The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-23 00:00:00

Trig ariN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 23, 1859.

STRIKE'

IN 7'HE BUILDING TRADES.

MIDPLESEX SESSIONS, *Nov. 22.

Before Mr. Bodkin, Assistant-Judge, and a fu.
bench of Magistrates.)

The Court sat specially to-day at the Guildhall,
Westminster, to hear an appeal by Wm. Perham, a
mason, against a conviction by Mr. Corrie, the
police magistrate, under the 6 Geo. IV., c. 129,
entitled, " Art Act to repeal the Laws relating to
the Combination of Workmen, and to make provi-
sion in lieu thereof." The adjudication was a term
of two months' imprisonment.
Mr. Edwin James, Q C., Dr. Wheeler, and Mr.
Gordon Allan appeared on behalf of the appellant,
instructed by Mr. Roberts, of Manchester; Mr.
Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Poland, instructed by Mr.
Mullens, appeared in support of the conviction.
The conviction was read: It set forth, in the
terms of the statute, that the defendant had endea-
voured by threats to intimidate one Wm. Jocelyn,
and to deter him from continuing in the employ-
ment of Messrs. Thomas and Wilson Piper.
• Mr. E. James said he had to make an objection
to the conviction; which he submitted was bad on
the face of it. The conviction did not disclose any
offence as having been committed by the defen-
dant, but merely followed the words of the form
of the statute ; it did not set out the overt acts or
threats in question, and in a conviction of this
highly penal character, the offence must be
clearly and conclusively defined. The learned
counsel cited several authorities, and said a
second point he had to submit was, that the
conviction was bad inasmuch as it did not
set forth that the threats or intimidation were
made directly to the person, which was really the
gist of the offence, there was no allegation of any
such threats in this conviction, and it was not suffi-
cient that the general terms of the act of Parlia-
ment should be simply adhered to, for in the form
it was stated in a space, " hero state the offence,"
and in this case no offence was stated. If it was
not absolutely necessary that the offence should be
stated, why should the act give a particular fora
and contain the words, " here state the offence ?"
Dr. Wheeler and Mr. Gordon'Allan followed on
the same side, and contended, quoting various de-
cisions of the Court, that it was an indispensable
condition of the conviction, which was summary
and a highly penal one, that. the nature of the par-
ticular offence should be clearly defined, so that the
person convicted, on availing himself of his right
of appeal which the law gave him, might know
what he had to meet and answer.
Mr. Lush, in reply to these arguments, said he
confessed that he thought if his friends had any
confidence in the points they had suggested, they
would have advised the defendant to be taken on
the warrant or conviction, and then tested its
validity in the highest court of the country. He
argued that under the Police Act it was not neces-
sary that the offence should be set forth, as Mr.
James contended, and that the conviction, even
though confined to the words and form of the
statute, was good and valid.
The Assistant-Judge said he did not think the
points of sufficient importance to stop if'ae case,
though he was inclined to concede that the offence
should be stated, but he had the less difficulty in
deciding thus, inasmuch as the decision could be
reviewed elsewhere.
Mr. Lush then stated the case. It was in
reality a prosecution by Messrs. Piper, the
builders, against the defendant, who was one of a
class of operatives of a most useful, industrious, and
meritorious description, the masons, who had taken
an active part in the strike between the master
builders and the workmen in the metropolis.
Messrs, Piper were actuated by no vindictive feel-
ing in the matter, they had no ill-will against the
defendant, who had been in their employment, but
it was necessary for the masters, while freely and
willingly conceding to the men the right of com•
bining together to regulate matters relating to their
trade, also to combine if the men exceeded the
proper and legitimate action of their combination
so as to take away and destroy the free agency of
any of their fellow men, and also to unite to pro-
tect themselves. Those who violated the law must
take the consequences, and be liable to criminal pro-
ceedings. The offence imputed to the defendant
was, that he hal violated the law by threatening
and 'endeavouring to coerce men whom Messrs.
Piper had procured from the country to work for
them in consequence c,f the strike in London ; and
if that were so, he had committed a breach of the
law, and must submit to the penalty. On the strike
taking place, Messrs. Piper sent one of their fore-
men, named Rohjohn, into Devonshire to procure
men, and he engaged 18 and brought them to Lon-
don. They arrived on the 18th of October at Pad-
dington ; they were watched by persons evidently
on the look out to see what men came up from the
country, and were followed to a public-house in
Little Britain, where the defendant Perham made
his ar pearance. Raving been in Messrs. Piper's
service, the defendant knew Robjohn, and he_in,
terfered with the men, and tried to persuade them
not to go to work, and stood at the door to prevent
them going out of the public-house; but they did
get out, and as Robjohn was conducting his men,
to provide them with lodging for the night, Per-
ham followed and told the men they had done very
wrong in coming up to town to take the place of
fellow-workmen on the strike, and that they had
been deluded by a trick ; but the men said they had
agreed to work, and work they would aecordidg to
the agreement they had made, which was six months'
certain work, and pay at the rate of ss. 6d. a day. The
men went on, Perham still following, and heimade use
of these words, " If you golo work we shall call you
blacks,' and when we have won the strike and
gone in to work, we will strike against you all over
London, until you are turned out." The conse-
quence of this was that 14 out of the 18 returned,
or at least did not go to work at Messrs. Piper's, as
they were to do on the following Monday. That,
he, Mr. Lush, submitted was neither fair reason-
ing, exhortation, or admonition, but a direct threat,
in violation of the law, to coerce workmen not to
go into employment, and, therefore, that the con-
viction was good, and ought to be confirmed by the
Court.
Charles Robjohn was then called;and he deposed
that he lived in Luard-street, Caledonian-road. He
was in the service of Messrs. Piper, and in conse-
quence of the strike he went by their direction into
Devonshire to engage workmen. At Tavistock he
engaged some, and at Plymouth others, at Os. 6d.
a day and six months' work guaranteed. He en-
gaged Jocelyn, one of the witnesses in this case, at
Plymouth. Jocelyn came up to him as he was in
the train and said he was willing to be engaged on
the same terms as some others who had gone up to
London a day or two before, and he engaged him.
They ctme to London, and were watched front the
Great Western Railway station to Little Britain,
to a public-house. The defendant came there with
another man, and said the men were his, and should
go back, that he would take them to the Sun at
Lambeth, find them beds and refreshment, and pay
their expenses back to the country. Witness said
the men had been engaged by him to work for a
builder in London, and were not to be interfered

with. Perham placed himself at the door to pre-
vent his going out with the men ; he told witness
he might go, tut the men must go with him.
Jocelyn said he would soon see if he was not to go
out, and came in front; they all then passed out.
Perham followed them, and said he would pay all
the expenses of their going back to the country.
Witness said, " yen mean going. this .way?"
He said, " Yes ;" whereupon witness said he should

go another. Defendant still followed, and on
Jocelyn saying that he should go to work as he had
agreed, the dcfendant said, " Well, you know the
consequences ; you will all be blacks, and we'll
strike against you all over London, until you are
turned out."

The witness was cross-examined by Mr. James,
and there seemed a good deal of what the learned
counsel termed open equivocation in his answers.
He said he mentioned nothing to the men about
the document when he engaged them, but they had
to accept the declaration before they were allowed
to begin work. If the men took the paper that
was enough. Tt was offered to them, and one-half
was retained by the master. It was agreed-that
Jccelyn was to be employed if the work suited him,
and he the work. He was engaged on a Saturday,
and was to begin work on the following Monday.
The defendant drank with them at the public-
house in Little Britain. Jocelyn was paid for the
day he was engaged.
Jocelyn was thn called. He said when Robjohn
engaged him he asked if there was any document
to be signed, and he said there was not, and said

nothing about the declaration. He was to be paid
ss. GI a-day, but when he went to work they gave
him Gs. Gd a-day. He did not like strikes ; he had
been in too many to suit his pocket, and W,I,S at
work row. The witness bore out Robjohn's evi-
dence, was not disputed on the other si-le;
and another witness was called to depo:ie to the
same state of facts, but they were admitted.
Mr. James then submitted that the evidence
proved no offence. It must be shown that the de-
fendant, by threats, en aeavoured to coerce Jocelyn
mot to go to work for Messrs. Piper, according to
his hiring. The biting must be a legal one, and he
contended that when this threat was used, if it
IA ere a threat, the hiring was not complete, because
Jocelyn was to go to work on the following Mon-
day " on condition " that he suited the work, and
the work him, so that the agreement made with
Robjohn at Plymouth was not in fact an absolute
hiring on the part of Messrs. Piper, through their
agent. To test this by analogy, suppose a gentle-
man were to send a letter to a person in the coun-
try, saying "Come up to me next Monday, and If
I find you suit me, I will engage you as my foot-

man." Would that be a legal hiring P Now, in
this ease the hiring, it was understood, was not to
be complete until the Monday, these threats were
used on the preceding Saturday, when Jocelyn
was not, he submitted, a hired servant of
Messrs. Piper. He would not import into the
case any matter in relation to the political or
social economy of strikes ; this was simply a matter
of law and fact for the Court to decide, and he con-
fidently submitted that on the point of hiring, both
in law and fact, the case could not be sustained.
The Assistant-Judge said he thought he could not
stop the case upon that ground.
Mr. James—Will you reserve me the point P
The Assistant-Judge said that might be consi-
dered by-and-by.
Mr. James then said he would address himself to
the merits of the case, and would trouble the Court
with but few remarks. What overt act of molesta-
tion had been proved against Perham—what vio-
lence had he been guilty of—what personal injury
had he done P This was what the statute was meant
to meet; but here, Perham, drinking with the men
in common company along with Itobjohn too, told
them that if they went to work in the roam of men
who had struck, they would be regarded as" blacks"
and struck against throughout the trade. How
could that be construed into violent intimidation P
It was a rule of the trade. Was it a case to which

it was ever contemplated the act should be applied ?
The strike was not illegal. On the contrary, com-
binations of workmen for the regulation of their
hours of labour, their rate of pay, and other matters,
were allowed and sanctioned by the law of this
country; the masters, too, had a right to combine
if they pleased, but so long as there was no overt
act of molestation on one side or the other, there
was no violation of the law. The rules of the
builders' societies had never been impugned as
illegal, it had been offered to submit them to the
highest legal authority in the country to see if
there was any regulation or principle contrary to
the spirit of the law of the land and the free rights
of the artisan, and even that course had not been
adopted.. It had been urged by his friend that
Messrs. Piper were not vindictive in issuing this
prosecution ; he would beg to say that since the
strike had commenced, one perhaps unexampled,
with all the privations and struggling necessarily
attendant upon it, there had been little violation of
order and propriety. The builders' society defended
this case because they thought and believed sin-
cerely and truly that the defendant had not made
use of any threats which could bring him within
the operation of this Act of Parliament, and he
hoped the bench he had the honour of addressing
would feel it their duty to quash this conviction.
The Magistrates then retired, and after a short
consultation came into court, when
The Assistant-Judge said the object of the Legis•
lature had been that the master in the employment
of his capital and the workman in respect of his
labour, which was his capital, should be free. Mr.
Hume"s act repealed the old combination laws, and
now masters could combine, the workman could
combine, but thcre must be no threats or intimida-
tion, molestation; or violence on either side. The
present Lord Cranworth, when Baron Rolfe, on the
occasion of a celebrated trial in the North, expressed
his opinion that workmen combined together could
reasonably and peaceably persuade others to join
them in carrying out their views without commit-
ting any breach of the law, but that persuasion
must be reasonable and peaceable, and not assume the
character of intimidation and threatening. In the
first place, it was contended here that the language
used by the defendant did not amount to a threat
or intimidation, but was merely an admonition.
Upon that point he had had the great advantage of
taking the opinion of the Bench, which was a very
full one, and they unanimously considered that in-
stead of admonition, what the defendant said was a
direct threat to intimidate these workmen from
going into the service of the prosecutors during the
strike. On the second point, as to the hiring not
being complete when this occurred, he was of
opinion that it was a legal hiring, and in that view
the Bench unanimously concurred, therefore, con-
sidering that the circumstances justified the magis-
trate's decision, the defendant would be committed
to the House of Correction for two months, the sen-
tence passed upon him.

Mr.-James applied for a case upon the point as to
the hiring, but

The learned Assistant-Judge said he really had
no doubt about it, nor had the Bench, and could not
therefore grant a case.
Mr. James understood that the point had been
reserved.

The Assistant-Judge said he was not aware that
it had, he had not intended to convey anything to
that effect, but they could take it up by certiorari.
The learned counsel pointed out some difficulties
as to a certiorari, which they thought was taken
away, but said a case could be stated by the Court,
if both parties consented.
Mr. James said his friend Mr. Lush bad dis-
claimed_alLvindietive fecling an_tha part of Mosare.
Piper ; perhaps he would consent to a case.
Mr. Lush said Messrs. Piper were at the expense
and troub!e of these proceedings, which they had
taken on public grounds, and he did not think it
would be proper for him to consent to a course
which woull necessarily involve farther proceed-
ings, cost, and delay, with no doubt the same result.
The Assistant Judge—Besides a continuance of
these discussions would not tend to bring about a
reconciliation in this unhappy struggle, or to pro-
mote or encourage that good and kindly feeling
which should subsist between the masters and the
men.

Mr. James—But the defendant goes to prison for
two months for an offence which I do not think,
with every- deference to you, sir, and the Bench, is
proved legally against, him.'
The Assistant Judge said the Court had decided
the case according to the best of their judgment,
and their opinion was, moreover, unanimous.
The defendant was then placed in custody, and
sent to Coldbath-fields House of Correction.
The court was,crowded with masons and others
conaected with the strike ; and there were about
200 others .outside the building, who hooted the
witnesses as they left.

and never went off the pavement to get near him.
I never prevented him from getting into the cab ;
on the contrary, I said it was the best thing he
could do to get out of the row.
Mr. Jardine—The creating of such a riot—
The Prisoner—l did not do it, sir. It was not
me.

Mr. Sardine—Why, you did so by your own
showing. You say that you went out to " row"
them, and that you called out "Robjohn" and
" Piper." I say it amounts to a riot, and I regard
it as a most serious offence. Calling out after and
around-persons who are going about their ordinary
business, or who have been giving evidence in a
court of justice, is an offence which will be treated
with very great severity by a higher court if I
send it before them. I shall not say one word about
that at present, but I shall remand you for a few
days, and in the meanwhile I hope some of those
who were with you will also be brought before me.
The Prisoner—Won't you allow me bail, Gover-
nor ? (A laugh.)
Mr. Jardine—No.
The prisoner was then removed by the gaoler.