HC Deb 08 May 1861 vol 162 cc1755-61

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. MACKINNON,

in moving the second reading of this Bill said, that his Object was to put an end to the frequent recurrence of strikes, such as those which were now constantly taking place, and which he could not but regard as a very great misfortune. And, undoubtedly, there seemed every prospect of their recurrence from time to time unless some legislative enactment were passed which would have the effect of preventing them. The Bill passed through the House of Commons last year, and in the other House it was read a second time under the sanction of Lord St. Leonards and was referred to a Select Committee; but, owing to the late period of the Session preventing evidence being taken there at a particular point, referring to the coal owners in Northumberland, it did not proceed further. The principle of the Bill, therefore, had already been affirmed by both Houses of Parliament, and he presumed would not now be disputed. As to the details of the measure, he was desirous that it should be referred to a Select Committee, in order that inquiry might be male whether the proprietors of coal-pits, who were very much opposed to it, should be exempted from its operation. He had received applications from innumerable operative societies and manufacturing firms to renew the Bill, and believed it would be attended with great advantage not only to employers but to the employed. He believed that the unhappy dissensions between the two classes, which they had now to deplore, could be healed only by the establishment of tribunals of the kind proposed in the Bill. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, it was quite unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman to assure the House that in promoting this Bill he had no other object in view than the good of the community, and especially of the working classes. He (the Solicitor General) understood that the pre- sent measure was substantially the same as that brought forward last Session, with certain alterations which the inquiry of the Select Committees had induced the hon. Member to adopt. He was sorry to say that the objections which he entertained towards it last year had not been removed. The hon. Gentleman said that as his Bill had been approved by both Houses last year he was entitled to assume that it would not be disputed. Of course, it might be said that the principle of the Bill was that it was very desirable that means should be adopted for settling disputes between masters and men more easy of access, less costly, and less liable to delay than the ordinary tribunals; and in that sense the principle could not be contested. But, in his opinion, the principle of such a measure as at present consisted, not of the end aimed at but the machinery employed; and hence he was disposed to question the principle of the present Bill. His objection applied to the whole scheme of the Bill. He did not deny that the subject was a most important one, but they were not at present without legislation upon it. The Act of George IV. provided machinery for settling, by means of arbitration, disputes between masters and workmen, which was substantially as extensive as the scheme of the hon. Member; and he objected, therefore, to a system which, without offering greater advantages, would compete with that which already existed. The only ground upon which the hon. Gentleman Sought to establish his scheme was, that it would put an end to the present disputes between employers and employed; but even that failed him, because neither the Act of 1824 nor the present Bill referred to the question of the prospective rate of wages, which was the point at issue in the present and in nearly all strikes. There was nothing in the law as it at present existed to prevent people from referring disputes to any body of arbitrators, and he could not see the use of multiplying Acts which simply enabled people to do that which the existing law did not prevent. Another objection to the Bill was that the councillors were to be elected annually. It was scarcely possible to conceive that there would be no antagonism between the masters and workmen on that point, and that there would not be contested elections. The consequence would probably be that the tribunal which was to settle disputes would possess the confidence of neither of the parties who were at issue. Further, the tribunals proposed to be established would necessarily be attended with considerable expense, for there were to be a clerk, a registrar, voting papers, polling, and so on, but no means were provided in the Bill for meeting these expenses. On all these grounds he should feel it his duty to oppose the second reading of the Bill.

MR. KINNAIRD

reminded hon. Members that last year the Bill had really been approved by both Houses, for it had passed the Commons and was only prevented from passing the Lords by the late period of the Session at which it arrived there; and he, therefore, greatly regretted the determination which the hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed with regard to the Bill. The Act of George IV. had proved utterly inoperative, as had been proved before two Select Committees, and, therefore, further legislation was necessary; and the present Bill was the result of the inquiries of two Committees, who had very carefully investigated the matter. The present Bill was simply permissive, and the expense of carrying it out would be borne by the parties availing themselves of it. The evil proposed to be remedied was notorious, and he should like to see the matter taken up by the Government; but unless they were prepared to introduce a better measure they ought not to discourage private Members by oppposing the Bill.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down as to the importance of the subject; but it seemed to him to be so tender a subject that he should be sorry to see it touched, unless taken up by a strong hand. It was better to let matters rest as they were, than to endeavour to patch up a system which could in no way accomplish the object which they all had in view. He should say for one that he could not for the life of him see how the Bill could affect such a question as that of the recent strikes in London—neither the question of pay nor the question of time would be affected by the present Bill. The matter of strikes was so important that he would recommend that the matter should not be touched unless it was taken up by the Government of the country.

MR. LIDDELL

preferred the existing tribunals to the councils of conciliation, upon which he looked with no little apprehension. The powers given by the Bill as to the summoning and examination of witnesses were arbitrary and unusual. Altogether, he doubted whether legislation upon this subject would be beneficial, or whether it would not rather tend to aggravate than to settle disputes. At the same time, he was so anxious that the House should do all that it could to promote harmony and good relations between masters and workmen that he should be glad to see the Bill referred to a Select Committee.

SIR JOSEPH PAXTON

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor General, though well acquainted with the present state of the law, was not well acquainted with its operation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had inquired as to the working of the law as it existed in some of the manufacturing districts, he would have found that it was entirely inoperative. Similar councils to those proposed by the present Bill—the Conseils des prud' hommes —had existed in France for seventy years; and while nearly all the other institutions of the country had been swept away, they retained their position up to the present day, and were found most advantageous in the settlement of disputes between masters and operatives. It was not intended to apply the system to ordinary labour, but to skilled labour, and especially to that kind of labour which was taken by the operatives to their homes. It was a permissive Bill, and he submitted that it would be of the greatest use in the manufacturing districts.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he had been accused by high authorities of speaking on one side on Wednesdays and voting on the other. He admitted that when there was upon the Table a measure, the object of which was manifestly benevolent and philanthropic, but the machinery of which was defective, he might sometimes have voted for a Bill many of the provisions of which he could not approve. He was afraid that in this instance his speech must be against the Bill of the hon. Member for Rye; and if his vote was to go with his speech his vote also must be against it. By the law as it at present existed a power of arbitration was given to magistrates; the effect of this measure would be to create a concurrent jurisdiction, and where there was a concurrence there was always danger of a confusion of jurisdiction. The Bill proposed to refer all matters in dispute to a council, to be authorized by the Secretary of State. Now, in his opinion, nothing could be clearer than that the Executive Govern- ment ought to stand quite clear of the deplorable disputes which occurred between masters and men. Those were matters in regard to which neither the judicial nor the executive authorities of the country could exercise any good influence. The diminution of these disputes was to be looked for in the increased enlightenment and improved intelligence of the working classes themselves. Already they had become less envenomed, and were attended with less violence and fewer serious crimes than was formerly the case. The questions at issue were now discussed with more of argument and reason on both sides; and very often the principles of political economy were referred to, though, no doubt, the speakers frequently proved themselves to be very indifferent political economists. He believed the cheap newspapers were sufficiently enlightened to give good advice to the working classes in their disputes; and he believed that the penny papers were not at all in favour of these strikes, and had given sound, though perhaps not palatable advice to the workman. He trusted that the improvement which was taking place in the cheap publications which were read by the working classes would tend to continue and increase this amelioration of the relations between masters and workmen, and to render less and less frequent the occurrence of strikes. By this Bill it was proposed that, upon a petition being presented to the Queen or to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Secretary of State should have power to authorize the appointment of a council, to consist of not less than two or more than ten masters, and not less than two or more than ten workmen. The first members of this council were to be elected by the persons whose names were signed to the petition. Thus, any number of persons might get a council appointed without giving notice to any one except the Secretary of State; and was it likely, he asked, that a tribunal so constituted could arbitrate satisfactorily in the case of a serious, and, perhaps, a prolonged dispute, between masters and workmen? The council was to be continued by annual election, every member of any trade who had reached the age of twenty-one being entitled to vote for the members of any council within the county or city in which he lived. This was a most extravagant proposition. He could not imagine that such a mode of election could produce any but the most unsatisfactory results. He could not express a favourable opinion of any of the main provisions of this Bill, and, therefore, feeling that in dealing with this subject a false step might be productive of the most serious consequences, he must, although he was perfectly convinced of the excellence of the motives of the hon. Member for Rye, move that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.

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. LEVESON GOWER

said, the more he considered this subject the greater appeared the difficulties for legislation in the matter. Most of the witnesses examined before the Committee which sat in 1856, said that the great difficulty in this case was with regard to the appointment of Chairman. The Bill did not deal with that difficulty. It merely said that a certain number of the masters and operatives should appoint a Chairman; but he doubted whether they would be got to agree as to who should be Chairman, and in that case the whole machinery of the Bill fell to the ground. He did not believe that the points in dispute between masters and workmen were such as could be settled by one man or any body of men. The existence for some years of a voluntary system of conciliation in the Potteries had led him to doubt the necessity for legislation in this matter, and he felt reluctantly compelled to give his vote against the second reading of the Bill.

MR. FRANK CROSSLEY

believed that the Bill, if it were passed, would be perfectly inoperative, and that in attempting to legislate on the subject the House was going beyond its province. No one disputed the good intentions of the hon. Member for Rye; but he did not think the hon. Gentleman had had sufficient practical experience of the working of the present system. The arrangement of these disputes should be left altogether to the persons immediately interested in them, and he believed that they would be more effectually settled by the good feeling of the masters and their workmen than by any enactment of the Legislature.

MR. MELLOR

said, that a society of the nature referred to existed at present in Nottingham, and its success was altogether owing to its voluntary character. The present Bill was open to all the objections which had been urged against it by the Solicitor General, but he would be happy to support a measure that would give force to the decisions of these voluntary associations.

MR. AYRTON

was proceeding to address the House when—

It being Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the Debate till To-morrow.

House adjourned at thirteen minutes before Six o'clock.