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

tyranny, and the sooner they were put an end to,
the better it would be for the working classes, who I
always suffered a great deal from them. Having
stated the facts of the case, the learned gentleman
said there could be no doubt but that the threats
made use of by the defendants came within the
meaning of the act of Parliament, and the only
question was, whether the law would not restrain
these men from doing those unlawful acts which
brought ruin and destruction upon hundreds of fa-
milies. He then called

Mr. Philip Anley, who said—l am the complai-
nant in this case. I am a builder, and carry on
business at No. 72, Upper Whitecross-street, St.
Luke's. On the 15th of May last I had in my
employment a considerable number of joiners and

carpenters (about 100) and among them were two
men who were working with me under what is
known in the trade as the " declaration." On

the morning of the 16th of May my foreman
brought to me the paper which I now produce,
and which was then without signatures.
That paper was as follows:—" At a meeting
of the joiners in the employ of Mr. Anley, Tuesday
evening, May 15, 1860, it was resolved that Mr.
Anley be given to understand that unless the men
who are working under the declaration in his shop
be discharged, and we have a definite answer by
dinner time to that effect, we cease work imme-
diately." I returned that paper to my foreman,
with a message that as it had no signatures to it I
could not take it into consideration. About two
o'clock the same afternoon three men came to me
in the yard. Two of them were the defendants
Griffin and Walsby, and the other I know by sight.
One of the three said to me that they came to me as
a deputation from the men, and handed me the
same paper which I had seen in the morning, but
at this time it had upon it several signatures in
pencil. There were several other men near. I said
to the men " are these all your signatures ?" they
said " Yes ;" and I then said "have you well con-
sidered what you are about ?" They answered in
the affirmative. Aud I then asked them "if they
had any fault to find with me, with my foreman, or
with my clerks ?" and they all answered " No." I
then asked them " have you any fault to find with
your wages," and they said " No.' I said, " What
is it, then, that you do want ?" and the answer that
I received was, "You must discharge those two men
who are working under the declaration, and if you
do not we shall leave your work." I replied, " I
will not allow myself to be dictated to. I think
you have been too fast in your decision, and I shall
give you half an hour to reconsider the matter. If
you then come back to work I shall think no more
about it ; if not, I would rather close my shop than
submit to your dictation." The • three men then
went away. In about half an hour all the men
came back together, and went towards the shop,
saying they were going to fetch their tools. I di-
rected my clerk to pay them, and he did so, and
they then all took away their tools, and have not
since returned to work. Since then my yard has
been picqueted by relays of these men, in order to
prevent other men from entering into my employ-
ment. They generally get in clusters of two and
three together. Trimlett was there about a fort-
night, and the other defendants have been there at
times.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sleigh—Walsby has been
in my employ for some time, and is a very good
workman.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—l belong to the
society of builders. It is a trade society. The society
to which I belong have not instituted this prosecu-
tion. It is not principally mine, for they have given
me some assistance. I put my case in their hands,
but lam prosecuting. The society is not a combi-
nation of masters to prosecute their workmen. The
men said that what they wanted was that the men
who were working under the declaration should be
at once dismissed, or they would cease working. I
made a communication to the society within a day
or two after the men had struck. I did not enter
into any negotiations with the defendants about
taking the men back. Two of them came to me,
but I did not send for them. I spoke to my fore-
men about them, because I wanted to find out their
places of residence. The trade society did not tell
me to do this. I had not heard of complaints by
the men of the document men using offensive terms
to the other men. After the strike all the men
came in under the document, but that has since
been done away with.
John Anley said—l am foreman to the complain-
ant. I remember, on the 16th of May, a paper being
handed to me to give to the complainant. I did so,
and returned it to the men, saying that Mr. Anley
could not take it into consideration until it was
signed. I saw them all write upon it. After it
was signed it was brought to me by Griffin. I told
the men that as it was a question between men and
masters they had better give it to him, and they
did so. After that all the men struck work.
Cross-examined—When the paper was in the
shop Trimlett was there, but I did not see him sign.
I do not know his handwriting.
Mr. Giffard said this was the case for the prose-
cution.
Mr. Sleigh submitted that there was no offence
committed by the defendants, and that there was
no infraction of the act of Parliament, either in
speech or in letter. Unquestionably this is a ques-
tion of the greatest importance, and its import-
ance was more so now than it was 100 years
ago, when the working classes were steeped in
ignorance. The question to be decided here was
whether the defendants were to act as freely as
those whose accident of birth or position in life ena-
bled them to move in a higher sphere. What was
the meaning of the word " threat P" Why, it was to
menace ; and he should like to know where was the
evidence that these men had done that. Was he to
be told, in these days of enlightenment, that men
were not to complain to their masters ; or, if they
did so, it was followed by a prosecution for using
threatening language. He would not take any
technical objections, for he was there to try a great
public principle, and the parties who instructed him
wanted it enunciated by the power of the law, and
not to escape punishment if they had offended the
law. If the master had gone into his shop and dis-
charged his men, would he have been punished if
he had given no reason ? No. Then why should
the men ?
Mr. Corrie—lf they had walked away they would
not have committed the offence charged, although
they might have been indicted for a conspiracy.
Mr. Sleigh—Under the provisions of this act they
would not be liable. When they left they gave a,
courteous reason, and substantially said, "We do
not feel ourselves comfortable ; there is no commu-
nity between you (the master) and us (the men),
and we will take our labour elsewhere." He con-
tended the defendants had not infringed the spirit
of the law, end were therefore entitled to be dis-
charged.
Mr. Lewis submitted that there was no evidence
against Trimlett, and asked for his discharge, He
was sorry to see that this act of Parliament was
being used for purposes for which it never was in-
tended. This was a very unfair proceeding, for if
pthoesemdeunphonad btheemen indicted
agistrat it
magistrate the
pwouldainfu
Innoetcheassvietyimof-
acting on a very penal clause of a very penal act
of Parliament, and sending respectable men to gaol
for three months. He hoped the magistrate would
discharge the defendants, for if they had done
wrong. it was in ignorance of' the law, and they had
been forced into it by the masters' society.
Mr. Corrie said—As has been said by Mr. Sleigh,
this case is of great importance not only to the de•
fendants, who are charged with a serious offence, but
to their fellow-workmen the " declaration men," to
their employers, whose business they have at-
tempted to stop, and to the public, upon whom will
probably be thrown the burden of supporting the
wives and families either of those who refuse to work
or of those who may be driven from their employ-
ment. I would have taken further time to consider
what my judgment ought to be if I had enter-
tained any doubt on the subject. As, however, I
have no doubt upon the question, I will proceed at
once to dispose of the case. The question is, have
the defendants made use of a threat punishable
under see. 3of 6th Geo. IV. cap. 129. The law be-
fore this act, as Mr. Sleigh has said, was very
severe. This statute was passed to protect the work-
men and the masters. It recites that combinations
interfering with the free employment of labour are
injurious to trade and commerce, dangerous to the
tranquillity of the country, and especially prejudi-
cial to the interests of all who are concerned in
them ; and that it was expedient to make further
provision for the security and personal freedom
of individual workmen in the disposal of their
skill and labour. The 3rd section then enacts, with
a view to carry out the object of the act, that it
shall be an offence punishable by
imprisonment,
with or without hard labour for three months, " If
any person shall by threats endeavour to force any
person carrying on any trade or business to limit
the description of his workmen." Have the defen-
dants been guilty of this offence ? They are proved
to have declared to their masters " that unless the
men who are working under the declaration' in
his (the master's) shop be discharged, and we have
a definite answer by dinner time, we cease work
immediately.'
otherve ni
enceyou, words,
iefw
wille ds tor inkoet, and
thus greatly ;n in
Mr. Lewis has I
can
wti
t en-
tirelyha that
there stop y
lovut bsuot asserted
rsonal
objection to those
men, but he has not proved such a ease, and
only act ou what is proved before me. If there
were such an objection it is most unfortunate that
they did not speak of it to Mr. Anley, as he would
no.doubt have considered it. The demand itself •
a threat, and I can only deal with the facts as they
existed andthemselves t
, as they presented to Mr.
Anley. in the case of the Queen v. Perham I
acted Qll the authority of the Queen v. Rowlauds„