permitted to sell at an enormous profit the shares of that company. The object of his measure therefore was, to prevent the transferring of shares of any joint-stock company, until such company should have received the sanction of a charter or an act of parliament. His lordship, however, afterwards abandoned this design. At a later period of the session, the attorneygeneral introduced a bill for the repeal of the bubble act: all agreed that the penalties annexed to the offence created by that statute, were preposterously severe; and the repeal of it was therefore readily acceded to.

The Unitarian marriage bill was again rejected. It was supported, in the House of Lords, by the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of Litchfield, and lord Liverpool. It was opposed by the lord Chancellor and lord Redesdale: and on the question of the second reading, it was lost by a majority of 56 to 52.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow again brought forward his bill for the repeal of the Usury Laws. On the 17th of February he moved, that it should be read a second time. Mr. Calcraft and the Solicitor-general opposed it. Borrowers, argued the latter gentleman, might be divided into three classes-mercantile borrowers, landed borrowers, and persons who did not belong to either of these classes, and who might be considered as general borrowers. Mercantile borrowers generally obtained a loan to make a profit of it. They did not borrow from necessity, but they borrowed to trade; and if they could make ten or twelve per cent on the money borrowed, there was no reason why the lender might not ask them to pay him seven or

eight per cent. But was there any landed proprietor so ignorant, as not to see, that, if the monied man could lend to the trader, at a higher rate than five per cent, he would not lend to him at that sum? It was one advantage to the lender, that he could recall his capital at pleasure, or get it back at a short notice. Now, when a man lent capital to a trader, he was generally enabled to command the use of it when he pleased. Very often he received as security transferrable property, which he could turn into money when he pleased. But, if he lent his money on land, he could not get it back at his pleasure; there was all the trouble and inconvenience of a mortgage; he could not recall it for two or three years, and therefore, in proportion as he could not command the use of his capital, when he lent it to the landed owner, he would make him pay a higher rate of interest for it than the trader. He believed he was not wrong when he stated, that eight out of every ten estates in the kingdom were loaded with debt. Now, under what circumstances did the country gentleman borrow money? Was it to employ it at some seasonable crisis, when by a little prudence and dexterity he might obtain vast profit? No. The benefits which he could receive as its produce were fixed. He never could obtain from a borrowed sum beyond a determined profit.. Such were the great distinctions between these two species of borrowers. Could any one say, that the repeal of the Usury laws would be beneficial to the latter class? But, if the terms of borrowing were so unfavourable to the landed class, what expectation could the general borrower enter

those who were to give employment to that labour. Theirs was the property which rendered that labour necessary-theirs was the machinery on which that labour was to be employed-theirs was the capital by which its employment was to be paid for. Át least, therefore, they were entitled to an equal freedom of action; and that property, that machinery, and that capital ought to be as sacred and unfettered, as the labour which was the admitted property of the workman. If their right and title and freedom in all these matters could not be secured, there would not be long retained in the country the means of employing labour; and the workmen themselves would be the victims of a delusive system of attempted influence and intimidation over their employers.

Mr. Huskisson then entered into various details to show the nature of the system, which was, in several quarters, now acted upon. Meetings had been held, and associations formed, in different parts of the country, which, if persevered in and prosecuted successfully, must terminate in the destruction of the very men who were parties to them. To illustrate this, he produced two papers, which developed what were the views of the workmen, and their proposals in respect of the right which they had assumed, of interference with the property and concerns of their employers. The first was entitled, "The Articles of Regulation of the Operative Colliers of Lanark and Dumbarton:" The second was a similar production of "The Ayrshire Association;" and he could produce, he added, many other systems of rules and regulations,

each of them absolutely forming as regular a constitution as any of those which were daily arising from the new governments that were springing up in every part of the world. These Associations had their delegates, their presidents, their committees of management, and every other sort of functionary comprised in the plan of a government. By the 9th article of one of the sets of regulations, it was provided, "that the delegates from all the different works should assemble at one and the same place" on certain stated occasions: so that this provision regarded not a combination of all the workmen of one employer against him, or even of one whole trade against the masters; but something more formidable and extensive; namely, a systematic union of the workmen of many different trades, and a delegation from each of them to one central meeting. Thus there was established, as against the employers, a formal system of delegation -a kind of federal republic, all the trades being represented by delegates, who formed a sort of congress. Another regulation was to this effect-"Each delegate shall be paid out of his own work" (the earnings which he was to be permitted to make, and of which a portion was subscribed by every member having employment, for the purposes of these associations), "with these exceptions only-the president, the secretary, and the treasurer, are to be paid out of the general funds. The delegates are elected for six months, and may be re-elected." So that here was a tax levied upon each workman, for the maintenance of general funds applicable to purposes of this mischievous character. The 11th article declared, that "It is the

duty of these delegates, 1st, to point out the masters they dislike:" -a duty in itself sufficiently dangerous and illegal: "2nd, to warn such masters of the danger in which they are placed, in consequence of this combination." Here, therefore, was an acknowledgment of the danger of such associations, admitted by the parties themselves. But what followed? "And, 3rd, to try every thing which prudence might dictate to put them (the masters) out of the trade"-not, let it be observed, every thing which fairness and justice might dictate to workmen who sought really to obtain a redress of grievances; but, every thing which "prudence" might dictate. In such a position, " prudence" must be understood as implying merely that degree of precaution that might prevent the "Union" from being brought within a breach of the law-such as the crime of murder for example. Now, was it fit, or right, or reasonable, that persons engaged in commercial or other pursuits, such as mining, for example, should, by combinations thus organized, and by pretensions of this kind, be kept in constant anxiety and terror about their interests and property? The 13th article was as follows:-"These articles

may

be modified and altered at any meeting of the delegates; and if sanctioned at such meeting by twothirds of the delegates present, they shall be final. The power of levying money from all the members of the association must be left to the general committee." So that these were not to be voluntary, but compulsory contributions, actually "levied" upon all the parties to the union. "All laws passed at the meetings of the dele

gates will be binding on all whom those delegates represent." Now, one of these laws was, "that there should never be allowed to be any stock of coals in the hands of any of the masters;" because, if such stocks were allowed, the masters would be less dependent on the workmen, and might possess some means of rescuing themselves from the tyranny and control of this association or union.

Other associations, however, were governed by regulations, if possible, more extraordinary. One of these regulations was, that no man coming into any given district or county within the control assumed by the associating parties, should be allowed to work, without being previously amerced 5l., to be applied to the funds of the association: and another of the regulations was, that any child, being permitted to work or assist (as for instance, a man's son), should at ten years old, be reckoned a quarter of a man, and pay a proportionable amercement accordingly. In like manner, it was provided, that any man being called in by any collier to his assistance, should not be at liberty to work under him, unless previously adopted, like the collier, by the society, and unless, like him, he should previously have paid his 5l. Now, in this part of the empire there could not exist any doubt whatever, looking to the artificial situation in which this country was placed in regard to many of its institutions, and particularly with regard to the poor-laws, that parties, who were liable some day or other to become reversionaries on that immense fund, had no right to take measures that had an obvious tendency to throw them on that fund, and so increase the burthen which its

support imposed upon the country. And, without desiring to restrict the right or choice of any individuals as to the legal disposal of their means, he could not help asking, whether this amercement of 51. and this subscription of 1s. aweek to the funds of the association, which every member of it was called upon to pay and contribute, would not produce to each of the parties, if placed in a savingbank, far more beneficial and advantageous results? What could be the meaning or motive of creating all those presidents, and permanent committees of management, if there were not among these combinations many persons anxious for the enjoyment of the power and distinction which they considered the attainment of certain posts like these would confer upon them? And, was it not in human nature almost an invariable principle, that, in all contests for all kinds of power, the most artful were those who usually obtained their object and seated themselves in places of authority? This consideration rendered it still more necessary to look narrowly at the constitution of these assemblies.

Another of their rules was, that every measure to be adopted should previously undergo a full discussion, and that the majority should bind the rest-a very proper rule in Debating-societies, no doubt; and one, he believed, very gene rally adopted in them; but it was one, which, under these circumstances, he could not approve, for he thought it to be, in its consequences and application, inconsistent with that freedom from all external control, which the masters or employers were obviously entitled to, in the administration

and management of their own property. The 22nd of the articles was in these terms:-" that no operative, being a member of this association, shall be at liberty to engage himself for any given time or price, without the consent of the committee of management." Why, if a system of this kind was to extend itself through the population engaged in all the different branches of mining, manufactures, navigation, and shipping in this country, in what a painful situation would every person concerned be placed? Who would, for an instant, endure a control of this oppressive, of this destructive nature? Yet, such a control, under the prevalence of such principles, might exist: and, he was sorry to add, that it did exist. For example, it existed in that most important branch of our commercial greatness, our coasting trade. There had been a society formed, called the "Seamen's Union:" the principles and object of which had been promulgated in the form of a dialogue between Tom and Harry. In this, as in other combinations, the association had come to the determination of not submitting to the authority of any persons whom they had not among themselves appointed or approved. In the same manner they who were employed as seamen in the coasting trade would not put to sea, unless all the rest of the crew were members of their union. And another of the articles agreed upon by this union, was, that men thus employed should do nothing which they had never before been called upon to do as seamen. A case had occurred very recently, in which a vessel, coal laden, got on a sand-bank at the mouth of the river. It became

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 occasioned 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,