that it would not be a good plan to license the cabriolet drivers, for no set of commissioners would have so strong an interest in procuring good drivers as the owners of the vehicles. Mr. Grote said, great inconvenience was now sustained in the city of London by the stoppages caused by omnibuses. It was so bad at times, that it was almost impossible to cross the streets. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to be brought in, for certainly a more strict police regulation with regard to those vehicles was requisite. Leave was given to bring in the Bill. HANGING MURDERERS IN CHAINS.] Mr. Ewart moved for leave to bring in a Bill to take away from Judges the power of directing criminals, in certain cases, to be hanged in chains. From what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, on a former evening, he believed, if he had understood the right hon. Member rightly, that Government would be willing to abolish this odious practice of hanging murderers in chains. It was unnecessary for him, therefore, to enter into the question, and he should only submit his Motion, to the judgment of the House. Mr. Littleton said, that the House was, of course, aware, that he had given notice of a Motion with a view to abolish the practice in Ireland, and it would seem very strange to pass two Bills, one for each country, on the same subject. He thought one Bill might comprise both objects, and he had no objection to postpone his Motion in order to allow the hon. member for Liverpool to bring in a general measure upon the subject. Mr. O'Connell said, the right hon. Gen.. tleman was mistaken in the object of the Motion of which he had given notice, for, instead of being to take away the power of hanging in chains from the Judges, it was expressly to give them that power-[" No, no," from Mr. Littleton]. He would say, "Yes, yes." A doubt had existed as to whether the Judges possessed the power, and the Bill the right hon. Gentleman had given notice of, declared that they had such power. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, did not intend this, for they were all agreed, that this horrible practice should be done away with. Mr. Shaw said, the Act of 10th George 4th, not only gave the power to the Judges, but imposed upon them the necessity of directing that all criminals convicted of murder should either be dissected or hung in chains. Subsequently, the hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) brought in his Anatomy Bill, by which he took away from the Judges in England the power of ordering the bodies of murderers to be dissected, and substituted the power of directing them to be buried within the precincts of the prison. [Mr. O'Connell: Or to be hung in chains] No, the power of ordering them to be hung in chains existed before. The hon. and learned Gentleman had fallen into the same mistake as some well-intentioned persons, by whom, at a meeting recently held in London, the right hon. Gentleman's measure was denounced as an anatomical and a gibbeting Bill. It was no such thing. The Judges already possessed the power of directing murderers to be hung in chains; nor was it an anatomical Bill, because the power of ordering the body of the criminal to be dissected was taken away from the Judges. It did neither more nor less, than give the Judges the power of ordering the body of a murderer sentenced to be hanged to be buried within the precincts of the gaol, instead of being dissected. There could be no objection to the hon. member for Liverpool abolishing the practice in Ireland; but his enactment would not obviate the necessity for the introduction of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill; because, unless that passed, the Judge must order the body to be dissected--he had no alternative: he had not the power of ordering it to be buried within the precincts of the gaol. He was sorry the hon. member for Bridport was not present, because his great object was to do away with this power. It would be proper for the right hon. Gentleman to proceed with his Bill, which did not give the Judges the power of ordering murderers to be hanged in chains. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, entertained an opinion that it gave the power. The Judge had the power already and if there were not one word in the Bill on the subject of gibbeting, that power would remain the same. show the necessity of the measure, he would mention, that only the other day a Judge in Ireland ordered the body of a murderer to be dissected. He considered it preferable to hanging in chains, and he knew that he must make either the one order or the other. He had omitted to state one thing. There was a question whether or not the Bill of the hon. member for Bridport extended to Ireland. He expected the opinion of the House would be, that it did not; : To because, while it expressly repealed the English Acts, it did not, with regard to Ireland, repeal that provision which gave the Judges the power of directing the bodies of criminals either to be hung in chains or to be dissected. It certainly would be very desirable to remove any doubt that might exist on this point. He apprehended the object of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill simply was to assimilate the law of Ireland, in this respect, to that of England. Mr. Littleton said, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, was most likely to be correct with reference to the point to which he had just alluded, and, therefore, he (Mr. Littleton) would not argue it. All which would be requisite for the hon. member for Liverpool to do, would be to enact that, both in England and in Ireland the power of directing the body of a criminal to be hung in chains should be taken from the Judges; but a further enactment would be necessary for Ireland, empowering the Judges to order murderers to be buried within the gaol yard. Dr. Lushington said, that all the hon. member for Liverpool had to do, was to enact, that throughout England, Ireland, and Scotland, in all cases whatsoever where the Judges had the power to order the body of a criminal either to be anatomized, or to be hung in chains, that power should be taken away, and, instead thereof, the Judges should order the body to be buried privately in the gaol or elsewhere. A more simple Act it was impossible to devise. He was happy to say, that it was one on which the whole of that House appeared to be unanimous; and their opinion, he was fully convinced, was in perfect conformity with the feelings of the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, which was only another proof of the increased intelligence and civilization of this nation. The proposed title of the Bill having been Amended, leave was given to bring in a Bill to regulate the disposal of the bodies of all criminals sentenced to be executed for murder within the United Kingdom. mitted the whole question of the Combination-laws to a Committee up-stairs, which recommended that all the laws which had subsisted for 300 years in relation to masters and workmen, should be repealed; the condition of the repeal being, that neither party should resort to threats or coercion against the other. The law which was passed in 1824, and reconsidered in 1825, placed masters and workmen on a footing of equality; labour was the commodity of the men, as capital was that of the masters, and both were to be allowed to obtain the best terms they could. It was thought that the workmen should be allowed to get the best price in their power in the free market of labour, by fair means, and without violence or intimidation. Fully approving of this principle, he viewed all interference between masters and men with disapprobation, and he regretted to hear from the right hon. Baronet, that, in a dispute between the masters and journeymen coopers, he had stepped in and taken part with the masters. He thought it much to the credit of the working coopers, that the engagement entered into with the masters had continued, without material alteration, from 1825 to the present time. The right hon. Baronet's statement, that the men had struck for an increase of wages, was not altogether correct, the fact being, that they struck to prevent a diminution of wages. The work which the men were required to do for the same wages was gradually increased, and they naturally asked for an allowance in proportion to the additional weight of the casks on which they were employed. Nothing could be fairer than their conduct. The question was, whether the workmen were to be at liberty to reconsider their agreement with the masters? He understood that twelve or thirteen masters (the trade was very limited in point of number) had agreed, upon the representation of the men, to act as was required, when Government stepped in, and the Victualling Department offering to provide the necessary casks, the arrangement between the journeymen and their employers was abandoned. As to the average earnings of the workmen, he believed that they, by no means, amounted to such a sum as the right hon. Baronet appeared to suppose, TRADE OF COOPERS.] Mr. Hume rose to move for copies of the correspondence between the master coopers and the Lords of the Admiralty, pursuant to a notice which he had given in consequence of the (from 21. 4s. to 21. 10s. a-week), and that, statements lately made by the right hon. taking into account slack times, and workmen Baronet (Sir James Graham) on the subject of different degrees of skill, they would not of a dispute between the journey men and the be found to exceed 20s. a-week. It was unmaster coopers. In 1824, the House of fair to reckon wages by what a man might Commons, acting upon his Motion, sub-gain in one week; the average ought to be taken. But, supposing the wages to be as high | under its control-they met under its as had been stated, was not a man at liberty sanction. Before 1824 they were ashamed to obtain 31. a-week instead of 21., if he to show themselves--they assembled in could do so by fair means, and without secret, and were almost conspirators. Now using threats or violence? A law ex- they congregated to support the weak, the isted to punish every attempt at force or aged, and those out of work. They put violence, and it was the duty of masters forth regulations which all might read, and to enforce that law if necessary. He re- they were exposed to the minutest inquiry. gretted, that the House should have been led One of the regulations, it was true, was to away by the right hon. Baronet to believe induce an adherence to a system which that the workmen had acted improperly, would tend to prevent a reduction of but he trusted he had shown that they had wages, in order that they might be enabled not. He frequently heard objections taken to live and adequately maintain their fato the word "union ;" but he could not milies. This had created much clamour see the force or justice of the objection. out of doors, and they were severely blamed Why should not workmen have clubs as for so doing. He was indifferent to such well as any other class of persons? Why clamour. He considered they had a right were not poor men to have their unions to look for the advice of each other, and if the same as rich men had theirs in St. 100,000 assembled together for such purJames's-street? His Majesty's coopers at poses, he should be glad to know by what Deptford were making up casks at 1s. 8d., law they could be put down? The men the usual price of which was 2s. 4d.; being were in a far different position from the 8d. a cask less than ordinary. He also masters; they had not the power to conunderstood that the hoops used for these tend against the capital which was arrayed casks were marked with the broad arrow, against them, and consequently there was so that persons stealing the casks would be an imperative necessity for adopting some liable to a more severe punishment than regulations. What protection would they in an ordinary case. He was told, that the have against masters such as those in workmen were able to rebut the allega- Derby, sending 15,000 or 16,000 out of tions made against them, and, assuming employment, without making any provision that to be the case, he thought the inter- to relieve the mass of misery which was ference of Government unwise and un- thus created? How were men, then, to called for. He was most desirous to know be blamed for seeking to prevent such why the Admiralty had taken the part frightful occurrences? He felt the justice they did-upon what grounds they could of their case, and he should be ever prejustify themselves-what plea they could pared to defend it. There was not a advance in their favour. To ascertain that, Trades' Union in the country that did not he thought the best way would be, to have possess a letter of his; and he would defy the correspondence between the Govern- a single line to be found in them that did ment and the master coopers laid before not inculcate obedience to the law, and them. It might afford the clue which he, deprecate any proceedings that were not and he hoped the House, were so anxious equitable and just. If they violated the to obtain. The interference was a most law, they were punished; and if an ununwise one on the part of official authori- successful strike be made, its results would ties, and therefore its reasons should be have a most salutary effect. Both masters probed to the bottom. Before he sat down, and men ought to be permitted to go on he could not refrain from saying a few of themselves, without being set against words on the constitutions and governing each other by official interference. They principles of the Unions. Much good had would then proceed harmoniously together, resulted from their formation; and for one and contentions, bickerings, and an exhithat then existed, two were in active oper- bition of hostile demeanour, would not ation before 1824. This great and grati- have to be witnessed and deplored. Again, fying difference was certainly between he would say he considered the interferthem, before and subsequent to that year. ence of Government unwarrantable, and All that was done at the present moment that the men ought to have their case was acted in the face of day; the eyes of inquired into. He (Mr. Hume) would be the world might be on them, and they the last person in that House to encourage cared not-they met under the sanction of them in lawless violence; and would also the law. They knew they were amenable be found among the first to see that they if they transgressed; their proceedings were suffered no unjust or unnecessary hardship. In bringing forward the present Motion, he was only giving the right hon. Baronet an opportunity to explain his reasons for interfering in the case in question. He naturally felt anxious with respect to a matter connected with the repeal of the Combination-laws in 1824, a measure which he approved and advised. He disapproved of the right hon. Baronet's interference in the present case, on the ground that the law, and not the Government, should step in if any interposition were required. The hon. Member concluded by moving in the terms before mentioned. Sir James Graham had listened with particular attention to the speech of the hon. member for Middlesex, and could assure him that he courted investigation, and was rejoiced the subject had been brought forward, as he should thereby be enabled to state the reasons that influenced Government in the course they had thought proper to adopt. He admitted the truth of the general principle laid down by the hon. Member, that it was not advisable to interfere in disputes between masters and workmen, but, in the circumstances of this particular case, he considered the conduct of Government justifiable. At the commencement of his observations, he was desirous of saying, that the hon. Member had not disappointed his expectations in stating his peculiar anxiety on the subject, the hon. Member having pressed the repeal of the Combination-laws in 1824-a repeal which at the time he (Sir J. Graham) thought questionable in theory, and, in point of practical prudence, extremely doubtful; but in reference to which, he was satisfied that the hon. Gentleman's motives were perfectly pure. He was convinced, that the hon. Member was the last person who would have any connexion with acts of violence. The hon. Gentleman had laid down the principle which should govern the proceedings of workmen with perfect correctness. It was true, that the workman's labour was his commodity, for which he was entitled to obtain the best price he could, without having recourse to force or intimidation. He was glad to have the hon. Member's authority for this, because, if this salutary rule had been violated in the present instance, it would probably be thought that Government was justifiable in interfering in support of the masters, in opposition to the workmen, who attempted to enforce an act of injustice by means such as the hon. Member would scarcely defend. The VOL. XXII. {Thin} hon. Member stated, that workmen would soon learn from the result of unsuccessful strikes that their own interests were concerned in abstaining from such proceedings; consequently, if the present strike failed, through the assistance afforded by Government to the masters, that salutary effect to which the hon. Member referred would be accelerated. The hon. Member had stated, that the number of master coopers was small (not exceeding fifty), but he should recollect, that the number of workmen was also small, consequently combination was easy, and their power over the masters proportionately great. If, as the hon. Gentleman said, the masters had attempted to increase the weight of certain descriptions of work without altering the wages, and had thereby, in effect, endeavoured to lower their men's wages, that would have been a fair ground of complaint; but the reverse of this was the fact. He found, that although, prior to 1825, an alteration in the weight of casks furnished to brewers did take place, no change in any other branch of the business had occurred for a long period, and that since 1825 no alteration was made in brewers' casks. In 1825 a rise of price was agreed to by the masters, it having been demanded by the men on the ground of the alteration in the weight of the article mentioned. He held in his hand statements from five of the principal brewing establishments on this subject, and would read them if the hon. Member chose. [Mr. Hume expressed a wish to have the documents read.] He believed that he disagreed with the hon. Member as to the article increased in weight, and that they had both referred to brewers' casks. [Mr. Hume: Yes.] The principal cooper at Messrs. Barclay and Perkins's stated, that the casks received at that establishment had not increased in heaviness or stoutness during the last ten years; from Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton's it was certified that the casks now received were not stouter nor heavier than those used for the last seven years; and the principal foreman at Messrs. Whitbread and Co.'s made a like statement, extending over the last five years. He had similar statements from the houses of Hoare and Co., and Taylor and Co.; but it was needless to read them. With respect to the amount of earnings of the working coopers, he could assure the hon. Member that, so far from viewing the sum with jealousy, no circumstance afforded him such unmingled satisG faction as to see workmen well paid for the time they continued out of employ their labour. He had not referred to the ment, and the master to beg pardon of the earnings of these individuals from any workmen in a body. The party was com jealousy of the amount, but as an ingredient pelled to submit, and did submit to these in considering the nature of the strike, it conditions. Talk of tyranny! what greater being necessary to ascertain whether the tyranny than this? Here was not only opmen so striking were aggrieved or not, and pression but extortion; it deserved a harder what were their circumstances. He had name-a point gained, and money obtained. before him returns of the average weekly under the influence of threats, and by vioearnings of working coopers in seven yards lence, which might amount to an indictable during the years 1832 and 1833. From offence. Since 1825 the trade had been these it appeared that the average weekly compelled to submit to the law laid down earnings (taking not the best workmen by the workmen, and rigorously enforced alone, but the best and middiing artisans with respect to apprentices. A firm having and boys, and allowing two boys for one added five men to fifteen, the number which man,) amounted to 21. 6s. 1d. actual money it had previously employed, thought that payment on the books. This sum was in equity it was entitled to add to its nummade up in the following manner: ber of apprentices. But no, the law was Wages, 21. 18. 7.; allowance for beer, 3s. rigidly adhered to by the workmen, and 54d.; clippings, 1s. : total, 21. 6s. 1d. [Mr. the firm was required to dismiss the superHume Were the men employed all the numerary apprentice. The master argued, year round at this rate? These were the that upon every principle of justice, the earnings of men in full employ, and he increase in the workmen would bear out understood that they were employed all an increase in the apprentices. The man the year round. The real question was, admitted the force of the argument, but had the working coopers since 1825 at- replied thus-"Our law is framed on tempted by force or intimidation to prevent general principles, and peremptory in its the masters from procuring a sufficient nature-we cannot relax it in favour of a number of workmen? He was informed, special case-you must dismiss your apthat since 1825 the Unions had laid down prentice." He did not object to the men laws which were rigidly enforced, with taking all fair and just means to obtain a respect to the supply of labour in the proper price for their labour; but the systrade. The masters felt a natural anxiety tem that was in operation in this instance, to increase the number of workmen, by and which pervaded almost all the trades training apprentices to the business, with in the country, was indefensible upon all the view to lower the wages of labour.just and equitable principles. The effect The men had resisted this attempt. They of the law which had been introduced by told the masters-"We will not work if you the hon. member for Middlesex was, that employ a larger number of apprentices than we are willing to agree to." The maximum of apprentices allowed by the men was two, or occasionally three, when business was conducted not by an individual but by a firm. This was the rule laid down and adhered to, whatever might be the number of men employed in the yard. There was a particular firm, the name of which he could mention if necessary, which did take an additional apprentice The consequence was, that the men struck, and the house was unable to carry on its trade. The mo-mitted no violence, but kept within the ment for the strike was judiciously chosen, when a pressing demand existed for the article, and the party would have been ruined if the orders could not be executed. The terms upon which the workmen offered to return to their employment were these the dismissal of the apprentice, payment of the full amount of wages, 307.) which the men might have earned during it rendered it extremely difficult now to letter of the law, carry its purposes into He |