HC Deb 05 March 1834 vol 21 cc1144-53
Colonel Torrens

presented three Petitions from Bolton, Lancashire, and its vicinity, praying for the Appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Distress, which existed among the Hand-loom Weavers, and to adopt the most practicable mode of Relief. The first of those petitions was signed by 10,000 persons; the second by the Magistrates, the Boroughreeve, and the Clergy: and the third by forty-five of the manufacturers themselves. The prayer of the petition suggested the forming of Local Boards; or any other mode which could afford the desired relief. He was glad to find that his hon. friend (Mr. Maxwell) had given notice of a Motion to a similar effect; he begged of his Majesty's Government to give assent to it, and permit it to pass without any opposition. No doubt great benefit accrued to society from the introduction of power-looms; but they superseded hand-weaving, and of course threw the hand-weavers into great distress. It was seldom that a general change took place for the benefit of the public, without entailing partial distress on some particular class; and it was the duty of the public to relieve those classes which suffered. Whatever mode of relief might be suggested, it was clear that something ought to be done speedily; perhaps a more efficient mode of relief might be found out than what the petitioners suggested; but something should be done to afford speedy relief to their great distress, or it would come too late. They felt, too, that they were not directly represented in that House; which aggravated their condition, and impressed them more strongly with the notion that the attention of that House should be distinctly called to their case.

Mr. Bolling

bore testimony to the privations under which the petitioners were suffering. He did not know whether a Board of Trade was applicable to their situation. One had been instituted, however, at Glasgow, and voluntarily adopted by the masters themselves. He begged to call the particular attention of the House to the propriety of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the grievances of the petitioners, with a view of remedying them.

Mr. John Maxwell

said: Sir, in answer to the question of the member for Bolton, I beg to repeat my conviction of the benefit of such regulations as would secure to the weaver the utmost remuneration for his severe toil, which the interests of the trade, the fair profit of the manufacturer, and the means of the consumer, will permit. At present under the absence of such agreements, and compacts, or rather the absence of legislative sanction, the reckless speculations of persons with more ambition to drive an extensive sale than resources or sympathy, force labourers, in a famishing condition, to give their work at prices unnecessarily low for the consumer, and utterly ruinous to the workman and his family; and not only not beneficial but absolutely injurious to sound and substantial manufacturing establishments. For these wish to give and continue to give as good prices for labour as the selling price of their stocks allow, and are driven to low prices by the competition of speculators and half-paid weavers, by whose joint selfishness and misery they are undersold. Machinery, taxation, and protecting duties, united to absenteeism on the part of the rich, immigration on the part of the Irish poor, and reduction of soldiers and sailors, all contribute to this state of excessive supply of weavers, and low price of goods; and each and all of those obstacles to the adequate remuneration of labour are extremely aggravated by the deficient circulation of money under the Bank cash payment. Were the suffering of this industrious, moral, well-informed, and very numerous class of men to be beneficial to the community, some consolation—some pretence for its continuance—might be alleged; but on the contrary, the tradesman, the farmer, the shopkeeper, and householder, all suffer from their destitution; while the wealthier classes are obliged to make up in charity donations, subscriptions, and assessments, far more than any saving in getting below their value the productions of their suffering countrymen. Besides, that the Church and schools were deserted by many of these men and their families for want of clothes—the bridewells and gaols were filled—and crime and vice were upon the increase, as the Kirkintulloch petition and the statements of that able and well-informed gentleman, Mr. Clelland of Glasgow proved. Now, Sir, even the last article to which poverty drives these men for almost their sole subsistence (oatmeal) is subject at this moment to a duty of 100 per cent. If corn, woollen, cotton, and silk be property, so is labour; and if they merit protection from competition from less taxed commodities, does not labour demand equal protection? Let us protect British industry at its source, and aid human welfare, until we can, by reducing taxes, and placing the debt more on the wealth and less on the poverty of the nation, arrive at free trade, without sacrificing the welfare of one class, and consequently the loyalty, morality, and the peace, power, and comfort of the empire.

Mr. Baines

supported the prayer of the petition. There was no description of persons in this country who laboured under greater distress than the hand-loom weavers, who had suffered the most extreme privations from the difficulty of obtaining a proper price for their labour. In so saying, he did not wish to be considered as attacking the use of machinery, which had extended itself to the great benefit of the country at large. He thought the recommendation in the petition of the establishment of local boards of trade deserved the serious consideration of the House; he thought they would do much good, for they would combine the masters and the workmen in one common object, and prevent the institution of the trades' unions, which brought the masters and workmen into collision. He therefore, supported the prayer of the petition, but without pledging himself to all its details; for with some of the inferences to be drawn from it he could not conscientiously agree.

Mr. Hardy

thought, that in a short time the Table of the House would be loaded with petitions from hand-loom weavers, if the present system of exporting the raw material to foreign countries were suffered to go on. In the year 1832, millions of pounds of wool and yarn had been exported and manufactured in foreign countries, and then these countries, as they could get the yarn, imposed a duty upon the manufactured article, so that it was impossible for the manufacturer in England to compete with them. The raw material which used to be the support of thousands of industrious persons, was sent abroad, and thus the means of employment was taken from the hand-loom weavers, either of cotton or woollen goods. If it was necessary that the artisans of the country should be supported, the House should at once interpose, and put a stop to the further exportation of the raw material.

Mr. Fleetwood

said, if any person should stand up upon the present occasion it was himself. As the hon. member for Leeds had alluded to the Trades' Unions, he would say that the hand-loom weavers had borne their distress with a better grace than almost any other class. He thought the House should at once institute an inquiry into the extent of their distresses, if it were only to show that they were worthy of the attention of Government as well as any other class, and as a reward of the patience with which they had borne their sufferings. He gave his cordial support to the prayer of the petition.

Mr. Gillon

begged earnestly to support the prayer of these petitioners, and to call for the sympathies of the House on behalf of this most respectable, most industrious, most intelligent, yet most oppressed class of his Majesty's subjects. Hon. Members were probably not aware of the immense numbers dependent on the hand-loom for their support. It appeared from the investigation before the Committee of last Session, that they amounted to not less than half a million; and he was sure that the estimate was rather under than over the truth. The hon. member for Ipswich, in seconding the address, in the statement of manufacturing and commercial prosperity which he had made to the House, and which he believed existed only in the brain of the hon. Member himself, had alluded, among others, to the hand-loom weavers; he had stated, that they were now in a comparatively flourishing condition; that there had been a rise of twelve per cent on their wages; and that they could find employment for their children in other branches of productive industry. He did not credit the statement when it was made, but he had since taken care to inform himself more minutely on the subject, and he found that the hon. member for Ipswich had been most grossly misinformed. It was true that a rise of from ten to twelve per cent had taken place on the prices of the finer fabrics since the worst times of last year; but he begged the House to attend to the amount of this rise. It had been proved that the hand-loom weavers of the finer descriptions could earn only about 5s. 6d. per week. A rise of twelve per cent on this would bring up their wages to not more than 6s.; but in the coarser fabrics, it had also been proved that the weavers, working from fourteen to sixteen hours a day, could not earn more in clear wages than 4s. 5d. per week. A rise of twelve per cent on this would not bring their wages up to 5s., out of which they were to provide lodging, cloathing, food, and education for their families. But the fact was, these weavers of the coarser fabrics had not experienced a rise of more than from five to six per cent. He begged to ask what was the object of all Government?—For what each member of society resigned a portion of his individual liberty? Was it not to obtain security for his life, and protection to his property? This was all the hand-loom weavers demanded. They prayed to be protected against the unprincipled speculations of those who, embarking in the trade without capital, were only enabled to maintain themselves in it by the ruin of the more respectable manufacturers, and the starvation of the industrious operatives. In this prayer they were joined by-the respectable manufacturers themselves. This was the meaning of the boards of trade for which they prayed. He was much pleased with the petitions presented by the hon. member for Bolton, emanating as they did from the master manufacturers, and from the clergy and Magistrates as well as from the operatives themselves. He trusted that in this appeal to the House they would not be met by the cold-blooded speculations of political economists. They complained of a practical grievance, and they demanded a practical remedy. If that House did not step forward to protect them—if their country treated them as a severe step-mother instead of as a kind and fostering parent—the social bond was at an end; and where no protection was afforded, allegiance could not be expected. The hon. Member concluded by tendering his most strenuous support to these petitioners.

Mr. Mark Philips

considered, that the tendency of the discussion which had taken place only showed that hon. Members were at variance as to the different nostrums that were calculated to remove the difficulties under which the petitioners laboured. Although he felt as deeply interested for the interests of the petitioners as for those of the manufacturer, he should consider himself as guilty of avowing a dishonest opinion if he held out any hope to them of relief by the establishment of boards of trade. If he was convinced that the adoption of such a course would benefit the petitioners, he would give the petition his most hearty support. Should, however, a Committee be appointed on the subject, and he had the honour of taking part in that Committee, no one would enter more zealously into the service than himself. He, however, was of opinion that no beneficial results could arise, and he would therefore not foster hopes and expectations that could not be realised.

Sir Francis Burdett

considered it necessary, in consequence of the course taken upon the presenting of the petition, to draw the attention of the House to the adoption of some regulation for the government of its own proceedings. If discussions like the present were to take place upon the presentation of every petition, it would be impossible that the business of the country could be carried on. Numbers of hon. Members were waiting to present petitions, and if no limit were given to discussions upon questions, perhaps that would never be brought before the House—if abstract principles of trade were to be talked of for hours together, it would be impossible that half the Members of that House could present their petitions. He was sure, that every Member would agree with him, that the removal of the distress of the country equally animated the breast of every Member in that House, but unless some different practice was adopted, it was impossible that all the distresses of the country could be made known. What, therefore, he should propose was, that the old practice relative to presenting petitions should be renewed; that hon. Members in presenting petitions, should simply state their object, the general opinion which they entertained with respect to them, and conclude by praying that they might be laid upon the Table. Too much valuable time was consumed in the presentation of petitions and premature discussions. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would adhere to the former system of presenting petitions without enlarging on their contents before the due time.

Mr. Henry Bulwer

differed in opinion from the hon. Baronet, and deprecated all such remarks. It was of importance, that his Majesty's Government, and the country at large, should be put in possession of the feelings of the people, and be made to know the particular wants of particular classes; surely that could not be effected by any means except by presenting petitions and describing their contents. The subject before the House was a very important one; he differed from a great authority upon a main point of it. He differed from the hon. Gentleman on the left, who considered the establishment of Boards of Trade impracticable. There were many instances to prove the good effects of Boards of Trade. Let them look at France, and the continent in general, and they would find what had been effected by their institution. The corporations of France were, in a great measure, destroyed at the period of the Revolution. The consequence was,' that perpetual hostilities occurred between different classes; and those hostilities were found to cease in proportion as the old institutions were re-established. He agreed with the general prayer of the petition, and must urge the adoption of some mode of redress for the petitioners.

Lord Lumley

considered, that certainly the time of that House might be occupied unfairly by some hon. Members presenting too many petitions from their own constituents, to the exclusion of others; but he would say, that no petition deserved the attention and time of the House more than the present, which had been submitted to it.

Mr. Fielden

remarked, that two hours and a-half had been spent yesterday upon a subject not more important than the one now under consideration. A numerous class was suffering the greatest distress, which arose as much from bad remuneration, as from scarcity of work. There were a great many points to be considered on that subject, for remedies should be sought for one cause of the distress, as well as for another. It was not the fault of those persons who were suffering, nor yet was the distress to be attributed to power looms. The hon. Member read a statement, for the purpose of showing the great and gradual depression in the price of labour of the hand-loom weavers from 1795 to 1833, in the latter of which years the price was 5s. 6d. per piece—only one piece being within a man's power to make in a week. Out of that 5s. 6d., he had also to submit to a reduction of 1s. 4½d. before he could provide himself or family with coals. Then 4s. 1½d. was all the poor man got: and, in Bolton, there were not less than 23,500 men earning so much and no more. According to a statement which had been made upon inquiry, it was ascertained, that, in Bolton and its neighbourhood, there were not less than 70,000 hand-loom weavers; and although mills had been erected to a great extent, the persons were in full work, but they only received 4s. 1½d. a-week each. He would read to the House an extract from a Report as to these poor men—[No, no.] He must make his statement to the House; and he would make it, unless he was put down, in order to show what these poor men were suffering. One man, who was engaged in making muslins—which were an article consumed by the rich—was asked what he had for breakfast, and he said, two quarts of butter-milk, which he got for 3d. The man was then asked, what he had for dinner, and he said, two quarts of buttermilk: and, if he could procure them, he added potatoes, when they were cheap. When asked what he had the remainder of the day, he answered, sometimes nothing, and sometimes two quarts of buttermilk again—at times, one pound of oatmeal. The House had heard much of the Irish having been reduced to buttermilk and oatmeal; but he could state for a fact, that there were hundreds of thousands in England, who were equally badly off. He concluded by hoping, that the House would listen to the prayer of the petitioners, and grant the Committee of Inquiry.

Mr. Methuen

, said the hon. member for Oldham had needlessly wasted the time of the House, in going into details which were only applicable for a Committee of Inquiry. As he was on his legs, he would take the liberty of making a suggestion, which he trusted would be adopted by the House. If hon. Gentlemen who had petitions to present on the same subject, would present them in a lump, and not one by one, as they did now, it would save much valuable time, and this could be easily ascertained by hon. Members consulting with each other. If some plan were not adopted, it would be quite impossible for hon. Members to lay all the grievances of the country before the House.

The Speaker

said, it was impossible for the human mind to suggest any distinct or positive plan for such a purpose. It must be left to the discretion of each individual Member. The subject-matter of petitions was of so very varied a nature—some were of so slight, and some of so serious a character—some were so intricate, and others so clear, that it must be quite obvious, as they varied in their nature, the option of dwelling upon them at greater length, or not, would occur to different persons. As he had said before, that must be left to the discretion of hon. Members, who could have no object in wasting the time of the House. Anything not referable to the subject of the petition, was a waste of the time of the House. He believed, if persons presenting petitions, confined themselves to the subject matter of such petitions, less time would be employed.

Mr. Ruthven

would confine himself strictly to the petition before the House. It was the petition of persons who had not found so many advocates in that House, as either the commercial or landed interests, and who had not so many friends as the Church Establishment or the tithes. These persons were destitute—they were reduced below what many persons could form an idea of. No person knew their condition better than the hon. member for Oldham, and the country ought to feel grateful to him for laying their case before that House. It was difficult to say what should be done for them—their wages were reduced so low, that they were unable to subsist. This had been caused by the vast increase of the productive manufacturers, which, although it had made fortunes for many, had reduced thousands to misery and poverty. Much of this might be ascribed to the introduction of steam machinery. They could not hope for peace, comfort, or tranquillity, unless the distresses of these persons were relieved; and he trusted, that the hon. Member who had presented the petition, would move for a Committee of Inquiry on the subject.

Mr. Duncombe

said, that the best plan would be, to move for a Committee of Inquiry, where evidence on both sides could be taken. He must say, that the length to which these discussions ran, far exceeded the bounds of moderation; and it was impossible, that the business of the country could go on while the time of the House was occupied in discussing the merits of petitions. There were many other subjects which required the attention of that House, and 13 or 14 hon. Members were waiting with petitions to present upon various subjects, which it was impossible they could present, if the present plan were persevered in. He hoped hon. Gentlemen, in future, would abstain from consuming so much time in these discussions.

Mr. Cobbett

did not see, that the House deserved the lecture which the hon. Gentleman had read to them. He was told, that the petition embraced 70,000 persons; and he was told by his hon. Colleague, that there were 600,000 persons in the same state of distress, and, therefore, if that were not a subject worthy of their attention, he knew not what was. He considered, that their constituents would be better contented with their conduct in discussing that petition, than if they had passed it over without comment. He, at least, must say, that he most cordially supported its prayer.

Petition laid on the Table.

Back to