HC Deb 07 May 1850 vol 110 cc1244-50
LORD R. GROSVENOR

said, the Motion he was about to submit to the House was one which appealed to the best feelings of the heart. He had on a former occasion explained the grievances of which the journeymen bakers complained, and he could not believe that any serious objection would be made to his proposal. When he first brought forward the subject, he moved for a Committee to inquire into the sanitary condition of the journeymen bakers. To that Motion the right hon. Home Secretary replied, that as papers on the subject had been laid upon the table, there was no necessity for inquiring into matters which would be clearly developed in those papers. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford then said he would prefer seeing a remedy applied by a Bill, rather than that the subject should be referred to a Committee. Last year he (Lord R. Grosvenor) moved for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit labour in bakehouses during certain hours of the night. The evils under which the men laboured were admitted, and it was not attempted to be proved that the remedy proposed would not be efficient; but a certain set of phrases were strung together, and all sorts of evil prophesied from the working of such a Bill were made, and leave was refused. The petitioners whose petitions he had presented at an early period of the evening stated that they had considered the arguments used against the proposed Bill, and believed the majority of the House were under a complete misconception as to the effects it would produce, and they prayed for a Committee of Inquiry. The right hon. Home Secretary had admitted that there might be a case upon the sanitary ground, and he (Lord R. Grosvenor) proposed now to delegate to a Committee of Inquiry whether the state of the bakehouses was not extremely prejudicial to health—those houses in which the food of the people was prepared. It was complained that they were in such a state as to injure not only the persons working, but the bread made there—an article liable to be affected by the air that was around it; and every one who had seen the horrid dens in which the greatest part of the bread was prepared in this town, and the dirty state of those who bad to prepare it, would concur in thinking that some sanitary regulations were necessary. If there were no other reason for a Committee, it would satisfy the men themselves, who must know whether they were suffering, and must be best acquainted with their own trade. He hoped he should not make this appeal in vain.

Motion made, and Question put— That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire whether any measures can be taken to improve the sanitary condition of the Journeymen Bakers.

LORD D. STUART

seconded the Motion.

SIR G. GREY

would have bsen glad if he could have felt it consistent with his duty to agree to the Motion; but the objections he had had to urge on former occasions remained unremoved. He felt the force of the argument urged on those occasions by several Gentlemen, that it was inexpedient to grant Committees of Inquiry founded upon such petitions, unless the House had some clear and definite conception of legislative measures that might be founded upon the report of such a Committee. When the noble Lord moved for a Committee of Inquiry two years ago, he was met by the argument that the evidence upon the subject of the condition of the persons in this trade was taken before the Sanitary Commission. Statements very painful to read were made, and it was impossible to deny that those persons were subject to very serious evils in the prosecution of the business in which they were employed; but the remedy proposed by the noble Lord was rejected by a very large majority, because it was felt that it would not only be violating the principles of political economy, but that it would be impossible to enforce it, and that if we proceeded to legislate for this trade, there was no reason why we should not be asked to legislate with regard to others. He (Sir G. Grey) believed, as he had said before, that arrangements might be made between employers and men, by mutual consent, which would tend to remedy many of the evils complained of; and that by looking to Parliament the parties were diverting their attention from the means by which they might attain a remedy. The petitioners asked for an opportunity of proving before a Committee that the House was wrong in rejecting the Motion of last year; but that was matter for the House, not for a Committee. The noble Lord had pointed to sanitary measures; if any peculiar sanitary measures were necessary as applicable to this trade, they might be taken under powers already subsisting, or new powers might be asked for from Parliament; but Parliament had all the information which would enable it to legislate, if legislation was desirable. He (Sir G. Grey) had always avowed his opinion, that legislation would not accomplish the object the parties had in view, and that the Committee asked for would be inoperative and have no practical effect. To agree to the Motion would be acting contrary to principle, only to insure ultimate disappointment. Participating in the benevolent desire of the noble Lord, he must, with great regret, object to the appointment of the Committee.

MR. STAFFORD

said, that when the parties on whose behalf this Committee was moved ascertained that it was opposed on no better grounds than those just advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, they would arrive at the conclusion that their case had not been fairly met. It was urged against the present claim that other callings and trades would bring forward their grievances also; but all he could say to that was, that if Parliament went on refusing to allow these parties to give evidence of their grievances, it was not very likely that the working classes would much longer persist in their attempts to get their condition ameliorated by appeals to the Legislature. Now, bearing in mind what we saw going on around us in other countries, he did not think it wise to turn a deaf ear to claims so unanimously preferred. Although evidence might already have been collected, he thought a Bill on the subject would come with all the greater force if founded upon the more recent statements of the journeymen bakers. When the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex proposed to bring in a Bill, he was opposed; and when he suggested a Committee, he was told to introduce a Bill; but if these parties were thus driven from pillar to post, they would come to the conclusion that Parliament was either unable to mitigate their grievances, or unwilling to inquire into them, or they would conclude that, under the guise of modern philosophy and dogmatical rules, the Legislature were only showing their incapacity to deal with a complex question. He did not think that these grievances could be settled by private agreement, and feared that, unless Parliament stopped in, the working people would break out in disaffection, and not omit opportunities of showing that their feelings had been alienated from their rulers.

MR. BRIGHT

understood that the noble Lord wished the inquiry to extend to the places in which these men worked, and the time they were employed. The noble Lord had even spoken of their disgusting dirtiness. But he (Mr. Bright) could not understand how Parliament could take steps to alter the buildings in which they labour, or to make them more cleanly. He did not see how Parliament was to interfere directly and avowedly with the labour of adult men. Indeed, the noble Lord's clients, however much they might suffer, seemed to be in a very good position to plead their own cause, for they had an organ of their own, termed the Bakers' Gazette and General Trades' Advocate. By a copy of it, which he held in his hand, he was happy to observe that the stamp authorities had not put their impress upon it, and that it could be sold for three halfpence. That the House might know what were the principles now being propounded to Parliament, he would read from this publication a few sentences from an article which contained opinions identical with those expressed by the noble Lord, and with the principles of the measure he brought forward last year. The article was entitled "Wages and Labour," and referred to a case which was brought before one of the police offices, showing for how small a sum a needlewoman had been compelled to work, and complaining of the want of some law to protect labour. The particular case was that of a poor woman who was allowed but sixpence per pair for making corduroy trousers. He put it to the House whether there was anything in any of the projects of Robert Owen, or of any of the Socialists of the day in France, more clearly of the nature of what we understood by Communism than what was contained in that article. The men whose case the noble Lord advocated were grown up men, and, as it appeared, not ordinary men, but Scotchmen. Now, if there was one class of men on the face of the earth better able than another to take care of themselves, it was Scotchmen. If the condition of these north country bakers was horrible, he took it that there was something more horrible still in their own country, from which they had fled. If he were in the position of the noble Lord, he should be ashamed to stand up in defence of about 200 stalwart Scotchmen, who could publish a Gazette of their own, and write articles in it of considerable literary merit, and appeal for a remedy to that House, already bowed down with the weight of great public duties. It would be endless work if Parliament were to undertake to make all bakeries comfortable, instead of being as they were described—horrible dens of discomfort and dirt.

LORD D. STUART

had not heard a single reason why the Committee moved for should be refused. It had been said that no good could possibly result from giving themselves the trouble of going through a fresh investigation by the means of a Committee. Was it any reason that justice should not be done to these poor men, because they had friends who supported their cause through the agency of the public press? Was it a reason when poor people were oppressed, that they should be further oppressed, because some persons were found to take up their cause? Surely, when people had a right to demand a redress of grievances, the best way was to solicit, and if possible obtain, the support of the public press. The peaceful agitation which the press created was evidently the most advantageous mode of gaining any legitimate object in public affairs. There might be hundreds, perhaps thousands, employed as bakers. Of this there could be no doubt, that petitions on the subject came from all parts of the kingdom. He would ask, then, when thousands were dependent for their health and morals on the legislation of that House respecting the present subject, when the lives of those men were in danger of being shortened by the present defective state of the law, would the House deliberately refuse to grant an inquiry? The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had told them that all the information which could possibly be obtained on the subject was already before them; but how could be or any one assert that a great deal of information might not yet be obtained? He should not detain the House longer than to say that he had resolved to give his noble Friend all the support in his power on this subject.

MR. G. THOMPSON

said, he felt himself called upon to take some notice of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester. He had himself been accused of being somewhat too much of a political economist, but if he could imagine that the science of political economy necessarily led to such opinions as those expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester, it would greatly alter his sentiments on that subject. It appeared to him that great injustice had been done to the petitioners in this case, and it appeared to him also that the case of the corduroy trousers had nothing whatever to do with the question before the House. They had been told that the investigation of this matter by a Committee was wholly needless. Now, on the contrary, it appeared to him that a great deal of information was yet wanted, if not for legislation within the walls of that House, at least for the purpose of influencing public opinion out of doors. Hon. Members were hound to recollect that great numbers of the industrious population of this great town were employed in the very useful trade of bakers, and that theirs, as well as every other case of substantial grievance, ought to be looked into. He should most cordially support the Motion.

MR. S. CRAWFORD

thought that the House ought not to turn a deaf ear to such complaints; he should, therefore, vote for the Motion of the noble Lord.

LORD R. GROSVENOR

, in reply, said that the petitioners ought not to be held responsible for all that appeared in the paper to which the hon. Member for Manchester referred; for they, like himself, had probably no more connexion with it than arose from taking it in.

The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 94: Majority 50.

List of the AYES.
Beresford, W. Jocelyn, Visct.
Best, J. Lushington, C.
Blackstone, W. S. Meagher, T.
Blandford, Marq. of Morris, D.
Broadwood, H. O'Brien, Sir T.
Castlereagh, Visct. O'Connor, F.
Cobbold, J. C. Osborne, R.
Cowan, C. Pechell, Sir G. B.
Crawford, W. S. Pigott, F.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. Power, Dr.
Disraeli, B. Prime, R.
Duncan, G. Sandars, G.
Dundas, G. Sidney, Ald.
Dunne, Col. Somerset, Capt.
Fagan, W. Stanford, J. F.
Fellowes, E. Stuart, Lord D.
Floyer, J. Sullivan, M.
Granger, T. C. Thompson, Col.
Greenall, G. Thompson, G.
Greene, J. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Herbert, H. A. Wawn, J. T.
Williams, J. Wyld, J.
TELLERS.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Stafford, A.