English Economic History: Select Documents

by Unknown

Mr. Fox said, that the bill was undoubtedly a bill of great delicacy and importance, and with respect to which, he admitted that, to a considerable extent, there might exist a rational difference of opinion. The act of Elizabeth, as his hon. friend had truly stated, empowered the justices to fix the highest price of labour, but it gave them no power to fix the lowest. It secured the master from a risk that could but seldom occur, of being charged exorbitantly for the quantity of service; but it did not authorise the magistrate to protect the poor from the injustice of a griping and avaricious employer, who might be disposed to take advantage of their necessities, and undervalue the rate of their service. If the price of labour was adequate to the support of the poor at ordinary times, though not equal to the accidental high price of provisions at the present moment, it might be contended that there was less necessity for any new legislative regulation. But, taking the average price of labour for some years past, including that period during which the scarcity had operated, no man could deny that the price of labour was greatly disproportionate to the rate of provisions. That the general price of labour should be adequate to the support of the general mass of the community was indisputably a right principle. They all knew that a very extensive tax was exacted from the country, under the denomination of poor-rates, and that such a tax must be continued. It was understood that to this fund none could apply, but those few to whom, from particular circumstances, their labour might not be sufficiently productive to secure an adequate support. But he feared that the reverse was the case; that the exception was with respect to the few who derived sufficient means of subsistence from their labour, and that the great mass of the labouring part of the community were under the necessity of applying to this fund for relief. If the House, as was proposed, were to form an association, in order to pledge themselves to use only a particular sort of bread, with a view to diminish the pressure of the scarcity, ought they not at the same time to form an association in order to raise the price of labour to a rate proportionate to the price of articles of subsistence? With this view, he called upon the House to consider the principle of the bill, and its provisions. He would call upon them also to attend to the subject, in a constitutional view, though he could not hope, from the complexion of recent transactions, that this was a view of the subject which would have great weight. It was not fitting in a free country that the great body of the people should depend upon the charity of the rich. In the election of members of Parliament, all those were strictly excluded from exercising any franchise, with a very few exceptions, who had at any time received relief from the parish. Was it becoming in a country like this, that the general mass of the labouring part of the community, excepting those who derived relief from the bounty and generosity of individuals, should be excluded from the exercise of their most important privilege as freemen! He admitted many of the rich to be humane and charitable; but he could not allow that those who were the most useful and industrious members of society should depend upon a fund so precarious and degrading, as the occasional supplies derived from their bounty. If the price of provisions had for two years been such as to put every poor man under the necessity of applying for the aid of parochial charity, and if that circumstance constituted a positive disqualification with respect to the exercise of a constitutional right, what, he asked, was the state of a country which first compelled every poor man to dependence, and then reduced him to servitude? If they were to go into associations, pledging themselves to use a particular sort of bread, with a view to alleviate the scarcity, it was surely of more importance that they should associate in order to redress the more material grievance, and strike at the fundamental source of the evil. With this view he should be glad to see an association in order to put the price of labour upon a footing adequate to the rate of provisions. If the regulations of the present bill should not be adopted, he should be happy that any other legislative enactments should be brought forward in order to afford relief and protection to the poor.

The bill was ordered to be read a second time on the 3rd of February, and to be printed.

February 12th, 1796. The order of the day being read for the second reading of the bill,

Mr. Whitbread said, that ample time had been given for members to consider maturely its object and regulations, and to collect from their constituents such information as they might require. For his own part, every inquiry he had instigated, convinced him of the necessity of remedying the grievances of the industrious poor by some legislative provisions. Whether those which he had suggested were the most proper to be adopted, was a question for the decision of the House? Having bestowed considerable pains in drawing up the bill, he might have left it for their consideration upon its merits alone, did not the novelty of the measure demand a few words in explanation. He felt as much as any man how greatly it was to be desired that there should be no legislative interference in matters of this nature, and that the price of labour, like every other commodity, should be left to find its own level. From reasonings upon the subject, the result was, that it always would find its level. But the deductions of reason were confuted by experience; for he appealed to the sense of the House, whether the situation of the labouring poor in this country was such as any feeling or liberal mind would wish? He did not mean that the wages of the labourer were inadequate for his subsistence and comfort in times of temporary scarcity, and unusual hardship; but even at the period preceding such distress, the evil had prevailed. In most parts of the country, the labourer had long been struggling with increasing misery, till the pressure had become almost too grievous to be endured, while the patience of the sufferers under their accumulated distresses had been conspicuous and exemplary. And did not such distress, supported with so much fortitude, merit relief from the legislature? Were it necessary to refer to any authority, he would quote the writings of Dr. Price, in which he showed that in the course of two centuries, the price of labour had not increased more than three or at most fourfold; whereas the price of meat had increased in the proportion of six or seven; and that of clothing, no less than fourteen or fifteen-fold in the same period. The poor-rates, too, had increased since the beginning of the century from £600,000, at which they were then estimated, to upwards of three millions. Nor was this prodigious increase in the poor rates to be ascribed to the advance of population; for it was doubtful whether any such increase had taken place. At the present period the contrary seemed to be the case. By the pressure of the times, marriage was discouraged; and among the laborious classes of the community, the birth of a child, instead of being hailed as a blessing, was considered as a curse. For this serious evil a remedy was required, and to this the bill was directed. It was his wish to rescue the labouring poor from a state of slavish dependence; to enable the husbandman, who dedicated his days to incessant toil, to feed, to clothe, and to lodge his family with some degree of comfort; to exempt the youth of the country from the necessity of entering the army or the navy, and from flocking to great towns for subsistence; and to put it in the power of him who ploughed and sowed and threshed the corn, to taste of the fruits of his industry, by giving him a right to a part of the produce of his labour. Such were the grounds upon which the bill in question was built. To those who dreaded everything that wore the aspect of innovation, and reprobated every measure that was new, he would say that here there was no departure from established precedents, no introduction of unknown principles. The statute of the 5th of Elizabeth was enacted expressly for the purpose of regulating the price of labour. This statute was acted upon for forty years, when it was afterwards amended by a subsequent one in the reign of James the 1st, bearing a similar title. He would not be understood as commending the principle of these statutes: on the contrary, he was of opinion that they operated as a clog to industry, by permitting justices to fix the maximum of labour. But so late as the 8th of his majesty, justices were empowered to regulate the wages of tailors, and even now the lord mayor and council of London control those of the silk weavers. To those who were afraid of entrusting justices with power, he should only say, that he left the power where he found it. At present they were possessed of the power to oppress the labourer; and this bill only invested them with the additional power to redress his grievances. By fixing the minimum of the wages of labour, a comfortable subsistence was secured to industry, and at the same time greater exertions were prompted by the hope of greater reward. To some, perhaps, the time of bringing this subject forward might appear exceptional. There were those who would say, if the labourers were not distressed, why agitate a question for which no necessity calls, and awaken desires which are not felt? Others would maintain, that it was unseasonable to direct the public attention to such a subject, while the pressure of distress might excite discontents, or raise improper expectations. To these he could only answer, that he was not one who could see wise and salutary measures sacrificed to the pretended inconvenience of the times; and that he was of opinion that what was proper to be done could scarcely be done out of season. He then moved, "that the bill be now read a second time."

Mr. Pitt said, that in the interval which had taken place since the first reading of the bill, he had paid considerable attention to the subject, and endeavoured to collect information from the best sources to which he had access. The evil was certainly of such a nature as to render it of importance to find out a proper remedy, but the nature of the remedy involved discussions of such a delicate and intricate nature, that none should be adopted without being maturely weighed. The present situation of the labouring poor in this country was certainly not such as could be wished, upon any principle, either of humanity, or policy. That class had of late been exposed to hardships which they all concurred in lamenting, and were equally actuated by a desire to remove. He would not argue how far the comparison of the state of the labourer, relieved as it had been by a display of beneficence never surpassed at any period, with the state of this class of the community in former times, was just, though he was convinced that the representations were exaggerated. At any rate, the comparisons were not accurate, because they did not embrace a comprehensive view of the relative situations. He gave the hon. gentleman ample credit for his good intentions in bringing the present bill into parliament, though he was afraid that its provisions were such as it would be impolitic, upon the whole, to adopt; and such as, if adopted, would be found to be inadequate to the purposes proposed. The authority of Dr. Price had been adduced to show the great advance that had taken place on every article of subsistence, compared with the slow increase of the wages of labour. But the statement of Dr. Price was erroneous, as he compared the earnings of the labourer at the period when the comparison is instituted, with the price of provisions, and the earnings of the labourer at the present day, with the price of the same articles, without adverting to the change of circumstances, and to the difference of provisions. Corn, which was then almost the only food of the labourer, was now supplied by cheaper substitutions, and it was unfair to conclude that the wages of labour were so far from keeping pace with the price of provisions, because they could no longer purchase the same quantity of an article for which the labourer had no longer the same demand. The simple question now to be considered was, whether the remedy for the evil, which was admitted to a certain extent to exist, was to be obtained by giving to the justices the power to regulate the price of labour, and by endeavouring to establish by authority, what would be much better accomplished by the unassisted operation of principles? It was unnecessary to argue the general expediency of any legislative interference, as the principles had been perfectly recognised by the hon. gentleman himself. The most celebrated writers upon political economy, and the experience of those states where arts had flourished the most, bore ample testimony of their truth. They had only to enquire, therefore, whether the present case was strong enough for the exception, and whether the means proposed were suited to the object intended? The hon. gentleman imagined that he had on his side of the question the support of experience in this country, and appealed to certain laws upon the statute-book, in confirmation of his proposition. He did not find himself called upon to defend the principle of these statutes, but they were certainly introduced for purposes widely different from the object of the present bill. They were enacted to guard the industry of the country from being checked by a general combination among labourers; and the bill now under consideration was introduced solely for the purpose of remedying the inconveniences which labourers sustain from the disproportion existing between the price of labour and the price of living. He had the satisfaction to hear the hon. gentleman acknowledge, that if the price of labour could be made to find its own level, it would be much more desirable than to assess it by arbitrary statute, which in the execution was liable to abuse on the one hand, and inefficacy on the other. If the remedy succeeded according to the most sanguine expectations, it only established what would have been better effected by principle; and if it failed, on the one hand it might produce the severest oppression, and on the other hand encourage the most profligate idleness and extravagance. Was it not better for the House, then, to consider the operation of general principles, and rely upon the effects of their unconfined exercise? Was it not wiser to reflect what remedy might be adopted, at once more general in its principles, and more comprehensive in its object, less exceptional in its example, and less dangerous in its application? They should look to the instances where interference had shackled industry, and where the best intentions have often produced the most pernicious effects. It was indeed the most absurd bigotry, in asserting the general principle, to exclude the exception; but trade, industry and barter would always find their own level, and be impeded by regulations which violated their natural operation, and deranged their proper effect. This being granted, he appealed to the judgment of the House, whether it was better to refer the matter entirely to the discretion of a magistrate, or to endeavour to find out the causes of the evil, and by removing the causes, to apply a remedy more justifiable in its principle, more easy in the execution, more effectual in its operations, in fine, more consonant to every sound and rational policy. The evil, in his opinion, originated in a great measure in the abuses which had crept into the poor-laws of this country, and the complicated mode of executing them. The poor-laws of this country, however wise in their original institution, had contributed to fetter the circulation of labour, and to substitute a system of abuses, in room of the evils which they humanely meant to redress, and by engrafting upon a defective plan defective remedies produced nothing but confusion and disorder. The laws of settlements prevented the workman from going to that market where he could dispose of his industry to the greatest advantage, and the capitalist from employing the person who was qualified to procure him the best returns for his advances. These laws had at once increased the burthens of the poor, and taken from the collective resources of the state to supply wants which their operation had occasioned, and to alleviate a poverty which they tended to perpetuate. Such were the institutions which misguided benevolence had introduced, and, with such warnings to deter, it would be wise to distrust a similar mode of conduct, and to endeavour to discover remedies of a different nature. The country had not yet experienced the full benefit of the laws that had already been passed to correct the errors which he had explained. From the attention he had bestowed upon the subject, and from the enquiries he had been able to make of others, he was disposed to think we had not yet gone far enough, and to entertain an opinion that many advantages might be derived, and much of the evil now complained of removed, by an extension of those reformations in the poor-laws which had been begun. The encouragement of friendly societies would contribute to alleviate that immense charge with which the public was loaded in the support of the poor, and provide by savings of industry for the comfort of distress. Now the parish officer could not remove the workman, merely because he apprehended he might be burthensome, but it was necessary that he should be actually chargeable. But from the pressure of a temporary distress might the industrious mechanic be transported from the place where his exertions could be useful to himself and his family, to a quarter where he would become a burthen without the capacity of even being able to provide for himself. To remedy such a great striking grievance, the laws of settlement ought to undergo a radical amendment. He conceived, that to promote the free circulation of labour, to remove the obstacles by which industry is prohibited from availing itself of its resources, would go far to remedy the evils, and diminish the necessity of applying for relief to the poor-rates. In the course of a few years, this freedom from the vexatious restraint which the laws imposed would supersede the object of their institutions. The advantages would be widely diffused, the wealth of the nation would be increased, the poor man rendered not only more comfortable, but more virtuous, and the weight of poor-rates, with which the landed interest is loaded, greatly diminished. He should wish, therefore, that an opportunity were given of restoring the original purity of the poor laws, and of removing those corruptions by which they had been obscured. He was convinced, that the evils which they had occasioned did not arise out of their original constitution, but coincided with the opinion of Blackstone, that, in proportion as the wise regulations that were established in the long and glorious reign of Queen Elizabeth, have been superseded by subsequent enactments, the utility of the institution has been impaired, and the benevolence of the plan rendered fruitless. While he thus had expressed those sentiments which the discussion naturally prompted, it might not, perhaps, be improper, on such an occasion, to lay before the House the ideas floating in his mind, though not digested with sufficient accuracy, nor arranged with a proper degree of clearness. Neither what the hon. gentleman proposed, nor what he himself had suggested, were remedies adequate to the evil it was intended to remove. Supposing, however, the two modes of remedying the evil were on a par in effect, the preference in principle was clearly due to that which was least arbitrary in its nature; but it was not difficult to perceive that the remedy proposed by the hon. gentleman would either be completely ineffectual, or such as far to over-reach its mark. As there was a difference in the numbers which compose the families of the labouring poor, it must necessarily require less to support a small family. Now by the regulations proposed, either the man with a small family would have too much wages, or the man with a large family, who had done most service to his country, would have too little. So that were the minimum fixed upon the standard of a large family, it might operate as encouragement to idleness on one part of the community; and if it were fixed on the standard of a small family, those would not enjoy the benefit of it for whose relief it was intended. What measure then could be found to supply the defect? Let us, said he, make relief in cases where there are a number of children, a matter of right and an honour, instead of a ground for opprobrium and contempt. This will make a large family a blessing, and not a curse; and this will draw a proper line of distinction between those who are able to provide for themselves by their labour, and those who, after having enriched their country with a number of children, have a claim upon its assistance for their support. All this, however, he would confess, was not enough, if they did not engraft upon it resolutions to discourage relief where it was not wanted. If such means could be practised as that of supplying the necessities of those who required assistance by giving it in labour or affording employment, which is the principle of the act of Elizabeth, the most important advantages would be gained. They would thus benefit those to whom they afforded relief, not only by the assistance bestowed, but by giving habits of industry and frugality, and, in furnishing a temporary bounty, enable them to make permanent provision for themselves. By giving effect to the operation of friendly societies, individuals would be rescued from becoming a burthen upon the public, and, if necessary, be enabled to subsist upon a fund which their own industry contributed to raise. These great points of granting relief according to the number of children, preventing removals at the caprice of the parish officer, and making them subscribe to friendly societies, would tend, in a very great degree, to remove every complaint to which the present partial remedy could be applied. Experience had already shown how much could be done by the industry of children and the advantages of early employing them in such branches of manufacture as they are capable to execute. The extension of schools of industry was also an object of material importance. If any one would take the trouble to compute the amount of all the earnings of the children who are already educated in this manner, he would be surprised, when he came to consider the weight which their support by their own labours took off the country, and the addition which, by the fruits of their toil, and the habits to which they were formed, was made to its internal opulence. The suggestion of these schools was originally drawn from Lord Hale and Mr. Locke, and upon such authority he had no difficulty in recommending the plan to the encouragement of the legislature. Much might be effected by a plan of this nature susceptible of constant improvement. Such a plan would convert the relief granted to the poor into an encouragement to industry, instead of being, as it is by the present poor laws, a premium to idleness and a school for sloth. There were also a number of subordinate circumstances to which it was necessary to attend. The law which prohibits giving relief where any visible property remains should be abolished. That degrading condition should be withdrawn. No temporary occasion should force a British subject to part with the last shilling of his little capital, and compel him to descend to a state of wretchedness from which he could never recover, merely that he might be entitled to a casual supply. Another mode also of materially assisting the industrious poor was, the advancing of small capitals, which might be repaid in two or three years, while the person who repaid it would probably have made an addition to his income. This might put him who received them in the way of acquiring what might place him in a situation to make permanent provision for himself. These were the general ideas which had occurred to him upon the subject; if they should be approved of by any gentleman in the House, they might perhaps appear at a future time in a more accurate shape than he could pretend to give them. He could not, however, let this opportunity slip without throwing them out. He was aware that they would require to be very maturely considered. He was aware also of a fundamental difficulty, that of insuring the diligent execution of any law that should be enacted. This could only be done by presenting to those who should be entrusted with the execution motives to emulation, and by a frequent inspection of their conduct as to diligence and fidelity. Were he to suggest an outline, it would be this. To provide some new mode of inspection by parishes, or by hundreds—to report to the magistrates at the petty sessions, with a liberty of appeal from them to the general quarter sessions, where the justice should be empowered to take cognizance of the conduct of the different commissioners, and to remedy whatever defects should be found to exist. That an annual report should be made to parliament, and that parliament should impose upon itself the duty of tracing the effect of its system from year to year, till it should be fully matured. That there should be a standing order of the House for this purpose, and in a word, that there should be an annual budget opened, containing the details of the whole system of poor-laws, by which the legislature would show that they had a constant and a watchful eye upon the interests of the poorest and most neglected part of the community. He was not vain enough to imagine that these ideas were the result of his own investigations, but he was happy to say that they arose from a careful examination of the subject, and an extensive survey of the opinions of others. He would only add that it was a subject of the utmost importance, and that he would do everything in his power to bring forward or promote such measures as would conduce to the interest of the country. He gave the hon. gentleman every possible credit for his humane and laudable motives, yet seeing the subject in the light in which he did, he was compelled to give his negative to the motion.

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 12½d., 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.