In England, on the contrary, a constant strife has existed as to the right of settlement, and immense sums have been squandered in law proceedings, to determine whether parish No. 1 or No. 2 should support the unfortunate pauper; and even when a demand for labour existed,* so much apprehension has there been of permitting a settlement to be gained, that it has been customary to limit engagements to eleven months, in order that, before the expiration of the year, the man might be returned to his parish to take up a new departure in quest of employment. Uncertain of obtaining the means of subsistence elsewhere, and certain of support out of the poor rates at home, the indolent had every inducement to remain, even when there existed a reasonable prospect of employment abroad.† In some cases corporate privileges prevent him from exercising his trade, or calling, in a particular place, without the pay free and responsible to God alone for all that concerns himself. Hence arises the maxim that every one is the best and sole judge of his own private interest, and that society has no right to control a man's actions, unless they are prejudical to the common weal, or unless the common weal demands his co-operation. This doctrine is universally admitted in the United States."-De Tocqueville, Vol. I. p. 80. * “The enterprising man who has fled from the tyranny and pauperism of his parish, to some place where there is a demand and a reward for his services, is driven from a situation which suits him, and an employer to whom he is attached, by a labour rate, or some other device against non-parishioners, and forced back to his settlement to receive as alms a portion only of what he was carning by his own exertions. He is driven from a place where he was earning, as a free labourer, 128. or 148. a week, and is offered road work as a pauper at 6d. a day, or perhaps to be put up by the parish authorities at auction, and sold to the farmer who will take him at the lowest allowance.”—Report of Poor Law Commissioners, p. 86. "The Rev. R. R. Bailey, chaplain to the Tower, who has had extensive opportunities of observing the operation of the poor laws in the rural districts, states: I consider that the present law of settlement renders the peasant, to all intents and purposes, a bondsman! he is chained to the soil by the operation of the system. Very frequent instances have occurred to me of one parish being full of labourers, and suffering greatly from want of employment, whilst in another adjacent parish, there is a demand for labour. I have no doubt that if the labourers were freed from their present trammels, there would be such a circulation of labour as would relieve the agricultural districts."—Mr. Chadwick's Report. "If higher wages were offered from a distant parish to the labourers in your parish than they now get there, do you not think they would move out of it?— No, I am quite sure they would not, because, in addition to the usual parish relief, they have a very large charity there: it is some lands bequeathed in Edward the Sixth's time, for the repairs of the church, the roads, and the use of the poor. We expend that portion with relation to the poor in clothing, and coals, and rents, ment of a heavy fine. In others, the mode in which the business shall be performed is restricted,† while in others, the construction of the machine to be used is the subject of regulation. In other cases, the quantity of time to be devoted to labour has been restricted, and thus laws have been repeatedly passed fixing the hours of employment, under the title of "Factory Regulation Bills," justly characterized by Dr. Ure as "an act of despotism towards the trade, and of mock philanthropy towards the work-people who depend upon trade for support." At the present time efforts are being made to obtain the passage of a law limiting all factories to ten hours, the workmen believing most absurdly that they can earn as much by ten hours' labour as they now do by that of twelve.§ They have, most and some in educating their children. At times it occasions desperate swearing to get settlements in the parish, and at all times it is a very great hinderance to people going out of the parish. I do not blame them for remaining in the parish, and sticking to their settlements; I should do so myself, if I were in their place." "The toll paid upon every non-freeman's car entering the city at Holborn bridge, and the other city bars, is 2d. each time. For liberty to ply for hire in the city, it is necessary to obtain a license from Christ's Hospital, and to belong to the Carmens' Company. Within the last few days, (February, 1836,) the following iniquitous charges have been wrung from John Sumption, a poor carman :-"License from Christ's Hospital, Do. annual fee, "Freedom of the city £5, with fees to the officer of the court £9 118., "Freedom of the Carmens' Company, £ 6 6 0 17 4 14 11 0 31 9 8 £ 53 4 0 "At the Thames police office on Wednesday, the captain of the steamboat Adelaide, which has recently been running between Hungerford market and Greenwich, for the conveyance of passengers, to the great injury and annoyance of the Thames watermen, was fined £5, under a law of the Watermens' Company, for acting as master of the steamboat, without being duly approved and licensed by the Watermens' Company. It is further understood that this verdict will go to put a stop to any further steam conveyance to Greenwich, as it is the intention of the Watermens' Company not to grant a license to any steamboat which shall only run to Greenwich."-Westminster Review, July, 1834. "The insecurity of the wherries that ply for hire on the Thames is notorious; yet if a waterman wish to build a safe boat he is compelled to petition the Navigation Committee to be allowed so great a privilege."—London Review, No. V. P. 79. § At a meeting of the working men and their friends, held November 25, 1833, London and Westminster Review, April, 1836, p. 42. unquestionably, a right to limit their own hours, but not content therewith they are anxious to compel others to do the same.* Until recently no man could exercise a trade or calling who had not served an apprenticeship of seven years, and so strictly was the statute construed, that "It was adjudged that a coachmaker could neither himself make, nor employ a journeyman to make his coach wheels, but must buy them of a master wheelwright, this latter trade having been exercised in England before the passage of that statute. But a wheelwright, though he had never served an apprenticeship to a coachmaker, might either make himself, or employ a journeyman to make coaches, the trade of a coachmaker not being within the statute, because not exercised in England when it was passed."+ If an individual desire to be a seller or retailer of beer; a dealer in tea, in coffee, a soap maker, a starch maker, &c., he must pay for permission. If he desire to learn a trade, the law imposes a tax upon him, in the form of a stamp upon his indenture. If he wish to be a lawyer he must pay £100 for the privilege. In the United States, in a few cases, similar restrictions still exist. Tavern-keepers are compelled to pay for permission to exercise their calling, and no man can be an auctioneer without a license. In some States private banking is even prohibited! Freedom of thought and of discussion is highly promotive of the power of production. The man who is conscious of the right to think and act freely, is a superior being to him who it was resolved to form a society to endeavour "to assist the working classes to obtain for eight hours' work, the present full day's wages." The parties forgot that wages are to be estimated by the quantity of commodities they will command, and that if they worked only eight hours instead of twelve, they could produce only two thirds as much. Every diminution of production, whether resulting from diminution in the hours of labour, or from any other cause, is attended by a diminution in the proportion retained by the labourer. He has a diminished share of a diminished quantity, whereas with increased application he would obtain an increased proportion of an increased quantity. * Mr. Cowell states, that the proprietors of new and improved machinery advocated the reduction of the time, because those who owned old machinery could only compete with them by running their mills a greater number of hours. A limitation of the time of running their mills would have compelled the latter to stop work altogether. + M'Culloch, Principles, p. 370. t Preface to Factory Tables, p. 119. feels that he is liable to punishment for entertaining or expressing opinions different from those of his fellow men. It is impossible to restrain the action of the mind without injurious effect upon the character. Every individual in every community would desire to enjoy perfect freedom in this respect, and when one portion of society undertakes to prescribe what shall be the opinions entertained or expressed, and to punish those who hold or publish those of a different character, security of person cannot be deemed complete. In England the holding of certain opinions in matters of religion has been punished with inability to hold office. Dissenters were, until recently, excluded from the government of corporations. Roman Catholics were excluded in like manner, and were also forbidden to sit in parliament. Jews are so at the present time, notwithstanding numerous attempts at an alteration of the law. By the Constitution of the United States, every man is equally eligible to office, be his opinions in matters of religion what they may. Such is likewise the case in most of the States, but in a very few a belief in the Christian religion is rendered necessary, and thus the Jew is punished for entertaining opinions held by the majority to be heretical. It cannot, however, be doubted that such limitations will be speedily abolished. The free expression of opinion in relation to matters of public interest is indispensable to security. Whenever, by any error of legislation or of administration, any number of men feel themselves aggrieved, it is indispensable that they should enjoy the right of stating their grievances, with a view to their correction. Where this is the case there is a constant tendency to the correction of error and to the maintenance of The following list of persons holding office will show how little regard is had for difference of opinion in matters of religion. security; where it is otherwise, grievances are liable to accumulate to an extent that may lead to revolution, by which security is destroyed. The mode in which this has usually been done in England and the United States has been through the medium of the press; by public meetings; and by the election. of representatives. In England the press has been restrained in its publication by prosecutions, and in its circulation by heavy stamp duties on newspapers and pamphlets. In the United States it has been in all respects free.* In England, when men have met to state their grievances, they have been attacked by the military, and hundreds have been killed or wounded.† The people have been prohibited from holding meetings, even for the purpose of petition, unless authorized by magistrates, holding their offices at the will of the government. Offences that could be construed into sedition have been made liable to transportation, and the defendant has been deprived of the liberty to traverse his indictment. In the United States the right of meeting for the discussion of grievances exists to the fullest extent, and cannot legally be questioned or interfered with. Nevertheless there have been interferences with the freedom of discussion in regard to a question of considerable importance-slavery. Intemperance on one side has produced intemperance on the other, and men who have endeavoured to promote interference with the rights of property have experienced interferences with their own rights of person. In Boston, New York, and other places, there have been scenes that have been highly disgraceful, and in the south-western States there have occurred, in consequence of the disposition to interfere with the rights of others, several instances of murder, under the name of Lynch law. That resort should thus be had to mob law for the suppression of discussion in the United States, arises from the fact that no legislation can be obtained preventing unlimited freedom of "In America there is scarcely a hamlet which has not its own newspaper. It may readily be imagined that neither discipline nor unity of design can be communicated to so multifarious a host, and each one is consequently left to fight under his own standard."-De Tocqueville, Vol. II. p. 24. "It cannot be denied that the effects of this extreme license of the press tend directly to the maintenance of public order.”—Ibid. p. 25. + Manchester, 1814. |