OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 8 May 1865)

§ LORD ST. LEONARDS

rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of strikes and lock-outs. In doing so, he would, in conclusion, lay on the table a Bill to establish equitable Councils of Conciliation to adjust disputes between masters and men. He believed it to be the wish both of masters and men that some such course should be taken; but, for himself, he could not say that he had any great hopes that any measure for settling disputes by arbitration would ever meet so much approbation as to work well in practice. In those disputes 'which led to strikes, the men, he was sorry to say, like all other parties to a dispute, were too apt to think they were always in the right. If ever a case of strike might have been expected to be settled by arbitration it was that which had taken place in Staffordshire, where the arbitrator, Lord Lichfield, was neither a master nor a workman, but the lord-lieutenant of the county, and who entered so heartily and warmly into the matter, both as affecting the interests of the masters and men, with a view to their reconciliation. But the strike still continued in the north of Staffordshire. The men would not yield the slightest of their original demands. Nobody denied the right of the men to strike. If conducted without intimidation, a strike was perfectly legal. But it was a reproach to our age that through the operation of strikes on the one hand, and of lock-outs on the other, great branches of our national industry should be as completely suspended as if suddenly paralyzed by the hand of Providence. The operatives of this country, with all their intelligence, did not seem to estimate their own just position. They were in a kind of partnership in the business in which they were employed, in which they found the labour, while the capitalists found the money, and generally the knowledge necessary for carrying on the common business. When the workmen suspended the application of the capital which was theirs—their labour—the capital of the employer—his money—was laid up in a state of forced idleness, and great loss and mischief to both parties was the result. Instead, however, of acting in harmony, the two parties were often arrayed in hostility to each other. The men in one district struck work to enforce their own views upon the masters, and the 1576 operatives of other districts remained at work and supported those who were out on strike. That system, if carried out, threatened the utter destruction of capital, because as soon as one master was destroyed another was attacked, and each was unable to offer effectual resistance to these attacks in detail. The masters, in self-defence, resorted to what was called a lock-out, for they saw that ruin would overtake them all individually in rotation unless they united to resist demands which would render it impossible for them to carry on their concerns. He was anxious that, if possible, so lamentable a state of things should be put an end to. He was satisfied that no attempt could be wisely made to regulate wages by law, and the area over which legislation could operate in this matter was very limited. If anything could be done in that direction at all, it must be by bringing the masters and the operatives into friendly communication, and inducing both to consider together what was for their common benefit. In this way strikes may be avoided. No legislation can put an end to an actual strike. A strike is war, and victory alone can end it. In France Courts of Conciliation for dealing with the differences arising between masters and men had existed since 1806. Originally there was a Council, and also a sub-committee, or bureau de conciliation. Before that sub-committee every single dispute between master and man was taken; and if they could not settle it the matter was then taken before the Council. When the Revolution of 1848 broke out a great change in the system occurred, for then the masters and the men were put upon an equality, and a vast number of operatives being introduced into the Council, the scheme failed. Then came the plan now in operation, which placed the matter on a very different footing. The president and vice-president of the court were nominated by the Emperor, and a more restricted qualification was required both from the masters and the men who were to be electors. The masters, were required to be patentés, and the workmen to be twenty-five years of age, to have been workmen for five years, and to have resided in a particular district for three years. The qualifications for a seat in the Council were thirty years of age, the capacity to read and write, and the qualification of an elector. There was great authority for the establishment of Courts of Conciliation, for three different 1577 Select Committees of the House of Commons had at different periods reported in favour of such a measure. Yet it was singular that there were enactments already on our statute books which admitted of arbitration in matters of dispute between masters and operatives, but very few persons seemed to be aware of them, and they had almost entirely ceased to have operation. The 5 Geo. IV. c. 96, was still law, and under it arbitration might be resorted to on the subjects of dispute between masters and workmen in any trade or manufacture in Great Britain or Ireland: disagreements respecting the price to he paid for work done or in the course of being done, whether such disputes respected the payment of wages as agreed upon, or the hours of work as agreed upon, &c.; disputes arising out of or touching the particular trade or manufacture, or contracts relative thereto, which could not be otherwise adjusted. But the arbitrators were not to establish a rate of wages or price of labour or workmanship at which the workman should in future be paid unless with the mutual consent of both master and workman. The principal reasons why this measure had ceased to have an operative effect were, he believed, these:—The Act required that the parties should go before a magistrate, and this the men very much disliked; because, first, that it looked as if they were criminals; secondly, that the magistrates were, in many instances, connected with the employers of labour; and thirdly, that an arbitrator had to be appointed in every particular instance. A Bill on this subject was brought into Parliament consequent upon the Report of a Select Committee. That Bill passed the House of Commons and came up to their Lordships' House, and he (Lord St. Leonards) was induced to take charge of it; it was not accurately framed, but he corrected it to the best of his ability. He found, however, that it met with the entire disapprobation of both sides of the House; but from the kindness shown to him by both sides of the House after he had taken so much trouble in the matter, it was allowed to be read a second time, and was referred to a Select Committee, when it met with equal opposition, and as the Session was far advanced was not further proceeded with. He now brought forward the Bill once more, in consequence of the desire expressed during the late strikes by both masters and operatives for the establish- 1578 ment of some Court to which resort might be had for the purpose of putting an end to disputes between masters and men; but he should not attempt to press it to a second reading unless it met with general approval by both masters and operatives; and, in the meantime, the circulation of the Bill throughout the country might possibly lead to the suggestion of some better enactment, and, at all events, would show to masters and operatives the sort of jurisdiction which would be established if a Court of Conciliation were determined upon. The Bill would enable masters and men, if unanimous, to apply to the Crown for a licence empowering them to establish a Court of Conciliation. The masters must for six months be traders in the district in which they applied; the workmen must also be resident for six months, and must have worked in their particular trades for seven years. The number of the Council was not to consist of less than ten masters and ten workmen and a chairman, and no member of the Council was to adjudicate in any case in which he was interested. Powers would be given to them, when a case was submitted to them by both parties, to make an award. There were other provisions in the Bill which, he thought, would be beneficial, particularly one borrowed from the French code, a Sub-committee of Conciliation, to whom, in the first instance, all disputes are to be referred; but if they cannot prevail upon the parties to agree, the dispute is to go before the Council; but he would not press the measure unless, on examination, it met with approval from both sides of the House.