§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he objected to the Bill being read a third time, on the ground that the measure was unnecessary. He understood the object of 1428 it was to correct a supposed misapprehension of the law on the part of Mr. Justice Erle, in a case that was tried before him at Stafford in 1851. It was supposed that he laid it down as the law, that workmen could not legally combine for their mutual protection with a view to keep up the rate of wages, or limit the number of hours during which their masters might employ them. He believed the learned Judge had stated the law correctly; but whether that were so or not, the Court of Queen's Bench had stated the law upon the subject quite correctly. The learned Judge stated that the law was quite clear, and that workmen had a right to combine for their own protection, to obtain such wages as they chose to demand, or to gain themselves any benefit; but a combination to prevent men from working, or for any such purpose, was unlawful. The case afterwards came on before the Court of Queen's Bench, and they laid down the law in the same way. He could not, therefore, think this Bill was necessary.
§ MR. DRUMMONDsaid, it was very well for the hon. and learned Gentlemen to say the Bill was unnecessary, but he had stated no other reason against it. It was to do what was intended by the Remedial Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) several years ago. There had been great discussions between the masters and workmen for many years; and Lord Stanley, at that time a Member of the House of Commons, presided over the Committee, and a Bill was prepared, with which all parties were satisfied, and which put an end to all disputes. So the matter stood as to the necessity of the case. The Bill might be unnecessary for the Attorney General, or possibly for himself; but there had been contradictory decisions in the Courts of Law. Lord Chief Justice Campbell might lay down the law, but he was not immortal; and another king might arise who knew not Joseph, and who might decide another way. As a proof that the law was not clear, nine persons had got imprisonment for three months and to pay the costs, amounting to 3,000l. All he asked by this Bill was to have a declaratory Statute stating what the law really was.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:…Ayes 57; Noes 70: Majority 13.
§ The House adjourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock.