THE COMBINATION LAWS
735
England. and the total membership was enormous? Just A.D. 1776
-_ . .,. —1850.
because there were such facilities for the formation of legiti-
mate associations, the Legislature would have less scruple in
prohibiting the formation of trade societies, and the diversion
of the activities of friendly societies to purposes of which
neither the legislature nor the justices approved.
From this point of view, the determination of the legis-
lature to maintain these Acts becomes intelligible, and we
san also get clearer light on the difficult question as to the
1 Very full information in regard to these societies in the Newcastle district is
preserved in five volumes in the British Museum, marked 8275. bb. 1—5. Most of
the societies confined their benefits to sick members and superannuation, and
make no explicit provision for out-of-work benefits. This occurs, however, in the
Nlerks’ Society (rule 11, 1807), a member of which who lost his employment was
allowed 10s. & week for 26 weeks. In the society instituted among Messrs Angas’
soachmakers, temporary loss of work (p. 19) is acknowledged to be a case of * diffi-
pulty and distress, that its benevolence cannot relieve in any competent degree”;
this society's rules had several fines for industrial offences, and are framed from
a capitalist standpoint. The Maltsters’ Society (1796), apparently of small masters,
also took cognisance of trade offences (rules 4, 16). The Masons, rule 20 (1811),
recommends “that all persons thereto belonging do encourage one another in their
respective trades and occupations”; this probably refers to dealing at one another's
shops; but it appears that the trade ideas and benefit club aims were not kept
fistinct.
i Compare the interesting statistics for each county appended to Mr George
Rose's Observations on the Poor Laws, 1805. He gives the total membership for
England and Wales at 704,350 (Table, Appendix); in 1815 it had increased to
925,489 being about one-thirteenth part of the population.” Bechey, Consti-
tion of Friendly Societies (1826), p. 49.
8 The justices had no authority to enquire into the real as distingnished from
ihe ostensible objects of an association applying to them, ‘Every Society which
professed to provide for sickness or old age and declared no unlawful purpose was
necessarily admitted.” Report from the Select Committee on the Laws respecting
Friendly Societies (1825), Iv. 826, printed pagn. 8. Mr Bechey quotes the
allegation that the Friendly Societies ‘have been too frequently converted
into engines of abuse by paying weekly sums to Artisans out of work, and have
thereby encouraged combinations among workmen not less injurious to the
misguided members than to the Public Weal.” Constitution of Friendly Societies
(1826), 55. Some instances were noted in Lancashire about 1815. “The regulations
of hatters, small-ware weavers and other trades, have appeared in print and are of
the most tyrannical and arbitrary character, and are well known to be enforced
with the most rigid severity. Societies are formed of persons carrying on the
same business, ostensibly for the laudable purpose of relieving the members in
time of sickness, but in reality for the maintenance of illegal combinations, from
the funds of which a supply is obtained for the most illegal purposes. On the 6th
or 7th of March 1817, a supply of £20 was sent from a Society of Cotton Spinners
for the purpose of assisting in the illegal object of a body of several thousand
persons proceeding in regular array to London, under pretence of presenting
a petition to the Prince Regent.” W.D. Evans, Charge to the Grand Jury, 17,
a tract to which my at.ention has been directed by Mr 8. Webb.
but associa
{tons for
trade pur-
noses were
liable to
prose-
rution :
