§ Mr. Littleton moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Money Payment of Wages' Bill.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamobjected to the measure, as it imposed restrictions by penalties upon trade, and would most certainly be evaded. If it could be carried into effect, it would only promote the interest of publicans. He was sorry, also, to observe, that, by means of mistake and delusion, it had created a strong sensation among the lower orders.
Mr. Humeregretted that the hon. member for Stafford had yielded to a senseless clamour, in bringing forward this measure, 1358 which he felt confident could be productive of no beneficial results. He also regretted that Ministers should have lent their aid to the measure, which was a reflection on the good sense of the working classes, inasmuch as it implied, that they were unable to look after their own interests. He considered it a monstrous innovation upon the sound principles which governed the labour of the operatives at present, and was also calculated to excite disunion and ill-feeling between the masters and the workmen. About 300 years ago such laws as this were passed, but they were not adapted to an enlightened period like the present. He objected also to the exceptions of the Bill. Why should not the prohibition extend to domestic servants, and to agricultural labourers, as well as to the various classes of manufacturing labourers included in the Bill? The hon. Member had excepted those classes, because he knew that if they were included, the country Gentlemen would attend, and soon drive the Bill out of the House. Those engaged in mines were also excepted, though he could see no reason for putting them on a footing different from other labourers. What was wrong in principle must be absurd in details; and the clauses of the measure afforded a striking illustration of that truth. Nevertheless, he should not attempt to propose any amendment in the Committee, in utter despair of reforming what was so objectionable; but, if he stood alone, he would take the sense of the House on the principle of the Bill. He wished to see how many Members there were who understood the true principles of trade; how many were anxious to raise up that spirit of hostility between masters and workmen, which had been allayed by the change in the Combination Laws; and how many were determined to pass a law which declared that food and raiment should not be supplied to the hungry and naked. He approved of the Bill, which had just gone through a Committee, inasmuch as it repealed all the antiquated and mistaken Statutes upon this subject, but he disapproved of re-enacting them by this measure, which was founded upon ignorance, which could do nothing but mischief, and which originated only in selfishness.
Mr. O'Connellthought it an anomaly in the Bill that, although it extended to Ireland, yet it did not repeal all the Statutes 1359 already in force on the subject in that country, though those Statutes were carefully repealed so far as regarded England. In the present state of Ireland that might do great evil, for although some inconvenience might arise from the truck-system near Belfast, it was not to be compared to the injury which would be done in the South, by throwing many hands out of employment. He contended that the real effect of this law would be, to legalise the truck-system; a manufacturer who sets up a shop might pay his men in money at one counter, and compel them by threats of turning them out of employ, to spend it at the other counter. In this way, this Act, which was brought forward as the perfection of wisdom, in putting down the truck-system, ought really only to be considered as a scheme to comfort those who were inclined to carry it on in the regular way. It was as absurd to abolish the old laws and then to revive them, as it would be to revive all the exploded Statutes against witchcraft. He would oppose the Bill, unless a clause were introduced extending to Ireland the repeal of the previous laws relating to truck. He should certainly oppose the Bill, unless Ireland were excluded from its operation.
§ Mr. Littletoninquired if the hon. member for Middlesex meant to move any Amendment.
§ Mr. Hume moved, as an Amendment, that the House should resolve itself into Committee on the Bill this day six months.
Mr. Pagetseconded the Motion, because he thought this Bill would work infinite mischief; it would act like the penalties on usury, which were said to fall on the weaker party. It would not prevent the truck-system being carried on, it would only render its operation more circuitous, and thereby create confusion.
§ Mr. Stricklandwas anxious that the Bill should be permitted to go into Committee, to satisfy the minds of the labouring classes, who imagined that they were oppressed by the continuance of this system. He agreed with the general principle that no interference should take place between the employers and employed, but he thought deviations from that rule ought to be permitted in favour of the weaker party. Such were the Acts of the Legislature to restrict the labour of children in the cotton factories; but he held, also, that any legislative regulation 1360 as to the amount of wages was absurd. In the manufacturing towns the master had given up paying in money, and substituted a system of barter, which was highly injurious to the workman's interests. So far as this Bill checked such a system he would support it. He thought, in a Committee they might make its provisions more reasonable and less severe. He did not justify the measure on principle, but, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, and considering the hardships suffered and felt by so many of the working classes, from the operation of this system, he thought some attempt to check it, exceedingly desirable.
§ Mr. Littletonreminded the House, that this Bill was founded on the statements contained in petitions from all the great manufacturing towns and counties, most numerously signed by the labouring classes, and not contradicted by any counter petitions or statements whatever. The measure was introduced, therefore, at the desire of the working classes, and was intended for their benefit. The hon. member for Leicester, whom he always listened to with great respect, had been pleased to declare his opposition to the measure—but no persons had given the Bill greater support than his constituents. Whilst the present system continued, the working man had not, and could not have, the full benefit of the repeal of the Combination Laws, and it was notorious, that the universal feeling of the working classes was in favour of some attempt to put down this odious system. He differed with those who thought that there was nothing in this Bill to prevent a master paying money with one hand, and receiving that money for goods with the other. The power given by this Bill to compel agents to give evidence, would render it extremely difficult to practise an artifice of this description. Besides, if this Bill passed, the workmen must be paid in money, which was a great advantage, the complaint now being, that from one end of the year to another the workman never had any money. As to the anomaly relative to Ireland, pointed out by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, it certainly was deserving of consideration. In the future stages of the Bill, however, there would be an opportunity either for repealing the existing Statutes, so far as they referred to Ireland, or of excluding that country from its operation. The provision 1361 including Ireland was introduced in the House of Lords, but he could not say that he was extremely anxious on that subject, though he thought it desirable that the laws of the two countries should be assimilated as nearly as possible.
§ Lord Granville Somersetthought that it was his duty to the master manufacturers and to the workmen themselves, to oppose the Bill. He would give it his support if he could think that the truck-system would be put down by it. But he believed that its effect, on the contrary, would be, to interfere oppressively with the well-intentioned, and to give increased facilities to the evil-intentioned employer. It would, besides, operate in a very partial manner. In the county he had the honour to represent, the iron foundries on one side of a road would come under its operations, while the tin melting on the opposite side would not be affected by it. It made such distinctions between certain descriptions of manufacturers and tradesmen, that it would be attended with most mischievous consequences.
§ Mr. Ruthvensupported the Bill, and said, that the manufacturers in the part of the kingdom with which he was most acquainted, were favourable to it.
§ Colonel Torrenssaid, as the working classes desired the measure, although it was at variance with strict principles, he was disposed to endeavour to gratify them. He was afraid, however, the suppression of the truck-system would not confer the benefits upon them which they appeared to anticipate. The evil was too deep seated to be so easily eradicated. The profits of trade were so small that employers were compelled to reduce the wages of their workmen. Then came the question, how were the profits of trade to be increased? In old and full-peopled countries, profits had a constant tendency to decline, and this, which was caused by the increasing cost of obtaining food and raw materials, could only be counteracted by the full admission of foreign agricultural produce. The only remedy was cheap food and low taxes. To attempt to abolish the truck-system while the Corn-laws and high taxes continued, would do little to mitigate the evils. He really feared it might have the contrary effect. A master paying by truck made up for the low profits in his manufactures, by the difference between the wholesale and retail price of the commodities consumed by his 1362 workmen, and which, but for this aid, he would be compelled to abandon. Under such circumstances, the abolition of truck would diminish the demand for labour, and throw operatives out of work. Still if the working classes preferred low wages paid in money to higher paid in goods, he was content to gratify them, but he hoped the measure would only be considered one of a temporary nature.
§ Mr. Leaderexpressed his disapprobation of the Bill, and stated, that a considerable manufactory in Ireland had been totally ruined in consequence of such interference as the Bill contemplated to enforce. He thought it both unjust and dangerous for the Legislature to interfere with private contracts.
§ The House divided on the Amendment: Ayes 24; Noes 68—Majority 44.
| List of theAYES. | |
| Chapman, M. L. | Pelham, C. |
| Conolly, Colonel | Perceval, Colonel |
| Dixon, J. | Power, R. |
| Hay, Sir E. | Shaw, F. |
| Kearsley, J. H. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Leader, N. P. | Strutt, E. |
| Lefroy, Dr. T. | Thompson, W. |
| Martin, J. | Villiers, Lord |
| Mullins, F. | Williams, W. A. |
| Musgrave, Sir R. | Wrangham, D. C. |
| North, J. H. | |
| O'Connell, D. | TELLERS. |
| O'Connell, M. | Hume, J. |
| O'Conor, Don | Paget, T. |
§ The House went into Committee.
§ On the question that the 3rd clause stand part of the Bill,
§ Lord Granville Somersetsaid, he thought the clause required in some degree to be qualified. It referred to contracts, but did not sufficiently explain their nature. Besides, he should be disposed to exclude written contracts from its operation. He would move that these words be inserted, "Provided always that nothing contained in this Act shall extend, or be construed to extend, to any contract which shall have been entered into, and duly signed, in the presence of one credible witness."
§ Mr. Littletonsaid, the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be, not only to entirely neutralize the effect of the Bill, but to repeal all the existing laws upon the same subject. Magistrates had over and over again set aside contracts of such a description.
§ Amendment negatived.
1363§ On the question that the penal clause stand part of the Bill,
§ Colonel Torrensobjected to it; he thought the provisions already passed were sufficient to put an end to the system. First, contracts were to be made null, then there was to be no payment in goods, and after all came a penalty. It was impossible to make all contracts for money alone, and a man might be subject to a penalty if, with the consent of his labourer, they mutually agreed that part of the hire should be paid in money, part in goods.
§ Mr. Littletonsaid, it was useless for the gallant Officer to say he would consent to try the measure, and then object to all the machinery by which it was to be executed. Generally speaking, the penalty was reduced: it was now on a graduated scale, according to the frequency of the offence.
§ Lord Granville Somersetsaid, in his opinion it would be right to impose something like a maximum of the fine to be inflicted; he should, therefore, propose to add these words to the clause, "So that the fine shall not in any case exceed the sum of 100l."
§ Mr. Littletonsaid, such a limitation would be nothing to a master who gained 8,000l. or 10,000l. by the profits of his works. He should not oppose the addition, but he thought the clause would be better without it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On the 11th clause being put,
Mr. Pagetsaid, the punishment of three months' imprisonment for what might be nothing more than an inadvertency was excessive. He should, therefore, propose, that fourteen days be substituted for the words three months.
§ Agreed to.
§ On the 18th clause being put,
§ Mr. Stricklandobjected to giving an informer 20l., which was nothing more or less than an inducement for a servant to betray his master.
§ Mr. Littletonmust resist any alteration in this clause, and for this simple reason, that a servant must know that all informations laid by him would immediately lead to his dismissal, and therefore, if he were to receive no reward for informing, the object of the Bill would be completely frustrated.
Mr. Humeobserved, if it was not the interest of the person supposed to be aggrieved to give information, it showed he had suffered no injury, and was but 1364 little interested in the principle of the Bill. He dreaded informers in all shapes.
§ Mr. Littletonsaid, they must within certain restrictions encourage informers, or persons who had causes of complaint would not give evidence. He could not conceive that the refusal on the part of a person to give evidence, could be considered as a want of interest in the Bill.
§ Question agreed to. The remaining clauses also agreed to. The House resumed.