The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-04 00:00:00

MASTERS AND OPERATIVES BILL.

Lord ST. LEONARDS, after presenting a petition nu-
merously signed in favour of this bill, moved the second
reading, and stated that the great object of the measure
was to create courts of conciliation with a view to prevent
or put a stop to strikes. The noble lord was so indistinctly
heard in the gallery that only a few disjointed sentences
were heard. He was understood to say that the provisions
of the bill would not directly prevent such a strike as that
whieh recently occurred in the building trades of London,
for it would be hardly possible for any council of concilia-
tion to settle such a dispute as that, but the object of the
measure was to bring together masters and operatives, and
if that could be accomplished it was hoped and believed
that a good feeling would ensue between them, and that
those strikes which had lately happened, and which they so
frequently witnessed, would not take place. When their
lordships contemplated the great misery which resulted to
the workpeople themselves, and the loss which was occa-
sioned, by those strikes, they might well try to find out
some remedy. These strikes had already caused a loss to
the country of several millions of money, and the suffering
and misery brought upon the families of the operatives
were much greater than it was possible to conceive. Let
them consider the matter in another light. The masters and
operatives might be said to be partners in the same concern,
but the latter were partners without any liability. They
took their share of the profits in the shape of wages, and
they incurred no risk as to loss. The wages were a part of
the profits made by the fair use of capital, and if a strike
took place, the capital of the concern was in danger of
being lost to the employers. It would be impossible to
pass a law which should, so to speak, settle a strike,
because the operatives, if they did not conspire, might
combine together to better their position; but there
being at present no court to which masters and opera-
tives could appeal to settle their disputes, , no, opportu-
nity could be given to prevent strikes taking place, and
therefore he would repeat that the provisions of this bill
were framed in the hope that the masters and operatives
would be brought more frequently together, and be made
more acquainted with each other's wants. (Hear.) The
noble and learned lord then gave a short description of the
machinery of the law existing in France, and was under-
stood to say that it worked well. The council was elected
by vote, and no man had a right to elect who was not 25
years of age, he must also have worked at his trade for not
less than five years, and have resided in the district for a
specified term ; and, further, the persons to be elected must
be of the age of 30 years, and able to read and write ; and
the Emperor had reserved to himself the right of appoint-
ing the president and vice-president of the council, which
when organised remained in office for the space of three
years. Every dispute must be brought before the council.
The operation of the law had had a wonderful effect in
France, and had produced much good feeling among all
parties. (Hear, hear.) A committee was appointed to in-
quire into the subject in 1824. They sat 36 days, and exa-
mined 122 witnesses, and they recommended that courts of
arbitration should be established extending to all trades.
In pursuance of these recommendations, Parliament subse-
quently passed the sth of George IV., cap. 96, which was
at present the existing law of the country, and by which
power was l b e.'ven to the magistrates to consider and decide
disputes between masters and workmen. The act of Parlia-
ment, as it now stood, gave both to masters and operatives
the option of going before a magistrate, and asking him to
decide their disputes for them, and it also gave the option
of choosing any other form of arbitration they might think
praper. If a decision were once arrived at all the powers
of the act could ha enforced to give effect to it. Thus their
lordships would see that as the law now stood they had it
in their power, by their own free will and without the
slightest coercion, to resort to arbitration. [A NOBLE
Loan—Then what is the use of this bill 19—IIis noble
friend asked what was the use of this bill ? and the answer
was, that the present measure had been introduced, be-
cause the act of George IV. had become a dead letter.
It provided only for a single dispute, and not for disputes
as a whole, so that in every difference that arose between
masters and workmen it was necessary to appoint a new
arbitration. What both the masters and the workmen de-
Aired was that there should be some properly constituted
court of arbitration to which they could have recourse in
the event of any dispute arising, and the present bill car-
ried out that object. One great objection to the act of Geo.
IV. was that it expressly prohibited any interference with
wages except with the consent of b th parties, and that it
only applied to contracts pending or completed, without at-
tempting to affect future contracts. The act passed as an
-adjunct to the Combination Act, but it had fallen into dis-
11,*, and was at this moment positively and absolutely a
dead letter. What svas more extraordinary was, that those
F°rao who had taken i he most active part in strikes were
themselves wholly unacquainted with its existence, and with
the netaro of it
pointed by
and the tbe liaenactment. In 1858 a committee was ap-
°use of Commons to inquire into the sub-
ject, y re
had
arrived at
from the evidence laid before them,
they
courts of conciliation° conclusion that the establishment of
cial, manufacturing, a'nuleere particularly in large cemmer-
beneficial. They further recommended districts, would be most
by
which that an amendment
of the present act,
enabled to appoint arbitratersniwasahtesedn
mastery and operatives were
ecessary, that if the
,athre members should
court of arbitratien were establis
interested, and
be chosen in equal numbers by the
th it the tribunals themselves should sit forles
period.
ttai:luthority
In addition the committee recommended a certain
to license
should be given to the Secretary of State fortthahe Home De-
partment, upon an application being made to h.
boards of this description, and that immediatellm,
li-
cense being granted, the board should be veateLurtohnpea
to decide all questions relating to contracts which mighwer
brought before them. On making these recommendatitob°
the committee expressed the opinion that the creation recommendations
ouch courts was calculated to promote a more friendly,
understanding between the employers and employed. A,
third committee had sat upon the subject in the House of
Commons during the present session, and they arrived at a
similar conclusion after sitting for eleven days and examin-

1-tv4 1-11 - t (
ing futattati Wiitosisei. 1 üby ropott,. o sl,
4 t 4 r 01.) al on
the establishment of courts of conciliation, more especially
in manufacturing and mining districts, would be beneficial,
and that they would tend to prevent strikes and promote a
friendly understanding between the employe s and em
ployed. The committee further expressed their concurrence
in the present bill, which was submitted t) them by the
House of Commons,. and recommended that it should re-
ceive
the legislative sanction of Parliament. In introducing
the bill in their lordships' house, he had been solely ani-
mated by a desire to promote an amicable feeling between
masters and operatives, and to prevent the recurrence of
those strikes which entailed such lamentable consequences.
By this bill the court of conciliation could be established
without a license from the crown. The council was to con-
sist of not less than two masters and two workmen, or more
than ten masters and ten workmen, and a chairman. The
powers of the council were those set forth in the sth of
George IV., cap. 96. The council could not entertain any
case unless both master and workman expressed their wil-

lingness to submit to its arbitration. The petitioners for
the license were authorised to proceed to the appointment
of a council of conciliation and arbitration from among
themselves within 30 days of such grant of license. Each
person, being 21 years of age, belonging to the trade, hav-
ing a license for a council, and being an inhabitant house-
holder, or part occupier of any house, warehouse, counting-
hous,, or other property, might demand to be registered,
and had a vote for the council, and might be elected there-
to. The noble and learned lord concluded by moving the
second reading of the bill.
Lord BAVENSWORTH moved as an amendment that

the bill be read a' second time that day six months. He
founded his objection to the measure on its interfering with
the existing relations between masters and workmen, and
because it proposed to supersede the law now in force. The
act of 5 Geo. IV. had been by no means so inoperative as
the noble and learned lord represented. The bill came up
to their lordships' house from the House of Commons re-
commended by a strong expression of public feeling. He
regarded with suspicion the report of the committee of the
House of Commons on which this bill was based, and he
contended that the subject was one which required a great
deal more consideration before their lordships attempted to
sanction anything like the novel system of legislation
which they were now asked to approve. What was wanted
was a fair and impartial tribunal, and the present bill would
not give that. The proposed constitution of councils of
conciliation was most defective, and, in his opinion, was
open to grave objections. Being composed of antagonistic
elements, their lordships might rely upon it that those
would not work well. Besides the appointment of a chair-
man of those councils would be a matter of great difficulty ;
and instead of those councils being councils of conciliation,
he believed they would be count is of wrangle. He believed
that the magistrates in petty sessions were a better court of
appeal, and would give more satisfaction in deciding mat-
ters of dispute between masters and men, than courts of
conciliation to be chosen in the manner which this bill pro-
posed. But there was a still graver objection to the bill ;
and it was this, that it would be necessary to have separate
courts for almost every class of trade, as it was not pos-
sible that one class of artisans could adjudicate properly
and with satisfaction for men who belonged to a totally
different trade. By passing this bill they would constitute
a number of small parliaments elected by universal suffrage.
nen the bill made no provision for the expenses of carry-
ing out the act, and the elections which were to take
place under it. The magistrates would object to the ex-
pense being thrown on the county rate, and he believed
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would equally object to
their being borne by the Consolidated Fund. That some
improvement might be made in the existing law he did not
deny, but the effects of the existing law, great or small,
whichever they were, would not be remedied but aggravated
under the machinery provided by this bill. He therefore
moved that it be read a second time that day three months.
Tho Earl of DERBY said his noble friend had stated
various objections to the machinery and provisions of this
bill, but at the same time he stated that the existing law
was disposed to give a favourable consideration to any mea-
sure that professed to obviate the mischievous consequences
which arose out of disputes between masters and men. The
present bill was recommended as to its principle by the high
authority of his noble and learned friend, and the unanimous
opinion of a select committee of the House of Commons.
At the same time his noble and learned friend himself
pointed out several provisions of tke bill which would re-
quire to be amended in committee, and his noble friend who
moved the amendment showed that the measure was liable
to many serious objections. He should therefore, not wish-
ing summarily to reject a bill of this kind, vote for the
second reading ; but unless it were altered in committee, so
as to meet the objections to which it was liable in its pre-
sent shape, he should be sorry to see it read a thaird time.
Earl GRANVILLE complained of the loose phraseology
of the bill, and it was quite obvious that it could not pass
as it was drawn. He agreed with the noble earl, however,
that as this was a measure in which the working classes
took a great interest, it ought not to be dealt with in a sum-
mary way by rejecting the second reading. He should
therefore suggest to the noble lord (Ravensworth) that he
should withdraw his amendment, and move, instead, that
it be referred to a select committee.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said if this bill became law
he should rejoice indeed that he was no longer Chief Justice
of the Court of Queen's Bench, for the greater part of its
time would be taken up with motions for writs of manda-
mus, prohibitions, and certioraris arising out of this mea-
sure. (Hear.) The bill would not work at all. It would
produce " confusion worse confounded." He agreed with
his noble and learned friend in all he said about the strike,
and in his views of political economy, but he entirely dif-
fered from him in what he said regarding this bill, which
could only lead to mischievous results.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said that he should not
object to the bill being referred to a select committee if the
noble and learned lord really thought that the bill would
come out of that committee an efficient bill. But if such a
course only held out to the working classes expectations
that could not be realised, he put it to their lordships
whether it would not be more honest as well as better to
reject the bill at once. (Hear.)
Lord RAVENSWORTH said he should withdraw his
amendment, and move that the bill be referred to a select
committee.
After a few words from Lord ST. LEONARDS the bill was
read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a select
committee.