HC Deb 26 March 1834 vol 22 cc725-33
Mr. Hughes Hushes

said, he was charged to present to the House a petition bearing the signatures of 1,563 of his constituents, inhabitants and house-holders of the city of Oxford. The petitioners stated, that in all well-regulated Governments one of the first duties to the governed is to endeavour to apportion all punishments as near as possible to the extent of the crimes committed; that they could not help feeling that, in the late trial at Dorchester, of the six agricultural labourers for administering a certain unlawful oath and engagements, of which they were found guilty, the sentence was excessively severe, particularly when the petitioners took into consideration the probability of their ignorance of violating the laws, and their disclaimer in one of the following rules produced on their trial—namely, "That no person should be admitted to their meetings when drunk; that no obscene songs or toasts should be allowed; and that they should not countenance any violence, or violation of the laws of the realm,"—and, more especially when the petitioners bore in mind that they themselves were open, through ignorance, to a similar charge, by initiations into 'Masonic,' 'Druids,' or Odd Fellows' Lodges; that the petitioners most ardently desired, that men professing so much morality should not be consigned to associate, for a period of seven years, with others who were transported for crimes of the most in-famous and disgusting complexion; and they therefore prayed the House to address the Crown to deign to review this terrible sentence, with a view, as far as justice would allow, to soften what appeared to the petitioners a sentence too rigorous and too severe. The hon. Member begged to observe, that the city of Oxford, containing a population of nearly 20,000, did not now, nor ever did, contain a single, political or Trades' Union; that, during the progress of the several measures of Parliamentary Reform, its inhabitants did not hold one public meeting on the subject; they did not "agitate," as it was called, but left the matter to their Representatives, and to the wisdom of Parliament; they were not, therefore, by any means, to be regarded as men of extreme opinions, or violent politics; and he submitted to the House, that on these accounts their petition was entitled to the greater consideration. Another circumstance attending this petition should also be mentioned: it was not the result of a public meeting, at which the passions of the petitioners had been inflamed; but was the consequence of a handbill, couched in moderate language, and which he would read to the House. It was dated yesterday, and addressed "To the inhabitants of the city of Oxford. A petition, to the House of Commons, will lie (for this day only) at Mr. Grinstead's, grocer, Queen-street, for signatures, from nine in the morning, till eight in the evening, for the purpose of mitigating the punishment of six agricultural labourers, who have received at Dorchester the severe sentence of seven years' transportation, for administering what is termed an illegal oath, for the mutual protection of their conceived rights." Such were the circumstances under which, in the course of eleven hours, this petition had been signed by 1,563 individuals, many of whom he knew to be most respectable tradesmen. He would make another observations, which he thought of some consequence. He had remarked, that recently the Judges had adopted a practice of assigning punishment to offenders, not so much in proportion to the greater or less enormity of the crime of which they had been convicted, as to the policy which might appear to them of making an example at the moment. This, which he thought an objectionable, because unfair, mode of proceeding, had no doubt been adopted by the learned Baron on the occasion in question. He felt persuaded, that this petition was only one of a series of applications which would be presented to the House on this subject; indeed, he said so after communications to that effect from several hon. Members. He moved, that the petition be brought up.

Mr. Henry L. Bulwer

, in the absence of the Secretary for the Home Department, begged leave to ask the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether there existed on the part of his Majesty's Government any intention to adopt measures for inducing a mitigation of the punishment awarded to those persons by the sentence passed by the noble Baron who had tried the offenders? The Act, which was passed during the French revolution, for the suppression of societies, did not, he apprehended, bear upon the present case. The prisoners had been sentenced under an Act which did not meet instances similar to that to which the petition referred. He should think it would be much better that the Act which applied to the suppression of unlawful societies should be better defined; because it appeared that in this case it took the learned Judge two days to consider whether he could pass sentence upon the accused. He availed himself of this opportunity to state, that it was his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the existing Act. He wished, however, on the present occasion, to ask the right hon. Baronet whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to recommend a mitigation of the punishment in this case?

Sir James Graham

said, he was not able to give the hon. Gentleman any such assurance, as the matter was one which did not fall within the duties of his office. But he did not believe, as at present advised, that it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to recommend to his Majesty a mitigation of the punishment to which those persons had been sentenced.

Mr. Hardy

hoped, that it never would be the intention of the Ministers to advise the Crown to grant a mitigation of the sentence in this case. He was not surprised that this petition should have emanated from Oxford, if it were true, as had been stated by the hon. Gentleman, that the petitioners knew nothing of Trades' Unions; because, if they had known anything about them, he was convinced no such petition would have been forwarded by them. Of all curses, that of the Trades' Unions was the most abominable—not merely as affecting the masters, but more especially the poor unfortunate people who were compelled to join these unions. He had witnessed, in too many instances, the lamentable effects produced on those unfortunate persons who were compelled, by a system of the most horrible tyranny, to join unions of this description. He had known cases where parties were called upon to subscribe sums of money previous to their becoming members; and, if one-fifth part of the money thus spent were exacted by the Government, these very parties would at once have denounced such a tax as one of the most tyrannical nature. And yet men who might be earning 15s. per week, contributed 5s. out of that amount of wages per week under the compulsion of the Trades' Unions—unions which were governed by a small number of persons, who were, too, delegated from place to place in a way with which the members were unacquainted; and then, for the purposes of secrecy, and with a view to secure themselves, these few parties administered oaths to those who became members, in order to prevent them from bringing those parties to justice. He himself had had a communication from a Trades' Union at Barnard Castle, in Durham (a place with which he was wholly unconnected), and these persons asked him such and such questions, whether such and such a thing could be done without an infringement of the law. Now it was obvious that these individuals were actuated by the same views as those which had been entertained by the men who had been tried in Dorsetshire. Their object, no doubt, was to compel persons to join the Trades' Unions. He had told these men, in reply to their queries, that every man was at liberty to sell his labour at the highest price he could obtain for it; that every man was at liberty also to consult with others upon the best and fairest means which could be adopted to induce the masters to give better prices, and that they were to do this by every peaceable means. But what was the operation of the present system? Why, it was obviously the object of these parties to compel men, not only of their own, but of other trades also, to join these unions. The Trades' Unions were existing not in one part of the kingdom only, but they were extended to every town and place. The masons, for instance, contributed to a fund with a view to induce the carpenters to strike for the purpose of compelling the masters in their trade to give higher wages; and this system actually pervaded the whole kingdom. One trade struck at one time, and another a little time after, and thus, as in the case of the coopers lately, a strike was made without there being any foundation or reason for the wages being raised. In many cases, too, the journeymen who received better wages than ever they had received before were the first to spread these Unions. With regard to the learned Baron who had tried these men, he was satisfied that no man, who knew that learned Baron's liberal principles and general character, would not feel convinced that he would do everything to protect the accused; no man could be more disposed to this than the learned Baron. But the law compelled the learned Baron to act as he had done; and, for his own part, he was glad that such a construction had been put upon the law. He was quite sure, that if the Judge had not put such construction upon the existing law, the hon. Gentleman opposite, instead of bringing in a Bill to allow of Trades' Unions, would have introduced a law to put an end to the administering of illegal oaths. He was satisfied that the learned Baron had felt it his duty to make an example of these parties, because he thought it necessary to show the community at large that such practices were not to be tolerated. He hoped the House would never accede to the prayer of the petition.

Mr. Henry L. Bulwer

explained. His object was, not to encourage these proceedings, but, looking to the uncertainty of the existing law, to bring in a Bill to amend and define that law.

Mr. Rotch

could not refrain from ex- pressing to the House his deep regret that such petitions as that before the House should be supported, the effect produced being only to multiply and aggravate the evil which existed. That this petition had been got up in a moment of popular feeling (he would almost venture to say of popular phrenzy) he could not doubt; especially when he looked to who was the Judge upon the occasion, and that the decision upon the sentence took two days' consideration. As he (Mr. Rotch) was well aware of the wretchedness which was caused by these unions (but which were disunions); and as he derived his information from various sources, he would merely observe—having heard the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite—that he would, on a future occasion, move for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent Trades' Unions.

Mr. Warburton

said, it was not his wish or intention at that moment to discuss the policy or legality of Trades' Unions. The question, however, which he begged to ask, in favour of these accused persons, was whether, previous to the interpretation of the Act by the learned Judge, the law was so clear that a man might and ought to know whether, if he committed such an offence as that committed by these persons, he could be sentenced, under that law, to transportation? What was the difference, then, between a law which was not defined, and the law of Caligula, which was written in such small characters that few could read it? It appeared that, in the instance then under their consideration, it had taken the learned Judge two days to weigh the question, in respect to the punishment to be awarded. Was not this at least an admission that the law was so obscure that it required a Judge to ponder over it for two days? How, then, could a poor agricultural labourer know whether he infringed the law or not? He did not agree in the principle which had been laid down by the hon. member for Oxford, that they were not to consider the efficacy of example, because that was the principle upon which every sentence was founded. What he contended for was, that if the law was not clear, they should not visit these parties with a severe punishment in a case where a forced construction was put upon the law. He would maintain, that the law was not clear; and, however expedient it might be to introduce a Bill to put down Trades' Unions, &c., such measures were greatly prejudicial to the free intercourse of labour.

Sir James Graham

trusted that, after what had fallen from the hon. member for Bridport, he might be allowed to offer a word or two in explanation, as that hon. Gentleman had, he was persuaded, quite unintentionally, mis-stated a fact. It had been stated by the hon. member for Bridport, and by the hon. Gentleman who preceded him, that it had taken the learned Judge two days to consider whether the law applied to this case or not. Now as he (Sir James Graham) was informed, the learned Baron stated fully, after the investigation had been gone into and when he summed up his charge to the Jury, that the statute in question did apply. He said this without any hesitation upon the subject; but he did that which, as a merciful Judge, he was bound to do—after laying down the law to the Jury in his charge; the Jury, having heard the facts of the case, and the law as described by the Judge, found a verdict of guilty against the prisoners, without hesitation; the learned Baron did not hesitate as to the application of the law, but with regard to the extent of mercy which might be shown in respect to the punishment of an offence which at the present period was one of great importance. He certainly should be sorry that anything which passed in that House should prejudice the question; and he was bound to say, that, looking at the circumstances of the country in regard to this subject, agreeing as he did in the opinion which had been expressed by the hon. member for Bridport, that punishments were not inflicted merely as carrying with them vengeance against the offender, but in order to make an example which should induce men to reflect and turn away from similar crimes, and thinking with the hon. member for Bridport, that this was the object of punishments, he was bound to say, as at present advised (and he did not see such a necessity), that no ground existed to induce the Government to advise the Crown to mitigate the sentence which had been passed in this instance.

Colonel Evans

condemned the indiscriminate denunciation of Trades' Unions. Such indiscriminate denunciations were not justifiable in that House or elsewhere. He thought that trades had a right to unite for their mutual benefit; but it was proper also, that that right should be placed within certain restrictions. He must, for his own part, confess, that to him the alarm which had been expressed by some hon. Members, with reference to Trades' Unions, was greatly exaggerated.

Mr. Shaw

said, no hon. Member who had preceded him could deprecate more strongly than he would any course tending to the encouragement of Trades' Unions; yet he thought there was a still stronger objection to the petition, as interfering with the independence of judgment in the Judges, and the prerogative of mercy in the Crown. It was quite competent for the petitioners, if they desired a change in the law, to petition that House in favour of such change; or, if they thought the criminals in question deserving objects of mercy, to petition the Crown on their behalf. He, on a recent occasion, had warned the House, that if they, on light and trivial grounds, entertained complaints or the judicial acts of the Judges, their Table would be crowded with petitions like the present, and that House would be converted into a most inefficient and unsatisfactory court of appeal. He trusted, too, that mercy was not to be administered by the Sovereign through the medium of a popular assembly, but preserved and guarded by the Crown as a prerogative peculiarly its own. On this latter account, he was almost sorry that the right hon. Baronet had even intimated what was likely to be the decision of the Crown in the matter; although his opinion and the right hon. Baronet's, were in complete accordance on the subject.

Mr. Hughes Hughes

, after what had passed, begged to remind the House that the petition had not been presented at his instance. It was prepared in the course of yesterday, and he had never heard of it till its arrival this morning. After the course he had lately taken in the case of Baron Smith, the House would believe that he would be one of the last persons to encourage petitions of interference with the judicial office. He had seen it his duty to give expression to the views and opinions of so large a body of his constituents, who, it should be remembered, did not uphold or attempt to justify the conduct of these men, but only expressed a calm and temperate opinion, that the punishment awarded to them was disproportioned to their offence.

The Petition to lie on the Table.

The House adjourned for the Easter Holidays till April 14th.