LAISSEZ FAIRE
i0 engage in a strike had ceased to be in itself criminal; the
weapon which the operatives thus secured was one which might
be used very unwisely and foolishly, but it was something to
have a weapon, and to be able to try to enforce their own side
hemen in trade disputes. In 1824 the operatives had been fairly sucperc
 de" cessful in bringing pressure to bear! on their employers; but
ee es  OWing to the depressed state of trade, the conditions in the
Bradford following years were less favourable, and the unions failed in
their attempts to stop the reduction of wages. The most severe
contest occurred in the wool-combing trade at Bradford; a
strike was organised by a large union among the hands, which
received much support from sympathisers in other towns. The
committee were able to pay as much as £800 or £900? a week
bo the men on strike, and the operatives succeeded to a very
large extent in boarding out their children during the summer
months; the men appeared to be holding well together, while
shere were some dissensions among the masters, who had
entered on an aggressive policy and were endeavouring to
break up the union altogether. The Leeds wool-combers joined
those of Bradford in their strike ; but, after standing out for
twenty-two weeks, the men were forced to give in on every
point, and returned to work at the wages which they had been
receiving five months before ; this, according to the contention
of the masters, was the highest rate that the trade would bear.
The loss in wages amounted to £40,000, though something
like half this sum had been received in the form of subscripof

 the Board of Directors for the body of coal-miners,’ stating that, unless
certain men were discharged, the miners would strike. Held to be an illegal
combination. See Leeds Mercury, May 24, 1834) Sometimes the ‘molestation
or obstruction’ prohibited in the Act of 1825 was made to include the mere
ntimation of the men’s intention to strike against the employment of non-1nionists.
 In a remarkable case at Wolverhampton in August, 1835, four potters
were imprisoned for intimidation, solely upon evidence by the employers that they
nad ‘advanced their prices in consequence of the interference of the defendants
who acted as plenipotentiaries for the men,’ without, as was admitted, the use of
sven the mildest threat. (7%mes, August 22, 1835.) Picketing, even of the most
peaceful kind, was frequently severely punished under this head, as four Southwark
 shoemakers found, in 1832, to their cost. (Poor Man's Guardian, September
20, 1832.) More generally the men on strike were proceeded against under the
laws relating to masters and servants, as in the case of seventeen tanners at
Bermondsey in February 1834, who were sentenced to imprisonment for the
offence of leaving their work unfinished. (ZT'¢mes. February 27. 1834)” Webh,
Trade Unionism, pp. 127-8.
1 Webb, Trade Unionism, p. 99.
} Burnley. Wool and Wool-combing, 169.