§ Mr. Craven Berkeleypresented 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 Dorchester agriculturists for administering unlawful oaths. He did not feel it necessary to enter into the subject, as the men to whom it related had already left the country.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that it was very hard that men should be punished for a crime which they had ignorantly committed. He thought that conciliatory measures would he much more effectual in suppressing the Unions than such severe measures as had been adopted with respect to the Dorsetshire Unionists. He hoped his Majesty's Ministers would take the case 734 of these unfortunate men into consideration.
§ Mr. Hardyhad been represented as entertaining an opinion unfavourable to Trades' Unions; but he had stated, as strongly as he could, that he saw no objection to workmen entering into a combination to better their condition by refusing to work under certain wages. He added, that it could not be endured in any country governed by law, that they should compel others, by intimidation and force of arms, as it were, to join them. In 1832, a murder was committed near the town he represented, because a person did not obey the orders of the Union; and although fourteen or fifteen persons were concerned, no discovery of the perpetrators had yet been made, those who it was thought could give information, being afraid to do so. This was the kind of conduct that could not be suffered. At the same time, that he maintained the right of the workmen to associate to benefit their condition, he must say, that he did not think the Unions had done them much good; and those which had been conducted upon the same principle as that at Exeter and some others, had been the ruin of the workmen, who were deluded by the Committee-men and Treasurer into keeping up an agitation by which they profited.
§ Sir Charles Burrellcontended, that the friends of liberty who upheld the Trades' Unions, who obliged men to leave their employers when they pleased, were acting most unwisely; could there be a greater tyranny than to force men to leave their masters and join bodies that were collecting funds for illegal purposes? It was monstrous that such bodies should be allowed to continue to have such a power as that to which he had adverted.
§ Major Beauclerkthought Trades' and other Unions were founded in justice, and, it was because he felt so, that he gave them his support. At the same time, he admitted, that nothing could be more unwise, or, indeed, more unjust, than that any Union should act in the way stated by the hon. Baronet. He regretted to find that there were some misguided men belonging to the Trades' Unions; but was that a reason why they should be suppressed altogether? Were there no such things as unions of gentlemen to put down paupers and poachers? He had seen many a poor wretch banished from his 735 home for taking a single hare, by the unions of country gentlemen. Let the gentlemen of the country show, by their conduct, that their feelings were identified with the well-being of the people, and they would find, that the people would not be joining Unions of any kind. He trusted that the Unions would act for their own welfare, without, in any way, interfering with those who might differ from them.
§ Mr. Baineshad the pleasure to state, that since the conviction at Dorchester, the members of the Trades' Unions had desisted from taking oaths of any kind. While referring to this subject, he could not but observe, that he thought the present Administration would have acted wisely and well, if they had extended mercy towards the Dorchester prisoners. He admitted, that it was criminal, in any man, to force another to take an oath by which he would oblige that other to leave his employer; but still, he thought, there were such features in the Dorchester case as might have induced the Government to visit the prisoners with a milder punishment than had been pronounced upon them; care being taken, at the same time, to intimate that, should there be a recurrence of the offence, the severer punishment would be applied to those who should be guilty of it. The persons who had committed the crime having been, in a certain degree, unacquainted with its extent, and certainly ignorant of the punishment to which it led, it would have been received as an act of favour by the labourers of England, if they had not been punished so severely. He hoped, even yet, it was not too late to recall them; not that he meant to say, that their punishment should be altogether remitted. He believed the Trades' Unions were beginning to be conscious of the risk they were running by interfering with the free exercise of the labour of their fellow-workmen, and in administering illegal oaths to anybody connected with their associations.
Mr. O'Connellhoped the hon. Member who presented the petition from Cheltenham would not stop there, but would follow it up by moving an address to his Majesty. He said this, without having any doubt upon the law—without having any doubt of the case coming within the law, or of the Judge who decided the case being bound to decide it as he did. The recital of the statute related to one particular species of offence; yet the enacting 736 clauses contained the one in question—that of administering an oath not to disclose or give evidence against any confederate in the association. It was a slumbering statute, and had not been carried into effect against many associations who took that oath. The Freemasons came within the statute. They swore not to disclose against any person what occurred in their lodges. The Orange Lodges, too, came under the Act. It was said, that many illustrious persons in this country were at the head of the Orange Lodges, and nobody had thought of prosecuting them. This statute was allowed to slumber from the year 1797, and only now raked up to inflict an enormous punishment on unfortunate men who were wholly ignorant of its existence, and innocent of any moral offence. In proportion, then, to their innocence from moral offence, should the Government mitigate this unjust sentence. Why did the Government rake up this slumbering statute, and, by its application, tear from the bosoms of their families, and banish as criminals from the land, those wretched men? Why, to strike a terror, it seemed, into the breasts of the Trades' Unionists, whose power they deemed to be too formidable. And why, when the country called aloud for a mitigation of this enormous punishment, did the Government lend a deaf ear to the appeal? Because, it seemed, the Government would not yield to intimidation. Was it because some strong language was used at the public meetings in London, the Government refused to mitigate the sentence? Why, if the Government acted justly, should it have anything to fear from the Trades' Unions, or from those persons who expressed themselves, in forcible language, against the gross injustice of this sentence? The Government had nothing to fear from any portion of the community, if its course were that of justice. He trusted the House would interfere and procure a mitigation of this, he would say, atrocious sentence. Was it not manifest that those wretched men did not intend to violate the law? and was it not disgraceful to lay a trap for them; and then, when it had caught them? ignorant and morally innocent as they were, to inflict on them the heaviest punishment which was inflicted, on guilt of the deepest die? It was said, that Trades' Unions had arrived at a formidable point, and that it was necessary to put a stop to them. He 737 was of opinion, that the Trades' Unions had no more right to tyrannize than had the Emperor Nicholas, or any other tyrant who might be equally ferocious. If, however, they only associated for the purpose of raising the wages of labour, and did not interfere with those who chose to accept lower wages, he did not think that they were acting illegally. But if they tyranranised over and compelled others to enter into their views, he contended that there were laws of sufficient power to punish and prevent such tyranny without recurring to a statute enacted for an entirely different purpose, and which had become a dead letter, and been allowed to slumber in oblivion, until raked up for the avowed purpose of punishing these men. The Government had no need to resort to other laws than those in common use. Again, the Trades' Unions, it was said, sent delegates round the country. Supposing that to be the case, there was a law in existence to suppress them. By that law no permanent body could send delegates, though a public meeting or any other body, pro re nata, as it was called. Why, then, not carry that law into effect, if necessary? There were abundance of means of neutralising any evil effects contemplated by the Unions; and justice could be had on all delinquents against the law. But that justice should be tempered with mercy, and punishment should be inflicted for the suppression of, and not as an incentive to, crime. He thought it his duty to make these few observations, as he considered the extension of the democratic principle the only mode of increasing effectually the happiness of mankind. At the same time that he advocated this extension, he deprecated all interference with property, and all violation of the law, openly or in secret.
§ Colonel Percevalbegged leave to say, that no oaths were now taken by Orangemen. As an Orangeman himself, he could state the fact, that no oaths had been taken by him or others since the passing of the Act of Parliament, making it penal.
Mr. O'Connellhad alluded to the oaths taken by Orangemen previous to the period mentioned by the hon. Member; oaths which required three separate Acts of Parliament to suppress. Besides, an engagement tantamount to an oath brought individuals within the Act.
§ Mr. Craven Berkeleywished to say, 738 after the observations of the hon. member for Dublin, as he had presented the petition, that he thought the case of the Dorchester men was not one tit for the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers.
Colonel Evansthought, that the clear statement made by the hon. and learned member for Dublin was sufficient to convince any one that the extreme rigour of the law should not be carried into execution in the case in question. He must remind the House of a revolting case of a child having been lately killed by a severe beating from his master, and for that serious offence only two months' imprisonment was deemed sufficient punishment. He could but consider such discrepancies as greatly injurious to the morals of the people, for the sentence was too lenient in one case, and much too severe in the other.
§ Mr. Rotchquoted, from "The Trades' Union 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 oaths were discarded, not because the law prohibited them, but of their uselessness. He thought it right that the labouring classes should be independent of their employers, and free from any tyrannous power, but meetings and bodies of men assembling should he prevented. He differed from the hon. Gentleman (for Dublin) who said, that the Statute was a slumbering one. It was not—it was acted upon in another case, as could be ascertained by consulting the Reports.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.