The National Register. — London, England, 1814-05-22 00:00:00

MAY N• less h% the numbers of unqu.slified persons (as thb phrase is) who are suffered to work at his hUsiness. tlis feelings must be h crowed in the cruelest manner if after lowg seeking for employment, be at last finds himself riepriited of the means of getting his bread, by one who has not been regularly brought up to the trade, having been engaged Wore him. A person thus circumstanced Most be expected to compiain in bitterness of heart of the hardship of his case. It cannot be denied that the complaints of those who Wish the Statute of Elizabeth to be enforced are not idle. Undoubtedly many of the cases which they have it in their power to bring for:. ward are eases of unmerited suffering. Dux in framing laws to govern and regulate the great mass of society, it frequently happens that those on whom the du ties of legislation devolve, are placed in that situation in which they are bound to avert their eyes from pat ticulat scenes of distress, in order to do justice to the community at large. They must, in succession, impartially look to all the varieties of woe that may call for their attention. Doing this, they will see the fifth of Elizabeth is likely to mist more affliction than can possibly be anticipated from its repeal. A tnan born to fortune is by some calamity deprived of his all. He has talents which would enable hitn to maintain himself as a mechanic, but is prohibited from the exercise of them. Js he then to turn thief or pauper, because he has not served a seven years apprenticeship ? For such a reason ought his family to be deprived of their support, and made a borate') to the public ? But it is not only those who have not served an apprenticeshii\ who are placed in this situation. Those who, thinking themselves secure from their seven yearsservi tude, are most anxious to have this Act enforced, may one day, from its operation, find themselves deprived of bread. Businesses which no one expected could fail have passed away. Others may do the same, and those who now petition against the repeal of the Statute complained of may, In their turn, be reduced to starvation if their present efforts should unfortunately be successful. Ought the 40,060 gnn-smiths who will soon be out of work through the return of peace. to be prohibited from turning their industry into another channel ? Are these persons to starve because they have not served sett eh years to some other ttade ? it is }highly proba ble that but one year ago the individuals we speak of, were as eager as any other class of mechanics to enforce and ex tend the provisions of the fifth of Elizabeth. Ano!her rear may possibly see sortie of' the present admirers of the 1.:.w in their situation. How then would their misery be at . t o rravated by a retrospecti';e glance at their late conduct ? There arse many men who have been taught their trades by their fathers or near relations, who never thought it of im portance to bind them. Ate these persons to be forbidden, to exercise their talents and industry, and doomed to misery and want, because their. uniform good conduct made all bondage unnecessary ? The alarm that is one abroad is ridieOlenrs in the extreme. The Petitions sent in against the repeal of the Act are really entitled to little attention. •We do not mean to say ,the %Kell being . of the persons signing them Otight not to be an object of great consideration with the LegYsia ture, but weeonthnd, the apprehensions in which the Peti tions originated ate groundless. They tell the LegislatUre that the flourishing state of our manufactories was owing to the Fifth of Elizabeth, and they believe it. They have been . told so, and it appears ,to them not improbable. But they forget that, 41.l.lately, the Statute had lain dormant for many years. Let them take this into consideration, and they must see their terrors are groundless. They are not better off if:).v than they were before this law was brought to bear on the unfortunate objects who have been persecuted under it. This ought to suggest to them ) that it is notimpossible the progress .:• •••• •-s • 4.4;e VIE NATIONAL R,EGISTER. :3 5 1 of hur trade ought less to he ascribed to the Filth of Eliza ante of that Act haiing liven sor b:Alt, than to the circumst fered to become a dyad letter on th e st atute -h oo k . The man who has served seven yews to a trade, ought tr have. some advantages. And he has them; and t:tinot bd defrauded of them by any Act of Parliament. Sup'esior skill and dexterity in his busweis must mttwatly result frtin t I is servittule. There may be instances whe , re persons who h n " : not been regularly brottght up to a business, equal and 6% eis surpass liaise who have set ved their time to it. But the 5e cases mhst, iii the nature of things, he comparativrl feW; and where they occur, they °tight to be exceptions to thc t•!!- neral law . . It it in the nineteenth century that the Parliament ate called upon to hind talent in chains-4-4o pio vide against the exertions of ttenius ? Ilad such an a : liberal principle been heretofore acted upon, the name: of Han isoti, Ark ii right, and [hunter, had been unknown; acid the wh o l e civilized world denied the benefit of the labours of the rue itotious individuals who bore them. CORN LAWS. In the Debates on the Corn Laws, there has been more flat positive contradiction than we ale accustomed to meet with on domestic subjects. On the one hand. it is contended, tir2i to encourage the importation of grain, is to oppose the pro gtess of British agriculture, and to make us dependant on foreign countries for a supply of that necessary • article. To encourage exportation, We are told, is to give a bounty on production, and hence it is inferred, that we shall never have an abundant supply. of Corn in the country, till every po:sible facility is given to rending it out. Th ose wh6 oh j ect to the proposed alteration in the C orn Laws, assert, in oppositiAl to this • Hoe, that to permit the hnportation of grain, is the true policy of England. they contend, that the price at which the importation of foreign Corn is allowed, will be the lowest we shall kndv, and if BO or loos. per quarter be fixed upon, as proposed by their opponents for the importation price, 80 or 100 s. will be the ininitnum of Wheat in England. The question is as inoicate as important, and it is one . which ought not to he disposed of in haste. to depend ou foreign countries for a supply of Coro, is certainly that which is not to be desired; but for ought we know, even this woUld be preferable to framing a law which, under piesent dr.' cUmstances, should give the Corn-grower what is called a .protetting price. In speaking on this subject, many persons have argued as if, whatever else might be :educed, tents were .never to fall. We.tvill tell the great land-holders, who are so laudably anxious to protect the Corn-growers, how they may effect their ,object; even though the Legislature refuse to ,prohibit the importation of grain. Let these Gentlemen lower their rents. This will enable the English Corn.grower to . enter into competition with the Foreign grower. But we fedr this is a measure they are not likely to adept of them. selves. The free importation of grain for a few years, would be likely to dispose them to doso More than'any thing else. We are told, to import wain would cause lands, now ap. proprfated td Corn, to . be turned into pasture land. IVe will admit this might follow , and we apprehend the resulf would be a t'eduction in the price of meat. If that bound , less encouragement were given Lb agriculture, which some persons stand lip for, it is be feared Corn would be grown on lands riot fit to receive it; and the losses thus occasioned would be dearly paid for by the public ; and, after all, it is assented by many intcllltirrut pntlemen, this country could • n,::t for an' length of time grow a su f f i cient quantity of Corti o to meet the demands or population. On this point, how. that excel - evil, out apprehensions are much diminibb...4, by • .* . • •