COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 04 August 1887 vol 318 cc1314-22

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 to 10, inclusive, severally agreed to.

Clause 11 (Wages to be paid within fourteen days).

MR. C. T. D. ACLAND (Cornwall, Launceston)

I find, on consulting these thoroughly acquainted with the working of mines, that in a certain class of mines it is quite possible that a man may earn nothing whatever in the 14 days immediately preceding that upon which the agent estimates the payment, the time being occupied in the erection of scaffolding and such matters. The words I propose are such as will include any 14 days for which payment is due.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 38, to leave out the words "immediately preceding," and insert the words, "for which payment is due."—(Mr. C. T. Dyke Acland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there substituted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

I have no doubt the hon. Member is right; but I think it will be more satisfactory to have the words set down for consideration of their full effect, and perhaps the hon. Member will allow them to stand over for Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 12 and 13 severally agreed to, with verbal Amendments.

Clause 14 (Power to pay over club funds to general relief society).

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

It may save time if I explain that instead of the words "general provident or relief society," in line 16, page 4, I propose to insert the words "registered friendly societies."

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I have first an Amendment to propose to the third line, which will make the words run— It shall be lawful for the miners working in a mine by resolution of a majority of them, and so on. It does not alter the sense, but merely makes it a little clearer what the intention is, and prevents some half-dozen miners acting together coming to a resolution which might have the effect of an injustice to the great body of miners.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, after the word "miners" in line 13, to insert the words "working in a mine."—(Mr. Conybeare.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Should not the words be "employed in the mine," otherwise it might be construed to mean those at work on a particular day or week?

MR. CONYBEARE

I accept that alteration.

MR. TOMLINSON

Might it not also be construed to mean only those in the mine, not those on the surface?

MR. CONYBEARE

I will move the Amendment in this form, "employed in or about the mine."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 13, after the word "miners," to insert the words "employed in or about the mine."—(Mr. Conybeare.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 16, to leave out the words "general provident or relief," and insert the words "Registered Friendly."—(Mr. Jackson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there substituted."

MR. TOMLINSON

Of course, the idea of the clause is to facilitate the formation of general provident societies for the Stannaries district, similar to the societies in the coal mining districts. Now, so far as I know, there are none of these called friendly societies. The ordinary friendly societies do not take this sort of risk.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

The Amendment is, I think, required; for there are no such societies referred to by Statute in the words mentioned in the Bill, and the proposed words would include all that is required.

MR. C. T. D. ACLAND

The intention is to form provident societies such as are formed in other mining districts, but do not exist in Cornwall. Would not the words rather tend to prevent the amalgamation of clubs of different mines to form a society? That I take to be the object of the clause, but there being no registered friendly society to which the funds could be transferred, we want to make it possible for all to combine.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I think there will be no difficulty in the way of forming a society in such a way. If the Committee will allow the Amendment to stand, I will consider it further on Report.

MR. CONYBEARE

I may suggest that we might get over any difficulty by keeping in the words, and adding the words "or friendly society registered under the Friendly Societies Act."

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

No; I do not think that would do. It would seem to draw a distinction between provident relief and friendly societies. As I understand, the point of the Amendment is that the society, when transferred, shall be a society under the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act.

Question put, and agreed to; words substituted accordingly.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 19, to leave out from the word "provided "to end of Clause.—(Mr. Jackson.)

Question, "That those words be there left out," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 17, inclusive, severally agreed to.

Clause 18 (Disputes how to be determined).

MR. CONYBEARE

I just want to move the insertion of a couple of words at the end of the second line, in reference to the settlement of disputes. This clause has relation simply to the procedure for enabling miners to settle any disputes they may have in an economical and expeditious manner, and I think it was fully contemplated by the Committee that it should apply to any contract, as well as to the question of money; and therefore I propose the addition of the words "or any contract."

Amendment proposed, in page 7, to insert at end of line 14, the words "or any contract."—(Mr. Conybeare).

Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

This requires a little consideration. I am not at all sure that it would be prudent to adopt the proposal; but if the hon. Member will reserve it for Report I will meanwhile consider the full effect of it.

MR. TOMLINSON

I certainly do not think I could acquiesce in it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 34, inclusive, severally agreed to.

Clause 35 (Evasions of this Act to be void).

MR. TOMLINSON

On this clause I have two Amendments, the first of which is to omit the words from "or" in line 18 to "funds" in line 19. I submit to the Committee that without these words the workmen will still have their rights amply secured, while if you retain the words it will simply be impossible for them to manage any sick fund or benefit fund at all. All such must have certain rules for the disposal of the fund, and I fail to understand how any club could work without them. This constitutes a contract to which each subscriber is a party. I do not think it was really intended to prevent this; but the clause, as it stands, would prevent any contract whatever in relation to the fund.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 18, to leave out from the word "or" to the word "funds" in line 19 inclusive.—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. C. T. D. ACLAND

I really must stand by the clause as it is. I ask the Committee to turn to line 21 in Clause 13, where there is this proposal— Unless the majority of the miners shall sign a resolution to the contrary. This was put in at the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, and to a considerable extent qualifies the right of the miners to any money deducted from their wages. The opinion of the Committee distinctly, was that the money de- dncted should be entirely under the control of the miners; but a Proviso was inserted that a majority of the miners might, if they wished it, surrender their right. Now we are very anxious that the miners should not be subject to any inducement to surrender that right, and so we think it necessary to adhere to this Clause 35, which, however, would not be necessary but for these words in Clause 13. If the hon. and learned Member insists on those words in Clause 13, so we must adhere to the words here.

MR. TOMLINSON

I am astonished that the hon. Member should find any connection between the two clauses. Of course, I should be out of Order in going back to the discussion of an earlier clause; but I may be allowed to say that it was considered that the miners might desire to have more direct control over their funds than they now have; but there should also be the means of allowing them to keep things as they are if they wish it. But these words have nothing whatever to do with that; they are restrictions on the workmen making any agreement for the disposal of the funds. Now, unless some rules are made, some contracts entered into between the parties, it is quite impossible to have the club formed at all. How are you going to manage a club, if every contract in reference to the disposition of the funds is to be void?

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. The object of it is quite clear. It is to enable these miners to contract themselves out of the Act. Now, I think that we have heard enough of this for the last seven or eight years in connection with the Irish Land Question. In the case of the Act of 1870, you gave tenants power to contract themselves out of it, and the effect was to lay them completely prostrate at the feet of the landlords. The effect of this Amendment will be to place these miners at the feet of the mine-owners, and if it is carried, you will take nearly half of the good out of the Act. It seems to me to be perfect nonsense to imagine for a moment that these miners will get any liberty whatever, or gain any advantage if they are permitted to contract themselves out of it. The whole supposition on which the Act is based is that the miners are not in a position to make free contracts with the mine-owners, and yet this Amendment is proposed on the assumption that they do not desire to do so. This Committee may be sure that if the Amendment is carried, pressure will be brought to bear on the men in one way or another. If you are going to protect them in one part of the Act, do be consistent and protect them in every other part. The effect of carrying this Amendment will be—and I am after the object of it—to take away with one hand what you are giving the miners with the other, and I therefore earnestly hope that it will not be pressed, or that if it is, every friend of the working classes in this country will resist it.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I must say I think that these words certainly require some alteration. The Amendment does not seem to me to be open to the somewhat scathing criticisms of the hon. Member who last spoke. It has nothing whatever to do with Clause 13, nothing to do with the reservation of rights; it simply enables the workman to make arrangements or contracts with regard to the particular way in which the club should be managed. I submit to the hon. Member who has just spoken that in the recent discussions on the Truck Bill, the working men, through their Representatives, expressed a desire to have this power, and without the Amendment they would not be able to exercise it. The clause as it stands now is so wide that I fear it will only hamper the operation of the Bill.

MR. CLANCY

The mere fact that benefit funds of this character have actually been appropriated by mine-owners in certain contingencies is a proof that the mine-owners are capable of imposing a condition which would enable them to appropriate them in the future. The arguments now advanced are the old ones we used to hear. It was contended that the tenants should have the power of making free contracts, and the argument now put forward has just as little foundation in fact or truth as that argument had. I repeat that the supposition on which this Bill is framed, and the assumption running through it, is that the miners are not capable of making free contracts with their employers; and, surely, if you act on this assumption in the earlier part of the Act, it is inconsistent to object to it at the very end, and that with reference to such things as sick benefit funds which have actually been appropriated in a most iniquitous manner by mine-owners.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

The clause was introduced by the Committee for the purpose of protecting the miners from undue pressure, and to leave them in full possession of the benefits intended to be conferred on them by the Act. It was put in by the Select Committee by a majority of 7 to 3, and, that being the case, I hope the hon. and learned Attorney General will not alter it. Why should a manager or employer impose any condition in respect of the sick or benefit fund? Why should not the men be left in full possession of the power to deal with them as they please?

MR. TOMLINSON

I am not asking that the employers should have the right suggested. They do not want to interfere in these matters. All I ask is that you will not put in the clause words which will make it impossible for the miners themselves to manage their own funds.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

The object of the Amendment is quite plain. We have been told permanent relief funds are to be formed in Cornwall, and the Amendment, if carried, would enable the employers to impose certain conditions on the men; there will be nothing to prevent the employers making membership of a provident fund a condition of getting work in a mine. I hope that the Committee will keep that in mind; these words are quite plain—"or impose any condition whatever." If you alter that, imposition will come from the employers. We know it has come in the past under the covering of freedom of contract. There can be no freedom of contract when a man has a monopoly in his hand. We know that employers, when trade is good, have failed in South Wales to introduce provident funds; but in times of depression, they have said that only men would be employed who joined a permanent relief fund. What could the men do when the employers did that? They wanted work, and could not get it unless they joined a fund, and so they had to. The same will occur in Cornwall if you leave out these words. I hope we shall earnestly oppose the Amendment.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

I will not detain the Committee long; but as the Representative of a constituency in the Stannaries district, 1 sincerely trust the hon. and learned Member will not press his Amendment, because I know how deeply the grievance is felt amongst miners when the money which they subscribed for the purpose of a club fund has, as has been frequently the case, fallen into the hands of creditors. I can only say that if the hon. Member presses his Amendment and it is carried, it will necessitate my making two very important Amendments on the Report stage, in order to give the miners the protection they desire.

MR. TOMLINSON

I wish that hon. Members would remember that I am not seeking to give the employer any power over the fund. I am only proposing such an Amendment as will enable the miners themselves to manage it.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I think the addition of the words "with the employer" will meet the views of the hon. Member (Mr. Seale-Hayne) for that will leave the men at liberty.

MR. CONYBEARE

I am quite ready to accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 16, after the word "implied," insert the words "with the employer."

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

This will prevent pressure being put on workmen by the employers, or the imposition of terms with regard to these funds.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. TOMLINSON

I am perfectly well aware that there is at the present moment a popular feeling in favour of not allowing people to make contracts for themselves. It is a policy which was repudiated by the Liberal Party years ago. I certainly intend to make a protest against the insertion of a clause which says that grown-up men are not to make contracts. When I first took to English law, I learnt that three persons were incapable of making contracts, lunatics, infants and married women. You have since emancipated married women; but now you are seeking to enslave working men. I again repeat there is no desire on the part of mine-owners to interfere with these funds, and I do not believe any evidence of such a desire exists.

Amendment proposed, ': To leave out Clause 35."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That the Claus9 stand part of the Bill."

MR. CONYBEARE

I have not the slightest objection to the hon. and learned Member making a protest; but I hope he will not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. I sat for many hours on the Select Committee taking evidence on this matter, and I say we had ample evidence that the men showed a desire the Bill should be a reality and not a sham.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining Clause agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.