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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FRB. 9.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at
Five o'clock.
LOWER CANADA GOVERNMENT BILL.
Sir GEORGE GREY, and others, brought up the Bill
for the Government of Lower Canada, with their Lordships
amendments, agreed to by the House of Commons.
SODOR AND MAN.

Lord KENYON presented petitions from three parishes
against the Bill for the Consolidation of the Bishoprics of
Sodor and Man and Carlisle, in the prayer of which he en-
tirely agreed.
EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

The Bishop of EXETER wished to know from the Noble
Marquis (Lansdowne) whether it was the intention of her
Majesty's Ministers to propose a revival of the Committee into
the new plan of education in Ireland ? Secondly, if it was
not, whether they meant to propose any resolution upon the
report made by the Commissioners ?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said it was not the inten-
tion of her Majesty's Ministers to propose the revival of the
Committee of last year. He was far from stating that some
further information might not be elicited from such a pro-
ceeding, but looking at the extent to which that inquiry had
gone, the great bulk of evidence which had been collected,
and the means thereby furnished to the Commissioners to
enable them to offer useful suggestions, it was not intended
to revive the Committee. In reference to the second question
he was not prepared at present to say that any such proposi-
tion was intended to be proposed. Should any such intention
herafter be entertained, ample notice thereof would be given
to both Houses of Parliament.
The Bishop of EXETER then said he had another ques-
tion to put to the Noble Marquis, which was not connected with
the two former; and it was (as we collected) whether the
recommendations contained in the 13th Schedule to the 4th
Report of the Ecclsiastical Commissioners was about to be
carried into effect.
The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE said that the Report had
not yet come under the special notice of her Majesty's Go-
vernment, but for his own part he felt bound to say, he most
fully and entirely concurred in, and subscribed to, all the
Suggestions contained in that Report, and he should be ex-
tremely happy in assisting to forward those suggestions.
THE GLASGOW COTTON-SPINNERS.
Lord BROUGHAM had a petition to present, which re-
lated to a species of crime, respecting which very unfortunate
errors prevailed both on the part of the working classes in this
country and in Ireland. It was the petition of three delegates
now in London, from the Cotton-spinners' Union of Glasgow.
They stated that five persons, members of the Cotton-spinners'
Union, were imprisoned in the Bridewell of Glasgow, in July
last{; they had been since tried in Edinburgh, and afterwards
brought here to the hulks, having been convicted upon charges
of combining to raise their wages by intimidation, assault, the
burning of factories, and assassination. After a long trial,
those persons were convicted upon some counts only, the
principal charges having been negatived ; but they were
sentenced to transportation, which would be carried into
effect, unless the mercy of the Crown were interposed.
It was fit to state that the offences of which they were charged
were first stated in an indictment which charged them, under
ten counts, with having conspired to commit assassination,
arson, and other injury to personal property, and which were
carried into effect by murder and house-burning, by
persons hired by the Committee of the Cotton Spinners'
Union, and paid for out of the funds raised
by subscription amongst the members. Graver offences could
not be committed by man, or be made the subject of human
accusation and inquiry. On that all were agreed, even those
who were most bigoted in favour of the combination.
After those men had been five months imprisoned, it
at, was found necessary to depart from the indict-
ment altogether, and, what is called in Scotland, to
desert the diet pro loco et tempers. In the second indictment.
on which their incarceration was continued, all the counts of
the first indictment were continued, and three others were
added. Now he was convinced that the offences of which they
were charged were not only dangerous to society and injurious
to trade, but most emphatically mischievous to the working men
themselves. But they were offences of a very different die. ;
iu-
stcadof murder or arson they turned out to be offences, the very
slightest known to the law. They were the offences of com-
bining, using threats, hustling, and other vexatious annoyances.
What was the result ? After long and patient investigation be-
fore the High Court of Justiciary they were ac-
quitted—of what ?—and convicted of what ? They were
unanimously acquitted by the whole Jury, because by the law of
Scotland unanimity is not required, a majority of one being
sufficient to convict on all the ten counts, that is to say, on every
individual charge which had been made,and which alone formed
the subject of the original indictment. Now, in th.s country—
he did not know in whet light it would be regarded, in Scot-
land—this would have been a moat unfortunate predicament
eeronhe Cio.en and a most unhappy position for the law
officers of the Crown. It came to this, that they had framed
an indictment in which four or five innocent men had been im-
prisoned for the sp ice of five months, separated from
their wives and children, who were dependent on their exer-
tions, and this on charges which, by the unanimous ver-
dict of their countrymen, were declared to be unfounded.
But worse than that, and a stilt more unfortunate predicament
for the Crown would be, if its advisers were found to bring
forward charge.; on which the men were acquitted, and all tla,
time to neglect to arraign them for offences which they had
committed. and of which they turned out to be guilty, and
upon which, it they were included in the first indictment,
there must have Leen a conviction : to impose upon them, in
fact, an imprisonment of five months on a groundless accuse.
tion, and to cause a still further delay of justice, and a conti-
nuance of imprisonment for two months, on the charges en
which they were finally sentenced. So the fact being that as
they were guilty of none but minor offer ces, they were not in-
dicted for those, but they were accused of those of which they
had never been guilty. The jury, which, as he had stated to
their Lordships, need not in Scotland be unanimous, retired
after the investigation and a long and learned charge from
the Chief Justice. He irculd demonstrate to their Lordships
that when they went the majority of the jury were against the
conviction of the prisoners even for :he lesser offences; for
they were out three hours, and the result was that they found by
a verdict only of eight to seven, the narrowest possible majo-
rity, that any offence, even the least of those of a less grave
character, had ever been committed. Now it followed de-
monstratively from that circumstance that when they first sent
out they were not of thet opinion ; for if they had been they
would have been glad, after so tedious an inquiry, which
lasted eight days, to have called the roll and retired to their
different occupations. It was, he repeated, clear to demon-
stration, that one of the eight had been argued over, and that
the verdict was thus decided. This, he thought, was a strong
cesa for the interposition of the Crown ; and when he spoke
of the law of England, and appealed to the practice, be was
glad to do so in too presence of his Noble and Learned
Friend (the Lord Chancellor), whose especial duty it was to
stand by the fountain of justice and watch the subordinate
distribution of the stream. Of his Noble Friend's inclination
to du so he had no doubt, particulerly when be called to mind
the state of the English law on the subject. In the year
1824, by the 2d and 31 of Geo. IV., all the combination laws
were repealed. It no longer continued to be an offence to
enter into a combination to raise wages. Whether it was wise
to repeal those laws without substituting some strong enact-
ments had been among speculative men, the students of juris-
prudence as well as among practical writers, a matter of dis-
putation ; but this was certain, that combination amongst either
masters or men was no longer an offence, and the offences of com-
bining were confined to cases where some criminal act was done,
threatening the person or property, or for the purpose of
preventing men from getting work, or making any man lose
his work, or making any man join an Association, or in any
way impeding or obstructing the free application of labour.
It was true that there was a proviso inserted in the Act
stating that threatening the person or property for the
illegal purpose of inducing a man to leave employment was
made more than a common assault or injury. Now what
was the punishment inflicted by the 2d and 3d Geo. IV.,
chap. 93, on a party who was guilty of the lesser class of
offences which he bad mentioned ?—Transportation ? No
such thing. Transportation for seven years, the sentence
pronounced on those men who were found guilty of the less
grave charges? Nothing like it. Transportation for a day
or year ? No. " Banished forth from Scotland," which we
in England might consider a hardship, but which those who
resided in Scotland were found very often voluntarily to un-
dergo?—(Laughter.) No. Imprisonment for a year ? No.
For seven months ? No. For five months? No. For the
period during which these men were suffered to be im-
prisoned ? Nothing of the kind. For the five months that
these men were imprisoned on a bungling indictment,
charging only the crime which was never committed, and
omitting that of which the parties were guilty, on an in-
dictment before it was known whether it. could hold water,
or whether this blundering piece of draftsmanship of the
Crown lawyers was, with all its fringes and counts, worth
the paper on which it was written ?—( Laughter.) No such
thing. Not five months, but just two menthe, was the
maximum punishment in the way of imprisonment which
was inflicted by that Act of 2 and 3 George IV., and that to
which these men would have been subjected if in England they
had been accused. If this case had been tried in England, in-
stead of carefully avoiding any mention of the real offence in
the first indictment, and mentioning only charges they were
not guilty of, the indictment would have been drawn by careful
prudent men of business, filling the situation of Crown lawyers,
upon which if these individuals had been convicted, they would
have been sentenced only to two months' imprisonment, being
the selfsame punishment inflicted on these poor men in addi-
tion to the first five months during which they were wrong-
fully and through the blundering of the Crown lawyers and
their agent in Scotland confined.—( Hear, hear.) Seeing then
that their punishment would have been only two months if tried
in England, and that they had been confined for a period of
seven months, including the five and the additional two
months which was afterwards added; and considering that the
offence was of a slight degree, and of a constructive character,
as charging these men with being members of what was
called " the guard Committee he trusted that the royal
ear would be approached with the kind and considerate
counsel to extend the mercy of Crown to persons who had
undergone three times (and more) as much punishment as
they would have suffered had their case been investigated in
England. Although he totally differed from those who
held combination to be an offence to the extent to
which it was justified by the existing law, still he thought that
such practices as those of which these individuals were found
guilty were mischievous to trade, destructive to the peace of
the community, and, above all, mischievous to the interests of
the workmen. Noise suffered more than the real victims of
these conspiracies—those who furthered them under the delu-
sive notion that they were for their intense, and opposed to
that of their intended victims, the masters. " I don't (con-
tinued the Noble and Learned Lord) go the length of those