HC Deb 06 April 1852 vol 120 cc783-92
MR. G. THOMPSON

said, that, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for establishing an office for the benefit of the ballast heavers of the port of London, he was not asking the House to do anything novel or unprecedented. The case of the ballast heavers was almost identical with that of the coalwhippers, for whom the House had legislated on more than one occasion. The evils which he designed to remedy were very great. The; ballast heavers, 400 in number, had at: present no freedom of action. They could not obtain work unless they connected themselves with a particular public-house, and, after their work was over, they were obliged to spend a large portion of their earnings under the roof of the man who had the power to employ them, or of keeping them destitute of employment. What he asked for was, to have their case dealt with by this House in the same manner as that of the coalwhippers had been. By this Bill he proposed that there should be established a Registration Office for ballast heavers; that every man who chose should be at liberty, on the payment of a very small fee, or no fee at all, to enter his name; that the names should be taken in rotation; that the masters should offer their own price for the ballast heaving; that the men should have the option of accepting or refusing the price; and that in the event of the men refusing it, the master should have a right to go wherever else he pleased for labourers. The Bill contained no other provisions than those which were in the Coalwhippers' Bill.

MR. SPEAKER

said that, as the matter was one relating to trade, it was necessary for the hon. Member first to move that the House should go into Committee.

MR. G. THOMPSON

then moved that the House do go into Committee.

Resolved— That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the expediency of establishing an Office for the benefit of the Ballast Hearers of the Port of London.

MR. HENLEY

said, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the first step being taken in reference to this matter. All the statements made by the hon. Member with regard to the unfortunate position of these men, were perfectly well founded. It could not be doubted that various parties made a considerable profit by letting out the labour of the ballast heavers. While he admitted that grievance to its full extent, he must not conceal from the House the fact that this Bill would create another monopoly. It was nothing better than a; monopoly to compel the employers of labour to go to a certain place to procure it, and if unable to procure it there, to wait a certain period before attempting to pro- cure it elsewhere. It was not very long since several cases of a very unpleasant nature had been heard before the police magistrates of the city arising out of similar provisions contained in the Coalwhippers' Act. The class of persons now about to be legislated for was not very numerous—not more than 500 in number; but he felt a strong conviction that the powers intended to be created for their advantage by this Bill, would tend to greater evils than those which it was desired to abolish. While assenting to the introduction of the Bill, he could not promise his support on the other stages.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that that House ought to look with great jealousy and caution at measures of this description, which were undoubtedly founded, in many respects, on a dangerous principle. At the same time he could not but recollect the working of a measure which bore a strong analogy to the present, namely, that relating to the coalwhippers. He had been originally strongly opposed to that Bill, of which he feared that the consequences would sooner or later show themselves; but he must confess that the working of that Bill had convinced him that the good in a great degree preponderated over the evil. Besides, it ought rather to be considered in the light of a police measure than as a Bill of Trade. He thought that the ballast heavers had established a primâ facie case as strong as that of the coalwhippers, and that they were more oppressed by the truck system than the coalwhippers had been; but he had already expressed to them his opinion that Parliament would never pass a Bill of this nature without a previous inquiry being made by a Select Committee. An inquiry of this nature might still be made during the present Session of Parliament.

MR. HUME

said, that this was a large and important question, and that the House ought to consider whether the present was not the time for inquiry into the whole of the laws and customs relating to the port of London. Ballast had been guaranteed as a monopoly to the Trinity-house by an Act of Henry VIII., and the profit annually received from this source was between 4,000l. and 5,000l. He would suggest that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the manner in which the port of London was carried on, with the view of relieving the colliers, which were at present almost the only vessels that took in ballast, from these charges. He hoped there would be a Committee to inquire into the mode in which ships were ballasted in the River Thames; for if that were done he was sure the result would be to afford to the whole shipping interest of the port of London a relief that was now much wanted.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, he knew the case of the ballast heavers to be one that required a strict inquiry by that House. Their case was simply this—the men were in the hands of twenty-nine middlemen, twenty-seven of whom were keepers of public-houses; and the consequence was that the men could never get any employment unless they agreed to take their victuals, their beer, and their spirits, from the shops of these middlemen. He could not conceive a grosser case, or one more demanding an inquiry than that; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) would take up the question, for he was sure it would be the means of improving the morality and the contentment of a humble but industrious class. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member (Mr. G. Thompson) would not proceed with his Bill at present, but that he would accede to the suggestion that had been made to have a Select Committee to investigate the subject.

MR. WAKLEY

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had not opposed the introduction of this Bill. He hoped the Government would also consider the propriety of establishing a labour registry office for the benefit of the working classes of this country generally. Let the House not be alarmed—he was not proposing workshops to be placed under the surveillance of the Government. He knew that would be monstrous, and opposed to common sense, and would be highly injurious to the working classes themselves. But what he meant was, that means might be provided by which those who had labour to sell might have an opportunity of disposing of it to better advantage than they now could do. The vendors of corn, coal, cotton, or any other article, had all the means of acquiring the best information as to when and where they could find the best market for their commodities; but the poor man out of employment could not afford to travel, and could not learn where the best market was for his commodity, his labour. Now, the machinery of a registry that would supply this desideratum already existed in the Unions, Union-offices, and the offices for the registration of births, deaths, and marriages scattered throughout the country. Now, instead of an office merely for ballast heavers, if the Government would establish an office connected with all the districts and Unions of the country, whence information might be furnished to a central office in the metropolis as to where labourers could be had, and where employment could be obtained, so that the operative and the capitalist might be brought together—if the Government would adopt that course, he believed they Would be conferring enormous and indescribable benefit upon the working classes, and at a cost perfectly insignificant compared with the advantages it would afford. He did not expect this suggestion to be embodied in the present Bill, but he threw it out in the hope that the Government would give it a favourable consideration.

MR. MACGREGOR

said, he did not think that any Bill like the present could meet the necessities of the case of the ballast heavers, unless a further inquiry-was instituted previous to its introduction to that House.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

believed it might be perfectly practicable to organise a system of registry for labourers somewhat in the manner pointed out by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley), and he thought it would afford great and permanent advantages to the working classes, at a cost hardly Worthy of consideration.

SIR WILLIAM CLAY

said, that notwithstanding all the care that had been bestowed on the Coalwhippers' Bill, there had been very considerable difficulties attending its working; still it had been clearly established before the Committee which considered that measure, that it had secured great benefits to the working classes, and had raised their character in general estimation. He thought, therefore, that a similar Bill might be passed with advantage for the protection of the ballast-heavers; and as the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble of preparing this Bill, he hoped the House would allow it to obtain a second reading, and then send it before a Select Committee.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he was anx- ious to say a few words, both as to the course which the House ought to take With regard to the present Motion, and likewise with regard to that other and kindred measure which had been alluded to in the course of that discussion—he meant the Coalwhippers' Bill. He was glad to see hon. Gentlemen, representing all shades of opinion on the general question of free trade, approaching the consideration of this subject, in a Calm and dispassionate spirit, and fairly disposed to allow that a choice had to be made between the difficulties oh the one hand, and those on the other; and he thought that, to whichever alternative hon. Gentlemen on either side might incline, there was no inclination shown to underrate the objections or the arguments which might be urged in defence of a contrary opinion to their own. There was great difficulty, no doubt, in any course that the House might take in this case. When he himself proposed a Bill to establish a register office for the coalwhippers, he was not at all insensible to the objections raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) to the passing of such a measure; and he always regarded them as being of a Most serious and formidable character. At the same time he was convinced from the evidence which came before him, that a large class of men were sunk and absorbed in the deepest degradation, and that it was within the power of Parliament, although at the expense Of some economical inconvenience, to apply an effectual remedy to so enormous an evil. He did not, therefore, hesitate, not did the House hesitate, perfectly alive as they were to those evils and objections, to allow the measure to pass into law. When that Act was passed, he had the strongest conviction that its good working would not depend upon the wisdom of the precautions or restraints contained in the Act itself, but upon the prudent, wise, and considerate conduct of the men themselves who were the subjects of the Act. He had ventured always to hold that language to the men; and if that Act had succeeded up to the present moment, he was bound to say that the credit of that success was not due to the framers of that Act, but to the class for whose benefit it was passed. In consequence of the generally admirable and exemplary conduct of the men, and the temperate and judicious use they had made of an Act investing them with such powers as he must confess had been placed in their hands, the measure had on the one hand completely effected its moral and social objects, and he believed on the other hand it had given general contentment—certainly it had not caused any wide-spread dissatisfaction—among the mercantile classes of the port of London immediately connected with the coal trade. And he confessed it was with much grief and some apprehension that he had lately read in the public journals that not only had difficulties arisen with respect to the interpretation of the Act, but that there had also been something in the nature of a strike on the part of the coalwhippers, and an attempt to extort higher wages than the state of the market would justify by means of creating a partial monopoly, or at least by imposing a restraint upon the trade contrary to the Act. As he had always entertained hopes of the success of the Act, through the good conduct of the men, so he also thought it fair to say that, if they sought to make an undue use of the Act, he feared not that they would secure a permanent rise of wages by means of their Act, but that the whole trade would combine to offer such a resistance to it that it must give way under the restraint of such an unwise and injudicious exercise of those powers; and that House would be called upon to repeal such an Act, and would be constrained, however reluctantly, to respond to that call. While he stated that by way of a warning to the men, he ventured to say that his belief was that that time had not arrived—that there was no call upon the House for the repeal of the measure it bad so beneficially passed; and if the men persevered in the moderate conduct which, on the whole, they had persevered in in an eminent degree, they would be maintained by that House in the improved social condition in which the Act, under the blessing of Providence, had been the means of placing them. When he acknowledged that, he thought the House ought to exercise great caution in enlarging this category of exceptions; because if they proceeded to multiply exceptions to the ordinary course of trade, except upon the broadest of grounds, there would be no end to the demands that would be made for their interposition; and however seductive in some respects the path they might be called on to enter, he was quite satisfied, if this kind of interposition became a frequent practice on the part of Parliament, or if it were adopted, except in the gravest and most extreme cases, that they would end by creating evils at least far more extensive than any they would remedy. Now, admitting that, and adverting to the fact that this Bill was not introduced oh the authority of the Executive Government, which of course must be a higher authority than any individual Member who proposed a measure dealing with the social condition of the people, he thought it only reasonable that the Bill should go before a Select Committee. And now came the practical question—whether the Select Committee should come first, and the Bill afterwards, or the Bill first, and the Select Committee afterwards. Now, he thought this was a case which ought not to be met with delay; they ought either to do something promptly in this matter, or to make up their minds to do nothing. It would be no mercy at all to the men, to be holding out to them delusive hopes of passing the Bill this Session, and then to have to postpone its passing till the next Session. Time, therefore, was of the utmost importance in such a case. Well, then, would they gain time by taking the Bill first, or the Select Committee? He thought the hon. Member (Mr. G. Thompson) would gain time, if, in lieu of the Motion he had made, he requested leave to make a Motion for a Select Committee on this subject; otherwise the House would be asked to consent to the principle, not on their knowledge and cognisance of the facts, but upon trust, and in all probability there would be a very formidable opposition to the second reading, which would most likely be avoided if they had a Select Committee. If they had an inquiry before a Select Committee, and it were conducted as he had not the slightest doubt it would be, not for prolonging the case, but to arrive at a speedy issue, that inquiry of a Committee, the hon. Gentleman might depend upon it, would be of very great use to him in determining the provisions of the Bill. And it Was far more important to have the recommendations of a Committee, and a Bill drawn up in conformity with them, than for the Bill to be read a second time, and then, perhaps, have the Report of the Committee varying in essential particulars from the Bill. For these reasons—of a practical nature—'and for the sake of the object which they must have at heart, namely, to bring the matter to a speedy issue, he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Bill, and to submit a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire how the business of ballast heaving is conducted in the port of London, and to report, to the House the mode in which that subject might be dealt with.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he should support the original Motion, and could see no objection to the Bill being read a second time, and then sent to a Committee. The labour of ballast heaving was of the very lowest class, and there could be no fear of a monopoly among the men, because there was so much competition for the work.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he could not agree with the advice which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had given to the hon. Gentleman who was in charge of this Bill. The measure involved no new principle; and as the Government had given its sanction to the introduction of the Bill, and was willing to give its assent to the second reading, on the understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee, where there no doubt would be a critical and searching inquiry, he hoped the hon. Member would persevere in his Motion for leave to bring in the Bill, and fix the second reading for as early a day as possible.

House in Committee.

MR. G. THOMPSON moved a Resolution to the effect that Leave be given to introduce the Bill.

MR. HUME

said, he could not agree to the narrow object of the hon. Member's Resolution. He would prefer to have the whole question of ballast heaving investigated by a Select Committee.

MR. LABOUCHERE

hoped the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. G. Thompson) would not follow the advice of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). The entire subject of ballast heaving was a most complicated question, and there could be little hope of bringing it to a speedy solution.

MR. GLADSTONE

trusted the Resolution would be allowed to pass as it stood. When he made the suggestion he had done to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, he had done so in the belief that the Government might not readily accede to the second reading. That was his impression from the speech of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade; but the noble Lord the Member for Colchester (Lord J. Manners) declared that the Government were prepared to assent to the second reading'. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not think the House ought to proceed to the second reading of Bills of this nature until the Executive Government took them up on their own responsibility. When he had proposed the Coalwhippers' Bill, he did so on the responsibility of the Executive, and although he went into Committee on the Bill, it was not a Committee to take evidence.

MR. HENLEY

said, that not having seen the Bill itself, he could not pledge himself to its particular provisions. He, however, thought the inquiry before a Select Committee would not be a long one.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the Committee was placed in a difficulty by the dissimilar statements of two Members of the Government. He understood the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) to agree to the second reading; but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), with great prudence, he thought, said he would not be able to support the second reading until he saw the provisions of the Bill. He (Mr. Labouchere) concurred with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), as to the policy of measures of this nature being introduced by an individual Member of the House. Before the Committee was called upon to assent to a Motion based on an exceptional principle, he considered there ought to be an inquiry. At the same time, if the Members of the Government said they would support the Bill, he should acquiesce in the Motion.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that when his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said that he could not consent to the second reading of this Bill, the proposal that it should be referred to a Select Committee had not been made. As his noble Friend (Lord J. Manners) had stated, the Government were prepared to accede to the introduction of the Bill, provided it was afterwards referred to a Select Committee.

MR. G. THOMPSON

said, that if the Committee would assent to the introduction of the Bill, he would, early after the holidays, and before the second reading of the Bill, move the appointment of a Select Committee, whose Report, he hoped, might be presented to the House before the second reading of the Bill, as he thought it would not be necessary for them to sit long or to take much evidence.

Resolved— That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for establishing an Office for the Benefit of the Ballast Heavers of the Port of London.