Mr. Rosepresented a Petition from certain artisans and manufacturers (including employers and journeymen) resident in the county of Angus. The right hon. gentleman stated, that he last year presented a petition from this county different in its object from that which he had now the honour to submit; for the Petition which he held in his hand, and which was signed by between 6 and 7,000 persons, prayed only that the House would make such alterations in the Act of the 5th of Elizabeth, as to its wisdom might seem meet. With respect to the measure before the House upon this subject, he should express no decided opinion at present, but reserve himself for the debate. The clauses in the statute of Elizabeth, prohibiting men from following certain trades unless they had previously served an apprenticeship, were, no doubt, in many cases, subject to very serious objections. The courts of law, indeed were not willing to countenance prosecutions under them. It had, in fact, become exceedingly unpopular; but yet he felt and must suggest for the consideration of the learned proposer of the measure alluded to (Mr. Serjeant Onslow), that the total repeal of these provisions would be productive of as much inconvenience as its total enforcement. For instance, 218 according to these provisions, none were permitted to practise as apothecaries or attornies without serving a regular apprenticeship, and so having the opportunity of acquiring adequate professional skill; but if these provisions were repealed, low, ignorant and uninformed people might undertake these professions, and thus the repeal might become materially injurious to the public. Again, in many places the service of an apprenticeship conferred the right of voting—such, for instance, was the case in the city of London; and in some boroughs the right of voting belonged exclusively to those who had served apprenticeships within such borough; so that the proposed repeal of the learned member was liable to many objections.
§ The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.