The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-31 00:00:00

was sure that the House would never prevent inquiry
into a subject of such importance if the slightest neces-
sity for it was only shown. The Noble Lord concluded
by submitting the motion of which he had given notice.
Sir DE L. EVANS seconded the motion. He re-
gretted that his Hon. Friend near him who presented a
petition on this subject intended to oppose the motion
on the ground that it was not desirable to interfere with
the freedom of labour. But he did not think that any
principle
was so stringent that it might not admit an
exception. They had already interfered with the prin-
ciple of the freedom of labour in the Factory Bill, and he
had not heard that it had been folloaed by any evil con-
sequences.
Sir G. GREY said he was sure there was no indispo-
sition on the part of the House to listen to the com-
plaints and grievances of the working classes, and to
apply a remedy if the case was of upcph o
ad-
mit ofpractical legislation with' respect to it. He regretted,
s ase nature
the motion
f
h is Noble
of were
however,obl e that e
Friend f
ol
not, in his
felt c )hml
this
ground, l lrd, that the evils com-
plainedo• d to oppose
susceptible of any
legislative remedy, and ho was confirmed in
that opinion by the fact that neither hit Noble
Friend nor the Honourable and Gallant Member
had suggeeted any. He hid steted that as hiteepi-
nion twee months ego, wh• a his Noble Friend and the
lion. Member for Finsbury accompanied a deputation of
bakers to him. He suggested that the evils complained
of afforded matter rather for sanitary regulation than
legislative interference. That suggestion was taken up
by the Sanitary Commission, of which his Noble Friend
was a member. The evidence of Dr. Guy was given
before that Commission, which was still sitting; and he
would ask whether it would not be better that that Com-
mission should continue the inquiry which they had
commenced ? When the evidence was complete his
Noble Friend could then embody in a Bill whatever he
thought necessary to remedy the evils which he had
brought before the House. If a Committee of that
House were appointed, they could do nothing more, he
apprehended, than hear the same evidence, which was
given before the Sanitary Commission. He would ob-
ject to the motion, also, on the ground that to grant a
Committee would imply an opinion that some legislative
remedy was possible,—(Cheers.) He thought that if they
granted a Committee, they would be only practising a de-
lusion on the journeymen bakers, set ing that any legis-
lative remedy to remove the grievances alleged was im-
possible. If they granted this Committee, then the knife-
grinders of Sheffield, and the compositors, and many
other classes of operatives, would come to the House and
'salt for interference in their cases.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought that the only practical remedy was, that the
masters and journeymen bakers should come to some
agreement amongst themselves.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. STAFFORD did not think the arguments of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, although they might convince a
majority of that House, would convince the working
classes out of doors that their interests were properly
attended to within it. Although they might not be able
to .stegest any remedy for the evils complained of, by
granting a Committee they would show, at least, to the
working classes that they were ready to inquire into the
subject, and to listen to what they could suggest in the
shape ot a cure. The Right Hoe. Gentleman said that
the Sanitary Commission might inquire into the subject.
But he (Mr. Stafferd) did not think that they had any
power to inquire into the hours of labour. They had
already interfered with good eff ct, as he believed, be-
tween employers and employed in the case of factory
labour, and in the case of the coalwhippers. This Com-
mittee, if granted, would neither be a tedious nor an ex-
pensive one, and it would show to the working classes
that that House was willing to attend to their
complaints.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LABOLCHERE he would not yield to the
Hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in his desire to
ettend to the interests of the working classes, but he be-
lieved that they would only be practising a delusion
upon them if they were to grant the Committee asked
for. It they were to impose restriction on adult labour
in one case, others would soon come forward with
equally strong claims.—(Hear, hear.) The fustian cut-
ters and others who suffered under great hardships would
press their claims open them. He admitted that it was
possible and tolerable to interfere, as in the case of fac-
tories, where labourers were collected together in great
numbers ; but it was impossible and intolerable to apply
that minute inspection and supervision which would be
necessary to make any measure of this kind at all effi-
cient where the workmen were scattered over a large,
,urface, and living in private houses.—(llettr, hear.).
That objection he considend to be fatal to the motion.
The case of the coalwhippers was not analogous, because
they were well organized, and minute supervision was
not necessary ; and, above all, there was no attempt to
limit the hours of working.—(Hear, hear.) He con•
fessed that he was glad that the opposition which he
gave to the Cealwhippers Bill was not successful.
Mr. M. MILNES thought that when the relations
between labour and capital were exciting such interest
at the present time, they ought to be cautious how they
interposed any theory, however probable, between de-
mands supported by any large class of the community.
lie thought that the very fact of intelligent men sitting
upon these Committees and answering the proposals of
working men would, of itself, produce a groat benefit.
'they should not decide the present motion by the re-
sults that were likely to follow from the Committee.
thought the House would act wisely by granting the
Committee.
Mr. HUME thought her Majesty's Government had
taken the best course with respect to the question. If
the Howe was nut to decide the present question, in the
hope of any beet ficial result, what was the use of going
into Committee? The Honourable Gentleman who bad
Just sat down was lately in Paris, and he was afraid he
had there imbibed some of Louis Blanc's principles.—
(Laueliter.) But he would put it to his Hon. s
fiend
whether what was now taking place in Paris was not
sufficient to prevent them from trying to do by re-
tail what was doing in that city by wholesale?
He admitted that the bakers were suffering certain evils,
and he should wish to sec them removed. But he saw
no means of applying a remedy. The Noble Lord said
that laboer was not represented. That was precisely
what he (4r. Hume) complained of, and he should like
to see a baker in that House to express his opinions on
the subject. But while the master and the journeymen
bakers were nt pertect liberty to mike their own arrange-
ments, he did nut see the' the Legislature could inter
fere, except to do injury. Let the working men be put
on an equll footing with other members of the noin-
munity—let no advantage be given to one over another
—and then let all compete on equal terms.—(Hear.)
Lord INGES rRE said he was no tollowt-r of Louis
Blanc, but he thought he was only advocating a just
cause in supporting the moti in of the Noble Lord. lle
thought it was their bounden duty, as representatives of
the people. to attend to the grievances of which any
portion of them complained. He confessed he saw too
great a disp sition to attend to the interests of capital,
to the neglect ot the interests of labour.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir B. HALL said he should also have great pleasure
in supporting this motion. The Hon. Member for Mon-
trose seemed to say that he would never do justice to the
journeymen bakers until halt.-a-dozen of them had seats
in Parliamen'.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) It was said
leave the question to the Sanitary Commission. He had,
however, far greater confidence in a Committee of that
House, arid he preferred it as a tribunal to consider and
report upon this question.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, pointed reference having
been made to the Ceatwhippers Act, he was desirous of
making a few observations. The intent of the Act was
to prevent publicans from acting as agents for the hiring
of coalwhippers, and thereby to prevent the continuance
of a system that was very demoralising to the men. The
measure went no further in re: sport ot interference, and
consequently it afforded uo precedent whatever for a
proposal like the present. To that proposal, therefore,
he should offer decided opposition. At the same thse
he hoped the labour of his Noble Friend would not be
thrown away, and teat arrangements such as justice and
humanity required would be made among the.
master
bakers themselves. The appointment of a Committee,
however, could lead to no good result, and would only
raise expectations which there might be a difficulty in
satisfying.
Lord D. STUART said if the House granted a Corn
mitten a series of unexampled facts would be laid before
it. Believing that the Committee would do great good,
by collecting such information, he should vote fur it.
Mr. DUNCAN supported the motion.
Captain PECHELL said that thirteen years ago he
had had the satisfaction to put upon the statute book a
measure to relieve the bakers from labour upon Sundays.
On the same principles on which he then acted he should
support the motion now before them.
Colonel THOMPSON said he felt in a sort of dilemma
resvecting such a motion as this, but the principle
always acted on was, that engagements must be kept.
In his intercourse with the working classes he had
always told them that no good results were to be expected
from motions of this sort, but that if they desired such
inquiries they were entitled to them. He should act on
that principle on this occasion.
Lord R. GROSVENOR replied, and expressed a hope
that, notwithstanding the unfortunate opposition of the
Government, he sheuld still have a mejority.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 43
Against it
Majority —l3

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
Mr. BOUVERIE then rose to bring forward his rno-;
tion respecting the Ecclesiastical Courts of England and
Wales. The Hun. Member said he hoped to satisfy the
House that tbese courts were a scandal and a disgrace
to our law. lie felt strongly impressed with the im-
policy of allowing these abuses to remain unremedied,
noof etl=r)elernasi;set(elnt.
andttuttopenlnquiry
sweeping e
thepin g cot?
subjectdetawn
as
useless, because it was exhausted. In the reign of
George the Y'urth a commission was appointed to exit.-
mine the subject; it consisted of the late Archbishop of ,
Carits.rbury, the late Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of '
London, Lord Tenterden, Dr. Lushington, and others.
After a labotious inquiry they made a copious and able
report. In 1833 another commission was appointed to
inquire into the testamentary part of the subject In
the same year a Committee of that House sat upon an-
other part of the question. All these Commissions re-
pined, but all the abus' a they deprecated still existed.
Attempts had been made to remedy some of the evils,
but wiih nu substantial rffvct. Various Bills intr—
duced had passed through different stages, but had all
met with an untimely end. Probably the reason was
that they did not go far enough— that they attempted to
conciliate two incompatible interests; and that, cunse.
quently, whilst they offended many they obtained no
active surport from the great body of the public. His
object novr was to induce the Government to take up
the question on a large scale. Nothing short of era-
dication would sufficiently deal with the veils now exist-
ing iu an se courts. The law administered in these
courts was of such a nature and extent, that the highest
judicial tribunal in the realm, only three months ago,
declared its utter inability to say what that law was;
and as to the composition of the courts, it was both,