The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-14 00:00:00

aid Learned Member read certain resolutions passed at
meeting of the merchants ef Dullin, denouncing in strong
terms illegal combinations, and setting forth many of the regu-
lations of combinators, which were in direct violation of
the law of the land. He saw, in a petition which had been
presented by his lion. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr.
Wakley), that this meeting, at which these statements were
male, was composed of Repealers. Who were these Re-
peelers ? The Lord Mayor of Dublin, the Sheriffs, the Al-
dermen. the entire Corporation, with whom he had been battling
all hi; life, bankers, who had several of them taken an active part
in politics against him,
many 'class of merchants of the same descrip-
tion, and, in tine, who agreed with him in his general po-
litics, but who totally differed with him in his struggle for a
separate Parliament ; but all of them had agreed to the reso-
lutions to which he referred. It Ives manifest that the House
could not refuse this inquiry. The only question appeared to
him to be, whether the inquiry should be extended to Great
Britain, or confined to Ireland ? He claimed that it should be
extended to Great Britain, and for these reasons :—lt was from
Manchester that these Unions came : and in a proclam ition
which had lately issued from the Unionists of that
town, he (Mr. O'Connell) was called the deadly enemy
of the tradesman, and the tradesmen of Dublin were told
that until they rid themselves of him they could never obtain
their social rights ; that with -him thy were not safe, but that
without him they would be able successfully to struggle for
their rights. This seemed very much Ile en invitation to
make short work of him (Mr. O'Connell), but lie did not
think that such could have been the intention. Look, again,
at the murder of Smith, in Glasgow, one of the chief towns
in moral and educated Scotland. Was it true or false what
the witnesses of the Crown had sworn to on the late trial ?
Were not the facts of a nature imperatively to call for in-
quiry? But were there no recent instances in England?
lied they not read in the newspapers of the week language ap-
plied to the Poor laws of a most dreadful nature? Had not
the measure on that subject been misrepresented in every
possible way, in order to inflame the minds of the people?
At the meeting held at Manchester, on Monday the sth of
February, delegates from 48 places attended, amongst others
from Bolton, Macclesfield, Salford, Liverpool, Wigan, Old-
ham, Preston, Stockport, Warrington, Hyde, Huddersfield,
&c. The Rev. Mr. Stephens spoke in this strain—" If
this Bill were established, it should be eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, wife for wife, child for child, man for man, and blood
for blood, so help him God." At Stockport, on Tuesday,
February 6, 1838, the Rev. Mr. Stephens figured again,
and in concluding a speech on the same subject, said:—
" A man whom he never had seen before, told him he had
come from an agricultural district, and that rather than be
separated from his wife he had prepared a knife for the
parties who made the separation. lie had- come into this
district to obtain work, and having done so, he had a knife
ready fur any Guardian who should attempt to separate his
wife from him. This was the universal feeling of the
district, and although he did not coincide with it, it was
sufficient to show the law would not be submitted to."
Mr. Oastler followed in like spirit :—" He knew that
hunger and insult would produce effects more oppressive and
awful to certain individuals than even the Commissioners'
conduct had been to the people.—( Loud cheers.) He
knew that the assassin's knife wculd be used.--( Cheers. )"
At Rochdale, the Rev. Mr. Stephens said, " If it were right
to confiscate the property of the people, by abrogating the
43d of Elizabeth, it would be right to confiscate the property
of Rochdale, and it is right—if the law of Elizabeth is to be
destroyed—it is right for the poor to take a dagger in one hand
and a torch in the other, and do the best for themselves."
Mr. F. O'Connor alluded to the " archfiend Mr. O'Connell."
—( A laugh.) Every allusion to Mr. O'Connell at this meet-
ing was received with loud disapprobation. Several called
out that Mr. O'Connell ought to be shot. Mr. Oastler said,
" I tell you. Churchmen and Dissenters, before I would sub-
mit to such an act I would set the whole kingdom in a blaze.
lam no incendiary—( A laugh)—but I have affection in my
heart; lam willing to work:, and should not blush to ask
for my parish pay ; but if I am told I should not receive it,
unless I consented to be separated from my wife, I would,
if I were to be hanged for it, kill him on the spot." These
were specimens of the language held out to the working
people of this country and of Scotland—the knife, the
torch, and the digger were the weapons recommended ; and
the Rev. Mr. Stephens said at Glasgow that he would in-
volve the whole country in a flame before he suffered this
Act to come into operation. If this state of things was proved
in England and Scotland, was it not desirable that an inquiry
should Ise instituted to ascertain the extent to which it had
gone not only in Great Britain but in Ireland also ?—( Hear. )
Did he (Mr. O'Connell) want to re-enact the laws against
combinations ? No ; he desired no such thing, for some com-
binations were not only harmless, but meritorious , and he
wished to separate unions of this kind from those of a perni-
cious character. He did not care for being called the enemy
of the working classes, whilst he felt satisfied in his own con-
science that he was acting as their best friend. He had
not yielded to the taunts and malignity of the Aristocracy
when he thought that he was in the right, and ho should
certainly not now give way to the working classes upon a
point in which he considered that they were decidedly in
error.—(llear, and cheers.) It had been reported of him
that he intended only to direct his observations against the
working men, and to exclude their employers from inquiry.
Such was not his intention, as was clearly proved by the
terms of his notice on the paper; his object was to make the
inquiry as complete and searching as possible, and to bring it
home to all parties. With these observations, and thanking
the House for the indulgence it had extended to him on this
occasion, he should conclude by moving the amendment of
which he had given notice, namely, " That a Select Ccm-
mittec be appointed to inquire-into the origin, nature, and ex-
tent of Trades' unions or combinations of workmen or em-
ployers of workmen in the United Kingdom, and the tendency
of such Unions cr combinations to effect the free distribution
of wages, labour, and employment ; and also their tendency
to induce the commission of outrages against persons and pro-
perty, and the perpetration of murder ; and also to report such
suggestions for improvement in the existing laws against ille-
gal combinations or societies as they may deem requisite."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in the
absence of his Noble Friend ( Lord J. Russell), who was de-
tained from the House by indisposition, would state the course
which was proposed. He was anxious to have an unani-
mous consent to the proposition, as it would be desirable it
should go forth that the whole House was resolved steadily to
take up the subject, not with a view to serve ono class, but to
endeavour to advance the interests both of masters and work..
men. It would, therefore, ke expedient to sacrifice all minor
principles for the advancement of the one great principle. He
could r.ot hope for the approval of the lion. Member for Fins-
bury, whose motion was so open to objection. The proposi-
tion of the lion. Gentleman was to appoint a Select Committee
to review a judgment passed by a Court of Justice.
Mr. WAK LE Y disclaimed any such intention.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was of opi..
nion that the whole tenor of the Hon. Gentleman's motion was

to revive a questien which had already been decided byik
competent tribunal. That there should be a general inquiry
into these combination; and their effects, both as regarded
the masters and the workmen, no person could doubt who
had listened to the debate ; and he wee prepared with a mo-
tion which would, perhaps, fulfil-the object the lion. and
Learned Member for Dublin had in view. If so, he hoped
the Hon. and Learned Member would leave the matter in the
hands of the Government. He would therefore move for a
Select Committee, to inquire into tint operation of the Bth of
George the Fourth, and to inquire generally into the constitu-
tion, the proceedings, and the extension of Trades' Unions, or
combinations of workmen, or of the employers of workmen, in
the United Kingdom, and to report thereon. It was the in-
tention of Government to carry on the inquiry in the most
impartial manner, and, as the inquiry was to extend to both
countries, so also should any remedial measure be founded
thereupon. There was no intention of wrong or injury to the
working classes. The object was to protect them in their just
interests, and to procure for them the free exercise of their owl;
powers. If this was necessary to any country, it was pecu-
liarly called for by Great Britain and Ireland, where the rapid
progress of mechanical improvement tended ultimately to in-
crease the demand for labour. Labour was principally the
capital of Ireland, and any thing which tended to check its pro•
gross checked the progress of capital also. He hoped to have
the concurrence of the Gentlemen opposite in the proposition
which he mr.de ; and he also Itopod that they would concur with
him in bearing testimony to the praiseworthy efforts which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) had lately
made in Ireland, even at the :64 of hie popularity as a great
leader, when he felt called upon to discharge an important
duty.—(Cheers.) It was a noble example, worthy of
public approval ; and even those in Ireland who were gene-
rally adverse to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman admired his
conduct on this occasion.
Mr. 0' CONN EL L then withdrew his amendment.
Mr. HUME would advise the Hon. Member for Finsbury to

leave the subject in the hands of Government, as the course
most advantageous to those whose cause he advocated.
Mr. D. W. II AR VE Y preferred the motion of the Right
Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that of the Hon.
Member for Finsburv, as being more general, and embracing
the influence of combination on masters as well as on work-
men. Still the amendment was too narrow to produce any
useful results. He should like to hear from the Chancellor
of the Exchequer that all the subjects connected wi4ll combi-
nation should be brought under the cognizance of the Commit-
tee, arid that they should be directed to inquire into all the
laws that prejudiced and deterl_rated the property of labour.
The property cf labour was convertible produce; and it would
therefore be necessary to ascertain any laws which militated
against the power of converting property in labour into food
and raiment. Ile should like to have a full inquiry into all
such laws, not excluding the Corn Laws ; and if, as ho appre-
hended, it was not the intention of Ministers to ero into the
consideration of these, he could riot consider the proposed
inquiry a fair or an honest one. Ho should, therefore, when
the Committee was appointed, move that it be an instruction to
them to inquire into all the laws affecting the rights of labour..
—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) What would be the use of their
ponderous reports? What service had it done him when he was
injured to a vast pecuniary extent by another species of combina-
tion ? He, himself a Member of that House, had been robbed
of his profession. He had been prevented from di! ecting his
talents, such as they were, to pursuits which' might -have
ensured him eminence 'and distinction. The Chairman of
the Committee who had inquired into his case, an eminent
lawyer, maintaining by his character the distinction which he
so eminently deserved—yes, that Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man had said, both in that House and in Dublin, in answer
to the charge, that there was ors,-I.leinetien In his own pro-
fession,---i• that the henourable Member for Southwark had
been cruelly depriVed of emoluments to the amount of 100,0001."
This was an admission of the Chairman ; and vet what llave the
Committee darip ? Uit thq viOicate their own reports ?
No ; but he (Iw. Harvey) had challenged inquiry, and said
that if it did not prove favourable in the result, he would retire
from the House. put no inquiry was institted tnd ho4q,s