Star.
London, England, 1825-06-30 00:00:00

_ N
EWSPAPIIit STAMP DMUS.
Islr. HUSlllo=ted a Petition from W. IL Norton, a -
prietor oi• Tki Fres Pees, complaining of the injury sns-
tained•lly Oa " of Newspapers, in consequence of the
practice of to
c 1::
aditerthements in periodical papers, witlfout
stank. The P • prayed for the abolition of the Stamp
Duties upon Newspaper.
The CHANCELLOR of the RECHICOEE Mid, that the
advertisements in nestamped papers were as liable to the duty a
any other, and that all publications containing them were Nre•
wise liablelo•the regular Newspaper Stamp Doty. Government
intd had legal advice to this effect, and they intended in future to
edforce the claim upon the part of the public. •
CoMSINATION LAWS.
Mr. HO BIIOUS E presented a Petition from 'certain individuals
delegated to watch the pregress of the Combination Laws MIL
They particularly complained of the intention to put an end to all
deleptions. The operatives of Glasgow had had no time allowed.
them for expressing their opinions. lie felt it his duty to throw all
possible obstacles in the way of passing the Bill, on account of -iO
oppressive character. Should the Bill pass the House, he would
slyly observe, that the table of the other House would groan with
Petitions against the BM.
Mr. WA MACK said, that the Committee had examined ill
the witnesses who were considered as calculated to give an account
of the character of the several associations.
General G ASCOY N I: said it was understood that the 311 Itself
was the first thing to come under consideration to day, and why
had not that been the case ? Ile declared he should give the Bill,
or rather the " verbal alterations" of the law, every opposition
which the forms dike liatm would allow.
:Mr. 111/ NI E said Ire was compelled to deny the accuracy of the
Eight llonotirable Gestiemen's (dlr. Wallace) statements regard-
ing the calling of all the witnesses who could give testimony as to
the character of the combinations; that had not been the case. Tbe
Petitionera prayed to be heard by their Counsel.
Mr. HOIIHOUSE repeated, that in consequence of the great
injustice of the Bill, he should throw every obstacle in its way.
Mr. Secretary PEEL sail, that as in other instances,
the Honourable Member would probably, in his cooler
mettents, withdraw such opposition. The Honourable Memh. r
fur Montrose 'had, at the beginning of the Session, said that G..-
vernment ought to be armed with a power, like that given by the
Insurrection Act, to repress combinations.
Alr. FIUME said he had merely observed, that if the
statements of Gentlemen opposite were true, and if the
Civil Power was insualcient, then, indeed, theGovetnment ought to
have additional power; but those statements were not true. The 1
Bill would be fatal to the liberties of the operatives—( Hear, from
the Ministerial Benches). He repeated that it was fatal to the
liberties of the operatives. He would oppose it to the utmost pitch
that the forms of the House would allow.
Mr. Secretary PEEL explained.—He denied that
the Bill was fatal to the liberties of the people—(Hear).
If so, why did the Honourable Member consent to the second
reading ?—(Cheers). But the Bill was founded on the Hopurable
Gentleman's own resolutions—(Cheep). Even on the last dis-
cussion the Honourable Gentleman acquiesced in the principle of
the Bill—(Hear). He (Mr. Peel) had called in the military
power at Stroud, in consequence of the violence of the operatives.
Mr. CRIPPS admitted that the Bill was brought
forward at a la.e period cf the Session, but would any
Honourable Gentleman put off such an important mea-
sure till next year? As to Petitions against the Bill, they were of
little moment, as he could engage to get thousands in forty-eight
hours. The operatives were the worst judges on the subject, as
they could not calculate the effects of the evil until they felt them.
It was ridiculous to talk of such a Bill being oppressive to the
liberties of the subject.
Mr. JONES expressed his surprise at hearing the Honourable
Member for Montrose say, that there had been no combinations
and violence among the operatives. If anything could excite to
combination, it would be the language of the lion. Member.
Mr. V. WH I Tsit.nt E gave notice of his intention to move a
clause, authorising persons to appeal from Magisterial decisions.
Mt. W. SMITH said, that as the representative of a
manufacturing district, he could say he had received
no ins•roctions from his constituents. lie should sup-
port the clause to be moved by his Honourable friend (Mr. Whit-
mere). The measures used to repels the outrages of the opera-
tives at Glasgow, could not be enfotced except by the aid of the
military. The object of the 11111 was to prevent one body of work-
men from tyrannizing over anuther—(Bear). He should vote for
the passing of the Ikll.
Sir F. BURDETT was strongly against the Bill. He
n would rather have seen all the old statutes against cont•
binations repealed, and the common law left in force. The Mat-
simians in the manufacturing districts could not be impartial. Ile
hoped it might be deferred until the next Session, until the Bill of
lot year bad a fair trial. or at least until the present Bill bad been
annielmaturely deliberated.
Mr. HUSKISSON doubted whether the Hon. Baro-
net had read either the 818 of last Session or of the
present Session. It was impossible to gain anything by
calling further evidence before the Committee. Would
Hon. Gentlemen call convicted felons before the Com-
mittee to be retried there? li was only worthy the
Hon. Member for Montrose—(hear).—Great violence
had taken place in ctfferent parts of the country. In
one'place a man's ear was cut off. Were the persons
vho inflicted this outrage to be called as witnesses be-
fore the Committee? lie was surprised at the inflam-
matory language of the Hon. Member for Montrose—
(l.lear).—He (Mr. Huskisson) had always refused to
1 ear the representations of either workmen or masters,
but had re cried them to the Committee—(Hear).—lt
would base been well for the Hon. Member, and for the country,
if he had followed the same example—(Loud cheers).—But the
lion. Member bad not even the poor merit of originating his own
irfiammatory language, as it was copied front the resolutions and
papers of the workmen—(ka, and laughter).—At any rate the
lion. Member ought to be bound by the resolutions of his own
Committee of last year.
Mr. E. ELLICE thought there were oblectionable parts in the
Bill, but still he preferred it to the old common law of conspiracy.
however, it would be but justice to the workmen to give them an
appo 1 from the summary jurisdiction of the Magistrates. With this
a:.d a few other alterations, he would be content to forego any fur-
ther opposition.
Mr. Secretary PEEL saki, that the person who had
it: the Committee opposed the re-enactment of the old
Common Law was the Hon. Member for Montrose.
He would read the Hon. Merriber's own resolutions for
repealing the existing statutes and altering the Common
Law. The eleventh resolution was 4, to enact a law
which. by -:summary process—(Loud Cheers)—might
punish every man who by threats, intimidation, or vio-
lence should interfere with the perfect freedom of la-
boot.”—(Cheen)._—He . begged_ Members to read the evidence
before

Wen asked fee a fairkeissies for the men, sad uoless they bad tr,
cuscarbsole and dissashiaeosa min, saturant be etineeted,
Mr. 'RIME dallied tit* lithad used inflammatory
languago—(Rear,: hear), jig: hid only spoken the
truth, and truth could never be inflamrisatory. He
held that mischievous atiom of our laws, that truth
was a libel, to be a departure from the principles of
good government. The HonOurable Member defended '
his conduct in the Committee, and stated that the Bill
gave no protection to the men whatever. The men
might be imprisOned for three months, or sent to the
tread-mill for a look, while the masters might commit
any act a;ainst them, without a word of remedy being
provided in the Bill. It was 'fiery well to say, that the
Men ought to be protected against each other ; but he
asked the Right Honourable Gentleman, whether the
men had applied for any such Ootection? There had
been but'one iolitary Petition of shelf a kind before the House.
If the sinfintal7 process had been given up, the men would have
been satisfied with the measure as it first stood, but they were not
satisfied pith the alterations and additions which had since en.
Wet,/ changed its character. The Right Honourable Gentleman
oppositt attributed these combinatibos to the Act of fait year.
Mr:Secretary PEEL coup not longer sit to bear the gross miss
representations of the Hon. hfember. lie had repeated, until he wa
tired of repeating. that he did not attribute combinations to the.Aet

of the Hon. Member.
Sir F. BURDETT. said that the charge had been made by the
Right lion. President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Ii ULIKISSON denied that he had ever said any sueb thing.

Mr. 11U MS having made some further observations,-
Mr. Secretary PEEL repeated that he attributed these
combinations to no particular cause, but finding them
in existence, he called upon hie House to put them down.
He did not with to strengthen the power of the Govern.
ment ; he cared not for the master; but he thought it
the duty of that House to protect the poor men who became the
victims of others' misconduct, and who were entitled to such protec-
tion in return for their allegiance to the Government—(Hear).
Tile AT rouNEY-GENERAL said that the conduct
of the lion. Member for Aberdeen very much surpr Led
him, because when the Bill was first brought in, a con •
versation eccorred between them, in which the Hon.
Member approved the principle of the Bill. lie ob-
jected to some details, and he (the Attorney-General)
now had in his possession a draft of the Bill as alt,Ted
by tie ll.in. Member, in which the parts which he now
denounced as hostile to the liberty of the subj-ct, were
Containel—(Loud cheers). The first alteration was,
that information should be takor on oath, which alte3 a-

tion was made in the Bill. The second relatei to the ab-
sconding. of persons, and that had not been consented to.
The third and last alteration proposed by the lion. Gentleman
was, that the word " solely" should be left out of one of the
clauses. • These were the only objections made by the lion. Mem-
ber, and he (the Attorney-General) bad the Bill so altered now in
his possession, in the manuscript of the Ilon.Member—(Cheers).—
lie could not conceive what could have made such a change in the
lion. Mcmber's opinion in the course df three or four days.
The Petition was then ordered to be printed.

Mr. MAXWELL presented a Petition front certain weavers of
Renfrew, praying that there might be no re-enactment of theCotu-
bination Laws, and for a reduction of the duty on Indentures of
Apprenticeship.—Ordered to be pdattd.
COUSINATION LAWS AILINDWINT BILL.

_
Mr. WALLACE moved the bringing up of the Report upon
the aismre Bill.
Mr. HUII E again commenced hls.ediservations in opposition to
the BM; and the House being very thin, the lion. Member said the
question required more attention on the part .of Members, and he
should accordingly move that the House be counted.
The House was Allen counted, and 42 Members being found
present, the discussion proceeded.
. Mr. kIUME . then went on to condemn the Bill, as
being unjust anti oppressive towards the men, and par-
, tial in the favour wi:h.svhich it Viewed the. masters.—

He contended that the Bill of la t year gave sufficien,
power to the masters. -With that raver they had put
down a combination at Glasgow, and coerced the men
to return to their wink. If the present measure wee..
passed, the men punished under it would consider them-
selves as martyrs, and not as criminals. lie thought he
was entitled to the support of the Honourable Member
for Galway (Mr. It. Martin). That Hon. Member was
very assiduous in his effats to better the conditiOn of
brutes ; and the human animal ought not io be thought
entirely to escape his attention. The only difference
that he could discover between the cases was,.-that the
bears and bulls could not combine —(A laugh).—lf the
Bill were altered, so as to take out the clause giving
power to compel individuals to give evidence against
themselves, and the clause making " molestation" an
offence, he would readily assent to the measure. if
those powers were not limited, he openly avowed he
would take every opportunity of defeating the measure.
That m;nd could not have a particle of justice in it
which submitted to the enactment Gf a measure for
making the matter manufacturer judge in his own case.
An artisan might be sentet.ced to the tread. mill for mo-
lesting his master, but there was no provision for punishing the
master who molested his workmen.—'Fhe House then divided—
For receiving the Report 56
Against it
Majority in favour of the Bill .
Mr. JONES said, he thought it indispensably neces•
sary that a clause should be added to the BM to grant an appeal
from the decision of a single Magistrate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he would add a clause to
that effect on the third reading of the Bill—(Hear).
Sir ROBERT WILSON objected to the word " m.
lest" in ae Bill, as too vague to be used in a penal sta-,
tute. He hoped there would be some limitation in die time tor,
which a person refusing to give evidence might be imprisoned.
Mr. Secretary,PEEL said, he was petlectly ready to
agree that the time for impsisoning a seluc.ant witness,
should be limited to three month, and also that a li-
mitation should be fixed to the time of bringing in-
formations. The term la molestation" was one well
known to the law, and was to be found in numerous Acts of Par-
liament, and therefore be could not consent to its omission.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said, the workmen, when they
combined, were too wise to use violence, and without the word
" molestation," the Bill would be blank paper.
Mr. ABERCROMBY said, he hoped Ministers
would be prepared to state to the House, at the next
meeting of Parliathent, how the Bill had operated, that
every nscessary improvement might be made. He
wished to know, if a number cf masters combined to
compel another matter to give lower wages than he was willing to
give, they could be pro4ecuted under the Bill?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in compliance with
Mr. Hobhouse's suggestion, proposed an amendment,'
that the provisions against combinations should extend
to masters endeavouring to promote a &substation of wages, as well
as against the men striking for an advance.

uou.• ---t.------, - -..
taken before the Committee before they voted this night. The-7; Jf ---- -7,- -- - - --- - --V
House,--; -- . the
would be prepared to state to the at next
outrage* were excessive. They were not sufficiently provided
against under the existing law. Look to the cases of Dublin and mt eting of Parliathent, how the Bill had operated, that
Glasgow. It was a common practice to dash vitriol in the faces every litcessary improvement might be made. He
of persons wbo dld nut comply with the wishes of the combinators. wished to know, if a number cf masters combined to
In Dublin there was a particular instrument invented for a similar compel another matter to give lower wages than he was willing to
give, they could be prosecuted under the Bill?
purpose.' It was necessary to protect the defenceless and put an
end to such practices, so disgraceful to the mural character of the The ATTORNEY-GENERAL in compliance with
country -Meat). •
Mr. Hobhottse's suggestion, proposed an amendment,
i Mr. T. WILSON was ready to take his share of the censure
thrown on the Committee by- the Hon. Member for Montrose. that the provisions against combinations should extend
The object of the Committee was to protect the weak against the to masters endeavouring to promote a diminution of wages as weU
I powerful. The present Bill was necessary to prevent the work- as agaminst the me
of tn striking for an
en advanceßill agreed to, and the BiU
men from destroying themselves. Amendments he Report the
I Mr. BLIGHT said, that the evidence had been so short a time ordered to be read a third time this day.
•1 before the Houle, that they could scarcely form an opinion on it. Ile On the third reading of the Spring Guns Bin, Mr. R. Comeau:
objected to witnesses being forced to attend before Magistrates. moved a are clause, to authorise the setting of spring guns by
..1 • - Mr. Secretary PEEL said the same thing was enacted in a night; but t was negatived.
Bill passed a month ago, and brought in by the Hon. Member The Ho se then divided en the question that the Bill do pan.—
. , for Westmtnster.—hlr. BRIGHT explained. For it, 51 Against it, 52—Majority, 1.--Bill thorns out.
t. ' 1.! hlr. C. GRANT said, that the identical clause was contained
. The other Orders, Sessional Grants, Ste. having been dispeeet
-1 1 In the Bell brought in last year by the Honourable Member for or, the House adjourned at Haw-ram: Ores o'Caoten.
.. I i llontrose--(Cheers). In justice, however, to the Honourable
, ...........:.:
' 'Member, he must say, that the evils which existed, were not to .
.1 be traced to the Hon. Member's Bill. CRUELTY TO AntmatLa.—The Annual Meeting of
t Me. puN MAN thought the present laws quite sufficient to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals took plaits
punish any, and all the outrages which had been alluded to; but yesterday, at the Crowe and Anchor Tavern, J. A. Wauns, Req.
he did not object to the principle of the Bill. M.P. in the Chair. The Secretary read the Report. which stated
i._lp3lie motion that the Petition_ be printed, that 149 convictions for cruelty to animals took place since the
hk• HOBROMB trimmed his shied, to the measure, and formation of the Society. Thanks were voted to Mr. Mown, and
to the course which had been.taken by the• Committee. The Pe-athe meeting separated.
. ! . .
, . .
I
- .....
-•