necessary to have her ballast shifted; but it happened, that one of the regulations to be found in the dialogue between Tom and Harry purported, that it was unworthy a seaman to assist in shifting ballast. The consequence was that, on the occasion in question, all the men were in a state of insubordination and mutiny; and, if some craft had not come up to the vessel's assistance, it was impossible to say what consequences might have ensued. As soon as the ballast had been shifted by the craft's hands, the men immediately returned to their duty, and navigated the vessel as before. What was the result of their refusal to shift the ballast, however? The men in the craft, who had performed that service, claimed salvage. A sum of 2001. was awarded to them on account of salvage: which of course the owners were obliged to pay, the salvors themselves unanimously declaring, that the danger of the ship and cargo was оссаsioned solely by the adherence of the crew to one of the rules of this Seamen's Union. If any man could be found to affirm that such principles and such conduct were not matter for the interference of parliament, parliament had better resign at once every idea of affording any protection to any species of property.

Mr. Huskisson declared that, when he looked at the way in which the act of last session was worded, and the artful misconstruction that might easily be put upon it, by those who best knew how to mislead and deceive the men who had engaged in these combinations, he was not surprised, that those men should have erroneously supposed their proceedings to be warranted under that

act. The act repealed all former statutes; and then enacted, that no proceedings at common law should be had by reason of any combinations or conspiracies of workmen formerly punishable under those repealed statutes. The second section declared, "that journeymen, workmen, and other persons who shall hereafter enter into any combination to obtain higher rates of wages," &c., "or to regulate the mode of carrying on any manufacture, trade, or business, or the management thereof, shall not be subject or liable to any indictment or prosecution for a criminal conspiracy or combination, or to any other proceeding or punishment whatever, or under the common statute law." Now, would not any person on reading this sentence, suppose it was something really fit and almost commendable for workmen to combine and conspire together to regulate and control the management of any manufacture? And accordingly, without imputing to the framers of the bill the slightest idea, that such a misapprehension could ever be entertained, he did not doubt, that a great proportion of the associated and combined workmen in the country did actually believe, that, so far from violating the law, this clause proved that they were only pursuing a course that was strictly conformable with the meaning of the legislature. The fifth section of the same act provided, not that any such combination or conspiracy should be visited with any punishment, or be made matter of legal cognizance, but "that if any person shall hereafter by threats deter a man from his hiring, or engage in any combination or conspiracy to destroy any machinery, goods,

wares or merchandizes, he shall, upon being convicted of such offence before a magistrate on the evidence of any two witnesses, be punished, with two months' imprisonment." Now, it did not require any act of parliament to declare that, to deter a man by threats from his hiring, or to destroy, or combine and conspire for the destruction of goods or machinery, was an offence to be made punishable in a certain way, upon conviction. Such acts were already offences by the law of the land, independent of any thing like combination; and in so far, at least, the declarations and provisions of this act were quite superflous. By the law of the land, some of these, offences would be actual felonies; others, high misdemeanors. It was equally extraordinary, that the act should require the conviction to be on the oath of two witnesses

witnesses being necessary only in cases of high treason and perjury; and that the punishment should be limited to two months' imprisonment. Therefore, here was a law that contemplated certain offences which had in themselves nothing, necessarily, to do with the offence of combinations -which regarded quite different questions. But, under this act -"plotting together" for the destruction of machinery-threatening even, which proceeded to menace of life or property, were no longer any criminal offence whatever and thus, by repealing the combination laws, the acts of plotting and threatening were rendered no criminal offences at all. Under these circumstances, he considered, that the existing law was not adequate to put down an evil which was increasing to so

formidable an extent; not the evil of committing the offences to which the act had so particularly adverted, but the evil of workmen being permitted to plot, and the bold open avowal of their intention to carry such permission (as they presumed it to be) into effect, in the manner which he had pointed out. He concluded by moving "for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the effects of the act of the 5th Geo. 4th., cap. 95, in respect to the conduct of workmen and others in different parts of the United Kingdom: and to report their opinion how far it may be necessary to repeal or amend the said act."

After some observations from various members, all of whom, except Mr. Hume, admitted, that the law could not remain as it was, the motion was agreed to. A committee was appointed; and after a laborious investigation, made a report, in which, as a short remedy to the evils, they recommended the repeal of the law of last session. The effect of this repeal would be to restore the operation of the common law in those particular instances in which it was suspended by the second and third clauses of that act. But in recommending that the common law should be restored, the committee were of opinion that an exception should be made to its operation in favour of meetings and consultations amongst either masters or workmen, the object of which was peaceably to consult upon the rate of wages to be either given or received, and to agree to co-operate with each other in endeavouring to raise or lower it, or to settle the hours of labour-an exception which, while it gave to those in the different classes of masters and

workmen ample means of maintaining their respective interests, would not afford any support to the assumption of power or dictation in either party to the prejudice of the other-least of all to that assumption of control on the part of the workmen in the conduct of any business or manufacture which was utterly incompatible with the necessary authority of the master, at whose risk, and by whose capital, it was to be carried on.

In recommending that liberty of associating and co-operating together, so far as wages or hours of labour were concerned, should be preserved, alike to masters and workmen, the committee deemed it essential to the regard which is due to the free exercise of individual judgment, to propose, that the resolutions of any such association should be allowed to bind only parties actually present, or personally consenting; all combination beyond this ought to be at the risk of the parties, and open, as theretofore, to the animadversion of the common law, and should be dealt with according to the circumstances of each case. The committee further recommended, that every precaution should be taken to ensure a safe and free option to those, who, from whatever motive, might have no inclination to take a part in such associations. "The most effectual security," said they, "in their report, should be taken that legislative enactment can afford, that, in becoming parties to any association, or subject to their authority, individuals should be left to act under the impulse of their own free will alone; and that those who wish to abstain from them, should be enabled to do so, and continue their service, or engage their industry, on whatever terms, VOL. LXVII.

or to whatever master, they may choose, in perfect security against molestation, insult, or personal danger of what kind soever." For the punishment of offences of the nature alluded to, the committee recommended that a summary jurisdiction should be established, with a provision that would afford greater facility to its operation, by permitting conviction to take place on the oath of one credible witness, and by giving a discretion in respect to the punishment to be inflicted in case of conviction, to the extent of six months' imprisonment, with or without hard labour, according to the circumstances of the case.

A bill was brought in, founded on the Report; and, after considerable discussion in the House of Commons, passed into a law. In the committee, many of the clauses were resisted.

On the reading of the clause which made it penal to induce any man to leave his work by threat, or intimidation, or by molesting, or in any way obstructing him, Mr. Hume objected to the wording of the clause as being too vague. The word "obstruct might be construed a thousand ways, and that which might be considered as an obstruction to one man, might not be so understood in reference to another, Mr. Mansfield had heard the workmen object to it in strong terms, and as he had not heard any defence of it on the part of the masters, he should oppose it. If it were to be carried, he hoped that the power of enforcing it would not be left to the discretion of a magistrate, but that all offences under that clause would be left to the decision of a jury.

Mr. Huskisson said, that he had no intention whatever of acting [H]

harshly towards the operative mechanics. If any member would point out any clause of this bill which operated with unnecessary severity upon any class, he would oppose it. The object of the bill was, to protect the weak against the strong-to afford to the man, who chose to give his labour for a certain value, that protection against the combination of large bodies, to which every man was entitled.

Upon a division of the committee, there were for the clause 90; against it, 18.

Sir F. Burdett objected to the bill, first, because sufficient time, had not been allowed for a trial of the bill which it was intended to amend and repeal; secondly, because its language was vague and indefinite; and thirdly, because it deprived the people of the trial by jury, and left them to the arbitrary discretion of a single magistrate.

Mr. Denman moved, that in place of conviction before two magistrates, it should be by the verdict of a jury.

The committee divided: For the original clause 78; Against it 53: Majority 25.

Upon the third reading of the bill, a clause directing that justices should transmit to the sessions a copy of the commitment, and another, allowing appeal to the quarter sessions, were added, on the motion of the Attorney-general. Another clause, "that every master of workmen, and the father and son of such master, be rendered incapable of acting as a justice of peace in cases of complaint under the act," was offered by Mr. Hume, but negatived.

Many petitions were presented in the course of the session, both

We

for and against the existing system of the Corn trade: and on the 28th of April Mr. Whitmore moved for a committee of the whole House to consider of the Corn laws. Mr. Huskisson admitted, that it would be necessary at a future time to enter upon a revision of the Corn laws; but he maintained that the present was not the moment for commencing it. We had done a great deal already to promote the freedom of trade; but every thing could not be done at once. had allowed the importation of wool, of iron, and of various articles which had formerly been prohibited; and the effect of that measure had been to produce a large importation of the prohibited articles. Some difficulty might arise, if we proceeded too far in such a system; and it was therefore prudent to wait awhile where we now were, to see whether such difficulty would arise; and if it did arise, how it was to be obviated. Besides, several foreign countries were in some distress, owing to our exclusion of their corn, and they had, in revenge, shut out our manufactures. It might be worth while to consider, whether we did not hold in our hands at present the key for solving this difficulty --whether, to those who excluded our colonial produce and our manufactures, we had not a right to say, "We will not admit you to the benefit of a free trade in corn, unless you will at the same time admit the free introduction of our manufactures ?"

Mr. Whitmore's motion was rejected by 187 Noes to 47 Ayes.

The alteration, which Mr. Whitmore proposed in the existing system, had not much to recommend it. It was, to admit foreign wheat at a duty of 10s. when the

price in the home market should be 55s. and to add 5s. to the duty, for every 5s. of reduction in the average price. Now it is clear, from what Mr. Whitmore stated respecting the average prices of corn, which were at Rotterdam 478., and at New York 38s. (Mr. Huskisson described the average price of wheat at Dantzic, for 40 years, to be 45s. and a fraction), that, duty, freight, and other charges included, the people of this country could scarcely expect to eat bread from these two markets, under any circumstances, for less than 60s. per quarter, so that, in fact, until British wheat should arrive at nearly 60s. per quarter, no merchant would take the benefit of the importation law, unless the price here should fall below the average in the foreign markets, or there should be a temptation to speculate for future improvement in the market of Great Britain. Mr. Whitmore's scheme, therefore, established a minimum price, which the consumer must always pay in order to have the benefit of importation: and by graduating the duty by the market price, it preserved in full vigour the system of averages, with their long train of frauds and perjuries-a system by which the law intends that the price shall be fairly ascertained; but by which the unprincipled gambler in corn becomes uncontrolled lord of the market, and works the law to his own purposes, to the detriment, one day of the consumer, and the next of him whose especial interests it has been the object of the duty to protect. The bias of Mr. Huskisson's judgment leaned towards a fixed duty, without reference to the market price of corn. That plan has the

advantage of getting rid of the averages, and of establishing for the home-grower a fixed relation towards the foreign-grower, except in so far as that relation may be disturbed by the irregularities of the seasons in the different quarters of the globe. The British farmer would always be sure of an excess of price in the home-market over the foreigner, equal to the joint amount of freight and importation duty; and the consumer would be exposed to no other burthen.

Mr. Huskisson, in pursuance of the scheme of commercial policy which he had adopted, brought forward three important subjects: First, The system of our commercial policy in respect to our colonies: Secondly, The expediency of revising many of the duties payable upon the import of the raw materials used in our manufactures, and of relaxing the prohibitory duties, which, under the name of protection, were enforced against the manufactured productions of other countries; and, Thirdly, The means of affording some further degree of relief and assistance to the interests of our shipping and navigation. The alterations which he proposed in our colonial system were explained, on the 23rd of March, in a very perspicuous speech, to the House of Commons. He stated, that by the acts 3 Geo. 4, c. 44 and 45, we had permitted, First, An intercourse between any countries in America, and our colonies, in the ships of those countries, or in British ships; requiring, however, that the intercourse, at least in the foreign vessel, should be direct from the colony to the country to which the vessel belongs; and limiting very much the articles which could be imported