Less reluctantly than ignorantly, Parliament had in 1825 conceded a modified recognition ...

Less reluctantly than ignorantly, Parliament had in 1825 conceded a modified recognition to the Trade Unions, but behind the Act of 1825 lay the whole body of law, going back to the days of villeinage, relating to Master and Servant. The status of the Unions was obscure: they could not protect their funds against embezzlement by their own officers: the rights and wrongs of persuasion and incitement, the definition of molesting and intimidating, were vexed topics to which, on the whole, magistrates were not disposed to apply the more lenient construction.

The law was still dominated by the old apprehension of combinations in restraint of trade, and, in more personal relations, by the frank acceptance of the Master as a privileged person. On a breach of contract, the servant could only sue: the master could prosecute.

The master could only be cast in damages, the servant could be imprisoned. For a time, after the Chartist collapse, the relations of capital and labour called for little public notice.