1S24.] 



have invariably allowed it to bo export- 

 ed : uo have been most relu^uiit to put 

 tlie laws in force. 



Blr. Richard Tayhr. 



Wiiat is joiir opinion as to tiic effect 

 of the laws against the combination of 

 workmen, so fur as they prohibit their 

 comi)inins to raise their wages, to regu- 

 late them, or to regulate their hours of 

 working? — My own opinion is, that tiioy 

 arc of 110 service at all to tiie employers, 

 and tliul they only create greater lUni- 

 culty of arranp;emcnt between the em- 

 ployers and tiic men ; so nmcli so, that 

 the last time when they strurk for 

 wages, and we had a diflcrcuco for a 

 little time, the masters unanimously 

 agreed that nothing should induce them 

 to avail themselves of the Combination 

 Laws, considering them as very unjust 

 and opjiressivc, and that it would be 

 disgraceful foritliem (o avail themselves 

 of them, having found that they only 

 protracted the differences that had oc- 

 curred on former occasions. 



Arc you able to state, whether the 

 men consider those laws as very oppres- 

 sive and partial ? — Yes, they do : of late 

 jcars we have not put them into effect; 

 and they know that we have determined 

 that nothing shall induce us to <lo so. 



Is it within your recollection, that the 

 masters of any other trade in London 

 have combined to keep down their 

 wages, or to fix the rate of wages with 

 the men ? — I do not know that of my 

 own knowledge : in my trade, the mas- 

 ters have always been in the habit of 

 meeting together, not altogether to keep 

 down the prices, but to regulate the 

 prices, and, by conlerring with the men, 

 1o maintain a scale of prices which 

 should produce an uniformity of pay- 

 ment. 



Do you know that the law applies 

 equally against the masters as the men? 

 — No, I did not suppose that it did : I 

 always understood it applied only to the 

 men. As far as I recollect, wc always 

 met together without any reserve or 

 fear, as if we were exempt from any fear 

 of that kind. 



As far as you remember, have the men 

 ever combined at a time when their 

 wages were not unreasonably low? — 

 No : I think it was always when there 

 appeared to be an advance in the price 

 of living. 



What is your opinion with regard to 

 the general state of morals amongst 

 your workmen ? — I think it is very 

 much improved : a printing-oilicc was 



MoKTWLY Mag. No. 390. 



on Arlizans and Machinery. 423 



like a public-house on a Monday v/hen 

 I was an apprentice, and now we have 

 no drinking at all. 



To what cause do you refer that 

 amendment? — I should refer it, in a 

 great measure, to the general improve- 

 ment which has taken place among the 

 working people from education ; and 

 another cause is, that we have a better 

 choice of workmen from having broken 

 through the restriction as to apprentices ; 

 we have more power of making a selec- 

 tion, and giving the preference to those 

 whose coniluct is good. 



You sai<l that the masters in your 

 trade had resolved not to enforce the 

 Combination Laws; when was that? — 

 When a reduction was last made, in 

 1816. 



Were the workmen perfectly satis- 

 fied, that they had no fear from the 

 Combination Laws? — Yes, we stated 

 that to them. 



What induced yon to make that com- 

 munication to them? — Because we 

 thought the laws very abominable and 

 unjust. 



You thought it would be more for 

 your advantage not to enforce them ? — 

 No, we thought the laws very disgrace- 

 ful ; and that when we were ourselves 

 combining to reduce wages, that we 

 should have men put into prifon for 

 doing the very same thing that we were 

 doing. 



And you have found no effect pro- 

 duced on wages by your resolution, 

 which was tantamount to a repeal of 

 the laws? — No; we have had no diffi- 

 culty since. 



Then the Committee are to under- 

 stand, that since you waived the carry- 

 ing into effect the Combination Laws, 

 the masters and men have agreed much 

 better ?— Yes. 



Mf' Charles Boyd, general surveyor of 

 the Customs in London ; Mr. James 

 Deacon Hume, compiroller of the 

 CustODis inwards and outwards ; Mr. 

 Henry St. John, comptrolling searcher 

 of the Customs. 



(To Mr. St. John.) Have you in fact 

 known any instances of artizans being 

 imj)eded from leaving the country by 

 any Custom-house officer? — There was 

 an instance, about a year and a-half ago, 

 of three or four artizans going to embark 

 at the Custom-house : I was on duty at 

 that time, and information was given 

 me, that they were on the point of going, 

 and I was desired to stop them. I took 

 3 1 such 



