LIBERAL MEASURES.

Te Aroha News, Volume VIII, Issue 489, 16 July 1890, Page 5

LIBERAL MEASURES.

The following Liberal measures, introduced into the House this session, have been printed and circulated. Copies of them lie before us. They are the Eight Hours Bill, introduced by Sir George Grey ; the Employers' Liability Act Amendment, introduced by Mr Hislop; the Building Lion Bill, also introduced by Mr Hislop; the Truck Bill, also introduced by Mr Hisiop ; and the Employment of Females and Others Act Amendment Act.

These are all good measures, which, if passed, will very greatly benefit the community as a whole. We say “if passed,” because it by no means follows that though these Bills are introduced, they will necessarily become the law of the land. Our experience of Parliamentary practice would, indeed, rather induce us to take the opposite view.

Three of those Bills, it will be noticed, arc introduced by a Minister of the Crown, and two by private members. Now, although the three fathered by the Ministry cn the face of itstand a better chanceof being pulled through than do thoso introduced by private members, yet it must be remembered that they are not strictly what are called Ministerial measures—that is, the Government will not fight for them with all the strength they possess. Each Minister, if it ever comes to voting upon them, will exercise his vote according to his own personal feelings, and not in a party spirit.

We have frequently noticod, in watching the career of Liberal Bills introduced into our Parliament, heralded as they perhaps may have been with a grand flourish on the Ministerial trumpet, that if they are framed solely in the interests of the so-called working classes, they aro most frequently shifted about the order paper, so as not to be brought too prominently forward. They thus reach the fag end of the sossion, lightly discussed if discussed at all, and then as a matter of course they are destroyed in what is known as the “ Maseacre of the Innocents ” just before Parliament is prorogued.

Very different is the fate of those measures brought in to foster and conserve the interests of property. These are always fought out to the bitter end, and forced through if the Government has a reliable majority, however small. We shall watch the progress of the innocent little cherubs now introduced, with no little anxiety, As regards the Ministerial Bills, it looks very much like a sop thrown to Cerberus, brought forward to delight the anxious public who are clamouring for these reforms, but prophetically consigned to oblivion.

Sir George Grey’s Eight Hours Bill is a short and simple looking measure, containing only two clauses. The first clause runs: ‘ The short) title of this Act is the ‘Eight Hours Act, 1890.’” The second clause is: “From and after the day of , one thousand eight hundred and ninety, eight hours shall, unless where there is a contract in writing to the contrary, constitute a day’s work, and fortyeight hours a week’s work.” We believe that, in order to prevent disputes in agricultural districts and other employments in which it would be practically impossible to carry out an oight hours’ day, the provisions of this Bill will either have to bo extended or its purpose differently expressed. But the principle, which does not attempt to interfere with individual freedom of contract, is sound. This Bill differs from the others inasmuch as the statesman who has charge of it will watch, lynx-eyed, to save it from the last massacre. But he is at a great disadvantage compared with the Government, who have the order paper of the House practically under their control.

The Hon. Mr Hislop’s Bill to put down the truck system contains some very stringent provisions for accomplishing its purpose if it becomes law. The Act clearly insists that all wages shall be paid in money or by cheque, the latter only to be given with the free consent of the worker. Penalties are provided in the event of the dishonour of any such cheque. Besides compelling employers to pay their workmen wagC3 in hard cash, the employers cannot take any legal action against an employee who has bought goods from them, and cannot or will not pay for them. The wording of clause No. 7 is: “No employer shall have, or be entitled to maintain, any action in any court against any workman for, or in respect of, any goods sold, delivered, or supplied to any such workman by any such employer, whilst in his employment as, or on account of, hie wages, or for, or in respect of, any goods sold, delivered, or supplied to such workman at any shop, store-house or premises kept by, or belonging to, such employer, or in the profits of which such employer shall have any share or interest.” As we observed, we shall watch the career of these Bills with curiosity. Sometimes, no doubt, it is an advantage to workmen to be supplied with stores by an employer. Fairly worked, the workman ought to get all the benefits of an absolutely cash system. But experience shows that the abuses that attach to the system counterbalance the good, and the law ought to secure to every man the untrammelled use of the proceeds of his labour. That is the aim of Mr Hislop’s Bill, and its enactment will mark a distinct step in the progress of Liberal reform. “ Auckland Star,” July 12, 18910.