§ LORD ELCHOsaid, he had given notice that he would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What are the intentions of Government with reference to the Law of Master and Servant; but instead of putting a direct question to the right hon. Gentleman, he would venture to make a request. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman publicly, as he had already done privately, to undertake to bring in a Bill to legislate on this question. He had a faint hope that such an expression of opinion would be made by hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman would be encouraged to legislate upon it. This question of the law of master and servant was one which required to be dealt with by Parliament early in the present Session. The law, as it at present stood, was this—that a servant, if he broke a civil contract, was liable to a criminal prosecution, and might be imprisoned with hard labour. Such a state of law as this was harsh, unjust, and un-called for—and required remedy at the hands of Parliament. The position in which the question stood was this:—Last Session a Committee sat to inquire into the law regulating contracts between master and servant, and the Committee unanimously came to the decision that the present state of the law was objectionable, and they passed certain Resolutions recommending some changes in the law. A Committee, representing the united trades of the United Kingdom, had expressed their approval in general terms of the Resolutions arrived at by the Committee. It being admitted that a change was necessary, the question arose by whom was that change to be made. He felt very strongly that the question was one of such importance that it ought not to be dealt with by a private Member of this House. It ought to be taken up and dealt with upon the responsibility of the Government. The Secretary of State had gained just credit to himself for the way in which he had dealt with the trades unions; but he (Lord Elcho) thought this ! question of the law of master and servant 1260 was not less important. It was the wish of the master as well as the workman that Government should take it in hand, and with such a general concurrence of opinion upon the subject the Government ought not to hesitate to speedily act in the matter. He was also supported in this view by the opinion of the Committee, who thought the question should be dealt with by a Bill introduced by the Home Secretary. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would be induced to take up the matter in the present Parliament, and introduce a Bill to regulate the law with regard to it.
§ MR. E. POTTERsaid, he thought the question was so much mixed up with that of trades unions, that it would be better to await the result of that inquiry than to institute hasty legislation. The delay of a year or two could do no harm, for the evidence taken by the Committee disclosed very few cases of harshness or oppression, and he believed that the law was not often enforced except in cases which came under the Combination Act. The Committee did not discover a single instance of the law having operated unfairly in the district where textile manufactures were carried on, which branch of industry employed the largest number of hands in the kingdom; and his own experience, both as an employer and a magistrate, was to the same effect. If, however, a Bill were introduced, it ought to be under the charge of the Home Secretary.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down had stated that questions between masters and servants coming for adjudication before a magistrate arose frequently out of trades unions under the Combination Act. He (Mr. Candlish) had had great experience both as a magistrate and an employer of labour, and he could not remember a single instance of the kind. His experience went to show that the prosecutions under the present law were cases simply of breach of contract, and had nothing to do with the Combination Act. They occurred especially in seaports, sailors being proceeded against for refusing to go to sea. A general feeling prevailed that the law which imposed only a penalty on the employer for the breach of a civil contract while it sent the workman to prison was unequal, and ought to be amended. He hoped the Home Secretary would introduce a Bill on the subject at an early day. He was quite sure that such a Bill would 1261 receive the cordial support of both sides of the House, and of masters as well as men.
§ MR. POWELLsaid, he concurred in the request that this subject should be taken in hand by the Government, without any loss of time, and that the summary and humiliating process of arrest should be put an end to by statute. He believed that the cases were rare in which a workman, who was supposed to have been guilty of some breach of duty, was manacled and brought before the magistrate as a felon; but he thought that there was a widespread opinion among the masters, and an almost universal opinion among the workmen, that the law was one which tended to dishonour and degrade the workman, and which, in a case of a breach of contract, placed him in a state of inferiority, mischievous to him and injurious to the master. There was one proposal of the Select Committee which ought not to be overlooked—namely, that in cases of aggravated breaches of contract, which might have caused injury to persons or property, the magistrates should have power to award punishment by imprisonment, instead of by fine. He alluded to such a case as that of an engineer who, carelessly or wilfully, left his engine, which was attached to a colliery, whereby a man ascending or descending the shaft might have lost his life, but some one providentially discovered his absence, and averted the calamity. The arrest of wages in Scotland for the payment of fines ought to be abolished. He hoped the House would very shortly deal with that question, and sweep the arrest away, as a relic of a past age, and unworthy the time in which they lived.
§ MR. WALPOLEThis is, Sir, one of the most important questions that can engage our attention. The Committee of last year arrived at certain conclusions by way of Resolutions, which I thought my noble Friend (Lord Elcho) would have embodied in a Bill and submitted to the consideration of the House, That Committee, my noble Friend reported, were unanimous in the Resolutions they adopted. But this very night has shown that very great precautions are necessary in adopting these Resolutions, because one Member of the Committee has expressed doubts as to these Resolutions, and has given his reason for so doing. My noble Friend has recommended to Her Majesty's Government the propriety of bringing in a Bill on this 1262 subject. I will not put him off by the observation which I might make, that, owing to the great pressure of the Government business, I do not see the probability of bringing in such a measure at an early opportunity. I admit that this subject ought to be taken into consideration at an early period, and I think that both the House and the Government equally desire to entertain it. At the same time, the subject is one which it is not easy to grapple with. I am engaged in communications with the Attorney General on this matter, and, without any positive pledge as to the time when we can introduce a Bill, I will give my best attention to the subject, and will if possible bring in a measure.