PAYMENT OF WAGES COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 4 May 1842)

§ Mr. C Buller
said, the committee nominated on this subject by the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Fer-rand) was composed almost entirely of gentlemen who embraced the same views as the hon. Member. The hon. Member (Mr. Ferrand) had dealt very fairly in selecting almost an equal number of gentlemen from each side of the House: but he had contrived to confine his choice almost entirely to gentlemen who supported his opinions on this question. He thought that a committee so constituted was not very likely to conduct an inquiry with fairness towards those whose conduct was impugned. His opinion was, that as the Government had acceded to the appointment of this committee, they ought to consider themselves in some measure responsible for the manner of forming it. The inquiry to be conducted by this committee was of a most important nature, and yet not one gentleman connected with the Government was nominated on it to protect the interests of the public. This was not the fault of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, but of the Government, whose duty it was, if they acceded to the inquiry, to see that some gentlemen connected with them was placed on the committee. He thought great mischief might result from the careless appointment of a committee of this nature. Such committees were generally attended only by persons who supported particular views, and consequently a mass ef ex parte evidence, frequently of a most objectionable character, was collected. He did not intend to propose any alteration in 112 the constitution of the committee, for he thought that was the duty of the Government. The object of the inquiry seemed to be to ascertain the extent to which a particular law had been violated. [Sir J. Graham: The inquiry is as to the operation of the law.] It seemed to him the object of the inquiry was to ascertain whether there had not been a systematic violation of the law. He repeated that he considered it the duty of the Government to see that a committee appointed for such a purpose was fairly and impartially constituted.

§ Sir J. Graham
had stated last night, that he did not entertain any very sanguine expectations that a beneficial result would be attained by the appointment of this committee. It was notorious that, in many cases, the law had been violated; but he considered this was rather a subject for legislation than for inquiry, and he thought no legislative interference could effectually suppress the practice of which the hon. Member for Knaresborough complained. He had great doubts whether the truck system—the partial payment of wages in goods—was not frequently advantageous to the working classes. He did not, on the part of Government, desire such an inquiry as that proposed by the hon. Member for Knaresborough; he did not anticipate any injurious consequences from such an investigation, but he considered it would lead to no satisfactory result. He would propose, that one of the Under-Secretaries of State for the Home Department should be placed on the committee, in addition to the Gentlemen already nominated; and that in the place of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. G. Wood) the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden) should be added.

§ Mr. Muntz
said, an application had been made to him to serve on this committee, and he had declined. He was convinced that no satisfactory result would be obtained by the inquiry. It was undoubtedly true that the law on this subject was now evaded; but that would still be the case, whatever laws might be made.

Mr. R. Yorke
expressed his concurrence in the sentiments of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz).

§ Mr. C. Buller
said, the proposal of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) would not remove his objections to the motion.

§ Mr. Hardy
thought that no manufacturer, nor any person employing a large number of workmen, should be placed on a committee of this nature. He considered that if the committee was composed in whole or in part of manufacturers, great dissatisfaction would be occasioned among the working classes.

§ Dr. Bowring
said, the stringency of the law on this subject frequently led to its evasion. He thought the establishment of a shop in connexion with extensive manufactories was frequently beneficial to the workpeople, and was so regarded by them.

§ Mr. Ferrand
said, hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House had, in several cases, violated the engagements he understood them to have made when he first brought forward this question. He had applied to the hon. Member for Fins-bury, and the hon. Member for Paisley, requesting them to serve on this committee, and they had declined to do so. It was his wish to constitute the committee as impartially as possible. He had mentioned to several hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House that it was his intention to propose that the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Lord Ashley) should preside over the committee; for nothing would induce him to take that office, lest he should be accused of partiality. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden) had made a personal attack out of the House upon a gentleman who had favoured him with information on this subject; and that gentleman had, in consequence, declined to furnish him with further information. The Anti-Corn-law League, and the newspapers in that interest, had given publicity to the name of the gentleman to whom he referred; and he was prevented from receiving the further assistance of that gentleman in obtaining evidence on this subject. He should not be behaving handsomely to those who had consented to act on this committee if he had not consented to have the names of those withdrawn who objected to act on it.

§ Mr. Brotherton
had the authority of the hon. Member for Kendal for stating that he had not been consulted as to whether he would allow his name to be placed on the committee, and that he certainly should not act upon it.

§ Mr. Ferrand
said, he had given the usual notice that Sir B. Hall should be substituted for Mr. Wood.

§ Mr. Cobden
denied that he had been guilty of any breach of confidence in communicating the name of the writer of the letter read by Mr. Ferrand in the House, and afterwards communicated to him by Mr. Ferrand.

§ Mr. Borthwick
said, if any of the names were objected to, and the House came to a division, it was quite clear, from the attendance in the House, what must be the result. He moved that the debate be adjourned.