mount object in all cases is the trade benefits. (4) The out-ofwork benefit, so important in the trade union, is impossible in the friendly society. This feature must ever remain as a peculiar characteristic of the trade union, applicable only to a society whose operations are limited to the comparatively narrow circle of those who follow the same employment, and are subject to the same conditions and fluctuations in trade.

§ 11. It is often urged that the friendly society objects, and those for trade purposes only, should be separated, and that the funds of both should be kept distinct. This has been partially done in some unions, but it is extremely doubtful whether by so doing they have not rendered themselves liable to legal proceedings in certain cases, when the funds of the one have been used for the purposes of the other. Such unions must be informed, if they are not already aware of the fact, that the law relating to friendly societies is very severe, with regard to the use of any part of their funds for any purposes other than those provided for in the rules. In the eye of the law it would amount to misappropriation, however good the object might have been for which they were so used. Those who mainly urge this separation of funds are desirous of weakening the trade union, and of strengthening the friendly society element; from their point of view their action is right enough. In the opinion of those who regard trade unions as institutions for positive good, quite apart from their incidental benefits, it would be unwise, if not absolutely dangerous, to insist upon any such separation. Some persons advocate it on less selfish grounds; but they are unacquainted with the working of the unions, and cannot judge as to the probable results. It should be stated that in very many trade societies the members can join the trade fund without contributing to the sick fund, in case they are already members of other benefit societies. Trade unions must be taken as a whole, subject to whatever aims they may have, or the ends which they seek, and the means which they adopt. In the nature of things, they will improve as society progresses, and as public opinion is brought to bear upon them in an intelligent manner, moderated by a fuller knowledge of their constitution and working. Their strength must ever consist in the justice.

of their claims and demands, and in the reasonableness of the methods which they may adopt in order to secure them.

§ 12. By the Act of 1876, trade unions are so completely recognised as corporate bodies, for beneficent purposes, that they now stand on a footing of equality, side by side with all other similar associations. They were placed on a sound basis, and treated on equal terms, after a persistent refusal extending over quite three-quarters of a century. Every one of the demands put forward by the unions was conceded; clauses or parts of clauses from the Friendly Societies' Act were incorporated and passed for their express benefit. Even the new definition clause was introduced for their special advantage. A curious example of the want of correct information on these matters was exhibited at the time by a prominent Member of Parliament. Sir Charles Dilke, in addressing his then constituents at Chelsea, is reported to have said that "the Trade Union Acts were spoilt during their passage through the House by the insertion of obscure definition clauses." If the honourable baronet had taken that interest in the question which his words would seem to imply, he should have known that the alleged "obscure definition clauses " were drafted by one of the oldest, ablest, and best friends of trade unions; every section and clause being submitted to the leaders of the workmen before they were placed on the notice paper of the House of Commons. They also had the advantage of being examined, considered, and revised by gentlemen both in and out of parliament, who for many years had devoted their best energies to these matters, always for the special benefit of the working classes. If Sir Charles Dilke, whose sympathies broadly are with the people, had wrong impressions with regard to this question, how much more were others then likely to entertain erroneous opinions, and to express themselves wildly on such subjects?

§ 13. One aspect in connection with the relationship subsisting between the friendly society and the trade union, was for a long time far from being satisfactory, namely, the reluctance of some of the unions to register their rules. This arose from a prejudice, mainly the result of past legislation, and particularly of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871, on account of its

forming part of the Trade Union Bill itself, being the third section, but which was afterwards omitted, and brought in as a separate Bill. Again, many of the unions considered that they had nothing to gain by registration, but possibly something to lose. That the advantages of registering their rules are not so great as they might be, must be admitted; still, there are many reasons why they should avail themselves of an Act passed for their special benefit. Under it, their funds are in all cases more effectually protected, and their recovery is more simple and easy, and, above all, they are able to call in the aid of the civil powers of summary jurisdiction, instead of applying the criminal law in every instance, whether the misappropriation, if any, has been the result of wilful fraud, or was caused by accidental circumstance, which, however wrong in itself, does not deserve a criminal prosecution, and in which the ends of justice would be served by a civil process only. But perhaps the chief reason why many refuse to register is their absurd prejudice against making known their exact position, through the annual returns published by the Registrar. Some unions absolutely refuse to give any information even to their friends, well-wishers, and defenders, for fear lest employers might know their weakness. This is as futile as it is unwise; their supposed secrecy tends rather to an under than over-estimate of their strength; it serves no useful purpose, and gives currency to the notion that the combination is a secret one, and has objects which are indefensible, opposed to public policy, and therefore to be condemned. It must ever be remembered that equality before the law means equality of duties as well as of rights; exemptions and privileges are alike in violation of this principle.

CHAPTER XIV.

CONCLUSION-GENERAL REVIEW, PRESENT POSITION AND FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONS.

§ 1. In the preceding pages the history of trade unions has been traced from their origin and descent from the old guilds, to the present day. We have seen something of their inception and birth, have watched their development through infancy and childhood, and followed their progress through youth up to the time when they attained the age of manhood, and became recognised by law as an institution and social force in the State. We have drawn attention to their struggles, as step by step they endeavoured to free themselves from the old combination laws, and have indicated the several victories won by them, until, in 1871, the legislature declared them to be lawful associations, and extended its protection to their corporate property and funds. Even then the objects only were legalised, but not the means by which they sought to attain those objects. They only obtained their full legal majority in 1875, by the passing of the "Labour Laws," which not only sanctioned the objects, but legalised the means, so long as those means are peaceable, and do not interfere, or attempt to interfere with the personal liberty and freedom of action of other citizens. We now behold them in the full vigour of their manhood, unshackled and free, with a long history, and a record of work which is not inglorious; with immense resources in numbers and in wealth, and possessed of no mean advantages with which to encounter the great battles of industrial life.

§ 2. The important question often asked is: Are not great dangers to be apprehended from these vast organisations of the

industrial classes, lest they should wield their enormous power imprudently and unwisely, nay mischievously, to the disadvantage of those not within their own ranks? Danger? Yes. There is always a danger to the body politic in combinations of classes, and aggregations of forces, unless they are restrained by a wise prudence, and their deliberations are open to the light of day. It is sometimes necessary to call in the power of the legislature to adjust the incidence of the force thus created, to temper its action, or punish the excesses of those who trespass beyond the clear line of social order and just law. The old feudal barons used their power with terrific violence, until municipal law stepped in to curb its force, and reduce it to some kind of limit. The aristocracy which grew out of the old system of feudalism wielded an immense and destructive power, until the middle and the working classes combined, in 1830, and wrenched from them a portion of their monopoly of power. The middle classes, having obtained their ends in 1832, soon forgot their promises to the working classes, and used their newly acquired influence almost exclusively for their own benefit. They developed their resources and their strength, and made rapid inrcads upon the power of the aristocracy, but the new party did not extend a helping hand to those who were struggling for their own emancipation from the effects of earlier legislation. They unwisely and ungenerously continued the laws against combination and free contract, and very often aggravated their force by countenancing a new engine of repression, in the shape of the conspiracy laws, or the application of the common law of conspiracy to trade disputes, which, after the Reform Act of 1832, became more frequent than ever in the newer forms of antagonism between capital and labour, resulting from the repeal of the combination laws.

§ 3. The repeal of these laws was mainly due to the indomitable will, energy, and perseverance of the workmen themselves, backed up by the wealth and power of the unions, organised and controlled by men who knew what they wanted, and the requirements of those for whom they laboured. Those leaders were earnest, capable, and honourable men, and they had to do battle with every political party and faction in the