§ Mr. Villierssaid, that not having precisely understood the rule the Speaker had laid down the other evening with respect to persons out of this House noticing what had been said by Members in the House, he wished to know whether in the present case he was in order. If he understood the Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman had said that persons out of the House were not entitled in any statement they might submit to the House to comment upon or answer any charges affecting them made by any Member of the House. The House would remember that the question arose upon certain manufacturers and others in Lancashire, charged with certain practices by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, denying the truth of his statements. Since that time, and late last evening, during his absence from the House, the same hon. Member, as he was informed, had repeated some of the same charges which the hon. Member had uttered before. Now he wished to know whether, as the hon. Member had been suffered to make such statements, he might read the notice of his speech by the woollen manufacturers residing in Yorkshire in the precise places where the hon. Member had brought his accusations, denying everything that the Hon. Member had said with regard to them? He had declarations to this effect now in his hand, and he wished to know if he were precluded by the rules of the House from reading them.
§ The Speakersaid, that such a proceeding would be irregular.
§ Mr. Villierssaid, they certainly contained a reference to the hon. Member's speech, as the charges were contained in that speech. He wished now to know 662 whether, upon any future occasion, or upon any other motion, he should be allowed to submit them to the House?
§ The Speakersaid, that the only way in which such a denial could be made, was either in moving for a committee upon the subject, or in examinations before that committee.
§ Mr. Ferrandsaid, that if the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would publish to the world the names of the whole of the members of the Anti-Corn-law League, it would soon be discovered who did, and who did not, pursue the truck system.
§ Mr. Villierssaid, that the hon. Member must see that he could not give the hon. Member a list of the Anti-Corn-law League. He was not aware who were members of it. He had only received the statements of many of that body denying the statements of the hon. Member, and he certainly had seen no reason to doubt the truth of what they said respecting themselves.
§ Mr. Cobdenwished to ask a question of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, with reference to what had fallen from him last night. The hon. Member was reported in the Times to have said, "The other night, the Member for Stockport said he had inquired whether, in his mills or ' printing-works, the truck system prevailed, and that he had found that it did not—whereas, the fact was, that the hon. Member himself kept cows, and forced his people to buy milk from them." He wished to know whether the hon. Member for Knaresborough charged him with the truck system?
§ Mr. Ferrandsaid, that what he had said was, that he did not know whether the hon. Member for Stockport was in his place, but if he was, would the hon. Member deny that he kept cows, and supplied the people with milk from them, deducting the amount from their wages?
§ Mr Cobden:Does the hon. Member charge me with pursuing the truck-system?
§ Mr. Ferrandhad said "Would the hon Member deny it?" If he did, it was his duty to take that denial; but he would give his reasons for having asked the question, and his authority for having done so.
§ Mr. Cobdenhoped that the House Would give him credit for not wishing to introduce personal discussion into its debates. It seemed to him that the statement which 663 had gone abroad in the "Times" as a charge 1 against him was withdrawn. He was not, therefore, directly called upon to answer it, but he would treat it as a charge made against him last night which was not adhered to to-day. If, however, the House would allow him, he would state a few: facts in reference to the business with which he was connected. That business could not be carried on without the consumption of large quantities of cow-dung He was now letting the hon. Member for Knaresborough into the arcana of the calico printing trade. As many hundred tons of dung were used in this trade, it was necessary for manufacturers to keep great: numbers of cows. Now, it so happened: that his printing work being situated close to a town, it was found more convenient to buy the requisite quantity of dung than to keep cows, and therefore the insinuations of the hon. Member for Knaresborough were not only untrue, but destitute of the shadow of a foundation. If the House would allow him, he would remind it that those charges were evidently got up for the purpose of distracting the attention of the public from a great and important question. He must confess that he did not understand how the alleged misconduct of mill-owners and manufacturers could properly form a part of discussions on the Corn-laws. If it was true, as the hon. Member for Knaresborough had stated, that the master manufacturers were tyrants to their workmen, that could be no reason why their sufferings should be added to by increasing the price of food.
Mr. S. Worthyrose to order. The hon. Member for Stockport was not in order in entering into the Corn-law question. He should confine himself to the charge brought against him.
§ The Speakersaid, that the question before the house was that the order of the day be now read. Hon. Members ought not to wander from it.
§ Mr. Cobdendid not feel that he was intruding upon the House. He had tried to avoid personalities. He had borne much from the other side of the House. He had borne it because he knew that the annoyance was part of a system to lead attention away from a great question recently before the House. He was not afraid to meet the hon. Member for Knaresborough on questions of personal character. If this House was to be made an arena for the discussion of questions of social relations between fathers and sons, 664 brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, masters and servants, or between neighbour and neighbour, he would not be ashamed to enter into such discussion. Nay, he challenged the hon. Member to it. He had always studied to avoid personalities, but if charges were to be made against him he should meet the Gentleman who brought them forward on any ground which he wished. He repeated that such charges were only attempts to divert public attention from a great question. Hon. Members charged manufacturers with being tyrants to their workmen. He did not stand there as an advocate for their indiscriminate defence. There were good and bad mill-owners and manufacturers, as there were good and bad of all classes; but that was no reason for stigmatising them as a class; and even although they were all, without exception, bad, still that, again, was no reason for taxing the poor man's loaf. The great question from which attention was sought to be diverted was that attacking corn and provision monopoly—attacking the monopoly of the people's bread; and, when it was attempted to divert public attention from these grievances, by talking of "devil's dust," and the enormities of the manufacturers, such subjects of discussion were quite unworthy of the House.
§ Mr. S. Wortleysaid, there was no man in the House more averse to the introduction of personal altercation than he was, but with respect to the charges of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, this must be borne in mind, that when that hon. Gentleman undertook to show that the gentlemen connected with the Anti-Corn-law League were obnoxious to these imputations, he was only following an example set him by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Whatever might be the faults of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, he (Mr. S. Wortley) would at least say— and he thought that the majority of the House would agree with him in the assertion—that charges against his language did not come with very good grace from the hon. Gentleman opposite, who had taken so violent a part in the defence of the league. With respect to the hon. Member for Stockport, could the House forget the language which he had used last Session, while addressing the House upon the agricultural interest? The House would not forget the terms "monsters, and tyrants, and demons," which figured in that speech. [Mr. Cobden spoke 665 of their legislation.] He spoke of the agricultural classes collectively; he spoke of the landowners interposing like monsters between the people and their prosperity. And when such language was made use of on that side of the House—when such sentiments were promulgated in other parts of the country—when such violent and rancorous descriptions were given, could the Member for Stockport he so simple as to suppose that abuse of this kind could be made use of by persons in his station without being necessarily followed by retribution—that retribution which had descended upon its author in this House? Whatever might be the justice of the cause the hon. Member for Knaresborough advocated, however severe the criticism which might be made on some of the observations of that Gentleman, he did say that the hon. Member for Stockport was the last person in the world who was justified in attacking the hon. Member.
§ Viscount Howickwould have taken no part in the present discussion, had it not been for some remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He could not help expressing his surprise, nay, his deep regret, that a gentleman for whom he entertained so much respect should come forward in that House, and endeavour to defend the employment in its debates of those gross personalities which had been, in his opinion, so mischievously introduced. The hon. Member said, that, without pretending to justify the tone of the observations of the hon. Member for Knaresborough—for he was hardly prepared to do that—yet that he was not surprised at them, in consequence of the provocation which the hon. Member for Knaresborough had received from the other side of the House, and particularly on the part of the hon. Member for Stockport. Now he would refer to the speeches made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough, and also to the charges brought against that class of persons interested in land. He agreed with the hon. Member for Stockport in disapproving of those wholesale charges with respect to any class of men; he disapproved of those insinuations which had been thrown out by the Anti-Corn League. He believed that the course adopted by that body had materially injured the cause to which it was attached—the cause of effecting a material improvement in the laws regulating the importation of foreign corn. But he would point out to the hon. Member who had 666 just sat down, and to the House, the manifest differences between charges brought against a class—charges, however improper, affecting their conduct as a public body, and charges applied to individuals pointed out by name, or indicated by allusion— charges applied to particular persons, not only of misconduct, but of gross infraction of the law. He was sure that nothing could be more injurious than the introduction of such topics in that House—nothing so little likely to tend to a calm consideration of the subjects which came before its notice; but he agreed with the hon. Member for Stockport that there was a still greater error on the part of Gentlemen on the other side of the House, when they attempted, by means of personality, to lead away attention from a great measure. He would not have said a word upon the subject had it not been for what had fallen from his hon. Friend opposite; but after having heard the sentiments which he had given utterance to, he found it impossible for him to refrain from expressing the difference which existed between their opinions on the subject. He thought that the personalities which had been used with respect to the manufacturers could not be justified, and could not be palliated, because they were of a different character from those brought against landowners. He trusted that there would he in future an absence of all reference to similar personalities.
§ Mr. Ferrandsaid, that the House would remember what the hon. Member for Stockport had declared, that the Corn-laws were the cause of the distress of the working classes. During the last recess it had been his lot, and his privilege, to have had many conferences with the working men in his part of the country. He had communed with deputations sent from the West Riding of Yorkshire, and all those persons distinctly stated that the distress was occasioned not by the Corn-laws, but by the tyranny, the oppression, and the plundering of the master manufacturers. He had stood up in his place, and said so; and in this matter he had used the argumentum ad hominem. He had done it. He had also been prepared to give evidence in support of his assertions; and though the hon. Member for Stockport had stated that he spoke on anonymous authority, he could prove all he had said, and would prove it when a committee was given him for the purpose.
§ Mr. Villierssaid, that he hoped he 667 House would remember that he had only been precluded by the forms of the House from reading a most complete denial of the hon. Member's statements, coming from Bingley and other places in the hon. Member's immediate neighbourhood.
§ Subject at an end.