HC Deb 04 March 1842 vol 61 cc47-57
Mr. Cobden

had to claim the indulgence of the House in a matter personal to himself. It would be in the recollection of the House, that a week ago, an hon. Member had stated some facts referring to him. It was stated, that while he was complaining of the operation of the Corn-laws, he was working his mills night and day, by which cruel means he had amassed a large fortune. The facts not being then within his knowledge, he did not think proper to answer this statement; but he had written into the country for the fullest and most precise information, that he might meet the charges with statements of facts. He might first mention, that the concern in which he was interested, employed 600 persons, and during the last eighteen months they had employed at night twenty men. Of these, ten were employed from the 31st of July to the 4th of September, and during the long interval he had mentioned, eighteen months, ten were employed casually in finishing up particular dressings, work which the business occasionally required. Now, the charge of cruelty towards himself of course implied, that the same men were employed night and day. He might, therefore, be allowed by the House to explain that they had furnished work by night to hands who were out of work, and who would have had nothing else to do, if they had not employed them. He would read an extract from the letter he had received on this point. It was as follows:— I only wish we could employ 500 extra hands at night at the present time; we could have 5,000 if we required them, and very glad the poor fellows would be to get to work at at night. The working men were never so badly off as they are at the present time since I can remember. Now he might mention, with regard to the cotton-printing business, as the House did not seem to have a very clear knowledge of the distinction between a cotton mill and a print work, that cotton printing, like some other branches of trade, had its seasons, and to prevent a cotton printer from occasionally employing half a score men at night, in particular seasons, would be like interdicting the printing of magazines, which were required once a month, or of newspapers, or any other work which was required to be performed in a very short period. He mentioned this, in order that hon. Gentlemen might know, that there was a distinction between a cotton print work and a spinning mill. He hoped that the two had not been confounded, from a desire of fixing upon him that peculiar odium which seemed to be attached to the cotton-mill. Between the two there was, in fact, no more analogy than between a cotton-mill and that House. The hon. Gentleman opposite had made a sweeping charge against the Anti-Corn-law League, stating that the manufacturers who belonged to that body paid their wages upon the truck system. Now, that as a violation of the law, or at best an evasion of the law, was a very serious charge; and as he was proud to avow himself a very conspicuous member of the Anti-Corn-law League, he hoped he might be allowed to state, as far as he was interested, how far that charge was deserved. He would read another extract from the letter to which he had referred:— You are aware, that our wages are paid every Saturday morning, and our rule is, that every person on the works shall be paid by eight o'clock with money, so that they can lay out their money to the best advantage, when and where they please." Now, nothing could possibly be more futile than for a person like himself to stand up there and to disclaim the truck system if he practised it; for he could assure them that the shopkeepers in the neighbourhood of any large establishment were exceedingly jealous, and very acute in perceiving who were the parties who paid in money and who were not. He, therefore, begged to say, in answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite, that he had paid 20,000l. a year for wages for some years, and that he had never either directly or indirectly, been concerned in keeping any shop about the establishment; every farthing had been paid in money. That fact was notorious to every one in the neighbourhood of the establishment to which he belonged. And now he must be allowed to state, that the hon. Gentleman opposite, when he made his charge so broadly, without excepting him, was aware at the time, from an hon. Gentleman opposed to him in politics, who lived near to his establishment, and who had told the hon. Member, that as far as he was concerned, that charge was unfounded. He now called on the hon. Member for Wigan, though an opponent in politics, to state whether every word he had now alleged was not the truth. As he had said a week ago, he would however repeat, that he considered this to be a very undignified occupation for that House, and he might be allowed to state, that in future he hoped he should not be expected to come forth and occupy the time of the House in refuting charges of this kind from the same quarter. If any hon. Gentleman should condescend to take the slightest interest in his personal character, he would refer him to his neighbours and to his work-people. He would refer him directly to them, and if any hon. Gentleman in that House or out of it, should take upon himself to speak as to his character, he should wish to observe towards that person the golden rule of "doing unto others as he would have others do unto him," and institute inquiries as to his character in his own neighbourhood. Before sitting down, he might be allowed to state, that an hon. Gentleman, in that House had been entrusted with a declaration from a large body of individuals in Lancashire, who had requested him to lay before that House a distinct denial of the charges so broadly made against the members of the Anti-Corn-law League. He was much obliged to the House for the patience with which they had heard him.

Mr. Villiers

said, that as he was the person that his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport had referred to, as having in his possession certain statements made by persons who had been charged by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, the House would, perhaps, allow him at this moment to call their attention to their contents. The House would remember the circum-stances under which those charges were made; it was on the occasion of the motion which he had made on the Corn-laws, and upon the Member for Knaresborough speaking upon the question, and resting his argument against it upon certain things which he imputed to those manufacturers who had contributed to the Corn-law League. Those charges were of so serious a character, and appeared to produce so striking an effect on the opposite side of the House, that he was induced to observe, in his reply, that the matter could not rest where the hon. Member had left it, and that he thought that the Member who had so assailed the character of these persons, as well as those who, by their cheers, marked their belief in his statements, were bound to take some steps to substantiate them. What passed, however, in the House that night having become matter of notoriety out of the House, many of the persons whose characters were thus impugned, were advised, as far as those charges were of a specific character, so far to notice them as would satisfy the public of their incorrectness. What he held then in his hand, was a document which had been forwarded to him that morning, containing the extract from the hon. Gentleman's speech, with a declaration under it, signed by seventy-two among the principal manufacturers in Lancashire, who were chief contributors to the Corn-law League, and which, with the leave of the House, he would then read. It begins with the passage in the hon. Gentleman's speech, which was as follows: When detailing the other night the misery, the oppression, the plunder and robbery, committed on the poor by the Anti-Corn-law League manufacturers, I brought under the notice of the House the evils of the truck system. I have since received some further information upon that subject. But before I read to the House a statement which will make it stand aghast, which will freeze its blood with horror, I wish particularly to re-assert, in the presence of the House, that I do not charge the whole of the manufacturers of England with being parties to this nefarious system. I positively declare, that I charge only the Anti-Corn-law League manufacturers. I have been told by many manufacturers in my own neighbourhood—as honourable men as ever lived, and of whose society I am proud—I have been told by them, time after time, that they cannot compete with the Anti-Corn-law League manufacturers, because it was their practice to pay their men in money, and not in goods.….The manner in which the law was evaded was thus described. On Saturday the people went into a room to receive their wages. They were paid at the time in money, but instead of retiring by the door through which they entered, they had to pass into another room, in which sat a person who kept the books of the truck shop, and to whom the workmen had to pay every farthing that they had expended during the previous week in buying goods and clothing; and if it were proved that any one of the men had purchased one single farthing's worth of goods from any other shop than that which belonged to his master, he was, without one word of explanation, discharged.…. It is a notorious fact, that the master manufacturers clear 25 per cent. by the goods they sell to their workmen. He had taken the liberty of stating at the time that he thought these charges ought not to rest there, and that those who cheered the hon. Member, were bound to see that he established his charges against the persons whose characters were attacked. The manufacturers having considered his statement, had, in a formal and deliberate manner, drawn up the following denial of the charges:— We, the undersigned manufacturers, and others, engaged in and connected with the cotton trade, being subscribers to the Anti-Corn-law League, having read with feelings of disgust and indignation the above extracts from Mr. Ferrand's speech, do hereby repudiate, in the most unequivocal manner, the charges therein contained, and do declare that, as far as we are concerned, they are utterly destitute of truth; that we keep no truck shops, and that we do not pay our work-people in any other way than in the current coin of the realm. Signed by seventy-two Members of the Anti-Corn-law League." This, Sir, is what these persons said to the charges brought against them in this House by the hon. Gentleman; he had read their names to the House, and he was perfectly ready to furnish that Gen- tleman with the list, with their residences appended; and he thought now that the House would say, that that hon. Gentleman was bound to justify or retract what he had stated.

Mr. Ferrand:

first of all, in reply to the hon. Member for Stockport, I beg leave most distinctly (to state that I did not charge him with cruelty to his workmen. The hon. Member has not given me notice of this, but so far as I can recollect at the moment, I shall state what I said. I said that the hon. Member for Stockport, whilst night after night he was proclaiming that the Corn-laws were the cause of the distress of the country, was working his mills both day and night. I never used such an expression as "abominable cruelty," and I never referred to ill-treatment of his towards his workmen. The hon. Member said, that I charged him with practising the truck-system. I never did charge him with that. If it was my intention to charge the hon. Member with practising the truck system, I should have plainly told him so in his presence. An hon. Member, as he has stated to the House, had previously told me that the hon. Member for Stockport was not guilty of the truck system, that he paid his workmen in money. I hope I have said sufficient to satisfy the hon. Member that I did not charge him with the truck system. With regard to what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton has stated, I beg leave to assert that I am prepared to prove, by credible witnesses, before a committee of this House, that members of the Anti-Corn-law League paid their workmen's wages in goods. [An hon. Member, "You charged the whole of them."] I did not say all. I never used the word "all." But now I again assert that I am prepared to prove, on the oath of magistrates, of clergymen, of gentlemen of high standing, of manufacturers, of tradesmen, and of workpeople, who have given me their names since I brought this question before the House, and who have declared, not only that they are ready to come forward before a committee to prove what I have asserted, but what an hon. Member of the other side of the House said he was ready to do, they are prepared to prove every word I have stated, and ten times more.

Mr. Villiers

rose and said, I must repeat as distinctly and unequivocally as I can, that the hon. Gentleman did charge all the manufacturers. ["Cries of order."]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

rose to order. He would suggest that when an hon. Member declared positively that he did not use certain words, it was not consistent with the usage of Parliament for another hon. Gentlemen to rise immediately and positively deny that statement.

Mr. Labouchere

rose also to order. He did not understand his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton to assert that the hon. Gentleman opposite charged all the manufacturers, but that the hon. Gentleman had charged, as he certainly understood the hon. Member for Knaresborough to do, the bulk of the manufacturers of the Anti-Corn-law League with paying their men by the truck system.

Mr. Villiers

said, I trust the House will allow me to state what did take place on a former evening. Hon. Gentlemen present can bear me out in the correctness of the statement. I did misapprehend the hon. Member for Knaresborough in one respect. In my reply I said he charged all the manufacturers. That led to a disclaimer on the other side of the House, and at the same time some one reminded me of what the hon. Gentleman had said. I then said, "I understand the hon. Gentleman limited his charge to all the manufacturers who contributed to the association of the Anti-Corn-law League." The hon. Gentleman touched his hat, and said, "Decidedly." I do not say that the hon. Gentleman used the word "all," but that he included in his charge every manufacturer who had contributed to the Anti-Corn-League.

The Speaker

said, it was contrary to order to repeat a statement to which a positive denial had been given by the hon. Member for Knaresborough. When any hon. Member made a statement in his place, it could not be questioned, by the rules of the House by any other hon. Member.

Mr. Villiers

said, then if I misapprehended the hon. Member, I am ready to receive his explanation that, instead of all the manufacturers of the Anti-Corn-law League, he alluded only to some individuals.

Sir B. Hall

said, the hon. Member for Salford had a motion for Tuesday next for returns relative to the truck system, upon which the hon. Member for Knaresborough had given notice of an amend- ment to extend it. Supposing the information could be obtained, and he feared it would be difficult to get it, would the hon. Member for Salford propose an inquiry into the truck system? He hoped he would do so, for knowing as he did, that the truck system existed to a great extent in the part of the kingdom with which be was immediately connected, after the statements which had been made, he thought it was utterly impossible for the matter to rest in its present stage. He did not believe it was in the power of the Legislature to put down the truck system completely, but by inquiry into it, and making public the result, it might be much checked.

Mr. Brotherton

intended to move for a return of the cotton, woollen, hose, and silk mills, in which the truck system existed, because those mills were regulated by Act of Parliament, and the inspectors could furnish the returns. With respect to factories not subject to inspection, he did not see how the information could be obtained. His object was not to show the extent to which the truck system existed, for he believed, that it was not practised by any factories subject to inspection by law. He had made inquiry on the subject, and had ascertained that the inspector could make the return.

Lord John Russell

said, before he made any observation concerning the second reading of the bill before the House, he thought it important that the House should understand the manner in which the question rested with respect to accusations brought against certain of the manufacturers of this country. He certainly did not understand any allegation to have been made positively of all the manufacturers belonging to the Anti-Corn-law League. He understood the accusation to have been made with the explanation that it did not apply to all the manufacturers of England, but only to those belonging to the Anti-Corn-law League. Certainly, the impression with which he went away—he did not know the precise words used—was, that the accusations were applied to the great hulk, the great majority of those manufacturers; that the general description of the manufacturers belonging to the Anti-Corn-law League was, that they were guilty, first, of fraudulent practices with regard to their manufactures, and, in the second place, of actually cheating their workmen, by paying them in goods worth 25 per cent. less than were charged. It now appeared, as he understood the explanation of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, that what he meant was only that some of the manufacturers of the Anti-Corn-law League were guilty of these practices, and that, to that extent, he was ready to prove his statement. That certainly was not in contradiction with the declaration read by his hon. Friend. There might be manufacturers belonging to the Anti-Corn-law League who had been guilty of these practices, as there might be manufacturers in favour of the Corn-law who were guilty of the same. In like manner, charges might be brought against farmers. Some cases might be found of farmers paying the wages of their labourers in a very narrow and oppressive manner. What was to be avoided, if possible, was bringing forward charges of this kind in such a manner as to produce the impression that any great body of our countrymen, whether engaged in manufactures or in agriculture, were guilty of fraudulent practices. It was much to be regretted that when the hon. Member made an accusation so limited and so confined, that he did not express himself more cautiously, and much more guardedly; and above all, that those who listened to him should not have instantly come to the conclusion, which it seemed to him they had now arrived at, that the hon. Member had directed his charges against all the manufacturers who were members of the Anti-Corn-law League. The hon. Gentleman had, on further explanation, stated, that he had the means of bringing charges against certain persons, and no doubt he would have the opportunity of doing so. That was the way in which the case rested at present. He, for his part, had heard with pain the speech of the hon. Member. He had seen with very great pain, likewise, the charges that were to be found in many speeches made not in that House, but out of that House, by those who belonged to the Anti Corn-law League. There were charges imputing to those who were for maintaining the Corn-laws, that they wished to maintain them, and were animated with the wish so to maintain them, in order that they might enjoy a revenue at the expense of the people. He did not think that anybody would deny that such charges had been made. Whatever a person's occupation might be, that mode of occupation might bias the person's views as to what were the views of the national interest; but then it was not to be supposed that any part of their fellow-countrymen were really influenced by sordid views and selfish interests solely, either in maintaining, altering, or repealing any code of laws. Charges so unfounded ought not to be brought forward by any one. With respect to the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, as to the reading of this bill a second time, he must say, from the communications that had been made to him, he believed it was the intention to take a debate upon the principle in question—whether or not it should be made the settlement of a question that had been so long debated. That, then, being the case, he did not say that the question could be brought on on Monday, and that they could debate and divide on the question; but if it were brought on after the estimates, it would be impossible for them, with any effect, to enter upon the second reading. He hoped, then, the right hon. Gentleman would not bring on this bill after the estimates, for it could not lead to a satisfactory termination. It certainly was the intention to take the debate and sense of the House with regard to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Ferrand

had, he said, asserted that there were frauds perpetrated in manufactured goods in this country, and it prevailed to a very great and frightful extent. Not only that, but the truck system was daily on the increase; and what would be the end of it for the working people he knew not.

Mr. Villiers

begged, as far as his recollection differed from that of the House, to read just one line of the speech made.

The Speaker

conceived that the hon Member must be perfectly aware, that to read the report of a speech, in the Session of Parliament in which that speech was spoken, was decidedly irregular.

Mr. M. Philips

wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, as well as the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. It was with reference to a portion of the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Knaresborough. It was in his recollection that the hon. Member, in discussing the truck system, had made a sweeping charge, particularly against those whom he had the honour to represent—those engaged in the manufacture of cotton. It had been stated by the hon. Member, that their foreign trade had suffered from that which was described as a certain practice of using flour to fill up the substance of the goods. Now, he wished to know from either of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they had heard of any diminution in their foreign trade in this article, from the mode in which the cotton goods were prepared?

Sir Robert Peel

stated he could only give his opinion upon facts that had been represented to him. He had no recollection of having seen any representation of that description.

Subject at an end.