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 He had stated explicitly the part of the Act that he wished to have repealed, and he had not since altered his determination.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.