COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 31 July 1867)

§ MR. LEATHAM
I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name on this Clause—after council leave out "by both parties," and insert "on the written application of either party in dispute." My object, Sir, in moving this Amendment in the clause is to prevent the Bill becoming inoperative. The House will observe that there are two Committees mentioned in the Bill—one of Conciliation, and one for Arbitration. My Amendment applies only to the former. I have been informed that if you wait until both parties agree to apply for a Committee of Conciliation, you may wait for a long time; but if either party be allowed to apply, there is a chance of some good being done. I do not wish that the Committee for Arbitration should act without the consent 519 of both parties in dispute, but the Committee of Conciliation may effect a great deal of good, and prevent the necessity of arbitration at all. The matter is investigated at the very outset, before any heat is engendered by the dispute. A strike, for instance, might be avoided by this Committee of Conciliation. The Amendment which I move is one suggested by a friend, after the perusal of an able article, in a well known periodical, from the pen of Mr. George Potter. The difficulty I feel is, that my Amendment is not approved of by the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill in "another place," or by the hon. and gallant Member who has charge of the Bill. If the hon. and gallant Member should state to the House that the Amendment would be fatal to the Bill, I cannot persist in the Amendment; but I place myself in the hands of the House. I cannot but believe that the Amendment would be a great improvement to the Bill. If the application of either party being made in writing is objected to; I have no objection to the application being made personally, or in any other way.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, that if one party were allowed to commence proceedings due notice ought to be given to the other.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the terms of the Bill had been settled by a Select Committee after careful consideration. The consent of both parties was required before the Council obtained power to act, as it was not felt right to give the Council any compulsory power over the community.

MR. HENLEY
said, he thought the Bill one of such importance that they ought not to proceed with it in the absence of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to whom the House naturally looked for advice and guidance. Very onerous duties were proposed to be entailed upon magistrates, who at the same time might be fixed with damages. He accordingly moved that the Chairman do report Progress.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the Bill last year, after being referred to a Select Committee, from whom it received very careful consideration, passed through the House of Commons with the consent of the present Government and their predecessors, and was sent up to the House of Lords, but did not get further. This year the Bill, word for word, had been sent down from the Lords to the Commons, so that it might be said to have passed both Houses, He could not concur in the apprehensions 520 entertained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). If postponed, they might lose the Session. The most important provision of the clause had been agreed on—namely, that, instead of disputants going before arbitrators appointed by a magistrate, they should go before the Council of Conciliation.

MR. HENLEY
said, the clause would place disputants in a very different position from that they at present occupied as to fine and imprisonment.

CAPTAIN MACKINNON
said, that the Bill originally had been introduced by a Member of the present Government, and had then been turned over to his care. All the clauses had since been minutely examined by the Law Lords who passed the Bill. He hoped the Motion for reporting Progress would not be pressed.

MR. HENLEY
said, it certainly would be unless he heard from some Member of the Government that the Bill had their approval.

§ COLONEL WILSON PATTEN
said, he was not in a position to pledge his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) to any unqualified approval of the Bill. But as the measure would certainly be endangered by the postponement, the better course would be to allow it to pass through its present stage, and to offer opposition—if opposition were felt to be necessary—upon the Report.

MR. HENLEY
said, that on the understanding that due notice would be given of the next stage of the Bill, he withdrew his Motion.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, there might be some hardship attendant on the exclusion of counsel or attorneys in every case. He accordingly moved the insertion of words enabling professional assistance to be obtained, "if consented to by both parties."

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, he wished to ask what provision was made to cover the expenses?

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the machinery would only be set in motion by persons 521 anxious to benefit by it, who accordingly would have to pay the necessary expenses.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, he wished to know, for example, what payment would be given to the clerk, upon whom he observed that a penalty was imposed if he failed to discharge certain duties?

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that any person undertaking the duties before doing so would take care to ascertain what these were, and to see that he was properly paid.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, he moved the addition of words providing that, in addition to their other duties, the Council should "declare by whom and in what manner such fees and expenses are to be paid."

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that it was impossible for the Council to give beforehand a decision which properly ought to wait till the case was at an end.