510 -
discretion of farmers, as they may find it best suits their con-veniency, whether to dispose of their cattle and grain to exten-sive dealers who come to seek them at their own doors, or teattend with them personally at fairs and markets. The dread ofmonopoly, by combination of dealers, where there are no exclu-sive privileges, but the utmost freedom given to competition, issurely now, by all who pretend to the least knowledge of theprinciples of political economy, considered as suited only to theweakness of childhood, or the imbecility of dotage.
Little or no interest seems to be taken, by the people at large,in the regulation of the cattle markets. In regard to the marketof grain, however,—the subject of direful apprehension—muchvirtue seems to be attributed to regulation ; and the object of altregulations is the absurd idea of forcing the farmer to become re-
‘ of general principles or of former enaftments. Hence, where the offence is
* the fame, Sometimes one Juftice, fometimes two Juftices have the jurifdiftionj
* fometimes the punifhment is one thing, fometimes another, while it is noteafy
* to faV why it was not mutatis mutandis, or rather, why the ftatutes were not,
* in the/e particulars, precifely the fame. And as thefe enactments have ban
* repeatedly explained, altered and amended, there is fcarcely one trade or ma*
* nufaCture that is not the fubjeCl of as many ftatutes as would form a bulky code
* for the whole. * He goes on to obferve, that ‘ whipping is another punitoment
* appointed by thefe ftatutes to be inflicted fummarily on offenders: fometimes,*' too, byone Juftice ; on the oath, and fometimes (in the cafe of Quakers ) on the
* folcmn affirmation, of one tingle witnefs. This has been regretted by Judge
* Blackftone, and other ^writers, as equally inexpedient and unconftitutionai. *He further obferves, in regard to enactments obtained to prevent embezzlement,that rood unconftitutionai ftretches have been made in favour of the owner.That by 14th Geo. III. cap. 44, * any one Juftice may conviCt a perfon of falls
* reeling, by theoath of any one witnefs, even that of the owner of the yarn, who«
* entitled to the penalty ; ’ which, fays Dr Burn, ‘ is a lingular inftance of a con-
* vision on the oath of a perfon doubly interefted; namely, both as the owner
* of the goods, and as entitled to the whole forfeiture. *
There isfurely here a loud call for confolidation, revifion, and for annulling,many particulars. According to information, which feems to be correct, them*eonveniency from legiftative regulation, in regard to the woollen trade, madeparliamentary relief be applied for in 1803, by the manufacturers of Wilts, So*snerlet, and Gloucefter, which was obtained. The ftatutes complained of were,that of Elizabeth, enabled feemingly in the view of fecuring perfection of work,and requiring feven years apprenticeships for this purpofe, as alfo impofing a pc*nalty of 40s. a month on thole that employed workmen who had not fo ferved*(Prat, in his Gleanings, obferves, that this fame ftatute had to be broke throughby Birmingham manufacturers.) The others were, thole of Edward VI . andotPhilip and Mary; the firft enafted againft machinery, from the popular, butmiftaken notion of its depriving labourers'of bread; the other rcftriCling thenumber of looms to be kept by one perfon,—probably from a dread in the ma-nufacturers left one or two of the trade might monopolize the whole..
Thefe ftatutes had not been complied with for fixty or feventy years before,and relief was applied for to Parliament , in confequence of threats of profecutionupon thefe ftatutes, from thofe who thought they had an intereft in their obfer*vance.
It is not very obvious why the repeal, granted in thefe inftances, might not»nade univerfah