LAISSEZ FAIRE 
and to a lowering of the status of the workmen. Petitions 
in support of this opinion poured in from all parts of the 
and despite country, and all sorts of trades’. But a mere mass of evidence 
the evi- . yo z . . 
the «vi. had no chance of producing conviction in minds which were 
fase thoroughly imbued with a belief in the all-sufficiency of eco- 
» pomic principles. Mr Sergeant Onslow urged the repeal of 
the Act, and remarked that “the reign of Elizabeth, though 
glorious, was not one in which sound principles of commerce 
were known” Mr Phillips, the member for Ilchester, was 
still more decided. * The true principles of commerce,” he 
said, “ appeared at that time to be misunderstood, and the Act 
in question proved the truth of this assertion. The persons 
most competent to form regulations with respect to trade 
were the master manufacturers, whose interest it was to have 
goods of the best fabric, and no legislative enactment could 
ever effect so much in producing that result as the merely 
leaving things to their own courses and operation®.” 
On this subject the politicians were only giving effect to the 
conclusions of economists of repute. Chalmers had been brief, 
but to the point. «This law, as far as it requires apprentice- 
ships, ought to be repealed, because its tendency is to abridge 
the liberty of the subject, and to prevent competition among 
workmen” Adam Smith, with his experience of the laxer 
Scottish usage, had condemned the English system®, and it 
may be doubted if any of his followers, at the beginning of 
this century, would have dissented from his conclusion on this 
point. Once again laissez faire, pure and simple, triumphed 
through the influence of, and with the approval of economists, 
and the apprenticeship system was not modified, but swept 
away in 1814¢. It thus came about that the whole Elizabethan 
labour code, both as regards wages and apprentices, was for- 
mally abolished. We may notice, however, that whereas the 
wages clauses had been regarded as a mere dead letter, the 
House of Commons believed that apprenticeship was in most 
cases an exceedingly good thing, and that it was already so 
360 
1 It appears that there were 300,000 signatures against, and 2000 in favour of 
repeal. Parl. Debates, XXV1L. 574. 
3 Parl. Debates, Xvi 564, see also 881. 8 Tb. 572. 
t Chalmers, Estimate, p. 86. 8 Wealth of Nations, p. 50. 
3 54 Geo. III. c. 96.