1. Frow, R. and Frow, E. and Katanka, Michael, History of British Trade-Unionism: A Select Bibliography (London, 1969) 12Google Scholar (illustration of membership card). For comment on this motto see Musson, A.E., Trade Unions and Social History (London, 1974) viiiGoogle Scholar.

Edmund Burke also recognized the terminological problem: ‘When bad men combine, the good must associate…’. Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770), reprinted in Langford, Paul, ed., Writings and Speeches, 5 vols. to date (Oxford, 1981—) ii: 315Google Scholar.

2. 7 Geo. 1, st. 1, c. 13 (1721). Previous statutes had called them ‘conspiracies’ or ‘confederacies’. See, e.g., 2 and 3 Edw. 6, c. 15 (1548); 3 Hen. 6, c. 1 (1424).

3. R. and E. Frow and Michael Katanka, supra note 1, front cover (illustration of membership card).

4. See George, M. Dorothy, ‘The Combination Laws Reconsidered’, Economic Journal (Supp: Economic History Ser., No. 2) Supp.: 214, 223Google Scholar; Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, 1933)Google Scholar, s.v. ‘combination’ (‘formerly used almost always in a bad sense, as conspiracy, self-interested or illegal confederacy’); Johnson, Samuel, Dictionary (London, 1755)Google Scholar, s.v. ‘combination’ (‘now generally used in an ill sense…’).

In the fourteenth century John Wyclif, the religious reformer, had this to say about trade practices of craftsmen:

Also men of sutel craft, as fre masons and othere,… conspiren togidere that no man of here craft schal take lesse on a day that thei setten, though he schulde bi good conscience take much lesse, and that noon of hem schal make sade trewe work to lette othere mennus wynnying of the craft, and that non of hem schal do ought but only hewe stone, though he myght profit his maistir twenty pound bi o daies werk bi leggyng on a wal withouten harm or penying to himself.

Arnold, Thomas, ed., Select English Works of John Wyclif, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1869–1871) iii: 333Google Scholar. See also 3 Hen. 6, c. 1 (1424) (outlawing ‘congregations and confederacies’ of masons).

5. Trade Union Act, 34 and 35 Viet., c. 31, §23 (1871) (definition of ‘trade union'); 39 and 40 Vict., c. 22, §16 (1876) (amending §23). See also infra note 291.

6. 39 Geo. 3, c. 81 (1799).

7. 39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 106 (1800).

8. Webb, Sidney and , Beatrice, History of Trade Unionism (London, rev. ed., 1920) 64, 72Google Scholar.

9. J. L., and Hammond, Barbara, The Town Labourer, 1760-1832: The New Civilization (London, 1917) 113Google Scholar.

10. M. Dorothy George, supra note 4 at 226-227.

11. George, M. Dorothy, ‘The Combination Laws’, Economic History Review vi (1st ser. 1935–1936) 172Google Scholar. For a critical assessment of George's historical method see Orth, John V., ‘M. Dorothy George and the Combination Laws Reconsidered’, in Hay, Douglas and Snyder, Francis, eds., Labour, Law and Crime in Historical Perspective (London, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

12. Holdsworth, Sir William, ‘Industrial Combinations and the Law in the Eighteenth Century’, 18 Minnesota Law Review 369, 387 (1934)Google Scholar. The same judgment is repeated verbatim in Holdsworth's History of English Law, 17 vols. (London, 1903–1972)xi:498Google Scholar.

13. Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class (New York, 1963) 505Google Scholar.

14. Musson, A. E., British Trade Unions, 1800-1875 (London, 1972) 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Dobson, C. R., Masters and Journeymen: A Prehistory of Industrial Relations, 1717-1800 (London, 1980) 151Google Scholar.

16. Ibid, at 141.

17. Ibid, at 122.

18. See Wallas, Graham, The Life of Francis Place, 1771-1854 (New York, rev. ed., 1918) 197–240Google Scholar; Finer, S.E., ‘The Transmission of Benthamite Ideas, 1820-50’, in Sutherland, Gillian, ed., Studies in the Growth of Nineteenth-Century Government (Totowa, N.J., 1972) 11–32Google Scholar; Rowe, D.J., ‘Francis Place and the Historian’, Historical Journal xvi (1973) 45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19. 5 Geo. 4, c. 95 (1824); 6 Geo. 4, c. 129 (1825). See Orth, John V., ‘The British Trade Union Acts of 1824 and 1825: Dicey and the Relation Between Law and Opinion’, 5 Anglo-American Law Review 131–52 (1976)Google Scholar.

20. Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine xviii (1825) 20Google Scholar.

21. Statutes of Labourers, 23 Edw. 3 (1349), 25 Edw. 3, st. 1 (1350). See Putnam, Bertha H., The Enforcement of the Statutes of Labourers, 1349-59 (New York, 1908)Google Scholar; Clark, Elaine, ‘Medieval Labor Law and English Local Courts’, 27 American Journal of Legal History 330–53 (1983)Google Scholar.

22. 5 Eliz., c. 4 (1563). See Bindoff, S.T., ‘The Making of the Statute of Artificers’, in Bindoff, S.T., Hurstfield, J., Williams, C.H., eds., Elizabethan Government and Society: Essays Presented to Sir John Neale (London, 1961) 56–94Google Scholar; Woodward, Donald, ‘The Background to the Statute of Artificers: The Genesis of Labour Policy, 1558-1563’, Economic History Review xxxiii (1980) 17Google Scholar.

The Statute of Artificers was amended by Jac. 1, c. 6 (1604), 7 Jac. 1, c. 3 (1609), and 16 Car. 1, c. 4 (1640).

23. See Minchinton, W.E., ed., Wage Regulation in Pre-lndustrial England (New York, 1972) 9–36Google Scholar, 206-35. The wage clauses of the Statute of Artificers were repealed in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, 53 Geo. 3, c. 40 (1813).

24. 7 Geo. 1, st. 1, c. 13 (1721); 8 Geo. 3, c. 17(1768); 13 Geo. 3, c. 68 (1773); 32 Geo. 3, c. 44 (1792).

25. For citations see infra notes 31-34.

26. 5 Geo. 4, c. 95, § 1 (1824); 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, § 2 (1825).

27. Correlative to the statutes against the combinations of labor, those against combinations of employers were defined as those ‘relative…to combinations to lower the rate of wages, or to increase or alter the hours or duration of the time of working, or to increase the quantity of work, or to regulate or controul the mode of carrying on any manufacture, trade, or business, or the management thereof’. 5 Geo. 4, c. 95, § 1 (1824); 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, § 2 (1825).

The definition of combination implied in the 1824-25 acts remained in use into the twentieth century. In 1904 A.V. Dicey observed:

The combination law, as the expression is used… generally by English judges and lawyers, means the body of legal rules or principles which from time to time regulate the right of workmen on the one side to combine among themselves for the purpose of determining by agreement the terms on which, and especially the rate of wages at which, they will work, or, in other words, sell their labour; and the right of masters, on the other side, to combine among themselves for the purpose of determining by agreement the terms on which, and especially the rate of wages at which, they will engage workmen, or, in other words, purchase labour.

‘The Combination Laws as Illustrating the Relation Between Law and Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century’, 17 Harvard Law Review 511 (1904)Google Scholar. The ‘combination laws’ of the title seem to be the succeeding bodies of legal rules or principles governing combinations at various times during the nineteenth century.

28. 5 Geo. 4, c. 95, § 1 (1824); 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, § 2 (1825). One of the eighteenth-century acts repealed by name in 1824-25 was not a combination act at all: it provided for wage regulation in weaving, as well as strengthening the law against the truck system, 29 Geo. 2, c. 33 (1756). The wage regulation provisions had already been repealed, 30 Geo. 2, c. 12 (1757). See text at infra notes 106-23.

29. 22 Vict., c. 34 (1859). See Orth, John V., ‘English Law and Striking Workmen: The Molestation of Workmen Act, 1859’, 2 Journal of Legal History 238–57 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The Law of Strikes, 1847-71’, in Guy, J.A. and Beal, H.G., eds., Law and Social Change in British History (London, 1984) 126–44Google Scholar.

30. 34 and 35 Vict., c. 31 (1871). For an overview of nineteenth-century developments see Orth, John V., ‘The Legal Status of English Trade Unions, 1799-1871’, in Harding, Alan, ed., Law-Making and Law-Makers in British History (London, 1980) 195–207Google Scholar.

31. For citations see Table and infra notes 35, 39-41, and 45.

32. Ten Irish combination acts of the eighteenth century repealed by name in 1824-25 are listed in an Appendix. The remaining three, earlier and later, are: 33 Hen. 8, st. 1, c. 9(1542); 43 Geo. 3, c. 86 (1803); 47 Geo. 3, st. 1, c. 43 (1807). See Park, Patrick, ‘The Combination Acts in Ireland, 1727-1825’, 14 Irish Jurist 340 (new ser., 1979)Google Scholar.

33. 5 Parl. Jac. 1, c. 78 (1426); 5 Parl. Jac. 1, c. 79 (1426); 5 Parl. Jac. 1, c. 80 (1426); 7 Parl. Jac. 1, c. 102 (1427); 5 Parl. Mar., c. 23 (1551); 7 Parl. Jac. 6, c. 121 (1581); 39 Geo. 3, c. 56 (1799). See Gray, J.L., ‘The Law of Combination in Scotland’, Economica viii (1st ser. 1928) 332CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. 57 Geo. 3, c. 122 (1817) (extending 12 Geo. 1, c. 34 and 22 Geo. 2, c. 27).

35. 33 Edw. 1, st. 2(1305).

36. See Winfield, Percy Henry, The History of Conspiracy and Abuse of Legal Procedure (Cambridge, 1921) 1–2Google Scholar.

37. Plucknett, T.F.T., The Legislation of Edward I (London, 1949) 157Google Scholar.

38. 5 Geo. 4, c. 95, §1 (1824); 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, § 2 (1825).

39. 3 Hen. 6, c. 1 (1424).

40. 2 and 3 Edw. 6, c. 15 (1548).

41. 13 and 14 Car. 2, c. 15 (1662).

42. 5 Geo. 4, c. 95, §1 (1824); 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, §2 (1825).

43. 13 and 14 Car. 2, c. 15, §10.

44. See Table: English Combination Acts of the Eighteenth Century.

45. 29 Geo. 2, c. 33 (1756) (repealed in part by 30 Geo. 2, c. 12 (1757)). See supra note 28.

46. For the benefit of his pets Dr. John Doolittle supplied the following definition: ‘A strike … is when people stop doing their own particular work in order to get somebody else to give them what they want’. Lofting, Hugh, Doctor Doolittle's Post Office (Philadelphia, 1923) 168Google Scholar.

47. See C.R. Dobson, supra note 15 at 61-62; Galton, Frank W., ed., Select Documents Illustrating the History of Trade Unionism: I. The Tailoring Trade (London, 1896) xiii–xxviGoogle Scholar and 1-22.

48. 7 Geo. 1, St. 1, c. 13 (1721).

49. R. v. Journeymen-Taylors of Cambridge, 8 Mod. 10, 88 Eng. Rep. 9 (K.B. 1721).

50. 7 Geo. 1, st. 1, c. 13, §1. The ‘weekly bills of mortality’, dating from the great plague in London in the seventeenth century, were records of burials kept by the Company of Parish Clerks. The area covered represented greater London at the time. See George, M. Dorothy, London Life in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1925) 21Google Scholar.

51. 7 Geo. 1, st. 1, c. 13, §1.

52. Ibid, (imprisonment, at JPs'discretion, either in house of correction at hard labor or in common jail).

53. Ibid. §6 (imprisonment in house of correction at hard labor). This section was expressly saved from repeal in 1824-25. 5 Geo. 4, c. 95, §1 (1824); 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, §2(1825).

54. 7 Geo. 1, st. 1, c. 13, §1.

55. Ibid.

56. Ibid. §9.

57. Ibid. §10.

58. 5 Eliz., c. 4, §13 (1563). This dualism was unchanged a century later. See White, George and Henson, Gravener, A Few Remarks on the State of the Laws, at Present in Existence, for Regulating Masters and Work-People (1823) 51, 53Google Scholar, reprinted in Carpenter, Kenneth E., ed., British Labour Struggles: Contemporary Pamphlets, 1727-1850, 32 vols. (New York, 1975) viiGoogle Scholar: not separately paginated.

59. See, e.g., Blackstone, Sir William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1765-1769) i: 63–84Google Scholar.

60. R. v. Journeymen-Taylors of Cambridge, 8 Mod. 10, 88 Eng. Rep. 9 (K.B. 1721).

61. 8 Mod. at 10-11, 88 Eng. Rep. at 10. Compare the equally vague language in Hawkins, William, A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown, 4 vols. (London, 1717) i: 72Google Scholar, §2. For a later prosecution for conspiracy of tailors outside the coverage of the tailors’ combination act see R. v. Eccles, 1 Leach 274, 168 Eng. Rep. 240 (K.B. 1783) (Mansfield, C.J.: ‘every man may work at what price he pleases, but a combination not to work under certain prices is an indictable offence’). For a list of thirty other indictments for conspiracy in the eighteenth century see Dobson, supra note 15 at 127-29. For selected cases involving criminal conspiracy in the early nineteenth century see infra note 271.

In the late nineteenth century distinguished legal authorities denied that combination had ever been a criminal conspiracy at common law. See Wright, Robert S., The Law of Criminal Conspiracies and Agreements (London, 1873) 23–52Google Scholar; Sir Stephen, James Fitzjames, A History of the Criminal Law of England 3 vols. (London, 1883) iii: 209–10Google Scholar. A contrary position was taken by Sir William Erle, who chaired the Royal Commission on Trade Unions (1867-69). See Parliamentary Papers (1868-69) xxxi: 235-361, published separately as Erle, William, The Law Relating to Trade Unions (London, 1869)Google Scholar. In the twentieth century R.Y. Hedges and Allan Winterbottom agreed in general with Wright and Stephen, while Sir William Holdsworth sided with Erle. Compare Hedges, R.Y. and Winterbottom, Allan, The Legal History of Trade Unionism (London, 1930) 13–18Google Scholar with Sir William Holdsworth, supra note 12, 18 Minnesota Law Review at 377-80; Sir William Holdsworth, History of English Law, supra note 12 at xi: 482-85. A brief critique of Hedges and Winterbottom appears in John V. Orth, ‘Doing Legal History’, 14 Irish Jurist 114, 115-16 (new ser., 1979).

62. 7 Geo. 1, st. 1, c. 13, §2.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid. §8.

65. Ibid. §§3-4. This section was expressly saved from repeal in 1824-25. 5 Geo. 4, c. 95, §1 (1824); 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, §2 (1825).

66. 7 Geo. 1, st. 1, c. 13, §7 (imprisonment in house of correction at hard labor). Henry Fielding, novelist and justice of the peace, remarked on the unequal use of the house of correction (popularly known as the bridewell):

that house where the inferior sort of people may learn one good lesson, viz. respect and deference to their superiors; since it must show them the wide distinction Fortune intends between those persons who are to be corrected for their faults, and those who are not; which lesson if they do not learn, I am afraid they very rarely learn any other good lesson, or improve their morals, at the house of correction.

Tom Jones (London, 1749) book iv, chap. 11.Google Scholar

67. 7 Geo. 1, st. 1, c. 13, §5.

68. See Rudé, George, Wilkes and Liberty: A Social Study of 1763 to 1774 (London, 1962) 94–95Google Scholar; Select Documents Illustrating the History of Trade Unionism, supra note 47 at xl-xlv, 57-65.

69. 8 Geo. 3, c. 17 (1768).

70. Ibid, at preamble.

71. For the costume required for mourning see Willett, C. and Cunnington, Phillis, Handbook of English Costume in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1957) 218Google Scholar, 317-19.

72. 8 Geo. 3, c. 17, §1.

73. Rule, John, The Experience of Labour in Eighteenth-Century English Industry (New York, 1981) 179Google Scholar.

74. 8 Geo. 3, c. 17, §1.

75. Ibid. §2 (imprisonment, at JPs' discretion, either in house of correction at hard labor or in common jail).

76. Ibid. §3.

77. Ibid. §8.

78. Ibid. §9.

79. Ibid. §10.

80. Ibid. §11.

81. On the distinction between public and private acts see Sir William Blackstone, supra note 59 at ii: 346. Although not expressly so named, the first tailors' combination act was also undoubtedly ‘public’.

82. 8 Geo. 3, c. 17, §4.

83. In 1751 and 1752 working hours in the City were one hour shorter than those in Middlesex. See C.R. Dobson, supra note 15 at 66.

84. 8 Geo. 3, c. 17, §4.

85. Ibid. §5.

86. Ibid. §3.

87. Ibid. §6.

88. Ibid. §7.

89. Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Cannan, Edwin, ed., New York, 1937, 1st. ed. 1776) 142Google Scholar.

90. See Commons Journal 20 (1725): 598-99, 602, 627, 647-48Google Scholar; Lipson, Ephraim, Economic History of England 3 vols. (London, 6th ed., 1956) iii: 392–95Google Scholar.

91. 12 Geo. 1, c. 34 (1726). Although principally directed at woolcombers and weavers, Ibid. § 1, the act was extended by its last section to cover combers of jersey, framework knitters, and stockingers, Ibid. §8.

92. Ibid. §1 (imprisonment, at JPs' discretion, either in house of correction at hard labor or in common jail). This is the only section of the weavers' combination act expressly repealed in 1824-25. 5 Geo. 4, c. 95, §1 (1824); 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, §2 (1825).

93. 12 Geo. 1, c. 34, §2 (imprisonment in house of correction at hard labor).

94. Ibid, (imprisonment in house of correction at hard labor).

95. Ibid. §3. For earlier truck acts see 1 Anne, st. 2, c. 18 (1703) (expired 1707); 9 Anne, c. 30 (1711) (revived earlier act and made it perpetual); 10 Anne, c. 16 (1712) (penalty for truck payment 20 shillings); 1 Geo. 1, c. 15 (1715) (increasing penalty for truck payment to 40 shillings).

96. See Hilton, George W., The Truck System: Including a History of the British Truck Acts, 1465-1960 (Cambridge, 1960) 1–60Google Scholar.

97. 1 and 2 Will. 4, cc. 36 and 37 (1831).

98. 12 Geo. 1, c. 34, §3. A limitation period of three months for prosecutions under this section was added a year later. 13 Geo. 1, c. 23, §§16-17 (1727).

99. 12 Geo. 1, c. 34, §3.

100. Ibid. §5.

101. Ibid. §6.

102. Ibid. §7. This section was repealed and replaced by 22 Geo. 3, c. 40 (1782).

103. For an eighteenth-century explanation of the anachronistic ‘benefit of clergy’ see Sir William Blackstone, supra note 59 at iv: 358-67.

104. 9 Geo. 1, c. 22 (1723). See Thompson, E.P., Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act (New York, 1975)Google Scholar.

105. See SirRadzinowicz, Leon, The Movement for Reform 1750-1833 in SirRadzinowicz, Leon, A History of English Criminal Law and Its Administration from 1750 5 vols. (London, 1948–1986) i: 236, n. 15.Google Scholar

106. 29 Geo. 2, c. 33 (1756).

107. Ibid, at preamble.

108. Ibid. §3. The outlawry of truck was repeated the next year, 30 Geo. 2, c. 12, §3 (1757), and employers were required to pay wages within two days of completion of work on pain of a 40 shilling fine, Ibid. §4.

109. 29 Geo. 2, c. 33, §5.

110. Ibid. §4.

111. Ibid. §7.

112. For a brief statement of the law on recognizances together with the form of words used see Sir William Blackstone, supra note 59 at ii: 341-42, 464.

113. 29 Geo. 2, c. 33, §5. As presupposed by this section, certiorari was available unless expressly negatived. See Sir William Blackstone, supra note 59 at iv: 269.

114. See Minchinton, W.E., ‘The Petitions of the Weavers and Clothiers of Gloucestershire in 1756’, Transactions of the Bristol & Gloucestershire Archeological Society lxxiii (1954) 216–27Google Scholar.

115. 13 Geo. 1, c. 23, §9 (1727).

116. 29 Geo. 2, c. 33, preamble.

117. Ibid. §1.

118. Ibid. §2.

119. See C.R. Dobson, supra note 15 at 76.

120. 30 Geo. 2, c. 12, §1 (1757).

121. Ibid. §2.

122. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, supra note 8 at 51.

123. 5 Geo. 4, c. 95, §1 (1824); 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, §2 (1825).

124. 22 Geo. 2, c. 27, §12 (1749).

125. See John Rule, supra note 73 at 131.

126. 22 Geo. 2, c. 27, §1 (extending 13 Geo. 2, c. 8 (1739)). See also 17 Geo. 3, c. 56 (1777).

127. 22 Geo. 2, c. 27, §12.

128. 12 Geo. 1, c. 34, §§1-5, extended by 22 Geo. 2, c. 27, §12.

129. Ibid.

130. 12 Geo. 1, c. 34, §6, extended by 22 Geo. 2, c. 27, §12.

131. 12 Geo. 1, c. 34, §7 (repealed and replaced by 22 Geo. 3, c. 40 (1782)).

132. See text at supra notes 68-89.

133. 13 Geo. 3, c. 68 (1773). For the background of the legislation see Clapham, J. H., ‘The Spitalfields Acts, 1773-1824’, Economic Journal xxvi (1916) 459CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Plummer, Alfred, The London Weavers' Company, 1600-1970 (London, 1972) 315–28Google Scholar.

134. The act covered the county of Middlesex, the cities of London and Westminster, and the liberty of the Tower of London, 13 Geo. 3, c. 68, §1.

135. Ibid.

136. Ibid. §2.

137. Ibid. §3.

138. Ibid.

139. Sir William Holdsworth, 18 Minnesota Law Review at 383 n.85; Sir William Holdsworth, supra note 12, History of English Law, at xi: 489, n.14. Compare U.S. Constitution, amend. 1 (1791) (‘Congress shall make no law… abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances’).

140. 13 Geo. 3, c. 68, §§2-3.

141. Ibid. §2.

142. Ibid. §3.

143. Ibid. §5.

144. Ibid. §6.

145. Ibid. §7. The repeal of the Spitalfields Act in 1824-25 was limited to its provisions for wage regulation and against combination, 5 Geo. 4, c. 95, §1 (1824); 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, §2 (1825).

146. Trevelyan, G.M., English Social History: A Survey of Six Centuries, Chaucer to Queen Victoria (London, 1943) 322Google Scholar. For a less rosy assessment see John Rule, supra note 73 at 95-123.

147. 13 Geo. 3, c. 68, §4.

148. Ibid. §8.

149. Ibid. §9.

150. Ibid. §10.

151. Ibid. §11.

152. 32 Geo. 3, c. 44, §1 (1792).

153. Ibid. §2. The records of the sessions were kept by the custos rotulorum, one of the justices of the peace. See Sir William Blackstone, supra note 59 at iv: 269.

154. 32 Geo. 3, c. 44, §3.

155. Ibid. §§4-5 (extending 22 Geo. 2, c. 27 (1749) and 17 Geo. 3, c. 56 (1777)). The first act had in addition to outlawing embezzlement in certain trades also extended the weavers’ combination act, 12 Geo. 1, c. 34 (1726), to the same trades. See text at supra at notes 124-32. The second act was a companion to the hatters’ combination act, 17 Geo. 3, c.55(1777). See text at infra notes 156-69.

156. 17 Geo. 3, c. 55 (1777). See also 17 Geo. 3, c. 56 (1777) (concerning embezzlement).

157. 8 Eliz.,c. 11 (1565); 1 Jac. 1, c. 17 (1604). Similar restrictions applied in the colonies, 5 Geo. 2, c. 22 (1732).

158. 17 Geo.3, c. 55, §1. The apprenticeship clauses of the Statute of Artificers were also repealed as applied to hatters, 17 Geo. 3, c. 55, §5. General repeal of the clauses came in 1814, 54 Geo. 3, c. 96. See Deny, T.K., ‘Repeal of the Apprenticeship Clauses of the Statute of Apprentices’ Economic History Review iii (1st ser. 1931–1932) 67Google Scholar. (The Statute of Artificers was sometimes called the Statute of Apprentices.)

159. 17 Geo. 3, c. 55, §2.

160. 29 Geo. 2, c. 33, preamble (1756); 8 Geo. 3, c. 17, preamble (1768).

161. 29 Geo. 2, c. 33, § 7; 8 Geo. 3, c. 17, §8.

162. 17 Geo. 3, c. 55, §3.

163. Ibid. §4 (imprisonment, at JPs' discretion, either in house of correction or in common jail). This is the only section of the hatters’ combination act expressly repealed in 1824-25. 5 Geo. 4, c. 95, §1 (1824); 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, §2 (1825).

164. 17 Geo. 3, c. 55, §4.

165. Ibid. §8.

166. Ibid. §9.

167. Ibid. §10.

168. Ibid. §11.

169. Ibid. §6.

170. See Coleman, D.C., The British Paper Industry, 1495-1860: A Study in Industrial Growth (Oxford, 1958) 262–64Google Scholar, 272.

171. 36 Geo. 3, c. 111 (1796).

172. Ibid. §1.

173. Ibid. §2.

174. Ibid. §4.

175. Ibid. §5.

176. Ibid. §3. For the early techniques of papermaking see Coleman, supra note 170 at 29-33. Mechanization, represented by patents beginning in 1801, soon rendered the regulations meaningless. Ibid, at 179-93.

177. 36 Geo. 3, c. 111, §2.

178. Ibid. §7.

179. Ibid. §9.

180. Ibid. §6. Compare U.S. Constitution, amend. 5 (1791) (‘No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself… ’). The privilege against self-incrimination had been early recognized not to apply when immunity from prosecution was granted. See Levy, Leonard, Origins of the Fifth Amendment (Oxford, 1968) 328, 495.Google Scholar

181. 36 Geo. 3, c. 111 (1796).

182. Ibid. §10.

183. Ibid.

184. Ibid. §8.

185. Ibid. §11.

186. Ibid. §12.

187. See C.R. Dobson supra note 15 at 138-39. See also the somewhat later Rules Adopted, by the Journeymen Millwrights for the Well-Governing of Their Society (London, 1801)Google Scholar, reprinted in British Labour Struggles, supra note 58 at vii (reprint not separately paginated).

188. Commons Journal 54 (1798–1799): 405.Google Scholar

189. Ibid, at 405-06.

190. Ibid, at 412-13.

191. Parliamentary Register 8 (1799): 323.Google Scholar

192. Ibid, at 687.

193. Times, 18 June 1799.

194. Rose (1744-1818) was no stranger to workmen's associations. The earliest Friendly Societies Act, 33 Geo. 3, c. 54 (1793), was passed on his initiative. See Gosden, P. H. J. H., The Friendly Societies in England, 1815-1875 (Manchester, 1961) 5Google Scholar.

195. Parliamentary Register 9 (1799): 65–66.Google Scholar

196. Ibid, at 562.

197. Ibid, at 562-63.

198. Lords Journal 42 (1798–1800): 307Google Scholar, 314, 325.

199. 39 Geo. 3, c. 81, preamble.

200. Ibid. §1 (numbers in brackets added).

201. Ibid.

202. Ibid. §2.

203. Ibid. §3.

204. Ibid.

205. Ibid.

206. Ibid. §4.

207. Ibid. §§2-4.

208. Ibid. §5 (imprisonment, at JP's discretion, either in house of correction or in common jail). Forms for recording both fines and imprisonment were provided in a schedule attached to the act.

209. Ibid. §6.

210. Ibid. §§2-5.

211. Ibid. §10.

212. Ibid.

213. Ibid.; also §§2-5.

214. Ibid. §11.

215. Ibid.

216. Ibid. §12 and schedule.

217. Ibid. §9.

218. Ibid. §12 and schedule.

219. Ibid. §13.

220. Ibid. §14.

221. Ibid. §13.

222. Ibid. §14.

223. Ibid. §7.

224. Ibid. On proceedings ‘at the relation of (ex rel.) an informant see Sir William Blackstone, supra note 59 at iii: 427-28.

225. 39 Geo. 3, c. 81, §8.

226. Ibid.

227. See 43 Eliz., c. 4 (1601) (authorizing chancellor of duchy of Lancaster to inquire into abuses of charitable donations).

228. Dickens, Charles, Bleak House (London, 1853Google Scholar) passim.

229. John Scott, Lord Eldon (1751-1838) was chancellor 1801-06; 1807-27. See SirHoldsworth, William, Charles Dickens as a Legal Historian (New Haven, Conn., 1928) 79–115Google Scholar.

230. 39 Geo. 3, c. 81, §15.

231. Ibid. §16.

232. R.Y. Hedges and Allan Winterbottom, supra note 61 at 23. The hatters’ combination act had repealed and replaced apprenticeship provisions for that trade, 17 Geo. 3, c. 55, §§1, 2, 5 (1777). The apprenticeship clauses of the Statute of Artificers were repealed in 1814, 54 Geo. 3, c. 96. See supra note 158.

233. See, e.g., Spitalfields Act, 13 Geo. 3, c. 68, §7 (1773) (numbers of apprentices limited to two per journeyman). See also hatters' combination act, 17 Geo. 3, c. 55, §2 (1777) (masters must employ one journeyman per apprentice).

234. 39 Geo. 3, c. 81, §16.

235. Ibid. §17.

236. Commons Journal 55 (1799–1800): 645-46, 665, 672, 706, 712Google Scholar. On the petition from Manchester see Bohstedt, John, Riots and Community Politics in England and Wales, 1790-1810 (Cambridge, Mass., 1983) 139–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

237. Commons Journal 55 (1799–1800): 712Google Scholar.

238. Sheridan (1751-1816), faithful ally of Charles James Fox, sat for various constituencies 1780-1812.

239. Tarleton (1754-1833) represented Liverpool 1790-1806; 1807-12. He had served with distinction in the British Army battling the American revolutionaries. His History of the Campaigns of 1780 and 1781 in the Southern Provinces of North America (London, 1787)Google Scholar remains a valuable source. See Middlekauff, Robert, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 (New York, 1982) 474–75Google Scholar, nn.27-28.

240. 5 Geo. 4, c. 95, §1 (1824) and 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, §2 (1825) (repealing combination sections); 5 Geo. 4, c. 96, §1 (1824) (repealing arbitration sections).

241. 39 and 40 Geo. 3, 106, §1.

242. Ibid. §3.

243. Ibid.

244. Ibid. §4.

245. Ibid. §5.

246. Ibid §17 (numbers in brackets added).

247. Ibid, (imprisonment, at JPs' discretion, either in house of correction or in common jail).

248. Ibid. §§2-5, 10, 17.

249. Ibid. §16. J. Steven Watson overlooked this section when he wrote concerning the Combination Acts that the ‘provision for the trial of industrial offences before two magistrates simply made the masters judges of their own men in many cases’. The Reign of George III, 1760-1815 (Oxford, 1960) 362Google Scholar.

250. 39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 106, §10.

251. Ibid.

252. Ibid.

253. Ibid.

254. Ibid.

255. Ibid. §12 and 1st schedule. In his haste the draftsman had failed to make two other necessary changes. First, the ‘form of conviction’ still referred to ‘the statute made in the thirty-ninth year of the reign’ of King George III, that is, to the Combination Act of 1799. Second, the ‘form of conviction in a pecuniary penalty’ stated, as in 1799, that the fines were ‘for the use of his majesty’ despite the fact that under the 1800 Act a quarter of the fine was reserved for the informer and a quarter for the poor of the parish. These failures required a new act to correct them, 41 Geo. 3, c. 38 (1801).

Until 1824, when the Combination Act of 1800 was repealed, all convictions under the Act were recorded on the forms as corrected in 1801. Until all extant records are examined there can be no final conclusion to the debate concerning the enforcement of the Act. At present research has barely begun. In the records of the Lancaster quarter sessions one scholar found seven successful prosecutions involving twenty-four men during the troubled years 1818-22. Foster, John, Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution: Early Industrial Capitalism in Three English Towns (London, 1974) 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar and 283, n. 11. This total does not include the record removed by certiorari in R. v. Ridgway, 5 B. and A. 527, 106 Eng. Rep. 1283 (K.B. 1822).

256. 39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 106, §23.

257. Ibid. §8.

258. Ibid. §15.

259. Ibid. §25.

260. On the ‘magistrate as mediator’ in the eighteenth century see C.R. Dobson, supra note 15 at 74, 92.

261. 39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 106, §18 (numbers in brackets added).

262. Enacted as 39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 90 (1800).

263. See Amulree, Lord, Industrial Arbitration in Great Britain (London, 1929) 27Google Scholar, n. 1.

264. Parliamentary Register 12 (1800):459Google Scholar.

265. Commons Journal 55 (1799–1800):776Google Scholar.

266. 39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 106, §18. By agreement the parties could extend the time permitted the arbitrators. Ibid. §19.

267. Ibid. §22.

268. 8 Geo. 3, c. 17, preamble (1768). See also 29 Geo. 2, c. 33, preamble (1756); 17 Geo. 3, c. 55, preamble (1777).

269. Commons Journal 54 (1798–1799): 405–06Google Scholar.

270. 39 Geo. 3, c. 81, preamble (1799).

271. See R. v. Salter, 5 Esp. 125, 170 Eng. Rep. 760 (Kingston Assizes 1804); Times Printers’ Case, Times, Nov. 9, 1810 (Old Bailey); R. v. Ferguson, 2 Stark. 489, 171 Eng. Rep. 714 (Lancaster Assizes 1819); R. v. Connell, Times, July 10, 1819 (K.B.).

272. Parliamentary Register 8 (1799): 323Google Scholar.

273. Compare 39 Geo. 3, c. 81, §1 (1799) and 39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 106, §1 (1800) with 7 Geo. 1, st. 1, c. 13, §1 (1721) and 36 Geo. 3, c. 111, §1 (1796).

274. Compare 39 Geo. 3, c. 81, §11 (1799) and 39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 106, §1 (1800) with 8 Geo. 3, c. 17, §3 (1768).

275. Compare 39 Geo. 3, c. 81, §17 (1799) and 39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 106, §25 with 8 Geo. 3, c. 17, §§9-10 (1768).

276. Compare 39 Geo. 3, c. 81, §14 (1799) and 39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 106, §23 with 29 Geo. 2, c. 33, §7 (1756) and 17 Geo. 3, c. 55, §3 (1777).

277. Compare 39 Geo. 3, c. 81, §12 and schedule (1799) and 39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 106, §12 and schedule 1 (1800) with 32 Geo. 3, c. 44, §2 (1792) and 36 Geo. 3, c. 111, §8 (1796).

278. 36 Geo. 3, c. 111, §2(1796).

279. Compare 39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 106, §16 (1800) with 17 Geo. 3, c. 55, §6 (1777).

280. 7 Geo. 1, st. 1, c. 13, §§2, 3, 7 (1721).

281. 13 Geo. 3, c. 68, §2(1773).

282. 12 Geo. 1, c. 34, §3(1726).

283. Forfeiture of funds used for illegal purposes may be attributable to George Rose who was intimately familiar with friendly society finances, see supra note 194.

284. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, supra note 8 at 65.

285. Parliamentary Register 12 (1800): 459Google Scholar.

286. Freed from responsibility for wage regulation the state soon undertook to regulate conditions of work. Although such regulation affected overall compensation, it constituted a less obvious breach in laissez faire. See, e.g., the Factory Acts, 42 Geo. 3, c. 46 (1802), 59 Geo. 3, c. 66 (1819), 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 39 (1831) and the Truck Acts, 1 and 2 Will. 4, cc. 36 and 37 (1831). On this legislation see respectively Hutchins, B.L. and Harrison, A., A History of Factory Legislation (London, 3d ed., 1926)Google Scholar and George W. Hilton, supra note 96 at 101-18.

287. 29 Geo. 2, c. 33 (1756); 30 Geo. 2, c. 12 (1757).

288. Throughout the eighteenth century the word ‘manufacturer’, true to its Latin roots, meant a person who manually produced goods. See John Rule, supra note 73 at 21, 37. In the nineteenth century the word crossed the divide between capital and labor. In Place's 1825 Act it was still en route: in one section it was used to mean both a ‘person hired or employed’ and a ‘person carrying on any trade or business’. 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, §3.

289. 39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 106, §1.

290. See SirMaine, Henry, Ancient Law (London, Everyman, ed., 1917) 100Google Scholar (‘the movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from Status to Contract’) (italics in original).

291. R.Y. Hedges and Allan Winterbottom, supra note 61 at 65. The Webbs utilized a similar definition: ‘A Trade Union, as we understand the term, is a continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or improving the conditions of their working lives’. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, supra note 8 at 1. Their insistence on continuity has been criticized. See, e.g., John Rule, supra note 73 at 149-50; Allen, V.L., ‘A Methodological Criticism of the Webbs as Trade Union Historians’, Bulletin of the Society for the Study of Labour History, No. 4 (1962) 5Google Scholar.

The Trade Union Act of 1871 attempted a legal definition:

The term ‘trade union’ means such combination, whether temporary or permanent, for regulating the relations between workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between masters and masters, or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, as would, if this Act had not passed, have been deemed to have been an unlawful combination by reason of some one or more of its purposes being in restraint of trade: Provided that this Act shall not affect

1. Any agreement between partners as to their own business;

2. Any agreement between an employer and those employed by him as to such employment;

3. Any agreement in consideration of the sale of the goodwill of a business or of instruction in any profession, trade, or handicraft.

34 and 35 Vict., c. 31, §23. Since ‘trade union’ was defined in terms of the law concerning restraint of trade and since that law, which was part of conspiracy law, was disputed, the statutory definition raised more questions than it answered. See supra note 61. In 1876 new legislation sidestepped the issue by making restraint of trade irrelevant. 39 and 40 Vict., c. 22, § 16.

292. Adam Smith, supra note 89 at 142. For an action on just such a bond in the nineteenth century see Hilton v. Eckersley, 6 El. and Bl. 47, 119 Eng. Rep. 781 (Q.B. 1855) (held: bond unenforceable because in restraint of trade) (judgment affirmed in Exchequer Chamber).

293. Cf. Turner, H.A., Trade Union Growth, Structure and Policy: A Comparative Study of the Cotton Unions in England (Toronto, 1962) 77–89Google Scholar. See also John Rule, supra note 73 at 149-51.

294. See Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Du contrat social (Paris, 1762)Google Scholar; Sir William Blackstone, supra note 59 at i: 226-29 (‘the original contract between king and people’). See generally Gough, J.W., The Social Contract: A Critical Study of Its Development (Oxford, 2d ed., 1957)Google Scholar.

295. See Atiyah, P.S., The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (Oxford, 1979) 219–568Google Scholar.

296. See Kennedy, Duncan, ‘The Structure of Blackstone's Commentaries’, 28 Buffalo Law Review 209, 321-25 (1979)Google Scholar. But see Kahn-Freund, Otto, ‘Blackstone's Neglected Child: The Contract of Employment’, 93 Law Quarterly Review 508 (1977)Google Scholar.

297. Rambler, No. 125 (May 28, 1751) (italics in original). See Digest 50, 17, 202 (‘Omnis definitio in jure civili periculosa est; parum est enim, ut non subverti possit’).

298. See 33 Geo. 3, c. 54 (1793). Friendly societies, which provided a form of insurance, might properly have been defined in contractual terms. Instead they were described as ‘societies of good fellowship, for the purpose of raising, from time to time, by subscriptions of the several members of every such society, or by voluntary contributions, a stock or fund for the mutual relief and maintenance of all and every the members thereof, in old age, sickness, and infirmity, or for the relief of the widows and children of deceased members’. Ibid. § 1.

299. See, e.g., Place, Francis, Autobiography, (Cambridge, Thale, Mary, ed., 1972), 112–13. For a recent comment on historians’ ‘tendency to over-stress the need for a friendly society cover at all times and for all collective purposes’ see John Rule, supra note 73 at 180.Google Scholar

300. See 13 Geo. 3, c. 68, §3 (1773) and text at supra notes 138-39.

301. See Metcalfe's Case, 11 Coke 38a, 41a, 77 Eng. Rep. 1198 (K.B. 1615).

302. Burke was, it appears, making a bilingual pun involving the French société, ‘partnership’. Payne, E.J., ed., Burke: Select Works, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1881) ii: 351Google Scholar. The modern French equivalent of the limited liability corporation is the société anonyme.

303. Burke, Edmund, Reflections on the Revolution in France (London, Everyman, ed. 1910, 1st ed., 1790) 93Google Scholar.