possible to say in this case that goods have been "sold, delivered, or supplied at any shop or warehouse" to the plaintiff, within the meaning of that section. The same remark applies to the next section. Sect. 8 is necessary in consequence of sect. 3. But it is said sect. 23 shews that this case is within the statute. First, this statute, which makes the doing of what it prohibits a misdemeanor (sect. 9), ought not to be extended by implication. But it seems to me that this section shews the present case is not within the statute. It enacts that it shall not prevent the employer supplying the artificer with medicine, cr fuel, or materials, tools, or implements, to be by such artificer employed in his trade, if such artificer be employed in mining. Now, such a case would have been within the letter, but not the spirit, of the statute; therefore it was excepted by this section. The miner requires tools and lights; the best for both master and artificer is that the latter should be at the expense of them ;-it insures an economical use of them by him. If his master sold him those tools, as is also convenient, it would be within the letter of the Act. His wages are fixed at a certain amount; to earn them he must, indeed, buy tools; but he acquires the property in them, may sell them if he likes, may use them when much worn, or throw them aside when little worn; their goodness and condition he alone is interested in. It is true, he cannot earn his wages without them, neither can he without his clothes. and his food; but they are not, any more than those articles, a fixed sum, as here, to be taken into account in estimating his wages. He is at the risk of them, and their cost to him will vary according to his care and prudence, like the cost of his clothes and food. They 1862. ARCHER V. JAMES. 1862. ARCHER V. JAMES. are therefore within the words of the Act, but, not being within the mischief to be prevented by it, are excepted from its provisions. But suppose the miner and master agreed it would be better that the latter should find the materials and tools at his own risk, and suppose they could not agree what piece wages should be paid, but that they could agree that, one week with another, a fair sum for candles and tools was 1s. more when the miner was diligent, less when he was not; and suppose, therefore, they agreed to continue the old piece work prices, but start with 1s. against the miner-that is the present case—would it be within the Act? I say, no. If it would, it certainly would not be within sect. 23, as no materials or tools would have been supplied to the miner, which means that the property has passed. The medicine supplied does not mean lent or given, to be returned, neither is that the meaning of the word as to the tools. The same reason applies to the provision as to hay, &c. An agreement to pay wages by allowing the occupation of a tenement at so much rent would be within the letter of sect. 1, but not within its spirit, and is therefore excepted. So of the rest of that section. But sect. 25 is referred to, which defines "wages," for the purposes of the Act, to be, "any money or other thing had, or contracted to be paid, delivered, or given as a recompense, reward, or remuneration for any labour done or to be done;" and it is asked, were the benefits represented by 3s. 9d., viz., the use of the frame and machine, fire, light, &c., given by the defendants to the plaintiff in exchange for, and as part of, the earnings of his labour or not? And it is contended that they were given by the master to the workman, and had by the workman from the master; that they were not given for nothing, and so were given for the labour, the workman having nothing else to give, and giving nothing else. If I am right in my opinion, though I may not be able to detect it, a fallacy lurks in this argument. I think I can shew what that fallacy is; but, before doing so, I think I can demonstrate it is there. Suppose two men work for the same employer, in the same factory, having equally "the use of a frame, machine, fire, light," &c. One, A., works on the terms on which the plaintiff worked; the other, B., on the terms of being paid 5d. per dozen. Suppose each makes twenty-two dozen and a half heels in a week, each will be paid 9s. 44d. for his work at the end of it. Now, has the employer given "the use of a frame, machine, fire, light," &c., to A. more than he has given it to B., so as to be within the Truck Act? Impossible; for, if so, every master who found any tool, or machine, or room for his workman would be within that Act. I believe carpenters always find their own tools, which are expensive in the first instance, and require renewals and sharpening. Suppose a master employed a carpenter, who found his own tools, at 5s. a day, and another, whom he supplied with tools, at 4s. 6d. a day, would either, and, if so, which, be within the Truck Act? I do not know how the fact is, but suppose a journeyman tailor, who worked away from his master's workshop, got greater wages than one who worked at it, on account of his not occupying room, &c., would that be within the Act? It cannot be. I say, then, some fallacy lurks in this argument; what it is I will attempt to point out. Pure wages are the price of labour alone-simple labour. As soon as a tool is used, capital is used, and if the tools are the labourer's, 1862. ARCHER v. JAMES. 1862. ARCHER V. JAMES. he is a capitalist, and part of what he receives is the profit of his capital. (Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy, c. 1, s. 3.) This may be made plain, I think. If I employ a man to thresh my wheat at so much a quarter, and he threshed it with a flail, what he receives would be called "wages," the value of the use of the flail being inappreciable in the sum he charges. But if he used a threshing machine and steam engine, what he receives would not be called "wages," but the hire of the machine and engine, with men to attend and work them. Now, let me not be misunderstood. I do not say that what the man with the flail receives, nor what the carpenter with his tools receives, nor what the working hosier who finds the frame and machine, fire, light, &c, receives, are not properly called "wages," and wages within the Truck Act. They are; the labour is the principal thing, and the flail, the tools, "the frame and machine, fire, light," &c., so subordinate and ancillary that the total price is properly called "wages." On the other hand, the tool or machine may be so much the principal thing, and the labour so subordinate and ancillary that "wages" would be an incorrect term to use to describe the total price. Nor am I proposing to draw any line where "wages" would cease to be the right word, but only to shew that there is a case where the machine or tool is so the principal ingredient that the payment is principally on account of it; and, therefore, where the use of the machine or tool is of appreciable value, part of the payment to the labourer must be in respect of it; so that, when the working man finds his own "frame and machine, fire, light," &c., part of his "wages" is, in reality, a compensation for the use of them; when he does not find them, he is in no sense paid for them. The man who works at 5d. a dozen is not, neither is the man who works at 7d. a dozen, with a fixed deduction of 3s. 9d. for the use of the frame and machine, fire, light, &c. They are not given to him, I submit, any more than the tailor's shop is given to the journeyman; any more than the tools in the case I have supposed are given to the carpenter; nor any more than a ship is given to sailors, who receive wages; nor are they, to my mind, in any sense the remuneration, recompense, or reward of his labour: they are things furnished to him to labour with. This reasoning also seems to me to answer the argument, that if the workman has contracted with a third person to supply him with the things supplied by the master, the stocking heels would have clearly represented a value of 7d. a dozen; so they would, and so they do when they are made by the man who makes at 5d. a dozen, with no fixed deduction of 3s. 9d., because they represent the value of the labour and the value of the use of the tools; and, therefore, the question, Can the stocking heels represent less labour only, or more, according as the workman hires the implements for making them from one person or another? may be safely answered, No; nor do they represent less compensation for the use of the frame and machine, fire, light, &c., in the one case than in the other. Again: it is said, suppose the workman makes for his master only six dozen and a half heels in a week, what does the master pay for them? Sevenpence a dozen, or does he get them for nothing? I say neither; and if he makes another six dozen and a half, and gets precisely 3s. 9d., will the last 3s. 9d. be wages, and the first not, or is there any other difference, except that the last B. & S. VOL. II. H 1832. ARCHER V. JAMES. |