rr 
SSS O00 
.GENERAL 
had been appointed by the House 
of Commons for inquiring into 
the state of the existing laws 
which regulate the manufacture 
and sale of bread. Its report 
having been printed, Mr. Frank- 
land Lewis, on June 22nd, called 
the attention of the House to the 
subject. He said, that it was the 
opinion of the committee, that 
the operation of the assize laws 
tended rather to increase than to 
diminish the price of bread, an 
effect which might be proved, ei- 
ther by comparing the price of 
bread with that of wheat, by com- 
paring its price in those places 
where the assize prevailed with 
that were it did not exist, or by 
considering the natural conse- 
quences of the laws. After ad- 
ducing a number of facts in proof 
of these positions, he moved for 
leave to bring in a bill ‘ to re- 
peal the laws relating to the as- 
size of bread in the city of Lon- 
don, and within ten miles of the 
Royal Exchange,” which was 
granted. 
On the motion for its second 
reading on the 27th, Mr. Alder- 
man Atkins cautioned the House 
against overturning a system 
which had stood the test of 700 
years. The principle of these 
laws he thought, was unobjec- 
tionable, although the mode of 
taking the assize was imperfect, 
and required modification. Mr. 
F. Lewis, in reply, affirmed that 
from the evidence produced be- 
fore the committee, it appeared 
that no modification of the law 
would answer the purpose. As 
an argumentum ad hominem, he 
said that the hon. alderman was 
among those who, some time 
since, contributed so much to 
HISTORY, 
agitate the public by -asserting, 
that if wheat were at 80 shillings 
bread must be sold at 16 pence the 
quartern loaf; in which case a 
quantity of wheat sold at £.4 
would in bread produce &. 7 14s. 
In fact, it mattered nothing to 
the baker at what price flour was 
sold accordingto the existing law, 
because that price settled the 
price of the loaf, and it. might 
easily be arranged between the 
mealman and the baker, the lat- 
ter being, in general, the agent 
of the former, from whom he 
took his meal at long credit, and 
yet the price settled upon such 
credit was the standard by which 
the price of bread was fixed, The 
evil was inherent in the Jaw, and 
no alteration in the mode of fix~ 
ing the assize could remedy it. 
He admitted that the proposed 
bill was only an experiment, but 
he was anxious that the. trial 
should be. made with as little de- 
lay as possible. The bill was 
then committed for Friday next. 
In the progress of the bill a pe- 
tition was delivered in its favour, 
signed by 800 master bakers, and 
at the same time another was pre- 
sented against it from the mas~- 
ter and wardens of the baker’s 
company. Mr. F. Lewis explained 
this contradiction by affirming, 
that scarcely a person whose name 
appeared to the latter petition was 
a baker, but that they were chiefly 
mealmen and flour factors. Dur- 
ing the farther discussion, it was 
agreed that its operation should 
commence on the first of Septem- 
ber next. On July 5th it was read 
the third time, and it afterwards 
passed into a law. 
By the provisions of this bill 
the bakers were still bound under 
[53 
