Commons Sitting of 2 April 1822

BREAD.
Mr. Calvertrose to move for leave to bring in a bill to reduce into one act all the regulations respecting bakers and sellers of bread, within ten miles of the Royal Exchange. He observed that the last act on this subject had been found ineffectual in affording protection to the public; but he was of opinion that there were two ways in which perhaps, that object might be accomplished—the one by the sale of bread, like any other article, by the pound; and the other by the sale of it by the price, that is, in loaves of the value of 1s., 6d., 3d., and so on. The sale of it by the pound, however, would not prevent its adulteration, and a pamphlet had recently been put into his hand, from which it appeared that a great deal of marble powder was used by some of the London bakers in the composition of what they called bread. If bread were sold by the pound also, the public could not so immediately feel the benefit of a fall in the price of

1433
grain and flour, as if it were sold by the price, when the smallest advance or fall would have its effect upon the size of the loaf. Very few persons knew what the weight of a loaf should be, or how that weight came to be fixed upon; he therefore begged to explain, that a sack of flour weighed 2½ cwt., and it was supposed to produce 347lbs. of bread: that divided, and again subdivided, gave the precise weight of the peck, half peck and quartern loaf. At present nobody thought of weighing a loaf, and a fraudulent baker therefore escaped detection. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in his bill.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

EXTRA POST—PETITION OF MR. BURGESS.
Mr. S. Wortleymoved to refer to a select committee the petition of Mr. Henry Burgess, praying for remuneration for the expences he had incurred in the place for an Extra Post.
Mr. F. Palmersaid, he had distinctly understood from the chancellor of the exchequer, that there would be no cost to the country from the experiment. On that ground he had supported the bill for giving Mr. Burgess's plan a trial though he had never thought it could succeed. He was very much disappointed to find a claim for remuneration sanctioned by the right hon. gentleman.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he certainly had stated that the experiment was to have been made at the sole charge of the projector; and if Mr. Burges had been allowed to make the trial, he should never have sanctioned any claim for remuneration; but when, after being induced to incur considerable expence by the decisions of the House, Mr. Burgess had been prevented from making his experiment by the bill being thrown out on the third reading, he thought the petitioner had a strong claim on the indulgence and compassion of the House.
Mr. P. Moorewas opposed to the grant of any money, the effect of which could only be the encouragement of projectors.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that if Mr. Burgess had any claim upon government for the encouragement given to him, ministers ought to have paid him the sum they thought due upon their own responsibility. He could not see in what way the House had given this individual any encouragement. If he chose to proceed with the experiment, after the rejection of the bill,
1434
he had done so for his own, private advantage. The best course was to negative the motion for a committee at once without fostering hopes of remuneration that could never be realized.
Mr. S. Wortleysaid, that the claim was not for any expense incurred by Mr. Burgess after the bill had failed, but during the progress of it.
Mr. N. Calvertthought the Treasury were wise, not to turn a deaf ear to suggestions of improvement in a matter so important to commerce as the Post. The Mail Coach system had been at first as much opposed by the Post-Office as Mr. Burgess's plan. The petitioner should be allowed nothing that he did not prove a right to, but his claim should be inquired into.
Mr. Ricardosaid, the ground on which the chancellor of the exchequer had put the case would have induced him to vote against the motion if he had known nothing else of it. The right hon. gentleman had called on them to accede to the motion as a matter of compassion or indulgence. Now, they were not entitled to vote away the public money from their own sentiments of compassion. If the Treasury had given Mr. Burgess encouragement to incur expence, they should take on themselves the responsibility of remunerating him.
Mr. Marryatsaid, there would be no end to projects if projectors were to be indemnified against failure at the public expence.
Sir M. W. Ridleycontended, that if Mr. Burgess had a claim, there was no disappointed speculator who might not come to parliament for compensation.
Mr. W. Smiththought there was no extraordinary ingenuity in the plan which entitled it to the special notice of parliament. The plan appeared to involve nothing beyond the substitution of a two-wheeled for a four-wheeled carriage, and an attempt to increase the velocity of the vehicle.
The House divided: Ayes 28. Noes 36.