The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-25 00:00:00

N'.I..WSPAPER
_,. ".,`-'• ...-:i7.: dsa
.t.„ •
, . THE LULL ' ' .S' STP! 1,,,,,,,,,,,4r, ~.,,,.,,
~,,,.,,4i '7 ' 7.
_At the baginning of the present rty stra, - ...-49' • l' 4
•.- .., l • 44.< . ' /1,1.
)
spoke the attention of the public to a . co s• is-I
elucidating one a the most. plotainentsesastaAtiiW si-P4sf'
the day—namely, the eatsnt to which, undauthea s
existing law, law, the proceedings of Trades' Unitaa in
their attempts to regulatedie terms of labour might -
fairly be carried. The tendency of our legislation
on this subject has recently Issefi all la fa soar ofthe
operative classes. They were not only protected
in the privilege of ylut ' savzombination, but were
allowed to exerai s Tri _ sswith those of their
trade who had not -c-oniliinen, proviiied that such
•interference did not-exceed the limits of peaceful
and reasonable suasion. Unionists on " strike," far
instance, might recommend ton-unionists to follow
their example, on condition only that no intimida- •
Con or molestation entered into their proceedings.
The object of the law, in tact, was to give the
workmen the greatest amount of freedom com-
patible with the rights of individuals. Any num-
ber of them might agree among thetas-oh-es
to enhance by concerted action the video' of.
their labour, and they might lawfully also
persuade others to their own way of thinking,
and so increase the power and effect of their combi-
nation, but they were not to molest, threaten, or
I
terrify those who chose to follow a course of their
own. These doctrines seem tolerably plain, and
are certainly not wanting in consideration for the
claims of labour. The question, however, which
arose more than once out of transactions connected
with the Builders' Strike was, what constituted the
intimidation forbidden by the statute ? How far
might men go in the way of persuasion without
passing the bounds of reasonable and peaceful argu-
ment ? It soon became evident that masters and
men held different views on this point, and the ques-
tion was brought to issue. in a case of some note.
-Mr. William Perham, a stonemason by trade, and
also Secretary to the Masons' Union, and one of the
delegates of the Strike Committee, was prosecuted
by MessrS. Piper, the builders, 'as' having trans-
gressed the law. For his alleged offence he was•
brought before Mr. Corric, at the Clerkenwell
Police-court, was there convicted, and sentenced to
two months' imprisonment. Against this decision; ~
however, anssippcal was enterectS which Wifi dub?. a.---( 4
heard atthe Middlesex Sesaithis on TuesdaylaSt,
and the report of which appeared in our columns of
the day following. The case was _clearly regarded
as a decisive one on both sides. Perham was de-
.fended by the Builders' Society, and the services of
Mr. Edwin James were engaged on his behalf;
while Messrs. Piper disclaimed all vindictive or
personal feelings, and sought only to establish a
principle. There was a full bench of magistrates,
and the question, which happened to be very per-
spicuous in its form, was fairly argued. About the
.facts, indeed, there was little or no dispute. The
foreman of Messrs. *or, Robjohn by name, had -
been sent out in September last to look for masons,
in the place of those IA) had discontinued work-
ing.
en the Ist of October he brought up 18
workmen of this class from Devonshire, but, no
sooner had he stepped out of the train at Padding-
ton than an emissary of the Strike Committee ap-
peared on his track, and by the time the men
had been taken to their lodgings for the night
Mr. Perham presented himself, and claimed them
as his own. He pursued his object by dogging
their footsteps, and making them offers of various
kinds, till, in the end, he actually succeeded in in-
ducing 14 out of the 18 to forces) their agreements, -
and return to the country. It was not, however,
on these acts that the charge was founded. All this,
it seems, Mr. Perham was held at liberty to do, but
with this he was not content. He told the men, in
the course of his proceedings, that if they disre-
garded his arguments, and persisted in their design
of going to work for Messrs. Piper, they would be
considered as " blacks," an expression perfectly
understood, but which he himself explained at the
time by adding that they would be all " struck
against" by the masons of the union, until they
were turned out. In other. words, these men were
warned that unless they did as the unionists desired
they would, as far as the unionists could effect such
a purpose, be deprived of that work by which they
got their bread. The masons in combination would
" strike against them," that is td say, would refuse
to work in their company, so that the masters might
be compelled, for the sake of their business, to refuse
them employment. This was the conduct which
was formally defetided as peaceful and lawful
within the meaning of the statute.
Dismissing the exceptions incidentally taken by
Mr. Edwin James to the original conviction—ono
of which has been already overruled—we find that
experienced advocate basing the defence of his
client on the rules in the trade. After contending
that the statute was directed against " overt moles-
tation," " violence," and " personal injury," he argued
that it could not apply to the case of Perham, who,
in amicable discourse with the men, and in the hear.
hag of Robjohn himself, had merely " told them that
if they Went to work in the room of men who had
stiaeits-therainstdettstSsfeetiiitetits as ' Marisa," awl-----struck against throughout the trade. how could
that be construed into violent intimidation ?
It was a rule in the trade. Was it a case to
which it was ever contemplated `the Act should
be applied ?" To this inquiry the magistrates
replied by a prompt and unanimous decision that '
the Act did apply to tie case in question, and that
Perham 's words amounted to a direct menace cal-
culated to deter the men from performing the work
they had undertaken. From that conclusion few ,
reasoning people will be found to dissent. The men
under Robjohn's charge were distinctly threatened
with the loss of their subsistence, or, in other words,
with utter destitution, such penalty being visited
upon them by combinations of others for that special
purpose. If such threats do not constitute intimi-
dation it is hard to see how intimidation could be
employed at all.
Accordingly Mr. Corrie's decision was duly con-
firmed, and so far, therefore, we may assume it as
ruled that it is not lawful for any set of workmen
to coerce other workmen into their opinions by
threatening to strike against them ; but we must
now follow out this principle a little, and apply it
to those standing rules and by-laws of the Masons'
Union, which the masters have desired to see modi-
fied, and which the men so stoutly defend. Mr.
Edwin James in this very speech asserted that
" the rules of the Builders' Societies had never been
impugned as illegal ; it had been offered to sub-
mit them to the highest legal authority in the
country, to see if there was any regulation or prin-
ple contrary to the spirit of the law of the land
and to the free rights of the artisan.": Yet he had
also asserted, in the words before quoted, that
" blacking" a man, though a non-unionist, for non-
compliance with the laws of the Union, was a
" rule in the trade ;" and we should imagine that
the " free rights of an artisan " were considerably
interfered with when he was told that he could
not go to work with the employer of his own
choice, but must, on pain of practical outlawry,
take his orders from a set of men with whose con-
cerns he had no kind of connexion. One of two
things is clear,—either that this threat of proscrip-
tion and ruin constitutes no intimidation whatever
—a proposition which we do not suppose Mr. James
would maintain,—or that intimidation enters essen-
tially into those Union laws . which he thinks
cannot be impugned. This, in fact, is the truth
of the whole matter. Trades' Unions are worked by
coercion from first to last—coercion directed not
merely against employdrs but against workmen
themselves. In the former case it is so far lawful
that the pressure put upon masters by voluntary
combinations of men for the purpose of enhancing
the price of labour is allowed by statute; but in
the latter case it is wrong altogether, wrong when
exercised directly by individuals, and wrong there-
. fore when inculcated by the regulations of a society.
It was argued with much ingenuity -a this easethat
• the threats charged against Perham were not
threats proceeding from himself', or intimations of
principles, but merely repro- '
sheis ownnta
ionPsuortP' purposes
otscronveyed by him in the way of
friendly warning. According to this theory he
simply told the men what would happen if they
ran counter to the views of the Unionists, the ad-
monition being plainly to their advantage.- Such
a view of the matter was too subtle for the magi-
strates, who rejected it decidedly, but it' it could
have been sustained the result would only have
been the tranfer of the blame from the shoulders of
Perham himself to the Union which he represented.
There was plain intimidation in the case, where-
ever it originated, and, as Mr. Perham has been
thus held accountable for using a menace which,
according to Mr. James's own admission, enters as
a standing rule into the regulations of the trade, we
are at a loss to see how these regulations them-
selves can Ise defended any ion ger.— Times.

Is CONSUMPTION INTunhamt P— Invalids labouring
under Consumptive Maladies, and families who have
suffered frcm the ravages of Consumptiol (and what
family in the empire is there who has not to deplore a
loss caused by this scourgil of the human race ?) will find
a satisfactory answer to the question, " Is Consumption In-
curable," in an original article by Dr. DENIS CRONIN,
M.D., 35, Bruton-street, Berkeley-square, W. Published in
the "household Physician," in numbers, one penny each,
by G. Berger, 19, Holywell-street, Strand. From Ito 9 now
ready.
[ADVERTISEMENT I—Holloway's1—Holloway's Ointment and Pills.—
Rough Skin, Cracked Lips, Chapped Hands, and Pimtles
and Sores.—Dreary November, always noted in England
for its inclemency, is this year ess respectful of our appear-
anccand comfort than usual. Skin affections are already as
general as we commonly find them in January. So sudden
and unexpected has been the demand for Holloway's I int-
ment to soothe these irritating disorders, that it became
compulsory to make fresh arrangements in the manufactory
to meet the public want. As a cosmetic this Ointment 'is
likewise invaluable. Nothing can be more harmless to the
most delicate skin or more effective in its operation. All
desiring a clear and blooming complexion should give a fair
trial to Holloway's Ointment and Pills.