1862.

ARCHER

V.

JAMES.

even in a Court of error: and therefore that the judgment below ought to be affirmed.

BRAMWELL B. In this case we have to ascertain the meaning of an Act of Parliament. If the words were plain, it would be irrelevant to inquire as to the object or policy of the Legislature-our duty would be simply to declare what we found enacted. But there is a doubt as to the meaning of the language, in order to solve which it is proper to inquire into the probable object and policy of the statute. It may be compendiously stated to have been to provide for payment of wages in money. For this purpose it prohibits agreements for paying wages otherwise, and prohibits so paying them when a money payment has been agreed for. To insure obedience, it enables the artificer to repudiate a contract and payment contrary to its provisions, and, however fairly he may have been dealt with, to enforce payment in such case over again. It is obvious that such a provision is open to two most important objections. First, it interferes with that freedom of contract and conduct which is universally recognised as of the greatest benefit. Secondly, it enables an artificer who may have requested and received payment otherwise than in money, and who may have been benefited thereby, and most justly and kindly treated, to commit a great dishonesty by enforcing payment again. But, great as these objections are, the Legislature has thought that a preponderating benefit was to be got by encountering them; and it may be that the ignorance, improvidence, or poverty of the working classes, as they are called-that is, those who work for wages-is such as to require the protection the statute has provided for them. But in order to see to

what that protection extends, it is necessary to see what are the mischiefs to be guarded against-the mischiefs of what is called the truck system. They seem to me three, the first two being in principle the same; first, an employer of labour may engage a man to work for him, with a promise of apparently fair wages, part or all in goods, and then cheat him by giving him inferior goods, or goods overcharged; secondly, he may engage him with a promise of fair wages, and then cheat him in the payment, by insisting on his taking goods inferior or overcharged as before; and, thirdly, he may supply the man with goods beyond his wages, get him into his debt, and then have an injurious control over him. These are the mischiefs of a truck system. It is in vain to say that the master could cheat in cases where money wages were agreed for, by withholding money agreed to be paid, and that the law would redress the one wrong as readily as the other. The answer is, that such a cheat is too barefaced, and would certainly be successfully resisted; while more or less of inferiority in the quality or value of goods might be endured, or, if contested, would give rise to more doubtful inquiries. Whether these mischiefs are worth the remedy, or whether the remedy is the best is not the question. If it were, I, for one, should desire an opportunity of ascertaining what the results of a truck system had been before I ventured to differ from those who had considered the matter and devised this enactment, and from the high authorities who have held that legislation against such a system is "perfectly just and equitable.". (Smith's Wealth of Nations, book 1, c. 10.)

But I believe the object of the statute was that which I have mentioned; and certainly, considering the objec

1862.

ARCHER

V.

JAMES.

1862.

ARCHER

v.

JAMES.

tions to it, it ought not to be interpreted loosely, more especially as it makes an infringement of its provisions a crime.

I now turn to those provisions. The 1st section provides that contracts for wages (in the trades enumerated) shall be made payable in current coin. The 2nd prohibits engagements as to where or with whom wages shall be expended. The 3rd section is, that wages shall be paid in coin. The 4th section gives the artificer power to recover whatever has not been paid in coin. The fifth prohibits a set off. The 6th a cross action. The other sections may be called auxiliary, with certain exceptions which I shall have to notice.

The facts in this case are-That the defendants are hosiery manufacturers, having a factory, in which are stocking-frames, and which of course is lighted and warmed by them. They find the material, and the artificer, a frame-work knitter, makes the article. In this case the plaintiff made stocking heels, using these machines in this factory. The sum to be paid him was ascertained thus:-A sum was arrived at by putting 7d. a dozen for all the heels he had made in a week, and from that sum was deducted about 3s. 9d., and what are called fines, 44d. a quarter of a day when the artificer does not attend. The way this 3s. 9d. is made up is, that so much is put down for the use of the machines of the defendants; so much for the room in which they are; so much because the yarn has been wound, without which it cannot be worked; so much for light and fire. I have mentioned how this 3s. 9d. is arrived at, but to my mind it is wholly immaterial. The parties arrive at that figure by a particular process, and each agrees to it for particular (and probably the same) reasons satisfac

tory to himself; but they might arrive at it for different reasons, or for no reason, and simply fix it at an arbitrary

It may be as well to remark, however, that the origin and reason of it is this-that formerly the artificer was paid 7d. per dozen heels, but he then found, either as his own or by hiring, the machines, worked them in his own house, for which of course he paid, with his own fire and lights, at his own cost. I believe the charge for the winding has some similar origin. Of course fines are necessary, or not unreasonable, to prevent loss by the machines not being used. The origin of this apparently inconvenient arrangement is, probably, that the master and artificer could not agree on the sum to be paid net per dozen, while they could agree on what was a fair equivalent for the workman having the machines, room, fire, light, &c., found for him, instead of finding them himself. Some masters and men, however, agree at 5d. per dozen net. The only other matter to observe is, that the 3s. 9d. is fixed per week, while the quantity of work done by the artificer may vary according to his industry or health, or other causes, and also according to the quantity of work the master may think fit to give him.

Now, it is obvious to my mind that this is not within any of the mischiefs I have specified. The artificer does not agree to take goods in payment of wages; nor, having agreed for money, is made to take goods; nor can he get into debt to his master by spending more than his wages. I suppose, indeed, he would be liable if he did not make as many heels as, at 7d. a dozen, came to 3s. 9d.; but that is not by spending more than he earns, but by not earning.

If the case is within the statute, within which provision is it? Not that in the 1st section-it says, that

1862.

ARCHER

V.

JAMES.

1862.

ARCHER

V.

JAMES.

in all contracts the wages shall be made payable in coin only; and, if made payable in any manner other than in coin, the contract shall be void. Can it be said that whatever is to be paid here is not to be paid in coin? Can it be said anything is payable in another manner? Is this 3s. 9d. a payment, or any one of its items? Impossible. Then the case certainly is not within sect. 2. Then, is it within sect. 3? That says, "The entire amount of the wages earned by or payable to such artificer, &c., shall be actually paid to such artificer in current coin." Has the artificer earned any more wages? Are any more payable to him than the sum arrived at after allowing the 3s. 9d. and fines? I say, clearly not. The question reduces itself to this-what are his wages? The 7d. a dozen? or 7d. a dozen less 3s. 9d.? To my mind, clearly the latter. Can it be said his wages are 2d. a dozen more than the man who is being paid the 5d. without any deduction? Can it be supposed that, if there were no Truck Act, and no statute of set-off, he could recover 7d. a dozen? I ask, as I asked on the argument, suppose they fixed 3s. 9d. arbitrarily, without giving a reason for it, is that within this statute? If I agree with a man that he shall work for me at certain rates, first allowing in my favour 5s., is that an agreement to pay him a sum and part of it in that 5s.? Further sect. 5 prohibits a set-off, in an action to recover wages, "by reason or in respect of any goods, wares, or merchandise had or received by the plaintiff as or on account of his wages or in reward for his labour, or by reason or in respect of any goods, wares, or merchandise sold, delivered, or supplied to such artificer at any shop or warehouse kept by or belonging to such employer." Obviously this means goods the property in which has been transferred to the artificer. It is im