The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1868-08-15

that the great bulk Of The House Of Con.
mons, and the iact Of tbess changes proves
that The great bulk Of shs House a. Com.
mons, and Of The House OF Lords a veil,
are In favor Of everything that tends, q I'm
mn they can see It, and No far ~ I sse il m
well, TO the social improvement Of the com.
nnnity and the particular class to which I
belong.
You are aware that upon that very ques-
ton MT. Mathews himself, the chairman Of
that miners association, was, In principle,
favorabie to the chsngef l am aware oil
that but am aware also that members OF
the Committee belonging to the association
were decidedly opposed to the change.
MIR. Mathews-Is not the fact that every
member Of the association, or every member
Of the Committee, cordially agreed that the
Objectionable principle Of which the work
men complained should be removed from the
Act, and that what difference Of opinion
there was sroee simply from the adjustment
OF matters Of detail ! am scarcely in a
position to answer the question, for this
reason, that do not know the members Of
the Committee.
You alluded to them? | do not know
them oil. know q number OF them. Mr..
Liddell IL q gentleman that took m active
opposition, and Mr.. jackson, the member
for DeIbyshire. Those two gentlemen took
the most active part they could to have the
law stand as il was
Are you aware that both Mr.. Liddell and
Mr.. Jackson concurred with me in opinion
that the Objectionable part Of the Law should
be removed, ana that they cordially co -ope-
rated with me in that vieWi No / am not
aware OF the fact but that Mr. L;dden, as
far as ! know, continued TO stand out by
himself He was rather like Robinson Cru
soc in the matter, and appeal TO his Lord
ship il it is not 70.
Are you aware that Mr. LiiislI's standing
out by himself, rs you call it, simply arose
from some matter OF detail, and NOS Of any
great moment, and that he cordially co-oLe-
rated in the principle Of the Bill, because
when you make wide and sweeping charges
of this kind, l must remind you that 1 am
familiar with these matterst am not
aware of what MIR. Liddell may have said to
you or to the association but l am aware
personally, that Mr.. Liddell expressed bis
opinion TO me personally against aIy altera-
ton. because have talked again aud again
to Mr.. LiddeIl on the subject.
Lord Elcho-My impression is that a de-
cision took place on this point, whether there
should q power left in the Law OF issuing q
warrant Of apprehension in The first in
stance That is 50, 10 1t not, Yes, that is
SO but there was considerable negotiation
previous to that which think your Lord
ship is quite aware Of.
The principle Of the bill being that IN no
case should breach OF contract be treated
as Q criminal offence, and that therefore q
summons should issue in the 6rst instance,
in 6ll cases. That is 80.
In fact, the principle Of the bill, you may
say, rested upon that point in great meas
ure, whether warrant Or : summons should
issue in the first instance Yes, I think
that il 50.
Mr. Mathews-Was not the great princi
pie Of the bill this, that the magistrates
should not have the power OF committing 70
prison by criminal pr ocess q man charged
with the civil offence Of breach OF con.
tracty That is So.
Are you aware that the Mineowners' As
ISOLATION, and all the coal and ironmasters
cordially co-operated tn that principle, and
were actively engaged in trying to carry il
cut 2 ! am not aware Of that.
think you should have been aware Of It,
When you make sweeping charge against
capitalists generally, az well as the Mining
Association, that they are inimical to i'm
provements for the benefit Of the workmen
think it right to call to your mind the fact
you know, or ought to know, that the mem
bers Of the Mining Association, as well a
capitalists generally. cordially co-opersted in
removing the obnoxious form Of the law
which gave the magistrates the power u
commit to prison, and that all the differences
Of opinion between Mr.. Liddeil and Lord u
cho was simply as to minor matters Of De.
tails, not Of much importance ] will moi
discuss the matter, but will put the whols
Bill in if desired, tbecause ] have kept q
record Of ID to show that il was not mat
ter Of detail. This wish to say, that car
not allow you 60 draw the conciusior
which you have stated. have not stalst
that capitalists are % inimical to improve
ments. stated that the House Of Commons
being composed Of capitalists 10 large ex
tent, and men representing property, hav,
passed such laws rs the Factoly Act, tha
they have extended the Factory Act to othel
trades, and have given the Mines Inspection
Act and q number Of Acts 70 which hav,
adverted. That proves to my mind beyonC
doubt, and l wish to BE- understood as say
ing so, that the great bulk Of the capitalist,
of this country are not inimical to improve
ments, but favorable 10 them.
Do you mean to exclude Eom that cate.
CORY those capitalists that happen to be en-
gagged in employing the population either in
the cotton or other trades No, mean only
to express my opinion regarding The coubi
nations have seen actively ~ work. Their
are plenty Of capitalists who have no par
or lot in those combinations, and conse
quently to involve them in the category
would be very far wrong. f
lfo BE CONTINUED