§ Major Beauclerkpresented a Petition, agreed to at a public meeting at Leeds, signed by Thomas Boslan, in behalf of the meeting, condemning the sentence passed upon the six Unionists at Dorchester, for violating an obscure Act of Parliament, and hoping that the House would interpose, and not allow one law for the rich and another for the poor. He supported the prayer of the petition, and was happy to hear, that the hon. member for Stamford said, "that, although he was violently opposed to Trades' Unions, yet he thought the law in this instance was overstretched." It would be the wildest scheme the Government ever attempted, to strike in such a manner at the Unions, and he hoped that Government would recall the men. If no other Member did, he would move an Address to his Majesty, to restore those poor men, all of whom had wives and families, to their country. He entreated his Majesty's Ministers to accede in this instance to the voice of the people, and not to strive to put down their Unions by a method which was unjust. When they did any wrong, no man would be more ready than he to put them down; but he was persuaded, that they were not to be put down by such means. Let Ministers look across the Channel, and see the French government attempting to put down the people by the bayonet, but though much blood might be shed, force would never accomplish it. Let the Government rather give relief by reducing the taxes, and so promote contentment.
§ Mr. Humesupported the petition. The 939 meeting, at Leeds consisted of 20,000 persons, the proceedings were most orderly, and the sentiments of the petition unanimously adopted. He had several petitions to the same effect to present to the House; one from a meeting at Marylebone, of 3,000 persons; and meetings were taking place everywhere to remonstrate against this act, for a more cruel, or unjust act, had never been perpetrated by any Government. The sentence might certainly be legal; but when he looked at the higher classes, and saw that they formed Unions, and administered oaths on the admission of members, he was led to inquire why the law was not also enforced against them? The Act under which these men were condemned, was one of Mr. Pitt's Gagging Bills, and the other night the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, said—"Did any man expect that the principles of Mr. Pitt would be sanctioned by this Government?" That was now the fact in this case. What had taken place? A few individuals, suffering from want under low wages, were ill-advised to think they could relieve themselves by uniting in such associations as they had formed; but they were ignorant that they should render themselves liable to such a punishment as had been inflicted upon them. The Government ought, at least, to have suspended the hasty execution of such a sentence; and, for not doing so, they deserved to be severely condemned. He must say, when he saw the law drawing such a glaring distinction between the rich and the poor, that the Ministers ought not to have lent their aid to such an act, nor have given it so speedy a sanction. He would admit that the sentence was legal; but were there no crimes of a much more serious cast which were frequently pardoned? Upon what grounds, therefore, did the Government act in this case? He could attribute it to nothing but a cowardly feeling on its part, which, finding the Trades' Unions opposed to its views, was anxious to get at them, and had seized the first victims it could. He had no hesitation in saying, that any individual who had broken the laws, ought to be punished. But the individuals in this case had broken none but an obsolete law; and people looked upon the revival of that as an attempt to put them down, and felt only hatred at the interference. The people had been driven to their present proceedings by bad laws, and ought 940 to be sympathized with, instead of being subjected to punishment. If the people did err, their errors ought to be viewed with mercy, and not be met in the severest manner the law allowed. He joined with the petitioners in imploring the extension of the Royal clemency to these unfortunate men. He hoped Government would pause, and not rouse the whole of the working people to oppose it. Let the Ministers recollect, that the multitude might be oppressed for a time, but it was impossible to oppress them for ever.
§ Viscount Howicksaid, as the question would come regularly before the House in a few days when the heads of his Majesty's Government, Members of that House, would be present, and when they would doubtless defend the measures that had been adopted, it was not his intention at the present moment to go into a full discussion of the policy pursued by his Majesty's Government with respect to Trades' Unions, feeling that, in the subordinate situation he occupied, he had no right to do so; but he could not sit in that House and listen to what had fallen from the two hon. Members who had addressed it, without offering a very few remarks. The hon. member for Middlesex had stated very fairly the principle—he had stated, that he regretted that so mistaken an idea should be entertained by the labouring classes, that they could raise their wages by combination. The hon. Member had also said, that as long as they kept within the law, no punishment should take place. He concurred most cordially in that sentiment, thinking that Parliament did that which was no less politic than just, when it repealed those severe statutes against combinations which existed previous to 1825. He considered it the undoubted right of every man to determine for himself on what terms he could part with his labour; and it was not just to withhold from a number of persons, that which was lawful for any one individual. He was content to put the matter on the principles of the hon. Member opposite; but the House and the country must know, that the Unions had not confined themselves to combining to raise wages, but, with the most daring effrontery, they had endeavoured to usurp the rights of others, and had invaded, in the most gross and scandalous manner, the first principles of the rights of industry; they had attacked life and property, in order to prevent other 941 men from selling their labour upon the terms they thought fit. They had set up the tyrannical power of declaring not only for themselves (which they had a right to do), but for others, who did not ask for their interference, at what rate labour should be paid. It was only yesterday that he had seen an account from Huddersfield of a written complaint by two labouring men who had dared to incur the displeasure of the Sovereign Union of that town, because they had endeavoured to obtain employment from masters obnoxious to the Union to support their families. The reason for prohibiting the masters from employing these men was, not that they were bad workmen, or unfit for the trade they professed, but that they had been formerly members, of a Committee of Trades' Unions, and had ceased to be so. On account of that, an interdict was laid on the masters from employing them, which, if they broke through, their service would be totally deserted. Now, for the interests of those trades themselves—for the general prosperity of the country—so dangerous a precedent of tyranny should be strongly and firmly resisted. What was the circumstance which caused a distinction between legal and justifiable Unions, and Unions of another description? It was the imposition of an oath, which rendered combinations illegal; and it was by an oath that improper Unions were kept together. No fault could be found with meetings of men assembled on good principles, and manifesting no bad intention; but when secrecy was imposed, and the orders of irresponsible leaders obeyed—when such took place, there was nothing to prevent the power of those leaders from driving their misled followers to any proceedings they chose; for they were protected from detection by the secrecy of an oath, and were implicitly obeyed in every mandate they thought proper to issue. Every one would acknowledge, that such a power should be checked; and the oath that was taken gave that power, and made the important distinction between legal and illegal societies. The hon. Member said, that these men were punished for doing what they did not know to be illegal. He denied that statement. They might be ignorant of the precise Act of Parliament, and of the precise clause under which they were punishable, but they were perfectly aware they were doing what was decidedly wrong, as the circumstances 942 of their meetings being held at night, of the great precaution, and the spies that were set round to give the alarm if any stranger should approach, in order to prevent their proceedings from being known, distinctly proved. These circumstances showed that they knew they were doing what was decidedly wrong. If they meant nothing wrong—if they meant nothing illegal—if they had no dangerous designs—if their objects were legal and justifiable, and intended as a means of obtaining a higher rate of wages, why all this precaution?—why all this concealment? Did not the whole tenor of their conduct prove, that they were perfectly conscious that they were committing an illegal act? If these men knew, that they were acting improperly and illegally, was there ever heard of such a criminal jurisprudence which would say, that because these men knew not the precise Act of Parliament, and the precise clause of that Act, and the precise amount of the penalty to which any breach of it rendered them liable, that therefore they were to escape with impunity? That was a principle which no man would venture to maintain. In punishing these persons, and checking proceedings which might produce such dreadful consequences, the Ministers had adopted a course of true mercy, for there could not be a more injudicious humanity, than to relieve persons from a penalty which they had incurred. These were the first persons who were detected: and Ministers were in hopes that the punishment of them would be a check to the similar dangerous proceedings of others. He knew it was said that these were ignorant and unoffending men, and an appeal had been made to the compassion of the House and the country in their favour. Those who made the assertion, must be totally ignorant of the facts. Those six persons, who were now undergoing punishment, and who were far off on their passage to the land of banishment, were not ignorant persons, who had not the means of knowing the character of the crime of which they were convicted. Two of them had been accustomed to act as Methodist preachers, and therefore could not be such ignorant persons as was pretended. Another of them, it was said, was a man of good character, against whom nothing could be alleged; but for a long time he had been known to be a person of very indifferent habits, and a certificate from the gaoler, that he had been 943 in custody in 1829, having been sentenced for a felony to four months' hard labour, was then in his hand. He believed (and he had reason for doing so) from the papers found on that man, and from information which he had received, that in this instance, very fortunately, it was not the mere deluded instruments who had been reached by the hand of justice, but the ringleaders and instigators of proceedings which were intended to go on, and which, if allowed, would have gone on to the most dreadful extremities. He could not sit down without noticing the allusion of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, to the disturbances in France. It was said, that this ought to teach them that it was not by a course of rigour that they were to put an end to proceedings of this kind. These proceedings taught him, however, a very different lesson from that which the hen. Member had learnt. They taught him, that unless such illegal societies were checked in time, they were likely to grow into power; and then would come what had come in France, a struggle between two classes, and whichever side obtained a victory, a dreadful and lamentable slaughter must take place. He would make but one more observation. He had been informed, that on a former occasion, when he was not present, great complaints had been made of the conduct of his noble friend under whom he served, respecting the manner in which his noble friend had received a deputation on the subject of the sentence passed on these men. He had reason to believe, that what had passed at that interview, had been greatly misrepresented. Lord Melbourne had informed the deputation, that before the sentence on these men should be carried into execution, the petition in their favour should be laid before his Majesty; and it was on that account asserted, that his noble friend had encouraged an idea that hopes of mercy should be extended to them. He could inform the House, that the fact was totally misrepresented. The petition being addressed to his Majesty, his noble friend informed the Deputation, that he would not fail to lay it before his Majesty; and accordingly, within half an hour after it was received, it was presented to the King; but not the slightest hope was held out by his noble friend, that he would recommend the case to the mercy of the Crown. So far was he from doing so, that he informed the Deputation, that however painful it might 944 be to him, it was his duty to advise that the course of justice should not be arrested. With respect to the form of the answer which he (Lord Howick) had returned, by the direction of his noble friend, Lord Melbourne, he could only say, that the ordinary form had been observed, and was misconceived as being no answer at all. Every Gentleman acquainted with the mode of transacting business must be aware, that the form of rejecting a petition to his Majesty was to say, that the Petition had been laid before his Majesty, and that he had suggested no answer. It was necessary to make this explanation, and to offer a few remarks in answer to what had fallen from the two hon. Members who had preceded him, on the subject of these proceedings. If what he had said was not satisfactory, he hoped that the House would not come to any determination on the subject, until they should have heard the explanation of the more experienced and responsible Ministers of the Crown.
§ Mr. Feargus O'Connorsaid, that the noble Lord had inferred, that the proceedings of these men had led to the intimidation of life and property. Then they should have been tried, as he had stated on a former occasion, under the Act of the 52nd Geo. 3rd, instead of the 37th Geo. 3rd. The former Act went to explain the latter, to which those unfortunate men were not at all amenable, as it had reference merely to persons who incited others to commit murder or treason. The noble Lord had brought it as a charge against these men that they met during the night. It was the only time they could meet. When could persons in the rank of agricultural labourers meet except at night? Admitting that the Judge who tried them was right in his interpretation of the law, he must complain of the mad precipitancy with which the unfortunate men had been hurried from the dock to the hulks. It had often been a subject of complaint that the convicts were kept six and nine months in the gaols, occasioning enormous expense to the country, but in this case the opposite principle had been suddenly acted upon. Were not his Majesty's Ministers bound to listen to the remonstrances of that House? There was much commiseration, he could assure them, abroad at the present moment for these men, and it would compel his Majesty's Ministers sooner or later to yield. It was monstrous, whilst the whole country was 945 commiserating these men, for the noble Lord to come down to that House and tell them, that the men were upon their way out of the country. The Ministers should have recollected that even at the opening of Parliament his Majesty's Speech alluded, in terms of regret, to the agricultural interest; and had there not been meetings of that body in various parts of the country? If all who met for the purpose of taking into consideration the depression of the agricultural interest had been tried, how many hon. Members of that House would be liable to transportation! There was a society called the Society of Odd Fellows, who met and took oaths in secret. How many of those persons should be indicted, if the noble Lord's principle were to hold good! Was it, therefore, prudent or wise of the noble Lord to make the Speech he had done, and enter into the subject with all the ardour of a partisan Judge? The conduct of these men had been indiscreet and imprudent; but it had not been illegal. The noble Lord said, that two of them were Methodist preachers, and, therefore, could not be quite so ignorant of the law as was supposed. But their being Methodist preachers did not make them acquainted with the law. He trusted, that notwithstanding the mad determination of his Majesty's Ministers not to yield to the prayers of the people, or the remonstrances of that House, the House would teach them that they must listen to their remonstrances, and sooner or later the people would compel them to listen to their prayers.
Captain Curteisrose to protest against the long discussions which arose on the presentation of petitions, which prevented other Members from bringing forward those petitions with which they were intrusted. With regard to the sentence on the convicted men, he thought the country was under great obligations to his Majesty's Ministers for not remitting it. In that part of Sussex with which he was acquainted, some Unions had been formed, and oaths taken at them; but since the conviction of the men at Dorchester, the labourers had left the Unions.
§ Mr. Roebuckfelt he should not do his duty, if he did not say a few words on the petition. He contended, that the convicted men did not commit any illegal act. He referred the House to the words of the Act of Parliament, the 39th of Geo. 3rd, and said, that the species of 946 offence of which they were convicted was not named in it; but, with some trouble, one sentence might be so wrested as to include it, viz., "or to disturb the public peace." There was a case known to every lawyer, "The King v. Marks," in which the late Lord Ellenborough refused to admit a party to bail, because he was accused of sedition, and that case had been relied on in the present instance. But there were then Combination-laws, and parties had combined to obstruct their masters, which was an offence, and was for an illegal purpose. Here there was no offence, and no illegal purpose. As to two of the men being preachers, the noble Lord must know, that many ignorant men preached; and, indeed, some of the clergy of the Church of England were very ignorant, and knew not of the existence of such a law; The whole country, and that House itself, knew nothing of it until the case of "The King v. Marks" was dug up from obscurity. Many lawyers were ignorant of the existence of the law. Half the profession would say, that the sentence was not legal; and all would acknowledge, that the law was most severely administered. At the cross-examination of one of the witnesses, it was affirmed, that no oath had been tendered; and the Judge took the cross-examination out of the counsel's hands, and asked the witness whether the word "eternity" was not mentioned? The latter acknowledged that it was, and the judge afterwards relied on that in his charge to the Jury, to show that an oath had been taken. The noble Lord, in speaking of the strict legality of the sentence, did not sufficiently consider the circumstances that should mitigate that sentence. Ignorance of the state of the law, if not a palliation of the offence, was a plea for the remission of the punishment. It must, indeed, be stated, that these men were really suffering, not for any crime they had committed, but for the crimes of the whole of the Trades' Unions. It was well to recollect, that the proceedings of Government, in that case, gave those Unions a political character, which they would not otherwise have acquired. They would learn quickly, that they could not raise their wages by combination, and their own interests would teach them to dissolve and desist from their plans. But, now that those men had been so severely punished for 947 forming a Union, they were bound together by a motive of vengeance; and what was to prevent the same disturbance in this country as had taken place in France? Had the Government issued a Proclamation, that such a law existed, and, if it were afterwards violated, had carried the sentence into execution, it would have been perfectly justifiable. But he was prepared at present to impugn—first, the manner in which the trial was conducted by the Judge; and next, the legality of the sentence.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyadmitted, that the question brought before the House by the petition was one of great importance. The arguments used against Government were proofs, in his opinion, that the Act was necessary, and that, probably, it had saved many other unfortunate men from falling into the same snare. The Unions were now well aware of the illegality of their proceedings, and were so from the very first. But, supposing the case had not been properly judged, and the law of the land had been misinterpreted (which he would not admit to be the case), this was not the place to discuss that subject. He could not say that he was a lawyer, but he had read and endeavoured to make up his mind upon the case, and he did think, if there was ever a point of law, or a case more clear than another, it was this; and he thought the opinion of the learned Judge perfectly consonant with the spirit and letter of the statute. The determination of the Government he considered an act of mercy, and they had no other course to pursue in regard to those interests which they were bound to protect, for they must not slink from the exercise of the law. He, for one, protested against the doctrines of the hon. member for Bath, and publicly thanked the Government for their conduct in this business.
Colonel Evansobserved, that the hon. Baronet, in saying, that the House of Commons was not the proper place for discussing the question of law upon the case, had thrown a greater slur upon the Government than any previous speaker. It was by a side-wind blaming the Government most severely for the haste they had displayed in sending these unfortunate men out of the country—such a haste as was not the usual way of dealing with persons sentenced to transportation. The sting of the thing was this, that, as he had 948 understood from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had preceded him, the legality of the conviction could not be brought before the King's-Bench in the absence of the men. He really was at a loss to understand the speech of the noble Lord; he could scarcely think it was intended to be a serious speech. He said, that one of the men was a previously convicted felon, and that two more of them were Methodist preachers. Well, be it so; but then there were three who belonged to neither class. Further, he would observe, that the convicted felon had suffered his punishment, and he was yet to learn, that, because men were Methodist preachers, they were to be punished more severely than any other person convicted of an offence. He was decidedly of opinion, that the example would have been quite as sufficient if the men had been sentenced to two months' imprisonment, as to seven years' transportation.
§ Viscount Howickhad never said, that the men had been punished more severely because they were preachers, than they otherwise would have been. He respected the Methodists, as he knew but for them it would have been impossible to have carried the Slavery question. He said, that they were Methodist preachers, merely to to show that they were not such ignorant men as they were represented to be, and that they knew well the nature of the matter they were engaged in.
§ Mr. Finchwas convinced, that nothing could be more detrimental to the best interests of the country, or more dangerous to the constitution, than Trades' Unions. He was also informed, that the Magistrates of Dorsetshire had published hand-bills, which were distributed throughout the country, stating that such oaths were illegal. He thought, however, that the sentence having been passed, the Government might have mitigated it, as the people had been led to believe, that there was no law against combinations, since the repeal of those known as the Combination-laws. The question was not whether the House were to interfere with the sentence of the Judges, but whether Ministers were to be subject to reprehension in the House, for not having interposed the mercy of the Crown between that sentence and its execution. He certainly thought, that the unfortunate individuals in question had been hardly dealt with; for though some of them were persons of bad character, 949 they had not the slightest idea that the offence they had been guilty of could be brought within the range of an Act of Parliament, or that they subjected themselves to transportation; while he thought Ministers had not acted prudently, he believed they had been actuated by the best of motives; and he was glad to see, after having invaded rights of a much more sacred description than those referred to, they were returning to a sound policy.
§ Mr. George F. Youngbelieved, that the conviction was legal, and deeply regretted that the violent and intemperate conduct of those who pretended to be friends of the unfortunate individuals, had placed his Majesty's Ministers in such a situation as rendered it imperative upon them to carry the sentence into effect.
§ Mr. Aglionbywas anxious to defend the learned Judge who had sentenced those unhappy men; he had known that Judge for many years, and no one deserved the name of cold-hearted and cruel less than he did, though both those epithets had been applied to him, and his humanity was questioned, in consequence of his having passed so rigid a sentence. The law left no discretion to the Judge; no less a term than seven years could be mentioned in the sentence. He was sure, that, if it had been possible, consistently with the law, to reduce the punishment, the Judge, prompted by his own feelings of clemency, would have done so.
§ The Petition was laid on the Table.