The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-05 00:00:00

7 T
- EN G EDITION.

'"'Pu sati, ns upon Members of i hat House, and comment-
'"g'. anon proceedings of that House, and brineing in a vast
-es'al Of extraneous. matter, and that this Report ;vas
, r4lO-eted by the Home S•.cretary, and laid upon the
! ta'ole of that House under his authority and sanction,
" land that it was printed and circulated at the expense of
1' the country, he ( Lord A.) thought the matter had
1 assumed such a serious aspect, that he was justified in
calling upon the Secretary for the Home Department to
maintain those charges or to withdraw them.—(Hear.)
That was an act purely voluntary on the part. of the
( Home Secretary. By the Act of Parliament the in•
i Spector was to make a Report to the Secretary of State
for the Horne Department ; but the Aet of Parliament
) said nothing about the Noble Lord la; ing that Report
on the table of the House. It also bound the hispee-
tor, and hit', down the precise terms and character of
the report-. For it said that he should report the
state ant workin:r of the factories and mills,
and the children employed therein, and whether such
factories or mills were or were not conducted accordant;
to the Clirections of that. House and the laws 01l the
realm. No further was he to go. When, therefore,
the Noble Lord received 4 Report full of extraneous
mata.er, having nothing to do with the subject
in band, and cow:tilling personal charges against
Members for their conduct in the Committee
~. r.nd in that House, he thought the Noble Lord
Wright have said to the Inspector that, not being a
1 report within the terms of the Act and beyond his
I. jurisdiction, that he might wi!hdraw it, and present one
more suited to the occasion. The Noble Lord, how-
ever, took no such course.—( Hear, hear.) He
adopted the Report and the allegations it contained,
and laid every thing on the table of the House.
giving the sanction of his high official authority to it,
and causing it to be printed and circulated at the ex-
pense of the country. Now the portion to which he
wished to call the attention of the House was that con-
tained at page 53, and the Report there stated that the
only legitimate object for which the Committee was ap-
pointed was to inquire into the proceedings of
a"Y combinations of workmen or the employers
iof workmesi, an object altogether foreign to
the inquiry which had been instituted. by the Com-
thittee. There, in the outset, the Committee was
charged with having violated the order of reference for
purposes exclusively their own. In the came page he
found it stated that the intention of the Committee to
institute such an investigation was in no way made
known to the factory owners—(Hear)—that it was
incumbent on the Secretary of State to prove that the
Committee had no such intention. The Report also
complained that no intimation bad been male to him
as Inspector of Factories in the district, and it added
that the course followed by the Committee in coneealing
their intention to include in their inquiry infringements
on ti..e Factory Act was the more liable to animadversion
because one of the Members, previously to the examis
nation of three cotton spinners, had a private meeting,
and questioned them respecting the violation of the
Acf• in their factories. There the Committee was
charged with having designedly and sedulously con-
cealed their real objects, and in that proceeding that
they were liable to severe animadversions. That might
be a fair charge for the Noble Lord to make in his place,
but he asked whether it was within the jurisdiction of
all Inspector of Factories to comment upon the pro-
ceedings of the Committee in a public document,
netwithstandine• the privileges of the House,
and to circulate that at the public expense.
Now, involved in that sentence, there was also a personal
charge, " It is more liable to animadversion, because
one of the Members of the Committee had previously a
Meeting with the cotton spinners," Would the Noble
Lord say who that was?
Lord JOHN RUS:-.iELL—I don't know.
Lord ASHLEY—There was the difficulty. The
Noble Lord threw on the table a charge against some
one he did not know.—(Tory cheers.) There was
a personal charge against some one Member, which
the Noble Lord sanctioned by his authority, anti yet
be now said, that he had no notion of the person
against whom the charge was made.
%Ir. O'CONNELL—It means me.—( Loud-laughter
and cries of " Order.")
Lord ASHLEY—No doubt the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin WAS perfectly capable of defending
himself against any charge. There was another charge
against the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, in
which he (Lord Ashley) believed the Hon. Member
would not acquiesce. The next passage to which he
wished to refer was in the 54th page. This was an
answer, which affected himself personally, not so much
for his conduct in the House as in the Committee. It
stated that Messrs. Holden, Todd, and M'Naught, three
master cotton-spinners, were selected by the master
spinners of Glasgow as the fittest persons to attend
before the Committee, yet not a single question
respecting the operation of the Factory Act was
put to Mr. Holden, or Mr. M'Naught, and that
when Mr. Todd, in answer to Lord Ashley's second
question, stated that he took no children under thirteen
years of age, his Lordship did not put another question.
Noiv just let him show what was the state of the matter.
In the 522 d question, Lord Granville Somerset asks,
“1-low soon do you take children in to work?" The answer
la," We do not take in any below the age allowed by the
Act, thirteen years old." He (Lord A.) then threw in the
Tiestion, "Do you take none under thirteen ?" The
answer was " none," and there it ended. Now, upon
k4l Was brought a charge of some unfair dealing, the
Whole scope of which he could not quite gather. He
Perfectly recollected, when the witness said he took no
children under the age of thirteen, that he (Lord
jAshieY) merely wished to ascertain this point. He
~,ad learnt that in many of the mills throughout
kale,
, Jand and Scotland, the masters, being anxious
‘0 be quit of all the burdens of the provisions
ofth the law had determined to employ no children under
e age restricted to eight hours a day. He, therefore,
wished to know whether this was one of the mills. He
1::At the question, and having received the answer he
as "tiStied• How was it possible, with a charge so
indefinite,i he could give a more definite answer.—(A
old only
augh.) The Noble Lord might smile, but he (Lord A.)
say, on his word of honour as a gentleman, that
lietionhadf no other motive.—(Cheers.) He had no inten-
distinoctaoin indistinct, Factory Act, and he had no view,
it
theertotrtin
°Pero towards an exhibition of the in-
to as lye parts of the Factory Act. He merely wished
such earto be
that simple fact, and having ascertained
left it ; and yet on this there was built
from accusation, that, if he was to judge
more wh" appeared n the Morning Papers, a person
No, !luestionable, never figured in this House.
tniont• In the next question, in page 54, in the exa-
son .1" of the combined cotton spinners and Mr. Alli-
thl !t Was said that it was conducted in such a way as
awe_lt could not fail to infotm the witness of the an-
rogart that would be most agreeable to the inter-
/104°r. He was extremely sorry to delay the
do . se, I'ol he thought it was necessary that he should
4410 considering how he had been attacked. The
oet talc would observe that, in all these matters, he was
culprit Person to introduce the Question, as the real
24, It seemed to be the Honourable and Learned
taher
at what for Dublin, for that Learned Member asked
faesnri„ age children' were taken into spinning menu-
taken ;$ at Glasgow. He asked whether till), were
answers Young as nine years of age, and upon being
opinin answers
in the negative, he asked whether it was the
out byn or the witness that the law was honestly worked
did not taking any children under nine years of age,
" ti
the w. 'e witness think there was any fraud ? to which
eiser„:!ness replied, that lie must state distinctly that the
the --I..'e cotton-spinners were necessitated to overlook
takia a``; in order to keep their machines moving by
Up, g in children under eight nor nine years of age.
vOn hearing .
"then this answer, he (Lord Ashley) directly said
Qenttet:nyeour knowledge the law is set at. defiance?" Hon.
ibio,l
co n opposite might smile, but he (Lord Ashley)
witness's, nfess that he +IS struck by the strength of the
4„e
4uestion‘,l:otnlguage, anwdl then it was that he put the
Could any. ;our knowledge the law is set at defiance .
fiance wben one doubt that the law was set at de-
cotton., i the witness stated that the operative
law, ,13 one were necessitated to overlook the
erassivtotii it right., such being
Iri orer to keep their machines moving
the case, that such charges
two 4 be brought against him, because he had put those
64 questions ?—( Hear, hear.) Then, in pages 58 and
el:4°re were a number of special charges against him—
Lord" which he felt bound to tell the Noble
cOtoia,, °Pposite it would have been more be-
lions' in him if he had made publicly in the
Was
stt_ than by a public document. In page 55 it
coon_eated, that having explained the circumstances
would led with the proceedings of the Committee, it
lion, be seen that they were of an ex-parte &scrip-
WotlTd Very questionable in their representations.
quest opbc Noble Lord say, in what respect they were
langn "able ? Was such language as he had read proper
fesen age to be used by a Government officer in re-
iostelie to proceedings of that House. The Noble Lord, •
have matte making them in a public document, should
ItirQlt them the ground of a substantive motion. *lie
slonsa
‘W, ont on to state that a statement made in that
Noel e %as calumnious. The Hon. Member for Dublin
d b_
the l,: best able to say whether it was so or not, as
by bi2L'Oed calumny was contained in a speech made
(Lor(i, . Mr. Stuart then went on to state that he
slinuid? ) wished that offenders against the Factory Act
or inure Punished in the same way as midnight robbers
tnttent Was Would the Noble Lord adopt that sen-
officer
ni,
~. that proper language to be used by an
Mew,:
of with reference to the conduct of
of a 'veer _ I that House, and while acting in the capacity
Was Lniber of that House ? He thought the House
tie, , "'ld to take notice of the Report, in jus-
-1 CO it,
°Wed
till OWn character ; for was it to be M-
any one, more especially a paid officer
of the Go`%t
nir,.__ e 'ernment, should impute such motives—such
heTallp a. motives to any one who took up a question as
Mr, Stuart'i done upon principle ? In page 56 of that Report
goe,
the ~d on to say, that the real object of all
en. nrovocates of the Ten Hours' Bill is altogether differ-
issorvets mintthoe atvilo,wed one. They probably deceive them-
belief that they were acting in
Plovi:eurr. ()if_ the children, but by giving no discretionary
their
chiefu the Inspector with regard to prosecutions.
alai was to pave the way for a Tee Hour
gee5..........._