The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-15 00:00:00

PETITIONS

Several petitions were presented against the opening of
public-houses on Sunlay, and against making grants
to institutions like Ktynooth.

Mr. FORS'TER, and other hen. members presented
petitions from various bodies of workmen in the Pot-
teries, and from other districts complaning of the truck
system.

PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. HUME said there was no necessity for the bill,
and contended that it was impossible to legislate effec-
tually upon thiS subject. The truck laws ware always
evaded, because the workman as well as the master con-
nived at it, and passing bills like this only raised hopes
that never could be realised. It was surprising
to see the amount of ignorance that prevailed,
both in and out of doors, on this subject. The
capitalist was the greatest friend of the workinir man,
but the operative classes seemed to entertain a different
opinion, and the only effect of bills of this nature was to
foster that delusion. He therefore made a last appeal
to the house and the Government to lend them no fur-
ther countenance, as the truck system was already
stringently prohibited by law, and had been so prohi-
bited since the reign of George I. ; but it had been sys-
tematically evaded with the countenance and connivance
of the workman himself. It was useless, then, to pass
such bills, and he should resist the motion for the second
reading.
Mr. CRAUFORD moved as an amendment—" That
before any further legislation on the subject of the pay-
ment of wages be sanctioned by this house, a select com-
mittee bo appointod to inquire into the operation of the
laws affecting the relations of masters and workmen,
and to report whether any and what amendment may
be requisite in those laws." The hon. member
reviewed all the past proceedings of the house in
connexion with this question, remarking that it was
fully twelve years ago since it was investigated by a
Parliamentary committee. The evils of the truck system
was then fully developed, though the committee did not
recommend further legislation ; but during the last
twelve years the whole of our commercial system had
undergone a change. Free trade had been almost uni-
versally adopted with reference to trade and commerce,
while at this moment a bill was before the house for ex-
tending the free trade principle to labour ; and since it
was just possible that the evils reported twelve years ago
could no longer be insisted on, they ought to have
another Parliamentary inquiry into the matter before
the house agreed to any fresh legislation upon it.
Mr. L. HEYWORTH seconded the amendment, be-
lieving that at this particular moment no more impor-
tant question could be pressed upon the attention of the
house than the Laws relating to masters and workmen.
Mr. DRUMMOND said this bill had nothing to do
with determing the rate of wages. The simple case was
this—a mass of helpless labourers complained that they
were defrauded by their masters, and they came to the
house for redress. The truck system, in fact, defrauded
them of a portion of their fair earnings ; and although
this was not a time for using language which could set
the men against the masters, it was yet not an
inopportune moment for removing the manifest injustice
which the former complained of. There was no such
thing as the truck system known in agriculture, it was
confined almost exclusively to the in nufacturing dis-
tricts, where the masters boasted of carrying the aristo-
cracy on their hacks. The truck system was nothing
more than the free trade of the masters for the robbery
of the workmen, and, inasmuch as the real olject of this
amendment was to perpetuate the abuse, he should give
it his decided opposition. _ _

Sir J . WA LMSLEY believed that great abuse existed,
and that many masters resorted to truck, to the great
injury of their workmen, whom they made to pay much
higher prices for their provisions than were demanded
by the ordinary dealer. In the hosiery district this evil
prevailed to an alarming extent, and he hoped the house
would feel it to be its duty to interfere and remove the
injustice.
Mr. BOOKER, being a large employer of labourers,
believed that further legislation was necessary on this
subject. The truck system was an abominable system,
and for the sake of the honest trader, as well as the in-
terest of the workmen, it should be put down by the
strong arm of the law.
Mr. BRUCE supported the bill in the hope that
it would allay some of the angry feelings that
unhappily prevailed at this moment amongst the work-
ing classes. The truck system was one of the evils
they complained of, and since their complaint in that
respect, at least, was a just one, it was the duty of the
house to legislate for its removal. The existing law was
defective, because the fines which it imposed upon the
truck master were too small. For the first offence it was
10/. ; for the second, 20/. ; and it was only made a mis-
demeanour, carrying a fine of upwards of 1001. on con-
Viction for the third offence. Now, the change pro-
posed by this bill would make the fine for the first
offence not to exceed 201., but the second offence
would be treated as a misdeameanour, liable to the 1001.
fine, and that, he thought, wonld be sufficient to check
the evil.

Mr. BRIGHT had observed an inconsistency in the
course of the hon. gentleman the member for Hereford-
shire. He suggested this bill, notwithstanding that he
had always been the advocate of a great national truck
shop. (A laugh.) He bad heard fifty speeches from the
hon. member in favour of the 27,000,000 of people in
this country being compelled to go to the Herefordshire
and other farmers for their food. With regard to the
bill itself, he was satisfied it would increase rather than
diminish the ill feeling that prevailed in the manufacturing
districts, because it would set loose a hand of hungry
informers, but there was no necessity for the bill. The
extent of the truck system was vastly over-rated ; if it
was not, and if it was carried to the length which some
hon. members represented, the workmen had ample power
within themselves to put a stop to the grievance without
coming to the house for assistance. He argued that the
truck system could not be wholly stopped by legislation,
but it was an error to suppose that it always operated
oppresively upon the workmen. (Hear, hear.) There
were instances where the existance of a truck shop
in a manufactory was highly advantageous to the
workpeople. There was nothing inherently wrong in
the system itself ; but injustice did occasionally arise
from the manner in which it was carried out by the
master. No legislation could prevent the use of the
system by the honest employer, because when
his workmen found his efforts to provide them with
cheap and good provisions was decidedly for their profit,
they would cot nive at an evasion of the law. The bill,
therefore, would be simply useles.
Mr. FOSTER, who had charge of the bill, conjured
the house to pass it, as the truck system invariably
assumed the bad features which the honourable member
:for Manchester treated as the exception and not the rule.
The system injured alike three parties—the workman,
the independent shopkeeper, and the money-paying mas-
ter ; and since the bill was not based upon any new princi-
ple, but only amended the law as it already existed in the
Statute-book, the house ought to have no difficulty in
adopting the second reading-, after which the bill would
be referred to a select committee.

Lord STANLEY objected to the bill on three

grounds, he believed that it was unsound in principle,
that it was unnecessary, and that it would be quite in-
operative if it were passed.

[LEFT SITTING.]