment in my power. The
threats used by these defendants are far worse than
in Perham's case. The objects of these defendants
are more wicked then his were. The threats are
used with a view of ruining innocent men who
have a right to the protection of the law in the
disposal of their skill and labour. Mr. Corrie then
sentenced the defendants to be imprisoned in the
House of Correction for three months, with hard.
labour, with the exception of Trimlett; who was
discharged for want of evidence.
Notice of appeal was given in both cases, and
the defendants were liberated on bail.