The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-18 00:00:00

LONDON, I;;'UDAY EVENING, M-W L 18, 1831.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

THIS DAY, FRIDAY, APRIL 18.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at a quarter past twelve
o'clock.
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from Lambeth in
favour of the Southampton Railway Bill.
Lord MORPETH presented a petition from the deputy
lieutenants of York, against the Leeds Gas Bill.
DISSENTING PETITIONS.

Mr. BLACKBURN presented a petition from the
baptist dissenters of Huddersfield.
Several petitions were presented by Captain ROSS from
various places against the present state of church patron-
age. Also, one against stamp receipt duties, and one
against cart-horse duties.
Colonel POWEIsL presented two petitions for the better
observance of the Sabbath. .

Two petitions were likewise presented by General
SHARPE against church patronage in Scotland.
After a few words from Mr. C. FERGUSSON, the
petitions were ordered to lie on the table.
General SHARPE presented a petition from the school..
masters of the presbytery of Annan, praying for an in-
crease of their salaries.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON said, it was most importaato
the•community to raise the condition of that class of men,
and he hoped the case would meet with the attention of
the house.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.

Mr. PLUMPTRE had several petitions to present from
the Wesleyan Methodists of Canterbury, of Feversham, of
Sheerness, and of Queenborough, for the better observance
of the Sabbath. _

justice in refusing to allow a number of persons to do that
which it was lawful for an individual to do. (Hear. )
He was content to put the matter on the principles of the
hon. member opposite, but the house and the country
must know that the Unions had not confined themselves
to that ; with the most daring effrontery they had endea-
voured to usurp the rights of others (Hear), and had
invaded, in the most gross and scandalous manner,
the first principles of the rights of industry (Hear, hear) ;
they had attacked life and property in order to prevent
other men from selling their labour upon the terms
they thought fit (Hear, hear, hear) ; they had set
themselves (which they had a right do) but for
up the tyrannical power of declaring not only for
to
others who did not ask for their interference at what rate
labour should be paid. (Hear, hear.) It was only yester-
day that he had seen an account from Huddersfield of a
written complaint by two labouring men who had dared to
incur the displeasure of the sovereign union of that town,
hecausehe had endeavoured to obtain employment from mas-
ters obnoxious to the union in order to support their families.
The reason for prohibiting the masters from employing these
men, was not that they were bad workmen, or unfit for the
trade they professed, but that they had been formerly members
of a committee of trades' unions, and had ee,ased to continue so
lately ; on account of that an interdict was laid on the
masters from employing them ; which if they broke through
their employment would be totally deserted. Now for the
interest of those trades themselves—(Hear, hear, hear)—
for the general prosperity of the country, so dangerous
a precedent of tyranny should be strongly and firmly re-
sisted. What is the circumstance that causes a distinction
between legal and justifiable unions and unions of another
description ? It was nothing else than the imposition of
an oath ; that oath rendered the constitution of those com-
binations illegal ; and still it was by that oath that those
unions were kept together. No fault could be found
with meetings of men assembled on good principles,
and manifesting no bad intention ; but when secrecy was
imposed, and all the orders of irresponsible leaders obeyed,
when such took place, there was nothing to prevent the
power of those leaders from driving their misled followers
to any proceedings they chose ; for they were protected
from detection by the secrecy of an oath, and were impli-
citly obeyed in every mandate they thought proper to issue.
Every one should acknowledge that such a power should
be checked, and the oath that was taken gave that power,
and made the important distinction between legal and illegal
societies. The hon. member said that these men were pu-
nished for doing what they did not know to be illegal. He( Lord
Howick) totally denied this fact. They might be igno-
rant of the precise Act of Parliament, and of the precise
clause under which they were punishable, but that they
were perfectly aware that they were doing what was de-
cidedly wrong, their proceedings, the circumstance of
their meetings being held at night, the greatest precau-
tion, and the spies that were set round to give the alarm
if any stranger should approach, in order to prevent their
proceedings from being known, all these circumstances
showed that they were doing what was decidedly wrong.
(Hear, hear,) If they meant nothing wrong, if they
meant nothing illegal, if they had no dangerous designs,
if their objects were legal and justifiable, and intended as
a means of obtaining a higher rate of wages, why all this
precaution? why all this concealment ? (Cheers.) Did
it not prove that these persons were perfectly conscious
that they were committing an illegal act ? (Loud cheers.)
If these men knew that they were acting improperly and
illegally, was there ever heard of such a criminal juris-
prudence which would say, that because these men knew
not the precise Act of Parliament, and the precise clause
of that Act, and the precise amount of the penalty to
which any breach of it rendered them liable, that there-
fore they were to escape with impunity ? (Hear, hear. )
That was a principle which no man would venture to
maintain. In punishing these persons, and checking pro-
ceedings which might produce such dreadful consequences,
they had adopted a course of true mercy, for there could
not be a more injudicious humanity than to relieve persons
from a penalty which they had justly incurred. These
were the first persons who were detected, and they were in
hopes that their punishment would be a check to the dan-
gerous proceedings he had just described. He knew it was
said that these were ignorant and unoffending men, and an
appeal was made to the compassion of the house and the
country in their favour. Those who made the assertion
must be totally ignorant of the facts. Those six persons
' who were now undergoing punishment, and who were far
off on their passage to the land of banishment, were not
ignorant persons, who had not the means of knowing the
character of the crime of which they were con-
victed. Two of them had been accustomed
to preach as methodist preachers, therefore that circum-
stance proved that they could not be really ignorant per-
sons. Another of these, it was also said, was a man of
good character, against whom nothing could be said ; but for
a long time he had;been known to be a person of very dif-
ferent habits, and he (Lord Howick) had a certificate from
the gaoler that he had been in custody in 1829, havingbeen
sentenced for a felony to four months hard labour.
He believed (and he had reason for doing so)
from the papers found on him, and from information which
he had received, that in this instance, very fortunately, it
was not the mere deluded instruments who had been
reached by the hand of justice, but the ringleaders and in-
stigators of proceedings which were intended to go on, and
which, if allowed, would have gone on to the most dread-
ful extremities. He could not sit down without noticing
the allusion of the hon. and gallant member oppo-
site, to the disturbances in France. It was said that
this ought to teach them that it was not by a course of
rigour that they were to put an end to proceedings of this
kind. These proceedings taught him (Lord Howick) a
very different lesson. ( Cheers.) It was a struggle be-
tween two classes, and whatever side obtained a victory, a
dreadful and lamentable slaughter must take place. He
would make but one more observation. He had been in-
formed that on a former occasion when he was not present,
great complaints had been made of the conduct of the
noble lord under whom he served, respecting the manner
in which he had received a deputation on the subject of
the sentence passed on these men. He (Lord H.) had
reason to believe that what had passed at that interview
greatly misrepresented. Lord Melbourne had
the deputation that before the sentence on these
hinadformbeeedn
men should be carried into execution, the petition in their
favour should be laid before his Majesty; and it was en-
deavoured to be assumed that he (Lord Melbourne) had
held out that hopes of mercy should be extended to them.
He (Lord M.) could inform the house that the fact was to-
tally misrepresented. It was this, the petition being addressed
to his Majesty, his noble friend informed the deputation
that he would not fail to lay it before his Majesty ; and
accordingly, within half-an-liour after it was received, it
was presented to the King ; but not the slightest hope was
held out by his noble friend that he would recommend the
case to the mercy of the Crown. So far was he from do-
ing so, that he informed the deputation that, however pain-
ful it might be to him, it was his duty to advise that the
course of justice should not be arrested. (Hear, hear. )
With respect to the form of the answer which he
(Lord Howick) had returned, by the direction of his noble
friend, Lord Melbourne, he could only say, that the ordi-
nary form was misconceived as being no answer at all.
Every gentleman acquainted with the form and mode of
transacting business must be aware that the form
of rejecting a petition to his Majesty was to say,
that the petition had been laid before his Ma-
jesty, and that he had suggested no answer. It was
necessary to make this explanation, and to offer a few re-
marks in answer to what haft fallen from two hon. mem-
bers who had preceded him, on the subject of these pro-
ceedings. If what he had said was not satisfactory, he
hoped the house would not come to any determination on
the subject, until they should have heard the explanation
of the responsible ministers of the crown. (liond cheers.)
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said, that the noble lord had said
that the proceedings cif these men had led to the intimida-
tion of life and property. Then he (Mr. O'C. ) was right
in what he had stated upon a former occasion, that they
should have been tried under the Act 52 Geo. 111., in-
stead of the 37th Geo. 111. The former act went to ex-
plain the latter, to which those unfortunate men
were not at all amenable, as it had reference merely
to persons who incited others to commit murder or trea-
son. The noble lord had brought it as a charge that these
men met during the night. It was the only tirble they
could meet. When could persons in the rank of agricul-
tural labourers meet except at night ? But it was not of that
he (Mr. O'c) complained. He would admit that the
Judge who tried them was right in his interpretation of
the law, but what he complained of was the mad pre-
cipitancy 11
fmoncpthlaien gaols,
atohlas,,t the
(Hear.)ninesubject
inerce;Pi's
OcWcaserieonkienpgt
six an
enormous expense 'ye the country, but in this case'the op-
posite principle had been suddenly acted' upon. Ha voiSld
ask, had not his Majesty's Minister 0.; Ti.o4 to listen to
the remonstrances and
There was h' t.
such' co lie could assure them
abroid at the present moment, as would compel his Qt that house ?
Ma-
jesty's Ministers sooner or later to yield, It was mon-
strous, whilst this commisseration was going on, for the
noble lord to come down to that house and tell them
that these men were upon their way out of the oeuntrY.
They should have recollected that a reyi at the 'opening of
Parliament his 3,1ktit,,,,w4 'l3pivil'alliided, in terms of cotn-
miser, 1.1) ttii3 'agricultural interest, and had there not
been meetings of that body in various parts of the country?
If all who met for the purpose of taking into consideration
the depression of the agricultural interests had been. tried,
how many hon. members of that house would be so cir-
cumstanced ? (Hear, hear.) There was a society

PLICE 71).)

Icalled the society of Odd Fellows, who met and took oaths
in secret. How many of those persons should be in-
dieted if the noble lord's principle were to hold good ?
Was it, therefor° prudent or wise of the noble lord to
make the speech he had done, and enter into the subject with
all the severity of a partisan judge ? The conduct, of these mai
had been unwise and indiscreet, but he (Mr. O'C. ) denied
that it had been illegal. The noble lord had said that two
of these men were methodist preachers, and there-
fore could not be quite so ignorant of the law as was sup-
posed. (Hear, hear.) But their being methodist
preachers did not make them the better judges of the law,
He (Mr. O'Connell) trusted, that notwithstanding the
mad determination of his Majesty's Ministers, not to yield
to the prayers of the people, or the remonstrances of that
house, the house would teach them that they must listen to
their remonstrances, and sooner or later the people would
compel them to listen to their prayers.
Lord G. LENNOX rose to protest against the long dis-
cussions which arose on the presentation of petitions, as
prevented other members from bringing forward those pe-
titions with which they were intrusted.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) With regard to the sentence on the convicted
men, he thought the country was under great obligations
to his Majesty's Ministers for not remitting it. (Hear,)
In that part of Sussex with which he was acquainted, some
unions had been formed and oaths taken at them, but since
the conviction of the men at Dtirthester the labourers had
left the unions,
Mr. ROEBUCK did not wish to prevent other mem-
bers from presenting petitions, but he felt he should not
do his duty if he did not discuss those petitions to
the extent they deserved. (Hear.) He contended that
the convicted men did not commit any illegal act. He
referred the house to the words of the Act of Parliament,
the 39th of George 111., and said that the species of of-
fence of which they were convicted was not named in it,
but with some trouble one sentence might be so wrested as
to include it, viz., "or to distu.b the public peace." There
was a case known to every lawyer, " The King v. Marks,"
in which the late Lord Ellenborough refused to admit a
party to bail because he was accused of sedition, and that
case had been relied on in the present instance. But
there were then combination laws, and parties had com-
bined to obstruct their masters, which was an offence,
and was for an illegal purpose. Here there was no of-
fence, and no illegal purpose. (Hear, hear, hear. )
As to two of the men being preachers, the noble lord must
know that many ignorant men !preached, and indeed
some of the church of England were also ignorant, and
knew nothing of the law. The whole country, and even
that house itself, knew nothing of it until the case of the
King v. Marks was dug up from obscurity. Half the pro-
fession would say that the sentence was not legal ; and all
the profession would acknowledge that the law was most
strongly administered in the case of those men. At the
cross-examination of one of the witnesses it was affirmed that
no oath had been tendered, and the judge took the cross-
examination out of the counsel's hands, and asked the wit-
nesses whether the word " eternity" was not mentioned ;
the latter acknowledged that it was, and the judge then
charged to the effect that an oath had been taken. The noble
!ord, in speaking of the strict legality of the sentence,
did not, sufficiently consider the circumstances that should
mitigate that sentence. Ignorance of the state of the
law was a great palliation to the offence ; and it
must. be acknowledged that these men were really
suffering, not for any crime they had committed, but for
the crimes of the whole of the trades' unions. It was well
to recollect, that the proceedings of government in that
case gave those unions a political character that they would
not otherwise have acquired. (Hear.) They would learn
quickly from their error that they could not raise their
wages by combination, and that their own interests should
be to dissolve and desist from their plans. But now
that those men had been so severely punished, they
were bound together by a motive of vengeance,
and what was to prevent the same confusion in this country
as existed in France ?—( Hear, hear.) Had the govern-
scent issued a proclamation that such a law existed, then,
if it were afterwards violated, the sentence would be per-
fectly justifiable. But he (Mr. R.) was prepared to meet
any hon. member on the subject—first on the manner in
which the trial was conducted by the judge, and next on
the legality of the sentence.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY protested against the principles
expressed in the petition, but admitted that the general
' question was one of great importance. The arguments used
against government were proofs, in his opinion, that the act
was necessary, and that pobably it had saved many other unfor-
tunate men from falling into the same snare. Why, good God !
the unions at this moment were well aware of the ille-
gality of their proceedings, and were so from the very
first. But supposing the case had not been properly
judged, and the law of the land had been misinterpreted
(which he would not admit to be the case), this was
not the place to discuss that subject. (Hear.) He
could not say that he was a lawyer, but he had read and
endeavoured to make up his mind upon the case, and he
did think, if there was ever a point of law, or a case,
more clear than another, it was this ; and he thought
the opinion of the learned judge perfectly consonant
with the spirit and letter of the statute. In fact, the
act of government was an act of mercy, and they had no
other course to pursue in regard to those interests which
they were bound to protect,for they must not slink from the
exercise of the law. He therefore protested against the
doctrines of the hon. member for Bath, and publicly
thanked the government for their conduct in this business.
Colonel EVANS. The hon. baronet had said, that
that was not the proper place for discussing the ques-
tion of law upon the case. (Cries of " Hear, hear.")
In saying so, lie had thrown a greater slur upon
the Government than any previous speaker. It was by a
side-wind, blaming the Government most severely for
the haste they had displayed in sending these un-
fortunate men out of the country (Hear, hear)—
such a haste as was not the usual way of dealing with per-
sons so sentenced. The sting of the thing was in this, that
as he understood the honourable and learned gentleman;
who had preceded him, the legality of the conviction
could not be brought before the King's Bench in the ab-
sence of the poor men. He really was at a loss
to understand the speech of the noble lord—he
could scarcely think upon it, or look upon it as having
been a serious one. He said that one of the men was 3
previously convicted felon, and that other two of them were
methodist preachers. Well, be it so ; but then there
were other three who belonged to neither class. (Hear,
hear.) But he would observe, that the convicted felon
had suffered his punishment, and he was yet to
learn that because men were Methodist preachers, they
were to be punished more severely than any other person
convicted of an offence. He was decidedly of opinion that
the example would have been quite as sefficient if the men
had been sentenced to two months' imprisonment as the
present most severe one,
Lord HOWICK said he must deny that he had ever
said that the men had been punished more severely
because they were preachers than they otherwise
would. have been. (Hear.) He respected the methodists
as he knew that but for them it would have been impos-
sible to have carried the slavery question last year. He
said that they were methodist preachers, merely to show
that they were not such ignorant men as they were re-
presented to be, and that they knew well the nature of the
matter they were engaged in.
Mr. FINCH was quite aware, and fully belke74 that
nothing could be more detrimental to the bust interests of
the country, or more dangerous to the constitution, than
trades' unions were. (Hear, hear, ' hear.) He was
also informed thttt the magistrates of Dorsetshire
had published hand-bills, which were distributed through-
out the eountry, stating that such oaths were illegal. He
thought, however, that the sentence having been passed,
the government might have mitigated it, as the peple were
led to believe that there was no law against combinations,
since the repeal of those known as combination laws.
The question was not whether the house was to interfere
with the prerogati ee jO4es, I?ut whether ministers
were to be subject to ' reprehension in the house for what
they intd He certainly thought that the unfortunate
individuals in
Stiqtittn had been hardly dealt with; he firmly
believed that acme of them were persons of bad character,
hut hth you d not bring himself to believe that they had
the slightest idea that the offence they had been guilty of
could be brought within the range of the act of Parlia-
ment, or that they subjected themselves to transportation.
At the same time that he thought ministers had'ilOt 'acted
prudently, he believed they had been actuated from the
best of motives ; and be; `‘acs glad to see, after having in-
vaded
right, of much more sacred description gq,p, those
referred-to, 'they' Were turning to a sound policy,
Mr. G. F. YOUNG belie:ve4 06.1 A the conviction was
legal, and deeply rcgiA4c‘ that the violent and intempe-
rate conduct (4(4 who pretended to be friends of the
igostinMe. individuals had placed his Majesty's Ministers
in such a situation as rendered it imperative upon them to
carry the sentence into effect.
Mr, AGLIONBY was anxious to defend the learned
judge who had sentenced those unhappy non; he had known
that judge for many years, and no exit; deserved the name
of cold-hearted anti cruel leis than he did, though both
those .e.il,;,liiete w6:a applied to him, and his humanity
was questioned in consequence of his having passed rigid
' a sentence. The law left no discretion to the judge ;
no less a term than seven years could be mentioned in the
wiutheth(
Aellra.wA, to.) re punishment, tv‘hiethputnhieshhmopen, tm,
ethinebjeurdf7
would be prompted by his own feelings of clement sentence. He was sere, that if it were possible, cclementy
tsoistedontlsoY.
Newcastle, that that house was not the fit place for de-
ciding the legality of the sentence. It was the duty 0.
Parliament to act on the general feeling of the country re-