HC Deb 17 March 1891 vol 351 cc1227-8
MR. PICTON (Leicester)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of "James Holmes v. Frederic Hardwick" in the County Court of Leicester, 2nd December, 1890, in which a claim was made for penalties under "The Hosiery Manufacture (Wages) Act, 1874;" whether he has observed that, notwithstanding the provisions of the above Act for the payment of— The full and entire amount of all wages, the earnings of labour in the hosiery manufacture …… without any deduction or stop page of any description whatsoever, it was found that the law was powerless to prevent an arrangement by which workmen, after payment of their wages, were expected to pay back, and did pay back, 10 per cent. to their employer; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing an amending Act for the purpose of preventing an evasion by which Sections 2 and 7 of the above Act, so far as they forbid contracts contrary to its tenour, are made null and void?


I have seen the case of "Holmes v. Hardwick," which was tried in the Leicester County Court on December 2 last, and, as I understand it, the deductions then in question were held not to be in fact frame rents. There was consequently no evasion of Sections 2 and 7 of the Act in question. The Judge offered to state a case to decide the point. The statute in question appears to me sufficiently stringent and penal, and I am not prepared to amend it.