Star.
London, England, 1810-11-05 00:00:00

COMMISSION OF OVER AND TERM IR.

The Judges DALY and OsBORNE sat pursuant to ad-
journment.—Anthony Moore was indicted for a high-
way robbery ; and, on the prosecutors being called,
and nut appearing, the Jury returned a verdict of ac-
quittal : Mr. BETHEL moved for his discharge ; the
Court ordered it accordingly.
John Burgess was indicted for an unlawful combi-
nation, a riot an ,ii assault on the 11th of October inst..
Mr. M,Nally stated
_the case, in which he expatiated
at great length on the mischievous consequences aris-
ing from combinations among the artists of the king-
dom. The first witness was It. Peet, examined by
Mr. Ridgway—proved he was foreman to Mr. An-
derson, calicthprinter, of Love-lane ; the prisoner was
a journeyman in the same trade—that or. tile evening
of the 11th inst. he met the prisoner in Cork-street,
en returning from his work, and on refusing to drink
with the prisoner, he knocked him down without any '
provocati ; proved general acts of combination hay.
ing happened at Cork-street, where it was agreed that
the foremen were not to work at the table, but 'to
walk about, and were not to teach the apprentices.
It was then unanimously agreed that they should ant
return to their work on the terms the masters offered.
They likewise object-al to the new regulations that
had been made.—The witness underwent a very We
cross-examinaticn by Mr. Gould in which be stated,
that die masters had net together for the pirepase
making regulations which the journeymen objected
to; the men wanted no advance in their wages, but
objected to the signing of the indentures which were
opffessive and unfair. This witness admitted that he
hal been, discharged from Mr. Osbrcy's employment
in consequence of h.tving taken Ohs of flour from his
premises. Several witnesses were then examined
.to
prove general acts or combination, but admitted that
all the master calico-printees, except 14r. Clarke, of.
Talmerstown, insisted upon the workmen signing the
new regulations.
Alderman Archer proved the prisoner, Burgess,
having been breught to his office, who admitted he
had written a letter relating to the subject of what
was termed combination • that he had been present
at different meetings of. the workmen for the purpose
of regulating their trade ; that they had a correspon-
dence with England, and any man that deviated from
their rules would not get employment there.
Mr. Gnot.u, on the part of the Prisimer, deplored"
the necessity of having io address the Jury on such a
subject ; he admitted that combinations of all kinds
were injurious to the country, but the only crime ,
proved in the present instance, had been' a legitimate
resistance tee rules made .by the masters themselves
contrary to law, on a domineering principle of self-
aggrandizement and debasement-to thfiejounreymen.
That since the reign of George 11. to:the present pe-
riod, various statutes had keen enacted for the pur-
pose of putting down combination, in which the mas-
ters were rendered as liable to indictments as the jour-
neymen. The levying of money by fines according to
t!-,.e new regulations cf the masters, who were not ill-
corporated by charter, nor backed by the authority of
Parliament, he contended, was illegal, and he there-
fore applauded the spirit of the prisoner in opposing
so nefarious and impolitic a resolution. He bestowed
a well-merited eulogrum on Mr. Clarke, of Paimers-
town, who has a great number of men is his employ-
ment, who have remained with him because he
itiOided the monopolizing spirit of rule and dictation.
He concluded by besegbing the Jury to be at once
ust and merciful.
George Hemner was ezaminediry Mr. GHEnr..—
Provcd he was a delegate from the journeymen to die
meeting-of the masters, who proposed certain regula-
tions-which he was bound to reject, and would rather
beg his bread in another country than submit to-them.
This witness underwent a cross-examinition by Mr.
*NALLY, in which he did not vary in any material
Particular.
The next and last witness was Edward Clarke, Esq.
who proved he had been 30 years in the business—
knows the last witness—believes him to be an hat test
man—did not himself exact any of those regulations
insisted upon by The other Masters--that he always
made a distinction between honest industrious trades-
men and menial servants knew the prisoner from his
boyhood—has been a well-conducted man and re-
spectably connected.
Mr. Ridgway having asked Mr. Clarke of Palmers-
town, if he was a journeyman calico printer, would
he subscribe to the rules laid down by Masters ? to
which he answered, No. Being asked, Why ? he
said, because they were unconstitutional and uncalled
for ; that a line of distinction should always he drawn
between journeymen and servants, and that although
custom had in a manner sanctioned the propriety of a
discharge to a servant, it could only tend to the worst
consequences to oblige journeymen' to receive such.
and thereby place themselves on a level with the most
menial servant. .Tudge Daly heartily coincided with
Mr. Clarke, and observed that no general rules should
be laid down for the conduct of journeymen. The
proprietor of Printfields might propose rules for their
own factories, but should not upon any account go
beyond it.

The Learned Judge Daly, in charging the Jury,
observed, that however the master of a family might
enact certain regulations for the economy of his own
establishment, yet, neither he nor any other set of
men could make laws to regulate society. The object
of theslaw of combination was to protect trade, but
that could not be called combination which was pro-
duced by the masters themselves. As to the riot, there
appeared no grounds whatever, for conviction ; and as
to the assault, the first witness, Pcet, appeared in a
very questionable shape,having admitted that he had
been discharged by his employer L'or malpractices.
The Jury retired for ten minutes, and brought in a
verdict 61 acquittal. 11A! priau.icr WAS «ceordingly
d7tcharged. •