HC Deb 18 June 1845 vol 81 cc757-9
Mr. T. Duncombe

moved the Second Reading of the Arrestment of Wages (Scotland) Bill.

The Lord Advocate

rose to oppose the further progress of the Bill. He did not object to the 1st Clause of the Bill; but it was on the whole improperly drawn, and several clauses were imperfect. It would require very careful revision.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, that the Bill had been drawn by a Scotchman, and one supposed to be well acquainted with the legal phraseology of that country. The evil he sought to remedy was one of great importance. It was most objectionable that a person employing from two hundred to three hundred men, should be served on a Saturday night with as many summonses for the arrestment of the wages of his workmen; and that, in the event of his refusing to comply with them, an action might be brought against him by the persons suing. Claims were often made by persons, and summonses sent in, when not one shilling was owing to them by the workmen. No course of the kind should be taken until the Court had given judgment in the matter. Then one-half of the costs of such proceedings should be paid by the pursuer, and the other half by the person pursued; and in the event of no debt being due, the workman should be compensated by the person making the false claim. He was of this opinion, because the greatest extortion was practised on workmen, who would rather pay the amount claimed than lose a day's work. The arrestment of wages in Scotland had been productive of the greatest extravagance and of the greatest demoralization, and was opposed by both the employer and the employed. There was no law of this sort in England, and why should there be in Scotland? He had brought in a Bill for the assimilation of the law of the two countries, and very much regretted that he withdrew it. He was willing to leave the matter in the hands of the Government; but would not be satisfied that the Bill should be put off from day to day, and that legislation on the subject should be postponed.

Sir James Graham

said, this was a subject most difficult of adjustment, and involved a question of great nicety. It had engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government, who had submitted it to the consideration of a very eminent legal authority, who at first was of opinion that the law should be abolished; but, after further consideration, it was found that there would be a great objection to the total abolition of the law. The fear was, that the sudden abolition of a system which had endured long in Scotland, would cause the workmen to be more than ever dependent on their employers, by making the latter their only creditors; and another evil result to be apprehended was, the revival of the truck system—a thing which he (Sir J. Graham) believed to be most injurious to the working classes. He had, however, no objection to permit the second reading of the Bill; and, previous to the Committee, his learned Friend the Lord Advocate would confer with the hon. Member for Finsbury, for the purpose of removing all cause of objection to its further progress.

Mr. Rutherfurd

was understood to approve of the course taken by the right hon. Baronet. He thought it absurd that Gentlemen who were entirely ignorant of Scotland and Scotch affairs should school Scotch Members on this subject. At the same time, he admitted that to pass the 1st Clause in the Bill would be beneficial.

Captain Wemyss

would not have said one word upon this Bill, but for what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet. He (Captain Wemyss) was a coalowner, and paid 400l. a week to workmen, and he often had summonses sent in for 60l. of that amount. The power of attaching wages had the effect of encouraging shopkeepers who gave credit to profligate workmen, to the prejudice of the families of the latter. He was most anxious for the success of the Bill.

Bill read a second time.