TRADE UNIONS. Efforts have been made to trace the lineal descent of the trade union movement of the 19th and loth centuries from the gilds of the middle ages. But trade unionism as we know it, was the creation of modern industrial conditions. It owes its birth to the capitalist system. Viewed after more than a century of growth it is seen in its first phase of development as an instinctive method of self-protection against the reactions of complex economic changes, which the workers, in common with the rest of the nation, failed to understand. In its later phase of growth, the trade union movement is seen as a more conscious organisation of labour concerned with the status of the worker and his place in the economic system. Trade unionism is a de fensive and offensive instrument for maintaining or improving labour standards. But it is more than this. It is becoming in creasingly a constructive agency, aiming at influencing and chang ing the world of industry in accordance with labour ideals. This constructive purpose of trade unionism is promoted in two main ways,—through the assumption by the organised workers of in creasing "control" over working conditions and the conduct of industry, and through the extension of public ownership in the essential industries and services. In its activities in the latter direction, British trade unionism is political and is allied with the Labour Party, which it brought into existence.
The trade union movement has within the space of a century become an integral part of the machinery of industrial life. Since the days when under the repressive legislation of the time, local trade unions existed as secret and illegal bodies, trade unionism has secured for itself well nigh universal recognition from em ployers and the public. But whilst it is generally accepted that the conduct of industrial relations in Great Britain must be on a basis of negotiations between organised workers and organised employers, there is by no means the same degree of unanimity as regards either the part which trade unions should play in the future in the direction of the policy of industry, or the lines on which industry should develop. Nevertheless, far-sighted employ
ers realise that trade union organisations must be accorded the fullest possible information as to the economic position of in dustry and be brought into the discussion of questions of high policy in industry. Already, therefore, the door is being opened to the claim of the unions for greater "control." The problem of ownership, however, remains a purely political problem to be solved by political methods.
The Combination Laws.—The history of such a movement could not be uneventful. Time was when by the common law of England combinations of workpeople were, with minor excep tions, regarded as illegal. They were deemed to be contrary to public policy, and fell into the category of conspiracies in restraint of trade. Membership in such a body was punishable by fine and imprisonment, and though strictly the common law applied to combinations of both masters and men, it was against the latter that the law was developed and directed. From the time of Ed ward I. to the end of the first quarter of the 19th century there were a series of legal enactments—between 3o and 4o in all— which enforced and extended the common law. All these measures were designed to prohibit and prevent labour organization.
The far-reaching industrial changes which marked the second half of the i 8th and the beginning of the 19th centuries created a situation which gave a new impetus to the establishment of com binations of workers. Notwithstanding the existence of repressive legislation, secret trade societies became more numerous. The laws against combinations were made more stringent and more general by the Acts of 1799-1800 which remained unaltered until 1824. In spite of this legislation, which made all combinations illegal, trade clubs seem to have continued to exist and were tolerated in many trades and in many areas during the first guar ter of the 19th century, though they were always subject to the fear of prosecution if they took hostile action against employers; and in many cases strikes were suppressed by the conviction of their leaders under these Acts or the common law of conspiracy.