Then the law was against the Trades Unionists. We complain now, but they had more reason in those days. We must lift ourselves into the condition of things prior to the 1875 Act, which did a great deal towards equalising the positions of the employer and employed. The Master and Servants Act, with all its one-sided applications, was in force. For a long time an agitation was carried on for its repeal, but after twenty years the only result was the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the operation of the law. The law was very unequal. It had been framed on the principle that the workman alone was inclined to do wrong, and therefore wanted hedging in and punishing. In the year 1865 there were 1100 arrests under the Act in the country. Eight hundred of the accused were sent to prison. An Amending Act was passed in 1867, but between that time and 1875, 774 were convicted. "The state of the law was simply infamous. Its provisions made it a criminal act if a workman broke a contract, even under the most justifiable circumstances. He was arrested by warrant, and if the breach of contract was proved the magistrate was bound to inflict the punishment of imprisonment with hard labour. If, on the other hand, the employer broke the contract, ever so flagrantly, he could only be summoned by a civil process, and his punishment was simply a fine." [Illustration: J. H. VEITCH] Then they were hindered by a system of boycotting before the word became proverbial. It was not merely difficult, but impossible in some places to get a meeting-place. The writer knows of one colliery where a place could not be got. Even the co-operative hall was closed against the Union, and the Union money had to be taken in the corner of a field. Beyond this, in Durham the printers refused to do the Union printing--all except Mr J. H. Veitch, who dared almost social ostracism and took the work, and the connection then formed has continued up till now. The refusal arose from two reasons--first, there was a fear that the Union would not be able to pay for the printing; and second, Trades Unions were in bad odour in the county generally, and none the less in Durham. There was none of the respectability about the institutions there is now, and little hope of them. Broadheadism at Sheffield, with its destructive policy, had filled men's minds with fear. The form of reasoning was: "Trades Unions are guilty of these evil things; this is a Trades Union, therefore it will be guilty of doing evil." Just as logical as if a man had said: "Murder is committed in England; these people are English, therefore they will commit murder." Mr J. H. Veitch (all honour to him) had none of those fears, nor that false logic. He took the work when social ostracism was in the air. We cannot forget the act nor the man.