Sitting of 29 March 1825

WEST-INDIA COMPANY BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Fowell Buxtonopposed the motion. He said, he did not object to this Company because it was a Joint-Stock Company, but because its object was to deal in men. Other companies were for canals and rail-roads, but in this company the capital raised was to be embarked in mortgages on our fellow creatures. Under the operations of this bill, men were to be bought - and sold. Being of opinion, in common with a large proportion of the people of England, that all dealings in men, of whatever description, were in

1279
themselves so many crimes, he could not give his consent to the creation of this company. West-India property consisted of land and the labour upon that land; the slaves constituted its value, and on them the security would depend. When the funds of the company were invested, the company would have procured to itself 40,000 negroes. He would therefore move, "that the bill be read a second time this day six months."
Mr. Robertsonsupported the bill, and expressed his surprise that the hon. member for Weymouth, who was the great champion of all sorts of Joint-stock companies in that House, some of them calculated to bring ruin on our fellow subjects at home, should oppose the present measure, which was likely to afford great assistance to the colonial interest, on the ground of his feeling an excessive sympathy for the negro population of the West Indies.
Mr. Alderman Thompsondid not see what objection there could be to the present bill. It merely went to enable the company to sue and be sued.
Mr. Humesupported the bill, as calculated to benefit the colonies.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that the object of the bill was to create a monopoly of a most dangerous kind.
After a few words from Mr. Ellice, sir M. Ure, and Mr. Manning, who complained, that the conduct of the hon. member for Weymouth and his friends had paralyzed the whole of the transactions between Great Britain and the West Indies, the bill was read a second time and committed.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES—REPEAL OF THE BUBBLE ACT.
Mr. Peter Moore, in pursuance of notice, rose to bring forward a proposition for defining and ascertaining the law relating to Joint-Stock Companies. He stated, that at present the law in respect to these companies was very obscure and ill-understood; the common law, from its antiquity, being but little applicable to them, and the statute known as the "Bubble Act" being so full of penalties and contradictory enactments, that it was, in fact, a dead letter. The necessity of settling a question of so much importance was placed beyond question, by the amount of capital which was daily investing in these speculations, and which be would be safe in estimating at upwards of 160 millions. This sum, large as it
1280
was, he hoped to see tripled and quadrupled; as the infallible result of so extended a spirit of commercial enterprise must be, to encourage industry and diffuse employment. Attempts were making to bring the companies into discredit, by stating that they came within the Bubble act. He denied that they did so; and with respect to the act itself, he knew that its authority was considered obsolete in the highest legal quarters. Besides, bubble schemes could not in these days be maintained; because, if the people did not approve of them they could not be supported. Hence, no legislative enactment was wanted for their suppression. He had himself the honour to belong to some of these companies, and he pledged himself that there was as much integrity in their views, as in those of the company of the Bank of England itself. He called upon the chancellor of the Exchequer to protect these companies; for they contributed a good deal to the revenue, as every transfer of stock was liable to a heavy stamp duty. It was not his wish to provoke a discussion at that stage of the bill; but he hoped the question would be fully gone into at the second reading; and any assistance which he could give in defining the law, he would gladly afford. At the same time, he had no hesitation in saying, that he courted the fullest inquiry into every speculation with which his name was connected, and he was authorised by the directors to state, that if any deception appeared in any part of their proceedings, they were willing to withdraw the scheme altogether. Upon all these grounds, he hoped no objection would be made to bringing in the bill; that the fair dealers might be distinguished from those who had improper views, and that a question might be settled, in which so many persons, and so much property, were interested. He concluded by moving, for leave to bring in a bill "to repeal the 6th of George the First, called the Bubble Act."
The Attorney-General,having been called upon by several members, said, that the act which it was proposed to repeal, referred to a great variety of objects, Other than Joint-stock companies, to which the hon. member's bill was addressed. If he recollected rightly, the incorporated rights of two great commercial companies in the city of London were secured by that act. This subject, therefore, required much more consideration than the

1281
hon. member seemed disposed to give it; and he should, therefore, feel it his duty to oppose the motion.
Mr. Grenfellsaid, he would support any motion for settling the law upon the subject of Joint-stock companies If there was an indisposition to concede the repeal of the whole of the Bubble act, why not repeal part of it? It was absolutely necessary, considering the amount of capital embarked in these speculations, and the anxiety prevailing as to the law, that some definite rule should be laid down. The Bubble act was a dead letter; since, from the severity of its penalties, it never could be put in force in the present state of the country. No one would have the boldness to propose the application of this act to the schemes that were now afloat. It was only last week that he saw the prospectus of a new speculation, to which the name of a prince of the blood was attached. He imputed nothing improper to this royal personage; but, would it be said, that he was a fit object for the application of the Bubble act? He had seen another prospectus, containing the name of a high individual, for whom he had the highest respect; namely, the archbishop of Canterbury, and he believed the whole bench of bishops were parties to the undertaking. He did not quarrel with these reverend persons for thus embarking in an adventure; but, who would think of attaching to them the pains and penalties of a premunire? He hoped, therefore, that the subject would be considered, and that the law would not be suffered to remain, which subjected the highest personages to such penalties. The public were already led to expect some alteration in the law from the highest authority in the country. He did not offer a word, as to the policy or impolicy of the Bubble act; but he thought it highly necessary that the law should be rendered intelligible.
Mr. Robertsonwished the subject to be set at rest for the sake of the public at large; who were quite as much entitled to protection, as any of the princes of the blood, or the archbishop of Canterbury.
Mr. Ellicesaid, he had heard with satisfaction the proposition of his hon. colleague, for setting at rest the law affecting Joint stock companies. He did not pledge himself to go the whole length with him, of repealing the act of George 1st. but he should decidedly vote for bring-
1282
ing in the bill, that the question might be discussed, and some steps taken to define the law. For the Bubble act, he had no great respect; for the history of that measure was this—that it was made to support two great bubbles, and to suppress all others. He was anxious to elicit some legislative decision upon these companies; because, from the passive silence of parliament, a great deal of inconvenience was produced out of doors. There was evidently an indisposition on the part of ministers to entertain the subject: and they had even held the most liberal opinions in that House, stating that the public were at liberty to introduce whatever schemes they pleased, but that existing laws were sufficient to punish any frauds which might be committed. But, whilst this language was held in that House, an alarm was sounded elsewhere; and every opportunity was taken to warn the public against embarking in speculations, which he (Mr. E.) believed to be a more beneficial mode of employing the superabundant capital of the country, than in lending it to the sovereigns of Europe, who had so often become bankrupts. But, so it was, that the public were in a state of distraction between opinions so much at variance with each other, and both professing to come from authority. He recollected the same game being played, in the case of the Spanish colonies in South America; for whilst the independence of those states was treated in the speeches of the ministers in that House as partly recognized, the court of Chancery was labouring to warn all persons from embarking in any transactions connected with them. This was unfair treatment of the public; and, if persevered in, might have the worst effects. It was due to them to make something certainly known as to the law of the case. He therefore voted for the introduction of this bill, in the hope that the discussion upon it would lead to some beneficial result. Possibly, the right hon. president of the Board of Trade would then state, whether it was the intention of government to interfere; and the public would be in a condition to judge whether the Bubble act might not be wholly repealed, or at least considerably modified.
Mr. J. P. Grantthought that, under the terms of the hon. member's motion, nothing short of a repeal of the 6th of George the First could be now introduced. If his object was to amend and alter parts

1283
of that act, it should be made the subject of a motion distinct from this. It was, however, a question of the greatest delicacy and importance; and, even if the Bubble act were repealed, he was not prepared to say, how far the subject would be affected by the common law. The act in question was very loosely worded; and, from the circumstance of the infrequency of its application, it had not received much interpretation from courts of law. But he believed it was quite clear, that the act referred to many other objects than those to which this motion extended; and, under such circumstances, he would recommend his hon. friend to withdraw this motion, and wait for some other opportunity. At the same time, he was bound to hint to him, that the subject which he had undertaken was more extensive than he perhaps imagined, and that from the number of subjects which would necessarily be implicated in it, he would find it difficult to frame such a bill as would meet his views, and not violate any interest.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that the Bubble act contained twenty-nine clauses, the first seventeen of which had no reference whatever to Joint-stock companies. Did he understand the hon. member, then, to call upon the House to repeal those clauses? He was at a loss to see what benefit could be derived, even if this motion was acceded to. It was quite impossible, in a bill, brought in for the purpose of repealing an act of parliament, that seventeen clauses should be left untouched, as they necessarily must, since they had no relation to the subject. He would advise the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Hudson Gurneyregretted, that this measure had not been brought forward by government, as the state of the law, as regarding Joint-stock companies, was such as obviously required alteration. He wished the right hon. gentleman opposite, the president of the Board of Trade, could be prevailed upon to take the task of legislation into his own hands. It was impossible that the common law, originating in another state of society, could meet all the exigencies of the present commercial situation of the country; and the Bubble act, which the hon. gentleman now moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal, not only left the law in great uncertainty, but contained provisions which it was impossible ever could be acted
1284
upon. Something, certainly, ought to be done—whether by merely introducing a system of registration, and thus enabling every one to judge of the parties he trusted; or by introducing the continental system of authorizing parties, on actual deposits so registered, to limit their responsibility, he was unable to say; but he was much inclined to think, that the latter would be of very useful adoption. It had been argued, that the great and increasing capital of the country had forced men into the species of speculation now afloat, for its investment; but, the fact was, that the greater number of these schemes were projected by persons having no capital whatever, who carried their shares immediately into the Bubble-market, the first instalment to be paid bearing little proportion to the nominal capital—speculating on selling, on the first rise of price, to those who will allow themselves to be cheated; advertising their projects under the names of known persons, as trustees and directors; and, having themselves advanced next to nothing, looking to realize on an amount which was purely fictitious, at the expense of the public.
Mr. Peter Mooresaid, he should be extremely glad if his majesty's ministers would take the affair out of his hands. He had been waiting in expectation that the matter would be taken up by high authority. If a bill respecting it were brought forward in any shape, he should be most happy. But, as things were, the various Companies, possessing, a capital of 250 millions, were left at sea, without rudder or compass, not knowing whether they were acting right or wrong. What they wanted was, to act right. Upon his honour, he believed that not one of the Stock Companies, with which he was connected, had less probity or less stability than the bank of England itself. He would never connect himself with any one of which he did not entertain that opinion. What they wanted was, to understand the law. It was said, that the Bubble act did not apply to them, yet they had been threatened with its operation; and that threat had operated upon them most injuriously. Full discussion was what he wished for. Might he be allowed to change the word "repeal" the act, for the words "amend and alter" it? In a case in which so much property was afloat, let the matter be settled. Could the two clauses of the act which affected that property be alone considered? He believed

1285
that the whole act had been declared by high authority to be obsolete and a dead letter, and that it had been declared, by still higher authority, that it could not be carried into execution. He would propose to amend his motion by substituting the words "alter and amend", for the words "repeal."
Mr. Humeasked seriously, whether it was intended to leave the law in its present unsettled state, and what objection could there be to altering and amending such parts of the act as were objectionable? The lord chancellor had promised to bring forward some measure but, in what time could such a measure be looked for? At the end of next session the learned lord would begin to doubt; and when his doubtings would end, no man could say. In the mean time, property would be wasted in legal disputes, and uncertainty and anxiety must be every where prevalent.
Mr. Huskissonasked whether, under the terms of this notice to repeal an act, a motion could be now made to alter and amend it? The hon. member who brought it forward had confessed that he was unable to point out any specific remedy for this alleged inconvenience of the law. He should say, that the hon. member would have treated the House with greater respect, if he had prepared himself better, and enabled himself to make some substantive proposition on the subject.
Mr. P. Mooresaid, he had no objection to withdraw the motion for the present; but he would bring it forward again after the holy days.

PETITION FROM R. CARLILE.
Mr. Humepresented a petition from Richard Carlile, a prisoner in Dorchester gaol, calling the attention of the House to the circumstances of his case. The hon. member read the greater part of the petition; and from the statements contained in it, it appeared, that besides the complaints which the prisoner had before made of the length of his imprisonment, and his incompetency to pay the heavy fine imposed upon him by the court of King's-bench, he had now come forward to complain of the conduct of government in seizing his books under a writ of execution, and in retaining them still unsold in its possession. If the books had been those prohibited by law, it would have been easy to understand the principle on which the govern-
1286
ment continued in possession of them; but many of the books seized were openly sold in all the shops of the country, and ought therefore to have been exposed to immediate sale by the officer who had executed the writ against them. Among them were 250 copies of Volney's Ruins of Empires, Cobbett's Register, and other works. The petition stated, that if these works had been sold at the time of their seizure, they would have produced a sum which would have enabled the petitioner to pay his fine. If this were so, he (Mr. H.) could not conceive a case of greater hardship. As a sincere friend to religion, he had always thought that the interference of the government, and of the Vice society, with the proceedings of the petitioner, had been productive of great mischief; and he was sorry that the right hon. gentleman opposite had not long since taken measures, to put an end to the punishment which the petitioner was at present enduring. His case was indeed a hard one. He had been punished far beyond what was just. He had been kept in prison for not paying his fine, when the property, by which alone he had any chance of paying it, was withdrawn from him. The petitioner ought either to have his property restored to him, or to be liberated immediately from the prison in which he had been so long immured.
The Attorney-Generalwould not have thought it necessary to say a word upon this petition, had it not been for an unfounded allegation contained in it. The property which had been taken on the premises of the petitioner, was not at present, nor indeed had it ever been, in the hands of government. It was in the possession of the sheriffs; and if they were retaining it improperly, the petitioner had his remedy against them. Indeed, the petitioner had already brought an action against the sheriffs, in which he had obtained either mere nominal damages, or else a verdict on which it was impossible for him to found any ulterior measures. It ought to be recollected, that if the sheriffs sold the publications taken in Mr. Carlile's shop, they sold them upon their own responsibility for their contents. He was sure, that if the petitioner would point out, either to the sheriffs, or to the secondary, any books which they could sell, without running the risk of an indictment for blasphemy, those books would instantly be exposed to sale. In the mean time, it was unfair to assume, that

1287
the sheriffs had acted incorrectly. Their conduct had been sifted by the court of King's-bench, and had been pronounced to be perfectly correct. In conclusion, he repeated his denial that any of the petitioner's property was in the possession of the government.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he had entered so often into the general question connected with this petition, that he should decline saying any thing upon it on this occasion. He would merely say, that nothing was more difficult than to lay down a rule, how long an individual should be imprisoned for non-payment of a fine. To say that a prisoner, who was incompetent to pay a pecuniary fine, should be released at once, would be to offer a premium for the commission of misdemeanors. His release must, therefore, depend upon other circumstances—such as the mildness of his behaviour, his conformance to the discipline of his prison, and his general character and conduct. Now, nothing could be more violent and more improper than the conduct of Carlile; and that was the chief reason why he had not felt himself justified in interfering on his behalf. As a proof that he was not unwilling to interfere on behalf of persons in a situation similar to that of the petitioner, he would mention, that he had given orders for the release of Mary Ann Carlile, who, like her brother, was retained in prison for non-payment of her fine. Her conduct had been the reverse of that of her brother, and he had therefore recommended that she should be discharged. In order that the House might have some grounds on which to form an opinion of the conduct of Carlile, he would state, that Carlile had given him notice, that after a certain day, which he named, he should consider himself illegally detained, and should feel himself justified in murdering any governor that might be appointed to guard him. Besides this, he had corrupted many individuals, both in the prison and in the neighbourhood, and had gloried in being able to continue, as before, his daring violations of the law. If he had abstained from such representations, and had submitted patiently to the discipline of the prison, he might, perhaps, have consented to discharge the petitioner; but, when his conduct was of the most violent and intemperate description, he was bound to take it into consideration, before he consented to limit the period of his imprisonment.
Mr. Humerepeated his declaration, that the case of the petitioner was peculiarly hard. He was not much acquainted with the tricks and management of law; but, from what had fallen from the learned gentleman, he clearly saw, that the petitioner was not likely to have much remedy at law as against the sheriffs. He also begged the House to understand, that the petitioner did not pray to be liberated, but that the House would correct the laws which prevented him from recovering possession of his property.
Ordered to lie on the table.

COMBINATION LAWS.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he rose with great regret, to call the attention of the House to a subject that was of the highest importance to the commercial interests of this empire, but which in consequence, as he apprehended, of-some misconstruction that prevailed among certain classes in this country, in respect of a legislative proceeding of the last session, repealing the combination laws, seemed likely to be attended with most inconvenient and dangerous consequences. He certainly considered, that the parties immediately interested in that proceeding had been subsequently acting under a misconstruction of the intentions of the legislature: and, in the motion with which he meant to conclude, he did not propose to suggest that the old laws against the combinations of workmen and labourers against their employers should be again put in force. Those laws were, many of them, oppressive and cruel in their operation on workmen; and he had always advocated the principle of allowing every man to dispose of his labour to the best advantage, which principle they, in very many instances, had directly violated. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to advert to the bringing in of the 5th of George IV. c. 95., and to the avowed objects of that bill. He felt himself bound to admit, that in principle those objects seemed to be perfectly fair and proper to be established, as between workmen and their employers; but he was satisfied that they were not so in practice. Moreover, he doubted whether the act in question, as long as it should continue to exist, would not have a strong tendency to keep up, between workmen and their employers, a spirit on the one side of alarm, on the other of distrust.
He would briefly review the course and effect of that proceeding. It com-

1289
menced by a motion introduced by an hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House, who pointed out the hardships to which, under the then subsisting laws, journeymen and others were liable; and there could be no doubt that, in too many cases, those laws were, in a great degree unjust and prejudicial in their operation. A committee was accordingly granted to the motion of the hon. gentleman; in which it was proposed to go largely into evidence and inquiries on these topics. It was a very full committee, consisting of about fifty members; and it, undoubtedly, examined a vast variety of evidence, upon all questions connected with the main intention of its labours. The result of those labours was—not that a report was made to that House (which, as he thought, would have been the most desirable course), stating the grounds upon which the committee had come to the determination of recommending the introduction of their bill, and thereby affording to the public, and in a more especial manner to parliament, the necessary information, as to the motives which induced them to recommend such a change of the existing law; but that the committee adopted, finally, a string of resolutions which involved no such statement whatever. He should inform the House, that he was himself a member of that committee; and, perhaps, he ought to mention that circumstance with considerable regret, owing to the fact of numerous other avocations of an official nature, in which he was all that time extremely busied, having prevented him from paying that degree of attention to the business of the committee, which he could have wished to do, and which the importance of its inquiries most undoubtedly demanded. To the same causes he must refer the indulgence of the House, while he stated, that they had equally precluded him, when the bill in question was brought in, from considering it with all the attention and care, in its various stages, that it deserved to be considered with. And he might go further, and express his regret, that those of its enactments which were of a legal nature, had not, possibly, been discussed with all the technical knowledge, which might have been beneficially applied to them by those hon. and learned friends of his of whose professional learning, in ordinary cases, government had the benefit.
The consequence of all this had been, that some of the provisions of the bill,
1290
which afterwards passed into an act, were of a very extraordinary nature. Not only did the bill repeal all former statutes relative to combinations and conspiracies of workmen, but it even provided, that no proceedings should be had at common law, on account of any such combination, meeting, conspiracy, or uniting together of journeymen, &c.; for, in fact, almost any purpose: and thus, by one clause, it went to preclude the possibility of applying any legal remedy to a state of things which might become, and which had since become, a great public evil. Now, this fact was the more curious, inasmuch as the hon. member who introduced the bill into parliament, had himself taken occasion to state, both in that House and in the committee, on what he considered to be legal authority,—and he (Mr. Huskisson) in common, he was sure, with every hon. gentleman who heard him, would readily allow that the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Scarlett) was indeed high legal authority—that if all the statutes relative to combinations were to be repealed, he thought the operation of the common law alone would be sufficient to repress, among workmen, any dangerous and injurious tendency, improperly or violently to combine against their masters. The bill itself, however, repealing thirty or forty acts of parliament, and in this singular manner putting aside the common law altogether, was brought into the House at a late period of the session; passed through its first stage, subsequent to the first reading, on Wednesday, the 2nd of June; and, on Saturday the 5th of June, only four days after the second reading, and in the same week, was read a third time and passed, without any discussion. The measure was therefore hurried on with as much expedition, as was usually applied to the most pressing bills.
To the hon. gentleman himself he imputed no blame for thus speeding his bill through the House of Commons. Looking to the advanced period of the session, and the discussion which it had received in the committee, it was natural enough that he should desire it to go through the House with all possible expedition. But, since the passing of the act in question, it had happened to him in his official capacity to receive information of the conduct adopted by bodies of workmen in various parts of the country. They were, many of them, very painful accounts; and to his right hon. friend, the Secretary of

1291
State for the Home Department, numerous reports had been forwarded, detailing acts of outrage and violence, on the part of workmen combined against employers, of the most disgraceful character. His right hon. friend had permitted him to inspect those reports; and he could state that they manifested, in all those classes of workmen who had misconceived the real object of the legislature in the late act, a disposition to combine against the masters, and a tendency to proceedings destructive of the property and business of the latter, which, if permitted to remain unchecked, must terminate in producing the greatest mischiefs to the country. Indeed, those mischiefs were rapidly growing, in some districts, to so alarming a pitch, that if their progress was not speedily interrupted, they would very soon become, rather a subject for his right hon. friend to deal with in the exercise of his official functions, than for him (Mr. H.) to call the attention of the House to, in this manner. These things could not remain much longer in their present condition. Unless parliament should interfere to place them on a different footing, his right hon. friend, armed as he was by the state, with the authority of calling in aid to the civil power for the protection of the property and liberty of the king's subjects—must so interpose against what he could not but consider a very formidable conspiracy in certain bodies of men, calculated to place that liberty and property, and perhaps life itself, in great jeopardy, as regarded certain individuals who employed large numbers of labourers and journeymen. But, by a timely inquiry into, and consideration of, this subject, parliament might be enabled to deal with it as with a question merely of commercial polity.
He wished to treat it as a question, on the one hand, of the freedom of labour, looking to the right which every man naturally claimed to exercise over his own labour; and on the other, as a question upon the effect of those principles that had formerly prevailed in this country with regard to the right in those claiming this freedom of labour of interfering with, and exercising a control over, parties largely employing such labour. But, he must beg to repeat his conviction, that if parliament did not very soon interfere to reconsider the whole of this question, in all these branches, they would find that the evil which was already existing, would
1292
speedily attain an extremely mischievous height. They would then be obliged to apply to it other means and another remedy. If such should unfortunately ever be the case, he did hope that his right hon. friend would not only not be backward to employ those means and that power with which he was vested for the removal of the evil he spoke of, but that if necessary, he would apply to parliament to be furnished with further powers to prevent the baneful oppression of a tyranny, as he must call it, that was now exercised over a great portion of the property and the liberty of some of his majesty's subjects, in many parts of the country. But, while he thus designated the character of those combinations which had been so extensively formed by men who were obviously proceeding altogether in error, he did trust, that on account of what he had been saying, he should not be considered as a person who was at all hostile—nay, who was not friendly—to the right of labour—to the right which every man, generally speaking, had, to dispose of his labour and skill to the best advantage, or as he might think proper. As a general principle, he undoubtedly thought that every man had a fair inherent right to carry his own labour to whatever market he liked; and so to make the best of it. And, accordingly, he had always maintained that labour was the poor man's capital. But then, on the other hand, he must as strenuously contend for the perfect freedom of 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. At 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 sustained, so neither could there be kept and 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 the employers.
He would not unnecessarily detain the House by entering at any length into details, to show that such a system was, in several quarters, now acted upon, Meet-

1293
ings 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. Now, as to the individuals who had adopted measures of this kind, it might not be immaterial to advert to one or two papers that he held in his hand, which pretty clearly developed what were their own views, and what their own proposals, in respect of this right which they had assumed, of interference with the property and concerns of their employers. The first which he had with him 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 a great number of such rules and articles and regulations, each body of them absolutely forming as regular a constitution as any of those which we were now almost daily reading of, as 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 the House would perceive, 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, forming 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 tout of the general funds. The delegates are elected for six months, and may be re-elected." So that here was a tax levied
1294
upon each workman, for the maintenance of general funds applicable to purposes of this mischievous character.
He would next particularly call the attention of the House to the 11th article; inasmuch as it clearly demonstrated the real meaning and intentions of the societies thus constituted. "It is the duty of these delegates, first, to point out the masters they dislike." A duty in itself sufficiently dangerous and illegal. "Secondly to warn such masters"—of what?—"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 themselves. But, let the House observe what followed: "And, thirdly, 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? In order to show how regularly organized these bodies were, and how they proposed to exercise the mischievous tyranny that he complained of, over such masters as might happen to be placed within the sphere of their control, he would just allude to the 13th article:—"These articles may be modified and altered at any meeting of the delegates; and if sanctioned at such meeting by two-thirds 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 delegates 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

1295
such stocks were allowed, they 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 5l., and this subscription of 1s. a week 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 saving bank, 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
1296
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 generally adopted in them; but it was one, that, under these circumstances, he could not approve, as thinking 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. That he had not over-stated facts or their possible effect, the 22nd of the articles from which he had been reading would sufficiently show: it was conceived 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 "operative" population, engaged in all the different branches of mining, manufactures, navigation, and shipping in this country, in what a painful situation would every body 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, when he said it might, 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 this combination had been promulgated in the form of a little dialogue—not the Jess interesting, be it observed, on that account, to those whom they were addressed to. In this, as in other concerns, it seemed that 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. He would here ask, in relation to doctrines of this sort, how it would be possible to carry on business in mining concerns, for example, if the workmen themselves should have appointed all the overseers under whose superintendence they were employed? In the same man-

1297
ner, however, it appeared, that 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. Having stated to the House that it was positively one of the articles agreed upon by this union, that men thus employed should do nothing which they had never before been called upon to do as seamen, but which it was quite evident it might be very material on particular emergencies that they should do—let the House observe the mischiefs that must flow from such a regulation. He could state to them, if it were necessary, a case that 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 this dialogue between Tom and Harry purported, that it was unworthy a seaman to assist in shifting ballast. The consequence was, that on the occasion he was speaking of, 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 200 l. 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 salved was occasioned by, in fact, the adherence of the crew to one of the rules of this Seamen's Union. If any man after this could be found to affirm that such principles and such conduct were not matter for the interference of parliament, he would only say, that parliament had better at once resign every idea of giving any protection at all to any - species of property.
He was really not surprised, however, when he looked at the way in which this 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, that those men should have erroneously supposed their proceedings to be warranted under this act. The act, as he had before, in-
1298
timated, repealed all former statutes, and so on; 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 House would perceive, that the second section declared, "that journeymen, workmen, and other persons who shall hereafter enter into any combination to obtain higher rates of wages," and so forth; "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 body 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. If then, it was only to set these men right, it would be highly proper that some inquiry should be forthwith instituted with this view, and that the committee charged to make it, should report to the House what would be the most eligible steps to be adopted.
He would next offer a word or two on the fifth section of the same act. That section 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 surely did not require any act of parliament—he was speaking in the presence of his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney-general, who would correct him if be was wrong—to declare, that to deter a

1299
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 supererogatory. 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—two 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 machine— 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 must consider, that the law of which he had been speaking was not adequate to put down an evil which was increasing to so formidable an extent; not the evil of committing the other 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 he had pointed out to the notice of the House —a manner, the most destructive, perhaps, which it was in their power to devise, to the property of their masters and employers. He did conceive that, if these misguided men could be induced, for one moment, to reflect upon what must be the inevitable consequences of the course they were pursuing, they must see that such a course of proceeding, if continued, would render it impossible for any individual to embark his capital, under risks so great as those which he had pointed out; or to submit its application to a system of tyranny and control, that no man possessing capital would for a moment choose to endure. If they would reflect on these facts, they would perceive the impossibility of
1300
their being left at liberty to pursue the career of violence and combination, in which they were now proceeding; and that they must soon cease altogether to procure employment for their own subsistence. For, so long as they persevered in their measures, capital must desert the districts in which they were carried on; and ultimately, unless the evil was arrested, the kingdom itself for other countries.
He would only add, that he would recommend to those who employed numerous workmen, not lightly to submit to such extravagant pretensions, and to feel assured, that, if the present prevailing misconstruction of the law should bethought by the workmen to justify those pretensions, the magistrates would give the masters their support against any such demands. If that support should be found inadequate, his right hon. friend would, he was sure, not fail to afford them such further assistance as might be necessary to protect them from those measures which had so fatal a tendency to destroy the property of the employers, and to dry up the sources of labour to the workmen. In what state the law with regard to combinations should be put—whether the last act, repealing all the old statutes, should, in its turn, be repealed altogether, or not, he was not at present prepared to suggest, and had not in his own mind determined: but, the necessity for inquiry did not seem, on that account, the less urgent. He should be very sorry to see all those laws, which were formerly in force on this subject, renewed; but, it might be well worth their consideration to ascertain, whether something at least more definite and effectual than the existing statute could not be devised—something that might prevent the evil he had been describing from extending itself any further than the point to which it had already arrived. This was a question that deserved the most serious I attention of the House. In the mean I time, he felt that, in having submitted; these matters to their consideration, and called upon them, in virtue of the situation which he had the honour to fill, to give a more effectual protection, forthwith, to the property employed in the hire and application of labour, and also to the labour applied to the improvement and in- crease of property, he was acting in the conscientious discharge of what he believed to be his public duty. He indulged the hope, that, by the timely interference of parliament, they might prevent that in-

1301
terruption to the public peace, which must infallibly be the consequence of their remaining any longer inactive spectators of a mischief that was rapidly increasing, and that if not speedily arrested, must be followed by the most disastrous results. He had hoped, that whatever might be the first ebullition of the feelings of the workmen, on finding themselves emancipated from some of the grievous restraints imposed by the old laws on their industry, their own good sense would have instructed them to withdraw from a path so fraught with difficulties and danger, as that which they had so unwisely adopted. That hope, he could, unhappily, no longer indulge. And it was with the expectation of thereby doing justice to both parties—the workmen and their employers—that he now moved, "for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the effects of the act of the 5th Geo. IV., 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." He was aware that in making this motion he might expose himself to much obloquy, and the expression of much dissatisfaction among some of the parties it related to; and particularly in a place where he was most anxious to stand well, and among those who had sent him to that House. However this might be, he had only to do his duty fearlessly; and he had no doubt that, upon a little reflection, the same parties would be among those who would feel most obliged to him for having, in this instance at least, performed it.
Mr. Humesaid, that no one had watched more closely than he had done the operation of this act, and he was not aware that he was unacquainted with any of the proceedings that had taken place after its enactment. He was satisfied, that many of the parties had availed themselves of what they considered to be the benefit afforded by it; and that many classes had gone further beyond their own interest, or the interest of the community, than could possibly be permitted. But, it did happen that, since the passing of that act, employment had been increasing; workmen had been more in demand; and these causes had tended to the mischief complained of, more than the repeal of the former laws with respect to combination. When the right hon. gentleman opposite referred to the common law, he (Mr.
1302
Hume) would say, that the prosecutions which flowed from common law were ten-fold more oppressive than those which flowed from the statute law. Formerly, if two or three persons were found together with papers, they were liable to imprisonment, and many had suffered penalty. He would call upon the right hon. gentleman to draw a distinction between two cases. There might be meetings of persons combining orderly and peaceably for proper purposes; and there might be meetings for disorderly purposes. The committee which sat on this subject, on a former occasion, drew this distinction—that it might be lawful for men and masters to meet together, to consult upon wages to be given and received in their trades; but, if three masters met to settle those wages, or three men met for such a purpose, they might be prosecuted. But, this difference existed—that out of the many cases of conspiracy against masters, none were proved, from the difficulty of procuring evidence; while the convictions of the men were innumerable. Now, if the right hon. gentleman would draw this distinction, he would show, in the first instance, what might be said under the acts of the 38th and 39th Geo. 3rd. The punishment inflicted for the offence under those acts was imprisonment for two months. The plain question was, whether this, or any other punishment, was necessary, and whether they came within the law, unless in cases where the men, by acts of violence, interfered to deteriorate the property of their masters or fellow-workmen. His opinion undoubtedly was, that both the parties ought to be free to make what bargains, and to act in what manner, they should deem the best for their own interest. He thought the law, as it at present stood, was as strong as it ought or need be; and he should, therefore, oppose any increase of its severity upon one of the parties, while the other was left at full liberty. He was sorry to say, that the Union societies in Dublin had been productive of the greatest evil. Many persons had actually been murdered; but then, he was happy to observe that, although these Union societies existed also in England, they were not attended with any such dreadful evils, as those which accompanied them in Ireland. In Dublin, if the curriers were offended with their masters, they applied to the carpenters, and marked out the

1303
objects of their censure: if the carpenters were offended with theirs, they applied to the shoe-makers, or any other trade; and then, the unhappy individual, who was afterwards assaulted, could not, if he survived, bring any of the offenders to justice; for they were all unknown to him. To repress such a system, he thought no law could be too severe; but then, his objection to the Combination-law generally, was, that it punished the whole of the operative class for the offence of a few of its members. He admitted that the men had acted with extreme impropriety; but he thought that, perhaps, they might not have been the only persons who had so acted. In some cases, the conduct of the masters was worse than that of the men; and he would give a few instances of it. The first act of combination in Glasgow was the act of the masters. A few men of Mr. Dunlop's manufactory, in Glasgow, disagreeing with their master, he believed, upon some point of wages, they declined to continue working for him. What was the consequence? Why, the masters immediately combined together; for they called a meeting, at which the subject was discussed, and which came to a resolution to make a stand against the men. This they effected in the following manner:—They published a notice, stating, that "If the men of Mr. Dunlop's factory did not return to their work on or before Monday morning next, they (the masters) would discharge from their employ all the men, amounting in number to ten thousand, until the men who had quitted Mr. Dunlop returned to him." The workmen who had gone away disclaimed acting in concert with any others, and said, "Do not punish them for what we have done;" but their disclaimer was not attended to, and all the men in Glasgow of the same trade were actually turned out of their employment. Now, he would ask, whether the mere declining, on the part of the men, to work for their masters was to be put in comparison, for enormity, with that act of the masters? But, that was not all. The property of the masters enabled them to get the better of the men; who were at last obliged to come in unconditionally. When they did so, the roasters punished their resistance in a very decided manner; for they actually deducted the loss they had sustained by this cessation of labour, from the amount of the men's wages, the men being obliged to pay at the rate of
1304
ten per cent per week, until the masters declared themselves satisfied. He asked, whether the refusal of the men to work might not have proceeded from some act performed by their masters? He knew that combinations were often carried on by both parties; but the stronger of these was the masters. A person employing a great number of men in the tin trade, in London, had occasion to find fault with one of his men for drinking, and he finally discharged the man; he was told by the man, that, if he did so, all the others would leave him; but, he persevered, and the consequence was, that ail the men in the factory, amounting to 74 in number, actually quitted him on the following morning. Immediately afterwards, this person put an advertisement into the papers, in which he stated, that he wanted men, but that he would not engage any who belonged to the Union. His advertisement was answered, and he gradually filled his factory with men not connected with the Society; in this instance, therefore, the master was again triumphant. This case, however, showed something else; for it clearly proceeded upon the same spirit and principle which had been ascribed to the men. It was a regulation entered into by the masters in Scotland, that any person who quitted one factory, should not be employed in another; and that object was effected by the masters sending round to each other lists of the men who, from any cause whatever, had quitted their employment; so that no man who happened to differ with his master, could succeed in obtaining employment elsewhere. Was not this an odious combination? For his own part, he did not approve of such proceedings, whether they were adopted by masters or by men. In his opinion, both sides carried their measures far beyond the point to which they should restrict themselves —far beyond what he had hoped they would have done when the combination laws were abolished. In making these observations, he wished to establish this point—that the fault in these cases, did not rest alone with the journeymen. This being once admitted, there was no person who more heartily concurred with the right hon. gentleman than he did, in the propriety of punishing any measures connected with threats and intimidation, whether they were adopted by masters or by men. If the enactment was fair and equitable, he believed it would be re-

1305
ceived with pleasure by both parties. Sometimes the law on the subject of combination had been so severe that it fell into complete disuse. There was a law on the subject of combination amongst the colliers which, however, from its peculiar construction, was found to be entirely inefficient. The lord-advocate of Scotland was applied to for his opinion, with respect to that law; and he expressed his readiness to try, whether it would not be better completely to remove the act. This proved, that strong and violent measures were not the best for putting down an evil of this description. Much depended on the conduct of masters towards their men; and especially on the way in which they treated their demands. If those demands were reasonable, they ought to be complied with: if unreasonable, the masters ought to make a firm stand, and to punish every one who had recourse to threats, violence, and intimidation.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that he was not aware before that evening, that the committee which had sat upon the combination laws last year, had consisted of so many as fifty members. That circumstance, however, seemed in some degree to have contradicted the maxim, that "in the multitude of counsellors there was wisdom," for their report, and the measure founded upon it, had failed to convince him, that the precipitate repeal of thirty-five statutes, without substituting something for that which had been taken away, was the best course which could have been pursued. He did not mean to defend the old statutes, which were undoubtedly very defective, but bethought the law, as it at present stood, was not what it ought to be. The question now came fairly before the House; and he was happy that nothing of party, or political feeling, was mixed up with its discussion. The ten resolutions of the committee declared, that it was expedient to punish, in a summary manner, the man or the master, who by violence or threats, attempted to injure the property, or the rights of the other. The offender was to be taken before a magistrate; who, on the testimony of two credible witnesses, might send him to prison. Now, under this part of the law the criminals generally managed to escape the penalty of their misconduct; for what they did or said was done or spoken only to the master, and not in the presence of any witnesses.
1306
Why the presence of two witnesses was rendered necessary, he knew not; but so it was, and the consequence was that the law was evaded. He did not think that the whole of the evil could be fairly ascribed to the masters. He believed the system of delegation, at present existing in this country, to be an excessive and infamous tyranny. Was it fit that such a system should be longer borne? Was it lair—was it just—was it in accordance with that free trade, of which so much had lately been said, and which had been justly described as of the highest importance and benefit to this country? He asked, was it for the advantage of that free trade, so justly praised of late, that men should be permitted to refuse to sail in a vessel, unless all the crew and the mate of that vessel were members of the union? The effects of such a system were most disastrous. The master might have entered into a contract, under a heavy penalty, to sail at a certain time—he might have taken his cargo on board— every thing might be ready—and then, when he was anxious to sail, he would find himself prevented from doing so, by his crew refusing to proceed on the voyage, unless the mate was a member of their union. He might have no confidence in the members of that union, or he might have placed as mate on board his vessel, a man in whom he had the highest confidence. That circumstance would be of no avail; he would be reduced to the alternative, of either complying with the demands of his crew, on the one hand, or of submitting to the loss of the penalty in his contract, on the other. Was such a system to be any longer endured? He trusted not—but that some remedy would be applied to so gross and glaring an evil. He knew that a committee of delegates was very recently sitting in the Thames, dictating, in the most imperious manner, both to masters of ships and shipwrights. He would mention one instance of this. A short time back, four or five individuals presented themselves at the yard of a shipwright employing a great number of men, and commenced employing themselves in the works. The foreman, or one of the masters, told them, that they were not wanted. And, what was their answer? They said that they had been sent thither by the committee of delegates, and that employment must be found for them. They were again told, that the number of men already employed was

1307
quite sufficient for the purposes of the business, and they were desired to retire. The consequence was, that all the men in the service of that shipwright quitted immediately afterwards. The same thing was done in other parts of the country. One object of the combination was manifestly injurious to the men, who were, however, deluded enough to attempt to obtain it—that was, the indirect establishment of a maximum of wages. If that could be done, the men would be the principal sufferers: for the active, industrious, and powerful man ought, undoubtedly, to gain more than the slow, the idle, or the weak workman; and yet the reverse would be the fact, if their intention could be carried into effect. The old and the young, the strong and the weak, would then receive the same remuneration for their labour, and the men would have succeeded in establishing the worst principle that could be applied to the regulation of wages. He knew of a case where the safety of a vessel had been in danger by a combination existing among the men, in consequence of which they conceived it to be inconsistent with the rules of a certain society to give their assistance in the particular manner required. That assistance was obliged to be procured from other individuals, who were very largely paid for it. Such a system was injurious to property, and if carried into operation, might be destructive to life. The evils it occasioned to both parties were extremely great; and, for the benefit of the men themselves, he thought the system ought to be repressed. He called on the House to look with calmness to the present existing circumstances, and without reference to party or to prejudice, to say what was the extent of the evil, and what was the nature of the remedy that ought to be applied. If they did so, he was confident the result would be highly beneficial to the country. Indeed, he believed that the promulgation of the discussion of that night would have a most excellent effect on the minds of the deluded men who had entered into these combinations, and that they would find it their interest to abandon such combinations in future. The effects that had been produced in Dublin were terrible in the extreme. In the course of the three last years no less than ten lives had been lost in consequence of these combinations, and not one of the persons connected with these murders had been brought to justice. He thought therefore, he was justi-
1308
fied in saying, that they produced the effect of breaking the bonds of civil society, and of reducing men to that state, in which force was the only arbitrator of all the differences. The horrid details of the manner of committing these murders had been stated by the hon. member for Aberdeen, who had said, that the curriers, when offended, applied to the carpenters to avenge them, in consequence of which the sufferers could not know the persons by whom they had been assaulted. He thought such a state of society dreadful in the extreme, and the sooner it was put an end to the better: The men had attempted to regulate the number of apprentices that their masters should receive; and twelve having been the limited number, the master who took thirteen rendered himself obnoxious, and was thought deserving of punishment. They had also attempted to regulate the number of the machines employed by any master, if not, to put a stop to the employment of machinery altogether. In the case of Mr. Robinson, a very extensive iron manufacturer, who had constructed a machine by which nails could be made with great rapidity, the men had determined to prevent the use of those nails which he manufactured. The nail-makers, therefore, assembled a meeting of three thousand men of other trades, who promised, that if their masters would oblige them to use Robinson's nails, they would drive them in crooked. This took place in Ireland; and the consequence was, that instead of the nails used there being manufactured in that country, they were obtained from Birmingham; so that the introduction of English capital into the labour of Ireland, which was so beneficial a measure for that country, and which had taken place in this nail-manufactory, was rendered totally ineffectual and useless.— The fact was, that there existed the strongest necessity for a law to repress combinations—a law which should equally bind both masters and men—which should be founded in principles of the most perfect equality of punishment, and which should provide an efficient remedy for this disgraceful system of combination. The men should be prevented from attempting to regulate that of which they knew nothing; while the masters should, at the same time, be prohibited from combining together, so as to affect the interests of the men. He should therefore support the motion, for a committee to examine

1309
into the effect of the repeal of the combination laws; and he thought the present a fit time for the purpose, as the question could be considered carefully, and the evils, and the best means of checking them adopted. As the law at present stood, he could only say, that in case of any actual violence committed, he would, as Secretary of State, give every civil— aye, and in cases of necessity, every military assistance that could be afforded to the parties. But he had no doubt, that when he said this to the masters, they would answer him, by declaring, that it was not open violence they feared: that the men attacked their interests, and injured their property, by combinations, producing a more silent, but not less certain effect. In such cases, all that he could do was, to advise the masters to enter into counter combinations, by which they might succeed in defeating the objects of the men. That they might succeed by such counter combinations there could be no question; but, then, the feeling of amicability and good faith, which ought to exist between masters and men would be destroyed; and he therefore gave such advice with the utmost reluctance, because he felt, that, by establishing these counter combinations, the amount of evil was only increased, and yet, however, without them the masters, under the present system, could have no protection. He had lately received from Ireland proofs, too conclusive to be doubted, of the evils of such a system; and he did think, that there was a party to whom no allusion had yet been made, whose case was, however, well deserving the attention of the House. He alluded to the situation of any man, who, in the midst of these combinations, should resolutely adhere to his master. Such a person would be the object of universal hatred among the men; and he did think that there were more than twenty towns in that country, where such a man could not appear with safety after night-fall. Could there be a stronger case for the intervention of the legislature than this? He thought not; and he was glad to observe the unanimity which prevailed in the House, respecting the impropriety of combinations of all kinds. He trusted, that after the evils of such a system had been exposed in the manner they had that night been, the men would listen to argument, and be convinced of the impropriety of their conduct: that they would feel how hostile it was to their own interests;
1310
and that they would of their own accord abandon it; if not, he trusted the result of the deliberations of the committee would be a law equally for the benefit of the masters and the men—a law which would prevent that system of combination, than which nothing was more injurious to the true interests of this country.
Mr. Hudson Gurneydefended the conduct of the committee upon the combination laws. He said, the president, or vice president, of the Board of Trade, and another right hon. gentleman connected with administration, attended all its sittings, and that they had come unanimously to the resolutions which closed their inquiries, with the full approbation, as he then understood, of all those right hon. gentlemen. He deprecated the re-enactment of the abrogated statutes; and could not attribute the lives lost, according to the right hon. gentleman's statement, to their repeal; his instances being from Ireland, where the committee had in evidence, that the same violences had always taken place. From the men, they had learnt, that in these Irish combinations their first proceeding was, to swear to secresy; and from the lord mayor of Dublin, that the magistrates had ordered men, whom they suspected of having met to combine, to be publicly whipped through the streets. It had been most distinctly established before the committee, not only that the combination laws did not prevent the evils complained of, but that they, in fact, had tended very greatly to aggravate them.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, he was not a member of the former committee; but he was of opinion, that much misconception had arisen with respect to the labours of that body. His right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) had, in more instances than one, corrected statements which had emanated from the committee. During the time of the disturbances in Glasgow, a letter had appeared from his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen, calling on the workmen to observe a strict adherence to the law. But the workmen, he believed, did not know what Jaw they were to obey. It was asserted by some of those persons, that Mr. Hume had repealed all the combination laws; and that therefore they felt they might do just as they pleased. They imagined that the committee had gone much further than they had ever contemplated to go. The House was told, that, if the masters, pleased they might easily put down any

1311
combination; because if they resisted and stood firm, the public would stand with them. That was very true; but it should be recollected, that, in the mean time, their business went to ruin. He was glad to have an opportunity of speaking favourably of the miners and colliers; bodies with whom he was intimately connected. They had not latterly endeavoured to place themselves in a state of opposition to their employers; on the contrary, those who had engagements for the year did not, under any pretence, attempt to alter them. There was, at present, in that House, a strong desire to adopt the principles of free trade and commerce; and he was sorry to say, that some of the parties out of doors, who appeared to be most anxious for the extension of those principles, were the first to defeat their own object, by agreeing to plans of combination. He was in favour of the committee; and trusted that their labours would have a successful result.
Mr. Trantconceived, that the appointment of a committee to investigate this subject would produce very beneficial effects.
Mr. C. Grantsaid, that the discussion which had taken place must convince every gentleman present of the necessity of inquiry. As one of the former committee, he must express his regret, that those persons, whose interests that committee had endeavoured to serve, had abused the kindness which had been extended to them. The House could not consent to allow the existence of the vicious and abominable abuse which had been, for some time, in progress. Every thing should be done to put an end to it; and he, for one, would gladly coincide in any measure which seemed likely to effect that object. Those misguided persons ought to know, that they were not only injuring their own interests, but doing all they possibly could to induce the House to return to the old system, which had been so recently abolished. He, therefore, thought that no language was too strong for the reprobation of the conduct which had been described in the course of the evening. He regretted that so much had been said on the labours of the last committee; for it would appear as if it were intended to cast some reflection on their decision [no, not He was one of the fifty members of whom that committee was composed; but he believed not more than half that number attended
1312
it. When he entered into that committee be did so with a determination to make an impartial inquiry into the nature of the combination laws; and, after giving due consideration to the subject, he conscientiously felt that their abolition would be advantageous. No one would stand up and palliate the excesses which had been committed since those laws were repealed; but, what he would contend for was, that the system which prevailed before the revocation of those laws did not produce calmness and tranquillity. Had the House at large had an opportunity of seeing the witnesses come trembling before the committee, for the purpose of giving their testimony, it must have seen the necessity for the repeal; if it were wished, that men could be allowed to exercise a calm and deliberate judgment. The old system was a system of terror and compulsion, and this was the ground on which the committee had proceeded in recommending its entire abolition. It was proved before the committee that evils did exist under those laws, which it was necessary to put down. He therefore said, "let those laws be abrogated — let us bring the matter to a point, as a question between man and man—between master and servant." He was sorry to find that those kindly feelings did not exist between the two parties concerned, which ought to characterize them. But, he must say, that it was not the revocation of those laws that prevented the existence of those desirable feelings. He was prepared to expect some re-action of feeling when the combination laws were removed — he thought that some effervescence of feeling might arise amongst the people; bat, he certainly did not expect that those to whom considerable advantages were given, and for the protection of whom the new law was framed, would have acted as they had done. It was said, that the new act had revoked the common law on the subject of combination. He could not speak very scientifically on this question; but, the result of his consideration of it was, that the act did not, generally speaking, put an end to the common law, though it did in one or two instances. This act surely did not exclude sailors who refused to proceed with their vessel from the operation of the common law. He believed that a seaman who refused to proceed with his ship, after having agreed to make the voyage, was utterly out of the provision of this act, and would be just as amenable

1313
to the law as at any other period. It was of great importance that a committee should be formed, and that inquiry should be made as to the effects produced by the act of the hon. member for Aberdeen. Because, while they attempted to do justice to one set of persons, they ought not to suffer themselves to be deluded— they ought not to seem to lend themselves to the abuses which those individuals might commit, under a measure which they owed to the kindness of the House. Under these circumstances, not only was the right hon. gentleman justified in bringing forward his motion; but if he had neglected so to do, he would have been guilty of a dereliction of duty.
Mr. Lambtongave his thanks to the right hon. gentleman for bringing forward this question. At one time the combination system, in the north, had proceeded to a very alarming extent. The measure of his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen, it was clear, had not answered the chief purpose which he had in view; and therefore he considered, that the right hon. gentleman was doing great service to the country, by directing the attention of parliament to the subject. He trusted such measures would be adopted, as would effectually secure persons engaged in every species of Wade, from the dangerous effects of combination.
Mr. Huskissonwished to say a few words in explanation. He had not any objection whatever to the decision of the former committee. The combination laws were, at the time that committee was formed, in a fit state to be considered; and he had on this occasion only described the evils which he thought had grown out of the law as it at present stood. The tenth resolution of the committee was, he conceived, a very proper one. It was a resolution which he would have supported. But, it appeared to him, that the act of parliament executed very imperfectly the object to which that resolution referred. Great misconception had gone abroad with respect to the act; and that misconception had created very prejudicial effects in some parts of the country, where the law, instead of producing the advantages which were expected, had really been the cause of mischief. There was only one other point which it was necessary for him to notice, and on that point he was anxious not to be misunderstood either by the House or by the public. The hon. member for Aberdeen
1314
had called on him not to visit with severity the faults of a few on the heads of the many. The hon. gentleman required of him not to punish the whole mass of the community amongst whom there must necessarily be very many who had not been guilty of any excess or abuse since the passing of the new act. This was a fact to which he was perfectly willing to subscribe. He not only did so, but he would tell the hon. gentleman, that he had no intention to visit any class with severity or punishment. He was not going to propose new penal laws. What he wished was, to draw the attention of the committee to those laws which regulated the situation between masters and workmen. He was anxious to save from the consequences of their own delusion, even those who had acted a culpable and improper part. It was really as the friend not as the enemy, of the workmen, as well as of the masters, that he proposed this inquiry. He considered this to be a question entirely disconnected with party-feeling — as one with which the best interests of the country were intimately-connected; and he thought those interests would be placed on a surer and better footing, if the existing law were revised and altered.
The motion was then agreed to.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—PETITIONS OF THE CLERGY AGAINST.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellssaid, he had to present to their lordships a petition, very numerously signed, of the archdeacon and clergy' of Taunton, in the diocess of Bath and Wells. The petition prayed, that their lordships would not grant what was commonly called Catholic emancipation. It was moderately and respectfully worded. Before it was laid on the table, he thought it right to trouble their lordships with a few observations. It had been asked, whether it was consistent with that charity which distinguished the Christian religion, for the clergy to come forward with petitions against the proposed measure in favour of the Catholics. Many aspersions had, in this way, been cast on the clergy. Now, he was perfectly willing to admit that to be the main, the discriminating feature of the christian faith; but he thought that the petitioners acted up to the true spirit and letter of christian charity, when they came forward and endeavoured to maintain pure religion— when they endeavoured to support Protestantism and the principles of civil and religious liberty against Popish domination —when they endeavoured to maintain the church of England against the church of Rome. He trusted their lordships would always maintain the Protestant church establishment in this country.
The Earl of Darnleycontended, that no aspersions had been cast upon the clergy. If the reverend persons conceived that they were upholding the church to which they belonged, by the petitions which had been presented, it was not only their right, but their duty, to address them to that House. He begged leave, however, to declare, that there never had been any desire, on his side of the House, to preclude the clergy from petitioning, or the reverend prelates from standing up for the interests of the church of which they were members. At the same time, he could not help alluding to a petition

1271
from the clergy of Ely, which had been presented on Wednesday, and which, if their lordships were to hear read again, they surely would not regard as remarkable for its charitable sentiments. The sentiments it contained were quite inconsistent with the spirit of the Christian religion. He thought the right reverend prelates ought to admonish their brethren against coming forward with petitions of this kind. He held the petition in his hand, and it would be found, that the reverend persons who signed it, cherished all that exclusive spirit of domination and hostility to other sects, for which they blamed the church of Rome. They censured the Catholic clergy of Ireland—men who performed their duty in a way which it would be well for these petitioners to imitate. The noble lord here read some passages from the petition, in one of which it was stated, that the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland obtained the prostration of the mind and will of the people to their views. This, on the part of the people of Ireland, he denied. The petitioners next called upon their lordships to avert the danger with which they supposed the country to be threatened by the Catholics, and desired that energetic measures might be adopted to guard against the evil; so that the reverend persons were not content with the state of the law as it now stood, but wished again to impose those restrictions, from which the Catholics had been relieved. He would now quote from that book, with the letter of which those reverend persons were doubtless better acquainted than he, though they seemed to forget its spirit, and would wish them to remember that it was better to take the beam out of one's own eye, before it was attempted to take the mote out of the eye of another.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellsnotwithstanding what had fallen from the noble lord, was bold to say that no description of persons was less deficient in charity than those who had been the subject of his comments. He wished to be liberal, wherever liberality could be properly dispensed. Liberality was a very great virtue; but it was not to be exercised at the expense of religion.
Lord Dudley and Wardsaid, that the petitioners against Catholic emancipation addressed the House as if they supposed the Catholic Association still continued its meetings. He would, however, remind them, that the bill for suppressing that
1272
Association having received the royal assent no such body was now in existence.
Lord Kingbegan by alluding to the petition from Ely. In that petition it was asserted, that the church of Rome procured the prostration of the mind and will of the people to the clergy. He at first wondered from whom the reverend petitioners had stolen this fine phrase; but he believed it was taken from a charge of the Bishop of London. He wished the right reverend prelate were present to defend his property; for he had said, that the prostration of the mind and will was the very temper in which a Christian ought always to be. In another part of the petition, certain members of the Roman Catholic church were styled "factious demagogues." Now, this sort of vague charge was one which might be applied any way and any where. It might, perhaps, just as well have been applied to the members of that House. A great many petitions had been presented from the clergy, which had better have been deposited with the chronicles of the church, and there left to rot. At present they came forward like an old medicine of the shops called album græcum, which might be found about the corners of cathedrals. This medicine was once in high repute, like "No Popery," which was now rejected by the stomachs of the public, as much as album græcum would be if it were administered.
Lord Calthorpeacknowledged, that sentiments appeared in some of the petitions, which were not consistent with humanity and justice. As to the petition alluded to, it was subscribed by most respectable persons, some of whom he personally knew. Of two of them he could particularly speak. One was a person as hostile to bigotry as any Christian minister he ever knew. The other was a blessing to the church, and an ornament to the university of which he was a member. It would, therefore, be wrong to form an estimate of such persons, from the sentiments which appeared in those petitions. He believed that nothing but the esteem, which was justly due to the character of the individuals who had petitioned against granting the Catholic claims, could have induced parliament so long to have resisted those claims. If the arguments against emancipation had been left to themselves, they would not have prevailed with parliament for a single year: but, a credit had been most willingly given to the

1273
character of the opponents of the Catholic claims, which certainly never would have been given to their arguments. Since he last addressed the House on this subject, he had received letters from various parts of the country, expressing surprise that he had given it as his opinion that the Catholic religion was changed. He wished to clear up this misunderstanding. He had distinctly stated, that he thought the Catholic religion, as to its form of faith, still remained unchanged; but that, as regarded the laity, the influence of the clergy was greatly diminished. When the subject should come before their lordships, he would show, from the conduct of the Catholics themselves, the truth of his opinion. Before he sat down he must say, that many of the petitions which had come before the House, were drawn up in utter ignorance of the subject to which they related. Many who supported the Catholic claims did so, not only because they considered that the concession proposed was in justice due to the Catholics, but because they considered that emancipation would be the most effectual means of undermining the Catholic religion altogether. Many persons, who perfectly agreed with the reverend petitioners in their notions of the Catholic faith, and in their wishes for the permanent security of the church of England, still conceived, that the restrictions of the Roman Catholics in Ireland acted as a common bond of union, which served only to generate hostility to the Protestant system. Those who considered the granting of the Catholic claims a matter of importance to the country, could not but feel satisfaction at seeing the description of petitions which were presented against those claims. The nature of the petitions, and the small number from which they came, proved what the state of public opinion was with respect to this question. But he was very sorry to observe the language in which some of these petitions were drawn up. The opinions of some petitioners were expressed in a manner never known before; and he regretted that the church should, in some measure, he brought into discredit by them.
The Bishop of Chesterpresented a petition from the dean and chapter of Chester, against the Catholic claims. He observed, that the seal of the chapter was not affixed to the petition; but, if it could not be received as the petition of the dean and chapter, he begged leave to present
1274
it as the petition of the persons who had signed it. Before it was read, he would make a few observations on the comments which had been thrown out on the petitions presented from the clergy. He made bold to say, that a few rash words which might have found their way into those petitions, were not more calculated to afford a just idea of the character of the clergy than words occasionally employed in their lordships' House were fit to be quoted as expressing the opinions and feelings of that assembly. He should be very far from judging of the character of their lordships' House by the speeches of some of its members, who might choose to draw metaphors from a dog-kennel. Noble lords had charged the clergy with intolerance; but he would distinctly charge those noble lords with greater intolerance. They pretended not to oppose the presenting of petitions from the clergy; but, the method which they pursued was a much more effectual one of excluding them from the right of petitioning. Nothing was better calculated to attain this end than the attacking the petitions one by one, and picking out here and there any objectionable expression which might appear in them. Many of their lordships had stated, that this question was to be considered merely as a political one; but the clergy, as it was their duty, looked upon it as a religious question. If they apprehended that an attack was made upon the establishment of which they were a part, and if they entered upon the discussion of this question with religious feelings, he could not think the expression of their sentiments blameable. At a future time, he should be prepared to show that the Catholic church was still as intolerant as ever. Far from him be any spirit of hostility; but, it was his duty to state his conviction on the subject. The most intolerant doctrines, were still maintained by the Catholics. Reproaches had been thrown out against the Bishop of London, for having given to the public that expression which had been so particularly pointed out in the petition. This was not the first time that the charge of the right reverend prelate had been misrepresented. That right reverend prelate recommended to all christians to cultivate the prostration of the mind and heart to the Creator of all things; but, he did not recommend them, as the Roman Catholic priests did, to prostrate the mind and will to a temporal authority, falsely presumed to be infallible.

1275
This, he conceived, completely did away with the argument of the noble lord. He did not know in what school the noble lord had studied his political tactics; but he would tell him, that venting sarcasms against the clergy was an artifice to which the enemies of pure religion (amongst whom he did not mean to class the noble lord) had had recourse in every age of Christ's church. He was satisfied that these sarcasms would not be attended with any success in that House; but it was impossible to hear them repeated night after night, and remain silent. If these personal attacks upon the bishops were parliamentary, it was time that the rules of parliament should be changed; but, if they were not parliamentary, then he called on the House to protect them from such missiles by the shield of its authority. They held their seats in that House by a tenure which was both legally and morally not less strong, than that by which the noble lords opposite held theirs; and they belonged to a body of men whom their lordships would find out one day, as their ancestors had found before them, that they ought to treat with respect, and not with contumely [hear, hear].
Lord Kingsaid, that the right reverend prelate had charged that side of the House, and himself in particular, with a spirit for taking to pieces the petitions of the clergy, which was quite unprecedented. But if this was not done formerly, it was because their petitions were not filled with such sentiments of bigotry and intolerance as those of the present day. The right reverend prelate had insinuated that he was not a friend to the church of England. He was not a friend to the church of England, whilst it encouraged intolerance, and pluralities, and non-residents, and all the other abuses which at present existed in it. Out of 11,000 parishes in England, upwards of 7,000 were held by non residents, and only somewhat under 4,000 by resident clergy. And, it was because they were conscious and ashamed of this circumstance, that the annual returns on this subject were kept back, or at least he was unable to find them. He wished that those champions for the almost apostolic purity of the church—
The Duke of Newcastlerose to order. He was not aware that there was any question before the House regarding the purity of the church.
Lord Kingadmitted that there was not a question before the House on that sub-
1276
ject; but there was a petition from the clergy before it—his observations upon the language of which, had been met by an assertion of the purity of the church; and he contended, that that assertion could not be maintained, while those abuses which he was pointing out were unremoved.
The Earl of Liverpoolwould put it to the candour of the House, whether there ever was a period when the duties of the church were more purely administered than at present, and whether a most important change for the better had not taken place in the administration of those duties? Without going into details on this subject, he felt himself called to say thus much, in consequence of the observations which the noble lord had thought proper to make.
The Bishop of Chesterwished to say one word in explanation. He did not mean to insinuate, that the noble lord was an enemy to the church of England: what he had said was, that when he indulged in sarcasms against the clergy, he was unconsciously using the very means by which the enemies of religion endeavoured to overturn it. While he was on his legs, he would take that opportunity of informing the noble lord, that the annual returns of the resident and nonresident clergy had been made to the privy-council. He might, therefore, see them, if he pleased; or if not, it was by the privy-council that they were kept back. It was a notorious fact, that the residents were greatly on the increase. Out of 670 parishes in his diocess, there were only 40 in which the incumbents did not reside; and they did not reside in these because it was impossible for them to do so. For this state of things the merit was due, not to him, but to his predecessor, the present bishop of Bath and Wells.
Lord Kingasked, if it was not a fact, that there were many parishes with nonresident clergymen?
The Bishop of Bath and Wellsanswered no, as to his diocess. He had visited every parish in it, and out of between six and seven hundred, there were but seventeen which had non-resident clergymen.
Lord Hollandagreed with the noble duke that this discussion was not regular. The motion before the House was, that the petition should lie on the table; but the discussion was occasioned by remarks upon an observation made in a former

1277
debate, and was, therefore, the natural consequence of a deviation from order. He could not help thinking that the merits of the church of England, and particularly its comparative merits with those of any other church, were not necessary to be discussed, in order that their lordships should decide, whether or not this petition was to lie upon the table. He should be extremely sorry that the question, whether or not their lordships would concede constitutional rights to the members of another church, was to be decided by the result of a comparison between it and the church of England; for in that case it would be impossible for any Protestant to doubt, for a moment, which way he was to decide. He had always considered this, not as a religious but a great political question, upon which they were bound to decide only with reference to the welfare of the community to which they belonged. He deprecated the idea that the introduction of this measure was to be considered as an attack upon the church of England, on the one side; whilst he wished it to be understood, that the noble lords who opposed it on the other side, were not defending the merits of the church of England, but were advocating the continuance of a monopoly of power (he did not use the phrase in an invidious sense) to themselves. He wished this distinction to be clearly understood, both in doors and out of doors.
The Earl of Liverpoolwished to remind the House out of what this discussion had arisen. It had proceeded from the unusual course adopted by noble lords of entering upon a debate on a petition: not on its merits, but on the particular terms in which it was drawn up. He was far from saying, if a petition were presented to their lordships which was couched in indecent language, that he would not object to its being laid upon the table; but he contended, that if the terms of every petition were to be discussed in this manner, it would, in its consequences, be extremely detrimental to the right of petitioning. With respect to the allusions which had been thrown out to the prejudice of the clergy, it was not for him to say (considering the quarter from which they had proceeded), that those who made them were enemies to the church; but he could not help observing, that, in making them, they did not manifest much friendship towards it.
The Lord Chancellordid not think he
1278
should discharge his duty, if he did not enter his protest, in as strong a manner as possible, against the practice of making observations of this nature on petitions being presented from the clergy, who had a right, under the constitution of the country, to petition their lordships on the subject of any measures before them. He did not want to have petitions from the reverend bench of bishops, or from any individuals of that House, but from the clergy and the laity at large. They ought to be, of course, couched in decent language; but, if their lordships were to observe upon every term contained in each petition, they would subject them to a trial which, not even their own debates, if dealt with in the same way, could bear. With respect to the measure alluded to in the present petition, he would take the liberty of saying for the clergy, that whatever faults some individuals might find with them, they had done their duty in giving their opinions upon this measure. A noble lord had complained, that he was said to have changed his opinion respecting the Roman Catholic religion: he (the Lord Chancellor) had to complain of communications having been made, in which he was said to have changed his opinion upon this question. He, therefore, took that opportunity of saying, that, so far from having changed his sentiments upon the subject, every successive event served to confirm him in the persuasion, that every man who wished to support the constitution in church and state, should go along with him in opposing the measure of Catholic emancipation.
Ordered to lie on the table.