Part 3 — SECTION III

GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF WAGES, CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND PUBLIC HEALTH

1. An Act against Truck, 1701—2. A Wages Assessment at a Warwickshire Quarter Sessions, 1738—3. Spitalfields Weavers Act, 1773—4. A Middlesex Wages Assessment under the Spitalfields Act, 1773—5. Agricultural Labourers' Proposals for a Sliding Scale of Wages, 1795—6. Debates on Whitbread's Minimum Wage Bill, 1795-6—7. Arbitration Act for the Cotton Industry, 1800—8. Amendment of the Arbitration Act, 1804—9. The First Factory Act, 1802—9A. Minutes of Committee on Children in Factories—10. Calico Printers' Petition for Regulation, 1804—11. Report on Calico Printers' Petition, 1806—12. Cotton Weavers' Petition against the Repeal of 5 Elizabeth c. 4, 1813—13. Debates on the Regulation of Apprentices, 1813-1814—14. Resolutions of the Watchmakers on Apprenticeship, 1817—15. Report of Committee on the Ribbon Weavers, 1818—16. The Cotton Factory Act of 1819—17. Oastler's First Letter on Yorkshire Slavery, 1830—18. Factory Act, 1833—19. Proposals for a Wages Board for Hand-loom Weavers, 1834—20. Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1842—21. Debate on Factory Legislation, 1844—22. Factory Act, 1844—23. Recommendations of the Commission on the Health of Towns, 1845.

The eighteenth century was nearly a blank period in the history of direct regulation of industrial conditions by the State. There was no systematic intervention on the scale of Tudor or Victorian times; and political opinion hardened against the principle and destroyed the machinery which had been inherited from the sixteenth century. Such machinery, for the regulation of wages, was still occasionally used in the early part of the eighteenth century, as is shown by occasional examples of wages assessments at Quarter Sessions (No. 2). Acts were passed for individual trades forbidding the practice of paying wages in truck (No. 1). Local pressure even obtained a special Act providing for the regulation of London silk-weavers' wages (No. 3, No. 4). This Spitalfields Act was used as a precedent for the proposals to extend the policy of regulation, which began to fill the Journals of the House of Commons during the period when the new machinery and methods and the French wars dislocated employment and wages. Examples are given of petitions asking that wages should be regulated and that the limitation of apprentices should be enforced under the statute 5 Elizabeth c. 4, to which attention had been called (Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 14). Independent attempts were made to set up a minimum wage, directly and through wages-boards (Nos. 5, 6 and 19). All these applications ended in complete failure. Parliament provided a system of arbitration for the cotton industry (Nos. 7 and 8), but repealed both the wages and apprenticeship clauses of the Elizabethan Act. Contemporary opinion in Parliament relied on the working of free bargaining and economic forces (Debates on Whitbread's Bill and on Apprenticeship, Nos. 6 and 13).

The history of Factory legislation (Nos. 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22) shows how the policy of non-interference was abandoned in another field. The employment of children in the new factories was one result of the eighteenth century system of Poor relief. It produced horrors which the first Factory Act was designed to remedy (No. 9). But the use of steam-power and the growth of big industrial districts led to the wholesale employment of children not under the Poor Law. Public opinion was at last aroused by the campaigns of Oastler and others, who pointed to the contrast between the Anti-Slavery agitation and the conditions of the English mills (No. 17). The successive Acts of 1819, 1833, 1842 and 1844 (Nos. 16, 18, 20, 22) show how legislators were forced to extend the principle of regulation from children to young persons and women, and from cotton mills to other textile factories and to mines. In the debate on the Act of 1844 the respective points of view of the Tory philanthropist, the political economist, and the manufacturer, were dramatically contrasted (No. 21). The last extract is from one of a series of reports on the condition of great industrial towns (No. 23), by which Chadwick, a disciple of Bentham and a champion of the new Poor-law, forced Parliament to interfere in the economic control of town life.

AUTHORITIES

For modern writers on general conditions, see Authorities for Section I. The history of agitation for Factory legislation is to be found in Hutchins and Harrison, History of Factory Legislation; Von Plener Die Englische Fabrikgesetzgebung; Alfred (S. Kydd), The Factory Movement; Cooke Taylor, The Factory System and the Factory Acts; Keeling, Child Labour in the United Kingdom, Part I. Details of the agitation are given in Hodder, Life of Shaftesbury; Podmore, Life of Owen; Hutchins, The Public Health Agitation; Greenwood, Richard Oastler. A general view is given in Dicey, Law and Opinion in England; Kirkman Gray, Philanthropy and the State; Held, Zwei Bücher zur Sozialen Geschichte Englands.

Bibliographies are in Hutchins and Harrison, op. cit.; Cunningham, op. cit.; and Cambridge Modern History, Vol. XII.

Contemporary.—See Authorities for Section I. In addition, for Wages Assessments under the Spitalfields Act in 1784 and 1795, see collection in British Museum, 1029, p. 4. The Reports of Factory Inspectors are valuable sources after 1833. See also Hansard Parliamentary Debates on Wages, and Factory Legislation, 1795, 1813-14, 1816, 1832-3, 1844, 1846.

The chief contemporary literary sources for general conditions are given under Section I. The Factory legislation movement is described by some of the actors: Owen, Observations on the Manufacturing System; Oastler, Yorkshire Slavery, Life and Opinions, Letters from the Fleet, etc.; Memoir of the Life and Writings of Michael Sadler; Nassau Senior, Letters on the Factory Act; L. Horner, On the Employment of Children in Factories.

1. An Act Against Truck [Statutes, 1 Anne 2, 18], 1701.

An act for the more effectual preventing the abuses and frauds of persons imployed in the working up the woollen, linen, fustian, cotton, and iron manufactures of this kingdom.

III. And to prevent the oppression of the labourers and workmen imployed in the woollen, linen, fustian, cotton and iron manufacture, be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all payments and satisfactions hereafter to be made to any of the same labourers and workmen, for any work by them done in the same manufacture, shall be by the lawful coin of this realm, and not by any cloth, victuals, or commodities, in lieu thereof: and all wool delivered out to be wrought up, shall be so delivered, with declaration of the true weight thereof, on pain that every offender, in either of the said cases, shall forfeit and pay to such labourer or worker, double the value of what shall be due for such work by him, her, or them done; and if any such labourer or worker shall be guilty of any such fraud or default in the work by him, her, or them done, then such labourer or worker shall allow and answer to the owner of such work double the damages thereby sustained.

[Cf. 12 Geo. I. c. 34, sec. iii.—"every clothier, sergemaker or woollen or worsted stuffmaker, or person concerned in making any woollen cloths, serges or stuffs, or any wise concerned in employing woolcombers weavers or other labourers in the woollen manufactory, shall ... pay unto all persons by them employed ... the full wages or other price agreed on in good and lawful money of this kingdom; and shall not pay the said wages ... or any part thereof, in goods or by way of truck."]

2. A Wages Assessment at Warwickshire Quarter Sessions [Ashby, The Poor Law in a Warwickshire Village (Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History, Vol. III, p. 175)], 1738.

The particular rate of wages of all manner of artificers, labourers, and servants, as well by the day with meat and drink as without, as also by the whole year in gross or by task, made and provided, having a special regard and consideration to the prices of provisions and all other circumstances necessary to be considered at this time. April, 1738.

£s.d.

Every servant in husbandry by the year5100

Second servant400

Servant boy from 14 to 18 years of age2100

Servant boy from 11 to 14100

Every head servant maid by the year300

Second maid servant2100

Labourers from Martinmas to March 25 by the day008

From March 25 to harvest and after harvest to Martinmas009

Every mower of grass by the day, with drink010

" without drink012

Every woman in haymaking, with drink005

" without drink006

Every woman in corn harvest, with drink006

" without drink007

Every carpenter by the day, March 25 to St Michael's, with drink010

" without drink012

From Michaelmas to Lady Day, with drink0010

"without drink010

Every mason by the day in summer, with drink0010

"without drink010

Every mason by the day in winter, with drink0010

"without drink010

Thatcher by day, summer and winter010

Weeders of corn by the day004

[This was still in force in 1773.]

3. Spitalfields Weavers Act [Statutes, 13 Geo. III, 68], 1773.

An Act to impower the magistrates therein mentioned to settle and regulate the wages of persons employed in the Silk Manufacture within their respective jurisdictions.

Whereas it would be for the benefit of persons employed in the Silk Manufacture, if the magistrates were impowered to settle, between the master weavers and their journeymen, the price of labour in the several branches of the said manufacture; be it therefore enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament, assembled and by the authority of the same, that from and after the first day of July, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-three, the wages and prices for work of the journeymen weavers within the city of London shall be settled, regulated, and declared, by the Lord Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen, of the said city; and in all places in the county of Middlesex, by the Justices of the Peace for the said county; and in all places within the city and liberty of Westminster, at the General Quarter Sessions of the peace holden in and for the said city and liberty; and in all places within the liberty of the Tower of London, at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace holden in and for the said liberty, at their General Quarter Sessions of the Peace respectively; and the Lord Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen of the city of London, and the said Justices of the Peace, are hereby respectively authorised and impowered, from time to time, upon application being made to them for that purpose, to settle, regulate, order, and declare the wages and prices of work of the journeymen weavers working within their respective jurisdictions as aforesaid; and shall and may, within the space of fourteen days next after the making every such order, cause the same to be printed and published, at the reasonable expense of the person or persons applying for the same, three times, in any two daily newspapers published in London or Westminster; which publication shall be deemed and allowed to be sufficient notice and publication thereof; and from and after publication thereof, all weavers, and their journeymen, are hereby strictly required to observe the same.

And be it further enacted, that if after the said first day of July, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-three, any master weaver, within either of the aforesaid districts, shall give more or less wages, or pay larger or less prices, to any of the journeymen weavers aforesaid, for their work, than shall be settled or allowed as aforesaid, and shall be convicted of the said offences before any two of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace, within either of the districts or jurisdictions aforesaid where the said offence shall be committed, on the oath or oaths of one or more credible witness or witnesses, he shall forfeit the sum of fifty pounds; to be levied by distress and sale of the offender's goods; and the said penalty, when recovered, shall be paid into the hands of the Master of the Weavers' Company, first deducting the expense of such prosecution, to be distributed by him, in conjunction with the Wardens of the said company, to any distressed journeymen weavers or their families, who shall have been last employed in either of the aforesaid jurisdictions, at their discretion.

And be it further enacted, that if any journeyman weaver or weavers within the districts aforesaid, shall ask, receive, or take more or less wages, or larger or less prices for their work than shall be settled by the respective quarter-sessions, as aforesaid; or shall enter into any combination to raise the wages or prices of the said work, or for this purpose shall decoy, solicit, or intimidate, any journeyman or journeymen weavers within the districts aforesaid, so that he or they quit their masters, for whom they shall then be employed; or shall assemble themselves in any numbers exceeding the number of ten, in order to frame or deliver petitions or other representations, touching their wages or prices of work, except to the said Justices of the Peace, or to the Lord Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen of the city of London, at their respective Quarter Sessions, and shall be convicted of any of the said offences, on the oath or oaths of one or more credible witness or witnesses, before any two or more of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace, within either of the districts or jurisdictions aforesaid where the offence shall be committed, [he or they] shall forfeit a sum not exceeding forty shillings: And if the said forfeiture be not immediately paid, it shall and may be lawful for the said Justices to commit the said offender to the House of Correction, to hard labour, for any time not exceeding three months; the said forfeiture, when recovered, to be applied in the same manner as the forfeiture of fifty pounds afore-mentioned.

And be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for any two Justices of the Peace, within the limits and jurisdictions aforesaid, on information upon oath made before them by any person or persons whatsoever, that there is reason to suspect that any master or journeyman weaver, within the districts or jurisdictions aforesaid, hath been guilty of any of the offences aforesaid, at request of such informant, to issue their summons, in writing, signed by any such two Justices, requiring any clerk, foreman, apprentice, servant, or other person or persons employed or retained by such person so suspected to have offended, or any other person or persons whatsoever, whose attendance shall appear necessary for the purpose of giving evidence in the premises, to attend and testify concerning the premises: And if any person so summoned shall not attend, and proof shall be made of the service of such summons either personally or by leaving the same at the last or usual place of abode of such person, it shall be lawful for such two Justices, or any other two Justices of the Peace acting for such county or place, and they are hereby required (unless a reasonable excuse be made for such non-attendance to the satisfaction of such justices) to issue their warrant, under their hands and seals, for the apprehending and bringing him or her before them, or some other two or more Justices of the Peace acting for such county or place, to be examined touching the premises; and if any such person so attending or being brought before such Justices, shall refuse to be examined or give their testimony touching the premises, such person shall by the said justices be committed to the House of Correction for one month, there to remain, unless he or she shall sooner submit to be examined and give testimony as the law requires.

And be it further enacted, that if any master weaver residing within the limits aforesaid, shall, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, retain or employ any journeyman weaver out of or beyond the limits aforesaid, with intent or design to elude or evade this act, or shall give, allow, or pay, or cause to be given, allowed, or paid, to such journeyman, any more or less wages than shall be settled, as aforesaid, every such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit fifty pounds; to be sued for by action of debt, in any of His Majesty's Courts of Record at Westminster, wherein no essoin, protection, or wager of law, or more than one imparlance, shall be allowed, and wherein the ordinary costs of the suit shall be paid; one moiety of which said forfeiture, when recovered, shall belong and be paid to His Majesty and His successors, and the other moiety to the person who shall sue for the same.

Provided always, and be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to fix, control, or regulate, the wages or allowances to be paid to servants in the said business of a weaver, bona fide retained and employed as foreman.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after the passing of this act, no person or persons, being silk weavers, residing within the districts aforesaid, shall have in his or their service at any one time more than two apprentices, upon pain of forfeiting for every offence the sum of twenty pounds; to be levied by distress and sale of the offender's goods and chattels, upon conviction, on the oath or oaths of one or more credible witness or witnesses, before two Justices of the Peace within either of the jurisdictions aforesaid where the said offence shall be committed, and the said penalty, when recovered, shall be paid into the hands of the Master of the Weavers' Company, to be applied by him, as aforesaid, and the said Justices are hereby authorised and required to discharge every such apprentice or apprentices exceeding the number of two.

4. A Middlesex Wages Assessment under the Spitalfields Act [Public Record Office, H.O. 86, 26], 1773.

Sir John Fielding presents his respects to the Earl of Suffolk and acquaints him that he had the pleasure yesterday of assisting at the general Quarter Sessions for the county of Middlesex to carry into execution the late Act of Parliament for the regulating of the wages of journeymen weavers in Spitalfields, etc., and the wages were then settled by a numerous and unanimous bench to the entire satisfaction of those masters and journeymen weavers who appeared there in behalf of their respective bodies, and I sincerely hope that this step will prove a radical cure for all tumultuous assemblies from that quarter so disrespectful to the King and so disagreeable to Government, as it will amply reward your Lordship's judicious attention to a matter so conducive to peace and good order, for by this statute your Lordship has conveyed contentment to the minds of thousands of his Majesty's subjects. The Act for the appointment of clergymen with proper salaries agreeable to my proposals was also carried into execution to attend the gaols, and this preventive step will, I am persuaded, be attended with very salutary effects; and as the important business of the sessions is over, I hope your Lordship will take the advantage of my Lord North's leisure to settle the affair regarding my general prevention plan which now lies before him for his Majesty's approbation.

I am, with unfeigned truth, my Lord, Your Lordship's respectful and the public's faithful Servant. Sir John Fielding, 9th July, 1773.

5. Agricultural Labourers' Proposals for a Sliding Scale of Wages [Annals of Agriculture, Vol. XXV, p. 503[350]], 1795.

At a numerous meeting of the day labourers of the little parishes of Heacham, Snettisham, and Sedgford, this day, 5th November, in the parish church of Heacham, in the county of Norfolk, in order to take into consideration the best and most peaceable mode of obtaining a redress of all the severe and peculiar hardships under which they have for many years so patiently suffered, the following resolutions were unanimously agreed to:—1st, That the labourer is worthy of his hire, and that the mode of lessening his distresses, as hath been lately the fashion, by selling him flour under the market price, and thereby rendering him an object of a parish rate, is not only an indecent insult on his lowly and humble situation (in itself sufficiently mortifying from his degrading dependence on the caprice of his employer) but a fallacious mode of relief, and every way inadequate to a radical redress of the manifold distresses of his calamitous state. 2nd, That the price of labour should, at all times, be proportioned to the price of wheat, which should invariably be regulated by the average price of that necessary article of life; and that the price of labour, as specified in the annexed plan, is not only well calculated to make the labourer happy without being injurious to the farmer, but it appears to us the only rational means of securing the permanent happiness of this valuable and useful class of men, and, if adopted in its full extent, will have an immediate and powerful effect in reducing, if it does not entirely annihilate, that disgraceful and enormous tax on the public—the Poor Rate.

Plan of the Prices of Labour Proportionate to the Price of Wheat.

per last.per day

When wheat shall be14l.the price of labour shall be1s.2d.

" " "16 " " "1s.4d.

" " "18 " " "1s.6d.

" " "20 " " "1s.8d.

" " "22 " " "1s.10d.

" " "24 " " "2s.0d.

" " "26 " " "2s.2d.

When wheat shall be28l.the price of labour shall be2s.4d.

" " "30 " " "2s.6d.

" " "32 " " "2s.8d.

" " "34 " " "2s.10d.

" " "36 " " "3s.0d.

And so on, according to this proportion.

3rd. That a petition to parliament to regulate the price of labour, conformable to the above plan, be immediately adopted; and that the day labourers throughout the county be invited to associate and co-operate in this necessary application to parliament, as a peaceable, legal, and probable mode of obtaining relief; and, in doing this, no time should be lost, as the petition must be presented before the 29th January, 1796.

4th. That one shilling shall be paid into the hands of the treasurer by every labourer, in order to defray the expenses of advertising, attending on meetings, and paying counsel to support their petition in parliament.

5th. That as soon as the sense of the day labourers of this county, or a majority of them, shall be made known to the clerk of the meeting, a general meeting shall be appointed, in some central town, in order to agree upon the best and easiest mode of getting the petition signed: when it will be requested that one labourer, properly instructed, may be deputed to represent two or three contiguous parishes, and to attend the above intended meeting with a list of all the labourers in the parishes he shall represent, and pay their respective subscriptions; and that the labourer, so deputed, shall be allowed two shillings and sixpence a day for his time, and two shillings and sixpence a day for his expenses.

6th. That Adam Moore, clerk of the meeting, be directed to have the above resolutions, with the names of the farmers and labourers who have subscribed to and approved them, advertised in one Norwich and one London paper; when it is hoped that the above plan of a petition to parliament will not only be approved and immediately adopted by the day labourer of this county, but by the labourers of every county in the kingdom.

7th. That all letters, post paid, addressed to Adam Moore, labourer, at Heacham, near Lynn, Norfolk, will be duly noticed.

6. Debates on Whitbread's Minimum Wage Bill [Parliamentary History, Vol. XXXIII, cols. 700-15], 1795-6.

Debate in the Commons on Mr. Whitbread's Bill to regulate the wages of Labourers in Husbandry. December 9. Mr. Whitbread presented to the House a bill "to explain and amend so much of the act of the 5th of Elizabeth, intituled: 'An act containing divers orders for artificers, labourers, servants of husbandry and apprentices,'" as empowers justices of the peace, at, or within six weeks after, every general quarter sessions held at Easter, to regulate the wages of labourers in husbandry. The bill was read a first time. On the motion for the second reading, Mr. Whitbread said, that he had brought forward this bill under the idea that it was possible, by adopting its regulations, to give great relief to a very numerous and useful class of the community. The act of Elizabeth empowered justices of the peace to fix the maximum of labour. This bill went only to empower them to fix the minimum. However the House might decide with respect to his bill, he trusted at least that the act of Elizabeth would be repealed.

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.

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.]

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.