Spirit of the Press.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 6, Issue 303, 4 September 1865, Page 1

Spirit of the Press.

THE MASTERS AND SERVANTS ACT' [From tie Canterbury Press, August 14] We were astonished to hear that Mr Cracroft Wilson’s Masters and Servants Act had passed its second reading, with the consent of all but two of the Canterbury members. Some no doubt voted for it under the impression that the law upon the subject wanted to be laid down more accurately and definitely and that the proposed Bill might be modified in committee ; but for the credit of Canterbury we regret that its other representatives should not have followed the example of Mr Fitz Gerald and Mr Thomson in refusing to lend an apparent sanction to a piece of class legislation so opposed to the spirit of the age, and so monstrously onesided and oppressive in its details. .We published the whole Bill some time ago, and as it has again been .given to the public in the columns of the “ Lyttelton Times,” we need not print it at length again; we must say, however, that we were much gratified to find our contemporary speaking out so manfully against the Bill iu its excellent article of Saturday last, and hope that the unanimous disapprobation of the Canterbury press will be sufficient to redeem the province from the disgrace which has been reflected on it by a majority of its members.

The Bill is entitled “ An Act to insure the fulfilment of engagements and to provide for the adjustment of disputes between masters ters and servants;” but it is worth while to notice the different spirit in which complaints are adjusted according to whether they proceed from the master or the servant. There are four enacting clauses in which the master is supposed to have ground fur complaint, and these provide as follows. Firstly, if a servant contracts with any person to serve for any time or in any manner, and shall fail to enter upon his service at the time agreed, or having entered on it shall absent himself, or be guilty of disobedience or misconduct of any kind, he shall be liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three months. Secondly, if any servant after entering into an agreement, written or oral, to peform any kind of work for any length of time and at any wages, and having obtained an advance of money or goods on account of wages, shall fail, for any reason whatever, to go forthwith to the place at which he shall have been engaged to work, or when there shall refuse to complete the work, he shall be liable to pay thrice the amount advanced, or in default, to be imprisoned for three months with hard labor. Thirdly, if any servant shall wilfully or negligently damage any goods, or lose or injure any horse, cattle, &c., the property of his employer, he shall forfeit and pay reasonable damages for such property, or in default be committed to gaol for three months, with or without hard labor at the discretion of the justices. The fourth of these clauses is so remarkable that we give it in full:— X- If any artificer, splitter, fencer, sheepsh carer, or person engaged in mowing, reaping, or getting in hay or corn, or in sheep-washing, or other laborer who shall contract with any person whomsoever for the performance of a certain work at a certain price, shall (except for the purpose of making complaint under section XI. of this Act, or for other lawful cause) absent himself from his services, before the termination or completion of his contract it shall be lawful for any two justice to commit every such person to a common gaol, there to be kept for any time not exceeding three months.

So much for the master ; now let us see what protection this Bill affords to the servant. There are four clauses which relate to complaints made by the servant; the first of these provides that if he can’t get his wages paid, two Justices of the Peace may, if the amount does not exceed .£3O, make order for the payment, with such costs incurred in prosecuting the claim as shall seem reasonable and just. The second enacts that any servant of the classes specified in the clause given above, who shall have reason to complain of his master, for non-payment of wages, refusal of necessary provision, or illtreatment of any kind, may by application to two j ustices of the peace receive his wages due, and such sum of money by way of amends as the justices may think reasonable. The nest clause is a very singular one. It provides for the case of a master attempting

to cheat a servant by paying him with a cheque oh a bank where he has no account, and in its extreme ami tender care for the interests of the servant it enacts —what, do our readers thing? Why, that “No servant thereby be deprived of any remedy given him by this Act for the recovery of his wages but every such servant shall, in addition to to his wages be entitled to recover such reasonable damages as he may have sustained in consequence of the dishonor of such cheque.” By the fourth of these clauses any two justices of the peace are empowered, on a servant’s complaining on oath of ill treatment from his master, to award him such amends as they may deem fair and resonable.

Now we ask our readers to compare these clauses and judge for themselves how far the Act holds the balance fairly between masters and servants. The servant for every fault is treated as a criminal, and punished with fine and imprisonment; the master at worst is only regarded as having broken a civil contract, and is required to make amends - If a servant takes money in advance and doet not complete his work, he is made to repay three times the amount; if the master gives the servant a valueless cheque and so puts him to much inconvenience and probably loss, the Bill seems to make a merit of allowing the servant to recover “ reasonable damages.” It is curiously coincident with the spirit in which the Bill is framed that iu cases where a servant is to be imprisoned, or the interests of the master in any way considered, the words are generally imperative, “he shall forfeit and pay,” &c.; but when the complaint comes from a servant, the magistrates are left to use their discretion in the matter, “ the justices may order,” &c. And it is important to observe that in all these cases the dispute is to be heard and “adjusted” before any two justices of the peace, at whose discretion or to whose judgment of what is reasonable the Bill leaves every point where the master is in fault; so that an arbitrary tyrannical master, happening to have two neighbors in the commission of the peace whose notions of what was reasonable matched pretty closely with his own, would hold his servants at his mercy, and could fine or imprison them at his pleasure. One of the provisoes introduced for the especial benefit of an ill-treated servant would be exquisitely ludicrous if it were not disgraceful, It supposes the case of a man inveigled into signing a contract to serve for a term of years within the colony, iu total ignorance of the rate of wages here, or, as the Bill very mildly puts it, under terms “not such as a person knowing the circumstances of the colony would have become bound by.” Well we all know tolerably well what kind of contracts these are, and may be curious to learn what punishment the new law proposes to inflict on a man who could take such treacherous and cruel advantage of another’s ignorance. Is he to be imprisoned for three months with hard labor ? Not a bit of it. These are the words of the Bill: “If, taking into account the expenses of living and cost of passage and payment to such servants no account of wages, with legal interest thereon [how carefully every sixpence of the master’s is looked after!] a full or partial equivalent for such expenses, cost, payments and interests hath been rendered by the services actually performed by such servant, it shall be lawful for such justices to discharge such servant from his contract, or to order such servant to return to service for such further period as the justice of case may seem to require.” But what supposing the servant’s work already performed to be worth ten times as much as the various items enumerated all put together ? Is he to have no fair return, no recompense allowed for his labor ? The Bill makes no provision for such a case. The man convicted of an attempt to cheat is allowed to recover every penny of his outlay, and held amply punished for his fraud by forfeiting the benefit it was perpetrated to gain, while the man cheated out of the value of bis time and work is left to suffer unrelieved.

Such are the notions of justice the General Assembly of New Zealand is expected to entertain on the relations between masters and servants. In these days when the rights of labor have become a proverbial Expression, when trade unions are an accepted fact, when

the noblest of English statesmen claim no higher task than to improve the condition and elevate the prospects of the working man, when even in France the despotic laws against combinations of workmen are being gradually relaxed, the people of New Zealand, who as colousts are wont to boast that here at least the old conventionalities have been thrown aside, and that let his birth and circum tances be what they may, “ a man’s a man for a’ that,” are asked to leave the nineteenth century and go back to the customs of the dark ages, to raise up again the old barriers between man and man, and change the free peasantry of England into serfs and diudges of the soil. We hope and believe that the Bill will not pass through Committee without such alterations as will entirely change its character, hut if it should become law in its present shape, we trust the people of Canterbury will not forget who assisted to make it so. A general election is at hand, and we hope that every Canterbury member who presents himself again before his constituents will be called on to give a full account of his votes and speeches upon this shameful un-English Masters and Servants Act.

(From the Evening Moil, August 14.] We would desire to express our astonishment and regret that the iniquitous bill known as the “ Masters and Servants Act,” should have passed the second reading in the General Assembly. Some months ago allusion was made to this Act at a public meeting which Mr Wilson called, when, at tbe conclusion of last session, as he said, he desired to give an account of his stewardship. At that time public feeling was pretty fully expressed, both at the meeting and in the public journals, respecting this Act, and not one of the Canterbury members who stood by and allowed its second reading can conveniently say that they were not aware of the strong feeling which was expressed on the subject. The bill was pronounced to be unjust; it was shewn to be most decidedly one-sided, while on the one hand it makes a breach of contract on the part of servants criminal, it scarcely provides any punishment for unjust and fraudulent masters. It appears to be founded on the belief that while masters are perfect creatures without any flaws or imperfections supposed to belong to ordinary mortals, the servants are altogether of a different class deserving the strongest measures.

We must protest against the colony supposing that this bill, emanating from a Canterbury member, conveys any idea of tbe opinion of the Canterbury public on the subject. We must also protest against the state of morality which the bill would lead any outsider to suppose exists in Canterbury. From it may be inferred that at present masters may swindle their servants by giving them valueless cheques with impunity, and that this Bill is required to enable a servant to recover on such a cheque. We sincerely regret that this bill has been again brought forward, and we also regret that any Canterbury member could allow it to pass unopposed, and we can only reiterate the hope expressed by our contemporary the Press this morning, that the coming election the electors will remember this bill, and call “each Canterbury member who presents himself again before his constituents to give a full account of his votes and speeches npon this shameful un-English Masters and Servants Act.

MERINO WOOLS OF THEPRESENT DAY. [From the Australasian.] Our breeders of Merino sheep are not likely to have felt much flattered by the warning of the English judges, not to introduce the blood of the Leicester sheep too freely, for although, says these judges, such a course may at the present moment, and under “ exceptional circumstances,” be profitable, there is a danger of its shutting out the producers of such wool from the competing favors of two important classes of buyers, namely, foreigners and the consumers of clothing wool in England. This caution was, no doubt, well meant, but we should have been told, at the same time, for whom it w;as intended, as the coarsest of the wool submitted to the opinion of the judges both here and In Eng-

land, was professedly from merinos without a cross of other blood in them, the size and weight both of fleece and carcase being derived from the French Eambouillets, which again are said to have been brought to their greater size and weight by selection and high feeding only, and to be therefore pure merinos still. No doubt there has been much crossing in France with coarse-woolled sheep, and Dishby merinos, Cotswold merinos. Southdown merinos, and several other avowedly cross-breeds of merinos have been established there, but the pure merino has also been brought to a large size, and the character of its wool quite altered, and to this, as far as we are informed, is due the only coarseness apparent in any of the wools which held a prominent place among those entered for the intercolonial prizes. And notwithstanding the protest, the very coarsest wool was placed first by the English judges, as it was here, with the remark by them that it was “ well grown, good, useful wool, but very skirty.” Not a word is said in the report on this or any of the other samples about any objectionable appearances of the sheep which produced them having been crossed, unless the being “ very skirty ” may mean as much, but that cannot well be, for the Messrs Learmouth’s wool, which was placed third, was described as “excellent combing, well bred, and in very good condition, but with a rather large proportion of skirts.” Now it is very well known that the sheep bred by these gentlemen have no Leicester or other coarse blood in them, so that if the skirtiness was the supposed indication of this the judges were altogether under a mistake. And indeed the prize samples appear to have been as objectionable in thU way ns any others, if not the most so, from which we should suppose that heavy skirts are not such a disadvantage after all, if the wool in these be not altogether too coarse or curly, which last was the fault found with the fleeces belonging to another breeder of true merinoes. A few lots of the fleece wool were allowed to be well skirted, but none of the prize samples were so distinguished, the fine and even fleeces having apparently been too light to take a leading place, where the value of the whole was the test of merit. This, then, brings us back to the original question as to whether coarse and heavy fleeces do not pay better than those that are at the same time finer and lighter ; and the English judges themselves would appear to allow that they do, notwithstanding their warning. They placed the heaviest and coarsest bale first, and the buyers very nearly endorsed their opinion; though not quite, for the higher price per pound for the bale placed third, which was also one of the heaviest of the lighter lot, brought the actual price realised for this to a few shillings more. The bale placed second, one of the still lighter ones, described as “a beautiful bale, good combing, and superior as to breed and quality,” did not bring within &1 of the price obtained for either of these, the difference of seventy pounds in tha weight not having been by any means counterbalanced by the extra few pence a pound Thus the judges, where they did act on their theory in regard to fineness, were the most astray in their award. In regard to the greasy wool they were more nearly correct, the bale which they placed first having realised far and away the highest price. This belonged to Mr Shaw, and contained wool similar to that which, although placed second here, was objected to by many for its being so heavy and full of yolk. It realised in London, however, the highest price per lb. obtained for any of the greasy wool, only two other lots fetching as much, and the sixty fleeces weighed 4751 b., or nearly eight pounds each, a great weight for ewes wool, none of the other lots coming within a pound of this average. The English judges say of this that it had a “ deal of locks, was very heavy, and of good breed while they give a much higher character to the wool in some of the other bales, weight again gaining the day, even though they valued the first at threepence halfpenny ~a pound less than some of the other wools, which only fetched the same when sold. In this class there was the grertest discrepancy of prices, one bale of New South Wales wool, as well as we remember, only (etched £l%

|Bs 3d, while the first bale fetched .£35 14s This particular bale, so iiupleasandy distinguished, wss described as “ in fair pouditipq, but po.or bred, and mostly clothing,” and was in fact the only bale of clothing wool, one oj- two of the others containing a fixture ot combing and clothing, and fetching a higher price accordingly.

Coaling to the last class, that for the most valuable washed fleece wool with the skirts and coarser parts removed, we find still more decided testimony in favor of long and strong staple, even though the second prize wool was the finest of the lot. Jt will be remembered that this last, belonging to Mr Kermode, was first here, and WAS declared by our judges to be in magnificent condition and to have every good quality, while the London judges also allowed it to be “superb both as to condition and quality,” though not long in the staple, but sufficiently long for the French' combers. With all this praise, however, the Messrs Learmonth’s two bales were placed before it, and of the last of the two it was said that nothing more could be desired with reference to quality, condition, length, or breed, and that such wool would, for certain purposes, he bought regardless of price. This did fetch the highest price—3s. 2|d. per lb—excepting one bale not placed by the judges, and bid for |n mistake ; but the very fine wool which they gave second prize to, and which was so highly praised here, did not fetch so much as five of the coarser samples, which the judges parsed over with faint commendation. Thus it appears that the buyer will give more for the strong and comparatively heavy than for even the very finest of combing wool, if these haye not length. The French manufacturers have more delicate machinery, and produce finer fabrics than the English, and therefore require, and can use, finer wools for combing; but it is plain that these will not fetch the highest price in those markets to which the bulk of our produce goes.

Why, then, should the English judges have Warned us so earnestly against what, we must suppose, they look upon as increase to the lepgfii and strength of our merino wools, for the use of the word “ Leicester” was eviseijtly owing to a misconception on their part ? Tltey gave the prizes to the heaviest bales end samples, and where they did not do so, the very plainly expressed opinion of the buyers proved them to be wrong. Of all the exhibitors, Messrs Learmonth were decidedly the most successful, and it is wellknown to all sheepowners here, that their object has been from the first to get the heaviest fieece with as great a degree of fineness as is compatible with this, but never to sacrifice weight and length of staple to this latter quality, afid their success on this cccasisn only corroborates the opinion of so many of the flocfiowners here vyfio have found by experience that thp Ercildown rams are the most profitable to buy, even at a high price. Their progeny have weight of fieece, together with moderate size of carcass, and are in fact the best paying sort of sheep. Mr Shaw, and some of the other breeders of Australian merinos, will have as good in time, but only by'following in the same path, and cultivating a similar sort of sheep. Mr Kermode has, we believe, been breeding from German sheep of late; but certainly this intercolonial exhibition of wools has done nothing to establish the fame of any of the imported sheep except the idainbouiliets. The only wool entered from the progeny of these carried off first prizes both here and in London, though We believe a much belter sample of it could have been found. The price realised in Louilop was certainly not the highest by a few shillings a bale, but was still close enough to prove the judges to have been very nearly right ih their estimates. Now, if such was the case with the washed fleeces, the heaviest bale '>f greasy wool also taking the first prize, and fetching twice as much money as the only bale of clothing wool, while the long and strong wool is in the eltrss, the natural inference is that our flockowner are right in cultivating these qualities, without caring much for the good opinion of the two classes of buyers said to be so important, namely, the foreigners, and the English buyers of clothing wools. doubt coarse wools have fallen a little in value of late, but these are the wools of English and cross-bred sheep, not of merinos such as we speak of now. ‘ The best quality of combing wools, produced by these p|one, have not fallen comparatively i\\ value UQr are they li ely to do so, any more than al| i*uw material fit for clothing purposes may fajl somewhat for a time, as cotton does No, the demand for spun woollen goods nuist increase steadily, while that for felted goods,, pr broadcloth, is very unlikely to improve sVer again; and £s the climate aud soil cf this part of Australia least appears to be stfited forth# prodqctoin of the A Mi-.,,.

very best sort of combing wool, that we should continue to cultivate, notwithstanding the expressed opinion of the English judges to the contrary.