HC Deb 29 June 1820 vol 2 cc116-23
Mr. Maxwell,

in rising to move for a select committee to inquire imto the nature of the distress by which the Cotton Weavers were affected, and to consider whether there was any practicable mode by which assistance could be extended to them, felt it necessary to make a few observations explanatory of his reasons for bringing forward a partial motion. When the whole community were suffering, and the manufacturing districts were plunged in such a state of misery as was now presented—when individuals were unable to procure employment, and found it wholly impossible to maintain themselves—he felt that he should have grossly neglected his duty, if he had not before the close of the session called the serious attention of government to the distress that prevailed. If they could not do away that distress altogether, they might, perhaps, devise some means by which it might be alleviated. The table had been covered with statements, both from the workpeople themselves, and from the magistrates, detailing to that House and to the government, the extent of the misery that prevailed. They admitted that great irritation existed; but they traced that irritation to the severe privations to which the lower classes of the community had unfortunately been too long exposed. He was astonished that ministers, who had extended relief to particular individuals, and even to the throne itself, should have overlooked these frequent calls. The distress which they had endeavoured to avert could not for a moment be placed in competition with that which he had described. When a motion for a committee to consider the state of the manufacturing population was submitted to the House it was refused; and yet he conceived it might as well have been acceded to since, if measures were not devised for the relief of that population, it would at least have shown that parliament were ready to listen to their complaints. They were told by ministers that no reform was required—that they anxiously considered by what means they could diminish the pressure of distress, which weighed down the working classes; but, in his opinion, the greatest proof that could be adduced in favour of reform was the constant refusal of inquiry. When 25 per cent had been added to the taxes, in order to meet the interest of the national debt—that offspring of the most wanton and lavish expenditure that any country had ever witnessed—ought they not to inquire whether some means might not be discovered by which an addition might be made to that industry on which those grievous burdens were imposed? While the master manufacturers, and other classes of society, were rioting in every species of luxury, the poor operative labourer was placed in a situation degrading to the character of the country. The House ought to listen to their complaints, and prove the fallacy of those arguments which were founded on the general feeling that parliament paid no attention to the people. Let them look to the cotton trade. They pursued it in vain. It was receding from them, like an ignis fatuus. It was growing less and less every hour. Many individuals in that house treated circumstances of this kind with the utmost coolness. They said it was no use to interfere. Things must find their level. That was as much as to declare, that if no means at present appeared by which the people could live in comfort, therefore none should be sought for, and all should be left to chance. Notwithstanding that feeling, it might perhaps be shown to a committee, that means did exist by which the industry of the working classes could be rendered efficient, not only to support themselves, but to augment the revenue of the country, or to produce even a better effect—the diminution of taxation, by spreading it over a larger surface. for that reason it was that he wished to obtain a select committee. There was at present a portion of machinery which wholly escaped those burdens that were imposed on machinery of a different kind—that kind of machinery, one-half of which consisted of animal life. There was a machine called "a power-loom," which machine, even now, as well as during the war, was met in competition by the simple loom of the individual weaver; but with this great advantage-that all the goods which the power-loom produced were exempt from the drawback necessarily created by the consumption of those articles on which the weaver was compelled to exist, and on which he paid a heavy rate of taxation. As it was rather an abstract question how far the two species of machinery should be placed on a level, he wished to have a committee to investigate it; and to consider whether the capital of the poor man, which consisted in the labour of his two hands, must bear the burden of taxation, since those articles, without which he could not exist, were taxed; while the large capital of the wealthy manufacturer, which he invested in a machine, was suffered to escape any contribution to the revenue. He did not wish to do away machinery, from which incalculable benefits had been derived; but he wished to see whether the advantages which had been produced by it did not arise in a great degree from its being exempted from the consumption of articles which the poor weaver was obliged to use, and on which heavy taxes were laid. It was a matter of serious consideration whether capital, shut up in machinery, should be useless to the revenue—when, if it were not so shut up, it would, according to the laws of nature, be expended in animal labour. There was another point well worthy of consideration—he meant the laws relating to combination amongst the working classes. The wealthy part of the trading community possessed the means of combining, to an immeasureable extent, for the purpose of depressing the wages of the labourer, while the operative manufacturer was liable to punishment if he attempted to raise them. There should certainly be no distinction of that kind between the wealthy and the indigent. Another point to be considered was whether some means ought not to be taken, by way of experiment, to try the practicability of removing some few of the working classes from avocations by the pursuit of which they could not obtain subsistence, and placing them in other situations where their industry might be useful and productive. When, however, individuals brought forward plans of this nature, they were generally refused a committee to investigate them. They were laughed at, and treated as people of feeling hearts, but of feeble understanding. This, he thought, was a very poor recompence for those who devoted their time to such praiseworthy objects. Sir John Sinclair, Rowcroft, Owen, and Wills, were not perhaps the first names amongst the aristocracy of the country; but they had considered how the situation of the people could be ameliorated, and were therefore entitled to respect. They wished to rescue the people from that situation which was likely to make them bad subjects, and to sink them below the level of human nature. The endeavour that had been so long persisted in to undersell other markets had no other effect but to overwhelm every class of the community by a weight of poor's-rates. Of the different plans which he had seen—and he had probably seen and examined more than the right hon. gentleman, because his feelings bad been more excited on the subject—he thought the application of public money for providing lands to those who could obtain no employment at their looms one of the best. If exchequer-bills were so applied, instead of expending public money on canals, along which there was no commerce to pass, or on harbours frequented by no ships, the benefit would be greater and more obvious. Ample security could be given to government by mortgage on the lands. The labourers thus employed would pay 10 or 12 per cent; and they would improve the revenue by the consumption of exciseable articles; they would at the same time relieve other labourers at the looms, by increasing their employment, and raising them from their present miserable and degraded level. He should reserve his opinions on other points—opinions which were there-suit of much attention and time for the committee, who could more deliberately consider the subject. He should now simply implore the House to consider bow far their conduct had been calculated to allay the unhappy spirit which was lamented in the speech from the throne. It appeared to him doubtful, whether it was economical or wise to rear barracks, raise additional troops, fill up battalions, call forth volunteers and yeomanry corps at an enormous expense, as a means of allaying the spirit caused by distress. Not less than 400,000l. had been expended in this manner last year, as a reply to the cry of hunger and distress. He was not finding fault with this expenditure, for ministers were responsible for the security of the state, but it would have been far more agreeable to him if this sum had been applied to the relief of the distressed—if that House and his majesty's government had manifested a deep feeling for the distresses of the poor. Subscriptions had been raised for Germans and Portuguese; relief had been given to French refugees and American loyalists; money had been lavished to embellish Henry the Seventh's chapel, which had better be left in the rust of antiquity than be covered with modern garnish; money had been even voted for improving the city of Dublin. Those expenses struck him, not as improper, but as injudicious. He submitted to the right hon. gentleman opposite, if his ingenuity in finding new subjects of taxation was not exhausted, whether it was not possible to tax foreign cooks, French lacqueys, and Swiss porters, for it appeared from the Alien-bill that they were very numerous in this country. Another gross anomaly was, that a great number who possessed much property in this country, lived out of the country and thus injured the industry and revenue of the country. Others who had not much property lived in other countries, and drew pensions from this country, as half-pay officers. Their income would not support them so well in this country, and it might be impolitic to prevent them from leaving it; but relief to severe distress ought to be sought by risking even an impolitic measure. His object in making these observations was to submit to the attention of parliament sentiments which were circulated, canvassed, and felt elsewhere, especially in that part of the country from which he came. If he should not succeed in obtaining a committee, he should at least have given ministers an opportunity of explaining conduct which appeared unintelligible. He respected ministers, and some of them he had the honour of calling his friends; but while he had a seat in that House he should tell them freely what he thought of their conduct. Was it consistent with I the harmony of the universe that one class of men should want the necessaries of life, while another abounded in every luxury and superfluity? If the right hon. gentleman believed in the existence of a Supreme Being wise, powerful, and benevolent—if he had any feeling of humanity —if he possessed any part of the spirit of that religion which we all professed, he would ask whether it was consistent with his ideas of the grand attributes of the Supreme Being that his moral government of the world should suffer one man to sink below the state for which all men had been intended, and another to rise higher almost than to be susceptible of human feeling or rational enjoyment? There was no man but must feel a lively anxiety to know how long the institutions of this country were to remain; it was not to be disguised, that the people in all parts of Europe looked towards America and her institutions with sympathy, whilst they felt nothing but disgust at the expenses of their own governments. He did not say that those expenses had not become necessary, but. it was surely alarming to see taxation arrive at such an extent as to endanger the existence of our institutions both in church and state. If it should be thought that these were strong observations, he answered that he made them in order to show what feelings he entertained in common with multitudes of others throughout the country. He was in a very different situation of life from many who entertained those views and his opinions might therefore be thought of less importance; but he implored his majesty's ministers to consider what effect such sentiments must have upon those who were in the very extremity of distress, and to whom it was little matter whether they were to live or die. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the means of relieving the Cotton Weavers, which may be attempted without injury to the community."

Mr. Robinson

observed, that it was tolerably well known he was no advocate for parliamentary reform and he was the less so, because he was unwilling to convert the House into a college of disputants. But his hon. friend seemed disposed, from the variety of subjects to which he had adverted, to render the committee he proposed quite an arena for disputation, and the very first point which he would have this committee discuss was an abstract idea. That a committee might be useful and essential in collecting and arranging facts and information he was ready to admit, but this was, he believed, the first time it was proposed to refer to a committee the discussion of an abstract idea. The hon. member's professed object was, to benefit the cotton manufacturers, but how that was to be done by such taxes as he pro- posed upon foreign servants and absentees, he was at a loss to imagine-With respect to the absentees, many, he believed the great majority of them, were obliged to resort to other countries for cheap living, in consequence of the depression of their circumstances; and would the hon. member seriously press for an aggravation of those circumstances by the imposition of an additional tax? Would parliament consent to such injustice, or, he would say to such inhumanity and impolicy? The hon, member deprecated luxury, for which he (Mr. R.) was certainly no advocate, as a moral good; but he apprehended it might easily be shown in various ways, such as the number of servants, or the general amount of expense among the rich, that the abandonment of luxury would tend rather to aggravate than to relieve the distress of the labouring classes. In what the hon. member had advanced on the means of relieving the distress of the manufacturer, he professed to echo the language of his constituents, and this furnished an additional argument against the proposed committee, the appointment of which would only serve to propagate delusion, without leading to any practical good, or even to any temporary palliative for the evils complained of. At all events, from the variety of matter which the hon. member proposed to submit to the committee, in conjunction with his abstract ideas, he could hardly suppose it would be thought possible, at this period of the session, to make any progress in such a complicated investigation. On those grounds, then, he felt it his duty to move the previous question.

Mr. Ricardo

said, that he conceived the duty of government to be, to give the greatest possible development to industry. This they could do only by removing the obstacles which had been created. He complained therefore of government on very different grounds from the hon. mover, for his complaint was against the restrictions on trade, and other obstacles of that description, which opposed the development of industry. The recommendations of the hon. mover were inconsistent with the contrast between one class and another. If government interfered, they would do mischief and no good. They had already interfered, and done mischief by the poorlaws. The principles of the hon. mover would likewise violate the sacredness of. property, which constituted the great security of society.

Mr. Lockhart

opposed the motion, conceiving that its adoption would only serve to hold out false hopes, which might probably induce the agriculturists and other classes of the people whose distress was quite equal to that of those for whom the hon. mover was an advocate, to make similar applications to that House. He particularly deprecated the hon. member's proposition to tax absentees, for such a tax would most probably urge those to take away their capitals from this country who at present only spent their incomes in (other nations, and the capital once taken away was by no means likely to return. He disagreed with the plans of spade-husbandry, and others, which had been proposed, because they all appeared on a nearer view to be futile. The House at any rate could not grant a committee until some of those plans should be found effectual, by the experience of people out of doors. Besides, if the House granted a committee to the cotton weavers, the agricultural labourers, and almost all others, would have an equally good claim to consideration, and would scarcely fail to urge it. Time alone and patience, which he doubted not the people would show, could cure the difficulties under which they laboured.

Mr. Maxwell,

after a short reply, consented to withdraw his motion until the next session. The motion was accordingly withdrawn.

Back to