The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-26 00:00:00

ngs should have been instituted against them.—( Hear, hear.)
He said that he regretted this, because, if he had not wished
that these individuals should be treated with all due clemency,

if be bad not in fact already advised the Crown to extend its
mercy to them, it might be supposed, had he given that re-
commendation after, and not before, the motion of the Hon.
Member, that these persons were not guilty at all—that they
were the victims of an unjust proceeding—that all those who
took up the defence of the case of these persons, as a general
and political question, would be considered to have attained
a great triumph over those whom they looked on in the
light of opponents.—(Loud cheers.) It would, no doubt, be
readily believed, too, that the tardy pardon awarded the Dor-
chester labourers would justify those who might be desirous to
follow their example in executing that which these men had
done without being liable to be checked by any just inter-
ference
on the part of the law.—( Continued cheering.) He
could only say on the law of the question, that it was not for
him to give any interpretation of the Act under which these
men bad been sentenced. The opinion of the legal tribunals
of the country was the only guide which he could have for his
decision. He knew that the Attorney-General of the time
had confirmed the legality of the application of the Act—that
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, in
the discussion which took place last year, admitted the legality
of the sentence—that the Learned Judge who presided at the
trial carefully considered the case, and read the particular sec-
tion of the Act under which these persons were charged, to the
jury—that they were declared guilty by that jury, and that no
one of the numerous bodies by which their cause was espoused
thought it expedient to bring the question at the time under
the cognizance of the twelve judges.—( Cheers.) He did not
see, then, how, such being the state of the authorities on this
subject, any man could dispute the law as it was then laid
down.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, he next came to the
question how far these men had infringed what ought to be
the general policy of the law of this country ; and on this point
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, so far from denying, appeared
fully to admit, that the state of the law ought not to allow of
the existence of secret societies, bound together by secret oaths.
--(Hear, hear.) He might be permitted to state, in addition
to what the House had already heard on this subject, that one
of the regulations of these societies was, that the members on
entrance bound themselves by oath that they would not give
evidence with regard to their associates, and that they would
maintain inviolate all the rules and regulations by which their
society was bound together.—( Hear, hear.) The purpose for
which such a society was instituted was no doubt an innocent
one in the minds of those by whom it had been originally
formed ; but that it was harmless in its effects he entirely and
unequivocally denied.—(Cheers.) He thought he should
be able to establish the justness of the view which he took of
such combinations, by informing the House of the substance
of one or two of the rules which they laid down for the conduct
of their proceedings. By rule 20, if any master should at-
tempt to reduce the wages of his workmen, the fact was to be
communicated to the Grand Lodge, in order that they should
receive support from that body whilst they remained away from
employment. By another ( No. 22), if a member of the order
should divulge any of the secrets, or violate any of the obliga-
tions of the same, it was directed that the name and a descrip-
tion of the person, and the crime of which he had been guilty,
shcild be communicated to all the lodges throughout the
couli,.y in which the society was established, in order that
wherever such persons got work, all the labourers in that em-
ployment should instantly refuse to co-operate with them.—
(Hear, hear.) Was such a system, under which the persons
who composed such societies were denounced as criminals, if
they divulged the secrets of them, to be tolerated in a country
pretending to anything like freedom ?—( Hear, bear.) How-
ever innocent these two persons of the name of Lovelace
might have considered such proceedings, they must be re-
garded by every person of proper judgment as most dangerous
to the community; and if those societies had spread through
the county of Dorset, and through the other counties of Eng-
land, their suppression would have required not the transpor-
tation of six men for seven years, but would have called for
the strong interposition of the Legislature, and demanded a
far greater extension of severity than the punishment which
had been visited on the Dorchester labourers.—(Hear, hear. )
With regard to zle tero persons named Leecl.::•,, he coeld not
help thinking that they deserved some greater degree of
punishment than that inflicted on those who were associated
with them. He considered the very tact on which the
Honourable Member for Finsbury relied—namely, their in-
telligence—as an aggravation of their offence, inasmuch as it
rendered more probable the extension of their prieciples
(Hear, hear.) He now came to a different and a more grati-
fying part of the question, that upon which he had already
touched. lie admitted that the law had in a great degree been
satisfied.—( Hear, hear.) Ise had not advised that it should
be carried into strict and literal opervion ; on the contrary,
he had, w4ll the authority of the Crown, sent orders to the
Government at Van Diemen's Laod ;hit these men should
receive their pardon in that colony.—( How , hear. ) Although
they received that pa don be l; few ho might still be told that
they were separated from their homes and families ; but it
should be borne in mind that they were allowed their freedom
in a country which, so far from being a desolate and wretched
land, was a place to which numbers were voluntarily hastening
from this country, as being more likely to receive there, than
if they remained at home, the proper reward of their industry.
_( Hear, hear.) But still it would be objected that they were
separated from their wives and children. In answer to that
assertion, he could only say that at the time when he sent those
orders, commanded by his Majesty, he had made inquiries as
to the usual course of practice pursued with respect to the
wives and families of convicts who had received their pardon
at the colony ; and, without stating precisely the steps which
he wished to be taken, he did not hesitate to declare that what-
ever lie found to be the most lenient course (either to permit
their wives and families to go out free of expense, or to send
them out at the charge of Government), that course, lie re-
peated, which was most favourable to the convict, and which
had ever been adopted, he should follow—(Hear, hear). He
had moreover ordered that at the end of a very short time—
namely, as soon as the men had been two years abroad—four
of them should be at full liberty to return to England—
(Cheers). If, in addition to what he had already done in
the case of these men, he should advise the Crown to grant
a full and entire remission of the whole sentence, the effect
would be that the original punishment would be considered
illegal --(Cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hear.") For
his own part, it had always been a source of the greatest
gratification to him to have it in his power to prevent a severe
sentence of the law from being carried fully into effect ; but
he must he allowed to say, that he had looked into this case
most carefully, and that the conclusion at which his mind had
arrived on a review of all the facts and circumstances of it,
(though there might be some with which he was not yet
acquainted, and a knowledge of which might induce him to
alter his opinion) was, that it was not safe to grant further
favours to those persons.—(Cheers.) He entertained, there-
fore, the sanguine and earnest expectation, that the House
would not, by agreeing to the proposed address, act in a
manner which was at once most inconsistent and inexpedient,
and thus establish a precedent which must be considered as
conveying the reproach of severity to a judge who adminis-
tered the law, and the Government which sanctioned the sen.
tence.—( Continued cheering.)
After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK,
Mr. AGL lONB Y was of opinion that a middle course
might with advantage be adopted, and that the case of these
men should be left open for the decision of the Noble Lord.
This would be far preferable to any address from that House
to the Throne, when such an application could only proceed
with proper grace from the Government.—( Cheers.)
Lord HO WICK said it had been argued that these men
had only done that which they held it to be for the good of so-
ciety to do. But was it possible to suppose that they were
ignorant that they were committing a crime in the eye of the
law ? Such cases were not unfrequent. When persons were
convicted of high treason, of an attempt to destroy one form
of government, and to establish another, they, no doubt, be-
lieved they were acting for the good of society ; but they were
aware that they were committing an offence against the law.
The unfortunate men who were executed on the occasion of
the two last great rebellions in 1715 and 1745, were no doubt
actuated by the most high and honourable feelings, by devoted
loyalty to the person who they believed was entitled to the
Crown ; but at the same time they were quite aware that their
conduct was a violation of the law, and for that violation they
were prepared to pay the penalty. Every body knew that mis-
taken notions of this kind had been frequently entertained.
From the voluminous correspondence which had come under
his notice, he had reason to believe that those mistaken no-
tions very generally prevailed among the working classes.
The periodical publications circulated among them had greatly
increased the evil. That the Society to which the persons in
question belonged were aware that they were violating the law,
and rendering themselves liable to punishment, was proved by
the fact, that they not only held their meetings in a remote and
secluded place, but carefully posted sentinels to prevent their
being interrupted by persons who were charged with the admi-
nistration of the law. It was quite evident, therefore, they were
aware they were acting contrary to law, although they might not
know what specific Act of Parliament they were violating.
He perfectly agreed with the Hon. Member for Middlesex that
a combination of working men to raise their wages without
any violation of the law was quite justifiable. But here there
bad been a combination to raise wages by means which violated
the law. Last year a very extensive correspondence con-
nected with this subject had come under his official notice.
There was one case of the grossest tyranny and hardship which
he had ever heard of, and which, with the leave of the House,
he would state. Two individuals connected with one of the
trades' unions, and members of the committee, quarrelled with
the other members of the committee, and were expelled from
the union. They were immediately placed under ban through-
out the whole part of Yorkshire to which they belonged, and
no master dare employ them. These unfortunate men, for a
mere private quarrel, were reduced to a state of perfect star-
vation. The Hon. Member for Middlesex said that this had
nothing to do with the question. He (Lord Howick) said
that it had a great deal to do with it. The Hon. Member
for Middlesex had observed, that the administration of oaths
of secrecy had been allowed with impunity in London.
That was true ; but the practice had remained unpunished
only because the system was so perfect, that it was im-
possible to obtain evidence of the fact. If that bad not
been the case,. Government would not have shrunk from the
duty of inflicting punishment on persons by whom it was so
richly merited. To show the tyranny exercised by these so-
cieties, he would read the article in the constitution of one of
the lodges of those unions, which had already been read to
the House by his Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the
Home Department.—(The Noble Lord here read the article
quoted by Lord John Russell in an early period of the discus-
sion.) To a working manufacturer such a proscription
amounted to an absolute denial of the means of getting his
daily bread. It was the duty of Government, it was the duty
of Parliament, by every means to discourage the taking of
these unlawful oaths. Now he asked the House if the course
propooK) by the Hon. Member for Finsbury was not calculated