The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-10 00:00:00

who tell the people elsewhere that they have no right to enter
into combinations—that it is not right for them to do so. I
utterly deny it. It is right to combine ; and I hope men will
continue to enter into combinations. The law says they may
do so if they please. Masters may combine to lower the price
of wages, and men may combine to raise them. Men may com-
bine to resist the lowering of their wages. That is their inde-
feasible right. The Act of Parliament tells them it is no of-
fence, and it may be a duty. There is no doubt of that. No
good cause was ever advanced by a statement displaying gross
ignorance, and by the unreflecting observation, that all com-
bination was a crime. Such a remark was as unfounded as to
say that all law was a nuisance, because some instances may
he found—and, God knows, as far as criminal law was con-
cerned, not far off—of the existence of abuse. But, then,
there is a much more grievous and far more perilous error in
its consequences which other men fall into, and that is, that
there is little or no offence in those unlawful acts by which
the operatives suffer themselves to be disgraced and their
welfare to he put in jeopardy." The Noble and Learned Lord
then continued to observe that no man had a right to com-
bine for lowering or raising wages—for preventing men
from working, or forcing men to join any association by
means of threats of violence of any sort. Arguments in
favour of combination were right ; they might be resorted
interests,
as as a duty. All peaceful means of furthering the
as they were conceived to be, of the working melt against
the plans of the masters ; all endearing inducements,
all means short of threats, were justifiable. Combinations
of all this kind the law allowed ; and to say that they were
illegal or mischievous would be just as tyrannical as the in-
fringement which was committed on the liberty of a man
when he was willing but forbidden to work for lower wages
than those of his trade were willing to accept. That was
the plain sense of the case, and it was undeniable law.
Such was the advice which he felt bound to give to men of
whom he had good reason to believe he possessed the confi-
dence, having acted as their advocate in the Courts of Law
and in Parliament, and to assure them, that while he consented
to present their petition, he could not do so without availing
himself of the opportunity of pointing out the errors com-
mitted, not only by those who had written this petition, but
by other parties, particularly in Dublin, who did not appear
to be at all acquainted with the distinctions which he had
pointed out. With these observations he humbly begged
leave to lay the petition before their Lordships, and to move
that it be read.

The petition having been read at length by the clerk,

Viscount MELBOURNE said that if he had been awa e
that it was the Noble and Learned Lord's intention to present
a petition of this nature, much less to suppose that he would
enter into a long statement involving the law officers of the
Crown in Scotland, he should have felt it his duty to make
himself acquainted with the whole case, and the real facts con-
nected with it. It had been the general practice of Parlia-
ment, in its prudence, wisdom, and discretion—although un-
doubtedly it had the power of deciding on questions of
the exercise of mercy, as well as of those of every other
branch of the prerogative—to exercise a very great care
in considering such matters, seeing that it would open
a door to the greatest possible inconvenience if this
prerogative were frequently .called in question, and made
the subject of debate within the walls of Parliament. And
he owned that he did not see anything in the present case,
as it had been stated by the Noble and Learned Lord, to
make it an exception to the general rule, or to induce the it
Lordships to interfere by an Address to the Throne on this
subject. It was admitted on all hands that these men had
been convicted of an offence of a most pernicious character;
and it was with very great satisfaction that he heard the con-
cluding observations of the Noble and Learned Lord, which
took off the impression which might be produced by a former
part of his speech, when he stated that the Crown had failed
in proving the offence of a graver character, that was murder
or conspiracy to murder, but succeeded in bringing home to
the accused ;an offence of the lightest character known to
the law. He conceived that any violence or intimidation
used to carry into effect any regulation of such an asso-
ciation, was an offence of the gravest and most serious cha-
racter, and the more open the law had been made for allow-
ing men to enter into combinations, the morse necessary was
it to check any attempt at violent proceedings by the most
serious punishments which the law allowed. The Noble and
Learned Lord had stated that the punishment which had been
inflicted for the charges which were proved, was severe and
excessive—far mere thsn would have been allowed by ;he law
in this ceuntry ; but when the combination-laws were abolish-
ed, the fault which was found with the proceeding was that the
penalties were too weak and too light. And he must say,
that if the offence was proved to the extent charged against
against these persons, the punishment which was assigned to
it was not excessive, or the infliction of it unjust. The Noble
and Learned Lord had said that the Law-officers bungled this
case extremely. It was perfectly true that they were obliged
to give up the charge of a more serious offence, and proceed
in another form. There might be reasons for giving up the
first indictment, which did not arise from the circumstance
that the fact was not committed, but because the evidence en
which they relied was not forthcoming, aed therefote the in-
dictment which was at first preferred was not sufficient, w're-
cher or not there were grounds for it. He begged leave to say
that he d d not intend to give an opinion on this case, as he was
riot in any respect acquainted with the facts. He gave no opinion
whatever as to the course which was pursued in respect of it, hut
he maintained that the facts which were brought fs.rward did
not establish any misconduct on the part of the law officers of
the Crown, nor prose that the punishment awarded was ex-
cessive. If they entered into the grounds of this application
they would be obliged to examine into the conduct of the
Jury, the length of time they were out, and the proportion in
which they voted. There would be no end to arguments of
this kind if they were once admitted; and the conduct of the
Jury which had been referred to only proved the inconvenience
of the law of Scotland in not requiring unanimity, and thus
allowing_ questions to be raised as to how many voted on each
side, and what was the character of each. The great advan-
tage of the verdict of a Jury wes that it should be final ; and if
it appeared that it was given in accordance with the evidence,
and if there was no legal mode of attacking it by recourse to
the higher legal tribunals of the country, it should not be
made the ground for any further proceedings of an extraordi-
nary nature. If they were to reflect on the length of time the
Jury took to consider their verdict, and the time they were out,
and to make these circumstances raise a presumption for
attacking the verdict, or at least bringing forward so serious a
.matter as the calling in question of the verdict of a Jury and
the proceedings of a Court of Justice in Parliament,
there would Ire no end to such proceedings. Giving no opi-
nion whatever on the course which should be adopted, and
being convinced that the fullest consideration would be given
to the case by those whose duty it was to enquire into it, he
did not see that any peculiar claim was established for the in-
terposition of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord B ROUGH AM explained. The Noble Viscount
had remarked on the very unusual though unprecedented
course of interposing between the sentence and the execu-
tion by an address to the Crown. The Ncble Viscount was
mistaken in supposing that he had intimated any wish to
make a motion on this subject. He had never intimated
a wish to do so ; but his supplication in favour of the priso-
ners was pointedly addressed to the Ministers of the Crown
that they might listen to his statement. The Noble Viscount
had stated that if he had known this petition was to have
been presented he should have made it his business to see
that he or some of his colleagues was informed on the sub
ject of it. He had sent the petition either yesterday or the
day before to the Home-office, and he had yesterday begged
the attention of his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Hone
Department, as it was he stated, his intention forthwith to pre-
sent the petition. With respect to what had been said, that
there was nothing extraordinary or out of the way proved
against the officers of the Crown, he must conclude that his
understanding was formed of very curious materials who d-d
not see that it was something more than than an every-day
case to prefer ten charges, all of which failed in proof, and to
omit the charge which alone could be proved. It was just as
if a man were to take the indictments out of a drawer
chance, and to say, .• If this cannot be proved, and is wrong,
we shall go on another." The Noble Viscount had stated that
the Crown might have good reason for abandoning the more
serious charge. But the Crown did no such thing, but tacked
the minor offence to the greater crimes. Bad as the first in-
dictment was, they kept it and tried to prove it. The Noble
Viscount also exclaimed, " The present proceeding only shows
the evils of a want of unanimity which prevailed as to verdicts
in Scotland." He would not argue that question, but those
who were attached to the Scotch system maintained that it was
most unjustifiable to swear a man to return a verdict according
to his conscience, and then if the jury could not agree, to dis-
miss them, or cart them, according to the old punishment,
out of the county. He knew that it was often said in the
law courts of this country that it was better to have one ob-
stinate man than eleven in your favour, for it was very likely
that if he had a good stomach and a sound constitution, he
would starve out the remainder.—(Laughter.) He thought
it right to say thus much to mitigate the severity of the Noble
Viscount's indignation against the unhappy Scotch system,
and to soften the extreme admiration he had expressed of the
practice in England.—(Laughter.) The Noble Viscount
had argued that these prisoners would not have been tried in
the same way in England as they had been in Scotland. That
was exactly what he maintained, and was a conclusive answer
to the Noble Viscount's conclusions.
BISHOPRIC OF SODOR AND MAN BILL.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that previous to
the order of the day being moved for the second reading of
this Bill, which repealed so much of an Act giving powers
to agree to the recommendations of the Church Commis-
sioners, as related to the Isle of Man, he was desirous of
saying a few words, particularly addressing himself to the
Noble Earl opposite, who had brought in this Bill. He (the
Archbishop of Canterbury) had received a communication
from a high authority in the Isle of Man, which, as he con-
ceived, opened so far grounds of accommodation as to war-
rant him in submitting the contents of that letter to the Church
Commissioners. This he should do, and he hoped it would
be the means of leading to an arrangement satisfactory to all
parties ; and he should therefore take the liberty to ask of the
Noble Earl to postpone the motion for the second reading of
this Bill until the meeting of the Commissioners took place,
at which this communication would be considered.

The Earl of RIPON should certainly acquiesce in the pro-
position of the most Rev. Prelate, and postpone the second
reading of this Bill to any day which the most Rev. Prelate
might find most convenient.
After a few words from the Archbishop of CANTER-
BURY, the Order of the Day for the second reading of this
Bill was discharged, and fixed for Tuesday, the ?oth instant.
Viscount G 0 RT presented a petition from the owners and
occupiers of land in the liberty of Limerick, complaining of
the oppressive burthens of the grand jury taxation.
The Marquis of LAN SD OWN E gave notice that he should
more the second reading of the Presbyterians' Oaths (Ireland)
Bill on Monday.
Adjourned till to-morrow (this day).