HC Deb 19 February 1896 vol 37 cc671-7
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, happily tins was not a question of a Party character. It had been before several Committees of the House; but he might rest his case as to the facts on the Report of the Committee of that House which sat in 1886, and reported unanimously— that in many district the shops are kept open until very late, especially on Saturdays, and that the hours of labour of many shopkeepers and shop assistants range as high as 85 per week. This, indeed, would not be denied. The Committee also reported that little could be expected from voluntary action, and that nothing short of legislation would be sufficient. The facts being admitted that thousands and thousands of shop assistants were being worked 14 hours a day and 16 on Saturdays, surely there was an overwhelming case for legislation. When the Factory Acts were proposed their supporters were never expected to prove that manufacturers themselves were in their favour. But in this case the shopkeepers themselves were in favour of legislation, strengthening the case immensely. In consequence of this Report the House passed the Shop Hours Regulation Bill, which had done a great deal of good, but which related to young persons only. Following up the Report of 1893 he had the honour of moving— That in the opinion of this House the excessive and unnecessarily long hours of labour in shops are injurious to the comfort, health, and well-being of all concerned; and that it is desirable to give to local authorities such powers as may he necessary to enable them to carry out the general wishes of the shopkeeping community with reference to the hours of closing. That Resolution was unanimously adopted by the House, and in pursuance of it this Bill was drafted. The Bill was read a second time last Session, and was referred to a Select Committee, by which it was most exhaustively examined, and it was brought in in the form in which it left the Select Committee last year. He hardly thought it could be contested that, as the Committee of this House reported, the present long hours of shop assistants must be most injurious; and no one would deny that it was of great importance from a moral and an intellectual point of view, that more leisure should be enjoyed by shop assistants. Medical men also felt strongly on this subject, so strongly indeed that the presidents of the two great Colleges, those of Surgeons and Physicians, with Sir Andrew Clark, Sir James Paget, and other leading members of the profession, took the unusual step of issuing a circular to the London medical men, suggesting to them the gravity of the case, and that they should petition the House on the subject. This they did, and he had the honour of presenting a petition signed by several hundred London medical men. So impressed were the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London with the evils of the present condition of things, that they issued a circular to their clergy to sign a petition advocating a measure of the kind which he was now introducing; and he also presented a petition in the same sense from hundreds of London clergymen of all denominations. He believed that such a step on the part of the London medical men and ministers of religion was absolutely without a precedent. Now he came to the public. Was there any reason to fear that the convenience of the working classes would suffer under this Bill? On that point also the expression of opinion had been most remarkable. The London Trades Council, those of Edinburgh, Dublin, Manchester, Oldham, Bath, Bury, Burnley, and many other towns, and the Trades Unions Congress had passed resolutions in favour of this proposed legislation. He thought that fact afforded ample evidence that the public would not be injuriously affected by this Bill. Lastly he came to the shopkeepers themselves. He claimed to speak on their behalf. It was in deference to many resolutions of Shopkeepers' Associations that this Bill had been introduced. It had been supported at great meetings held in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, and elsewhere. In the Committee last year they heard every Shopkeepers' Association which applied to be heard. With one exception they were all in favour of the Bill, and many resolutions were sent up in the same sense by other Shopkeepers' Associations. He claimed then that this was the shopkeepers own Bill. This was no question of class against class, of employers against employed. The shopkeepers deplored the present position. They begged Parliament to give them the power, and they would put an end to these long hours. The question was whether the majority should compel the minority to close at a reasonable time, or whether the minority should compel the majority to keep open unreasonably late. They had it in the unanimous Report of their own Committee that in many places shopkeepers and assistants were working 14 hours a day. Lot them consider what 11 hours of work meant. They could not reckon less than eight for sleep, which left only two for dressing and undressing, for supper, and for going to and fro from the shop. This absorbed the whole 24 hours, and not a moment was left for self-improvement or amusement, for fresh air or family life, for any of those occupations which cheered, brightened, and ennobled life; in fact, they might literally say that not only shop assistants had not a moment to themselves, but they were so hard worked that at the end of the week the were fit to drop with fatigue. The whole country would gain if shop assistants had greater opportunities of intellectual, moral, and spiritual improvement. Moreover, the cruel effect of the long hours was considerably increased by the fact that the unfortunate assistants had to stand the whole time. This long standing was a terrible evil. How injurious standing was they might clearly see from the fact that, though customers remained in the shop for so comparatively short a time, they were invariably accommodated with seats. Considering, however, the relative need of rest as between the assistants and their customers, it must be admitted that the seats were on the wrong side of the counter. The witnesses examined before the House of Commons Committee were all but unanimously of opinion that voluntary action could not remedy the evil, which indeed some thought was growing worse. Without legislation, then, there was little hope of shorter hours—the lives of shopmen and shop women would still be the same weary monotony of shop and bed, a life of drudgery and an early grave. If this Bill were passed, on the contrary, they would have a hope of brighter, happier days, of stronger health and longer lives; in winter of leisure hours for study and amusement, happy evenings at home before their own fire with their family and friends; and in the longer days of pleasant walks in the summer evenings. If the Bill were once passed, every one would wonder why it was not enacted before. He should regard it as one of the privileges of his life to have taken part in securing a measure which would injure no one and would make the lives of thousands of our countrymen and countrywomen longer and stronger, brighter and happier.

MR. H. E. KEARLEY (Devonport),

in seconding the motion, said that the Bill would confer great advantages on a large number of assistants who were at present engaged at business during unduly prolonged hours. It would not inflict the least hardship on a single shopkeeper or on a single employer of any kind in the country. The Bill, indeed, was a most reasonable one. It conferred on the shopkeepers of every district a species of local option. It required a two-thirds majority of the shopkeepers in a district to decide on the hour of closing before the Bill could be applied by the local authorities. No shop need close earlier than 7 o'clock in the evening, except on one day in the week when the closing hour might be 2 o'clock. Ample provision was also made for the suspension of the operation, of the Bill in case the shopkeepers desired it. The Bill was, therefore, unobjectionable, and ho hoped the House would consent to its Second Reading. Voluntary effort had failed to bring about an early closing of shops in some districts. It often happened that the shopkeepers of a district entered into an arrangement for the early closing of their places of business, when one trader suddenly backed out of the agreement, and in consequence of the action of that single individual all the other shopkeepers were compelled, against their inclination, to keep open to a late hour. He thought some means were needed to prevent that state of things. The Bill would supply the means, and he therefore had great pleasure in seconding its second reading.

DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, West),

said that as he had the privilege of sitting on the Committee on this Bill he would like to say one emphatic word from his own point of view as a medical man. Perhaps at no previous time had the medical profession been so united in opinion as in this—that great evils resulted to the health of shopmen, and especially of shop women, from the long hours of standing in shops, and that some measure of this kind was needed to prevent the physical deterioration that was going on in London from this cause. The evidence on this subject of a medical friend of his, before the Committee, shocked those who heard it. From the point of view of the social, moral, and physical well-being of the people in shops, he himself hoped the House would give a Second Reading to this Bill.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester),

said it would not be fair to the House that it should be thought that there was anything like unanimity in the Committee, which might be inferred from the remarks of his right hon. Friend, the Member for London University. They considered the Bill with care, but so far from there being unanimity in the Committee there was a profound difference of opinion. The principle of the Bill was quite a departure from what had been the principle of legislation in that House, but he did not say it was to be rejected on that account. But when a Bill was proposed which changed fundamentally the principles which had hitherto governed our legislation the details of the measure should be carefully considered. This Bill sought not merely to protect young persons, but also grown men, who had, hitherto, been considered able to take care of themselves. For his own part lie desired nothing more than that the working classes of the country and those who were employed in shops should have an adequate amount of recreation. But it ought not to pass current that work was objectionable per se. The idea seemed to prevail in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen that if they diminished work they would confer a benefit on the working classes. [Cries of "No No."] He entirely differed. Good work and good wages were what the working classes wanted and ought to have. They did not desire to be idle any more than any other class. As a matter of fact as long as they were not overworked—["Hear, hear !"]—plenty of work was what they wanted. If the hours were lessened the remuneration might be lessened too. ["No !"] But he contended that it might be the case. The less the work done the less the pay as a general rule. Of course, it might be that long hours did not produce the best work, but, after a certain point reduction of hours must diminish remuneration. A difficult rule in connection with the practical working of this Bill would be dealing with shops in which two kinds of trade were carried on in one shop. It often happened that shops where food was sold late at night in large cities also sold other things. If this shop carried on a trade which was compulsorily closed at an early hour, not only would a hardship be done to the seller of food, but it would be a great inconvenience to the working classes not to be able to get food if they required it late at night. Chemists' shops, under this Bill, could be open at any time provided nothing but drugs were sold; but how the sale of other things by chemists could be prevented passed his comprehension. A more important and difficult question was that of areas. They could not allow a declaration by plebiscite of members of particular trades throughout the county of London to decide that the shops belonging to it were to close. The conditions of life in different parts of London were distinct. Shops in a certain trade might very properly be closed early in one part of London, but it would be a great hardship on the public, and the tradesmen too in another, if the shops in that trade should have to close at the same hour there. The case of London in this respect was the strongest, but the difficulty also applied to Liverpool and Manchester. The evidence from Liverpool as to the difficulty that would be met with there was very strong. His right hon. Friend the Member for London University said the evidence from Liverpool was strongly in favour of the Bill. But one of the witnesses was of opinion that the whole of Liverpool should be treated as one area. That was manifestly absurd. He would not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but he did not wish the House to think the question was a simple one and did not require careful consideration. He hoped the Government would study the provisions of the Bill with care, that no injustice might be done to unoffending tradesmen or inconvenience caused to the public at large.

MR. F. G. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

said, that on the understanding that the Bill be carefully considered in Committee he would support the Second Reading.

Bill read 2a.