1922.] 



International Labour Conference, 



897 



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR 

 CONFERENCE. 



The Intemadoiial Labour Conference recently held at Geneva 

 devoted much attention to the conditions of agricultural labour, 

 and although its conclusions on this subject do no more than 

 affirm in many respects what is the common practice in this 

 country, they constitute an interesting attempt to secure or 

 ensure to agricultural workers throughout the world similar 

 rights and privileges to those enjoyed by workers in other 

 industries. 



The first question that \vas put down for discussion was the 

 regulation of the hours of work in agriculture on the analogy 

 of the 8-hour day or 48-hour week wdiich w^as the subject of a 

 Convention at the first International Labour Conference held 

 in 1919 at \^'ashington. The French Government, however, 

 lodged a formal protest against the inclusion on the Agenda not 

 only of this question of the regulation of hours in agriculture, 

 but also of other agricultural questions on the ground that it 

 was not within the competence of the Conference as defined by 

 the Peace Treaty to deal with agriculture, and. secondly, that 

 even if agricultural questions could properly be regarded as 

 coming within the scope of the Conference, the circumstances 

 of the present time made it inopportune to discuss them. 



A prolonged debate took place on these points but very little 

 support was obtained for the suggestion that agriculture con Id 

 be regarded as outside the scope of the International Labour 

 Organisation. It was pointed out for example that although in 

 the Peace Treaty the words " industry or industrial " constantly 

 occurred, these words should be construed in the widest sense 

 as including all forms of labour and that this meaning had 

 already been given to them by the decision to deal with labour 

 engaged in maritime shipping and in fishing. The compe- 

 tence " of the Conference to deal with the question of agricul- 

 ture wtls affirmed by 74 votes to 20. 



Provision is. however, made in article 402 of the Peace 

 Treat}' to meet the contingency of a Government objecting to 

 the discussion of any item on the Agenda, and in such a ca^e 

 it is laid down that a majority of two-thirds must be obtained 

 to retain on the Agenda the item to which objection is taken. 

 As the French Government had made a formal protest against 

 the retention on the Agenda of the three items compiising the 



c 



