The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-18 00:00:00

__,....
nesday. last, when he :saw the gangway, made so
___
me„ ex-
traordinary statements in his speech, and that in so deter-
mined and firm a manner, that he (Mr. Ferrand) had no
doubt that the Douce believed them to be all true. The Hon.
Member said, in one part of his speech. that. such ,leeches
as used to be made by Lord Ashley had not been heard that
- . .

day, except from the s;oble Lord the Member for Newark, and
that Lord Ashley used to make speeches in that House which he
now given up, and which had been proved to be wrong.
He (Mr. 1! errand) was prepared to challenge the Hon. Mem-
ber to prove that any statement. Lord Ashley ever made in
that House connected with the Ten Hours' Bill was not

strictly true. It was not manly of the Hon. Member to come
there and attack Lord Ashley behind his back.
Mr. ROEBUCK here made some observation.
Mr. FERRAND—" He could come here," said the Hon.
Member for Bath.
Mr. ROEBUCK—I did not say so.
Mr. FERRAND said that he understood the Hon. Member
to say so, and the next time the Hon. Member interrupted
him, let him speak so as to be understood. The Noble Lord
was not there to defend himself, and he (Mr. Ferrand) should
be accused of ingratitude towards the Noble Lord, if he sat
in that House and allowed his character to be so unjustly at-
tacked, when he had sacrificed his seat for the principle of
this measure. The Noble Lord had published to his consti-
tuency a letter, stating his determination to support the re-
peal of the corn- laws, and he (Mr. Ferrand) was justified in
saying that he (Lord Ashley) had received a communication
ide to him from the leading cotton-spinners of Lancashire, to
the effect that if he did support them in obtaining the repeal of
the corn-laws they would support him in his Ten Hours'
Factory Bill, which the Noble Lord had supported during
the best period of his life. The other day in Lancashire the
Noble Lord attended a vast meeting, when no man dared tb
oppose him. Tile lion. Member was in Rochdale, but did not
meet Lord Ashley.
Mr. BRIG FIT—No I was not, I beg your pardon.
Mr. FERRAND begged pardon. Why did not the Hon.
Member meet him there, when his own brother appeared?—he
had not the pluck to do it. The Hon. Member did not go to him
face to face and make his charges. The brother of the Hon. i
Member had the pluck to go, and manfully spoke before his
own workmen, but he was not able to get a single man to se-
cond him. He again asked the Hon. Member what state-
ment of Lord Ashley's which was ever made in that Honse
he was prepared to refute? Two years ago the Hon. Mem-
ber made some such statements as these against the Noble
Lord, who was accused of having made some unfounded state.
ment in that House with regard to the childen in the factories.
The Hon. Member for Durham had referred to a petition
which had been presented to that House from Blanchester,
with 70,000 signatures, in support of a repeal of the corn.
laws, as a contrast to the petition of the operatives in favour
of the present Bill, signed by 22,000. Why, the popu-
lation of Manchester was but 262,000, and the male
adults there not more than 40,000, so that it would be
impossible to get up a petition with 70,000 names,
even if all the male adults signed it. He trusted, when the
Bill went into Committee, the Hon. Member would get up
and explain how this petition was got up, as he (Mr. Fer-
rand) believed that 22,000 was a fair representation of the
opinion of Manchester. It had also been denied by that
Hon. Member that the operatives were prepared to take
the chance of the reduction of wages. He (Mr. Ferrand)
had been lately at meetings all over the manufacturing
districts, at which the question was always put, if they
were prepared for the consequences of a reduction of wages?
the universal answer was, they were. Meetings had been
held at Manchester, Bury, Barnley, Rochdale, Preston,
Chorley, Huddersfield, Halifax, Bradford, Holmforth, Beigh-
ley, Leeds, Glasgow, Paisley, and Dundee, at which
this answer to the question had been given. It
was not put at the meeting held at Edinburgh,
because it was composed of factory operatives. Nay, a
report of the meeting at Rochdale had appeared in
the Hon. Member for Durham's own paper, the Manchester
Eraminer.