The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-14 00:00:00

about to be dismissed. He did not concur in
the assertion that there were nineteen irre-
sponsible bodies. lie did not understand what the
term irresponsible meant.' He hoped that the house
would not be hoodwinked into the passing of a bill
which intended nothing btA to replenish the coffers of
some gentlemen who had been bankrupts, and men
anxious to get the distribution of 601. or 70/. a-year
into their hands.

Sir R. PEEL considered that the hon. member for
Dublin had offered the most tempting argument
against the dispersion of legislative bodies, in his
remarks upon the present bill. He (Mr. O'C.) was
in favour of eoneolidating responsible bodies, and
that was certainly at variance with the previous
arguments he had advanced from time to time
on the expediency of separating the component
parts of the legislature of the kingdom. (Hear.)
Mr. WILK S spoke against the bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK supported the bill.
Sir S. WHALLEY replied. There never was a
more unfounded imputation than that brought forward
against the vestry of the parish of St. Pancras by the
hon. and learned member for London. He threw back
that imputation, in the strongest terms which the
usages of the house allowed him, and he ,]would tell
the hon. member that he would be ashamed to belong
to any body that could have been guilty of such acts.
He must suppose that the hon. member got his infor-
mation from seine discarded vestryman, who had been
irritated by his loss of office. The stone yard to which
allusion had been made, had been formed for the pur-
pose of giving employinent to the able-bodied poor of
the parish, and since it had been established the
number of applicants for work had increased from 80
to 800. It would be absurd in any man to make such
a proposition to that house for the purpose of pav-
ing and watching the parish, as to move that
nineteen local boards should be established in
the parish of Marylebonc, which comprised a rental of
double the extent was conducted by one board.
He ( Sir S. W.) had nothing to say against the
character of the present local boards—they might
be, for aught he knew, " all honourable men," but
he contended that the bill before the House
would be a decided improvement upon the present
system. According to the present mode of conduct-
ing parochial affairs, the several local boards were, in-
stead of reducing the debts of their respective districts,
borrowing money to pay the interest, and thus adding
to the debt. The present bill would tend to reduce,
and finally annihilate the debt. He ( Sir S. W.) would not
detain the house by bringing forward arguments in
favour of the bill ; it had been urged that the vestries
would not be properly constituted, but it appeared, on
the contrary, that in the parish of Alarylebone the du-
ties of the board had been fairly and honourably dis-
charged. Nothing in his opinion but interested
motives could induce any person to oppose the present
bill. Every hon. member who had stood up, had ab-
stained from opposing the principle of the bill, and
seemed as if he had come there retained for the inte-
rests of some particular body of commissioners. He
thought hon. members would have acted much more fairly
if they had reserved their opposition to particular por-
tions of the bill till it had gone into committee, and
he ( Sir S. W.) would there have satisfied them that
the interests of the bondholders, and every other class
of the parishioners, would be carefully attended to.
Mr. CRAWFORD explained.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 29
Against it 35
Majority against the second reading —6
Lord J. STUART took the oaths and his seat.
TRADES' UNIONS.
_ _

Mr. C. BERKELEY presentecl—a petition from
Lord Seagrave against the Berkeley Canal.
The same HON. MEMBER presented a petition from
the inhabitants of Cheltenham, numerously signed,
praying that the house would present an address to
his Majesty, to mitigate the punishment of the
Dorsetshire agriculturists for administering unlaw-
ful oaths. He did not agree with the prayer of the
petition. The same hon. member then presented a
petition from the protestant dissenters of Bewdley,
praying to be relieved from their grievances.
Mr. RUT HVEN, in reference to the petition
from Cheltenham, said that it was very hard that
men should' be punished for a crime which they
had ignorantly committed. He thought that concilia-
tory measures would be much more effectual in sup-
pressing the Unions than such severe measures as had
been adopted with respect to the Dorsetshire Union-
ists. He hoped his Majesty's Ministers would take
the case of these unfortunate men into consideration.

Mr. HARDY said he had formerly expressed his
opinion that workmen might legally unite for the ma-
nagement of their business and personal affairs, but
he never could support a system- which by force of
arms, as it were, attempted to compel masters and
others to do what they pleased. Such a system had
occasioned the murder of a young man in December,
1822, because he worked for a master which displeased
a union. His sentiments had been much misrepresented,
and he must say that unions, conducted as those were
at Exeter and elsewhere, were doing nothing but
mischief, and bringing ruin upon the unfortunate
members.

Sir C. BURRELL thought those persons could
not be called the friends of liberty who supported a
system of tyranny like that of the trades' unions,
which forced men to do that which they would not
otherwise do but from fear.

Major BE AUCL ERK admitted the force of the
preceding observations, but reminded the house there
were other unions—unions of country gentlemen to
grind the poor, and to send men out of their country
for taking a hare. He would support the union of
men for a good object, but he certainly would never
countenance any act of violence or improper motive.
Mr. BAINES said he believed the persons engaged
in the unions had since the conviction of the men at
Dorchester abstained from acts of violence. Those
men were convicted of an offence certainly, but it
would have been better under the circumstances if the
government had extended mercy to them. He hoped
it was not yet too late to remit a portion of their
punishment, and he believed the labouring population
were well aware now of the illegality of such offences.
Mr. O'CONNELL hoped the hon. member who
presented the petition would move the house to address
the throne in favour of the convicted men. As the
case was reported in the papers, the offence certainly
came within the letter of the statute, and the judge, on
conviction, was bound to pass the sentence he had done.
It was a slumbering statute from 1797, but if it were
literally enforced, every person engaged in Orange
lodges, freemasons' lodges, and others, was liable to be
similarly punished. He hoped, however, the punish-
ment would still be mitigated, for the men did
not intend to violate the law. (Hear.) They were
parties to a crime which they did not know to be so.
But they were not transported merely for taking an
oath. (Hear, hear.) They were transported because
the Trades' Unions were supposed to be getting for-
midable. He knew there was no greater tyranny
than for a man to interfere with the labour of
another, but the convicted men were ignorant
of the law, and mercy should be extended to them.
Colonel CON OLL Y wished to correct the hon.
gentleman regarding the oaths taken by Orange so-
cieties : as soon as the law was passed prohibiting
their existence, they dissolved.
Mr. O'CONNELL explained.
Mr. C. BERKELEY thought that the case of the
Dorchester men was not one fit for the consideration
of his Majesty's ministers.
Colonel E VANS thought that the clear statement
made by Mr. O'Connell was sufficient to convince any
one that the extreme rigour of the law should not be
carried into execution in that case. The hon. member al-
luded to the revolting case of a child being killed by a
severe beating from his master, and only two months'
imprisonment was deemed
sufficient punishment.i
Now that sentence was too lenient, and heol g hsth ietda
hardship that those men should be so severelyt punished.
Mr. R OTC H quoted, from " The Tradesu'aUnion
Magazine," a paragraph respecting the use of oaths in
that body, because it was useless to bind by an oath
which would not be kept; therefore (continued the
honourable member) oaths were discarded, not
because the law prohibited them, but of their
uselessness. (Cries of " No, no.") He thought
it right that the labouring classes e
shouldr be inde-
pendent of their employers, and free from any
tyrannous power, but meetings and bodies
f of
He differed from
assembling should be prevented.
the hon. gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) w who said
was
that the
statute was a slumbering one. Itwas not—it d
acted upon in another case, as could be ascertained
by consulting the sports.
REPEAL OF THE UNION.
Mr. CHRISTMAS presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Waterford against the Repeal of the
Union. He contended that the property, intelligence,
and wealth of the country from which the petition
came, were against the repeal of that measure, and he
thought it would be attended with the most unhappy
consequences to both countries.
Mr. MAXWELL (we understood) said that from