BOARDS OF CONCILIATION. (Hansard, 30 November 1893)

§ SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)
said, he wished to make an appeal to the Government to give facilities for the passing of the Boards of Conciliation Bill. This Bill had been brought in on account of the London Conciliation Board, which represented both employers and workmen in connection with all the great London Trades Unions, and the subject was one of great importance. He did not think the Bill would take long to be discussed—certainly not a whole evening. There was nothing really contentious in the Bill, and those whom he had the honour of representing, and on whose behalf the Bill was brought in, were extremely anxious it should be passed. They knew how much the commerce of the country had suffered in these days, and the London Conciliation Board were of opinion that such a Bill would do very much to prevent disputes in the future. The Government had the whole time of the House at their dis- 210 posal, and had had for the whole of this year, and surely it was not an unreasonable thing to ask that they should give facilities on one particular evening to consider a Bill which was so generally supported as this, and which it was believed would do much to diminish disputes and encourage the trade and commerce of the country. He did appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to grant some facilities for a measure of such importance.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
My right hon. Friend has appealed to the Government as having at their disposal the time of the House. They have only got the disposal of the time of the House under very strictly-defined conditions—namely, that it shall be devoted to particular measures, and those measures were settled before we adjourned in September. Nobody is more anxious than the Government to proceed with Bills for Conciliation Boards or for arbitration. We struggled to get in more Bills, but it was refused on the other side of the House to allow this Bill to go on with the non-contentious measures in spite of our solicitations. We made a proposal which we thought a reasonable one, that this and other Bills should be allowed to go to a Select Committee in order that the measure might become a non-contentious measure. In that petition we made we were not successful. They declined to allow us to treat this as a non contentious measure, and we unfortunately are bound by what we arranged at that time. We have no power to dispose of other Bills. These are not Bills of the Government, and even Bills which are Government Bills which do not come within the limitation then laid down we cannot take. I have, therefore, no power to give my right hon. Friend facilities for this or other Bills.

§ SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)
should have thought that from that side of the House even yet facilities might not only be tendered, but offered for the purpose of proceeding with this matter, which was one of vital importance. Everyone acknowledged his obligations to the Government, but especially to Lord Rosebery, for the settlement of the unfortunate dispute in the coal trade. The chief principle of that settlement was the principle of conciliation embodied 211 in it, and after that experience, and, seeing how soon the strike terminated when this method of conciliation was resorted to, he hoped that on both sides of the House there would be a disposition to give facilities for the passing of this Bill. The necessity for doing this was made more urgent by the proposal to solve the coal problem by a Trust, which might lead to the most serious social consequences, and renew the necessity, in the interest of the consumer, for the early legislation against monopolies, and against engrossing the prime necessities of life.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
The point, again, turns upon what are contentious measures, and that is a difficult question with a measure of this kind. The House generally might be disposed to entertain a measure of this kind, and to see whether any means can be found by which the solution of these great labour problems might be furthered. But one point is certainly clear, and that is that a measure of this kind could not possibly be taken after 12 o'clock at night. The measure is an important one; it need not necessarily be a contentious one. It may be a measure in regard to which we might be able to arrive at a common understanding, but it could not be taken after 12 o'clock at night, when it is impossible any discussion could take place. That would be unfair to the Labour Party and to the employers, and it would be unfair to that great body which also is interested in the question —namely, the consumers, who stand outside both the employers and the Labour Party. If the Government should be able to say they will find a reasonable time to deal with the question of this magnitude, not at 12 o'clock at night, but in the hours which the importance of the subject would justify and require it to be treated, then I think it possible we might arrive at a compromise upon the matter. If the Government would consider the question from the point of view—namely, whether it could not be taken as big measures are always taken, at reasonable hours, with every facility of discussion—I certainly would endeavour to use my influence on this side of the House to see if the Government would suspend such other business as is not so urgent as a measure of this kind, if we 212 could not, by unanimous agreement of the House, deal with this matter. It is not a matter that can be dealt with simply after 12 o'clock; but if the Government would see fit to give proper time for discussion—

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Drop the Parish Councils Bill.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
No, I do not say that, but if the Government say we will arrest the progress on the Parish Councils Bill for a few days in order to deal with a matter in which the country at the moment takes an infinitely deeper interest than they do in the Parish Councils Bill—in that case I think we should be able to deal with this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "drop the Parish Councils Bill." That would not, according to their own views, be necessary, as they say they will sit until the Parish Councils Bill has been passed. But I should have thought they would have seen it would have been in accordance with the general feeling of the country, if questions of urgency are to be considered, that it is more urgent to see whether means can be found to settle labour disputes, and that we should save a few days with regard to the Parish Councils Bill. I entirely object to any view of the Government that would put on any portion of the House any responsibility for shelving questions of this kind, but I say if it is to be dealt with it must be, as its importance deserves, at a time when it is possible for all the great interests concerned to take a proper part in the discussion.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)
said, that if this was really a non-contentious measure upon which they were all agreed, why not sit after 12 o'clock in order to pass it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained that, owing to an agreement made with the Party opposite, it was impossible to take it otherwise, and as far as he (Mr. Morton), and he believed the Radical Party, were concerned, they were quite willing to sit after 12 o'clock and all night if necessary, or several nights, in order to carry this or some useful measure through.