§ Earl Stanhopepresented a petition from the calico and stuff block printers of Lancashire, Cheshire, and Derbyshire, complaining of distress, and attributing their sufferings to the unrestricted use of ma chinery. He begged especially to direct the attention of their Lordships to that petition.
Lord Broughamdeeply deplored, as must every one, the sufferings of the petitioners, but he Was surprised that his noble Friend, with his accomplished understanding, should suppose that these sufferings were occasioned by the use of machinery. It was entirely a delusion to suppose that that was the cause. The 1076 noble Earl had better bring the question distinctly forward, instead of dealing in insinuations which only fostered the delusion, when he would assuredly be satisfied of his error.
§ Earl Stanhopesaid, he knew if he did so he should be prostrated, not by arguments, but by numbers. It was very well for those, again, who supported the New Poor-law to challenge so boldly its opponents to bring forward a motion for its repeal, and be defeated; but so long as grievances so heavy continued, discontent, if not disturbance, would remain. It might be, that those poor people who were out of employ entertained some erroneous opinion; but of this, they could hardly be ignorant—that they were suffering from penury and destitution. The appalling fact that I-10th of the population were in a state of pauperism, there was no answering; and although the noble and learned Lord (whom it was equally agreeable to hear, whether in mood pathetic or pleasant) might easily deal with the subject in a semi-facetious manner, and talk of "delusion," the distress was not less dreadful, and the mode of tracing it to a cause so palpable as the diminution of the means of employment far too obvious. The noble and learned Lord should bear in mind, that it Was not such instruments as saws, or any tools worked by manual labour, of which the complaint was made, but machinery worked by steam.
§ Lord Ashburtonsaid, inquiries like that suggested by the noble Earl had repeatedly taken place—[Earl Stanhope. —" I am aware of the handloom weavers."] — and it was to be hoped that the result had been to dissipate the delusion that the ultimate effect of machinery was other than beneficial to a country. Assuredly, if machinery were to be put a stop to— [Earl Stanhope; I did not propose that.] or not allowed to be developed to the utmost possible extent, the only consequence would be infinite injury to the nation. Still, it was not less true that the immediate effect of machinery was to displace labour, and, by depriving multitudes of the means of employment, to increase the distress of the poorer classes. Not that this could be to any considerable extent the cause of existing distress, seeing that machinery had been gradually extending its influence and operation during half a century, though more espe- 1077 cially so in the last twenty or thirty years. It was It to be doubted, that when the cotton trade—for instance the spinning-wheel which used to be plying at every cottage door was removed, and the whole of our cotton manufactured by some half-dozen large houses—it was not to be doubted that the great diminution of manual labour must follow. This could not of course, be altered (as it was impossible to recur to the former state of things), but must be left, as would ultimately be the case, to correct itself. Meanwhile there could be no question that, the operation of machinery being thus to concentrate manufactures into large monopolies, the condition of the people, so materially affected thereby, was well worthy of the deepest consideration more particularly so as the result was to substitute, even in the manual labour retained, that of women and children instead of adults.
Lord Broughamwas perfectly aware that the immediate effect of machinery was to diminish employment; but its ultimate result (of which alone he spoke) was ever to increase it as had been strikingly exemplified in the cotton manufacture, and even as to its immediate effect, it was rather to transfer than to destroy the means of employment, seeing that the economy of capital it produced encouraged the investment of money in other undertakings: and, Unless it could be shown (which was impossible) that capital could in any way be employed without, directly or indirectly, employing labour, this must be beneficial to the working classes, independently of other and weightier considerations.