orders of the societies. The principle of the bill now before the house was to make all associations illegal, excepting those for the purpose of settling such amount of wages as would be a fair remuneration to the workmen. He knew it had been objected that this was not enough; but he thought it was safer and better to point out the description of association which was legal than to specify all which were illegal, in doing which there was great danger either of putting in too much or of leaving out something which might be necessary. The bill of last year was the same in principle as this, but it went a little further, and this, he apprehended, was the cause of the inconvenience now universally felt. The present bill gave a summary jurisdiction to magistrates; it did away with the necessity of a previous information, and permitted a conviction upon the evidence of one witness only. These were the principal features of the bill. He was aware it would disappoint many persons; for there were some who, listening to their prejudices, thought that the utmost vengeance of parliament ought to be called down upon these combinations; and who thought that rigour and severity were the best tests of power. For his part, he thought the best test of the power of government was shown in its clemency and moderation. If any future necessity should arise, it would not be difficult to make the laws more strict, and to vindicate the authority of parliament as well as to protect the best interests of the country. If it should happen that the consumers were inconvenienced by the consequence of these combinations, the government must

take care to provide supplies at a reasonable rate, by admitting the productions of other countries. He felt all the disadvantages which such a measure must bring with it, but he felt also that, great as their disadvantages were, it was better to endure them than to submit to the tyranny of the combinations of the workmen. The hon. member concluded by moving that the speaker do leave the chair.

Mr. Robertson declared that the repeal of the combination laws would, in his view, be attended with the most mischievous consequences to the workmen themselves. Being enabled to extort from the masters any rate of wages they pleased, they would pass one half of their week always in idleness, and contract the most dangerous habits of excess and intoxication.

Mr. Hume said, that the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Wallace) had given the workmen any thing rather than fair play. None of the abuses of which the masters complained so loudly were at all proved in the evidence before the house; and at least the existing system had this advantage over the state of law which was gone by, there were no more cases of illegal oaths, no more secret societies. No doubt there had been faults, and of late, on both sides; but the masters were at least as much to blame as the mechanics; and he denied that any proof of violent conduct-at least to any material extent-had been given. In the complaints of the master paper-makers, he thought the masters were decidedly in the wrong. So with the coopers; there had been no violence; and

the

the house could not legislate to prevent petty feuds and differences. The journeymen shipwrights had offered to meet the masters half-way; the latter had refused; and he repeated that the men were entitled to as full a hearing and their petitions had not had it as their employers. And after all, what occasioned these existing combinations, with which the house was called upon to deal so vigorously?—The corn laws-the combination of the landowners, which had raised every necessary of life within the last three years from 30 to 60 per cent. in price. It was a little hard to allow the corn grower to bring his commodity as he chose into the market, and to shut out all competition, that he might obtain his own price for it; and then to punish the workman, who was compelled to buy this artificially raised commodity of the landholders, for making what efforts he could to get the best possible price for his own. For, if the masters were to be protected by the bill of the right hon. gentlemen, the men surely had a right to protection too. And had they this? They had not. If the masters combined to give their man only half a sufficient rate of wages, and had strength enough to starve them into taking it, there was nothing in the right hon. gentleman's bill to prevent them from doing so. And how could this danger be met by the workmen, except by counter-combinations; for which, short of carrying them to the extent of violence, he still thought they ought to have the fullest permission? Besides this, he objected to the discretion which the bill proposed to lodge

in magistrates, and thought it would open the door to every kind of injustice and abuse. When the bill was in the committee, he should endeavour to get some of its clauses modified; but, as it stood at present, he was bound to consider many parts of it objectionable.

The house then went into a committee upon the bill.

The Speaker having left the chair,

Mr. Calcraft objected, generally, that sufficient investigation had not been given to the subject.

On the reading of the clause which made it penal to induce any man to leave his work by threat, or intimidation, or insult,

Mr. Hume objected to the wording of the clause as too

vague.

The word "insult" might be construed a thousand ways, and that which might be considered as an insult to one man, would not be so understood as applying to another. He thought the clause should be put in a more defined shape.

The Attorney-General defended the clause as it then stood.

Mr. Mansfield objected to it. Mr. Hobhouse opposed the clause as too undefined.

Sir R. Wilson concurred with his hon. friend in opinion as to the word "insult." He knew of no penal enactments so undefined, except at Naples, where a punishment of 100 blows was decreed against any one who should act in any way" disrespectful" to the Austrian authorities. As far as this measure went to prevent combinations, he agreed with it; but he thought combinations might be prevented by less objectionable

clauses

clauses than that before the committee.

Mr. Calcraft said he was not anxious to press the word "insult" in the clause; all he wanted was, that sufficient protection should be afforded to those who did not wish to join in combinations.

The Attorney-General said, if the word "insult" was thought too undefined, he would not press it; but he had precedent for the adoption of words in a penal clause, which admitted of full as great a latitude of construction. In an act then before him were the words "molesting or obstructing by threats, intimidations, or any other means."

Mr. Scarlett suggested that those words should be adopted in the bill.

Captain Maberly objected to the clause, as too undefined, particularly as it was to be enforced by the decision of a magistrate.

Sir M. W. Ridley thought the word "insult" sufficiently measured; but if the object of the bill could be attained by any other terms, he would not oppose the alteration.

Mr. Hume again objected to the word "molest," as being vague and inexplicit.

The committee then divided, when there appeared,-for the clause, 90; against it, 18; majority, 72.

Mr. Hume moved an amendment, that no master manufacturer, or son of a master, shall sit as magistrate to enforce the provisions of this act.

The committee divided,-for the amendment, 15; against it, 60; majority, 45.-Adjourned at half-past two o'clock.

House of Lords, June 28.

The Earl of Liverpool said, that the writs of error bill was one of those which was connected with reforms in the courts of justice. He then recapitulated the provisions of the bill, which have been already fully stated in the reports of the debates in house of commons, and concluded by moving that it now be read a second time.

The Lord Chancellor would not oppose this bill, though he had objections to it. He expressed his conviction that, upon the whole, the abolition of writs of error would produce more evil than any which the bill could cure. The noble and learned lord observed, that as the law now stood, it was true that on judgment being allowed to pass in default, and a writ of error obtained, a creditor might be kept eight or ten months out of money; but then, if justly due, he would at last recover it with interest. After the passing of this bill, however, he would be in a worse situation. The delay would be longer, and the recovery much more expensive. The opinions he held on this subject were the same which had been expressed by the greatest law authorities for the last twenty years.

Lord Ellenborough objected to the clause relative to compensation, and gave notice, that when the bill was committed, he would propose an amendment.

The bill was then read a second time.

The Earl of Liverpool moved the second reading of the bill for amending the 6th of Geo. I. commonly called the bubble act.

The Earl of Lauderdale opposed the motion. The act of Geo. I. had been passed to correct a great public grievance,

which would be encouraged by the alteration proposed to be made in the law. The companies now forming, and which the repeal of the bubble act would sanction, were all monopolies, and their effect would be to drive the fair trader out of the market. When the existence of the East-India company, and other established monopolies were objected to, why create new ones?

The Earl of Liverpool observed, that the present bill went no farther than to repeal a statute which had never been acted upon, and which had always been regarded as a dead letter. No conviction had ever taken place under this statute, though a century had elapsed since it was passed. He could see none of that danger in joint stock companies which the noble lord anticipated from them. There surely was no fear of those companies doing any harm, as long as all the partners were bound, not only to the amount of the sum they might subscribe for their shares, but to the whole extent of their private fortunes. Though the act of the 6th of Geo. I. was repealed, the common law would remain unaltered. The allusion made by the noble lord to the East-India company was not in point. The objection with regard to that company was, that it was said to be a monopoly against the public; but he was surprised that the noble lord did not see that those companies, if they were to be monopolies at all, must be so in favour of the public. As for private traders being driven out of the market, that he did not think probable; for it was well known that large companies always conducted their concerns in a much

less prudent manner, and with far less attention to their interests, than individuals. There could therefore be no harm in repealing this obsolete act of parliament, while its existence only tended to create confusion, in consequence of individuals not knowing what they might, according to law, do or not do. With regard to incorporated companies, experience had shown that the best mode of forming them was by charter from the crown. They might be incorporated by act of parliament, but if their lordships considered the difference in the nature of the proceedings in those two modes, he was sure they would agree with him, that the less parliament interfered in this subject the better. Justice between individuals was more efficiently secured when the charter was granted by the crown, and it was therefore thought advisable to discourage applications for acts of parliament, and to encourage the other course. But hitherto a qualified charter could not be given, however desirable it might be to impose certain limitations on the powers of incorporated companies. Their lordships must see how important it was that this state of things should be altered. It was therefore an object of the present bill to authorize the granting of charters with restrictions.

The Lord Chancellor stated, that the principle of the present bill was to repeal the act of 6 Geo. I., and to leave the parties to whom it was intended to apply to the operation of the common law. It did not destroy the power of the crown to grant any charters, but it enlarged that power to the granting of qualified charters. As it

repealed

repealed the statute of Geo. I., and as that statute was supposed only to stand in the way of associations such as the public had lately seen attempted, he thought it better that a clause should be introduced into the bill declaring that the common law remained unaltered and untouched. The common law, which would thus be enforced, was in his opinion equal to every thing contemplated in the statute.

The Earl of Liverpool objected to the proposed clause, as it might render it necessary in all future acts to state, not only the laws repealed, but the laws which remained in force after the repeal of a special statute.

The Lord Chancellor did not wish the statute book loaded with unnecessary enactments, but as there had been so much misapprehension on this subject, he still thought that his proposed clause should be admitted.

The Earl of Lauderdale concurred in this opinion. It should be understood by the public, that by entering into associations like those forbidden by the law of George I., parties exposed themselves to the operations of the common law.

The Marquis of Lansdown made a few observations in favour of the bill, but expressive of his apprehension from the effect of too liberal a grant of charters, should the crown, without examination or proper discretion, exercise the right of granting them.

The bill was read a second time.

House of Commons, June 28.— Lord John Russell, seeing the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs in his place, wished to ask a question on a subject of great

importance. He hoped the right hon. gentleman's reply would comprise such general information as he might have it in his power to communicate upon the point. The noble lord then added, that he wanted to know what progress had been made by that commission which had been established for the settlement of claims by British subjec:s on the Spanish government? Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would state, in his reply, what was the amount of the claims which had been brought before the commissioners; and what was the amount of claims which the commissioners nominated on the part of Spain had acceded to.

Mr. Canning in reply said, the amount of claims which had up to this time been brought forward, was, he believed, about 2,000,0001. but he by no means meant to pledge himself that that would be the whole amount to be brought forward.

What had been the proportion of them that was allowed, it was not in his power to inform the noble lord. He did not mean to deny that every possible impediment had been thrown in the way of the commission, by conduct on the part of Spain which he could not describe as very becoming; namely, by the constant changing of the commissioners in behalf of the Spanish captors. On the part of the British government, every desire had been felt to make all possible progress in the objects of the commission with the least possible delay. It was proper to add, that unfortunately, even in respect of what adjustments it had effected, money, the most essential result of all, was still not forthcoming. There was this difficulty in the present in

stance.