HL Deb 08 August 1887 vol 318 cc1519-21

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it came from the other House, and that its object was to entitle by law farm servants to four holidays every year, in lieu of the fast days and fair days.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that the noble Earl had given a very short account of the Bill, which had passed the House of Commons. The noble Earl did not explain to them why the Bill was to apply only to agricultural labourers, or why it was necessary that Parliament should interfere in the matter at all. He thought it was a piece of unnecessary legislation. Then he objected to part of the 2nd clause, which said that no deduction on the wages of servants should be made in respect of such holidays. That was a most extraordinary provision, and it occurred to him on reading it to discover whether there was any similar provision in Sir John Lubbock's Acts with reference to Bank Holidays, and, on looking, he found that there was no clause of a similar kind.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

said, he thought he could explain why the benefit of this Bill was confined to agricultural labourers. The agricultural labourers had lately been enfranchised, and at the Election before last they voted for the Liberals, because they thought the liberals had given them their vote, and now, after this Bill, they would probably be expected to continue to vote in the same way. He approved of the view taken of the measure by the noble Duke.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)

said, the Bill appeared to him to be an absolutely unnecessary one. At the same time, there was this to be said for its being brought forward. In a great many places in Scotland it was proposed to do away with fast days, and the agricul- tural labourers who got these days as holidays would thus be deprived of them, while the Bank Holidays would not affect them. Those people would, however, have these holidays, whether by Act of Parliament or not. Still, he considered the Bill so harmless, after the omission of the words in Clause 2 to which the noble Duke alluded, that their Lordships might allow it to pass.

THE EARL OE CAMPERDOWN

said, the noble Marquess had given the correct explanation of why the Bill applied only to agricultural labourers. It was intended to substitute for two fast days New Year's Day and the annual hiring day, which had been established, by universal practice, as holidays—the four holidays mentioned in the Bill. It was quite true that fast days had been abolished in some districts with the greatest possible advantage, he believed. If the Bill did no good, it would do no harm, and he hoped their Lordships would allow it to proceed.

LORD BRAMWELL

said, he thought the Bill objectionable, and its drafting seemed to him crude and careless. If the Government thought the Bill would do no harm he would be sorry to oppose it; but it appeared to him that every clause of the Bill was open to objection.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)

said, that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had not answered the Question put by the Secretary for Scotland, as to whether, if the Bill were read a second time, he would strike out the words in Clause 2, as to there being no deduction of wages in respect of the holidays?

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, that no deduction was or could be made at the present time, because agricultural servants, or the great majority of them, were yearly servants. He believed that the provision would have no practical effect, therefore, he was perfectly willing to dispense with it. He would, however, urge that great store was put upon this Bill in Scotland. If it did no good, it, at all events, would do harm.

LORD BALFOLUR

said, no one had as yet alluded to what he thought was the real danger. He considered it a dangerous Bill in the interests of the farm servants, because a niggardly employer might take advantage of the Bill to limit the holidays of his servants to the four days; whereas, he believed agricultural labourers got many more holidays in the course of the year. He hoped the promoters of the Bill would consider whether it would really do the agricultural labourers any benefit, and, whether, in the circumstances, it was worth while going on with it.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

thought the abolition of fast days affected only the population of large towns, like Edinburgh and Glasgow.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

reminded the noble Duke that fast days had been abolished in many of the rural districts.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)

pointed out that the provision respecting the attending to cattle, as it stood, applied generally to other days than the four holidays specified.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, that was a matter that would, of course, be subject to correction. He thought the intention of the Bill was that any servant who was called upon to perform service in the care of live stock would have to take his holiday on a different day. He would also consider the point raised by the noble Duke, and endeavour to meet his objection as well as he could.

On Question? Resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read 2a accordingly.

House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.