PHILIP, an eminent dramatist of the age of Shakspeare, was the son of Arthur Massinger, a gentleman in the service of the Earl of Pembroke, and was born at Salisbury in 1584. It has been conjectured that he received his early training at Wilton, the Wiltshire seat of the Pembroke family. But a more likely opinion is, that he was educated in his native city, at that school which afterwards numbered Addison among its pupils. In May 1602 he was sent to Oxford, probably at the charge of the Earl of Pembroke, and was enrolled a commoner of St Alban's Hall. There, according to Anthony à Wood, he eschewed the severe studies of logic and philosophy, and pleasantly squandered his hours in reading poetry and romance. Before he had completed the round of studies necessary for a degree, he was forced abruptly to leave the university, on account, as is generally believed, of the withdrawal of his patron's supplies. Of this withdrawal different explanations have been given. Gifford solves the difficulty by imagining, from certain passages in The Virgin Martyr, that Massinger was a Roman Catholic, and by unwarrantably inferring from this that he changed his faith at Oxford, and thus displeased his patron. Equally unsatisfactory is the explanation of Davies, who ascribes the event to Massinger's misapplication of his time. For it is by no means probable that William, the third earl of Pembroke, a man of a generous and liberal disposition, and a well-known patron of poets, and especially of dramatists, would cast the son of an old servant of his family penniless upon the world, simply because he devoted his attention to literature. There must evidently have been a more grievous cause of offence.

From Oxford Massinger repaired to London in 1606, where he devoted his life to the cause of the drama, and became the fellow-worker and rival of such men as Shakespeare, Jonson, and Fletcher. His biography, after this period, is little else than an account of the dates at which his principal plays were written. We know, however, that he toiled on in a modest privacy till the day of his death, producing two or three plays in a year, struggling at the same time in the gripe of poverty, and living unknown and neglected even while his admirable productions were calling forth the applause of the theatres. There is still extant a letter in which he requests Henslowe, a theatrical manager, to rescue him from a pecuniary difficulty. So often, indeed, was he in extreme destitution, that in dedicating one of his plays, he says, "I had not to this time subsisted, but that I was supported by your frequent courtesies and favours"—an acknowledgment which on some similar occasions he makes in nearly the same words. How Massinger was engaged immediately after his arrival in London is not recorded. Urged by daily necessities, and afraid of risking his valuable time on a work of his own, he was probably content to be employed in assisting dramatists of an established fame. It is certain at least, that about 1613 he had been engaged as a joint-author with Fletcher, Field, and others. At first he was compelled to labour submissively under the shadow of some great dramatist, and to content himself with little of the profits, and less of the fame derived from their joint productions. In course of time, however, when his genius had asserted its proper place, other play-writers became desirous of having his name conjoined with their own on the title-pages of their works. Accordingly, at some period before 1623, he appeared before the public as the joint-author of The Virgin Martyr along with Decker, of The Fatal Dowery along with Field, and of The Old Law, along with Middleton and Rowley. Meanwhile he had written several plays by himself. Of these The Unnatural Combat and The Duke of Milan alone are extant. The rest, along with a few others Massinger, of Massinger's plays, were preserved for some time in manuscript by Mr Warburton, only to be devoted at last by that gentleman's cook to the covering of pies. The Unnatural Combat is full of vigour and passionate eloquence; and its plot, though marred by many disgusting incidents, retains evident traces of a master's hand. With many passages full of lofty poetical sentiments, and with an action deeply engrossing in its progress, and horror-striking in its catastrophe, The Duke of Milan is one of the best of Massinger's tragedies. The character of Sforza is a vivid representation of that impulsive temperament which fluctuates with the rapidity of thought between the most opposite passions. In 1623 The Bondman was produced at the Cockpit in Drury Lane. Its chief interest arises from the variety of its dramatic personae. The Roman Actor, which was licensed in 1626, is not generally thought to be what its author styled it, "the most perfect birth of his Minerva." More popular and more successful, both in plot and execution, was The Great Duke of Florence, produced in 1627. About this time Massinger wrote his most famous play, A New Way to Pay Old Debts. Its principal character, Sir Giles Overreach, intended for a satire against an infamous public individual of that day, is one of those rough, strongly-marked, and one-sided creations that are peculiarly fitted to carry the popular taste by storm. Accordingly, this comedy is said to have been a great favourite "at the Phoenix in Drury Lane," and is the only one of Massinger's plays that still keeps possession of the stage. Of the rest of its characters, Marrall, the mean-spirited yet revengeful time-server, is the most amusing and most ably drawn. In 1629 was acted The Picture, one of the most pleasing of its author's productions. To a plot original and romantic, is added the stronger charm of a strain of feeling tender and poetical. The more earnest sentiments of the play are pleasantly relieved by the healthy, cynical humour of Lelidlaus, and the spirited practical jokes of Sophia. Equally fresh and varied is The City Madam, licensed in 1632. It is a satirical sketch of the ridiculous airs and blind prodigality of upstart wealth. The numerous objects in the picture are artfully grouped and strongly coloured. The Bashful Lover was acted with great applause at the Blackfriars in 1636. Its principal charm arises from the chivalrous love and valour of Hortensio. The other extant plays of Massinger are,—The Renegado, The Parliament of Love, The Maid of Honour, The Emperor of the East, The Guardian, and A Very Woman. The continuous toll undergone in producing so many works seems to have imperceptibly undermined the health of Massinger. On the night of the 17th March 1640 he went to bed in apparent good health, in his own house on the Bankside, and was found dead next morning. His body was attended by the comedians to the churchyard of St Saviour's, and the sad story of his obscure life and lonely death was told in the register of his interment: "March 20, 1639-40, buried Philip Massinger, a stranger."

In his graphic delineation of character, in his skilful management of a plot, and in the blended grace and dignity of his blank verse, Massinger yields to none but Shakespeare. Less pathetic and less imaginative than a few of the secondary dramatists, he is also more refined and more melodious than them all. His besetting sins are a fastidious attention to the evolving of his catastrophe, and a consequent tendency to impair the consistency of his personages by adapting them to circumstances. Yet his incidents, though laboured, are ever fresh and engrossing, and his portraiture of character, though indistinct in their minor traits, are strikingly bold and vigorous in their outlines. His comedies are deficient in humour. They are, however, of great value as accurate and interesting life-sketches.

Regarding Massinger's personal character, we can infer from the panegyrics affixed to his plays, that he was amiable, gentle, and reserved. The dedications of his several works to his patrons also throw some light on this subject. In these we see the instincts of a true and noble nature leading him in the middle path between a mere formal expression of gratitude and a slavish adulation. Nothing can be finer than the modest and manly simplicity with which he on several occasions records in one brief sentence his own destitution and the beneficence of his noble friends. The best edition of the works of Massinger is that of Gifford, published in 1805, and reprinted in 1815. An edition, freed from all objectionable passages, forms three volumes of Murray's Family Library, London, 1830.

Massouah, Massowah, or Mascah, the most important seaport of Abyssinia, is situated on an island in the Red Sea, and separated from the mainland by the channel of Adowa, 250 miles N.E. of Gondar. The island is about half a mile in length by a quarter in breadth; and about one-third of it is covered with houses. Although some of the houses are built of stone, most of them are mere huts made of poles and grass. The only buildings of any importance are the mosques. The harbour is deep and secure, and can accommodate about fifty vessels; and though the entrance is narrow, access is not difficult. Owing to the dry and rocky nature of the island, water has to be collected in large tanks, which cover about one-third of the area. Massouah has a very important trade. It is not only the principal seaport in Abyssinia, but also the largest emporium on the coasts of the Red Sea. The chief articles of export are,—slaves, horns, ivory, wax, coffee, leather, hides, butter, honey, grain, gold, and spices; while the exports consist of pepper, cotton, silks, muslins, razors, sword-blades, carpets, &c. Massouah belongs to the viceroy of Egypt, and a governor, subordinate to that dignitary, resides here. Pop. of the entire island estimated at 10,000.

Master and Servant, a relationship constituted by mutual consent. Service or labour in this country is regarded as property, of which no one can be deprived against his will, unless he be convicted of crime, when the exaction of compulsory labour may form part of the punishment. Where a man voluntarily disposes of his labour, the law will enforce fulfilment of the contract, just as it enforces all other lawful contracts. Parties unqualified to give consent,—as, for example, pupils; that is, males under fourteen, and females under twelve years of age; or intoxicated, or insane persons,—cannot enter into such a contract; neither will the law regard the most formal contract, if it appear that it was extorted by force or fear, or was obtained by fraud. The existence of the contract may be proved by writing, or, within certain limits, by witnesses; and it may sometimes be inferred from circumstances. In Scotland, if the agreement is meant to last more than a year, writing is not only required, but it must be what is called probative writing, otherwise either of the contracting parties may repent of, and withdraw from the agreement; but if any intelligible writing, however informal, be followed by the mutual acts of parties under it, the law will regard it as obligatory. Earnest-money is not necessary, unless required by the established and uniform usage of any particular locality. When given, it is justly regarded as evidence of a concluded agreement, which the sending back of the earnest-money cannot undo. When the contract is once concluded, the parties must discharge the obligations which they have undertaken, and that personally, and not by substitution. The duties to be performed, the recompense for these duties, and the duration of the contract, are matters of arrangement. Sometimes local customs supply ambiguities in a contract, but they never prevail against express stipulations. Dishonesty or open immorality, wilful disobedience or habitual negligence or disrespect, justifies the dismissal of a servant. Master and servant, at whatever period of the contract such an offence occurs, because the wages are not legally earned until the covenanted term of payment arrives. Excessive labour cannot be demanded from servants; nor are they bound to work at anything which is unlawful, or substantially different from, or of a decidedly lower kind than that for which they were hired. They are not bound to work on Sunday unless they be domestic or farm servants, and then it is only at such necessary work as that which from its nature requires to be performed every day. Masters are not liable in the consequences of injuries which servants may sustain while acting in obedience to reasonable orders, from which, with due care, no injury could have been anticipated. In such cases masters are not liable even for the expense of medicines or medical aid which the servant may require; though, whenever these are voluntarily provided by the master, he is not entitled to charge them against the servant. If a servant be injured through his master's unreasonable conduct or culpable neglect, the master is liable in damages to the servant, or to his heirs, if the injury terminate in his death. Complaints against the conduct of a servant must not be reserved as a set-off against payment of wages at the expiry of the contract, but must be made when they occur. A plea, for example, of incapacity or negligence against a servant is made too late when the termination of the contract has arrived and the wages have become payable; but faults complained of and pardoned till their repetition becomes intolerable, may be proved in justification of a master who at length is compelled to dismiss the servant. No servant is bound under any circumstances to submit to maltreatment at the hand of his master, nor even to such threats as create a reasonable apprehension of danger. Servants must, when required, accompany their master wherever he goes within the kingdom, provided he does not thereby do them any real injury, and agrees to bring them back in time to seek for another situation at the close of the contract; but not if they were hired with reference to a particular place or to special duties, such as to serve or work in a particular factory. Masters are under no legal obligation to give a character to any servant, and where a good one cannot truthfully be given, it is safer to give none; though, when a servant refers to his master for his character, he must take his risk of the answer, provided it be not false and malicious. If a master knowingly give a good character to an undeserving servant, he is liable to the succeeding master, by the law both of Scotland and England, in damages, and in England, by the 32d Geo. III., cap. 56, in a fine of L20, or imprisonment with hard labour for not less than one, or more than three months. In a case in England, where a person gave a good character of a servant in the full knowledge that he was unworthy of it, and a succeeding master was thereby induced to take him into his service, and was soon thereafter robbed by him, for which the servant was tried and executed, Lord Mansfield held that the pursuer was entitled to recover the loss from the person who knowingly and falsely gave the good character. Even where a good character was honestly given, if it be afterwards discovered to have been undeserved, the master who gave it must notify the discovery to the person to whom he gave it. If a servant obtain a situation by false pretences, affirming that he served where he did not, or that he did not serve where he really did, or shall alter or erase a written character, he may be summarily dismissed, and in England is liable in a fine of L20.

We shall notice more particularly—

1. Apprentices.—They are distinguished from other servants in this respect, that they engage to serve their master in his particular trade or calling chiefly in order that they may learn it. Minors having no curators may enter into indentures; but if they have curators, their concurrence is necessary. Even then, the indentures may be set aside if they involve manifest and serious injury to the minor. Pupils, being legally incapable of consenting, cannot bind themselves. It is not unusual, however, for parents to bind themselves for their pupil children. The master, by himself, or a qualified overseer, must fairly instruct the apprentice in all the branches of his business, so far as the apprentice is capable and willing to be instructed, and not put him to any other employment, beyond that of teaching his fellow-apprentices the calling to which he is bound, as in doing so he improves himself. If a master die or retire from business during the currency of the indenture, the apprentice has no further claim than that another equally well qualified master be found in the same locality, to whom the indenture may be transferred; but no transferance can be effected without the apprentice's consent. The bankruptcy of the master puts an end to the indentures, leaving the apprentice to rank on the master's estate for a proportion of the apprenticeship-fee, or damages. Changes in the constitution of a company, however, do not free the apprentice, provided one or more of the original partners remain to carry on the business. The articles of indenture generally specify a penalty against either party failing to perform his part of the contract, but the court will modify the penalty to the actual damage. As a master stands somewhat in the relation of a parent to an apprentice, he is not entitled to dismiss him for every trifling fault, but he may do so if, after warnings, the apprentice prove incorrigible or incapable, or if he commit a single act of dishonesty or gross immorality; and the master is not bound to take him back on promises of amendment, as his bad example may be pernicious to the master's other apprentices. Notwithstanding such an offer, the master may even sue for the penalty. Apprentices put to trade by a parish, or any others on whose binding to larger sum of apprenticeship-fee was paid than L25, may, by the 20th Geo. II., cap. 19,—and apprentices on whose binding no sum whatever was paid, may, by 5th Vict., cap. 7,—be punished to the extent of a month's imprisonment, by two justices, for any ill behaviour, and to the extent of three months for desertion. But these statutes are understood to be confined to the particular classes of apprentices mentioned in them and in 17th Geo. III., cap. 56. Under these statutes masters who beat their apprentices improperly may also be punished. By the common law the enlistment of an apprentice does not destroy the indentures; but the statute 48th Geo. III., cap. 15, only enables the master to reclaim him, provided he is then under twenty-one years of age; that the apprenticeship was for four years; that the indentures were produced to, and indorsed by, a magistrate before the enlistment, and within three months after their date; and that the master claims the apprentice, and make oath before a magistrate, within one month after the enlistment.

2. Workmen and Labourers.—Unless a special agreement can be proved, the period for which they are engaged, their hours of labour, and even the amount of their wages, are regulated by the usages of their particular trade. If there be no general usage as to wages, a court of law will either fix what is reasonable, or remit the matter to a jury. The legal presumption is, that service must be remunerated. Ordinary workmen and labourers are generally presumed to have been hired by the day or week; and farm servants, gardeners, overseers, grieves, &c., by the year. In an action for wages by the foreman of a silk factory, Justice Park said (1833)—"The presumption is, that the plaintiff was hired for a year, and nothing being proved contrary to that presumption, and he having violated his duty before the year expired, so as to prevent the defendant from having his services for the whole year, he cannot recover wages,"—not even rateably for the time he has served, as the full term must be completed before wages are due. If servants work in their Master and own dwellings, they may retain the goods of their master, on which they have expended their labour, in security of their wages, but not if they work in their master's premises. On the bankruptcy of their master, farm servants and reapers have a preferable claim on his crop for their current wages; and their wages are not attachable for their debts so far as necessary for their subsistence. Provision is made by the statutes 22d Geo. II., cap. 27; 17th Geo. III., cap. 56, and 58th Geo. III., cap. 51, for the summary conviction and punishment of workmen in certain trades who parloit, embezzle, pawn, or sell their master's materials or tools; and neglect to return unused materials within eight days after demand, is held to be embezzlement. Amongst the trades referred to in these statutes are hatters and workers in woollen, linen, fustian, cotton, iron, leather, fur, hemp, flax, mohair, and silk, and workers in any of these materials mixed, and also dyers and hot-pressers. The knowingly purchasing or taking embezzled materials by any person from such workmen is severely punishable; and where such materials are found in the possession of the receiver, the burden is laid on him of proving that they came into his possession in a lawful manner. Under these statutes one justice of the peace may issue a warrant for the apprehension of accused parties, but two are required for conviction. An appeal lies to the next general or quarter sessions, on the party entering into recognisances, with security, to abide the result.

The statute 4th Geo. IV., cap. 34, provides that if any servant in husbandry, or artificer, calico printer, handicraftsman, miner, collier, keelman, pitman, glassman, potter, labourer, or other person under contract by a signed writing, shall not enter to, or having entered, though not under a written contract, shall absent himself, or shall be guilty of any other misconduct or misdemeanour in the execution of the contract, it shall be lawful to any justice of the peace of the place where such servant contracted, or is found, upon complaint on oath, to issue a warrant for apprehending him, and to examine into the complaint, and, if proved, to commit him to hard labour not exceeding three months, or to punish him by abating the whole or part of his wages. The provisions of this statute are, by the 10th Geo. IV., cap. 52, extended to all persons engaged, whether as servants, apprentices, or otherwise, in the several manufactures, trades, and occupations above named, alluded to in the statute of 17th Geo. III., cap. 56. Under these statutes a workman of any of the classes above referred to may be punished if he produce an insufficient quantity of work, or be disobedient, or refuse to work, or desert. If he commit a higher offence than these—as, if he steal his master's goods or break into his premises—the offender may be prosecuted, as the law directs, in a higher criminal court. It is decided that these statutes do not apply to cases where the parties do not stand towards each other in the precise relation of master and servant; as, for example, if a master employ a workman to execute a specific piece of work for a gross sum, or if the employer by the contract have no title to require the workman to work at any particular time or place, but only that the work shall be done within the covenanted period. In such cases it would be competent to the workman to accept simultaneously of any other employment from other individuals, so that he could not strictly be termed the servant of any particular master. Accordingly, in England it was found that a contract to build a wall for a given sum, within a specified time, did not bring the workman within the statutes; Justice Park remarking, that to do so, there must be a contract for service exclusively to one employer. The words "or other persons" are added to the specification of servants given in the statutes, and it is often difficult to determine to whom they refer. They do not refer to menial or domestic servants, but to persons hired for out-door or country labour, and generally to all who, by the rules of any particular trade, must give a definite warning before they are entitled to quit their master's service. Complaints under these statutes do not require the concurrence of any public prosecutor. They usually begin with the oath of one of the complainants. If the warrant following on the complaint requires to be executed in a county different from the one in which it was granted, the concurrence of a justice of peace of such other county is necessary. A workman deserting from England and going to Scotland, or deserting from Scotland and going to England, may be apprehended on a warrant granted in the county from which he deserted, provided it be indorsed by a justice of the county to which he has absconded. When he is apprehended, the subsequent proceedings must be in strict conformity with the statute, otherwise they will be quashed. When followed by conviction, the workman is subjected to the punishment authorized by the statute; but Lord Ellenborough observed, that "it would be clearly against the policy of the law, if the servant, by his own act of delinquency, should have the power of dissolving the contract," merely because he has undergone punishment inflicted for the breach of it; and, therefore, after being punished, he is bound to return to his service and complete his engagement to his master.

By the statute 1st and 2d Will. IV., cap. 37, it is provided that the wages of certain workmen (of whom a very comprehensive description is given) shall be paid in the current coin of the realm, or notes of the Bank of England, or other bankers entitled to issue notes, or in drafts or orders payable to the bearer on demand, within fifteen miles of the place; otherwise the contracts cannot be enforced by the master. This provision applies to servants connected with the getting of coal, lime, stone, slate, clay, bricks, or salt; or engaged in the manufacture of iron or steel, or of articles of hardware, or plated articles, cutlery, or goods made of brass or other metal, or japanned goods, and almost all kinds of cloth, silks, and lace; leather, glass, and earthenware. The object of the statute is to prevent the frauds which were too often practised on workmen, by masters keeping provision stores, and selling articles of bad quality at a high price, in payment of wages. There is nothing to hinder the wages of such servants as do not fall under the classes specified in the statute, from being paid in any way that may be arranged; but any attempt to control the mode in which any workman may spend his wages is illegal. If, in face of the last-mentioned statute, even although the consent of the workman be obtained, the master retain the price of goods out of the wages, and the workman, or his wife, widow, or child in minority, should within three months after become chargeable to the parish, such parish is entitled to compel the master to pay over again the wages so retained. There are various exceptions to this rule, intended for the advantage of the workman, such as the cost of medicines or medical attendance, tools for mining, hay or corn to be consumed by any beast of burden employed in his trade by the workman, the rent of his house, or of victuals dressed and consumed under his own roof, or money advanced to a friendly society or savings-bank to relieve him in sickness, or to educate his children. Where advances of that kind are made by the master, they may, notwithstanding the statute, be deducted from the wages, provided they are made under a written agreement to that effect. Masters contravening the statutory regulations may be punished by a fine not exceeding L10, nor under L5 for a first offence; not exceeding L20, nor under L10, for a second offence; and not exceeding L100, at the discretion of the court, for a third offence;—ten days intervening between each offence, otherwise each separate offence is held as a first. Every succeeding offence beyond the third is treated as a third offence; and the right to Master and Servant.

Master and prosecute is not held to be abandoned until the lapse of two years. The different classes of workmen last above alluded to may, on complaint to a justice of the peace, be discharged of their contract with their masters on proof of ill treatment, refusal of stipulated provisions or wages, cruelty or other ill usage.

Attempts have been made to prevent or abridge litigation between masters and workmen. By the 5th Geo. IV., cap. 96, provision is made for settling some particular disputes by arbitration; and improvements on that statute have been made by 7th Will. IV., 1st Vict., cap. 67, and 8th and 9th Vict., cap. 77. It would altogether exceed the bounds allotted to this article to attempt to specify the kinds of dispute which may be so disposed of, or to explain the proceedings which must be adopted. It is safer to refer to the statutes themselves, only observing, generally, that on either master or workman going before a justice of the peace, the justice has power to settle the dispute in a summary manner, provided both parties agree in writing to abide by his determination. If they decline, then the justice may propose four or six persons, one-half being masters, agents, or foremen, and the other half being workmen, out of whom the master may select one, and the workman another, to act as arbitrators, whose determination is final. If they differ in opinion, the justice may then act as umpire. If both parties agree to a different mode of adjustment, the law gives effect to their agreement. We are not aware that these provisions have been acted on so frequently as they should; on the contrary, we fear that combination is, unhappily, too often resorted to rather than arbitration.

3. Of Combinations.—This leads us to notice the improvement, in favour of workmen, which was effected by the statute 6th Geo. IV., cap. 129. Previous to that statute the most peaceable combination on their part to raise their wages was an indictable offence. For this there was no sound reason whatever, provided all acts of violence were avoided. That statute, therefore, made it lawful, alike to masters and workmen, to combine for the purpose of regulating wages and all the other conditions of labour. Since then, combinations have been somewhat frequent in Great Britain. On the part of workmen, their principal objects have been to fix a minimum rate of wages, to diminish the hours of labour, to decrease the quantity of work, to prevent masters taking more than a specific number of apprentices according to the number of journeymen employed by them, and to support each other during their refusal to work, in the hope of forcing their masters to comply with their terms. Of course, the object of the combinations on the part of masters is to counteract those of the workmen, and to secure terms more favourable to themselves. While these objects are sought to be attained by discussion and appeals to reason, with merely refusal in the absence of contracts to work, the law will not now interfere; and in the long run the disputes are generally equitably adjusted, though more frequently to the disappointment and loss of the workmen, who are often defeated by means of the capital of their employers, and the facilities with which other workmen can be procured from a distance. The loss and misery which workmen and their families have endured during these struggles, though the masters have not come out of them uninjured, would form an instructive chapter. So long, however, as parties not under contract conduct themselves peaceably, the law leaves them to combine for the regulation of their contracts, and to assist each other with pecuniary aid as they best can; but the instant that violence or intimidation is resorted to, an offence is committed which is justly punishable with great severity. To threaten a master or any one with violence is punishable at common law. To molest or intimidate a workman, to compel him to join an association, or to prevent him from hiring himself on such terms as he may please, is punishable by the statute Master and Servant, with imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour. Of course there are many ways in which a workman may be intimidated without violence being committed, or threats uttered; and therefore the law will interfere wherever such is plainly the object of acts which in themselves may be harmless. The assemblage, for example, of numbers of persons acting in combination, whose appearance and gestures may reasonably alarm men willing to work, is in certain circumstances punishable, even though no direct act of outrage be committed. The question is, What is the purpose and object of the parties? Do they intend to create fear, and thereby force a man of ordinary resolution to abstain from working? If it be plain to a jury or to a magistrate that the object of the assemblage is to overawe, the offence is held to be committed; and such assemblages may be summarily dispersed by a magistrate. Where, however, the magistrate is not satisfied of the existence of the guilty intention, or believes that the parties have assembled only for the purpose of discussing their own grievances, he will, of course, decline to interfere; though he will not readily believe that they would choose the vicinity of factories, or the roads to and from workmen's houses, as suitable places for such discussions. The procedure under the statute is summary. It enacts—"That if any person shall, by violence to the person or property, or by threats or intimidation, or by molesting or in any way obstructing" workmen, force, or endeavour to force them to quit their work, or to refrain from hiring themselves, or to cause them to join the combination or contribute to any common fund, or force any master to make any alteration in his mode of carrying on his business, or to limit the number of his servants—parties so offending shall, on complaint within six months, be brought before any two justices of the peace, who, after finding the charge proved by the oath of one or more credible witnesses, shall adjudge the offenders to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding three months. But it is to be observed, that this statute does not by any means take away the cognisance which the common law takes of such offences, or hinder them from being stated as aggravations of an ordinary assault in a higher court; so that if the grounds of complaint be considered too serious for the adjudication of justices, proceedings may be adopted before the ordinary criminal courts, in which sentences have been pronounced varying from six to eighteen months' imprisonment, and from four to fourteen years' transportation, according to the nature of the violence proved.

4. Servants in Factories.—The following statutes have been passed for the relief of women and children employed in factories, viz.—42d Geo. III., cap. 73; 3d and 4th Will. IV., cap. 103; and 7th Vict., cap. 15. A great variety of objects are sought to be attained by these statutes; among others, the prevention of oppression by excessive work; the limiting of the hours of juvenile labour, and hindering night work; the education of children, securing to them suitable dormitories, ventilation, meals, clothing, holidays, and precautions against accidents. We cannot enter into details. The statutes apply to all cotton, woollen, and other factories wherein steam or water, or any mechanical power, is used to work the machinery; and wherein three or more apprentices, or twenty or more other persons, are at any time employed. No child under eight years of age can be employed in such factories, nor until thirteen years of age can any child be kept at work in them for more than six hours and thirty minutes, or, in some cases, seven hours, a day. In certain events such children may be employed ten hours on each of three alternate days, so that their labour throughout the week is not increased. The certificate of a surgeon as to the fit- Master and Servant.

Master and Servant.

Between the age of thirteen and eighteen years, young people may be employed twelve hours a day, but not more than sixty-nine hours in any one week, nor during the night between half-past eight o'clock in the evening and half-past five in the morning; and no person under eighteen years of age can be employed after half-past four on the Saturday afternoon. Females above eighteen years of age cannot be employed longer or otherwise than persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen. Holidays are secured to the extent of eight half-days annually. The statutes do not apply to persons employed in repairing machinery or packing goods; but they prohibit the employment of children to clean machinery while it is in motion. To enforce these regulations government inspectors are appointed; and masters, under penalties, must keep a register of a great variety of particulars, open to the examination of the inspectors. They must also fence their machinery to the satisfaction of the inspectors, unless, on a reference to arbiters, it be ascertained either that it is sufficiently, or that it cannot be better fenced.

5. Servants in Printworks.—Regulations are enacted in reference to them by the 8th and 9th Vict., cap. 29, very similar to those applicable to the class last above referred to.

6. Miners and Colliers.—By the 13th Geo. III., cap. 28, and 39th Geo. III., cap. 56, these labourers, who previously were literally in a state of bondage, were placed on the same footing with other servants. The 5th and 6th Vict., cap. 99, was passed chiefly to prevent masters from employing boys under ten years of age, and females, in mines; and to render it illegal to enter into indentures with boys for more than eight years, or to intrust any person, except males above fifteen years of age, with the charge of steam-engines by means of which persons are passed up or down a shaft, pit, or inclined plane. It is also unlawful to pay the wages of miners in a public-house; otherwise payment may again be enforced. In all these instances penalties are incurred for any violation of the regulations; and government inspectors are appointed to secure that the regulations are enforced.

7. Chimney-Sweepers.—The 3d and 4th Victs., cap. 85, enacts that no person shall be bound apprentice to a chimney-sweeper under sixteen years of age, or be compelled to go up or down a chimney under twenty-one, either for cleaning it or extinguishing a fire, under penalties.

8. Seamen and Sea Apprentices.—The statutory provisions on behalf of these classes of servants are too numerous to permit us, within our limits, to give any specification of them. We must therefore refer such of our readers as require information about them to "An Act to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to Merchant Shipping," 17th and 18th Vict., cap. 104, amended by 18th and 19th Vict., cap. 91. We have also to refer to 17th and 18th Vict., cap. 120, for an enumeration of all the prior acts and parts of acts relating to merchant shipping which are repealed or continued. We may state generally that all merchant vessels (not pleasure yachts) of 80 and under 200 tons burdens, must have one apprentice; 200 and under 400 tons, two apprentices; 400 and under 500 tons, three apprentices; 500 and under 700 tons, four apprentices; and 700 tons and upwards, five apprentices at least, who must be above twelve and under seventeen years of age, bound for four years at least, subjects of Her Majesty. They may be employed in any ship during the currency of the indentures of which their master is owner or master. The statutes define with great minuteness the nature and form of their agreements, and enact summary modes for compelling them to join and to remain with the ship, and for the regulation of their conduct at sea. They also make anxious provision for their good treatment by their masters both at home and abroad, and for enforcing all their just claims against their masters.

9. Domestic Servants.—They differ from all other servants chiefly in these respects,—that they are not entitled to absent themselves from their master's family, except in cases of extreme necessity, without leave; they must avoid all nice distinctions about their work; give ready obedience, "not answering again." They have no fixed hours of labour, but must work if required, in so far as is consistent with their health and strength. Any act of indecency or dishonesty justifies immediate dismissal, as does a repetition of an instance of intoxication. Bad health relieves them from their duties while it lasts, and when it is not imputable to gross misconduct, their wages are not diminished, unless it become very protracted. The precise length of time is not invariably fixed. In ordinary cases in Scotland, where the hiring is generally for six months, six weeks must be submitted to. In one case, where the engagement was for a year, a fifth part of that time, under special circumstances, was allowed. The domestic servant is not bound to make up the time lost by sickness. The law of England does not authorize the master to turn away the servant on account of sickness; but if he go away without leave, the contract is dissolved. If the sickness be the result of debauchery, or if the servant concealed bad health existing at the time of hiring, or if he have contracted debt and be imprisoned for payment, his master may put an end to the engagement. The endurance of the engagement depends on special agreement, or is regulated by custom. It is usually, in England, terminable on a month's notice; and in Scotland it lasts for six months, terminable on a warning of forty days; and after such warning is given, the servant is entitled at suitable times to go in quest of another situation. Till the warning be given by either party wishing to bring the engagement to a close, it is held to be tacitly renewed. During its currency or renewal the domestic servant cannot maintain residence in the master's house against his will, but must remove on being required. If, however, the removal be enforced on insufficient grounds, the servant is entitled to wages and board-wages, and even damages, if accompanied by cruelty, such as turning a friendless female out of doors at an unseasonable hour. The marriage of a servant of either sex, or the enlistment of a man-servant, is not a misdemeanor; so that if they can arrange to complete their term of service, the master must perform his part of it; but by the Matluy Act the enlistment interrupts the service, and entitles a justice of the peace to award to the servant a proportion of his wages. In England it rather appears that a woman marrying during the period of her service cannot be withdrawn from it by her husband until its termination. In Scotland the husband may withdraw her, but he is liable to her master in compensation for the loss of her services. If a domestic servant die before the termination of the engagement, the executors can only claim wages for the period actually served. If the master die, the claim of the servant is exactly what it would have been in the case of unwarrantable dismissal, with this qualification, that the master's executors liable in such a claim are entitled to have the service till its legal termination. Sometimes the amount of wages has not been fixed by the parties, as, for example, where a destitute young person is taken into a family, and works, with little advantage at first to the family, till at length the services become useful, nothing having been said about wages; and then the question has arisen, whether in such circumstances wages are really due. Both in England and Scotland it has been decided, that where service is given, wages must be paid. In such cases the amount is fixed judicially, on a consideration of the whole circumstances. Loss by accidental breakage by a servant cannot legally be deducted from the wages, unless it evidently arose from gross carelessness. Servants have no preferable claim for wages on the bankruptcy of Master and their master, as farm servants have; but if his death occur during the currency of the engagement, they are generally ranked on his estate after the undertaker and landlord.

10. The higher order of Servants than those above alluded to, such as Governesses, Tutors, Clerks, Managers, of Establishments, and Editors.—It can scarcely be said that any practice or usage with reference to them has been so uniform and long-continued as to constitute a rule. Some of those bittings, such as of managers and editors, are so important that they are probably always made the subject of special bargain. Where such contracts are during pleasure, they may be terminated without any cause being assigned. Whenever it appears from the circumstances, that the parties had undoubtedly some considerable period in view, a year at least will be presumed. In a Scotch case, where a course of tuition by a tutor was evidently contemplated, and in an English case, where a warehouseman was to receive wages at the rate of so much monthly, with a progressive rise till they reached a given sum per annum, engagements for a year were presumed. Clerks would rather appear in Scotland to be hired during pleasure, and in England they are understood to be hired for a year. In a case before the English courts relative to clerks it was remarked,—“We must decide this case according to the general rule, and hold the contract between the parties to be a hiring for a year.”

In conclusion, we may remark (1). That a practice existed in Scotland by which masters obtained summary warrants to apprehend servants who deserted during the currency of their engagement, and imprison them until they found security to return to their service; and that practice was justified by a judgment of the Court of Session pronounced so recently as 1824. That judgment, however, was pronounced after a very imperfect discussion, and its soundness has been much questioned. The origin of the practice must be sought for at a time when servants were not regarded as being equally the objects of the protection of law with their masters, and when they were probably under the arbitrary regulation of the magistrates, than which nothing can be more objectionable. There is nothing in the contract between master and servant unlike other civil contracts. On either side a failure to fulfil the contract gives rise to a claim of reparation, which ought to be recovered like other civil claims; and the very fact that it has been thought right, by special statutes, to enforce the obedience of some classes of servants, seems to imply that, in the absence of such statutes, a contract of service with others should only be enforced by the ordinary forms of law.

2. None of these statutes can be stretched beyond their clear enactments, nor extended to classes to which they do not expressly apply, as they can only be justified by the peculiar necessities of particular trades.

3. The history of combinations proves that, whether on the part of masters or workmen, they are useless and mischievous. On the part of skilled workmen their objects, in addition to those above referred to, are sometimes to require that masters shall hire no workmen unless they be members of their union, and that in the order in which their names are engrossed in the union-books, nor at less than their fixed rate of wages; otherwise all combined workmen strike work. Sometimes it happens that these demands are so excessive, that masters are forced to combine in turn, and stop their works, until the unionists reduce their demands, or can be replaced by servants from a distance, thereby involving thousands of workmen and their families in destitution. The attempt of the workmen to sustain themselves, during the strikes, out of a common fund has generally failed—the money gathered being insufficient. The tendency of combination is injurious to the workmen, because it destroys all inducements to industry among them; seeing that if masters are only to hire workmen in the order of their enrolment, and all at fixed rates, the inferior and idle are placed on a level with the industrious and skilful. Such a system, which will always be popular with insufficient workmen, operates just as would be the case if all physicians and lawyers were employed by rotation and at the same fees, which would no doubt be relished by the men of inferior talents in both professions, but would paralyze the exertions of the most eminent. This is quite obvious; and yet workmen who disapprove of unions are often compelled to join them, because, unless they do so, the other workmen would not remain in the service of their master. In the end great injury is inflicted on both parties, though generally most heavily on the workmen. In 1834 the west of Scotland was convulsed by a strike among calico printers which lasted nine months. Intimidation, which was resorted to, was counteracted by the military, and was followed by merited punishment. In one establishment business was suspended, and two thousand workmen, with their families, were thrown into destitution. At length that establishment, after an adjustment with its creditors, resumed business with new hands procured from a distance at reasonable wages, while the unionists were scattered in starvation over the country. This was not a rare example. While, therefore, skilled workmen are permitted to try every lawful means to better their condition, their success depends mainly on their rendering it, by good conduct, the interest of their masters to employ them. The competition which must ever exist among masters will always induce them to give the highest wages they can afford, to secure the best workmen; and any attempts to force wages above that point must force the attention of masters to improvements in machinery, and the training of unskilled labourers to supersede the refractory. The regulation of labour and wages depends on principles which can only be affected by combinations for a very limited period; while nothing workmen can do, will permanently check the pressure of their own numbers on the means of employment. Wherever labour is abundant it will be cheap; and when workmen resort to intimidation they engage in a most unequal conflict with the law; while skill and attention, according as they are in demand, will generally find their place in the market.

(M. L.)