The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-04 00:00:00

PAYMENT OF WAGES 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,
he 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
he 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
and 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 is.
6d. per week ; but he believed that on a frame which
cost no more than 51., 2d. or 3d. a-week rent would be
quite sufficient. He was told by the men themselves
that no person owning his own frame had 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. STRUTT 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 retard
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