acts were passed, to enforce compliance with the regulations in the statute of wages, of the spirit of which some idea may be formed from the fact of its having been made felony, by a statute, passed in 1425 (3 Henry VI., c. 1), for masons to confederate or combine together to raise their wages above the statutory rate. And though this barbarous law has long ceased to be acted upon, it was not effaced from the Statute-book till 1824, and may be considered as the parent stock from which the statute against combinations was derived.

This statute (39th and 40th Geo. III., cap. 105), after declaring all combinations to obtain an advance of wages to be unlawful, went on to enact, that any workman who entered into a combination, either verbal or in writing, to obtain an advance of wages, to lessen the hours or time of working, to decrease the quantity of work, to persuade, intimidate, or by money or otherwise, endeavour to prevail on any other workman not to accept employment; or who should, for the purpose of obtaining an advance of wages, endeavour to intimidate or prevail on any person to leave his employment, or to prevent any person employing him: or who, being hired, should, without any just or reasonable cause, refuse to work with any other workman; such workman should, on the oath or oaths of one or more credible witnesses, before any two justices of the peace, within three calendar months after the offence had been committed, be committed to, and confined in, the common gaol within their jurisdiction, for any time not exceeding three calendar months; or, at the discretion of such justices, should be committed to some house of correction, within the same jurisdiction, there to remain, and be kept at hard labour, for any time not exceeding two calendar months.

The extreme severity of this enactment must strike every one. Justices of the peace belong to the order of masters; and, however respectable individually, they generally possess a full share of their peculiar feelings and prejudices. To invest two of them with the power of imprisoning workmen

COMBINATIONS.

for three months without the intervention of a jury, certainly intrusting them with an authority very liable t abused, and which, if it were to be exercised at all, sh have been placed in hands less likely to act under a The workmen could, it is true, appeal to the quarter sessio but as this was only an appeal from one set of justice another, it was of little importance. There were a variet other clauses, discharging all workmen from attending meeting for the purpose of combining, from contributing defray the expenses incurred by persons acting contrar this Act, and compelling offenders to give evidence, &c. under the above-mentioned penalties.

A very strong feeling had been spreading for many ye not only among the workmen, but also among the more in ligent portion of the masters, that the attempts to enforce provisions of the Combination Act had done more harm t good. And in unison with this feeling, a Committee of House of Commons was appointed, in 1824, to inquire the operation of the laws for preventing combinations am workmen, and for preventing their emigration, and the portation of machinery. This committee collected a g deal of evidence on these subjects. And the impres made by this evidence, and the growing conviction of impolicy of the combination laws were such, that a bill their repeal, introduced by Mr. Hume, the chairman of committee, was soon after carried through both Houses, passed into a law.

This measure has not, however, had all the effect which s of its supporters anticipated. And it must be admitted, the workmen have in many instances discovered a refrac and turbulent disposition; and that there is hardly a brand industry in which they have not resorted to strikes, entered into combinations, not unfrequently accompanied violence, to raise their wages, and to dictate to their mas the mode in which they should be employed. Much, howe as we regret, and ready as we are to condemn, many of t proceedings, we are very far from thinking that they form

valid reason either for the revival of the Combination Act, or for the enactment of any similar statute.

Nothing can apparently be more reasonable than that workmen should be allowed freely to combine or associate together, for the purpose of adjusting the terms on which they will sell their labour. Wages, like everything else, should always be left to be regulated by the fair and free competition of the parties in the market, without being interfered with by the legislature. "The property," says Adam Smith, "which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him fron employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbours, is a plain violation of the most sacred property." But it is false to affirm that workmen are allowed to dispose of their labour in any way they please, if they be prevented from concerting with each other the terms on which they will sell it. Capacity to labour is to the poor what stock is to the capitalists. Now a hundred or a thousand capitalists may form themselves into a company, or combination, take all their measures in common, and dispose of their property as they may, in their collective capacity, judge most advantageous for their interests:-And why should not a hundred or a thousand labourers be allowed to do the same by their stock ? Of all the species of property which a man can possess, the faculties of his mind and the powers of his body are most particularly his own. And to fetter him in the mode in which he is to exercise or dispose of these faculties and powers, is a manifest encroachment on the most inviolable of all rights, and can be justified only by an overwhelming necessity.

It is easy, however, to show that, in point of fact, no such necessity ever did or can exist. The wages of any set of workmen who enter into a combination for the purpose of raising them, must be either-1st, below the natural and

is certainly in no respect injurious to any righ r masters. It is a contradiction to pretend that mas e any right or title to the services of free workmen in at of the latter not choosing to accept the price off n for their labour. And as the existence of a combina procure a rise of wages shows that they have not so cho is a proof of the want of all concord and agreement en the parties, so it is also a proof that the workmen ly entitled to enter into it; and that, however injur ir proceedings may be to themselves, they do not encr the privileges or rights of others. Not only, therefor oluntary combination, unaccompanied by violence, a rcise of the right of judging for themselves on the workmen, but when it is entered into for the purpos sing wages that are unduly depressed, its object is pr a desirable. Few masters willingly consent to

ges; and the claim of one or of a few individuals fo rance of wages is likely to be disregarded so long as t lows continue to work at the old rates. It is only v › whole, or the greater part, of the workmen belongin articular master or department of industry combine toget when they act in that simultaneous manner which is equ it to a combination, and refuse to continue to work with ceiving an increase of wages, that it becomes the immed erest of the masters to comply with their demand. nce it is obvious, that without the existence either o en and avowed, or of a tacit and real combination, work ould not be able to obtain a rise of wages by their

exertions, but would be left to depend on the competition of their masters.

It is, however, abundantly certain that this competition will always raise wages that have been unduly depressed. And it was from not adverting to this fact, that the influence of the combination laws in depressing wages was so very greatly exaggerated. When the wages paid to the labourers in a particular employment are improperly reduced, the capitalists who carry it on obviously gain the whole amount of this reduction, over and above the common and ordinary rate of profit obtained by the capitalists who carry on other employments. But a discrepancy of this kind could not be of long continuance. Additional capital would immediately begin to be attracted to the department where wages were low and profits high; and its owners would be obliged, in order to obtain labourers, to offer them higher wages. It is clear, therefore, that if wages be unduly reduced in any branch of industry, they will be raised to their proper level, without any effort on the part of the workmen, by the competition of the capitalists. And looking generally to the whole of the employments carried on in the country, we do not believe that the combination laws had any sensible influence over the average and usual rate of wages. That they occasionally kept them at a lower rate in some very confined businesses than they would otherwise have sunk to, may be true; though for that very reason they must have equally elevated them in others. This, however, is no good reason why the workmen engaged in employments in which wages happen from any cause to be unduly depressed, should be interdicted from adopting the only means in their power of doing themselves justice. When they are allowed freely to combine, their combination may occasion an immediate rise of wages; but when their combination is prevented, more or less time must always elapse before the high profits caused by the undue reduction of wages become generally known, and consequently before capital can be attracted from other businesses. And hence it is clear, that