The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL.
Sir H. HALFORD having moved the second read-
ing of this bill,
Mr. BIGGS said he was a manufacturer in the Mid-
land Counties, and identified with the trade to which the
bill referred, and though he thought the bill would be
useless, and in some of its provisions mischievous,
be should not vote at all upon the second
reading, lest it should be thought he 'did so
from interested motives. The distress complained of by
the hon. member arose from other causes than the one
be had specified. In the Midland Counties a new ma-
chine had been introduced, which was rapidly tending
to the destruction of the old frames, and the main cause
of the distress among the framework-knitters was
that they would not leave their small villages and their
frames and go to the large manufacturing towns, where
they could get higher wages. Such was the advantage
of the new machine over the old frames, that he believed
the fate of the framework-knitters would be the same as
. that which awaited the handloom-weavers of Lancashire
.o.nd Yorkshire, when improved machinery and steam
were introduced among them. He believed that if the
bill were passed it would either be evaded, or become a
dead letter ; but should it be put into operation he was
of opinion it would ruin the whole trade. (Hear.)
Mr. PACKE said that the simple object of this bill
was to secure for the working man a fair day's wage for
a fair day's work, which they did not get at present.
He contended that the working classes in the Midland
districts were treated with the greatest tyranny. At
present no less than eight different charges were made on
work taken in, and his week's wages materially reduced.
The rent for frames was now somewhat about ls. or ls.
6d. per week ; but he believed that on a frame which
•ost no more than 51., 2d. or 3d. a-week rent would be
quite sufficient. He was told by the men themselves
6.at no person owning his own frame bad any chance
of getting work. According to the report of the
commissioner, the frames did not belong to the masters,
but to butchers, bakers, publicans, gentlemen's servants,
and women of various classes, and engaged in almost
all sorts of trades. He should cordially support this
bill, as calculated to put an end to a system of the
grossest tyranny and slavery.
Mr. STRUM' said that though he felt the greatest
sympathy with the classes affected by this bill, and al-
lowing that a great number of them were interested in
its success, he thought that, in considering the measure,
they ought to go somewhat further, and inquire
whether the bill was calculated to promote the best in-
terests of the working classes. He believed this branch
of trade was like all others, and he was quite certain
that no legislation could affect the rate of wages, which
must depend, as in all other cases, upon the relation of
demand and supply. The first effect of this bill would
be to put an end to all domestic manufactures,
and drive the trade wholly out into the towns and
mills. The present system had grown up by the
force of circumstances, and it was beyond the power of
legislation or Government to put a violent end to it
without serious injury to the working classes themselves.
He did not believe himself that the case would be met
by direct legislation ; but even if it could, the bill would
not meet it. The only remedy which could be applied
was to ameliorate the condition of the working men by
Indirect taxation, and put them in a more independent
position. He did not believe that the bill could be
amended in committee, and he should, therefore, oppose
the second reading.

Mr. HUME deprecated the harsh language used by
hon. gentlemen opposite towards the masters in regard
to the working men. Persons who talked in such a
tone were the greatest enemies to the working classes.
Up to the year 1824, he admitted the working classes
had great cause of complaint, but legislation had since put
an end to it. Believing that this bill would put an
end to the freedom of trade and bargaining between
masters and men, he should move that the bill be read a
second time this day six months.
The Marquis of GRANBY contended that this bill
would remedy the evils which it was admitted now ex-
isted. The bill would enable the working man to get
his frames where he pleased, to go to the cheapest
market and make the best bargain he could.
Sir J. WALMSLEY deprecated the introduction into
this discussion of a political theory. The necessity for
some such measure as this was evinced by the fact that
deductions were now made from the weekly wages of the
working men to the amount of 25 per cent., under the
pretext of frame-rents, lights, &c., so that the skilled
bands could not obtain more than 6s. or 7s. a week.
It was impossible for any man to exist on this pittance,
and the consequence was that many of them were drove
to the union for relief. In the year 1846, out of a
population of little -more than 50,000 persons, there
were in Leicester 10,895 persons receiving relief, at an
expense of 30,000/. ; in 1847 the number had increased
to 15,988, and the expense to 37,0b0/. What this bill
asked was not to affect uncertain rate of wages—because
working men knew very well that wages depended
upon demand and supply ; but that their wages should
be paid in the current coin of the realm. (Hear.) He
had that day presented two petitions from his constitu-
ents at Leicester—one from the ratepayers and the other
from the working men—in favour of this bill. They
entirely repudiate all desire to interfere in the
rights of property, or to prevent masters obtaining
a proper interest on the capital expended in the
purchase of machinery, but their object was to put an
end to the excessive rent charged on their frames, and
the other deductions charged on the workmen's wages.
Many manufacturers had ceased to make these deduc-
tions, and the effect had been most beneficial on both
sides.

Mr. T. EGERTON said this bill would be most inju-
rious to the silk trade, and he thought it ought
to be made a local bill. In its present shape it would
most injuriously affect the large bodies of workmen en-
gaged in the cotton and silk trades.
Mr. CARDWELL thought much misohief and not good
would be effected by this bill, and therefore he should
support the amendment. He believed that its effects
would be a prohibition of labour to the workmen in the
country, and confine it to the workmen in the towns.
It was not a question of whether the case came within the
scope of the truck system, but whether, when wages were
the joint earnings of machine and man, an arrangement
should be made between the parties, which being most
beneficial to 'the master should enable him to let his
frames at the cheapest rate to the working man. He
strongly advised the house to reject the second reading
of this bill.

Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the bill.
Mr. GARDNER said that the talents and philan-
thropy of the hon. baronet would be better employed in
endeavouring to persuade the working classes of the ne-
cessity of some legislation of this sort, and of the advisa-
bility of bringing up their children to some more profit-
able trade.

Lord J. MANNERS supported the second reading of
the bill, and declared that it was approved of by the
majority of the working classes who were in any way in-
wrested in the measure. The masters were di-
vided on the subject, but, on the whole, the great
mass of the petitions were favourable to the bill, and
the house ought to have no difficulty in passing the
second reading. The supporters of this bill had been
denounced by the opponents of the bill as the rabble of
great towns, but as a country gentleman, and a member
of the Tory party, he utterly repudiated that idea, and
hoped the working classes would now be able to distin-
guish between their friends and their enemies.
Mr. WHALLEY said the middle class was just as much
entitled to consideration at the hands of the house as the
working classes, and he could see no reason for inflicting
injustice upon the former for the sake of henefitting the
latter.

Mr. CHEATHAM opposed the bill, on the ground
that it would be an unjust interference with trade.
Colonel BLAIR supported the bill.
Mr. MUNTZ said this was one of those questions
which the house could not understand, because it con-
tained no practical men. (A laugh.) During the last
45 years no man had done more to benefit the working
classes than himself. He had made great sacrifices in
their favour, but if they anticipated any benefit from this
bill, he was very much afraid they would be disappointed.
He was apprehensive, however, that they would be just
as much disappointed if the bill was thrown out, and he
would, [therefore, suggest that the dispute should be
ended by referring the bill to a select committee.
Mr. L. HEYWORTH argued that the house would
do more good to the working classes by extending the
principles of free trade, and removing the restrictions
on commerce, than by wasting time on this useless bill.
Sir H. HALFORD, who had charge of the bill, said
he should be quite ready to send the bill to a select cam-
mitten if the house would only consent to read it a second
time.

The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 125
Against it lB6

Majority 6l
The bill was accordingly thrown out.
COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the bill. He
bad uaderstood that this bill was intended to interpret
the law of combinations as it now stood, but upon look-
ing over the bill, he found that it went a great deal fur-
ther, much further, indeed, than public safety or expedi-
ency demanded. He must, therefore, move as an amend-
ment, that the bill be read a third time this day six
months.
-
Mr. BUTT seconded the amendment.
_1.,11 DRUMMOND supported the bill.
'-iurn PALMERSTON opposed the bill on the same
grounds stated by the Solicitor-General.
Mr. 11* CHAMBERS said when the bill was first in-
troduced, it was
ground that it simply by the Government, on the
could do no harm, explained the law as it stood, and
Indeed, it was said then that the
bill was so unnecessary that it it would be only encumber-
ing the Statute Bookto 5! it, while now it was said
tahwe b i
Now
bill not, t
there only
must be me
explainsaos unnecessary
ed but entirely altered the
inconsistency in this.
First it was said the bill w
explained the law as it uSZ:,coe:isarY because it
-understood, but now it was saidthatthe went ntwafusrwtheelrl
:and entirely altered the law. Ile Contended, however,th
that it did no such thing ; it simply
so that the workmae should be removed from a setatleaw,
grioubt and uncertainty, and that, he insisted, was only
just and fair. Two learned judges, one at Liverpool and
.one .one at Stafford, had laid down two different rules as to
-the meaning of the law, and all that this bill would de was
simply to remove the doubt which this difference of
opinion had given rise to. All that this bill provided for
was this. In a time of prosperity, and while trade
wany other time, the bill provided
as flourishing' or
at
dd. th ff • iscuss e a airs
that it should be lawful to meet an
v/ tor. their tradet,h
iia.nd afterwards to communicate
I,tif. ----the-, result of e deliperk,at_io,nusA,...t9o4 thheaidi
,workgrah Nowi 00 " ‘l6