Chapter XLIX: Section III (2)

_Mr. Lechmere_ said, that the bill was not only founded in humanity, but policy also. The late alarming scarcity ought to induce every man who wished to encourage the industrious poor, to promote every plan of relief for them at such a crisis. No agricultural labourer could at present support himself and his family with comfort; for a barley loaf was at the enormous price of 12-1/2d., while the whole of the labourer's daily wages amounted to no more than one shilling. _Haud ignara mali, miseris succurrere disco_, was a noble sentiment; but he would rather have the labourer enjoy the honest fruits of his industry, than be obliged to receive his due as an eleemosynary gift. It appeared to him that the minimum of agricultural labour should be fixed.

_Mr. Buxton_ said, that the bill did not appear likely to be of much service, for if the price of labour were to be fixed by the justices of peace, he feared many industrious people would be thrown out of employ, and become a burthen to their respective parishes. The people he alluded to were those who by sickness or old age were rendered incapable of doing so much as a common labourer, and who consequently would be rejected for persons of more strength and activity. He had consulted with various well informed farmers and gentlemen in Norfolk who unanimously concurred in opinions that the bill would be injurious.

_Mr. Vansittart_ commended the hon. gentleman who introduced the bill, for his humane intentions, but he had no hesitation in voting against it, because he thought any arbitrary regulations of the justices of the peace, in the price of labour, would be a greater evil than that already complained of. The bill appeared to him unnecessary, as the law since the reign of James I, enabled the magistrate to fix the price of labour.

_Mr. Burdon_ did not think that the industrious poor were in that wretched situation stated by some gentlemen. The industrious labourer, in many instances, was able to support his family, and lay up something for his old age. From the average price of labour for some years, the House must perceive that the wages of the labourer were considerably increased. The friendly societies, if they continued to extend, would be productive of infinite good. As to the bill, he was convinced of its inadequacy to correct the abuses of which it complained. He recommended rather to repeal the act of Elizabeth than set it up as a precedent to act upon.

_Mr. Fox_ said that no man was more against the idea of compulsion as to the price of labour than he was. The question now was, not on the general principle, but on that particular state of the law, which rendered some measure necessary to be adopted for the relief of the labouring poor, while the law, as it stood, was saddled with so many restrictions. He approved of the bill proposed by his hon. friend, as calculated to correct that which was bad in its present operation, and to secure at least to the labourer the means of partial relief. But if the House objected to the measure as improper, if they were of the opinion that it was not the most judicious or desirable that might be applied, he hoped they would go to the root of the evil, and provide some remedy adequate to the extent of the grievance. If, therefore, they should give a negative to the second reading of the bill, he should consider that by so doing they pledged themselves to take the subject into their early and most serious consideration. If what his hon. friend had brought forward should induce the House to go into a full examination of the subject, and to provide a remedy commensurate to the evil, he would not only have accomplished his own benevolent intentions, but would have done a much greater service to the country, than even if the bill which he had now brought forward were adopted.

_Mr. Whitbread_ said:--"I cannot but congratulate the House on the able and eloquent speech of the chancellor of the exchequer. At the same time I must remark that if the poor laws were actually such, as the right hon. gentleman has stated they ought to be, it would not have been necessary for me to have brought forward any proposition; but I am afraid that facts and experience will be found undeniably to confirm my assertion, that the poor in this country are in a state scarcely consistent with the character of a civilised country. As to what the right hon. gentleman has stated about the price of labour finding its own level, he does not recollect that, till the level be found, the industrious poor labour under the pressure of immediate suffering. If the expedients he has proposed should succeed, they are matters of future regulation, and not calculated to afford relief which the exigencies of the times so imperiously demand. If it should be possible to a considerable degree to promote industry among the children of the poor, and to destroy the oppressive restrictions with respect to settlements, still it will be a considerable time before the price of labour will have found its level. Even if more effectual regulations should afterwards be adopted, still this bill is eligible as a temporary relief. It does not compel the magistrates to act: it only empowers them to take measures according to the exigency of the times. It has been stated as an objection to the bill, that it goes to fix the price of labour, but gentlemen do not attend to the circumstances, that it does not go to determine what should be the general price of labour, but only what should be the least price of labour under particular circumstances. As to the particular case of labourers, who have to provide for a number of children, the wisest thing for government, instead of putting the relief afforded to such on the footing of a charity, supplied, perhaps, from a precarious fund, and dealt with a reluctant hand, would be at once to institute a liberal premium for the encouragement of large families. There is just one circumstance to which I shall advert, before I conclude, namely, the wretched manner in which the poor are lodged. It is such as ought not to be suffered in a country like this, proud of its freedom, and boasting of the equal rights of all its subjects. The landlord, who lets the ground upon lease to the farmer, does not consider himself as bound to repair the cottages. The farmer, who has only a temporary interest in the property, feels no anxiety on the subject. The cottage, dismantled and mouldering to decay, affords neither warmth nor shelter to the poor inhabitant, who is left exposed to the fury of the elements and the inclemency of every season. If a negative should be put upon the second reading of the bill, I shall then move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the statute of Elizabeth, and afterwards for a committee to take into consideration the state of the poor laws."

The motion was negatived. After which, the bill was ordered to be read a second time on that day three months.

7. ARBITRATION ACT FOR THE COTTON INDUSTRY [_Statutes, 39 and 40 Geo. III, 90_], 1800.

An act for settling disputes that may arise between masters and
workmen engaged in the cotton manufacture in that part of Great
Britain called England.

That, from and after the first day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred, in all cases that shall or may arise within that part of Great Britain called England, where the masters and workmen cannot agree respecting the price or prices to be paid for work done, or to be done, in the said manufacture, whether such dispute shall happen or arise between them respecting the reduction or advance of wages or any injury or damage done, or alleged to have been done, by the workmen to the work, or respecting any delay, or supposed delay, on the part of the workmen in finishing the work or the not finishing such work in a good and workmanlike manner; and also in all cases where the workmen are to be employed to work any new pattern which shall require them to purchase any new implements of manufacture for the working thereof, and the masters and workmen cannot agree upon the compensation to be made to such workmen for or in respect thereof, and also respecting the length of all pieces of cotton goods, or the wages or compensation to be paid for all pieces of cotton goods that are made of any great or extraordinary length, and respecting the manufacture of cravats, shawls, polycat, romall, and other handkerchiefs, and the number to be contained in one piece of such handkerchiefs, and the wages to be paid in respect thereof, and in all cases of dispute or difference arising or happening by and between the masters and workmen employed in such manufacture, out of, for, or touching such trade or manufacture, which cannot be otherwise mutually adjusted and settled by and between them; it shall and may be lawful, and it is hereby declared to be lawful, for such masters and workmen, between whom such dispute or difference shall arise as aforesaid, or either of them, to demand and have an arbitration or reference of such matter or matters in dispute, and each of them is hereby authorised and empowered forthwith to nominate and appoint an arbitrator for and on his respective part and behalf, to arbitrate and determine such matter or matters in dispute as aforesaid, and such arbitrators so appointed as aforesaid, after they shall have accepted and taken upon them the business of the said arbitration, are hereby authorised and required to summon before them, and examine upon oath the parties and their witnesses (which oath the said arbitrators are hereby authorised and required to administer according to the form set forth in the schedule to this act), and forthwith to proceed to hear and determine the complaints of the parties and the matter or matters in dispute between them, and the award to be made by such arbitrators shall in all cases be final and conclusive between the parties; but in case such arbitrators so appointed cannot agree to decide such matter or matters in dispute so to be referred to them as aforesaid, and do not make and sign their award within the space of three days after the signing of the said submission, that then they shall forthwith, and without delay, go before and attend upon one of his Majesty's justices of the peace acting in and for the county, riding, city, liberty, division, township, or place, and residing nearest to the place where such dispute shall happen and be referred, and state to such justice the points in difference between them the said arbitrators, which points in difference the said justice shall and he is hereby authorised and required to hear and determine, which determination of such justice shall be made and signed within the space of three days after the expiration of the time hereby allowed the arbitrators to make and sign their award, and shall be final and conclusive between the parties so differing as aforesaid.

[In cases of dispute the points of difference shall be stated to a justice whose award shall be final. Justices who are cotton manufacturers cannot act.]

8. AMENDMENT OF THE ARBITRATION ACT [_Statutes, 44 Geo. III, 87_], 1804.

An act to amend an act, passed in the thirty-ninth and fortieth years
of his present Majesty, intituled, An act for settling disputes that
may arise between masters and workmen engaged in the cotton
manufacture in that part of Great Britain called England.

II. And be it further enacted, that, in all cases where an arbitration may be demanded by the said recited act, where the party complaining and the party complained of shall come before or agree, by any writing under their hands, to abide by the determination of any justice of the peace or magistrate of any county, city, town, or place, within which the parties reside, it shall and may be lawful for such justice of the peace or magistrate to hear and finally determine in a summary manner the matter in dispute between such parties; but if such parties shall not come before, or so agree to abide by the determination of such justice of the peace or magistrate, then it shall be lawful for any such justice or magistrate, and such justice of the peace or magistrate is hereby required, on complaint made before him, and proof by the examination of the party, making such complaint, that application has been made to the person or persons against whom such cause of complaint has arisen, or his, her, or their agent or agents, if such dispute has arisen with such agent or agents, to settle such dispute, and that the same has not been settled upon such complaint being made, or where the dispute relates to a bad warp, such cause of complaint shall not be done away within forty-eight hours after such application, to summon before him such person or persons, or agent or agents, on some day not exceeding three days, exclusive of Sunday, before the making such complaint, giving notice to the person making such complaint of the time and place appointed in such summons for the attendance of such person or persons, agent or agents, as aforesaid; and if at such time and place the person or persons so summoned shall not appear by himself, or send some person on his, her, or their behalf, to settle such dispute, or appearing shall not do away such cause of complaint, then and in such case it shall be lawful for such justice, and he is hereby required, at the request of either of such parties, to nominate arbitrators or referees for settling the matters in dispute; and such justice shall then and there at such meeting propose not less than four nor more than six persons, one-half of whom shall be master-manufacturers or agents or foremen of some master-manufacturer, and the other half of whom shall be weavers in such manufacture (such respective persons residing in or near to the place where such dispute shall have arisen) out of which master-manufacturers, agents, or foremen, the master engaged in such dispute, or his agent, shall choose one, and out of which weavers so proposed, the weaver or his agent, shall choose another, who shall have full power to hear and finally determine such dispute; and the said justice shall thereupon appoint a place of meeting according to the directions of this act, and also a day for the meeting, notice of which nomination, and of the day of meeting, shall thereupon be given to the persons so nominated arbitrators or referees, and to any party to any such dispute, who may not have attended the meeting before such justice as aforesaid.

[For criticism of the act see Petition of Cotton Weavers, 1813, Pt.
III, Section III, No. 12, page 576.]

9. THE FIRST FACTORY ACT [_Statutes, 42 Geo. III, 87_], 1802.

An act for the preservation of the health and morals of apprentices
and others, employed in cotton and other mills, and cotton and other
factories.

... All such mills and factories within _Great Britain and Ireland_, wherein three or more apprentices, or twenty or more other persons, shall at any time be employed, shall be subject to the several rules and regulations contained in this act; ...

II. And be it enacted, that all and every the rooms and apartments in or belonging to any such mill or factory shall, twice at least in every year, be well and sufficiently washed with quick lime and water over every part of the walls and ceiling thereof; and that due care and attention shall be paid by the master or mistress of such mills or factories to provide a sufficient number of windows and openings in such rooms or apartments, to insure a proper supply of fresh air in and through the same.

III. And be it further enacted, that every such master or mistress shall constantly supply every apprentice during the term of his or her apprenticeship with two whole and complete suits of clothing....

IV. And be it further enacted, that no apprentice that now is or hereafter shall be bound to any such master or mistress shall be employed or compelled to work for more than twelve hours in any one day (reckoning from six of the clock in the morning to nine of the clock at night), exclusive of the time that may be occupied by such apprentice in eating the necessary meals: Provided always, that, from and after the first day of June one thousand eight hundred and three, no apprentice shall be employed or compelled to work upon any occasion whatever between the hours of nine of the clock at night and six of the clock in the morning.

VI. And be it further enacted, that every such apprentice shall be instructed, in some part of every working day, for the first four years at least of his or her apprenticeship....

VII. And be it further enacted, that the room or apartment in which any male apprentice shall sleep shall be entirely separate and distinct from the room or apartment in which any female apprentice shall sleep, and that not more than two apprentices shall in any case sleep in the same bed.

VIII. And be it further enacted, that every apprentice, or (in case the apprentices shall attend in classes) every such class, shall for the space of one hour at least every Sunday be instructed and examined in the principles of the Christian religion ... and such master or mistress shall send all his or her apprentices under the care of some proper person, once in a month at least, to attend during divine service in the church of the parish ... or in some licensed place of divine worship; and in case the apprentices cannot conveniently attend such church or chapel ... the master or mistress ... shall cause divine service to be performed in some convenient room or place in or adjoining to the mill or factory....

IX. And be it further enacted, that the justices of the peace for every county ... shall ... appoint two persons, not interested in, or in any way connected with, any such mills or factories, to be visitors ...; one of whom shall be a justice of peace ... and the other shall be a clergyman of the Established Church....

9A. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN IN FACTORIES, 1816 (III), _p._ 277.

_Examination of Richard Arkwright, June 7, 1816._

_Q._ What is your opinion of the Act known under the name of Sir Robert Peel's Bill? I could wish to confine myself to facts as much as possible.

What have you known of that Act? That Act has not been followed up, with respect to the visiting of magistrates, for these thirteen years. I think they visited my mills at Cromford twice.

_p._ 278.

Are you of opinion that Sir Robert Peel's Bill, which passed in the year 1802, has accomplished much benefit for the children, for whose protection it was intended?

I certainly thought that the discussions upon that Bill, and the Bill itself, did a great deal of good, but that can be only matter of opinion.

10. CALICO PRINTERS' PETITION FOR REGULATION [_Commons Journals, Vol. LIX, Feb. 22, 1804_], 1804.

A petition of several journeymen calico printers, and others working in that trade, in the counties of Lancaster, Derby, Chester, and Stafford, in England, and in the counties of Lanark, Renfrew, Dumbarton, Stirling, and Perth in Scotland, was presented to the House, and read; setting forth that great numbers of the petitioners and other journeymen calico printers have, for a series of years past, been greatly distressed for want of work in their trade, and that this distress has chiefly arisen from a very general, if not universal, practice of the master calico printers in the counties above enumerated, who systematically carry on the said trade by employing in it, in many instances, a greater number of out-door apprentices than of journeymen, and, upon an average, nearly two of such apprentices to three journeymen, a practice of great injury to the petitioners, their families, and, ultimately, even to the apprentices themselves; and that one of the injurious effects, to the petitioners by this system is, that, in many instances boys are taken as apprentices to the said trade or business on verbal agreement, whereby they are at liberty to absent themselves from the service and control of their masters on any trifling disagreement, and are generally replaced by others, thereby creating an overstock of hands in the said trade: And therefore praying, That leave may be given to bring in a bill to regulate the trade or business of calico printers.

Ordered, that the said petition be referred to the consideration of a committee.

11. REPORT ON CALICO PRINTERS' PETITION [_Commons Journals, Vol. LXI, July 17, 1806_], 1806.

Your committee have naturally endeavoured to ascertain the cause of those discontents, and, as far as they have been able to collect from the minutes of evidence referred to them, they find it has arisen principally from the multiplication of apprentices. That this has gone to an extent, and that the disproportion of apprentices to journeymen exists to a degree, far beyond that understood to prevail in any other mechanical profession whatever, appears to your committee in several instances. In one instance, that of the shop of Berry and Co. of Lancashire, they find that 55 apprentices were employed, and only two journeymen; in another, that of the shop of Tod and Co. of Dumbarton, there were 60 apprentices, and only two journeymen. Such a disproportion, your committee conceive, must strike as extraordinary any one in the least degree acquainted with the custom of trade.

The practice of introducing such an increased number of apprentices, which commenced about the year 1790, does not appear from the minutes of evidence to have proceeded from any scarcity of hands to supply the demands of the masters, or make up the work required; on the contrary, it appears that in the course of the period when this excessive multiplication of apprentices went on, a number of journeymen were seeking in vain for employment.

With regard to the multiplication of apprentices, while your committee declare that they are not friendly to the idea of imposing any restrictions upon trade, they are ready to state that the inclination of their minds is this, that either all restrictions ought to be abolished, and the masters and journeymen left to settle matters between themselves, or an additional restriction ought to be introduced to counteract the evils obviously resulting from the restrictions which already exist. This restriction your committee mean of course to apply to apprentices; and if a precedent were wanted to justify such a measure, they would refer to the case of the silk weavers, and that of other trades, which are to be found on the Statute Book. In the instance of the silk weavers, no more than two apprentices can be legally taken by any master, whatever may be the number of his journeymen; and yet, since the enactment of this law, no scarcity of hands has ever been complained of in that flourishing branch of trade. Indeed, throughout all the mechanical professions, it is, as far as has come to the knowledge of any of the members of your committee, the general rule, that no master shall have more than two or three apprentices at the most. This general rule is conceived to be established through an understanding between the masters and the journeymen.

The salutary effects of leaving the masters and journeymen to settle their affairs between themselves, is particularly exemplified in the calico printing business: for, although in Lancashire and Derbyshire, etc., where there is nearly a proportion of one apprentice to one journeyman, and between masters and journeymen a consequent jealousy, productive of perpetual variance and confusion; there is in the neighbourhood of London, where a different feeling prevails, and where matters are amicably adjusted between the parties, a very different proportion of apprentices and journeymen. In 14 shops examined by one of the witnesses, in 1803, the number of journeymen were 216, the apprentices only 37.

But to return to the subject of restrictions: your committee are persuaded that as the Legislature has thought proper to interpose its authority, to prevent the journeymen from concerting measures among themselves to settle their affairs with the masters, it would be ready to remove any complaints which might arise from advantage taken by the masters of the existence of such restriction. The wisdom and humanity of Parliament would shrink from sanctioning the Combination Law, if it appeared to them, at the time of its enactment, likely to operate only in favour of the strong, and against the weak; if it had any apparent tendency to secure impunity to oppressors, and to give an undue advantage to the masters, who can combine with little danger of detection, and who can carry their projects into execution with little fear of opposition. The Legislature could never mean to injure the man, whose only desire is to derive a subsistence from his labour, and that indeed is all a journeyman calico printer can look to; for, from the particular nature of his trade, differing much from others, he cannot, from the capital required, ever calculate upon becoming a master.

12. COTTON WEAVERS' PETITION AGAINST THE REPEAL OF 5 ELIZABETH C. 4 [_Commons Journals, Vol. LXVIII, Feb. 25, 1813_], 1813.

A petition of several cotton weavers resident in the division of Bolton Le Moors, in the county of Lancaster, was presented and read; setting forth, that the petitioners are much concerned to learn that a bill has been brought into the House to repeal so much of the Statute 5 Elizabeth, as empowers and requires the magistrates, in their respective jurisdictions, to rate and settle the prices to be paid to labourers, handicrafts, spinners, weavers, etc.; and that the petitioners have endured almost constant reductions in the prices of their labour for many years, with sometimes a trifling advance, but during the last thirty months they have continued, with very little alteration, so low, that the average wages of cotton weavers do not exceed 5s. per week, though other trades in general earn from 20s. to 30s. per week; and that the extravagant prices of provisions of all kinds render it impossible for the petitioners to procure food for themselves and families, and the parishes are so burthened that an adequate supply cannot be had from that quarter; and that, in the 40th year of His present Majesty a law was made to settle disputes between masters and workmen[351]; which law having been found capable of evasion, and evaded, became unavailing: after which, in 1802, 1803, and 1804, applications being made to amend that of the 40th, another law was made, varying in some points from the former; but this also is found unavailing, inasmuch as no one conviction before a magistrate under this law has ever been confirmed at any Quarter Sessions of the Peace; and that several applications have since been made to the House to enact such laws as they would judge suitable to afford relief to the trade, in which masters and workmen joined, but hitherto without any effect; and that, about twelve months since, it was found that the Statute of 5 Eliz. (if acted upon) was competent to afford the desired relief, and it was resorted to in certain cases, but the want of generality prevented its obtaining at that time, especially as it can be acted on only at the Easter Quarter Sessions, or six weeks thereafter; and that, as petitions to the magistrates were almost general at the last Quarter Sessions, and all graciously received at each different jurisdiction, much hope was entertained that at the next Easter sessions the magistrates would settle the wages of the petitioners, and they obtain food by their industry; and that the present bill to repeal the aforesaid law has sunk the spirits of the petitioners beyond description, having no hope left: the former laws made for their security being unavailing, there is no protection for their sole property, which is their labour; and that, although the said law of 5 Eliz. was wisely designed to protect all trades and workmen, yet none will essentially suffer by its repeal save the cotton weavers: the silk weavers have law to secure their prices, as have other artizans; tradesmen generally receive their contracted wages, but cotton weavers, when their work is done, know not what they shall receive, as that depends on the goodness of the employer's heart: And that the petitioners, therefore, most humbly, and earnestly pray, that the House, for the aforesaid reasons, will not repeal the said Statute of 5 Eliz., it being the only law by which they can hope any relief from their present misery; and the existing laws being evaded, this would afford, when acted upon, prices somewhat suitable to the prices of provisions in adverse times; but should the House see it proper to repeal the said law, the petitioners pray, that in that case it will enact a law to secure and grant such wages to the petitioners as will enable them to live by their industry, equally beneficial to masters and workmen.

Ordered, That the said Petition do lie upon the Table.

[The wages clauses of 5 Eliz. 4 were repealed by 53 Geo. III, 40, 1813.]

[Footnote 351: See above. Pt. III, Section III, Nos. 7 and 8. p. 568 and p. 570.]

13. DEBATES ON THE REGULATION OF APPRENTICES [_Parl. Debates, Series I, Vol. XXV, Cols. 1120-1131; XXVII, 423-425, 563-574, 879-884_], 1813-1814.

APPRENTICES.--_Mr. Rose_ adverted to the petition[352] he presented the other day, which was signed by above 800 masters and 13,000 journeymen in London; and by 1,154 masters and 17,517 journeymen in the country; making above 32,000 in all. The policy of the system began in Edward the 3rd. Some had doubted the effects of the law, and deemed all restrictions injurious to commerce: others considered the want of restrictions more dangerous, and contended that the present system had encouraged habits of industry. The courts had, in general, narrowed the spirit and application of the restrictions. He thought that if the existing law was not to be enforced, it ought to be amended or repealed. A petition signed by such a number of tradesmen was deserving the most attentive consideration. He should therefore move that the petition be referred to a committee.

_Mr. Serjeant Onslow_ allowed that the number of signatures to the petition entitled it to a respectful consideration. As to the allegations of the petition, he thought it very extraordinary that the petitioners should really expect that parliament would allow them to bring actions upon this statute, against whom they pleased, well-founded or ill-founded, without being subject to costs in case of failure. From his experience in a certain judicial situation, he could say, and he believed he might appeal to all his professional friends about him for the confirmation of his statement, that he never knew any indictment brought under this statute except against a person of great skill and acquirements. The preamble of the Act stated its object to be "to prevent the introduction of unskilful workmen": and yet no indictments were ever brought against unskilful workmen, but only against very skilful and ingenious men. This shewed pretty clearly the spirit in which such prosecutions were brought.

_Mr. D. Giddy_ said, that he should not vote for the committee, if he did not think it likely that the resolution they would come to would be directly opposite to that which was expected by the petitioners. He certainly did entertain great doubts, whether in the present state of the commercial world there was any use in those apprenticeships, although they might have been necessary in the infancy of commerce. It frequently happened, that a young man had not a talent for that particular business to which he had been bound an apprentice, and was yet possessed of other talents, by the exercise of which he might obtain a most respectable subsistence. It appealed to him a cruel hardship to fetter the minds and limbs of men, so as to prevent their obtaining a subsistence by the fair exercise of their talents and of their limbs. As to what was said of corporate rights, obtained by apprenticeship, he thought that made it the less necessary to add penalties. If those corporate rights, however, were to be considered of real value, he thought it a great hardship that they could not be obtained in any other way than by serving an apprenticeship.

_Mr. Butterworth_ also felt inclined to disapprove of the Act as highly injurious to trade in general, and to rising talent. In illustration of the hardships of the Act, and of the manner in which it was generally enforced, he mentioned a case which had come within his own immediate observation. In an office of which he had the command, there was a young man of great skill, and consequently of great value to his employers; he, however, had not served the regular apprenticeship, and his fellow-workmen therefore combined against him, demanding his discharge. He (Mr. B.) interfered on behalf of the young man, but in vain; for the conspiracy amongst the workmen attained that height that their request was obliged to be complied with. The young man was discharged, and though skilful in that particular trade, he had been compelled to sell the furniture, the produce of his industry, to support a wife and family, who were dependent on him for support. He did not oppose the committee, because he was convinced that the determination would be in favour of the repeal of the 5th of Elizabeth.

The petition was then referred to a committee.

_Wednesday, April 6, 1814._[353]

APPRENTICE LAWS.--_Mr. H. Davis_ presented a petition from certain master manufacturers of the city of Bristol, praying that so much of the Act of the 5th of Elizabeth, cap. 4, as inflicted penalties on persons exercising trades to which they had not served regular apprenticeships, should be repealed. Ordered to lie on the table.

_Mr. P. Moore_ presented a petition from the manufacturers of Coventry, praying that that part of the 5th of Elizabeth, cap. 4, which inflicted penalties on persons exercising trades to which they had not served regular apprenticeships, should be rendered efficient. He should merely move "that the petition do lie on the table"; but, before he sat down, he wished to enquire of the learned gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Onslow) who had given notice of his intention to introduce a Bill on the subject, whether he meant, in his proposed measure, to confine himself merely to the repeal of that part of the 5th of Elizabeth which sanctioned those penalties, or to do away with the Act altogether? He also wished to know whether the learned gentleman intended to push his Bill through the different stages in the present session; or, having introduced it, to let it lie over till the next? In his opinion a committee ought to be appointed, in the first instance, to examine the whole of the petitions that had been presented relative to the 5th of Elizabeth, and also to look into the provisions of that Act.

_Mr. Serjeant Onslow_ said, most unquestionably he did not mean to go beyond the terms of his notice, in the measure he should introduce. He had stated explicitly the part of the Act that he wished to have repealed, and he had not since altered his determination. With respect to the second point of the hon. gentleman's interrogatory, "Whether he intended to hurry the Bill through the House?" he would answer that he certainly did not. But the hon. gentleman seemed to forget that the present period was virtually almost the commencement of the session, and that very important business was yet to come on. He (Serjeant Onslow) certainly did wish to have the sense of the House taken on the Bill, before the session terminated. And this, he thought, could be done without any imputation of hurry. In the last session the Treasurer of the Navy (Mr. Rose) had presented a petition from a great number of persons who were desirous that the penalties should be continued; and moved for a committee to investigate the allegations of the petitioners. A committee was granted--it sat from day to day--and the evidence adduced before it was printed. He (Serjeant Onslow) enquired of that right hon. gentleman whether he intended to found any motion on this evidence? And, understanding that he did not, he stated, at the close of the last session, that he would himself submit a motion on the subject. Soon after parliament met he gave notice of a motion for the 30th of November; but, in consequence of a number of gentlemen who represented large manufacturing districts (particularly the hon. member for Yorkshire) not being then in town, he postponed it till the 22nd of February, and had finally put it off till the 27th of the present month--knowing that a call of the House would take place before that period, which would ensure a full attendance when the proposed measure came to be discussed. That the country was not unprepared for it, was evident from the numerous petitions which had been presented in favour of it. Petitions of that nature had been received from Leeds, Birmingham, Huddersfield, Bristol, and many other populous neighbourhoods. Several petitions had been presented against it. How they were procured he did not know; but the language in all of them appeared nearly the same. With respect to the principal trade carried on by the constituents of the hon. gentleman, it would not be at all affected by the new Bill, because it was already guarded by a variety of enactments totally independent of the 5th of Elizabeth.

_Mr. P. Moore_ said it was very true that his constituents (the freemen of Coventry) were obliged by Act of Parliament to serve a regular apprenticeship, before they could carry on the business alluded to by the learned gentleman. Now they were alarmed lest by the proposed Bill they should be deprived of a right which they had long enjoyed. They therefore were anxious that the Bill should not be hurried through the House.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

_Wednesday, April 27, 1814._[354]

APPRENTICESHIP LAWS.--_Mr. Serjeant Onslow_ rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal part of an Act, passed in the 5th year of Elizabeth, entitled "An Act containing divers orders for artificers, labourers, servants of husbandry, and apprentices." ... The reign of Queen Elizabeth, though glorious, was not one in which sound principles of commerce were known; and a perusal of the other clauses of the Act, as well as the one creating the penalties for exercising trades contrary to its provisions, would fully confirm that assertion; indeed it did not seem to be the object of that statute to favour manufactures; it rather seemed to be intended to make them subservient to a most mistaken notion of favour to the landed interest. So little was political economy then understood that the idea never seemed to have occurred, that agriculture was best promoted by the prosperity of commerce and manufactures; and that restraints on them defeated the end they aimed at, and discouraged that very employment which they ought to promote.... Apprenticeships had been looked upon as favourable to the morals of youth, and he was very far from wishing to discourage them; but he did not wish them to be an indispensable qualification for legally carrying on trades.... Apprenticeships were as common in trades not within the statute as in those that were within what had been called the protection, but what he thought the curse, of the statute....

_Mr. Philips._--The persons most competent to form regulations with respect to trade were the master manufacturers, whose interest it was to have goods of the best fabric; and no legislative enactment could ever effect so much in producing that result, as the merely leaving things to their own course and operation. The proof of this was to be found in the fact that the manufactures for which the country was most famous, were precisely those to which this Act did not apply. If this narrow principle had been carried into every branch of art, the machinery of Sir Richard Arkwright would have been lost to the country--and the genius of Mr. Watt, whose inventions had added more to the productive powers of the empire, than if the population had been increased one half, would have been still unknown. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to point out the evil effects which arose from the system of combination among tradesmen [workmen].

Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

_Friday, May 13, 1814._[355]

APPRENTICE LAWS.--_Mr. Serjeant Onslow_ moved the second reading of the Bill, which was warmly opposed by _Sir Fred. Flood_, who, though a friend to liberty, disliked licentiousness. The Bill went to abrogate that most salutary law of the 5th of Elizabeth, and to revive the practice which had previously existed from Edward the Third's time. It would be destructive of the interests of persons who served their apprenticeships, and paid for education in their respective trades, and ruinous to the morals of youth. It would be hurtful to commerce, to mechanics, to manufacture and to the Stamp Act. The present law had lasted 220 years. He proposed to postpone the second reading to that day six months.

_Mr. Protheroe_ seconded the motion, as the Bill proceeded on no general comprehensive system, but simply on a repeal without any efficient substitute for what was to be repealed. He objected to the measure in a moral point of view; in which respect he was upheld by the opinions of Lord Coke and Sir Wm. Blackstone. He had heard much of vexatious prosecutions under the Act of Elizabeth; but, on enquiry, he found that at Bristol for the last 20 years, there had not been one such prosecution. If apprenticeships were more encouraged, he was satisfied that combinations among journeymen would almost entirely be put an end to. If the House were to lower its attention down to the humble cottage, they would there see the advantages of this system, in beholding careful masters provided for the youths, who, in addition, were provided with food and clothing, while their morals were protected. He should be happy that the present Bill were withdrawn, and some measure unaccompanied by its disadvantages were introduced.

_Mr. Hart Davis_ could not disguise from himself that the present measure was attended with many difficulties. It would undoubtedly be of great advantage to our manufacturers that the present law should be repealed, and that every restraint should be removed from the rising generation. Supposing a person brought up to a trade for which from his constitution he was not fit, was he to be excluded from pursuing any other pursuit, or occupation whatever? Suppose the trade of button-makers, which was a trade that speedily passed away; or of gun-makers, of whom probably 40,000 might be in a few months thrown out of employment, was it to be held that they could follow no other occupation, but must remain a burden upon the community? The more he considered the present measure, the more he was satisfied of its utility.

_Mr. Protheroe_ explained that he could wish a general review of the whole system.

_Mr. Giddy_ thought if any one measure more than another could be said to involve the general rights of mankind, the present was that measure. What was this but the general right of the inhabitants of this country to employ the energies of their mind and body in the way they themselves pleased? And if a system were to be continued by which men were deprived of this general and undoubted right, it seemed to be incumbent on those who contended for the continuance of such a restriction to shew on what principle it was founded. If gentlemen attended to the time in which the law in question was passed, they would find it was a period in which many ill-advised monopolies had been granted, and one in which remonstrances on that subject had been made by the House of Commons on the impolicy of such a system, which had not been much attended to. Nothing, he was convinced, had contributed so much as the law in question to check the progress in our arts and manufactures.

_Sir C. Mordaunt_, on the part of his constituents, the manufacturers of Birmingham, was strongly in favour of the present repeal. If the law, as it now stood, were put in force, it would have the effect of imposing the strongest possible fetters upon ingenuity and industry.

_Mr. Thompson_ liked liberty; and doing so, he wished to see every man have the liberty of employing his hands and his genius in the best way he could to his own advantage, and for the benefit of the country. This no man was at liberty to do, so long as the present law remained in force. He wished the law totally repealed, though the Bill did not go so far. The present law was necessarily broken every day. It was clear that the judges always wished to evade it, when they could do so. He knew a case of two men who were prosecuted under the Act for sawing a piece of wood; another, of a good and bad baker in the same town; where the bad one, finding that the good one had not served a regular apprenticeship, had him turned out, and got liberty to poison all his neighbours with his bad bread. Some years ago the printers struck, and there was a difficulty in getting even the parliamentary papers printed. Let those who chose it bind their children as apprentices; but let not others be compelled to do the same. Instances of the absurdity of the law would be innumerable. It was none the better for the age of it, which the worthy baronet had stated. It was, in fact, superannuated; and it was much the kindest way to let it die quietly, and so confer an advantage both on the country and Ireland. Lord Ellenborough once got the coach-makers out of a scrape ingeniously enough. They were attacked as wheelmakers; but his lordship said that coaches could not have been known in Elizabeth's days, as that queen went to parliament on horseback. He perfectly agreed in the opinion which Lord Mansfield had given, in speaking of the Act of Elizabeth, that "it was against the natural rights of man, and contrary to the common law rights of the land."

_Mr. Rose_ considered this as a subject of extraordinary difficulty. After all that had been said, he could not help thinking that if the Bill were passed into law, it would put an end to apprenticeships altogether; for no person would subject himself to a seven years' servitude when he knew that having fulfilled his indenture, he would only be on a level with a man who perhaps had not been one year at the business. He was willing to examine and improve the 5th of Elizabeth, but would not agree to this unqualified repeal.

_Sir J. Newport_ was surprised that the hon. baronet (Sir F. Flood) should be so anxious to perpetuate a statute which never was law in Ireland; and yet in that country, where no such penalties as those inflicted by the 5th of Elizabeth existed, the system of apprenticeships was freely and voluntarily adopted. He thought, on every principle of justice, that the subject was entitled to make use of his abilities and industry in those pursuits most beneficial to his interests.

_Sir S. Romilly_ had been applied to on the subject of the present Bill, by the constituents of two hon. gentlemen who had already delivered their sentiments on the measure this night (Messrs. Protheroe and Davis). He felt the highest respect for the gentlemen who had so applied to him on the subject of the present Bill; but his opinion of the measure being decidedly opposite to theirs, he thought he should not be acting a manly part were he either to abstain from voting on the Bill, or were he to content himself with a silent vote on this occasion. He was satisfied that there were reasons sufficiently strong to support the system of apprenticeships in those trades in which a number of years were requisite to the acquiring a knowledge of them, without the assistance of the law as it now stood. This law, which went to prohibit a man from the exercise of that trade for which he was fit, he therefore thought ought to be repealed. For what was it but to take from a poor man the only property he possessed--his genius and industry--and to drive him into a workhouse; or to force him to abandon his country, and to forsake his wife and family. These were the moral consequences which the House was to look for from a perseverance in the law as it now stood.

_Alderman Atkins_ hoped that some clause might be introduced into the Bill when it was in the committee, that would give sufficient encouragement to the apprentice system; while, at the same time, the abuses of it might be remedied.

_Sir F. Flood_, seeing the sense of the House against him, withdrew his amendment.

_Mr. Canning_ wished the Bill to go into the committee. He was aware that the subject was attended with considerable difficulties. The difficulty would be to find the means of doing away the abuses complained of, without doing away the system altogether, which he was convinced was useful to the perfection of our manufactures, and still more useful as affecting the morality of the lower orders.

_Mr. Serjeant Best_ said that if no other member introduced a clause to that effect, he himself should feel it his duty to propose one. He thought the penal clauses of the Act of Elizabeth should certainly be repealed, but that at the same time it was much better that young people should not be left without some control. He thought that at present the masters had much more advantages from the services of the apprentices, than the apprentices had from the instruction of the master, as most of those trades might be learned in a very short time. He therefore wished that part of the earnings might go to the parents, as an encouragement to the system.

_Mr. P. Moore_ opposed the Bill, because he thought that its enactment would operate seriously to the prejudice of our manufactures both in skill and reputation. Indeed, such had been found the effect of the partial repeal of the statute of Elizabeth with respect to the woollen manufacture.[356] For although the Yorkshire tag had formerly been a sufficient recommendation upon the continent, yet since the repeal alluded to, our pieces of woollen manufactures were examined yard by yard before they were purchased.

_Mr. Lockhart_ expressed his opinion, that this Bill, if enacted, should only operate prospectively; that is, that it should not become effective until a certain period; so that those mechanics who had served apprenticeships upon the faith of the existing law, should not be injured by its operation, by being thrown out of employment at a period of life when they could not devote themselves to any other profession than that to which they had been reared.

_Mr. B. Shaw_ deprecated the idea that morality was likely to be endangered, or our manufactures injured, by the enactment of the Bill under consideration; for Scotland, to which the Act of Elizabeth never extended, was never found in any degree inferior in morality or skill in manufacture.