Sitting of 16 July 1823

SILK MANUFACTURE BILL.
Lord Bexley Lord Bexley moved the order of the day for the third reading of this bill. The measure, he said, was one which had undergone the fullest consideration in the committee, and certainly no body of individuals were entitled to greater attention for their uniform good conduct, orderly behaviour, and loyalty, than the petitioners against the bill. Not only, however, was the opinion of the committee in favour of the repeal of the existing acts; but that had also been the opinion of the committees on foreign trade in 1820. No good reason could possibly be assigned, why the silk manufacture in London should be under restraints to which no other trade in the kingdom was liable. The consequence of those restraints was, that while the silk manufacture was rapidly advancing in all parts of the country, in London it at best stood still. The grounds
1530
on which the committee recommended the adoption of the measure were, first, there being no limit to the time of suing for penalties or offences committed against the existing law; secondly, the hardship on the master manufacturers resident in Spitalfields, &c. of not being permitted to employ any part of their capital, except in London and Middlesex, within ten miles of the Royal Exchange; thirdly, the inconveniences resulting from the amount of wages being subject to the control of the magistrates. On this latter point, the evidence even of the opponents of the bill was decisive. It had been urged by those opponents that during the continuance of the existing law, namely, for fifty years, the weavers had been in a state of order and quiet; but that considerable disturbances existed before that period; on which account the law had been proposed and agreed to. The facts did not bear out that allegation. For, four years be fore passing the Spitalfields act, peace and tranquillity, which prior to that time had certainly been disturbed, were completely restored. The committee had in vain recommended to the petitioners against the bill to agree to some compromise; but they would not agree to any relaxation of what they called their charter. The bill, therefore, now came before their lordships in its entire form, and they must pronounce either for abolishing all the existing and injurious restrictions and regulations, or for letting them all stand. The noble lord here entered into various details to shew the inconvenience and evil of the existing law, and to prove that the weavers themselves suffered from the necessity under which the law occasionally placed the masters, in times of limited demand, to diminish the quantity of work. He had no doubt that if the present laws were repealed, and if the duty on the importation of the raw material were considerably diminished (which might, perhaps, be accomplished without injury to the revenue, by in creasing the duty on the importation Of foreign silks), the silk manufacture would become one of the staple manufactures of the country.
The Earl of Harrowbywas of opinion that the bill ought not to pass. In the first place, he considered that the residence of a large manufacturing body in themes tropolis was prima facie a great evil; which could be counteracted only by regulations that might nevertheless not be in themselves conformable to general principles.

1531
Every body knew that, before the passing of the existing laws, nothing more frequently endangered the peace of the metropolis, than the disputes between the master and the journeymen silk weavers respecting wages. During the fifty years which had elapsed since die passing of those laws, no disturbance whatever had occurred. Not only had this body of men, larger, he believed, than belonged to any other separate trade, abstained from disturbing the public peace, but they had shown by their good conduct in other respects, an admirable example to the general community; resisting, under every circumstance of pressure, the attempts of political agitators, which had been but too successful elsewhere. Adverting to what his noble friend had said of the present practice in times of light demand of reducing the amount of work, as the master was precluded by law from reducing the wages, he (lord H.) contended, that that was much better than the practice which, in the event of the repeal, would obtain of working up twice the quantity of the raw material, under the circumstances which he had described; the effect of which would so inundate the market, as to obstruct the return of a large demand. It was contended, that the silk manufacture had greatly increased in the country, and that if the Spitalfields acts were repealed it would very much increase in the metropolis. He was far from thinking that that would be an advantage. If the effect of the existing law were gradually to diminish the trade in London he should consider it advantageous. He could by no means agree with his noble friend, that because all compromise was refused by one of the parties concerned, their lordships, were bound either to reject the bill, or to pass it in its entire state. It was for their lordships, if they thought such a compromise desirable, to force the parties to accept it. In the immense progress which had been made of late years in this country in the use of machinery, while there was much to admire, still, as in ail human affairs, there was a drawback. The best description of manufacture was that which was domestic. In places from which domestic machinery had been banished, the mischievous effects had been strikingly manifest. If the present bill should pass, thousands of weavers who now lived with their families would be taken away from them, and stowed into enormous buildings, where they would be exposed to every evil, and where their excellent
1532
moral habits would be destroyed, while half a dozen great manufacturers would amass large fortunes. On all these considerations he would move, that the bill be read a third time that day three months; intending, should he fail in that object, to move an amendment, for the purpose of limiting the operation of the proposed repeal.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he was as willing as any one to applaud the conduct of the petitioners against the bill. No body of men could exhibit more patience and loyalty than they had done in the most critical times; but, feeling as he did, that, on the present occasion, they laboured under the greatest mistake, he should not be prevented from legislating according to the best of his judgment. The measure under consideration came recommended by the committee on foreign trade, three years ago, and he would ask their lordships to consider what it was that formed the power and strength of this country; what it was that had enabled us to conduct so many ways, and especially the last, as we had done? What but the extent and prosperity of our manufactures. Even the agricultural interests themselves were supported by it. Nor was he ready to admit, that the manufacturing districts were more disloyal than others. Birmingham was an instance to the contrary; and Manchester, notwithstanding recent events, was as loyal, peaceable and well-disposed as any part of the kingdom. The laws which the bill went to repeal were injurious, and contrary to the liberal spirit under which our manufactures had succeeded; and it was a proof of the mischief arising from, those enactments, that a rival manufactory had been set up at Streatham, in Surrey, because the enactments did not extend to that quarter. Whether the bill was or was not against the wishes of the operative manufacturers, it was for their interests that it should pass; and under this impression he would vote for the third reading.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that whatever the policy of the 13th of Geo. 2nd might be, it had continued in operation for nineteen years, and had been confirmed and reiterated in other acts of parliament, for nearly half a century. The question was, whether acts which had been so long in force should now be repealed at once? He did not mean to say that there ought to be no change, but contended that it should be gradual.
The Earl of Rosslynapproved of that part of the bill which went to repeal the restrictions on capital, and to allow the master manufacturers to employ any part of it other places. He thought the bill might be so amended on the third reading as to retain this provision, omitting those which were questionable.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.