operation, it was therefore natural to pre-mination to continue the war, it became sume; but this very circumstance was a the duty of the House to investigate their sufficient argument against inquiry. The conduct in the last expedition, in order dilemma then proposed by the noble lord, to ascertain whether they ought to be enwhether or not the people had an oppor- trusted with the farther prosecution of tunity to rise, he was desirous should not hostilities. If he referred to "the test be entertained. To determine that point, of experience and the evidence of facts," to justify the confidence of co-operation, the favourite phrase of administration, he would inevitably lead to the most danger- had still stronger grounds for inquiry; ous disclosures, to the public designation for the incapacity of ministers had been of our friends in that country, their num- already manifested by the expeditions to ber and situation, and of the whole cor- Corsica, Toulon, Quiberon, and Ostend. respondence on which the confidence of With respect to the weather and the unco-operation was founded, and the prac- favourable winds which had prevailed, ticability of the object presumed; a pro- that consideration could not be urged in cedure that might not only prove injurious their defence, as ministers had sufficient at the present, but interfere with all fu- time to make every preparation. The ture operations of a similar kind. In object was clear and precise, and lay at candour, therefore, to all the parties the distance of only forty-eight hours concerned, he trusted the noble lord sail. And was it not the duty of adminiswould not press his motion. tration to run as few risks as possible? If there appeared even a faint chance of failure from any inclemency of the weather, why was not the expedition undertaken in June or July, when that chance would have been considerably lessened? The House could not forget the two inquiries which had been instituted during the American war; and at present the grounds for a similar proceeding were much strengthened, since administration, being possessed of unlimited means, both in a financial and military view, was of course more responsible for the use and application of those means. If our object was, to impose and establish a strong government in Holland, such an object was not legitimate, as it went to interfere in the wishes of the people of that country. The proposed inquiry was absolutely necessary for the vindication of ministers.

Earl Spencer was at a loss to know on what grounds the motion would be made. He confessed it was one of those difficult things that could be thrown in the way of ministers; for on their silence suspicion was attempted to be thrown, and their disclosure of the circumstances must lead to serious consequences. He would assert, that the expedition was taken up on justifiable grounds. The noble lord had made many omissions, and had dwelt upon such parts of the expedition as tended to set it in the most unfavourable point of view. The noble lord acknow. ledged that the expedition had objects sufficiently important to induce this country to undertake it. He admitted, that to rescue Holland, and to cause a diversion in the forces of the enemy, were legitimate objects. He admitted that the capture of the Dutch fleet was an advantage gained for the country. On these two points, the expedition had not failed; of three objects, two had succeeded most completely. The House would call to mind the month when the expedition took place, and to what good effect it operated in favour of the allies. The signal defeats which the enemy experienced, was one of the good effects occasioned by this expedition; for it was fair to infer, that the forces called into action in Holland, as withdrawn from the French in Italy and Switzerland, tended to weaken their efforts and increase the force of the combined armies.

Lord King delivered his maiden speech in support of the inquiry. He observed, that as ministers had declared their deter[VOL. XXXIV.]

After a short speech against the motion from lord Darnley, and a reply from lord Holland, the House divided: Contents, 6. Not-Contents, 51.

for them to enjoy. But where they were not duly enforced, the poor endured the most intolerable miseries. To prevent these abuses was the object of his bill. He would therefore move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to explain and amend so much of the 5th Eliz. cap. 4. as empowers justices of the peace to regu late the wages of Labourers in Husbandry."

provisions of it, observing, that a thorough | labour. This was highly oppressive to revision of the Poor laws was necessary; the labouring poor. A law therefore apand he pledged himself to bring in a bill peared necessary for enabling the justices for that purpose. The bill was brought to regulate also the minimum of labour. in and printed, but was never brought In this view, he submitted his motion for under the discussion of the House. All reviving his former bill. He wished only its provisions were regarded as impracti- that it might be read a first time, and cable. Finding that the right hon. gen- then printed, and a proper interval altleman had given up all idea of prosecut- lowed for a thorough consideration of it. ing a measure which he formerly seemed The bill would go, not to compel, but to to have so much at heart, he himself was enable the magistrate to do justice to the determined to renew his attempts, and to poor. The law indeed, if enacted, might revive his bill. Those who knew him generally lie dormant, and only be enwould not suppose that he wished the forced in hard times, when the poor were poor to be overpaid. He was well aware oppressed as they now are in several disthat in many places, especially in great tricts. The more he examined the Poor manufacturing towns, those who earned laws, the more convinced he was, that more than was sufficient to provide for the fault lay not in the laws themselves, their families, usually squandered the but in the execution of them. Where surplus away, in ruinous luxuries. But they were well executed, the poor enin every well-regulated community, arti-joyed as much comfort as it was possible ficers and labourers should be paid so as to be enabled to keep themselves and families in a comfortable situation. It was his creed with respect to the poor, that no excuse should be left them for doing wrong, and that when they offended, severity should be employed in punishing their offences. He hoped the House would concur with him in that opinion; and if so, how was it to be reduced to practice? The right hon. gentleman had contended, that nothing effectual could be done by regulations, that all must be the result of principle: and that, in amending the Poor laws, no regulation could be made respecting the amount of wages, but that labour should be left to find its own level. It was impossible, however, that labour should find its own level, as the laws on that head now stood. What first gave rise, in his mind, to the idea of the bill he wished to introduce, was, the situation to which the poor were reduced in 1795. Their distresses then were nearly the same as they are now; and very exemplary attention was likewise then shown by the richer classes to alleviate their distresses, but, before they received that relief, the pressure under which they laboured was extreme. The farmers would not raise the price of labour: he consulted the Statute-book, but could discover nothing in it that would compel the farmers to do their duty. The justices, he found, had no power to grant relief; but they were armed with power to oppress the poor, In virtue of the fifth Elizabeth, c. 4, the justices had the power of regulating the maximum of

Mr. Pitt said, though he disapproved of the measure, he would not oppose the motion. He opposed the measure formerly, because he was convinced it would not be productive of benefit to the lower classes: not because he intended to bring forward some preferable plan. The mea sure now proposed struck him as highly improper. It went to introduce legisla tive interference into that which ought to be allowed invariably to take its natural course. The greater freedom there was allowed in every kind of mercantile transactions, the more for the benefit of all parties. It was likewise always inexpedi ent to frame a general law to remedy a particular evil. Besides, the principle of the bill was inefficacious; and if adopted, it would have no good effect. It proposed one standard for the price of labour, without considering whether the labourer was young or old, whether sickly or robust, whether an unmarried man, or a man with a numerous family to support. The distresses of the poor would be best re lieved, not by any general law, but by parochial aid administered by those who were intimately acquainted with their si tuation. The hon. gentleman said, that

the Poor laws were quite sufficient, if they were strictly put in execution. Now, it seemed rather strange that they should be complete, and yet should not contain within them some power to enforce their execution. He himself admired the system of Poor laws in England, though they had of late years greatly degenerated from their original simplicity and efficacy. It had not been his intention to overturn them, but to recall them to their original principles, and to give them such subsidiary aids, as a change of circumstances had rendered necessary. Whether he should bring that bill again before the House was extremely uncertain. He was convinced of its propriety; but many objections had been started to it, by those whose opinion he was bound to respect.

Sir W. Young was of opinion, that the bill was altogether unnecessary. The justices were already obliged, under a pe nalty of 10l. to do nearly what was required by the hon. gentleman; and was it probable that an act was a good one which though enforced by such severe penalties, had lain completely dormant. for many years? The qualifications of the workman should be considered as well as his wages.

Mr. Buxton thought that the measure would do more harm than good. The scarcity was great but, from the benevolent attentions of the opulent, at no time was the condition of the labourer more eligible.

Mr. Ellison opposed the motion. By the generous exertions of the higher classes, the poorer had been comfortably supported. Why then introduce a law which was unnecessary?

Mr. Whitbread said, he was ready to give the higher classes credit for their charity; but he thought it an alarming thing, that so many of the lower classes of society was doomed to subsist on charity. By an increase of wages some good might be done. Charity afflicted the mind of a good man, because it took away his independence-a consideration as valuable to the labourer as to the man of high rank. The object of the bill was to empower magistrates, for a limited time, and within a limited extent, to determine the sum below which the wages of a labouring man in full vigour should not be reduced. But it was said, that the price of labour would find its level. How did it find its level? If labourers found

they were not sufficiently paid, they combined, and the price of their labour was raised. The multiplied statutes to prevent combinations operated more strongly against the labourers in any attempt to raise their wages, than against the masters who might attempt to reduce them.

Leave was given. On the 13th the bill was brought in and read a first time. On the 21st the question, that the bill be now read a second time, was negatived, and, on the motion of lord Belgrave, it was ordered to be read a second time upon that day six months.

First Report of the Committee of the House of Commons respecting the Assize of Bread, and the Deficiency of the last Crop of Grain.] Feb. 10. Lord Hawkesbury presented the following

REPORT.

The Committee appointed to consider of means for rendering more effectual the provisions of an act, made in the thirteenth year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, “An Act for better regulating the Assize and making of Bread;" and who were instructed to consider of the most effectual means of remedying any inconveniencies which may arise from the deficiency of the last Crop of Grain; and empowered to report their Proceedings, from time to time, to the House;

Have proceeded, in pursuance of the orders of the House, to consider of the provisions of the said act; and are decidedly of opinion, that the act of the 13th of George 3rd in its present state, is completely ineffectual for the regulations contained in it are, in many repurposes for which it was intended; that the spects, defective; and that the execution of it would be totally imcompatible with the present mode of setting the assize of bread by law, and would answer no object, unless, at a time when bakers are prohibited from making, according to the demand of their customers, different kinds of bread, millers should be of flour. prohibited from manufacturing different sorts

Your Committee proceeded next to consider how far it might be proper to recommend to the House to adopt such farther regulations and restrictions; and as they understood a prejudice existed in some parts of the country against any coarser sort of bread than that which is at present known by the name of the "Fine Household Bread," on the ground that the former was less wholesome and nu

tricious than the latter, they thought it important to obtain the opinions of some eminent and respectable physicians on this point. The result of their evidence appears to be,

that although a change of any sort of food, which forms so great a part of the sustenance of man, might, for a time, affect some constitutions; that as soon as persons were habituated to it, the standard wheaten bread, or even bread of a coarser sort, would be equally wholesome with the fine wheaten bread which is now generally used in the metropolis; but that, in their opinion, the fine wheaten bread would go farther with persons who have no other food, than the same quantity of bread of a coarser sort.

Your Committee were next desirous of ascertaining, whether a standard bread was likely to be acceptable to the people of this metropolis; they have examined for this purpose several considerable bakers, who agree in stating, that scarcely any bread is consumed in the metropolis but that which is made from the fine wheaten flour; that attempts have been formerly made in times of scarcity to introduce a coarser species of bread into use, but without success; and that, in their opinion, the high price of bread would be considered, by the lower classes of people, as a small evil, when compared with any measures which would have the effect of compelling them to consume a bread to which they have not been accustomed.

this proposition. They beg leave, in the first place, to observe, that if the physicians are well founded in their opinion, that bread of a coarser quality will not go equally far with a fine wheaten bread, an increased consumption of bread would be the consequence of the measure, and this increased consumption might, in a considerable degree, make up for any saving which might result from the use of the finer pollards. In the second place, if the millers were permitted to make only one sort of flour, it is to be apprehended, that sieves would be introduced into many private families, for the purpose of sifting the flour to different degrees of fineness: such a practice might, in times of scarcity, increase the evils which it would be the intention of parliament to remedy. The quan.y of flour extracted from a bushel of wheat depends very much on the skill of the miller, and the perfection of his machinery. The extent of his concerns, and his interest in his trade, is a security that he will endeavour to draw from the grain whatever it will produce; but the comparative want of skill, and want of attention to the nicer parts of the operation, in private families, might lead, upon the whole, to a very great and unnecessary expenditure and waste of flour.

Your Committee are of opinion, that to change by law the food of a large part of the community, is a measure of the greatest delicacy, and on the face of it highly objectionable. If a considerable benefit could be proved to arise from it to the community at large, your Committee might be induced to recommend it, notwithstanding any inconveniencies which might for a time result from it; but from all the consideration your Committee have been able to give to this subject, and from the evidence which has appeared before them, they are not satisfied that any saving would arise proportionate to the disadvantages that would, in the first instance, necessarily attend upon it.

Your Committee then proceeded to inquire, whether a measure, which compelled the millers to manufacture only one sort of flour, would be likely to increase the quantity of sustenance for man. It has been stated to your Committee, that, according to the mode of manufacturing flour for London and its neighbourhood, a bushel of wheat, weighing 60lbs. produced 47 lbs. of flour, of all descriptions, which were applied in various ways directly to the sustenance of man; that about 1lb. was the waste in grinding, and the remaining 12 lbs. consisted of bran and pollards, which were made use of for feeding poultry, swine, and cattle. It has, however, been suggested, that if only one sort of flour was permitted to be made, and a different mode of dressing it was adopted, so as to leave in it the finer pollards, 52 lbs. of flour might be extracted from a bushel of wheat, of the beforementioned weight, instead of 47 lbs.; that this proportion of the wheat would afford a wholesome and nutritious food, and would add to the quantity for the sustenance of man, in places where the fine household bread is now used, 5lbs. on every bushel, or somewhat more than one-ninth. But as this saving is computed on a finer wheat, and of greater weight per bushel than the average of the crop may produce, and can only apply to those places which have been stated, and as a coarser bread is actually in use in many parts of the country, the saving on the whole consumption would, according to the calcula-nomy of this article. tion, be very considerably reduced.

Your Committee have considered how far other circumstances might operate, or the saving likely to be made of flour by adopting

Your Committee have hitherto confined their observations to the idea of compelling the people, by law, to consume a particular sort of bread. They are sorry, however, to be under the necessity of stating, that, in consequence of the last wet and unfavourable season, the crops have been unusually deficient; and although a considerable importation of wheat from foreign countries has already taken place, and more may be expected, yet they feel, that they should not discharge their duty, unless they strongly recommended to all individuals to use every means in their power to reduce the consumption of wheaten flour in their families, and encourage in the district in which they live, by their example, influence, and authority, every possible eco

Impressed with the idea of the importance of such economy at the present moment, your Committee earnestly recommend the adoption of a measure, which, from the una