§ Lord Ashleybefore the House resolved itself into a Committee, wished to make a few observations upon the bad faith of his Majesty's Ministers with respect to what had been the understanding of the House in relation to the appointment of the Factory Commission, and of laying a copy of their instructions before the House. It had been promised, that a Return of the names of the Commissioners, with a copy of the instructions under which they acted, should be laid on the Table, in order that the House might have an opportunity of objecting to either should it sec cause. He did not mean to say, that he should have objected to any of the Commissioners, but against some of the instructions, he should undoubtedly have protested; and he should have appealed to the House whether it was not clearly understood that there was to be a fair and open examination of the operatives, and that every word uttered should be taken down by a shorthand writer. The instructions had not been laid on the Table of the House three weeks after the Commission had been voted and six weeks after they had been promised. He appealed to the noble Lord, who was a just and honest man, whether it was fair that the evidence of any man (and he spoke from knowledge, because one man had been examined) should be taken in private, and kept secret. The evidence had not been taken down by a short-hand writer. He had a right to expect, that the whole testimony should be laid on the Table of the House, and, if this were not done, he for one would protest against all the evidence of every individual which was 306 calculated to affect the evidence which had already been taken before the Committee of the House. Did the noble Lord think it right to exclude the short-hand writer, or did he think that the House would attach the smallest weight to evidence collected under all the suspicions which belong to secret proceedings?
§ Lord Althorpconceived, that it was the duty of the Commissioners to have the evidence taken correctly, and laid on the Table of that House. With reference to the other parts of the question, in the present excited state of the country, he thought that objections might be made to the publicity of examinations, although it was the duty of the Commissioners to select men perfectly competent to take down the evidence they received. It had been the sense of the House, that impartial persons should be sent to ascertain the state of the children in the manufacturing districts. He had certainly forgot to lay the instructions before the House, but they were very full, and consistent with what had been the understanding of the House. It was the wish of Ministers, that the examination should be a fair bonâ fide examination.
§ Lord Stormontsaid, that it was well known that the evidence of one man had already been taken, and that it had not been given in the presence of any shorthand writer. The whole of the evidence already taken, or which might be taken in a similar manner, would go for nothing.
§ Lord Ashleywould speak from the documents, a copy of which had appeared in the newspapers. There was a letter from Mr. Drinkwater, in which he positively objected to the presence of a short-hand writer; and if this were his instructions from the head Commissioners in London, he should protest against the whole evidence.
§ Mr. Robinsonthought it was the duty of Ministers to see that the Commissioners were pursuing that course which would lead to a satisfactory result. As this was a Secret Commission, and intended to conflict with proceedings of the Committee of that House, the public mind would never be satisfied that the Commission was fair and honest. If the Commissioners were to make a report adverse to the opinion of the Committee, the House would be involved in a mass of contradictory evidence, when it came to legislate on the subject, and the public mind would not he satisfied that the question had been fairly dealt with. He feared that no Report would be made by the 307 Commissioners in time to legislate on the question, and he protested against the doctrine, that it was not the duty of Ministers to see that the Commissioners were pursuing a course that could lead to a satisfactory result.
§ Mr. Matthias Attwoodcomplained of the delay in the proceedings. The Commissioners had declared, that they would proceed in the manner of the Judges in taking their own notes, and the noble Lord could not pretend that that was a method calculated to satisfy any honourable mind. The Commission had been appointed, on an understanding that the inquiry should be available to the purposes of the Bill to be carried through Parliament in the present Session. Such was the understanding expressed in the Resolutions to which the House had come. If Ministers had not made this principle the foundation of all their proceedings, they had not acted with good faith towards the House. The instructions to the Commissioners had nothing in them of a nature to make the inquiries available to legislation before the end of the Session. It would be the duty of the House, on the 17th of June, to proceed as if the Commission never had existed.
§ Lord Ashleysaid, he was empowered by the operatives of Lancashire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, and of Scotland, to say, that it was their wish that publicity should be given to their evidence. Although publicity might be injurious to one or two individuals, it would be beneficial to the general body, He had just as much right to say, that he was empowered to speak the sense of the operatives, as any hon. Members had a right to say, that they were empowered to speak by their constituents. Delegates had been sent to him from the manufacturing districts on the subject, and they had been as fairly elected as any Member bad been by any constituency.
§ Sir George Phillipsprotested against the noble Lord styling himself the Representative of the operatives. If the Commissioners adopted an open examination, the objects of the Commission would be defeated. The Commissioners, in his opinion, were taking the right way to learn the state and condition of the operative classes, and their object was, to terminate their inquiries as soon as possible.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the inquiry before the Committee had been at the desire of the operatives, and they had wished for no concealment or secrecy. The present 308 inquiry was at the desire of the masters, and now the plan was to take evidence in secret. The bad faith of the proceeding was obvious.
§ Lord Ashleyhad no intention to take upon himself a power which he did not in reality possess. All he had stated was, that on this question, and on this alone, the operatives had intrusted their case into his hands. When he had said, that he was empowered to demand an open examination by the delegates, he alluded to the fact, that four delegates were in London who had been elected (the vote having been taken by universal suffrage) by the operatives of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and of Lancashire; and they having intrusted their case to his care, he was entitled to say, that he was as much the Representative of the operatives as any Member of that House was the Representative of his constituency.