On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
too costly and cumbrous to be efficient . Under the new system all the charities will be placed under the supervision of a Government board , including two Cabinet Ministers and two legal gentlemen . The b < Snrd will enforce regular accounts of all receipts and expenditure ; one copy of the accounts to be lodged in the County Courts of the district , and another remitted to the board . Jn cases of' difficulty or ignorance the local trustees will be advised by the board , the two legal members of whom ^ would go into the county , and in all cases make inquiries on the 6 pot . The board would also have the direction and control of all legal proceedings , and instructed on behalf of charities . In cases where the interests of the trust required a diversion of the money not authorized in the original grant , the board would be empowered , with the consent of the trustees , to . order the alteration of the fund ; and if neither House of Parliament , objected to the alteration within thirty days from its announcement such order would have the force of law . The cost of the new supervision would be borne by the public exchequer , it being found unadvisable to tax the charitable funds , . many of which were miserably small . The County Courts would have jurisdiction over charities not exceeding 30 Z ., and the Master in Chancery would control all others . With a few trifling alterations the bill is the same as that formerly introduced by Lord Truro , afterwards by the late Government . In a conversation which ensued , Lord St . Leonabds only objected to the bill . A DAY FOR THE WORKMEN . Wednesday was unusually occupied in abortive attempts of the House to do something for the operative classes . ' The ' first thing attempted was by Sir Hexry Hal-FOED , a Leicestershire member , who moved the second reading 1 of a Bill to compel the payment of wages in the current coin of the realm . The immediate object of the Bill was to remedy ' the grievance of the ntockingers , who are obliged to pay excessive and arbitrary rents to their employers for the knitting frames . As much as half-a-crown a week is charged for the rent of a frame worth no more than 50 * . ; so that the employer speedily obtains the cost of the frame , and a handsome profit to boot . Mr . Biggs headed the opposition to the Bill . He made out a case for the manufacturers / being one himself . Rents , he said , are necessary ; otherwise , there would be no security that the frames would not be used in the service of other ~ manufacturers . Middlemen are also necessary , for the J fy population is scattered up and down , and one man treats with fifty , to their great convenience . To this ' it was replied , that rents are not objected to , but excessive rents , making a profit out of frames , compelling a workman to use his employer ' s frames , and declining to employ him if he had one of his own . Those who supported the Hill were Mr . Packe , Sir Joshua Walmsley , Mr . Newdegate , and Lord John Manners . Among its opponents were Mr . Sthutt , Mr . Cahdwem ., Mr . Hume , Mr . Muntz , Mr . Gahdnek , Mr . Cheetham , Mr . Heyworth , and Mr . T . Eoerton . A little party spirit arose out of the debate . Mr . Biggs , alluding to the Tory character . ' of the supporters of the Bill , delivered himself thus , — The manufacturers felt most keenly the distress of those by whom they wore surrounded . It hud been said by some ' persons tliut the rabblo iu towns were singularly uneducated . Now , bo must bo allowed to say that there was a singular identity of sentiment'between them and flume oilier parties , and that the articles which had appeared in the . Mvmin // Post and in the Northern Star might have been very readily transplanted from one paper to the other . ( Laughter . ) There was a great sympathy between the Tory country gentlemen ana ( ho rabblo of the towns , not only in field sports and antiquated amusements , but in ninny low vices . ( Laughter . ) ( Lord John Manners returned tho attack with interest . , ] Vir . Higgs had had tho had taBto to taunt tho Tory country gentlemen of England with sympathy with the ' " rabble' / of tl } o trout . towns ; but ,. let tho hon . gentleman nay what ho mign . t , Lord John Manners was not ashamed to say that , as ono "of j the Country gontlomon of England , ho did uympatliiso ' . in tho wrongs and distresses of the populations of thu grqatjtpwnti ; and ho would tak « -leave to tell tho honourable gontJpmari \ that , if his ] arifnia | t e of that day should tond to knit more closely tho borwjfl oft , « yin |) athy between Tory country * gentlemen and the ao-• nlled " rabblo" of great-t <* wna , '; ho would offer " . to tho honourable gontlouinn his . hearty thanks for his moat un-¦ w i « o and illiberal expressions . ( Cheers . ) » . Sfr H . llAX . you ' 1 ) , in reply , said , that if tho Houso would consent . to tlYu second reading of tho bill ^ he should have no objection to its being referred to a solpct catinmitteo . *^\ , ' {¦ t Tho House then divided— , , ' ,.. "'\ i \ iV-tho hoc ^ mLuadiiig 1 . - > . - . . 125 . ; ¦ fH » - ' 1 fev > Agalnbtlt . . . . . . . . 18 G & * ri £ * * J % ' ^ iiHtHho Will . " ' . ' 01 ' ** ' * t ' ' ^ *
Then came on the motion for the third reading of Mr . Drummond ' s Bill , declaratory of the law of
comtion . - , The Solicitor-GeneraIi said , that it introduced an important alteration into the law upon this subject , as settled by the act 6 th- of Geo , IV ., which rendered it illegal for workmen to combine together in order to persuade workmen in the employment of other masters to leave them . This bill had for its object to legalise proceedings of that kind ; and if it were to pass in its present state , there would be hardly any species of illegal conspiracy that might not come under its operation . He believed it to be his duty to move that the bill be read a third time that day six months .
Mr . G . M . Butt said , that the act to which the Solicitor-General referred contained two sections , one of which related to workmen , and enabled them to meet for the purpose of settling the proner rates of wages . The fifth section gave a corresponding right to employers . It was supposed by those who promoted this bill that it was illegal for workmen whilst they were in actual employment to meet and discuss the rate of wages which they ought to demand . Now , in a case which was tried some time ago by Mr . Justice Erie , that judge said that there was no doubt that the workmen had a . light to meet and determine the rate of
wages which they would work for , but that they had no right to combine and conspire to induce men in the employ of other masters to leave their work in order to compel those masters to raise the wages of their men . That was an indictable offence at common law , and it was not legalised by the act of 6 Geo . IV ., chap . 129 . The present bill , therefore , was wholly unnecessary ; no real doubts had arisen upon the construction of the act of Geo . IV . ; there was no actual discrepancy between the judicial decisions on the question ; and for these reasons he must support the amendment of the hon . and learned Solicitor-General .
Mr . DrttmSiond said , that if the honourable gentleman who spoke last had been in the House when this bill was ~ last under discussion , it would have been impossible for him to maintain that there were no doubts as to the state of the law on this subject . The Attorney-General then held one opinion upon the question , and now the Solicitor-General got up and expressed a totally different opinion . This was really nothing more nor less than a declaratory act for the purpose of removing the uncertainties of the law .
Viscount Paxmerston should certainly support the amendment—that this bill be read that day"six months . His objection to the bill was that it was not a declaratory act , but one that would tend to repeal substantially those valuable provisions of the third section of the 6 th Geo . IV ., which protected those workmen who were willing to work aud desirous of working from threats , intimidation , and other efforts that might be used to
induce them to abstain-from working . The third clause of the statute to which he referred was carefully framed to Jipply to cases of combination , where workmen , being anxious to " raise the rate of wages , resorted to various modes of intimidation , some of which could not well be described , to induce those men who were going on with their work to stop work , or to prevent those who were out of work from seeking employment , or to compel other workmen to subscribe to trade societies , or
subject them to fine if they refused to do so . They all knew that if there were workmen who had work but chose to refuse to do it , there were other workmen who wished to continue their work for the best wages they could get , in order to prevent their families from being plunged into distress ; and it was most desirable that such men should be free from the coercion of those of their fellow-work men who chose to act in a different manner . Mr . Montague Chambers fortunately interposed here , and cleared away tho mystifications of Lord PalliiCTston .
Mr . Chambers could not admit of tho House proceeding to a division without expressing his iiHtonishment at tho course which was now being- taken . When tho bill was first introduced it was opposed upon tho ground that it was absolutely necessary , —that tho law of tho country enabled portions to do exactly what was provided for by this bill . Hut they wore now told that , instead of its behu * a bill which declared tho law to bo what ovorybody knew it to bo , it was a bill " which was introducing a total alteration in tho law ; an inconsistency so tjtriking that ho could not
avoid notJciUD ^ it . j Xord Pulnicraton had Haidthatin point offactuftyrauUl , if najiBe . d , bo a repealing statute . H ^ f ^ r . Chambers ) begged Tfo ' submit that it -would not bo ^ ropculktg Btatufcc , bu ^ Ahat , in point of fact , tho recital Ui tho bill was true—thac . jdoubtB had arisen aa to tho construct ibn <© £ tho Oth George IV ., c . 121 ) . Those doubt * arosojfu this way : —Mr . Baron Kblfo ( tho proBeut Lqrd ObiuyjQlk . r ^ , qu tho trial of some -vfcqjrkmon in _ the iron trope jit Liverpool , in 1847 , for conspiring to injure thWr masters , laid dawn a rule for tho guidanco of the workmen , ana" * which appeared to bo a very sensible rii {« , Baron Itblfo said , hia opinion was , that if tho workman in . assembling together had' no Other object than to persuade © no another that it -was thoir intercut not to work except
for certain wages , or not to work under certain wages , or unless certain regulations were complied mth , that was not an illegal object , provided it were sought m a peaceable manner : but then there was another trial of some tinplateworkers , which took place at Stafford in 1851 before Mr . Justice Erie , who laid down another and a conflicting proposition . The question was , which of these opinions was right and which was wrong ? That was the very case which called for the intervention of the House . ( Hear , hear . ) The workmen required to be protected against these conflicting opinions of the judges . If lawyers tusagreed the House oug ht to step in and declare what was the law upon the subject . Mr . Justice Erie said that where persons combined together to obstruct and molest a master manufacturer in order to force him to alter _ hM mode of carrvinff on his business , and in pursuance of that His
object combined to persuade other men to leave employ , that , being an overt act , was an indictable offence ; and he told the jury that in his opinion it did constitute an indictable offence . This conflict of opinion on the part of the judges led to this , —that owing to the present doubtful state of the law , men might be vexed and teased and put to an enormous expense by prosecutions , although they might have been acting entirely within the law . The object of the bill , therefore , was to declare plainly what was the law unon this subject . It was but just that the
workmen should have the privileges and rights which the billtoould confer upon them anew , if the House bo pleased . He , ' however ; contended that it was a declaratory bill only ; but , whether declaratory or not , the question was , did the workmen ask for what was fair and proper ? If so , then the House ought to pass the bill . After reciting the doubtful state of the law , the bill proceeded to enact " That masters , employers , workmen , or other persons who shall enter into any combination to advance or to lower or to fax the rate of their wages , or to lessen or alter the hours or duration of the time of their working , or to pe aceably persuade or induce others to abstain from work in order to obtain the rates of wages or the altered hours of labour so
fixed or agreed upon , shall not be deemed or taken to be guilty of' molestation' ' obstruction' within the meaning of the said act [ that is , the act of the 6 th of George IV ., c . 129 ] , and shall not , therefore , be subject or liable to any indictment or prosecution for conspiracy . " This waa simply an enactment with reference to the construction to be put upon the Combination of Workmen ' s Bill . It did not abolish the conimon law , or in any way affect the liability every person was under with regard to the common law . In all conspiracies having a tendency to damage large traders or manufacturers , resort might still be had to the common law right of an indictment for a conspiracy . This bill did not affect that right ; it simply said that in out of
workmen might meet together , whether or employ , or whether in the employ of one particular master or of different masters , and they might talk over these subjects They might say to one another , " Trade is very flourishing ; the master manufacturers are obtaining large profits while we are receiving very small wages , and we are -worked beyond our strength ; let us see whether some new arrangement cannot be made . " Was there any impropriety in this ? He thought not . Then they might go on and carry into operation their own thoughts and arrangements . They might , after full discussion among themselves , go and talk to other workmen , and tell them what they had determined upon . They mig ht prudently say to them that , according to tho state of trade , it was but fair and just that they , as
workmen , should receive higher wages . Looking into the bill , ho did not see that there was anything more than allowing the workmen to do that . But , in consequence or the construction put upon the existing act with reference to what was called " persuasion , " it was said that the workmen had brought themselves within the Combination Act . Tho onl y object the workmen had -was to have tho privilege of exercising thoir own judgment of discussing with fairness their own situation ; and , after having done eo , then , whether in employ or out of employ , they asked for tho further privilege of speaking to other persons upon the subject . The great object was to avoid tho possibility of this bill enabling them to use violence or threats , or to conduct themselves in any way inconsistent with proper feeling and justice towards others .
Mr . Duncombe , Mr . Hume , and Mr . Geach supported the bill ; but in order to g ive time for the full consideration of tho measure , Mr . Hume moved tho adjournment of the debate . On this tho Houso divided :
For tho adjournment .... 102 Against it 121 Majority 19 Tho motion for the adjournment was therefore lost . It being now six o ' clock , there was not lime to put the main question—the third reading of the bill—which consequently falls within the list of" dropped orders , " and the House adjourned . Such was the tiiini total of a day ' s work for the labourer . South-Ska Annuities Commutation Uiix . —Nino or ten noble lords were on tho bcnchcn of the House of Peers on Tuesday when Lord QiianviI'IjK , without
anyoxplatiatiori of tho above bill , nripedtbat it bo jret $ < , a , third itirtfo . This soeined to piquo-Xwd DuJtny , \» h /> objected , to , " turnin g tub proceedings ' of thoir lordship * ' House " I ( ho hcrd ' jpausM )'— " he did not-Wish to uko . , language unnecessarily strong , but it was givitag a *? hnractor to tho proceeding !} of tho J louse" whi ^) tio mis su fclioVdClran-. villo hiiuBolf could not desire ^ u Loftl GuAN ^ jkiiS pointed out that being a money bill , no ani ^ Jiiients coMdJbq inado in tho bill , but being pressed by'Lord Moj *! jp atfi , K , h « briefly del ailed tho purposed " conversion , " now WJ jamiliar to tho public . On which LonFMoMTBAaMn ( &ifoej ?© hancoUbr of tho J'hcchoquor hinm < Mfi )^ 6 . e > an ( d phyW / mMoto to tho whole « chemo . It w ^ jf ttncortftjo in ltqJPp ^ Cton ; it issued an inconvertible papertpurrenoy , liable to over-
Untitled Article
438 ' T HE LEADER . [ Satprpay , ' r- ¦ — - ¦¦¦ - ¦¦¦¦¦¦ ' ¦¦ . . ^ — ^ i ^^——^—l^—
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), May 7, 1853, page 438, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1985/page/6/
-