question seemed to us to be of the most vicious character; and we took occasion to intimate this to our readers immediately after the repeal. A new mode of managing public interests, is, however, now the fashion. Men, who have gone from the nursery to the school, and from the school to the lawyer's chambers, or the news paper-office-men living apart from, and having no acquaintance with, the world-having little knowledge of human nature, and none of the mechanism and working of trade and public interests generally-these are now regarded as the only men who know anything of the science of government. Things are only thought to be true, in proportion as they are paradoxical in their appearance. It is first assumed that all men are alike, and that all nations are in similar circumstances, and have similar and common interests; it is then assumed that men are always actuated by interest only, and that if left to themselves they will never take a wrong step in prosecuting their interests; it is next assumed that everything which takes money out of, or does not bring money into, the public exchequer, is pernicious; and that the lowest point of universal cheapness will carry us to the highest point of national prosperity. It is then assumed that regulations-the great characteristic of civilized society, are injurious-and that the farther we retrograde towards the condition of a horde of savages, the more beneficial it will be for us. The jargon is easily acquired, and a schoolboy may chatter it with as much volubility as the oldest philosopher. Under such a system, a youth of fifteen is as competent to stand at the helm, as such a man as the Earl of Liverpool.

The following, perhaps, will give our readers some idea of what a thorough-bred Political Economist of the present day is. He goes to examine a steam-engine, and the machinery to which it gives operation. He looks first at the fire." Good Heaven!" he exclaims, "what a consumption of coals!-The fire is ruinous, and must be quenched." He then glances at the pump for supplying the water for condensation.

"The

fools," he groans, "what a loss of power! The pump must be destroyed." Then he turns to the fly-wheel. "Worse and worse," he cries; "half

the power of the engine is lost on these useless things." He knocks off the flywheel, and then looks at the connecting-rod. "Ah!" he sighs, "what an enormous waste of iron is here! It is five times too long, and too thick.". He cannot discover the connexion which one wheel has with another, therefore he destroys half of them. He cannot see that friction ought to be allowed for, or that strength and nature of materials ought to be inatters of calculation. He can only find utility in those things which seem more immediately to finish the work; and to benefit them, he demolishes that which renders them useful.—He lays the whole in ruins.

Setting aside competency, the honesty of those who took the lead in the repeal of the Combination Laws, was very far from being free from suspicion. Some of the principal of them had long been leading political agitators. They had in hand various schemes of sweeping innovation; they were unable to obtain the favour of the higher classes, and they were anxious to enjoy that of the lower ones at almost any price, to enable them to carry their schemes into effect. The latter were forsaking them, and the repeal seemed to be a most promising project for winning them back, for freeing them from other influence, and for gaining a complete ascendency over them. Mr Hume was the great man in the business-the ostensible parent of the repeal. Perhaps no man in Europe was worse qualified than he was for undertaking a measure so important and complex-which bore so powerfully and comprehensively upon the relations of society, and the general interests of the nation. Notwithstanding all this, the repeal, as we have already said, was sanctioned by both sides of Parliament.

The Combination Laws were repealed; immediately afterwards the working classes proved that the reasoning which had procured the repeal, was, in the main, a tissue of falsehoods and absurdities; when Parliament met again, it was called upon to re-enact practically, these very laws, as a matter of absolute necessity. There are two or three points in this, which, we think, deserve serious consideration.

We immagine, in the first place, that, in this repeal, the general principles upon which this nation has always

been governed, were altogether depart ed from. We have, as a people, always hitherto been taught to venerate our laws and institutions, and to regard, with extreme suspicion and dislike, all attempts to alter or abolish them. We have been instructed to look less at the theory of things, than at their working. This has been uniformly inculcated by our general government, and blind must he be who cannot perceive that it forms the principal bulwark of our national possessions. Our Parliaments and Ministries have always professed to make it their grand ruling principle. An existing law of large operation, could only be altered or abolished on these grounds: theoretic objections were to be disregarded; smallness of utility was to have but little weight; and distinct, abundant, and conclusive evidence of the existence of injurious defect and real evil, was to be produced. If, upon such evidence, the alteration or abolition were undertaken, it was proceeded in with the utmost caution and circumspection; it was gradually carried into effect, step by step, that it might give no shock to the habits of the country, and occasion no derangement in our complicated system. This may have appeared to retard our progress, but we believe it has accelerated it. Our pace has been regular; we have made no false steps; we have taken no wrong paths; we have kept in the high road, and thereby have avoided all the stoppages which wild attempts to strike across the fields, and to leap hedges and ditches, would have made in our journey. That we have travelled by the wisest route, and at the quickest speed practicable, seems to be proved by the distance at which all other nations are behind us.

This sound and constitutional mode of conducting the affairs of England, was, we say, departed from in the repeal of the Combination Laws. The real question was this-Had these laws operated to sink, below the proper point, the wages of our labourers? The history of the country, and the experience of every one, replied in the negative. In good times, many of the working men of manufacturing and trading places, could earn as much in five of the working days of the week, as would both support their families, and enable them to spend the sixth in idleness and dissipation. If, in bad times, wages were too low, this was,

in general, evidently owing to the inability of masters to pay more, and not to the Combination Laws. Wages had, upon the whole, advanced, and the working classes of the time were enjoying a greater share of the necessaries and comforts of life, than had been enjoyed by those of former generations. This was not a matter of doubt-it required no Farliamentary Committee and witnesses to bring it to light-it was before the eyes of the nation at large. The real question was, however, put aside-theory was the great thing looked at-it was not because the Combination Laws produced proved evils, but it was because they were condemned by the Political Economists, that sentence was pronounced against them. Of course, no attempts were made to expunge their pernicious parts, and remedy their defects; they were, in effect, torn out of the Statute-Book.

In the second place, it was one of the leading doctrines of the Economists, that these Laws ought not to exist. They proclaimed them to be a great national evil, and declared that the greatest public benefits would flow from their abolition. Sheet upon sheet of argument was employed to establish this, and to prove that the working classes would, after such abolition, do exactly the reverse of what they have done. If a portion of that which is called Political Economy, have been thus decisively refuted, does it not throw very heavy discredit on the remainder? Does it not prove that the Economists are a very unfit race of men to be taken as guides in legisla tion?

In the third place, the repeal of the Combination Laws was not an insulated measure. It formed part and parcel of what is called the new system of Free Trade. It was the first great step towards establishing Free Trade-it was to release the market for labour from the restrictive system. The Ministry and the Legislature were in favour of it, and yet experience has proved that it was a very pernicious measure; that it stood upon false theory. Does not this prove that it is possible for the remainder of the new system of Free Trade to be equally erroneous-for the mighty changes which our commercial laws are undergoing, to be pregnant with calamities, rather than benefits? Does it not prove that these changes are procceded in at too rapid a pace,

and with too little of caution and examination? We hate this new method of rooting up laws and systems by wholesale; it savours too much of the maxims of revolutionary governments for us. Its fruits in other countries where it has been tried, convince us that it will not produce much benefit here. It is at variance with our national character and habits, and it is at variance with the principles on which this nation has always, except in ruinous times, been governed.

In the fourth place, although every one now knows that the repeal in question was a pernicious measure, and was carried into effect on mistaken principles,no one in the House of Commons has been heard to say "We erred grievously in the last session, and we must now be more wary." On the contrary, this house has seemed to regard the consequences of the repeal as so many reasons for plunging still deeper into Political Economy-into change and abolition. The whole blame is most unworthily cast upon poor Mr Hume, who, to do him justice, bears it in a manner worthy of a stoic. The very men who nominally assisted him to prepare his bill, point their fingers at him, and cry—" It was you who did it!" If we did not know the contrary, we should suppose that Mr Hume, single-handed, had carried the repeal in despite of every other Member of the Legislature.

It has long been well known, that political freedom depends for existence upon restrictive laws; it has been established in the last twelve months that there can be no Free Trade in labour without restrictive laws; and we suspect it will soon be proved that there can be no real freedom of general trade in this country without a restrictive system. We think the people of England will soon be prohibited from following various trades and occupations which they now follow; and that they will be thus prohibited, not by restrictive laws, but by the want of them not by the statutes of the realm, but by the interference of other nations. We think it the most monstrous of all monstrous things, to suppose that the trade and industry of this country can thrive without laws for their regulation and protection.

In the fifth place, the New Marriage Act, and the repeal of the Combination Laws, appear to us to have supplied conclusive evidence that it is much

more easy to alter than to amend the laws of England.

In all this, we are not arguing that laws and systems should never be altered or abolished. It would be preposterous in us to do so. The whole that we contend for is-adherence to the old and constitutional mode of altering and abolishing. If defects, errors, abuses, and evils, really exist, it can always be established by other evidence than abstract reasoning, the dreams of speculation, and the assump tions of untested theory; it can be established by direct proof, by complete demonstration. Let such proof and demonstration be produced, and then alter and abolish.

In all probability, the new Law against combinations will be known to our readers before these pages will reach them; but when we write, it is only in preparation, therefore we can give no opinion respecting it. We, however, fear from what has been said in the House of Commons, that it will be only a milk-and-water measure. It has been said, that it is not to revive the old laws, it is only to amend Mr Hume's bill. This seems odd and absurd enough, when the object of this bill was to destroy the laws against combinations, when it was support+ ed by the doctrine that combinations were laudable and beneficial, and when it has been asserted that it indirectly promulgated such doctrine. The new bill must be intended to undo that which the one of Mr Hume was intended to do, and did do; and if it be not very strong and comprehensive in its enactments, it will yield very lit→ tle benefit. The repeal has produced prodigious mischief ; it has given maturity to a spirit and a system, which feeble efforts, and a short period of time, will not render innoxious.

It is scarcely necessary for us to say that there is not a finer race of people in the universe than the working classes of Britain. All know this who have had opportunities for studying their character; and every one may know it who will take the trouble of ascertaining what rank this nation holds among other nations. That man would never be respected by us who could look at the wealth, glory, and greatness of this empire, and yet feel no admiration for the industry, bravery, and other good qualities of those to whom they are, in so large a degree, owing. But then it does not follow from this,

that these classes ought to be exempted from proper control. Several of their best qualities of heart render it the more essential for them to be un der due restrictions. With the idle, phlegmatic ass, we have scarcely any thing to do, save to dig at his flanks to urge him forward; but the mettlesome, high-spirited horse requires a different mode of management. With the latter, we have but little need of the spur, but we cannot possibly do without the bridle.

The language employed by the Economists was, of itself, sufficient to produce combinations of the worst character. These people represented that combinations were even laudable, and that they could scarcely ever produce evil; they asserted masters to be tyrants, and they led the labourers to believe that it was impossible for them to demand too high wages. According to them, the Combination Laws only existed to gratify the cupidity of the masters, and to enable them to enslave and hunger their workmen. They led the servants to place themselves on an equality with the masters, and to think that there was as much dependence on the one side as on the other; they said almost everything that could breed animosity between the two class es. Their anxiety to destroy the obedience of the one, and the authority of the other, was most remarkable. In Mr Brougham's pamphlet on the Edu cation of the People, we think the terms, servants and masters, are never used; it is constantly-the working classes and their employers. We conceive the idea of this to be an importation from America, and we are very sure that it is a useless one. Why are the good old English words-servant and master, to be struck out of our language? What have they done? Whose ox have they stolen, and whom have they defrauded? They can show as honest, unstained, and respectable a face, as any words in the dictionary, and we will not part with them for any American trumpery whatever. We will have no such innovations.

None of this was lost upon the labouring orders, and no sooner were the Laws repealed, than combinations, filled with the worst spirit, sprung up in all quarters. These combinations soon thought that it was their interest to do much more than to exact the highest wages possible; they thought it was their interest to place the mas

ters under the most grinding tyranny. It was now for the servant to command, and the master to obey. As the former might be pleased to dictate, the latter was to discharge or retain his workmen, to send his goods to market, and to conduct his business generally. This was not sufficient, and the combinations thought it their interest to place such labourers as did not belong to them, under the same tyranny; no man was to be suffered to work and eat, when it was their pleasure that he should be idle and starve. As the authorities of the realm could not well be employed to enforce all this, the combinations became the administrators of their own laws. They murdered and maimed without mercy; the masters were deprived of the control of their property; various trades were stopped and grievously injured, and a loss was occasioned of many millions. Perhaps Mr Brougham remarked this inverted state of things, and thought the terms-masters and servants, could not be used with any propriety; he ought, however, to have called the labourers, the employers.

The figure which Mr Hume and the host of economic writers cut upon this, was irresistibly ludicrous. They were spinning round upon their knees from one combination to another, and imploring them, with tears, to act differently." Now, do, good, sweet, dear people, behave better. You are destroying our characters-you are disgracing us-you are knocking up Political Economy. Remember what we said for you, and do not make storytellers of us. Parliament will be after you with a rod-you will be switched

you will be sent to bed supperless; and we protest we will turn our backs on you!" It was unavailing; the combinations were now masters, and were not to be dictated to, even by Mr Hume. It is due to this individual to say, that the business seems to have given him a slight surfeit of legislation; he has blushed divers times, and has shown much modesty during the session. The other people who insisted, in their speeches and reviews, so strenuously on the repeal, have gone on as usual; they have gone on dictating upon public affairs, and calling for innovation upon innovation, just as though the repeal had not covered them with shame, and proved them to be unworthy of being listened to.

That these combinations should be

14