Star.
London, England, 1823-06-10 00:00:00

ceptible of impreeement or wmendmeot ; but, te, low
i'.l the whole ef 4lrem at *
eit twill be acting in
s. •
psi 41111 wogill be M. the 5000
nip of whom ho bad rid in the metro.;
ris, nor toe* persons of the same'class•who lived
ise counarY. Pefore it was attempted to alter the
laws, the Rouse ought to inquire—the workmen
ought to be heard as well as the mastersand he knew
nothing so likely to produce discontent,as the rapid
and mischievous enactment proposed by the Right
Honourable Gentleman. From a single error.'n the
Distillery Laws of Scotland, a system of frand'apon
the Revenue had ensued, which it was found Wein-
sible ever since to correct ; he therefore besought the
House to weigh well the measure then before it—not
to proceed precipitately, lest out of it might grow
evils as considerable and equally difficult to remedy.
Mr. MANSFIELD supported the proposed mo-
tion for inquiry.
Mr. RICAItDO opposed the motion for a Com-
mittee. The real question for the consideration of
the Ifouse was, whether or not labour should be free?
And if free, whether or not the employment of a
greater number 9f people would be the consequence?
That a greater number would be employed, there
could be no doubt. It wits said, that in that case
the workmen• would necessarily receive a lesser price
for their labour—such might be the fact, but even
so, that formed a strong argument in support of the.
measure, for it was infinitely better that a large
number of persons shonld•be employed at moderate
wages, than that only a few should be engaged at
enhanced prices. In reply to what had been said by
his Honourable Friend the Member for Coventry, he'
would ask, was it fair or proper that Magistrates
should be entitled to set a price on labour? Before
any manufacturer employed a person to do labour,
he ought to be able to obtain such labour at the
market price, without being compelled to pay for it
at the caprice or the judgment even of a Magistrate.
The distresses of the poor of Spitatfields had been in
part denied—now it was in the recollection of the,
House, that .on more than one occasion the aid of,
Government had been applied for to relieve them,'
The Hon. Gentleman said he would suppose a case,
that the demand for manufactures had decreased one'
.halt, and that the manufacturer should not be able'
to obtain a remunerating price, would it not be ua-1
fair that Migittrates should be empowered to inter-,
fere between him and his workmen, and say notwitb-1
standing that be should continue to pay the/4min,
price for labour? Such interference would be equally
cruel and unjust. His Honourable Friend the Mem-
ber for Coventry said all the laws respecting manu-
factures ought to be repealed. He agreed with his
Honourable Friend that it would be desirable to re-
peat the law respecting combination, and many
others; but he thought the House ought to proceed
deliberately, and repeal theca by one at a time. The
wages of silk weavers had not been altered since the
price of the quartern loaf was 45td. He again con-
demned any law that went to authorise interference
between a manufacturer and his workmen. it had
been stated that 200,000 persons in the metropolis
were employed at the silk manufacture; now he had
been credibly informed that the number of weavers
was only 9,ooo—(Cries of Ivo, Leo!)—he meant 0(
men employed at weaving. To him it appeared that
the Bill, being a good one, ought not to be delayed;
such, be was convinced, was also the opinion of the
majority of the House: be should therefere give it
his warmest support,

. 1

G. PHILLIPS believed that occasionally
Neater distress prevailed in Spitalfields than in-any
part of the kingdom. Vs'itlisa population not much
greater than Lancashire, Middlesex paid more than
double the amount of poors' rate--namely, above
£600,000 in 18id. He thought that Ministers were
entitled to their support for bringing forward a great
many questions for the relief of trade from restric-
tive laws. This was a season of general comfort and
trantoillity among the manufacturing classes, and
therefore a good opportunity to repeal these Acts.
Mr. BROUGHAM thought that the repeal of such
Acts would do good both to master and workmen.
Bat-the question• was, whether they would suddenly
retrace steps which hey never should have taken,
without complying with the request for inquiry,
comink as it did from those who had for half a ten-
tury accommodated their• business to this erroneous
policy and enatantents? To refuse inquiry would be
to tura the petitioners from their bar discontented
with them and the measure which was to be forced
upon them. Thk inquiry would not take more than
a week, and if it prat granted they would convince
some, and satisfy all the petitioners. The witnesses
were all within half an hour's walk of the House;
and it was not proposed to offer any improper or ,
vexatious delay to the measure.
Mr. %V. SMITH thought that rice more time than
bad been mentioned might be spateal, in orates to *Ray
the irritation which might be excited amongthe Pe-
titioners. If they were not to repeal the Spitaltelds
pct, be saw no reason (though he should much re-
gret it), Why its principle should not be extended all
over the country. leer these reasons he should vote
for the inquiry sought for.
Alderman BRIDGES hoped that this BM would
be passed ckinag the present Session.
Mr. MONC had irgreat objection to hasty pro-
ceedings, and to the shutting. out of inquiry, though
he was friendly to the principle of the Bill on gene-
ral grounds.
Mr. BYNG should vote for the Committee, which
he was sure would not cause a delay of above a week,
and without inquiry no justice could be done to the
manufacturers. He regretted that the Act had been
passed ; but as it was it had produced much tran-
quillity among the labouring classes in the parishes of
Spitalfields, Bethnal-green, and Mile End Nestptown.
Mr. C. GRANT could not see bow they could, in
the present advanced state of the Session,, embrace
the whole range of this inquiry. He denie that the
silk-weavers of Spitalfields were alwa.y,s in that state
of comfort which had been described under the.op6-
rations of the Spitalfields Act.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH would vote.for inquiry, net
that he wished for more information, but to 'Ray ir-
ritation, dispel errors and prejudioeschut irrao_nseans
to risk the passing orer•the Bill to another, Session:
Mr. BRIGHT explained, and. the Haase divided—
For tie Aetna- - - 65
Against - - so •
Majority
The Bill was theft ordered mho mad-a third time
on Wednesday.