HC Deb 04 May 1853 vol 126 cc1117-25

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

begged to state the reasons why he should oppose the measure. When the Bill was last before the House, its object wa3 stated to be only to declare what was the law; and if that had really been the case, he should not have felt much objection to it But he found that it had been so worded as to lead to an entirely different result, for it would completely change the existing law. By the 6th of Geo. IV., chap. 129, as interpreted and declared by the late decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, it was illegal for persons not in employment to combine for the purpose of raising wages; but this Bill, if passed, would legalise all combinations of persons, whether employed or not, and would repeal that important Act. It ought also to be noticed, that the word "combination" was employed in the Bill. Now, that was a technical word, and had a strict legal definition; and therefore, if it passed and legalized "combinations" eo nomine, it would give the sanction of law to every species of illegal society. For these reasons, he begged to move that the Bill be read that day six months.

MR. G. M. BUTT

seconded the Amendment. He said that the Bill had been introduced to reverse the decision to which the hon. and learned Solicitor General had alluded. A mistake respecting that decision certainly prevailed among the promoters of the Bill, and among some hon. Members. It was supposed that that decision rendered it illegal for workmen, while in employment, to meet to consider and agree among themselves what would be a fair rate of wages for them to demand. But in the case alluded to the parties were indicted, not for meeting and agreeing while in employment to settle a fair rate of wages, but the indictment was preferred against certain workmen for taking measures to induce others, who were in the employment of manufacturers, to quit their employ. It was an indictment for conspiracy, an act illegal at common law. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General would know that the case of "The Queen v. Griffin" gave rise to considerable discussion in the Queen's Bench; but it was plain, from the observations made by Mr. Justice Erie, which were those which had been misunderstood, that the learned Judge did not allude to the case before him when he said that it was illegal for men not in actual employ to meet together to determine the rate of wages. The learned Judge clearly expressed the law when he stated that it was illegal for workmen to combine to induce others in the actual employment of manufacturers to quit their employment for the purpose of compelling their employers to raise the rate of wages. That was the offence on which the indictment in the case in question was founded, and it was an offence at common law. It was illegal by the Act of the 6th Geo. IV., c. 129, which Act was confirmed by the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. It was not the case that any doubts existed as to the state of the law on this question; if there were any, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Drummond) would have a good excuse for coming to the House with this Bill. It was said that the Lord Chancellor, when Baron Rolfe, had put an interpretation upon the 3rd clause differing from that of Mr. Justice Erle, for he had said that workmen might meet to consult as to their wages, whether they were out of employment or not; but Baron Rolfe had not decided that if they so met and consulted as to induce other, workmen: to leave their master's employment, and thus to compel him to raise their wages, it would not be an illegal combination. He considered, therefore, that it would be most unwise to pass a Bill de-daring that there were doubts as to the meaning of the Act when in point of fact there were none.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. DRUMMOND

said, he thought, if the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken had been in the House when the Bill was last discussed, it would have been impossible for him to maintain that there was no doubt upon the state of the law; seeing that the hon. and learned Attorney General and the hon. and learned Solicitor General entertained very contradictory opinions upon it. He (Mr. Drummond) had not brought in the Bill because the state of the law had given rise to considerable discussions on the bench. He did not care a button about that. He had brought it in because half-a-dozen people had been put in prison, and had had to pay 3,000l., while the law officers were settling the law. It was plain that the law officers of the Crown differed in opinion both as to the law and the Bill which he had brought in. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General said that the Bill was not what he (Mr. Drummond) had represented it to be; but, in point of fact, it was neither more nor less than a declaratory Bill to settle the question. He was quite willing to accept any terms which the hon. and learned Attorney General, or any other general, might desire to substitute.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he also objected to the Bill. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had inadvertently omitted, when it was discussed on the former occasion, to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months; but it was quite clear then that the sense of the House was in complete negation of the Bill. His great objection to the Bill of the hon. Member for West Surrey was, that it was not a declaratory but a repealing Bill. It would tend substantially to repeal those provisions of the 3rd section of the 6th Geo. IV., c. 129, which made the attempts of workmen in or out of employment to raise the rate of wages, by inducing, either with threats or otherwise, other men in employment to abstain from work, a conspiracy, and indictable as an offence at common law. As the law at present stood, it was intended to prevent workmen who were desirous of raising the rate of wages from combining to do so, and, either by threats or intimidation, or by other means which could not well be described, to induce or to force other men who were employed from going to their work, or to prevent unemployed persons from receiving employment, or to compel persons to subscribe to societies for the purpose. They all knew it often happened that men who were able to abstain from work combined to do so, while there was another set of men in great distress, and who were willing to work even at a lower rate of wages, who were prevented by the combination of the former from taking employment and finding the means of supporting themselves and their families. This the Bill of the hon. Gentleman would legalise, and he (Viscount Palmerston) felt himself obliged, therefore, to oppose it.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, he could not admit of the House proceeding to a division without expressing his astonishment at the course which was now being taken. When the Bill was first introduced it was opposed upon the ground that it was absolutely unnecessary—that the law of the country enabled persons to do exactly what was provided for by this Bill. But they were now told that, instead of its being a Bill which declared the law to be what everybody knew it to be, it was a Bill which was introducing a total alteration in the law; an inconsistency so striking that he could not avoid noticing it. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. G. M. Butt) had urged the same arguments against the Bill as were used by the hon. and learned Attorney General on a former occasion—namely, that the Bill was unnecessary. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), however, had said that in point of fact it would, if passed, be a repealing statute. He (Mr. Chambers) begged to submit that it would not be a repealing statute, but that, in point of fact, the recital in the Bill was true—that doubts had arisen as to the construction of the 6th Geo. IV., c. 129. Those doubts arose in this way:—Mr. Baron Rolfe (the present Lord Chancellor), on the trial of some workmen in the iron trade at Liverpool, in 1847, for conspiring to injure their masters, laid down a rule for the guidance of the workmen, and which appeared to be a very sensible rule. Baron Rolfe said his opinion was, that if the workmen in assembling together had no other object than to persuade one another that it was their interest not to work except for certain wages, or not to work under certain wages, or unless certain regulations were complied with, that was not an illegal object, provided' it were sought in a peaceable manner; but then there Was another trial of some tinplate workers, which took place at Stafford in 1851 before Mr. Justice Erle, who laid down another and a conflicting proposition. Mr. Justice Erle said— The question was, whether persons combining together to obstruct and molest a given manufacturer, in order to force him to alter his mode of carrying on his business, and in pursuance of that conspiracy persuading free men to leave him, that being an overt act, is an indictable offence. I have an opinion upon the subject, and I will tell the jury that in my opinion that constitutes an indictable offence. The question was which of those opinions was right and which was wrong? That was the very case which called for the intervention of the House. The workmen required to be protected against these conflicting opinions of the Judges. If lawyers disagreed, the House ought to step in and declare what was the law upon the Subject. This conflict of opinion on the part of the Judges led to this—that owing to the present doubtful state of the law men might be vexed and teased and put to an enormous expense by prosecutions, although they might have been acting entirely within the law. The object of the Bill, therefore, was to declare plainly what was the law upon this subject. It was but just that the workmen should have the privileges and rights which the Bill would confer upon them anew, if the House so pleased. He, however, contended that it was a declaratory Bill only; but, whether declaratory or not, the question was, did the workmen ask for what was fair and proper? If so, then the House ought to pass the Bill. After reciting the doubtful state of the law, the Bill proceeded to enact— That masters, employers, workmen, or other persons who shall enter into any combination to advance or to lower or to fix the rate of their wages, or to lessen or alter the hours or duration of the time of their working, or to peaceably persuade or induce others to abstain from work in order to obtain the rates of wages or the altered hours of labour so fixed or agreed upon, shall not be deemed or taken to be guilty of 'molestation' or 'obstruction' within the meaning of the said Act [that is, the Act of the 6th of Geo. IV., c. 129], and shall not, therefore, be subject or liable to any indictment or prosecution for conspiracy. This was simply an enactment with reference to the construction to be put upon the Combination of Workmen's Bill. It did not abolish the Common law, or in any way affect the liability every person was under with regard to the common law. In all conspiracies having a tendency to damage large traders or manufacturers, resort might still be had to the common law. right of an indictment for a conspiracy. This Bill did not affect that right; it simply said that we workmen might meet together, whether in or out of employ, or whether in the employ of one particular master or of different masters, and they might talk over these subjects. They might say to one another, "Trade is very flourishing; the master manufacturers are obtaining large profits while we are receiving very small wages, and we are worked beyond our strength; let us see whether some new; arrangement cannot be made." Was there any impropriety in this? He thought not. Then they might go on and carry into operation their own thoughts and arrangements. They might, after full discussion among themselves, go and talk to other workmen, and tell them what they had determined upon. They might prudently say to them that, according to the state of trade, it was but fair and just that they, as workmen, should receive higher wages. Looking into the Bill, he did not see that there was anything more than allowing the workmen to do that. But, in consequence of the construction put upon the existing Act with reference to what was called "persuasion," it was said that the workmen had brought themselves within the Combination Act. The only object the workmen had was to have the privilege of exercising their own judgment of discussing with fairness their own situation; and, after having done so, then, whether in employ or out of employ, they asked for the further privilege of speaking to other persons upon the subject. The great object was to avoid the possibility of this Bill enabling them to use violence or threats, or to conduct themselves in any way in-consistent with proper feeling and justice. towards others.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, he must be allowed to say, that the promoters. of the Bill had great reason to complain of the course which had been pursued on this occasion. Until the Bill had reached its present stage, no objection was made to it, and then, just when it was about to pass, and when nobody expected an opposition, up got the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and opposed it. If there was a doubt in the mind of any man as to the state of the law—and no one could deny that the law was ambiguous on the Subject—it was proper that that doubt should be removed. The House was much indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Greenwich (Mr. Chambers) for the lucid statement he had made with respect to the object and intent of this measure. If the House did not allow its common sense to be mystified by any legal arguments, he was sure it would come to a right decision and allow the Bill to be read a third time, so that it might, at all events, go before those learned Judges who were Members of the other House of Parliament, that they might say whether the law as it at present stood was ambiguous or not. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted part of the charge of Mr. Baron Rolfe; but there was one part of it which he had omitted, and which was quite in contradiction to the opinion of Mr. Justice Erle. Mr. Justice Erle said that workmen had no right to combine if they were under an engagement; and he added that a person who was not engaged had no business to advise parties who were engaged to leave their work unless they obtained higher wages. But what Mr. Baron Rolfe said was this—that the workmen ought to be on the same footing as their employers. Why should not the men combine as well as their masters? They had a right to consult together and to see whether they could not get their masters to give them better wages. The present Lord Chancellor did not on that occasion deny that it was, doubtless, lawful for the people to agree among themselves as to the amount of wages they would receive, and as to the number of hours they would work; and, that being so, he did not see any illegality in persons peaceably trying to persuade others to adopt the same views. Mr. Baron Rolfe did not consider it necessary to notice the fact whether the workmen were under engagements or not; but Mr. Justice Erle did. The object of this Bill was to remove that doubt.

MR. HUME

said, he was anxious that the House should act with due consideration of the great interests involved in the present measure. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had truly said that the Bill affected the whole of the working classes. The opinions of the Judges were adverse and inconsistent; and, as there appeared to be doubts entertained on the subject, he would suggest to the noble Lord that he should not reject the application of the working classes, who were anxious to obey the law, if they could but know what it was. He would further suggest, whether it would not be better that the debate should be adjourned to afford time to consider the subject, and not throw cold water upon the whole question by rejecting a humble application from the working people.

MR. J. WILSON

said, he wished to point out to the House another reason why it was desirable that the debate should either be closed or adjourned. It was absolutely necessary that the Exchequer-bills Bill should be advanced a stage this day, otherwise the House would be required to meet on Saturday.

MR. HUME

I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

MR. GEACH

said, no man had a greater interest than he had in having labour uninterrupted; at the same time, he felt that the workmen were not placed in a right position. The law ought not to prevent any combination of workmen to promote their own interests, provided they combined peaceably, and did not interfere with the rights of others. He knew well that it was the practice of the employers, by combination and other ways, to seek to do that which they, by law, denied the right of the workmen to do. For his part, he was of opinion that combinations never led to good; but that was not the question. The question was, whether by law both parties—masters and men—ought not to be upon equal terms? He should support the Motion for adjourning the debate, in order that the subject might receive more deliberate consideration than the House had yet given to it.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that in agreeing to adjourn the debate, he begged to state that he did so for the reason assigned by his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson), and not for the reasons stated by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) and the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe), as he did not wish in any way to be understood as pledging himself to support the Bill.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, as the noble Lord had given no hope whatever that the Government would bring in any measure upon the subject, he wished the House to go to a division upon the principle of the Bill, and not upon the question of adjournment.

MR. KENDALL

was understood to say that in his county (Cornwall), on one occasion 6,000 men were out of employ, and in great difficulties. Some two or three "peaceable persuaders" came among them and kept up such a state of excitement as very materially to aggravate the painfulness of their position. One of those "peaceable persuaders" was got out of the county, and another of them was imprisoned, whereupon the people returned to their wonted occupations, and the peace of the county was never afterwards disturbed.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 121: Majority 19.

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

And it being Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House till Tomorrow, without putting the Question.