[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 He thought that if the existing law was not to be enforced, it ought to be amended or repealed.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.