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 He thought the penal clauses of the Act of Elizabeth should certainly be repealed, but that at the same time it was much better that young people should not be left without some control.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.
Mr. W. Smith observed, that he never heard of any proposition of reform which was not likely to be inconvenient to some persons; and therefore he was not surprised at the assertion, that the adoption of the Bill before the House would operate to injure the interests of particular persons. The apprehension of such injury was, however, in his judgment, unfounded. But still, those who expressed the apprehension were entitled to attention; and the objections which certain petitioners urged against this Bill, would, he had no doubt, meet all due consideration in the committee. The fact was, as to the statute of Elizabeth, that its existence served to create monopolies; and the effect of those monopolies was, that when the demand for an article was large, the price was enhanced to the public; while, when the demand became small, many workmen were thrown out of employment. Therefore, the repeal of that statute would tend to serve both the public and the workmen. As to the argument advanced in support of the statute of Elizabeth, merely in consequence of its antiquity, he could not admit that it had any force. He declared that his ears were quite tired of the phrase "the wisdom of our ancestors," which phrase was, in fact, calculated only to impose upon the superficial. For, after all, what did this phrase mean? The world was younger in the time of our ancestors, although they were older than us. Time, Lord Bacon said, was the greatest innovator; and if, at this advanced time of the world, after all our experience, we could not improve upon the system of our ancestors, our intellects must be what would hardly be asserted, not only quite unequal to theirs, but infinitely inferior. How, then, could it be pretended, that the same legislative arrangements applied in the reign of Elizabeth, when the trade of the whole British Empire was not equal to that of the port of London at this day, was strictly applicable at present, and suited to our improved situation?
Mr. Serjeant Onslow replied, and, observing upon the petitions on the table against the Bill, expressed his conviction that they were not the unsolicited acts of the petitioners; as indeed appeared from several placards about town, inviting signatures to such petitions; and those petitioners, he meant especially the journeymen mechanics, would find the repeal of the Act of Elizabeth rather materially serviceable, than in any degree injurious to their interests.
The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Tuesday.
[The apprenticeship regulations of the 5 Eliz. c. 4 were abolished by 54 Geo. III. 96, 1814.]
[352] For enforcing the Statute of Apprentices.