The commissioners made their report on the 4th of August. It had been proposed to authorize the guardians to relieve the families of labourers, by taking one or more of their children into the workhouse. The report stated, “that in the practical application of this exception, it would be difficult to avoid the establishment of a system similar in principle to the scale system; i. e. a regular allowance, in addition to the labourer’s earnings, depending on the number of his children and the rate of wages.” It had further been proposed to obviate the hardship of obliging a man to part with his cottage and furniture, and take up his abode, with his family, in the workhouse, by admitting the head of the family only into that establishment, and leaving his family at home. The report stated an objection to this proposal thus:—“The small degree of inconvenience sustained by the labourer by a temporary sojourn in the workhouse, whilst his wife and family remain at home, ceases altogether to have the effect upon the employer which is produced by the strict workhouse system; namely, the creating a great reluctance, on his part, to lose temporarily the services of the labourer, lest he should find it impossible to regain them; and a desire so to arrange the work of his farm, as to afford employment, during the unfavourable part of the season, to those upon whose assistance he must rely for the necessary services during the more active periods of the year.” The report proceeded to notice other particulars of the system, as the migration of families from the southern to the northern counties; and the emigration of others to the Australian colonies. It remarked, that the most important and characteristic circumstance of the last twelve months had been the extreme severity of a long winter, and the continuance of the interruption to manufacturing industry which had commenced in 1836. From this circumstance the guardians of various unions had been induced to give out-door relief to able-bodied male paupers, but the commissioners were of opinion that, with few exceptions, it might have been safely withheld.
COMBINATIONS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.
For some years combinations of workmen for the purpose of regulating the rate of wages, and other matters connected with the employment of labour, had been permitted by law to exist. At this time, however, these confederacies had become formidable. “Strikes” were constantly recurring, so that the masters lay at the mercy of the operatives. Thus at Ashton fifty-two mills and thirty thousand persons were thrown out of work, by the “strike” of three thousand “coarse spinners,” who could clear at the time about thirty shillings per week; and at Manchester one thousand “fine spinners” struck work, because the masters would not pay them more than thirty-five shillings per week. At Glasgow, where the cotton-spinners had been long noted for the violent and arbitrary proceedings of their confederacy, five individuals connected with their body were taken up, charged with murder, attempts at arson, and other grave offences of a similar character. On their trial, the evidence disclosed some revolting details of the practices and formidable organization of the cotton-spinners’ union of Glasgow; but the jury found the prisoners guilty of the minor charges only, and they were transported for seven years. There was much in these judicial proceedings that, in the opinion of Lord Brougham and Mr. Wakley, required correction, and accordingly they brought the subject under the consideration of parliament, each in their respective spheres.
The subject was introduced by Mr. Wakley in the house of commons, by moving for a select committee to inquire into the constitution, practices, and effects of the association of operative cotton-spinners in Glasgow and its neighbourhood. Mr. O’Connell moved, by way of amendment, for a select committee to inquire into trades’ unions and combinations generally, in the United Kingdom. He remarked that there was no tyranny equal to that which was exercised by the trades’ unionists in Dublin. He had in vain wished to convince those people of the wickedness and impolicy of their proceedings. Hour after hour had he had interviews with the deputation from the various trades, and had seldom met with men of more ability, information, or skill, in putting forward their own views. He had also challenged discussion, and two assemblies had been held for that purpose; but the workmen had concerted interruption, and they could not proceed in the business of the day. He could not be heard, and they expressed their determination to persist in their system of outrage. Mr. O’Connell proceeded to detail some of the more prominent regulations of the combination. One of their rules was to limit the number of apprentices; another prescribed a minimum rate of wages, so that the best workmen received no more than the worst; and by a third the masters were deprived of all freedom in their power of selecting workmen. The honourable gentleman then proceeded to relate some instances of the prejudicial effects of combination on the manufacturing industry of the country; and he concluded by adverting to the murders and outrages committed by stipendiary assassins acting under the authority of the unions, and by asserting that he had no wish to re-enact the old combination laws. Some combinations were even meritorious: his aim would be to separate unions of this kind from those of a pernicious character. The chancellor of the exchequer paid some just compliments to Mr. O’Connell for the course he had pursued with respect to this subject, and said that he proposed a second amendment, which did not materially differ from that of the member for Dublin. He moved for a select committee to inquire into the operation of the 6th of George IV., and into the general constitution of trades’ unions, and also the combinations of workmen and masters in the United Kingdom. Mr. Wakley expressed himself satisfied to leave the question in the hands of her majesty’s ministers, and the chancellor of the exchequer’s motion was agreed to without a division.
JOHN THOM. ALIAS SIR WILLIAM COURTENAY.
A few years back an individual of the name of John Nicholls Thorn left his home in Cornwall, and went into the county of Kent. Here he exchanged his name for the more euphonious one of Sir William Courtenay, Knight of Malta, and he commenced a practice of parading his naturally commanding person before the admiring people, clad in rich costumes, and pouring forth streams of exciting and persuasive eloquence. Attracted by his romantic appearance, the populace flocked round him with the wildest enthusiasm; and even the superior classes of society, furnished him with partizans. In 1833 he became a candidate for the representation of the city of Canterbury, and he succeeded so far as to poll nine hundred and fifty votes. Not long after, however, he was found to be implicated in a transaction which resulted in his conviction for perjury, and he was sentenced to six years’ transportation. Decided symptoms of insanity having exhibited themselves, instead of being sent on board the hulks, in conformity with the act 9th George IV., he was removed from Maidstone gaol to the county lunatic asylum. He remained here four years, and at the expiration of that period, Lord John Russell, in virtue of a power conferred on him as secretary of state by the same act, delivered him up to his friends upon their engaging to take care of him. His friends ill discharged their duty; for in 1838 John Thom reappeared in Kent, and this time under a higher title than that of baronet: he claimed to be, and the people acknowledged his pretensions as, another Messiah. The delusion led to the “Canterbury riots,” in which a constable was shot by Thom himself, and Lieutenant Bennet was killed by some of his enthusiastic followers. Thom on his trial was proved to be of unsound mind; and several of his followers were sentenced to be transported, some for life, and others for longer or shorter periods of time, according to the parts they had acted in the tragical scene.