masters. The shipwrights of Bristol had gone a little further, and had resorted to threats. The coopers of London had made all the workmen who would not obey the rules they laid down, uncomfortable. It was difficult to say exactly what they meant by "uncomfortable;" but, the consequence was, that all the workmen who had been made uncomfortable became members of the association. The

purpose of settling such amount of wages as would be a fair remuneration to the workmen. He knew it had been objected that this was not enough; but he thought it was safer to point out the description of association which was legal, than to specify all which were illegal, in doing which there was great danger either of putting in too much or of leaving out something which might be neces

these reasons it was, that he wished to see the law relating to combinations made stronger. He was no friend to the principle of the laws which had been repealed; he did not wish to see them re-enacted; but he wished that the common law, as it had stood before, should be again brought into force. This, he believed, would be quite sufficient for the purpose. By that law sufficient powers were given to the workmen for the preservation of their own interests; they were permitted to meet for the purpose of obtaining an increase of their wages; but if they went beyond this, and attempted to mix up any intimidation of others in their scheme, it was going too far. The object of the present bill was, to keep up this distinction and every thing beside was left to the operation of the common law. He thought the bill of last year went too far; because it gave the men an opportunity of controlling their masters in their trade, and opened to them the power of exercising a compulsion which was unjust and impolitic. The attachment which some workmen had to their masters was very strong; their affection to their families must of course be much stronger; and yet the influence which these societies exercised over them was found to be stronger than either; and induced the work

the utmost vengeance of parliament ought to be called down upon these combinations, and that rigour and severity were the best tests of power. For his part, he thought the best test of the power of government was shown in its clemency and moderation. He felt all the disadvantages which such a measure must bring with it; but he felt also that, great as those disadvantages were, it was better to endure them than to submit to the tyranny of the workmen.

Mr. Robertson declared, that the repeal of the combination laws would, in his view, be attended with the most mischievous consequences to the workmen themselves.

Mr. Hume said, that the right hon. gentleman had given the workmen any thing rather than fair play. None of the abuses of which the masters complained so loudly were at all proved in the evidence before the House; and at least the existing system had this advantage over the state of law which was gone by, namely, that there were no more cases of illegal oaths, no more secret societies. No doubt there had been faults on both sides; but the masters were at least as much to blame as the mechanics; and he denied that any proof of violent conduct, to any material extent, had been given. In the

complaints of the master paper-makers, the masters were decidedly in the wrong. So with the coopers. There had been no violence; and the House could not legislate to prevent petty feuds and differences. The journeymen shipwrights had offered to meet the masters half-way; the latter had refused; and, he repeated, that the men were entitled to as full a hearing-and their petitions had not had it-as their employers. And after all, what occasioned these existing combinations, with which the House was called upon to deal so vigorously?-The cornlaws the combination of the land-owners, which had raised every necessary of life within the last three years from 30 to 60 per cent in price. It was a little hard to allow the corn grower to bring his commodity as he chose into the market, and to shut out all competition, that he might obtain his own price for it; and then to punish the workman, who was compelled to buy this artificially-raised commodity of the landholders, for making what efforts he could to get the best possible price for his own. For, if the masters were to be protected by the bill of the right hon. gentleman, the men had a right to protection too. And, had they this? They had not. If the masters combined to give their men only half a sufficient rate of wages, and had strength enough to starve them into taking it, there was nothing in the bill to prevent them from doing so. And, how could this danger be met by the workmen, except by counter-combination; for which, short of carrying them to the extent of violence, he still thought they ought to have the fullest permission? Besides this, he objected to the discretion which the bill proposed to lodge in magistrates; and thought it would open the door to every kind of injustice and abuse.

The House then went into the committee.

Mr. Calcraft objected, generally, that sufficient investigation had not been given to the subject. It was, further, a fault in his opinion, that in the preamble of the bill, there was no declaration of the opinion of the House against combinations altogether, whether of masters or workmen. An act of legislation had passed in the last session. That act, he would admit, had been introduced with the best intentions, but it had not produced the effects expected from it, and therefore they were now called upon to consider the measure

before them. He hoped that as the subject was again under consideration, the committee would carefully watch every clause as it went on, so as effectually to guard against the mischiefs which had resulted from the last act.

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

Mr. Hobhouse opposed the clause as being too undefined. It was the more objectionable, as the decisions upon it were to be left to the discretion of a magistrate, and not to a jury. He could not concur in the remarks which had been made upon the committee of last session. That committee had proceeded in the most deliberate manner. It was unfair to say, that they had come to a hasty conclusion on the subject of their inquiries.

Mr. Huskisson said, that the bill of last year was not calculated to give such full effect to those resolutions as was intended by the present measure. He had no intention of acting harshly towards the operative mechanics. If any hon. member would point out any clause of this bill which operated with unnecessary severity upon any class, he would oppose it. The object of the bill was, to protect the weak against the strong-to afford to the man who chose to give his labour for a certain value, that protection against the combination of large bodies to which every man was entitled.

After some further conversation, the committee divided: For the clause 90. Against it 18.

Sir F. Burdett objected to this bill, first, because sufficient time had not been allowed for a trial of the bill which it was intended to amend and repeal; secondly, because its language was vague and indefinite; and thirdly, because it deprived the people of the trial by jury, and left them to the arbitrary discretion of a single magistrate. He maintained that the last clause was as vague as vague could be; and observed that "jus vagum" was, in the opinion of every wise lawyer, the ne plus ultra of tyranny.

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

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

CONDUCT OF MR. KENRICK IN THE CASE OF FRANKS.] Mr. Denman, in his place, charged Mr. Kenrick, one of his majesty's justices of Great Session in Wales, a justice of the peace for Surrey, and recorder of Dover, "that he preferred before a neighbouring magistrate a charge of felony against a poor man named John Franks, without any sufficient proof of the same; on which charge the said John Franks was committed to prison, where he remained till he was discharged at the sessions by the verdict of a jury, acquitting him instantly on the same evidence which had been adduced by Mr. Kenrick as the ground of his commitment: - That, during the imprisonment of the said John Franks, Mr. Kenrick made repeated offers to procure a lenient sentence to be passed upon him, provided he would plead guilty to the charge; and applied to the clerk of the Peace, and the chairman of sessions, to permit him to withdraw the prosecution, alleging Franks's good characteras a reason for wishing to do so: - That shortly afterwards, in answer to some public animadversion on his own conduct, he wrote and published a libellous letter against the said John Franks, calumnia ting his character, and imputing to him crimes of which he was not guilty."

A copy of the charge was ordered to be communicated to Mr. Kenrick, and Mr. Denman gave notice, that he would move to-morrow for the attendance of Henry Peters, esq. Mr. H. Drummond, Edward Arnold, John Franks, and Esther Franks, as witnesses, in Franks's case, against Mr. Kenrick.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, June 28.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained some circumstances which, by taking this booty out of the general law of prize; and thereby causing a particular appeal to the lords of thet Teasury, had, of necessity, delayed the distribution far beyond the usual time. He eulogized the assiduity of the duke of Wellington and Mr. Arbuthnot, to whom the Treasury had referred the business for final regulation. It was not till the 1st June that the persons interested had furnished the list of claimants; upon which alone any distribution could take place.

Dr. Lushington said, there had never been an instance in which the distribution of prize-money had been so conducted. No sooner were the duke of Wellington and Mr. Arbuthnot appointed trustees, than they took the steps the best calculated to cause delay. In all other cases, trustees of prize-money had kept up a constant communication with the claimants. The parties had great reason to complain of the contempt and disregard shown to them by the duke, whose conduct, especially in the impudent letters sent by him in answer to sir T. Hislop, one of the chief claimants, was contrary to all precedent. He knew the facts of this case, having professionally advised with many of the parties. He put it to ministers to say, if there was not at one time an intention of appointing the of Mr. Arbuthnot as agent; and if that intention had not been put aside upon an opinion given by the law officers of the Crown against the legal capacity of the young gentleman to discharge that duty.

son

The Chancellor of the Exchequer begged to say, that the son of Mr. Arbuthnot was never appointed an agent in this case. The Attorney-General said, that as the Crown had relinquished its share of the prize-money in favour of the army, it had a right to appoint what trustees it pleased for the management of the property. The trustees had been extremely anxious to effect the distribution, and nothing but the complexity of the business had led to the delay.

Ordered to lie on the table.

CONDUCT OF MR. KENRICK IN THE CASE OF FRANKS.] Mr. Tremayne rose to present a petition from Mr. Kenrick, stating that he had been taken by surprise by the order of the House to examine witnesses upon a chargéagainst him, and pray

to prepare for his defence, in the case of Franks.

Mr. Denman said, he was by no means certain, that the petition ought to make any difference in the course which he intended to pursue. The examination of the witnesses was relative to certain papers before the House, and of which he had given due notice a fortnight ago. With reference to Mr. Kenrick, he wished to throw no impediment in the way of his having every advantage in drawing up instructions for hiscounsel. He should therefore propose, that the witnesses should attend on Thursday. It had been intimated to him last night, that it was Mr. Kenrick's intention to call witnesses in his behalf. There would be no time to proceed in such a course during the present session; and if this were the wish of Mr. Kenrick, it would certainly lead to a different arrangement. But he did not think it ought to postpone all inquiry until the next session; it ought only to postpone his answer, and in the mean time the inquiry ought to proceed. It was not certain, that after hearing the whole case, Mr. Kenrick

day, Mr. Kenrick had received no official information upon the subject; and had therefore had no opportunity of instructing counsel. It might be essential to Mr. Kenrick to call witnesses as to the character of Franks. Mr. Kenrick might be able to prove, that the general bad character of Franks justified those suspicions upon which he had acted as a magistrate. It was impossible for the House to hear the charge against Mr. Kenrick, and suffer thedefence to be postponed for six months. The House had no alternative but that of postponing the case altogether, or conducting it at once to its conclusion. If the charge should be substantiated, a case of great moral misconduct would be made out against Mr. Kenrick; but, why should not the inquiry be pursued in a court of justice? When it was considered that many of the facts had been known as far back as October 1824, and all of them before the 1st of February last, surely the learned gentleman was culpable in allowing Mr. Kenrick to go a circuit with this charge hanging over him, and to bring forward his accusations only at this ex

nesses at all. Great inconvenience might arise from postponing the examination of witnesses, for it was possible that they might not be forthcoming next session. The papers upon which these proceedings were grounded had been, for a long time, in the hands of members, and must have been well known to Mr. Kenrick. He should therefore move, that the witnesses be called in on Thursday.

Mr. Secretary Peel thought the question important, whether the House ought to institute any inquiry upon the charge and affidavits. It might not, however, be necessary to have any discussion upon that point; but, the most important question was, that as the charge involved two accusations, each of which might be tried before the ordinary tribunals, whether the House ought to institute any proceedings. If Mr. Kenrick did prefer any charges against Franks from malicious motives, that alone would subject him to prosecution. If Mr. Kenrick had published a malignant libel against Franks, why did not Franks institute legal proceedings against Kenrick? Would it be consistent with justice, for the House to institute a prosecution against Mr. Kenrick, which would compel him to disclose his defence, while he was still open to a criminal pro

secution at law? Until one o'clock that VOL. XIII.

learned gentleman proceeded in his motion, it would be impossible to say when the session would terminate; and he, for one, was of opinion, that it would be highly improper to keep parliament sitting so long for this one object.

Mr. Denman expressed his desire to meet, as far as he could, what appeared to him to be the prevailing sentiment of the House, as to the inconvenience of proceeding further in this case during the present session. Under this feeling he should withdraw his motion; although he thought it was hardly possible for the right hon. gentleman to preserve his countenance, when he asserted that Mr. Kenrick had that day, for the first time, been made acquainted with the charge. He should, however, certainly bring it forward next session; unless, in the mean time, circumstances should occur very materially to change his view of the case. The motion was then withdrawn.

CONDUCT OF MR. KENRICK, IN THE CASE OF CANFOR.] The House having resolved itself into a committee of the whole House, upon the petition of M. м. Canfor against Mr. Kenrick,

Mr. Denman said, the committee for which he moved some time ago in order

to examine into the case of Mr. Canfor 4 X

1

having now resumed, he presented himself to their notice, for the purpose of submitting certain resolutions, founded on the evidence which had been adduced in support of that case. He congratulated

solution or vote, either of censure or applause, in respect of Mr. Kenrick's conduct. It was to him matter of great satisfaction, that hitherto they had expressed no opinion on the question; and that the evidence which had been taken had now been put into the hands of members, long enough to allow them to form a much more deliberate judgment than they could have arrived at immediately after a meagre debate, or under the recent impression of an eloquent speech from a learned counsel. As some of the questions that had been addressed to the witness seemed to have been directed to the getting-up of this petition, he begged in the first place to say, that he had never heard of the petition until it was put into his hands. The charge which it contained was not brought forward alone, but in conjunction with another charge; and, in his view of the case, the two charges together formed matter of grave accusation against Mr. Kenrick. He now merely alluded to the case of Franks-postponed as he considered it to be, to the next session-in order that he might not be met by the assertion, that he had brought forward an isolated case against Mr. Kenrick. That case charged Mr. Kenrick with having, in the execution of his duty, conducted himself in a manner that had exposed himself to great animadversion. He (Mr. Denman) was quite aware, that he stood in a most peculiar situation with regard to his auditory on this occasion; for he could not help considering the House of Commons as a special jury of magistrates in a case of the kind. A large proportion of the House consisted of gentlemen who filled similar situations to Mr. Kenrick's in the magistracy. It was impossible, almost, that they therefore should not feel something like sympathy for Mr. Kenrick. They might, indeed, from the same cause, be the better enabled to judge of the motives which had influenced the conduct of that gentleman; and far was it from his desire to deprive any one in Mr. Kenrick's situation of the consolation of such a sympathy. With Mr. Canfor he had had no communication until he came to their bar. He thought that upon his testimony the case might very well be left. He was aware, that

considerations would have no effect upon the weight and credit of his testimony, unless there was room to suspect him either of fraud or falsehood in the delivery of his evidence. Now, when this witness came forward to be examined at their bar, he was evidently in a weak and nervous state. This individual came there, endeavouring to screw his courage to a higher pitch than he had ever before found to be necessary; and perceived himself to be in a situation that he had never previously experienced, surrounded as he was by so many gentlemen of the highest rank and distinction in the country. As to flippancy of manner, however, he would take leave to say, that he had never known a simple country witness, for example, after being subjected to a severe cross-examination, who did not leave the witness-box a much more impertinent person than he was when he first came into it. In answer to the statements of Canfor, Mr. Kenrick had himself presented a petition. Now, such facts as had been stated on the one side, and were admitted on the other, must be assumed to be true; and on such, hon. gentlemen might safely proceed to form a deliberate judgment. There were many such admitted facts in this case, which he would presently notice. What had been the situation of this Canfor in the month of May last year? He had a quantity of sheep, marked with a particular mark, feeding on a certain common. He lost about twenty of these sheep, includinga particular ram of the South-down breed, of great value. On discovering his loss, he went in search of his sheep, at that particular season of the year when it was most inconvenient for a farmer to leave his premises. After some ten days or a fortnight's rambling about the country, he found one of his rams, under circumstances indicative, on his part, of no small ingenuity. He found on Westwoodcommon, a man who had seen such a ram, and having managed to get from him the whole history of the animal, he traced it to the possession of one Beale, residing at a considerable distance from Westwood-common. In a field of Beale's he found his ram, with its fleece shorn. Canfor saw Beale, and told him, that if it