CHIMNEY SWEEPERS' REGULATION BILL.

HC Deb 17 February 1819 vol 39 cc448-54

Mr. Ommaney

presented a Petition from certain master chimney sweepers against the Chimney Sweepers' Regulation bill, which the petitioners stated to be a measure of injustice, and likely t do great injury to the public. The hon. member stated, that since his observations upon this subject on a former evening, he had become better acquainted with the merits of the case. He was assured that the machines proposed were quite insufficient for the purpose of cleaning the generality of chimneys, while if those machines were universally adopted, the poor boys now employed, and who were originally taken from poor houses, must be deprived of subsistence. While the pressure of poor rates was so much complained of, this part of the subject was worthy of consideration, not only with a view to those youths who might, through the adoption of the bill, be thrown out of employment, but with a view to those who would not hereafter be taken from the poor houses to be so employed.

Sir J. Yorke

expressed a hope that what the last speaker had said would be duly considered by the House, for what was to become of those boys who were at present fed and supported by cleaning chimneys, if this employment were done away? But the fact was, that this employment could not be done away until chimneys were differently constructed, and the first part of the plan of the hon. mover of this bill ought to be to propose an alteration in the structure of some hundred thousands of chimneys. But as to the poor-rates, they must be increased by the adoption of this bill. It was notorious that the use of machinery had already thrown a number of people out of employment, and it was obvious that the adoption of the machine proposed by the author of this bill would have a similar effect. But if a measure of this nature were adopted, a private man would hardly know what to do. With an act of parliament on one side, and an attorney on the other, he would be perpetually embarrassed. He agreed with the hon. mover of this bill, in his solicitude for the youth of tender years, who were occasionally employed in this business; but would the hon. member propose a law to prevent boys from being sent to the mast head of a man of war? and it was quite as difficult to reach that elevation as to mount a chimney.

Mr. Bennet

said, that in the next building act he should certainly feel it his duty to propose a clause with regard to the structure of chimneys, so as to admit the employment of the machine; but of all the chimneys in London, those which most required alteration were the warm flues constructed for the use of the higher orders. It was to be lamented, indeed, that those structures should be persisted in, as they contributed to consequences so injurious to the health and morals of youth. With regard to the hon. officer's allusion to the case of boys employed on board ship, until he heard that pins were stuck into their feet, and straw lighted under them, in order to compel them to climb a mast, he could not conceive any analogy between their case and that of the poor youths employed in sweeping chimneys.

Sir J. Yorke

said, he imagined the cases cited were excessively exaggerated; but as to the pins and lighted straw, he could assure the hon. member he had often seen boys forced to ascend to the mast-head by a captain who followed him with a cat-o'-nine tails in his hand—a tolerably convincing argument.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. Bennet then moved the order of the day for going into a committee on the Chimney Sweepers' Regulation bill.

Mr. Grenfell

said, he could not avoid expressing his admiration of the humanity of his hon. friend, in exerting himself so assiduously to alleviate the sufferings of his fellow creatures. He stated that he had made some inquiries on the subject of this bill, at a fire-office in the city, and the secretary had informed him, that the average number of fires in chimneys swept in the usual manner was 60 or 70 per month: in those cases in which machines had been used in sweeping chimneys, the average number did not exceed two per month. Here, then, was a proportion of 2 to 65 in favour of machines. The next question he had put was—what was the proportion between the number of chimneys swept in the ordinary way, and those swept by machinery? The secretary could not say exactly, but he knew that thousands of chimneys in the metropolis were swept by machines. Thus, then, it appeared, that there was no danger—be was almost tempted to say there was additional safety—in using machines. This fact was sufficient to refute the objections which some persons made to the bill; and it proved that the views of his hon. friend were not visionary. The bill might perhaps be objected' to by the parishes, because, under its operation, they would not have an opportunity of sending boys out as they had formerly done; but that argument, although it might be a good one for the parishes, would have no great weight in that House.

Mr. Ommaney

said, he was hostile to the principle of abolishing the use of climbing boys, as it would deprive parish officers of the opportunity of apprenticing boys out. He was also of opinion that machines could not, in many cases, be made use of.

Colonel Wood

was sure the hon. gentleman could not have read the report of the committee on the subject, because it both recommended the adoption of machinery, and considered and condemned the practice eulogised by the last speaker. Whoever had children of his own, and read that report, could not but feel an anxiety to have the unfortunate, oppressed climbing boys relieved; and if there were any houses with chimneys that could not be swept by machinery, it would be much better to let them be burned down.

Mr. Brougham

felt at all times averse to the principle of interference between master and servant, and child and father. But the present bill only went to regulate the labour of those who were unable to make the necessary arrangements for themselves. Interference in such a case became a duty, if not as matter of right, certainly as matter of expediency; and he would only interfere where little less than crime was attempted to be practised, as between father and child, and master and servant. If the parties to be protected had been of an age sufficient to protect themselves, he thought the principle of interference would not only be wrong, but criminal, be the nature of their employment ever so unwholesome or severe. But, in the present case, as the boys were not sui juris, master of their own acts, he hoped the House would interfere and fix some regulation by which relief would be afforded them. The pre- sent would not be found to be an entirely new measure; nor could his hon. and indefatigable friend be singly charged with being a mere visionary and speculator. The preamble to the 28th of the king spoke a very plain and intelligible language on the subject then before the House—an act passed while, he believed, some of the present law officers, though not holding such dignified situations as they now did, had still very respectable employments under the Crown; and an act passed under that practical statesman Mr. Pitt The hon. and learned gentleman then read an extract from the act of the 28th of the king, and also from its preamble, justifying the course of proceedings adopted by his hon. friend, and concluded by expressing his hope, that a bill so humane and useful would be unanimously agreed to.

Mr. Denman

said, he was sorry to be compelled to disturb the unanimity of the House on the present occasion; but it appeared to him, that interference might be carried too far, and that it was in point of fact, carried too far in this case. If chimneys could be swept by machinery cheaper and better than by boys, he could not conceive that the people of this country were so attached to cruel treatment merely because it was cruel, as to continue to sweep with children, when if would be better to sweep with machinery. If, as had been stated by an hon. gentleman, on the authority of the fire-offices, that machinery was safer and better, he should think it was quite enough to state this to the public in order to induce them to adopt machinery. When he found in this bill a series of clauses, empowering a single justice to convict on the evidence of a single witness, and the functions of a jury superseded, he could not help viewing it as extremely objectionable. He must see a strong case of necessity made out before he could vote for such a measure. He was sorry to differ from his hon. friend, and he did not mean to say, that the present was a visionary interference; but he thought the good sense of the public was sufficient to correct the evil without loading the statute book with another penal law, every penal law being in his opinion a great evil. At first he had thought that the measure of his hon. friend merely went to the employment of children of very tender age; but he now found that the measure was of a much more comprehensive nature. It might be proper that children of tender age, either with their parents or as parish paupers, ought not to be bound out to this employment; but he thought that parents might in general be trusted with the guardianship of their own children; and he submitted, whether it would not be better that they should be employed in sweeping chimneys than in idleness, in the workhouse, or in the fraud and pilfering which was now so common among boys of tender age. With respect to the convictions for breach of covenant before a magistrate, he could not see why this, like any other covenant, should not go before a jury. He did not wish to give such enormous powers to magistrates. He thought that those who were in the habit of employing machinery were extremely remiss in not posting it about the streets, that people might know were to apply for them; for he could not help thinking, if it were properly known to the public, they would be willing to take the more humane course.

Mr. Grenfell, in explanation said, that he had not stated, on the authority of the fire-offices, that sweeping with machinery was safer than with boys. He had merely stated, that out of 65 fires, two of them only were cases in which the chimneys had been swept with machinery.

Mr. Wilberforce

said, that with regard to the argument urged by the hon. and-learned gentleman, he would remind him, that the argument of interest did not-always furnish an incentive to action; for he was old enough to know, that in many cases men acted in direct opposition both to their own interest, and to the dictates of humanity. During the continuance of the slave- trade, surely both interest and humanity might have prompted the owner to take every measure in his power, for the safety and comfort of his slaves, in conveying them from Africa to the West Indies; but did these motives operate in the powerful manner in which the hon. and learned gentleman contended that they must always do? In such cases as those for which the present bill was intended to provide, every man might think that he had a right to judge for himself. It was well known, however, that in general, improvements and discoveries were long in being adopted, as was sufficiently apparent from the slow progress' of machinery in manufactures; but no proof of this fact could be stronger, or more in point on the present occasion, than the history of vaccination. In this country, where the discovery was made, the greatest opposition was raised against it; and even at present, when all prejudice had nearly subsided, such was the negligence of parents, that hundreds were dying annually of the small-pox. In some places on the continent, the ravages of this dreadful distemper were as great at present, as they had been before vaccination was known; so great was the power of prejudice, in rendering people blind to their own interests! The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that machines would of themselves supersede the practice of employing climbing boys. In a long course of years machines might get the better, but, what numbers of poor wretched boys would suffer in the meantime! Besides, the anti-machinists would, from the shame of admitting that they had been in error, continue to employ climbing boys. If the use of machines were established into a system, it would drive the use of climbing boys quite away, and its efficacy would be proved beyond all doubt. But ought they, during this competition, to suffer boys of a tender age to be placed in one of the most degrading situations in which a human being could be employed? He felt obliged to the hon. author of this bill, who had acted on this as on all occasions, from that principle of humanity which was well known to distinguish him. He most heartily wished that his efforts would be crowned with the deserved success.

Mr. Barham

said, that twenty years ago sweeping boys had never been heard of in the vicinity of the place where he resided, and when he took steps to introduce the use of them, so great was the force of custom, that actual resistance was offered to it, and at the present time not one out of ten chimneys was swept in that part of the country.

The House then went into the committee, and proceeded to fill up the blanks in the bill. On the clause being read, to restrain masters from taking apprentices under 14 years of age,

Mr. Ommaney

wished that the word "eight" should be substituted, remarking that the picture which had been drawn of the unhappy state of these creatures was far from correct. He had had much experience as an overseer in town and country, and had never seen the symptoms of misery in their countenance; on the contrary, they were generally possessed of good animal spirits, and were gay, cheerful, and contented. He had never known any boy who had been apprenticed to a sweep become chargeable to the parish; but many of them had been very efficient men in the navy.

Mr. Bennet

was resolved not to yield the point. He was astonished to hear any person, without having read a line of the report, venture to hazard an opinion; and still more so, that when those beings exhibited every symptom of premature old age, distorted limbs, humped backs, and sickly constitutions, the hon. gentleman, should represent them as flourishing in health and strength, and forming a nursery for the navy.

Sir Isaac Coffin

said, that he had not, in the course of forty years experience, known a single instance of a sweep joining the navy.

Mr. Alderman Wood

was at a loss to know, when the hon. gentleman could have seen so much animation in the countenances of these boys, but perhaps it was after one of them had been tortured in a chimney for several hours, and when his features had been rendered cheerful on finding himself relieved from pain.

Mr. Bennet

stated an instance, in which a boy was disposed of by his parent. A poor woman went out for a short time, leaving her husband and son at home; on her return she found that her husband had actually sold the boy to a master chimneysweep.

Mr. Denman

objected to the clause. It was possible, he said, that the chimneys of palaces and public buildings might be swept with machines; but who had entered into the smaller dwellings and ascertained whether it was possible to introduce them in these houses? It had been admitted that, on some occasions, boys might be absolutely necessary; he thought, therefore, that the House should pause before they rendered it impossible to obtain assistance in case of emergency.

Mr. Bennet

said, it was in vain to talk, if masters were allowed to send boys up chimneys, for if those of eight years were allowed, they would have them younger; if of ten years, they would have them of eight; and if of twelve, they would have them often. Every misery was tolerated under the old act, and if this clause was objected to, the misery, instead of being removed would be aggravated.

The clause was agreed to, and the bill passed the committee.