SHOP HOURS BILL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10108, 5 August 1893, Page 2

SHOP HOURS BILL.

MEETING OF SHOPKEEPERS. _ A meeting of shopkeepers of Christchurch and suburbs was held at the Corn Exchange last evening, to protest against the compuhory clauses in the Shop Hours Bill now before Parliament. There was an attendance of between fifty and sixty, and Mr C. P. Hulbert was voted to the chair. The Chairman, in opening the proceedings, said that the employers had over and over again passed resolutions against the Shop Hours Bill, and had also sent petitions to Parliament. Ha explained the difference between the present Act and the Bill now before Parliament. The most objectionable clause was that which provided for compulsory closing on Saturdays. He pointed out that the only parsons whom it was proposed to exempt were restaurant and eating-house keepers. He had been informed, on good authority, that the Labour Bills Committee would report favourably to making Saturday the day, with a provision giving local bodies the power to alter it when required. He remarked that it was quite likely that these bodies would not fairly represent the opinions of those moat interested, and it would scarcely be wise to leave the power in their hands. He asked why shopkeepers as a class should have been selected for such tyrannical legislation. Was it not tyrannical to add a clause giving power to put a man in gaol if he did not obey the Act and close bin shop P He was inclined to think this pettifogging legislation was having a bad effect on business generally, and was partly responsible for the lack of employment. It was not to be expected that capitalists would invest money in the present umatiafactory state of things. Toe residents of the suburbs wished to do tbeir shopping on Saturdays, and if the shops in town were closed on that day it would simply drive the business into the suburbs. The shop assistants would be the first sufferers, and if that class dared to express their opinions they would declare against the alteration of the day. There were only a few large firms which did little business on Saturday which were in favour of the change, and if the Bill came into force it would mean a number of the smaller shops closing up altogether. Mr F. S. Malcolm (Messrs O. L. Beath and Co.) moved—“ That the shopkeepers and retail traders of Christchurch and suburbs strongly protest against the compulsory clause in the Shop Hours Bill now before Parliament, considering the same to be unnecessary and tyrannical. They submit that the Act now in force regulating the hours of labour and providing holidays for shop assistants meets all requirements. They would further submit that as yet no proof has been adduced as to the necessity for shopkeepers being specially selected for such exceptional legislation." He said ho had just returned from Wellington, and Messrs Tanner and Sandford, who were members of tho Labour Bills Committee, had informed him that they would be glad to have the opinion of the shopkeepers so as to strengthen their hands in the matter. The general consensus of opinion in that city was that the Bill would pass. To put the fixing of the day in the hands of the City Council would have a bad effect on the Council, and would turn it into a political body. During the week he had spent in Wellington he had visited the House, and had never been so disgusted as at the childish business and waste of time that wont on then, and he supposed the whole session had been spent in the same way. He was sure the resolution would do good, as any recommendation going up from that meeting would carry weight. Mr Stephen Powell, in seconding the motion, said ho considered that the feelings of loyalty between the employees and their employers would he imperilled by the passing of the Bill. He spoke of tho Bill as an infamous law,- and said if it was passed it would reduce tradesmen to the lowest depths of degradation. Mr Delahunt wished to move an amendment to tho effect that tho Bill should be approved of. Saturday closing had been tried, and it would work satisfactorily if it were not for the greediness of a few Christchurch tradesmen who had spoiled it. The banks, business places and factories closed on Saturday afternoon, and he did not see why the shops could not do the same. The reason these men opposed the change was because the Christchurch tradesmen were afraid the suburban shopkeepers would get a few of the crumbs. There was now a growing monopoly, which was not to the benefit of society generally. He saw nothing to fear in the Bill, If the matter were relegated to the local bodies, they would have to consult the electors before acting. The employees were the bread-winners, and had a right to be considered. The Chairman remarked that the meeting had been called to oppose the present Bill. If the other side wanted to air its views, it should call a meeting of its own. Mr Hopkins did not come to oppose, but he thought the Chairman's remarks were uncalled for. Personally he would like to see the law remain as it was. He thought it would be better for all to work together, and not allow any local jealousies to come in. Mr Thwaites, in seconding the amendment, said there was no evidence before them that any interests would suffer if the Bill were passed, Mr Toneyoliffe would sooner see compulsory closing on Thursday, and would move to that effect at a later stage. He said compulsion was necessary, as at present his firm loyally kept its promise to close, while other firms close by kept tbeir places open. Saturday would never answer for the holiday. In busy times there was as much done on Saturday afternoons as on any other three days in the week. Mr Robinson said, if the Bill passed, fruiterers should be exempted, or it would mean ruin to many of them. He was in favour of the existing state of things. Mr T. Armstrong was in favour of things remaining ns at present. Ha objected to anyone saying whether he shou Id close or not.

Mr Hulberfc wished to apologise to the suburban shopkeepers if he had said anything to annoy them. He thought they should all be united in opposing the compulsory clauses. Shopkeepers were the best judges of when to close, and if they allowed the present Bill to pass he did not know what might be done next. The whole thing was merely a political dodge, and was nob intended for any good purpose. Was it because they were so quiet and interfered with no one that they were singled out for this tyrannical legislation ? If they had been a political, agitating crew they would not have been interfered with. The present labour legislation was