The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he had several petitions to present against the bill. He expressed his regret, that the House should be called upon, within two days of the prorogation, to pass a bill which was of so important a nature. In addition to this precipitation into which they were driven, their lordships were not sure that the information necessary to enable them to come to a proper decision was on the table of the House. Under these circumstances, it was with great reluctance that he gave his assent to the measure. The petitions he had to present prayed that counsel might be heard against the bill; and, if there were time, it would be their lordships' duty to accede to this prayer.
The Earl of Liverpoolthought there was sufficient time for any discussion which could be necessary. The measure arose almost entirely out of the bill of last session, which had been hastily passed. He had not been aware of its extent, and did not, until it came into operation, know its provisions. There were, as their lordships knew, many old statutes for the regulation of labour, which had an injurious influence on trade. Had the bill been confined to the repeal of those statutes, it would have been a very proper measure. But what did it do? It, at one sweep, repealed the whole of the common law a respecting the relations of master and servant. Soon after it passed, disturbances and acts of violence took place in different parts of the country; and it became absolutely necessary to pass some act on the subject before the session closed. Though brought in at a very late period of the session, he had no difficulty in saying, that he considered it indispensably necessary. Even if there were defects in the measure, the allowing them to pass could not be 1479 compared with the mischief which would follow if the law were left in its present state. This bill not only prevented the combination of workmen against masters, and of masters against workmen, but prevented the combination of workmen against workmen. This was a protection which the honest and good workman had a right to expect. The bill repealed the act of last session; but, in doing so, it also repealed the old restrictive statutes which were repealed by that act, while it restored the common law to its former state. Objection had been made to the clause for protecting workmen which contained the word "molestation," but that was a word well known to the law, and would have a fair interpretation. The present bill allowed an appeal from the decisions of magistrates to the quarter sessions.
The Marquis of Lansdownagreed, that some measure of this kind was necessary, and more particularly that it was necessary to protect the workmen against themselves. He wished every facility to be given both to masters and workmen to consult about the rise or fall of wages; but it was obvious, that no manufacture could be carried on, if workmen could dictate to the masters who should be employed, and prevent men from exercising their right of labouring on whatever terms they might please. This was what never could be tolerated in a free country. Such a practice never could be sanctioned by law; and what the legislature would not be authorized to do, surely ought not to be allowed to be done by individuals. If the interference of workmen with each other were permitted to go on, trade would be forced from one place to another, until it would at last be driven out of the country. However, if any body of persons should, after the bill had passed, continue to think themselves aggrieved by it, he should next session vote for their being heard by counsel against the act.
The Earl of Rosslynconcurred in the necessity of protecting workmen from the effect of combinations among themselves.
The bill passed the committee without amendment, and was reported. The standing order being dispensed with, it was read a third time and passed.