§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
MR. JAMESrose to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill that day six months. He said, that it was an invidious duty to undertake to oppose a Bill of this description; and in so doing he wished it to be understood that he did not grudge holidays to any member of the community. He opposed the Bill because, in his judgment, the principle on which it rested was unsound. It was a step in advance of the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), and an interference with trade. If it passed, it would become highly important to know where that description of legislation was to end. He was aware that the assumption on which the Bill before the House was framed was that the original Bill had been attended with so much good that it was deemed advisable to give to its provisions a wider application. He had inquired of managers of banks in London and the provinces, and nearly all of them said that the Act had worked well, and had been attended with great success, while its inconveniences had been comparatively trivial. Still, there were some inconveniences, such, for instance, when a holiday fell upon a market day in a country town. For this reason, he thought it would have been well had the Bill been made applicable to London, and London alone, as its conditions were daily becoming so different from those of other towns; elsewhere arrangements should be left in private hands, as at present people were taken from their work at inconvenient times. He observed that docks had been struck out of the Bill; but if the Customs remained that would, to a great extent, affect docks as well. 393 He thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) should explain why the Customs, Bonded Warehouses, and Inland Revenue had been selected as objects for those special favours. If they adopted the principle of the Bill they could not allow it to stop there. It must be extended to the employés at the Post Office, to railway servants, miners, factory operatives, agricultural labourers, publicans, and others. He knew of no reason why, if a man was interested in a large number of railway operations, he should be subject to those fixed holidays. He wished to know why Bonding Warehouses and Custom Houses were especially selected? Another question he wished to ask of the hon. Gentleman was whether he was aware that the existing law entailed a large charge upon the public? He thought the House ought to know clearly, before it voted this Bill, whether the extensions it proposed would lead to increased expense; and, if so, where that expenditure was to end? He moved that the Bill go into Committee on that day six months.
§ MR. PALMERseconded the Amendment, believing that the effect of the Bill would be to interfere most unjustifiably with trade. The steamship owners in the North of England had sent a memorial, which had been presented to the House that day, setting forth that if a steamer arrived on a Saturday afternoon preceding a Bank Holiday, the entries at the Customs could not be made till Tuesday, so that the discharge of the cargo, which might be of a perishable nature, could not take place till the Wednesday. That was a matter of a very serious moment. On the Tyne the Custom House clerks had fixed holidays quite independent of the Bank Holidays, and he could not see why that House should enter on a system of legislation which would be an interference with the labour question throughout the whole country.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. James,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
394§ MR. GRANTHAMsupported the Bill. The country had derived great advantage from the passing of the existing Bank Holidays Act, and he regarded the present Amending Bill as a necessary sequitur. It was found that on these holidays there was hardly any trade at the institutions included in this Bill; and therefore it was proposed to give persons employed in them the benefit of the holidays.
§ MR. NORWOODpointed out how entirely different in principle the Bank Holidays Act was from this Bill. It was impossible for the bankers to close their establishments without an Act of Parliament authorizing them to do so; but the principle involved in the present Bill went further than that, inasmuch as apart from the interference with trade and shipping, it proposed to release Government employés from their duties on four days of the year, at the public expense. And if the privilege of this Act was made to apply to the Customs and Inland Revenue, he did not see how they could refuse to put the Post Office, and other Departments of the public service on the same footing. He objected to the Bill on the ground that it was an unwarrantable interference with the rights of labour. The working classes, unfortunately, had too many holidays in the course of the year, it was very hard upon the men working at the docks, railways, and shipping, that for an additional four days in the year they should be precluded from earning their living. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had made an alteration in his Bill, which, to a certain extent, disarmed his opposition, because it now left work in the Customs optional; but any work done on these four days would be at the expense of the merchant and shipowner. He should like to have some statement from the Treasury Bench as to the arrangement which it was proposed to make by which the Customs officials would be able to carry on business on these holidays.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that the operation of the Bank Holidays Act had given general satisfaction; and it was a farce to keep the Customs open on Bank Holidays, for practically they did no business at all. Still, so long as they were open a great many merchants and others engaged in business felt themselves 395 bound to go to their offices; whereas if the Bill passed they would not come. It was a misapprehension to suppose that the Act was intended to apply only to the Banks, although it was necessary to use a term which should distinguish Bank Holidays from other holidays. Bills of exchange were payable before the holidays, but not until after Bank Holidays. There were only four of these holidays in the year, and nobody could say that, as Englishmen, we did not work hard enough. Holidays of this kind were more valuable to employés than these granted at irregular intervals by their employers; because it enabled members of the same family engaged in different pursuits to arrange beforehand as to the manner in which they would meet and enjoy themselves. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. James) would not press his Amendment, but allow the House to go into Committee.
§ MR. HERMONcomplained that the Bill proposed to give two new holidays, and as this would seriously affect the mercantile community he thought the House ought to consider well before they adopted it. If the House went into Committee upon it he should move to re-consider this question on the Report.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHassured the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) that if this Bill became law care would be taken that no impediment was thrown in the way of trade. There had been communications with the Custom House authorities on the subject, and there was a distinct understanding that every possible precaution would be taken to prevent these holidays causing any delay in ships entering and leaving a port. A reference had been made by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) to the additional expense which would be thrown on the Exchequer. Care had been taken that if the Bill passed no additional burden should be placed upon the Exchequer, and the only additional expense would be a small charge for the attendance of a clerk in the event of its being necessary to clear a ship on a Bank Holiday.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, he hoped, after the explanation made on the part of the Government, the House would not be put to the trouble of dividing. No facts had been adduced which were not discussed on the second reading. The greatest facilities would be given for the performance of any necessary work on 396 these holidays. A vessel might be discharged, loaded, and cleared on these days, and only a trifling charge would be made for the attendance of the clerks, so that there would be no impediment thrown in the way of trade.
MR. COWENsupported the Bill, as he believed that if fixed holidays were agreed upon throughout the country fewer irregular holidays would be taken, and, consequently, that both manufacturers and artizans would be benefited by the arrangement.
MR. JAMESsaid, after the assurance of the Secretary of the Treasury he should not proceed with his Motion.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Certain days mentioned in schedule to be holidays.)
§ MR. RITCHIEproposed to render the Bill permissive as regarded the docks by leaving out in page 1, fine 12, the words, "all docks, Custom Houses," and inserting "the Customs." On a former occasion he had stated that the East and West India Dock Companies wished for this Bill. He believed he had gone a little too far in making this statement; but could say that these Companies were not opposed to the Bill if it were made permissive as far as docks were concerned.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. NORWOODmoved that the words "post offices" be inserted. The Post Office employés were a very hard-worked body of men, and he thought they were fully entitled to the holidays which it was proposed to give to other classes of the community. Under the operation of the Bill business would be restricted, and few letters would be required, and the Post Office clerks ought to have on Bank Holidays the same opportunity for rest and recreation as they had on Sundays.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the word "Customs," to insert the words "post offices."—(Mr. Norwood.)
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman could hardly be in 397 earnest in proposing such an Amendment, as its effect would be to disorganize all our commercial transactions, and to make the entire Bank Holiday scheme ridiculous.
§ MR. NORWOODsaid, his object was to place post offices on the same footing as other offices. If a few clerks could transact the Customs business on a Bank holiday, he did not see why three-fourths of the Post Office clerks should not be released from labour on the same day.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHpointed out that closing the Post Office on a Bank holiday was altogether out of the question.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKalso opposed the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words 'post offices' be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 92: Majority 78.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKmoved, in line 13, after "warehouses," to insert "and in every Post Office Savings Bank and other savings banks." He thought the same rule should be applied to these banks as to other banks.
§ MR. BACKHOUSEopposed the Amendment on the ground that in small towns where the savings bank was open only once or twice a week for a few hours great inconvenience would be felt if the proposal was agreed to.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the Amendment. The Government could not assent to it so far as the Post Office savings banks were concerned. The Postmaster General had power to close these banks on Bank holidays. He had done so in London, and was willing to do so wherever it could be done without inconvenience. He admitted that Post Office servants were very much entitled to consideration; they were hard-worked and had few holidays, and the Government were desirous to give them every indulgence which could be given without injury to the public service.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. RITCHIEmoved, in page 1, at end of Clause, to add—
And it shall be lawful for the directors or governing body (by whatever name known) of any dock or docks in England and Ireland respectively to cause the said days or any of them to be kept as holidays in such dock or docks, any restraining Clause in any Act of Parliament notwithstanding.398 The Amendment was necessary, because some docks throughout the country were governed by different rules from these in London.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had reason to believe that some inconvenience had been found in closing the Inland Revenue Office on the anniversary of Her Majesty's coronation and on the birthday of the Prince of Wales. He should therefore propose to take away these holidays, and to assimilate for the future the practice of the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments in that respect.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 2 (Short title) agreed to.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKmoved a clause providing that the 28th of June should be a Bank holiday under the Act. There was no Bank holiday between spring and autumn, and he could not help thinking that a summer holiday would be very acceptable to the country.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Government would have no objection to substitute an earlier day for the 3rd of August as a Bank holiday, but they decidedly objected to the creation of a fifth Bank holiday. He did not think that a fifth holiday in the year was necessary, or that the country desired it. He should not object to the 27th of December being a Bank holiday if Christmas fell on the Saturday.
§ Clause negatived.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKthen moved the following clause:—
Whenever the twenty-sixth day of December (as mentioned in Schedule hereto) shall fall on a Sunday, the Monday immediately next following, that is to say, the twenty-seventh day of December, shall be a Bank Holiday under this Act, and also under 'The Bank Holidays Act, 1871.Experience of late years had shown that there would be no inconvenience in having three holidays in succession at Christmas when Christmas Day fell on Saturday.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Frdiay.