essential part, of the system, and are the absolute and necessary outcome of the practice. That this conviction on the part of the Commissioners was an honest one, no one can for a moment doubt; and it is equally honest on the part of those who still believe that terrorism by unionists is constant, persistent, and inevitable, and that it forms a part of their code of written or unwritten law. But, surely, it must be conceded that those who deny such allegations are also honest, and that their denials are entitled to some consideration, and their pledged word to some respect. All the honour and all the truth are not confined to the "other" side.

§ 38. IV. In clause 70 of the Report the following "grounds of objection" to the practice of picketing are given:

So far as relates to members of the union promoting the strike, the pickets cannot be necessary if the members are voluntarily concurring therein; so far as relates to workmen who are not members of the union, picketing implies in principle an interference with their right to dispose of their labour as they think fit, and is, therefore, without justification; and so far as relates to the employer, it is a violation of his right of free resort to the labour market for the supply of such labour as he requires.

(1) In so far as the first paragraph relates to members of the union, who know of the strike, and its objects, it is correct; but union men are sometimes brought from a distance under the impression that no dispute has taken place, or exists; such workmen, as soon as they learn the facts, voluntarily refuse to accept the proffered employment. (2) With regard to nonunion workmen, it would be true if the principle of interference, which is alleged that it implies, were exercised for the purpose of preventing the men from accepting work on the terms offered. In no other sense is it an interference with the right of men to dispose of their labour as they think fit. Moreover, it is precisely this class of workmen who need the information intended to be given, because, not being in union, they have not the means otherwise to acquire it. (3) With reference to the conclusion contained in the third paragraph, it only becomes a violation of the right of the employer, of free resort to the labour market, when the means used are in themselves objection

able. If by coercion men are prevented, if by misrepresentation they are misled, if by pressure other than moral suasion they are made to refuse the terms offered by employers, then it is a violation of the rights of the employer, but not otherwise. Masters often use far more objectionable means to prevent workmen obtaining employment elsewhere. Good, able, and conscientious workmen have been driven from place to place in search of work, to be met not only with refusals, but insult, and at last have been compelled to break up their homes, and migrate to other places; in other cases, have been obliged to emigrate through the persistent persecution of employers. Why? Because these workmen were selected by their fellows to go to the employers as ambassadors, for the purpose of trying to arrange better terms for their labour. Many an agricultural labourer has been made a poacher, and subsequently a criminal, by such a system of persistent persecution. Others have terminated their misery by suicide. This practice of terrorism, on the part of the masters, is not confined to agricultural villages and small towns; its ramifications have extended far and wide, even in the higher departments of skilled labour in large towns.

$39. The attempt made by employers to introduce what is termed the "document system" was an effort to systematise, and render permanent and universal, the power to follow a workman from place to place, to set the mark of Cain upon him, and to reduce him to slavery or to beggary. The "document" drawn up by the employers, required their workmen to sign a declaration to the effect that they were not members of, and would not join, any trade union; and that if they were, they would cease all connection with it, and would not contribute towards the furtherance of any of the objects of such trade union. This document was numbered, and the counterfoil contained a corresponding number, together with the name and description of the workman; when he was discharged, or left his employment, the name was sent round to other employers in the trade, with a statement of the reasons for which he was discharged or left his work. This practice was enforced in the engineering trade for years, but its success was not encouraging, and it has now been practically abandoned, certainly in so far as the

question of membership, or non-membership, of the union is concerned.

§ 40. In 1859 the master builders of London attempted to introduce the system, and enforce its acceptance on the operatives in the building trades, but they failed. Much of the bitterness connected with the lock-out in 1859, and the subsequent strikes from 1860 to 1862, arose out of this unwise experiment on the part of the employers. They failed to establish the "document" as a permanent institution, but they nevertheless succeeded in preventing some of the "leaders"—that is, the delegates or members of the committee-from obtaining employment in any firms in the metropolis. So powerfully did this black list of the masters operate that some of these men had to leave London; others left the trade never to return to it again. Foremen, who knew their capabilities, would gladly have offered them employment, but they could only do so on the one condition of going in a false name. Even privation was better than this, and consequently, when they found that the London firms were closed against them, notwithstanding that the dispute had terminated, they sought fresh pastures, until the acrimony of the employers had passed away. It is now generally conceded that these "disbarred" and blackballed "leaders" were among the most intelligent, reasonable, moderate, and upright men of their class. Why, then, this prohibition? Simply for this reason, that they happened to be selected by their fellow-workmen to be members of the committee for conducting the affairs of the union during the dispute. Men are thus " spotted" and punished because of the accident of their position, not because they originated, or caused the strike, or used coercion or undue influence to restrain others from accepting work, but in consequence merely of having been elected to a post of honour among their fellows, on account of their intelligence, their capacity, and their character.

§ 41. Happily this feeling on the part of employers is rapidly passing away. It was necessary, at one time, on closing a dispute, to stipulate that there should be no martyrs-that those who had taken part in it, either as officers of the union or members of the committee, should not be treated as marplots

and agitators, and be discharged by reason of their official action during the dispute. But even when this was done, some pretext was not unfrequently found for getting rid of such men immediately after a settlement had been effected. It need scarcely be said that such pretexts can be easily found, if an employer determines to exercise his power of retaliation upon those whom he accuses of being the cause of the dispute. Employers, however, do not use this power to the same extent as formerly; they are beginning to learn the value and the necessity of conciliation, and that forbearance is better than severity; and also that the "leaders are not, as a rule, the originators of strikes, but simply the "instruments by which the unions conduct their affairs, when a strike has been resolved upon by the body to which they belong. Employers have learned that these "agitators are often the most moderate men in the union, that they are opposed to strikes as a rule, and are often the last to give their assent to a strike when it has become inevitable. To punish those who act merely as the agents of the union is as unreasonable as it would be for a foreign potentate to punish the bearer of a disagreeable despatch or an ultimatum.

§ 42. V. Paragraph 71 of the Report states that:

The abuses to which the system of picketing leads were made evident in a remarkable manner in the case of the London tailors' strike in the spring of the year 1867, when proceedings were instituted against some of the men who had taken an active part as pickets, or in organising the system.

§ 43. This case caused considerable commotion in London at the time, but in no sense could the overt acts then committed be construed as representing the actual practice of picketing. The conduct of the men in this particular strike was repudiated and reprobated generally by the trade unionists of London. In no single instance was the terrorism then exercised palliated or excused; nor was the inquisitorial nature of their proceedings justified. Whatever sympathy was manifested had reference to the members of the committee and officers of the society who were indicted for conspiracy; not because they had themselves been the offenders, but in conse

quence of their being the officials of the union. If the men actually guilty of the offences had been proceeded against, such sympathy would not have been expressed. That this feeling was well founded is proven by the ultimate result of the trial; for, although they were convicted of conspiracy, under the then existing law, they were not sentenced, and on their promising that all kinds of coercion and undue influence should cease, they were liberated. It must not be supposed that this promise, and its subsequent fulfilment by the defendants, involved personal knowledge on their part that the instances of oppression, which undoubtedly did take place, were within cognisance of the members of the committee and officials who were prosecuted. But in order to prevent the possibility of a repetition, in the future, of the acts described in the evidence, all picketing was suppressed, and the pickets were withdrawn from the shops.

§ 44. If those only had been prosecuted who committed the offences complained of at the trial, and these had been punished, very little commiseration would have been felt for them. As it was, the employers went too far-they tried to put down a practice because some men misused it, and they failed; they aimed a blow at the union itself, through its officials, but in this they were unsuccessful. A somewhat remarkable fact deserves to be recorded in proof of the foregoing statement. The solicitors entrusted with the defence of these men were so impressed with the high character, the ability, and the honesty of the chief officer of the society, who was one of the principal defendants, that after his release they interested themselves on his behalf, and promoted him to a position of trust. At this moment he occupies an honourable place in the firm, in a profession thus opened to him by the generosity of those who were best able to judge of his innocence. Moreover, a learned judge, who had ample opportunities of knowing all the circumstances of the case, subsequently expressed his surprise that a conviction ever took place, as, in his opinion, all the facts were on the side of the defendants.

§ 45. VI. In the last clause of the Report, in regard to picketing (No. 72), the Commissioners say: