Commons Sitting of 29 June 1825

COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.
On the order of the day for bringing up the report,
Mr. Humecontended, that this bill did not go to do equal justice between the masters and the men; and ought not, therefore, to pass. The numerous petitions that had been presented against the combination laws ought to have been examined into. As it was, the petitioners might as well have kept their petitions to themselves. If it were shown that, by reason of any defects in his bill of the last session, any disturbances had happened in the country, he would not object to such alterations as might be proposed in the way of remedy. Out of 97 petitions that had been presented to the House on the subject of the combination laws, there were seven from masters, calling for an extension to them of a power to coerce their workmen. Into those petitions and allegations, it was the duty of the House to have entered. This bill, in its present shape, could not fail to work much injustice and conduce to much oppression. The masters might at all times prevent combinations against working, by contracting with the journeymen for a certain

1459
period. He knew that men who had been engaged in this manner had never quitted their work whilst combinations were existing all around them. The masters, then, had the remedy in their own hands, and had no right to call upon parliament to support them with the strong hand of power. He then read a long petition from certain journeymen, asserting their right to obtain what they considered a remunerating price for their labour. He agreed with the petitioners; and he was surprised that those members who advocated the principles of free trade could bring themselves to vote for this bill, the object of which was to reduce the rate of wages. He had heard it said, that low wages were a good thing. That he denied. Low wages tended to degrade the labourer. It was the high wages which the English artisan received, contrasted with those received by the Irish artisan, which made the former so superior in energy and independence of spirit. It appeared to him to be extremely inconsistent, that at a moment when mechanics' institutions were rising in all parts of the country, a legislative enactment should be determined on, which would limit the means of gratifying their newly-acquired taste for study. He again protested against the power given to magistrates by the bill to punish men for what was called molesting their fellow-workmen. He could not define molestation. Any act, however innocent, might be considered molestation. The House, perhaps, might consider that he was molesting them at that moment [Cries of "hear"]. That cheer convinced him that his objection to that part of the bill was proper; for an act of right and propriety, on the part of a workman might be construed to be molestation, just as it was in the present instance with respect to himself; for he unquestionably was performing a praiseworthy act in opposing an unjust measure.
The House divided: Ayes 56; Noes 2. The report was then brought and agreed to, with several amendments.

SPRING GUNS BILL.
Mr. Tennysonmoved the third reading of this bill. The bill was accordingly read a third time.
Mr. R. Colbornethen proposed a clause to legalize the use of spring guns in the night, which after some discussion the hon. gentleman agreed to withdraw.
Lord Binningmoved an amendment, to
1460
allow their use in gardens and orchards, which, after debate, was carried, the numbers upon division being:— for the amendment 35; against it 26. On the question, that the bill do pass,
Mr. Tennysonbegged to have it understood, that the motion did not procede from him. He would not be instrumental in moving that so anomalous and mischievous a measure as this had now become, should pass the House.—After a pause,
Lord Normanbymoved the passing of the bill.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, that although he had conducted the bill to that point, he now felt it his duty to vote against it. The measure had been changed from one declaring the use of spring guns to be altogether unlawful, into one of mere regulation, and which, to a certain extent, was to legalize the practice. As the bill now stood, homicide by a spring gun was declared to be manslaughter on one side of the hedge, while on the other, it was for the first time to be sanctioned by law. He had rather leave the question with all the uncertainty, which, in the opinion of some, might belong to it, until another session, than be guilty of voting for a measure which, in its present shape, would give a legal existence to the very principle which it had been designed to stifle in its birth, as repugnant to reason and humanity and to the rule of law on which homicide had hitherto been alone justifiable. Neither would he ever have to charge his conscience with voting for any bill which was to authorize and recommend to the people of this country the brutal practice of employing these diabolical machines for the protection of any species of property whatever, be it what it might—his object had been, to put an end to it altogether; instead of which, it was now to a certain extent, to be legalized and established, perhaps for ever, and the new and frightful principle thus introduced might at a future period be indefinitely extended. If that House sanctioned the bill as now all altered, he trusted the Lords would reject it. If it passed into a law it would be an eternal disgrace to the British legislature, and as he was anxious to rescue the House of Commons, and himself individually, from the odium and responsibility which would justly attach to them if they sanctioned it, he should vote against the passing of the bill.

1461
The House divided: For the passing of the bill 31; Against it 32; Majority against the bill 1.