§ Mr. Wallace ,having moved the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, said he would briefly state the ground on which the present measure was founded. The statement made on a former night by his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson), though it had not been substantiated in all its particulars by the evidence, yet was so far borne out, as to the general extent, and nature of the combinations that existed, and the effect of 1401 those combinations, that it was clear that some further intervention of parliament was absolutely necessary. It appeared to him that the only practical view that could be taken of this subject was to examine the actual state of those combinations; to see if any alteration had taken place in the conduct of the parties, in consequence of the repeal of those laws which it was asserted had given rise to the combinations that formerly existed; and also to inquire whether the character of those combinations was, in any degree, softened or mitigated. All those points had been duly considered, and it did appear that the character of those combinations was, in some degree, altered—that they were greater in extent, but more open in then proceedings, than they used to be. No less than thirteen cases of absolute combination were stated to the committee, and of these seven had grown up since the passing of the late act. With respect to the constitutional character of those, combinations, they had found it much the same as heretofore. The parties met regularly and constantly, with presidents, secretaries, and committees. They attempted to take from the masters all resources, by restraining them from taking apprentices. They were all under the superintendance of committees, which committees appeared to be composed of leading members in the trade over the great body of which they presided. The manner in which they issued their orders and the promptitude with which those orders were obeyed, sufficiently showed their influence. He knew that in the estimation of many gentlemen, those combinations were considered as light and unimportant. He confessed that he was of a different opinion. It appeared that the intervention of journeymen had for its object to settle when they would work, whom the master should employ, what they should receive, how many, if any apprentices should be allowed; in short, to take all power out of the hands of the master. Beyond this, they had, in some cases, pointed out individuals to be assassinated. He declared that lie had not overstated the case. In Ireland seventy or eighty persons had been wounded. Of these thirty or forty had their skulls fractured; and two had been actually murdered in open day, without the possibility of bringing the murderers to justice. In Scotland, a still more organized system prevailed; and here he 1402 begged to call the attention of the House to the oath taken by the persons engaged in Scotland in those combinations, It ran thus—"I, A. B. do voluntarily swear in the awful presence of Almighty God, and before these witnesses, that I will execute with zeal and alacrity, as far as in me lies, every task or injunction which the majority of my brethren shall impose upon me in furtherance of our common welfare; as the chastisement of nobs, the assassination of oppressive and tyrannical masters, or the demolition of shops that shall be deemed incorrigible; and also that I will cheerfully contribute to the support of such of my brethren as shall lose their work in consequence of their exertions against tyranny, or renounce it in resistance to a reduction of wages, &c." Now, was it fit that such a state of things should remain? Could any thing be more dreadful than a combination in which vast numbers of persons were bound together by such a tie? The right hon. gentleman then detailed the evidence of John Kean, an artisan of Glasgow, who in his confession declared, that the object of the workmen in their combinations was to keep up their wages. That there were two committeemen in the general association at Glasgow, whose duty it was to report to the select committee; and that these committee-men were changed every two months. He proceeded to describe the organization of these committees, and stated, that it appeared by the same confession, that it had been resolved to take the lives of four of the workmen, Wright, Dunlop, Lindsay, and Ewing, as soon as possible. This committee, it appeared, met every Saturday night between eight and nine o'clock. The confession to which he now alluded, had been made by a man who had been convicted of shooting a workman of the name of Graham, who had gone contrary to the wishes of the committee. He believed that the same motives were common to all the committees, and that they all pursued the same course. The evil which resulted from it was incalculable. The most innocent persons might be led, step by step to become participators in acts of the most atrocious description. To ensure success to the designs of such committees, numbers were most of all necessary. To gain these, every inducement was put in practice. First of all, persuasion was tried; then money was offered; then warnings; then threats and intimidation; and if these were insufficient, then murder, or an 1403 attempt to murder, was resorted to. All these various means had been practised. The shipwrights in the neighbourhood of London had left their work, and withdrawn from the employment of certain masters. The shipwrights of Bristol had gone a little further, and had resorted to threats. The coopers of London had made all the workmen who would not obey the rules they laid down, uncomfortable. It was difficult to say exactly what they meant by "uncomfortable;" but, the consequence was, that all the workmen who had been made uncomfortable became members of the association. The weavers of Yorkshire had proceeded as far as threats; and the workmen in Scotland had gone even greater lengths. An instance occurred a few days ago of a man who had struck, with others, and who had received a small sum from the society; afterwards, conceiving that he had permission to return to work, he had done so, and was called to account by the society, and punished for his offence. In Scotland there had been more than one attempt to murder; and in Ireland some men had actually been murdered. For these reasons it was, that he wished to see the law relating to combinations made stronger. He was no friend to the principle of the laws which had been repealed; he did not wish to see them re-enacted; but he wished that the common law, as it had stood before, should be again brought into force. This, he believed, would be quite sufficient for the purpose. By that law sufficient powers were given to the workmen for the preservation of their own interests; they were permitted to meet for the purpose of obtaining an increase of their wages; but if they went beyond this, and attempted to mix up any intimidation of others in their scheme, it was going too far. The object of the present bill was, to keep up this distinction and every thing beside was left to the operation of the common law. He thought the bill of last year went too far; because it gave the men an opportunity of controlling their masters in their trade, and opened to them the power of exercising a compulsion which was unjust and impolitic. The attachment which some workmen had to their masters was very strong; their affection to their families must of course be much stronger; and yet the influence which these societies exercised over them was found to be stronger than either; and induced the work- 1404 man in many instances to neglect both, and in preference to obey the orders of the societies. The principle of the bill now before the House was to make all associations illegal, excepting those for the purpose of settling such amount of wages as would be a fair remuneration to the workmen. He knew it had been objected that this was not enough; he thought it was safer to point out the description of association which was legal, than to specify all which were illegal, in doing which there was great danger either of putting in too much or of leaving out something which might be necessary. The bill of last year was the same in principle as this, but it went a little further; and this, he apprehended, was the cause of the inconvenience now universally felt. The present bill gave a summary jurisdiction to magistrates; it did away with the necessity of a previous information, and permitted a conviction upon the evidence of one witness only. These were the principal Features of the bill. He was aware it would disappoint many persons; for there sere some who, listening to their prejudices, thought that the utmost vengeance of parliament ought to be called down upon these combinations, and that rigour and severity were the best tests of power. For his part, he thought the best test of the power of government was shown in its clemency and moderation. He felt all the disadvantages which such a measure must bring with it; but he felt also that, great those disadvantages were, it was better to endure them than to submit to the tyranny of the workmen.
Mr. Robertsondeclared, that the repeat of the combination laws would, in his view, be attended with the most mischievous consequences to the workmen themselves.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. gentleman had given the workmen any thing rather than fair play. None of the abuses of which the master; complained so loudly were at all proved in the evidence before the House; and at least the existing system had this ad vantage over the state of law which was gene by, namely, that there were no more uses of illegal oaths, no more secret societies. No doubt there had been faults on both sides; but the masters were at least as much to blame as the mechanics; a he denied that any proof of violent conduct, to any material extent, had been given. In the 1405 complaints of the master paper-makers, the masters were decidedly in the wrong. So with the coopers. There had been no violence; and the House could not legislate to prevent petty feuds and differences. The journeymen shipwrights had offered to meet the masters half-way; the latter had refused; and, he repeated, that the men were entitled to as full a hearing—and their petitions had not had it—as their employers. And after all, what occasioned these existing combinations, with which the House was called upon to deal so vigorously?—The cornlaws—the combination of the land-owners, which had raised every necessary of life within the last three years from 30 to 60 per cent in price. It was a little hard to allow the corn grower to bring his commodity as he chose into the market, and to shut out all competition, that he might obtain his own price for it; and then to punish the workman, who was compelled to buy this artificially-raised commodity of the landholders, for making what efforts he could to get the best possible price for his own. For, if the masters were to be protected by the bill of the right hon. gentleman, the men had a right to protection too. And, had they this? They had not. If the masters combined to give their men only half a sufficient rate of wages, and had strength enough to starve them into taking it, there was nothing in the bill to prevent them from doing so. And, how could this danger be met by to the workmen, except by counter-combination; for which, short of carrying them to the extent of violence, he still thought they ought to have the fullest permission? Besides this, he objected to the discretion which the bill proposed to lodge in magistrates; and thought it would open the door to every kind of injustice and abuse.
The House then went into the committee.
Mr. Calcraftobjected, generally, that sufficient investigation had not been given to the subject. It was, further, a fault in his opinion, that in the preamble of the bill, there was no declaration of the opinion of the House against combinations altogether, whether of masters or workmen. Art act of legislation had passed in the last session. That act, he would admit, had been introduced with the best intentions, but it had not produced the effects expected from it, and therefore they were now called upon to consider the measure 1406 before them. He hoped that as the subject was again under consideration, the committee would carefully watch every clause as it went on, so as effectually to guard against the mischiefs which had resulted from the last act.
On the reading of the clause which made it penal to induce any man to leave his work by threat, or intimidation, or insult, Mr. Hume objected to the wording of the clause as being too vague. The word, "insult" might be construed a thousand ways, and that which might be considered as an insult to one man, would not be so understood as applying to another.
§ Mr. Mansfieldobjected to it, and observed that as he had heard the workmen object to it in strong terms, and as he had not heard any defence of it on the part of the masters, he should oppose it. If it were to be carried, he did hope that the power of enforcing it would not be left to the discretion of a magistrate, but that all offences under that clause would be left to the decision of a jury.
Mr. Hobhouseopposed the clause as being too undefined. It was the more objectionable, as the decisions upon it were to be left to the discretion of a magistrate, and not to a jury. He could not concur in the remarks which had been made upon the committee of last session. That committee had proceeded in the most deliberate manner. It was unfair to say, that they had come to a hasty conclusion on the subject of their inquiries.
§ Mr. Huskissonsaid, that the bill of last year was not calculated to give such full effect to those resolutions as was intended by the present measure. He bad no intention of acting harshly towards the operative mechanics. If any hon. member would point out any clause of this bill which operated with unnecessary severity upon any class, he would oppose it. The object of the bill was, to protect the weak against the strong—to afford to the man who chose to give his labour for a certain value, that protection against the combination of large bodies to which every man was entitled.
After some further conversation,
§ the committee divided: For the clause 90. Against it 18.
Sir F. Burdettobjected to this bill, first, because sufficient time had not been allowed for a trial of the bill which it was intended to amend and repeal; secondly, because its language was vague and indefinite; and thirdly, because it deprived 1407 the people of the trial by jury, and left them to the arbitrary discretion of a single magistrate. He maintained that the last clause was as vague as vague could be; and observed that "jus vagum" was, in the opinion of every wise lawyer, the ne plus ultra of tyranny.
§ Mr. Denmanmoved, that in place of conviction before two magistrates, it should be by the verdict of a jury.
The committee divided: For the original clause 78; Against it 53: Majority 25. The House then resumed.