HC Deb 07 March 1842 vol 61 cc140-51
Mr. Ferrand

said, that having on Friday night been charged with having made assertions which were not facts, and with having used expressions that he had not used, he trusted that when it was considered that he stood there as the advocate of the cause of the working classes of the North of England, he should not be considered to be deviating from the strict rules of the House if he occupied a short space of its time in adverting to the charges brought against him. Since Friday evening he had had an opportunity of looking at what he had said, and he found that he had never used the word "all," and that he had never charged the hon. Member for Stockport with "abominable cruelty," but that this was another lapsus lingœ of the hon. Member akin to that concerning his mills and printworks. The hon. Member had said, that during the last eighteen years only twenty men had been employed at his works during night. He was sure, however, the hon. Member Would be glad of the opportunity of explaining a point to which Mr. Leonard Horner had referred in one of his reports. Mr. Horner had said that no one could work in any printworks without | being assisted by a child, who put on the colours, and assisted the men generally. He said,— The employment of children is to prepare the smooth surface of colouring matter on which the carved block is pressed, and to take up the colour that is to be transferred to the cloth. There is a circular frame like the side of a sieve, upon which a fine woollen cloth is stretched, and on this the colour is spread. These pots stand by the side, and a child, who assists the man who prints, transfers the colour from the pot to the sieve, spreading it over the cloth with a flat brush to make a smooth surface. This is called 'tearing,' and the child who performs the operation, whether male or female, is called a 'tearboy.' Every printer has a table and a 'tearboy.' When any printing is going on the 'tearboy' must be there, and they perform their work standing. The temperature of the room should not be less than seventy degrees, and the air should be rather humid. Now he would take leave to ask the hon. Member whether, during the eighteen years his men had worked between six in the evening and eight o'clock in the morning, these tearboys had not also been working in his factory? And he asked this, as he said before, that the hon. Member might have an opportunity of explaining whether he was correct in the representations he had made, or whether Mr. Leonard Horner was correct in his report. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had read in the House a declaration, signed by seventy-two cotton-spinners, and had forwarded to him a copy of that declaration, to which were annexed two extracts from his speech. The hon. Member was about to read the declaration, when

The Speaker

intimated that it was out of order to refer to anything that was said out of the House on the subject of what had taken place within its walls, and therefore the hon. Member must not read the statement.

Mr. Ferrand:

These people said, that they kept no truck-shops, and that they paid all their workpeople in the current coin of the realm. But he did ask, did they not hand the key to their workmen; did they not make them rent their cottages? Did they know nothing of the flour paste; nothing of the shoddy trade; nothing of the old rags and the devil's dust? They asserted that they kept no truck-shops, and that they paid in no other way but in the current coin of the realm; but he (Mr. Ferrand) had never charged them with doing these things. ["Oh, oh !"] He had never charged them with keeping truck-shops. What he had said was, that they evaded the law by letting their relatives keep truck-shops, and that, although they might pay their men in the current coin of the realm, yet they stopped a great part of it on its way home. But suppose he admitted all that the subscribers to this requisition urged— suppose he allowed that they were the seventy-two just men of the league—did the hon. Member mean to say that these were the whole of the subscribers to that association? Why, he thought that they boasted of having extended their ramifications through every part of the country? He thought they said that this was a na- tional league—that it had branches in every part of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales? How happened it, then, that these men undertook by a quibble to deny and repudiate the system of their fellows throughout the nation? But he turned the page of this declaration and he found a circular addressed by the agitators at Manchester to their correspondents; it ran thus:— Manchester Anti-Corn-law League.— You will oblige the council by affixing your name to the declaration and returning it at the earliest possible moment. Now, in the declaration as read, there was not the name of one single Yorkshire manufacturer; of the seventy-two parties subscribing the declaration there was not one who did not live in Manchester or some other large town where they dared not carry on the truck system for fear of the shopkeepers. It was in secret—it was in dark corners that this infamy was perpetrated. It was where there were none to rise up and explain the nefarious system as he had done. [Laughter.] Oh, their interruptions would not put him down. He stood there to speak the truth, and those who rose for that purpose were not to be silenced by clamour. It was in the name of the working classes of England that he addressed that House, and he recommended them to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Oldham and leave him alone. The hon. Member for Oldham had told them that they had better let this matter drop. When the representative for Wolverhampton had said that these charges should not rest there, the hon. Member for Oldham had said to him, "You had better let the matter rest, for I can undertake to prove all Mr. Ferrand has said—and ten times worse." He challenged the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, then, to move for his select committee. Let them institute an inquiry into those charges—let them examine and see who was right. To-night he would undertake to state the charges which he had to make against the dishonest part of the manufacturers, and if hon. Members opposite denied the truth of his allegations, he would drive them to the course of asking for a select committee of inquiry. The letter he was about to read was from a poor man in a manufacturing town in Lancashire, and he did trust that hon. Members opposite, if they would not lis- ten to him, would at least listen to a poor man. Members opposite boasted that they were the champions of the poor man, and that they came to the House of Commons to ask for a repeal of the Corn-laws for the sake of the poor man. Let them listen for a moment to the words of a poor man.—

"Bolton, March 1.

"My dear Sir,—It is with the greatest pleasure I read your speech of last Thursday. It was one of the sort that has long been wanted; but, Sir, though it appears to have struck such a panic amongst them as they (the Anti-Corn-law League) little expected, you did not positively more than half do it. I wish some one on the Conservative side of the House would move for a committee of inquiry. I feel confident it would strike such an awe over them as they would not be guilty of such practices. On Monday evening, the 21st ult., a meeting of the Anti-Corn-law League was held in the Temperance-hall, when—was called to the chair. Now, Sir, this is a spinning-master, and occupies a large mill in— street. He lives about a mile out of town in a splendid mansion on the—road, near which is a farm which keeps about twenty cows. Mind, Sir, he was not worth a suit of clothes when he came to Bolton at the first, but a poor Irish lad, all rags and tatters. This man now, Sir, not only compels his spinners to have cottages, but also reelers (girls sixteen years of age) must pay rent from 2s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. per week, or they must have no work. They must also have a quart of milk a day, whether they can drink it or not. Dear Sir, the houses are of the worst description, and are re-let by the workpeople from a shilling to half-a-crown a-week. and very often not let at all, and then, of course, they lose all the rent. The master stops it out of their wages, if they have not a penny to take home. Most of the spinning-masters compel their spinners to have cottages, but none except they of the Anti Corn-law League make girls. These gentlemen are always screwing and oppressing. I will tell you of another rascally trick of—. He makes a practice of running his mill from Monday until Saturday, and because Saturday is a short day, on which we work only nine hours, he stops at noon, and only pays the hands for five days and a half. 1 wish you would just give him a touch in the House of Commons on this point, I think it would stop him, and you would confer a blessing on hundreds of poor helpless factory people (helpless, I say, because too many of us, owing to the coupling of wheels, &c.)

"I am yours, &c.,

"—, Lancashire.

"To — Ferrand, Esq., London."

This was a poor labouring man, who had not got the education that many other people had, and he, therefore, trusted the House would excuse the plainness of his language. [Mr. W. Williams: "Name, name."] I will give it, said Mr. Ferrand, to the hon. Member, if he pleases, as soon as I sit down, and if he leaves the House for that purpose, I will follow him. But, let me tell him, the poor working men have suffered too much for attempting to expose the tyranny of their masters, and if a select committee should be granted by the House these poor wretches will never dare to come forward and give evidence unless they receive the protection of the Government of the country. He knew his statements on this subject, he continued, to be true, and he would tell the House that the working classes themselves asserted them to be true, and of that he would convince the House before he sat down. He had given them an instance of the tyranny practised in Lancashire; he would now give them another which occurred in Yorkshire, in his own neighbourhood, and again he said he was prepared to give up his authority to any hon. Member who required him to do so:— A poor weaver, residing in the township of —, with a wife and family of small children, has been for some time employed by a wealthy worsted, yarn, and stuff manufacturer, who has practised the abominable system of having a retail shop on his premises, where his work people well understood that they are to expend their hard-earned pittance in the purchase of shop goods. This poor man incurred a trifling debt, of about 10s. 6d. at this said shop, which he agreed to liquidate by allowing a deduction of 1s. weekly from his wages. But, alas! poor man, though he had not food for a day's sustenance for his family, when he carried in his work on the taking-in day, at the close of the week ending on the 19th of February instant, this wealthy millocrat deducted the 10s. 6d., which was the full amount of his wages due, and sent him away penniless, and refused to give him further employment. In this state of distress he applied to a magistrate on Monday morning, the 21st instant, for a summons for his wages, 10s. 6d., which he obtained (and I am glad to say, that the clerk gave him credit for his fee); but, what do you think? The tyrant shrank, for fear of the exposure, and compromised the affair with his injured slave, and thus ended the investigation of the case by a magistrate.

These were the Anti-Corn-law League men! He had scores upon scores of such cases in his possession, which he was prepared to prove before a select committee —ay, not only that, but he would tell the House that the working classes of England were rising up in defence of their cause, and were prepared to prove every word he had said. What would hon. Members opposite say, when he told them, that in spite of all the calumnies which might be heaped on his head by interested parties out of doors, the working classes of Birmingham had assembled in public meeting, and had unanimously passed a vote of thanks to him for exposing the conduct of their hard-hearted taskmasters? Here was the notice:— At a meeting of the working classes, convened at the King's Head Inn, Dudley-street, Birmingham, a vote of thanks was unanimously passed to Mr. Ferrand, the patriotic representative of Knaresborough, for his philanthropic defence of the operatives of England; his fearless exposure of the fraudulent designs of the Anti-Corn-law League, and the oppression and tyranny of Whig-Radical millocrats.

He would tell the House that at that meeting the working men stood forward and justified everything he had said within those walls, and declared themselves ready to prove his statements by evidence. Let it no longer be said that the weight of the charges he had made lay on his own head. Again, he challenged hon. Members opposite to move for a select committee, and if they would not do it, he would. He must now allude to what was said by the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, on a previous evening. That noble Lord stated that he (the noble Lord) understood he had only charged a limited number of manufacturers with the frauds which he had brought under the notice of the House. When the noble Lord sat down, he rose and told him he had brought the charge to a great extent against the bulk of the manufacturers, and that he was also ready to prove it. He had thought it his duty on Saturday last, in deference to the high position which that noble Lord held, not only in that House, but also in the estimation of the public out of doors, to send the noble Lord a sample of the common sort of cloth sold in Lancashire to the working classes. He had also sent a sample to the Prime Minister, for he was determined that his proceedings should not be carried on in the dark, and they should have ocular demonstration of what he had asserted, and what he was prepared to prove. Was there any hon. Member who would deny that the common sort of manufactures were daubed over with flour paste? He had a sample of the cloth in his hand, and he asked the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, who knew a good deal of the affairs of the world, if he ever in his life saw such plunder as that to which the working men were exposed by this means. It was dreadful to contemplate; it was horrible to behold. Yes, the shirting which was sold to the poor people of Lancashire was completely daubed over with flour paste. [Laughter."] He asked hon. Members who laughed, whether an inquiry ought not to be made into what he said, if it were true, and if it were untrue, whether such an opportunity of contradicting it had ever been offered to opponents? If what he asserted were true, did they by their smiles and derisive cheers hope to put it down? If the poor were robbed, as he said they were, was it not the duty of the Legislature to protect them? They came and asked the protection of that House. Did he ask anything unfair? Did he say anything in their behalf at which the House should shrink? If he did, fairly and with heartfelt gratitude would he give place to any hon. Member who would stand up and defend their cause within those walls. He was doing what he could for the poor, and, therefore, let not the Members of that House sneer at him. He felt that he was acting conscientiously; his own heart guided him in what he did, and if he erred in the slightest degree let the blame fall upon his own head, but let not the cause of the poor suffer. He asked the noble Lord opposite if he was not convinced from what he (Mr. Ferrand) had shown, that it was the duty of the Legislature to step in and prevent the robbery committed upon the poor, through the frauds which he (Mr. Ferrand) had exposed to the House? He would now read a letter published on the 1st of December last in the Manchester Guardian, a newspaper considered the organ of the Anti-Corn-law League, which would throw some light on the fraudulent practices to which he had alluded, and their effects:—

"The Corn-laws.—To the Editor of the Manchester Guardian."

"Sir,—A power-loom manufacturer, working 1,000 looms is now paying more by 15l. per week, or upwards of 750l. per annum, for the flour used in his manufactory in the process of dressing, than he did for the same quantity in 1835. The present duty on corn gives the foreign manufacturer an advantage of several hundreds a year in such an establishment over the English one in the single article of sizing flour. The Corn-laws, by limiting the demand for goods at home and abroad, cause ruinous prices, heavy stocks, and general stagnation and depression, such as we are now suffering under. While these exist the manufacturer, in his efforts to save himself, endeavours to reduce the cost of production, and if he pays more for flour, he must pay less for labour. Thus wages are reduced, and this is one way in which the workpeople suffer from the high price of grain. A complete spinning and Weaving establishment consumes as much flour in the process of dressing as the workpeople employed in it eat; and if flour was at the same price now as it was in 1835, the manufacturer could as well afford to give his hands nearly half as many loaves as they consume, in addition to their present wages, as he can now afford to pay them the latter. —I am, Sir, yours,

A MANUFACTURER."

"Stockport, Nov. 30,1841."

Would hon. Members opposite now deny that flour paste was used in the making of calico? When he said that 100,000 quarters of wheat were consumed in the manufacture of such articles, under a system most baneful to the public, he spoke within bounds. He had thought it his duty on Thursday last to inform the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, that he should find it necessary, in defending himself from the charges brought against him by an hon. Member opposite, to refer to the correspondence which took place between the noble Lord and Mr. Baker, superintendent of factories, ordered by the House of Commons, to be printed, June 21, 1836, when the noble Lord was Secretary for the Home Department. He did not blame the noble Lord for not understanding the manufacture of shoddy cloth, for at that time there was scarcely a man living in the South of England who knew anything about it. The letter of the superintendent was as follows:— My Lord,—In the case of Taylor, Ibbotson, and Co., I took the evidence from the mouths of the boys themselves. They stated to me they commenced working on Friday morning, the 27th of May last, at six o'clock, a. m., and that, with the exception of meal hours and one hour at midnight extra, they did not cease working till four o'clock on Saturday evening having been two days and a night thus engaged.

This would sufficiently show the horrid cruelties inflicted on the poor by their pretended friends; and he begged the House to recollect that these men, Taylor, Ibbotson, and Co., were great Anti-Corn-law men. This was the true character of the members of the League, who felt so much for the sufferings of the poor, and who were so anxious to repeal the Corn-laws for the benefit of the poor man, and not for their own. Another working man wrote to him as follows:— I am employed in the shoddy trade in Batley, near Dewsbury. I have not seen your last speech on the Corn-law debate, but I hear you made some reference to the use of shoddy; but that is not the worst part of the business. In every piece made, there is 3lb. and upwards of the best of flour used as stiffening, to deceive the wearer, and eventually ruin the trade. In the parish of Batley, there are some hundreds of pecks of the very best flour used in this way in the year. Batley Carr, another village a mile distant from Batley, used to have a very good trade in the manufacture of paddings and druggets, but they carried this shoddy and stiffening to such a length that trade is lost, all the village ruined, and but a few masters retired independent. In the stiffening of druggets and paddings there were used from 5lb, to 6lb. per piece.

Let hon. Members listen for a few more moments, and he would show them how the trade of the country had declined. It was the frauds practised in the manufacture which had ruined the trade of many districts, and not the effects of the Corn-laws. He had given them testimony to this, out of the mouths of the working men, and now he would read them the account which a manufacturer residing at Witney, in Oxfordshire, gave of some of those frauds. This person wrote to him:

"Witney, February 26,1842.

Sir, If you want further corroboration about the rags, &c, used by some of the northern manufacturers, and would not mind inquiring of Messrs Lightfoot and Morris, the Government inspectors at Deptford dockyard, they could give you some very good proofs of it as used up in the jackets for our sailors, and technically called 'shoddy.' It is composed of old coarse woollens, such as blankets torn up after they are comparatively worn out. There is no' staple left to the wool, and, however nicely got up to please the eye, cloth made of such stuff, when it comes to be exposed to the wind and rain, will rot in a very little time. Ask them if the blue flushing made here last season, (in consequence of the complaints made of the cloth used for the sailor's jackets and trousers), did not give every satisfaction, as it was made of long English wool. It was in consequence of the many complaints on this score, that the navy board last year substituted the old Witney pattern of cloth again, after having laid it aside for ten years in consequence of the Yorkshire people always underselling them through the use of 'shoddy' or 'devil's dust.' I will give you further information, for, although a Whig and a manufacturer, I am an enemy to all trickery, and some of your remarks are bitingly true.—Z."

He asked hon. Members opposite to do him as much justice as this manufacturer. If they were anxious to serve their country and the working people, they would not allow politics to stand in the way. He called on the hon. Member for Salford to come forward and lend his aid in the prosecution of this inquiry, and he was most ready to bear witness to the noble, manly, and generous exertions of that hon. Member in the cause of the factory children. Though, on this question, the hon. Member and himself might be at daggers drawn, still he hoped the day was not far distant when they should join hand and heart together in the attempt to rescue the poor factory children from the state of degradation to which they were now reduced. He had trespassed on the time of the House, in order to defend himself from the charges brought against him on Friday last. He felt that he had only done his duty; he could prove every word he had said, and, while standing there in defence of the working classes of England, he was forti6ed and strengthened by receiving with every post scores and scores of letters from those poor working men, as well as others from every grade and class of society, begging him not to be confounded and put down by any opposition in that House, and imploring him to make the truth known. It was with that intention he had come into the House; on that ground he took his stand, and was determined never to be put down. In the name of the working classes of England he challenged hon. Members opposite, he implored them, to ask for a select committee.

Mr. C. P. Villiers

held in his hand the names of thirty other manufacturers who wished to add them to the declaration he had read to the House on Friday night, conveying their indignant denial of the charges made by the hon. Member for Knaresborough. He should think any man might be astonished by hearing the hon. Member calling on Gentlemen on that side of the House to ask for a select committee. The hon. Member had made the charges himself, and it was his duty to substantiate them. It was his duty to move for an instant inquiry into them. Not a single Member on that side of the House would oppose him. Any manufacturer would, he was sure, be glad to second a motion for inquiry, and then they would be ready to vindicate themselves from the charges brought against them.

Mr. J. Fielden

believed there was a great deal of truth in what had been advanced by the hon. Member for Knaresborough. If a committee of the House were granted there would be such a developement of the proceedings of a great many manufacturers as would call for the application of an effectual remedy of some kind or other. It was asserted that the poor were now suffering grievous oppression in a variety of ways. The quantity of the persons employed was increasing, and the oppression of the poor increased in the same proportion. He should be very willing to second a motion for a select committee to examine the accuracy of the statements which had been set forth. He thought it would be found that the same oppressive proceedings were in many instances chargeable on the cultivators of the soil. He would read to the House a statement which appeared two or three weeks ago in the public newspapers. The proceeding to which it referred took place in a county magistrates' office on Monday, Feb. 14, when there were present Messrs. H. S. Olivier, W. Hughes, and T. H. Grubbe. The hon. Member read the following paragraph from the Wiltshire Independent:— Jeffry Dowse, a labouring man, was charged with damaging a maiden oak tree, the property of the trustees of the late Mr. Watson Taylor, at Urchfont. A policeman slated that he saw the defendant go from his house to a tree, into which he climbed and cut wood with a billhook. He then went to him and stopped him, and took away the hook. This was before six o'clock in the morning. It was bright moonlight. Mr. New said that the damage was 1s. Dowse, in his defence, said, 'I was driven to do this by distress, to get something to make a fire to wash clothes for my family. I've a wife and five children; and no week this winter have I earned more than 7s. Last week I only earned 6s. 3d.; and out of that I paid 1s. l0½d. rent, and 9d. for firing, and what was left (3s. 7½d.) was all we had to keep seven persons. One of the Magistrates. —You need not have married; besides, your distressed condition did not authorise you to steal. Dowse.—No, Sir; but distress drives one to do what you would not at another time. If I go to prison, I shall have some victuals to eat, that's one comfort. A Magistrate.— You have an honest face; it is a pity you should do such things. You look honest. (A more respectable-looking labouring man we have seldom seen.) In answer to one of the magistrates, Dowse said that he had been digging for Mr. John Snook, and before that for Mr. Weeks. Fined 10s. including costs. Dowse.—I could not pay 10d., much less 10s I must go to prison, I suppose. He was committed for fourteen days. If the House would set about devising a remedy for such a state of things they must look to the poverty which overspread the people both in the rural and manufacturing districts. While this poverty existed they must expect to have such complaints urged upon them again and again; and however discreditable to the House and the country the statements might be which had been made by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, he was glad they had been brought forward, and he hoped the hon. Member would insist on their being fully investigated.

Mr. Lambton,

as the representative of a northern constituency in some degree affected by the statements of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, expressed a hope that he would move for a committee forthwith.

Mr. Ferrand

said, he had brought forward these charges in reply to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton told him a few nights ago that the matter should not be allowed to rest where it was, and he thought the hon. Member would instantly have moved for a select committee to enable him to prove the charges he had made. He was prepared that instant to produce his authorities to the House, or before a select committee, whenever it should be appointed; and he had made up his mind himself to move before Easter for a committee to investigate the whole matter, unless some other hon. Member should do so before Friday next.

Mr. Villiers

said he had not allowed the matter to rest, having produced to the House the names of upwards of 100 manufacturers who broadly and most unequivocally denied the charge.

Subject at an end.

Back to