The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-19 00:00:00

Mr.* J. B. SMITH 'said, he •"would not"obJeet to the
second reading, if it were not understood that by doing so
the house assented to the principle of the measure.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, his
reason-for-desiring that the house should kindly consent to
the second reading was, that the question of time i-v-a-s-Very
important for the convenience of parties, as notice must
be given to all persons holding South Sea Stock.
Mr. HUME objected to the principle of the bill. He
thought they were not in a condition to make such an ex-
periment as was proposed by this measure.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Thursday next.
COMBINATION OF WORKMEN.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the bill being
read a third time, on the ground that the measure was unne-
cessary. He understood the object of it was to correct a
supposed misapprehension of the law on the part of Mr.
Justice Erie in a case that was tried before him at Stafford
in 1851. It was supposed that he laid it down as the law,
that workmen could not legally combine for their mutual
protection with a view to keep up the rate of wages or
limit the number of hours during which their masters
might employ them. He believed the learned judge had
stated the law correctly ; but whether that were so or not,
the Court of Queen's Bench had stated the law upon the
subject quite correctly. The learned judge stated that the
law was quite clear, and that workmen had a right to com-
bine for their own protection, to obtain such wages as they
chose to demand, or to gain themselves any benefit; but
a combination to prevent men from working, or for any
such purpose, was unlawful. The case afterwards came
on before the Court of Queen's Bench, and they laid down
the law in the same way. He could not, therefore, think
this bill was necessary.
Mr. DRUMMOND said it was very well for the learned
gentleman to say the bill was unnecessary, but he had
stated no other reason against it. It was to do what wes
intended by the Remedial Bill introduced by the hon.
member for Montrose several years ago. There had been
great discussions between the masters and workmen for
many years, and Lord Stanley, at that time a member of
the house, presided over the committee, and a bill was
prepared, .with which all parties were satisfied, and which
put an end to all disputes. So the matter stood as to the
necessity of the case. The bill might be unnecessary for
the Attorney-General, or possibly for himself, but there
had been contradictory decisions in the courts of law.
aad(
dcIN (Hear, hear.)
nethert hoheearl a.)kiw,nLgbourdmt
ighChehitewfariaaJ Campbellmknew
oralnot
(0
atm
ai
Joseph,g
uh gt h
)l
ay
aeusnottwicheimo
might decide another way. As a proof that
the law was not clear, nine persons had got impsonment
for three months and to pay the sts amounting to 3,0001.
All he asked by this bill was to have a declaratory statute
stating what the law really was.
Mr. M. FORSTER oppoSed the bill.
Mr. HUME thought, that as there
appeared to be a
difference of opinion among the lawyers, it
was d • ble
to pass the present bill to settle the doubt.desirable
Mr. HADFIELD supported the bill.
The house divided :
For the third reading
Against it

... 57
... 70

Majority against the bill ...
... 13
THE CUSTOMS' DEPARTMENT.

Mr. WILSON gave notice that he would make his state-
ment on this subject on Thursday at 5 o'clock.

On the motion of the same honourable member a bill
was brought in and read a first time to consolidate the
London and Edinburgh Gazettes.
The other business on the paper being disposed of, the
house adjourned at a quarter past 11 o'clock.