(NO. 41.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 2 May 1882)

§ EARL STANHOPE,
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that a custom existed with many managers to pay their workmen their wages at a public-house, and the object of the Bill was to prohibit such a practice. He believed that such a proceeding was attended with very bad results, and that workmen were thereby induced to spend a considerable part of their wages as soon as they had earned them in treating their companions, or were morally bound to spend some portion of them for the "good of the house," as it was called. He had heard of instances of people being paid their wages and remaining in a drunken state all through Saturday night and all day Sunday in the licensed house; and of cases where the landlords had admitted that, after closing, they had found large sums of money, sometimes as much as£5, lying under the counter, which had been literally thrown away by people who had lost their reason through drink. The Select Committee on Intemperance, which considered the whole subject in 1878, had taken much evidence and made an elaborate Report. Though their Lordships' Committee had not made a special Report on this particular branch of the subject, he found the following paragraph in page 32 of their Report:— Almost all the witnesses concurred in expressing their belief that by far the greatest amount of drunkenness occurs on the evening of Saturday, that being the day on which wages are usually paid, and when the men, by leaving off work at an earlier hour, have more leisure and opportunity for indulging in drink. When wages are paid in public-houses—as was so frequently the case—this fact was doubly true. The Mersey Dock Managers had in February last issued a circular against paying their stevedores in public-houses. Brickmakers were accustomed to pay their gangs in public-houses; and it had come to his knowledge that certain brickmakers in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth had obtained licences and opened houses for the purpose of paying their men in these public-houses, knowing that they would 1926 thus obtain back a considerable portion of their hard-earned wages. He proposed by the Bill that the payment of wages in a public-house should be prohibited by inflicting a penalty of£10 for each offence, and that all offences and penalties might be recovered by any person under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. He trusted that the House would allow the Bill, which was a step in the right direction; to be read a second time, and that the Government would assist the passing of the measure in the House of Commons.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
said, the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) seemed to be under the impression that Her Majesty's Government would be able to take charge of this Bill in the House of Commons; but he could not be aware of the state of things in that House, if he believed the Government were in a position to give disinterested and philanthropic assistance to Bills other than their own. Therefore, while he would not oppose the measure, he could not, on their behalf, undertake that they should assist in its progress through the other House. It must be obvious to him that the state of Public Business in that House was such that the Government had more than enough to do with their own measures, without taking upon themselves to assist Private Bills of that kind. His noble Relative had described the Bill as a step in the right direction. He (the Earl of Rosebery) was not quite sure that this was the case. He would have been glad if the time for Bills of that kind had passed away. It did seem strange that at a time when the power of combination was so well understood by the working classes, and had been in one or two directions exerted so successfully, a Bill of this nature should be needed. The considerations, however, which his noble Relative had brought forward could not fail to have weight, especially as the noble Earl had alluded, he believed, to the case of brickfields, which was a glaring instance of this practice. He confessed he would have been glad if the Bill had been preceded by some such full and careful inquiry as had preceded the Mines Regulation Act; but he considered the measure to be an undoubted 1927 improvement on the existing state of things, and for that reason, as representing the Home Office, he should not oppose the second reading.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, he warmly supported the Bill. He had himself carried the same provision in the Mines and Collieries Act, passed many years ago, and he could bear testimony to the good working of the Acts in force with regard to the payment of wages by the large mining and manufacturing bodies throughout the country. They paid wages in their own offices; but the smaller employers of labour did not, they paid the wages due at certain public-houses, and the men were unfortunately compelled to receive their wages there. Sometimes they were kept waiting so long for their money that the temptation to imbibe strong drinks became greater, and by the time the wages arrived they were all spent, and the poor men were left without any to take home for their wives and families. He knew himself that in the case of lightermen the men were told to go to a public-house to receive their wages at 6 o'clock on Saturday evening, and were kept waiting until, perhaps, midnight, spending in the meantime a large portion of their earnings. He did not think that their Lordships could confer a greater boon upon the working classes of the country than that which the Bill proposed to give them.

THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE,
as a member of the Committee on Intemperance, thought that an apology was due for the omission of this subject from their Report; it had not been brought strongly under their notice. He believed, however, that the measure would be received with great satisfaction throughout the country.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
also supported the Bill, and said, that even if, as the noble Earl who represented the Home Office had said, that working men were indifferent to this Bill, that would not be the case with their wives, who would be grateful for it. He hoped that the noble Earl would re-consider what he had said about Government not being able to undertake to assist its progress. The noble Earl, in saying that Government could hardly get its own Bills passed, seemed to think that he was in "another place," and was making a speech 1928 in behalf of the clôture, which was of no use here.