The Sun.
London, England, 1825-05-05 00:00:00

carry their labotir to abetter market e but he could not allow
that they had any right whatever to dictate to their masters
whom only they should employ, or the livages they should
give. He should content himself with, moving that these
sew
veral petitions be brought up and referreditoeheCommidee.
Sir 31. 117. RIDLEY begged it might be_ distinctly render:
stood, that in the Committee up stairs in Whieb• he sat, the
question of the Delegates' Society, to which the Hon. and
Gallant General had made allusion, had never been discussed.
He considered, for one, that these combinations went Much
further than the mere regulation of wages; and if, as it
,was.
stated, they proceeded to dictate to hoe asters wha a
t hnds:
should or should not be employed, was an end of that
free labour which these very persons were so interested to pre-
serve inviolate, and ht sufficient case for the interference of
Parliament.
After a few words from Mr. STUB, the petitions,- seven in
.number, were brought up. They were from the sawyers,
joiners, shipwrights, block-makers, coal-workers, seamen, and
ropers, of Liverpool.
They were ordered to be referred to the Committee hp stairs.
Mr. GRATTAN presented a petition from a MreJohn, of
some piece in the-county of Wicklow, against the disfranchise-
ment of. 40s. freeholders, contemplated by a Bill now pending
in'Tarliament. I
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE resented a petition from the 'city
of Bath, praying the House's favour to any Bills that Might
be introduced with the same view as an Act already pa.seedfor-
the punishment of cruelty to animals. This petition was hue
merously signed by the more tender sex, whose feelings were
always interested in matters of this description. • • •
LICENSING SYSTEM.
Lord NUGENT presented a petition signed by the church-1
.wardens, overseers, and inhabitants of Leighton-Buzzard,
praying that the laws relating to the licenring of public-houses
might be taken into consideration, for the purpose of amend-
,ing them. The petition arose out of the circumstance of 'a poor
publican at Leighton-Buzzard hiding:been refused renewal
of his licence, without any cause being assigned for that refusal:
The consequence was, that he had suffered very considerably,
as under' the idea that his licenei would be renewed, he had-
laid in a stock of beer and other articles, which were now left
upon his hands. He (Lord Nugent) must observe,- that he was
-personally acquainted with the. Rev. Mr. Roth, a Magistrate
whose conduct was particularly alluded to in the petition, and
he belived him to be aliumane and worthy man ; at the same
time he was also bound to state, that the persons whose names
were signed to the petition were highly respectable. -
Mr. MONCK said, that this subject called for the serious
consideration of the House. Some alteration certainly 'should
be made in the existing law, under which the Magistrates,ex
ercised the-most arbitrary rawer. Two public-houses adjoin=
ing the town where he resided (Reading) had been shut up
some time since, without any other reason being assigned, ex=
cept that public-houses were pernicious, inasmuch that pnor
men were - induced to spend money there. which otherwise
would be spent at home. Now really he thought that those
who earned the money were the beet Judges of the manner in
which it should be spent.
After a few words from Mr. MAcctuEtlr, Mr. Coax, and
Mr. PEEL, the petition was laid on the table.
, COMBINATION. LAWS.
Mr. DEN3IAN rose to present a petition from the mecha-
nics of the town of Walsall, praying that the House would not
re-enact the Combination Laws. As it had been stated that no
intention existed to bring those laws again into operation, he
should not say any thing on that subject, but he begged to call
the attention of the House particularly to that part of the peti-
tion in which the petioners stated that they believed many of
the allegations made before the Committee now sitting were
not true ; and requested, even supposing that they were true,.
that the errors of the few should not be visited on the many,
He eenceived that a mere just request could not be preferred
to Parliament. On a former occasion he had • stated, that in
his opinion the statutory provisions created by the-Combina-
tion Laws, which bad been repealed, were unnecessary for
the punishment of the offence of combination, where it was
so conducted as to call for punishment. To that opinion he
still adhered. He thought that the common law of England
was quite sufficient to punish any substantive offence commit-
ted by the workmen against their employers. It seemed to
him to be of importance that the House should not appear
to prejudge this question, on one side dr the other ; and
therefore he heard with great pleasure, on the preceding
evening; the declaration made by several Gentlemen, that ,
they would keep their minds perfectly free from prejudice.
'But he confessed he was a good deal- surprised when an
lion. Member (Mr. Baring) spoke of "the Repeal of the Corn-
bination Laws, as a most crude and hasty measure, and one that
was calculated to create immense evil. This, lie conceived, was
advancing a very hasty opinion on what had been done, and
indl:ateda readiness to prejudge the question. The measure
adopted, it should be observed, was not adopted in a hurry ;' a
long and serious consideration was given to the subject, before
the Committee decided that those laws ought to be repealed.
His opinion was, that the combination laws were very properly
repealed, - for they produced no good, but, gave birth to much
evil. There was one clause alone in the Act, for their repeal of
the usefulness of which he entertained any doubt, and that was
the clause relative to summary convictions. How those who
framed the bill admitted the power of summary conviction at
all on the subject surprised him. Helm! formerly asked his
Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) a question on this point, and he
stated, that it was the unanimous wish, both of the masters and
the workmen, that this power should be granted. Now, he
thought the House should have -paused, notwithstanding the
wish of these parties, before they acceded to such a provision.
When it was necessary to call for the interposition of the law at
all, it should be through the medium of a Judge and jury, ac-
cording to the course pursued in the ordinary administration of
justice. • Another provision of this law was, that when a sum-
mary decision took place, the individual convicted should not
be liable to punishment for the same offence under the enact-
ments of any other law, or by the common law. But a work-
man committing an offence might bring it before a Magistrate
by means of a friendly informer. If lie refused to give judg-
ment on the case, great evil and confusion must follow ; and if
he convicted the accused party,, that party would receive a very
slight punishment for perhaps a very great offence. It was a
mistake to suppose, as the Hight Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel)
had done, that the Act provided that offences could only be
proved by two or more witnesses; that only related to sum-
mary convictions: for if the offence were prosecuted at com-
mon law, it must be supported by witnesses in the ordinary
way. He meant to give no opinion op the measure which ought
to be, or would be, recommended in the Committee up stairs ;
but ha entered his protest against the eagerness with which
some Gentlemen seemed to seize on . any statements that were
prejudicial to the characters of the workmen. Those indivi-
duals bad a right to call on Gentlemen to suspend their opinion,
since they had not yet been heaid before the House or before
die Committee; and the petitioners, in this instance, prayed
that they might be heard, before any measure affecting their
interests was determined on.
Mr. HUINIE said that the proposition for a summary process
did not originate with him.: so far as regarded himself, be
had nothing to do with it. But he must say, that with the ex-
ception of one individual, the whole of the Committee was de-
sirous that provision should be made in the Bill for gyanting
_this summary power; and that etvi4i, the express sanction and
desire of the workmen. .He did not: wonder that, out of doors,
the operation of the repeal or the Combination Act was con-
demned, when he found the Hon. -.Member for Taunton (Mr.
Baring) stating, that from the crude and hasty manner in which
the repeal had. been effected, much mischief had ensued. But
what would the Right Hon. illember.sey, when lie told him
that not one statute whieliewa.S directed against the use of
threats or violencehad been_ repealed, by' the act of last Session,
with the exception of a single`Act`? Under the forced construc-
tion of the Act of Parliament, phich -was denominated the Con-.
spiracy Act,. any three or
.four workmen meeting together; for
the purpose of inquiring into the state of wages, were liable to
be severly punished ; and more grievances had been suffered by
the workmen in consequence of that measure than it was possi-
ble to describe. Men ought to be at perfect liberty to meet and
to consider what amount of wages they ought to receive, pro-
vided they committed no act of violence. lf, therefore, the Act,
of last Session'Only 'repealed the Act he alluded to, and ad-
Mined the men to meet peaceably for the purpose of adjusting
their interests, what ground had the Honourable Member for
the complaint which he had made ? Under the Act to which
he alluded, three men who were found sitting together with
some papers before them relating to wagesabad been most se-
verely punished One of them was imprisoned for a year,
another for fourteen months, and the third for nearly two years.
' Surely such a statute as that should not be suffered to remain in
force.
Mr. PEEL observed, that as this subject was now before the
Committee, he should offer no remarks on what ought to be
done. It was infinitely better, he thaught, to postpone any
, observations on the prospective measure , _until the Report of the
and the evidence on which it was founded, were laid
before the House. .He certainly never inferred from what the'
Learned Gentleman (Mr. Denman) had stated, that it was his.
• opinion that -the commix) law of the land was sufficient for
punishing any
his
hnereason fie coming
offence. which the workmen might commit in
endeavouring to controul their masters. -On that point, in hi
Opinion, a very seriousdoubt might be entertained, andthis was
to a cle.aaand plainunderstanding cn the
question. The secocd clause of the. Act of last Session appear-
ed tohim to be most curiously worded. It seemed to rereal
both the statute and the common law on this subject, and to de-
elare ao-the workmen that it wet; a very proper Act to combine.
It enacted that j6Umeyinen, sir otier•persons. combining to re-
gulate the mode in which's& manuthetote should be carried one,
or to prevent persons front bringing home their work at a certain
time—or to seduce persons to quit their master's employ before'
the tarn of their contract is expired (in short, enumerating every

. .
species of-corabination), "shall not be subject or liable to any In-
c letinent for conspiracsaor, any other pimishment whatever, under
the common or statute law."—(Hear!)—What, then, became of
the position that the common law was sufficient to meet' nd to,
punish those combinations? The common law, as well as the
sautwataarmdteeidliayw, was here repealed. The clause did not say, "as
..em
punishment :of two months' imprisonment may be.
under this Act, therefore those parties shall not beliable
to indictment under the statute or common law." This he
could understand. But here there was a total repeal of the
statute and cOrtimonlaw,' WitbOut any modification. Let the
'House mark- the• situistion in which this clause placed indivi-
duals. ' Suppose an employer, aainst whom his workmen had
committed an ofrenciewas not in' a condition to take advantage
of this summary process, which required two witnesses ; why,
in that case, the act of last session having repealed the common
law, he must ga without redress. This part of the bill,. which
removed the common law as it respected combination, should
be altered.. He could- not but think that the whole was a very.
hasty and precipitate proceeding.
illr. SUARLETT,saId, he had always been of opinion that
the House should have paused, and most maturely weighed the
measure, before they agreed to the repeal of those acts. 'When
his lion. Friend (Mr.. Hume) consulted him on this subject, he
stated it to be his opnion, and to that opinion he still adhered,
that the common law
,provided sufficiently for putting down
combination, properly se called. But when he afterwards look-
,ad at the act _which bad been passed last session, he found that
the common law was repealed ; for he saw • nothing there to
which it could he applied, except in cases where a breach of the
I peace had been committed. There alone could the common
law be brought into action.' 711ds sublect deserved much taansi-
deratiorie He world ask, were the workmen the proper judges
of the benefit antl'expediency of altering the mode in which ary
trade. was carried oie?, alaere not the masters, who had expend.
ed their capital, More likely to understand what was most bene-
ficial for allparties.? Alai yea, under the state of the law as it•
stood, the men Might combine to regulate a trade-; and if
1 they conizaitted MC breach of the peace, they might go free fiver
any punishment adiatevers This was a matter of deep and sea
rious.consideratiort, anallte hoped the Committee up stairs. woula'
Ipay due attention to it. ' They ought either to restore the coma
mon law to its -origifial vigour, or make some specific provision
to meet this era.
Mr. B A RING said, sifter what had fallen from his Learned
Fiend (Mr. Penman), and his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume), he
felt it necessary to request- the attention of the House for a few
minutes. He certainly still retained, the opinion which he bad
expressed on the preceding evening—namely, that the sudden
repeal of the Combination Lawseconeidering particularly the
terms in which they were repealed, had been productive of the
greatest possible mischief. It wax impossible not to see, from
.what was going on in the world, that instead of the system of
combination being mitigated by that repeal, it had been ex-
tended to a degree which serious.), threatened, not only the
peace of the country, but the destruction of all its great trite-
reats.,-(Heae !)-s-No person, with his eyes open, could doubt
this. Many of the workmen who had been examined before
the Committee up stairs were most respectable persons. More
prudence, sense, and amid conduct, he never saw displayed in
his life than was manifested by them • and the manner inwhich
they gave their evidence, proved how far information had made,
its way amongst that class of the community. But they, seem-
ed to think it a praiseworthy thing to join in those combined
bodies, and to direct their roasters how to carry on their trade.
Now surely it could not, be expected that men in business
would submit to this. Whether the mere restoration of the
common law would be sufficient to meet this evil, he could not
say. On that he would give no opinion ; and certainly the
opinion of his Learned Friends behind him must carry much
more weight with it than his could be supposed to do. It was
however, a matter of most serious importance. He had read
the evidence, when he had not had an opportunity of attending
the Committee, and he muse say, the doubt on his mind. was
yell great as the remedy which ought to be applied to the 'evil.
The common law, it appeared; could only be restored to whert-
actual violence was-committed ; but the House must be aware,
that many things might be done, short of violence; that were
extremely injurious. Several of the witnesses were examined
as to the means they employed for preventing men from work-
ing. where there were apprentices, or-where any other circum-
stances of a nature obnoxious to their displeasure existed.—
They were asked, " When you struck, did you use anylvio-
knee against. those .who continued to work ?" They answer-
ed, " No." -But 'When they were pressed, the answer was,
" We made their situations uncomfortable." This was elicited
from them, and certainly such a course of proceeding was a
very strong grievance to die persons thus treated. He could as-
sure the i-louse that he had not made up his riiind—he had not
prejudged this
,question. Ile had thane any thing but arrived
at a decision on it. He could not point out what ought to be
done ; but he was strongly convinced that something should be
tioneeat the came time that he was perfectly aware of the dif-
ficulttes by which the subject was surrounded.
slr. 11. GURNEY, as we understood, was of opinion that
the common law ought to be restored.' The measure of last
Sesioneinatead of tending to put an end to combinations had
increase] them. . .
alr. J. WILLIAMS said, he would not pronounce any
opinion on the propriety of permitting the ancient common law
of the country to he revived with reference to this subject. if
it-we-e true that since the repeal of the Combination Laws
there had been an increase of combination through the country,
he could only draw one conclusion from the circumstance=
namely, that all legislative interference was vain. It appeared
that oflanders were still liable to punishment, where they broke
Out in acts of violence. Now, he did not believe-one word of
the statement that there was an increase of combination since
the repeal of those laws. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
'Peel), and his Hon. Friend (Mr. Baring), when they spoke of
an increase of combination, must have alluded to combination
connected with acts of violence; because the ordinary system
of combination—the carrying on of correspondence between
different bodies of workmen—had long been prevalent through-
out the country. The Right Hon. Secretary of State must
know, and he (Mr. J,- Williams) well knew, that the work=
men for the last twenty years were in the habit •of laying
their heads together in the hest manner they could, 'for the
purpose of accomplishing an increase of wages. Thereforeaif
what the Right Hon. Gent. and his Bon. Friend had stated con-
tained any thing new, it must refer to the fact, tharcambinatiens,
had recently assumed a more serious aspect than formerly, from
the employment of force. It' that were the state of the case,
then, he said, that the law as altered left the power of punish-
ing, under such circumstances, precisely as it was before the
Act of last Session was passed. If this position were correct;
then he came to this conclusion—that they might legislate
as long as they pleased without effecting any good ob-
ject. The evil must he cured by some good understanding
between the men and the masters—by die adoption of good
conduct and temper by both the parties.---(Hear !!--In his opi-
nion, if the observations of the Right lion. Secretary of State
were correct, there was no use in legislating at all. He had
some experience in matters of summary jurisdiction in the
county where they most prevailed, and his solennabelief was,that
the habit of running to the magistrate on the heat of the occa-
sion, where the act complained of was not of importance suf-
ficient to allow the party to go into a court of justice, had not
only done no good, but had produced much. mischief, by in-
creasing the irritation between the parties.
Mr. SYKES defended the conduct of the last Committee
from the charge of precipitation which had been brought
against,arn time House the Right(4 th
s ithonourablehey Secretary. He begged leave'
to v legislated on this subject, since
so long as there was human society, combination would un-
doubtedly exist. •
atiaPEti; denied'that lie had attributed precipitation to, the
Committee. They had sat for 511, days, whiclifwas it prbofv•iliat
they were not precipitate. What be said was, that the legis-
lation -on this subject was precipitate ; and certainly he could
not adduce a better proof of that fact than by again referring
to the clause, by which it was provided that any combiuotion.
to- induce a man to leave his employer before his term *as ex-
pired, or to delay returning to his work, should not be pooteli-
eil by the statute or common. law. What was the inducenient
used ? It was ,the fear that the situation -of the intlividnal,
who was to be acted on, would be made uncomfortable if he did
not comply. lie had never said that the Combination Laws
were sufficient to put down the evil. He had known cases of
combination, which the Combination Laws could not - put
down. Therefore lie did not call for their renewal. But cer-
tainly something oughato be done to check the evil which was
now in active operation.
Sir J. NEWPORT said, the great ground 0£ complaint
w,,, hasty,etliat those parties not only regulated what they would
take themselves, hut wished to compel others to do precisely
trade._(diiidea---4l)Lerirt !w)—asTtruhise was y anyused thniongbut
violence,fr
creissioorntedontothsuecpharintdoufcetmhoesnetstoaswehfroemctuthaelly prevented a free de-
Lea the Hotteelook to the extent to which this systemeebvedeu'tmrsilcih)nee—(Hear
-
car-
ried in Ireland. When any body of men combined there forot
Wages, and wished to prevent others from ;working;, they
use their own individual force to effect that object, but ennaoy-
- tnionocitoiesbe,xidiys:athiwheiiathraooaurdttedirgosli.::
ed branches of other trades avlio were not in immediate action,
' and made them the instruments for punishing those who refused
Everlapbeorusro• should'
but no
be at liberty to demand the value of his own
work..ngundel such a
i slialluot.".
rate of wages, and, therefore you,wtilliloungol:. wit'
state of thmogapouulidd .
uld almost have
referred to contained very -soft words, which
"and to withdraw
'the effect of inducing -indivaduals
He could not help thinking that the clause which had been
gto(insllaeaßyor:.:i:a—lliSnjuicirhya.
themselves when -they pleased from 1
1
enteredinto. ' The system
only beihjarious to -those who contracts they had
the
carried on would nod
who combined. If
ployment, but to the interests of the parties
to combine,
which:eart nfarced to quit 'their em=

mencombined, and demanded wages,- which, if-.the roasters
`granted, he would be unable to supply his .customers with
goods at a reasonable rate, he must give up-business, and thus
thoo misguided men would pull down ruin on themselves and
farnilic.l, by destroying that branch of manufacture in which
Alley were employed.
The petition was then brought up..
111 r. DENILAN; Mr. SCARLETT 7 and Mr. 111731 n, spoke
shortly in explanation.
Mr. PEEL said, that it was quite obvious some regulation
was necessary. Not two hours eiaPsed in any day that he did
not receive a communication on this, subject. As a specimen of
them, he would state the last which had come to his hands.—
It was a set of resolutions adopted on the 13th of November,
1824; by the operative coal-miners, who, after appointing a re-
gidarly delegated body; ordained that no person should be al-
lowed to work as a coal-miner, unless he had been engaged in
the.trade from the age of 16 years. This, and other resolu-
tions,_ were said to be adopted in order " to support the welfare
of the profession." was an abominable assumption of
power, the effect of which was opposed to the., interests of ton
Y generally, and would eventually bring down ruin on
the Manufacturers themselves.
The petition was then referred to the Committee on the Com-
bination Laws.
Mr. DENMAN presented a petition froM Thomas Flanagan,
Of Sligo, complaining of the administration. of justice in Ire-
land.
Mr. COKE presented two petitions from parishes in Norfolk,
against any alteration in the Corn Laws.
Mr. HUME presented a similar petition from the southern
'district of Forfarshire; and another petition from 6,000 mecha-
nics of Birmingham, relative to the Combination Laws.
.11e
trusted. that 'the resolution which had been alluded to' by the
Right Hon. the Secretary of State would have the effect of de-
terring any other workmen from following so blameable and
ridictilbus a course ; at the same time he was convinced of the
justico of the request of the petitioners.—Referiedi to the Com-
mittee on, the Combination Laws. - - •,
The A TT(3RNEY-GEN "AL W.esented a petition from.
Samuel and Joshua Platt, officers of ;he Court cif Isang's Bench, • . .
praying for compensation for the losses they _insgot experience
under the County Courts Bill—
Sir THOMAS ACLAND presented a petition from Ash-
comb, Devonshire, against any alteration In the Corn Laws.
The South London Docks Bill was read a third time, and
passed.
-The other Orders of the Day were then' disposed of;' and the
house adjourned at a QUARTER nEronE SEVEN 0 'CLOCk.