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

Manchester, which said that there was a probability that the
great majority of the mills would soon be entirely closed, and
yet, during this state of things, it was proposed to retain the
power of working the people for twelve hours a day. The
first medical men in England had declared that no man
was capable of working twelve hours during the whole year.
They were longer than any horse or man could bear it ; and
women and children were compelled to bear it, and were dying
by thousands. Even the men could not bear the factory
labour beyond the age of 45. The Hon. Member for Mon-
trose had said, leave the women and children to themselves,
they would settle the matter with their masters. Did any
man suppose that when a mother went to the mills, receiving
only Bs. or 108. per week, and returning she found her
three or four children crying for food, that she would not
work her fingers' ends raw, and herself to death, rather
than sit down and see her children starving? He had
even conversed with these women themselves, and
they had stated to him that it was little known
what their sufferings were. When they returned
weary and fatigued, and saw their children in want, they
would work, as long as. God gave them health and strength,
to support them. The Hon. Member for Durham, on Wed-
nesday last, when he saw the gangway, made some 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 House believed them to be all true. The Hon.
Member said, in one part of his speech, that such speeches
as used to be made by Lord Ashley had not been heard that
day, except from the Noble Lord the Member for Newark, and
that Lord Ashley used to make speeches in that House which he
had now given up, and which had been proved to be wrong.
He (Mr. Ferrand ) 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. FERItAND—" 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 lie 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
made 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 to
oppose him. The Hon. Member was in Rochdale, but did not
meet Lord Ashley.
Mr. BRIGHT—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.
Member had the pluck to go, and manfully spoke before his
vvu workmen. but he was not awe CU 5 L eingie man W eO-
- him. He again asked the lion. Member what stdte-
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 Manchester,
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, Keigh-
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 there were no manufacturers there, and he was not
certain if it were put at the meeting in Glasgow. Nay, a
report of the meeting at Rochdale had appeared in
the Hon. Meinber for Durham's own paper, the Manchester
lizaminer.
Mr. BRIGHT—It is not mine.

Mr. FERRAND—Then he was a shareholder, or had
something to do with it.—(Cries of order). The Manchester
Examiner confirmed the fact that the question had been
put at the Rochdale meeting and answered in the manner
he had described. At the very time the Hon. Member was
making his speech last Wednesday a message was sent
down to Bradford, and the next morning a meeting of the
operatives was advertised by placard. It was held in the
evening, in Christ Church School, and presided over by the
Rev. Wm. Dldham. It was densely attended, and
when the question was put about the wages, every,
hand was held up for the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member had also told the House that the mechanics of the
north were always glad to work long hours when they could
get an increase of wages. He (Mr. Ferrand) had. since then
received is letter from the mechanics of Manchester, denying
the statement, and enclosing a copy of a prize essay,
issued under the auspices of the delegates of the
united eaechanica of Great Britain and Ireland, as to the
benefits resulting from a reduction of the hours of labour.
The Honourable Member had also denied that any com-
pact had been entered into between the Anti-Corn-
law 'League and the factory operatives, on the con-
-tilt-ion' - that if the latter supported the repeal of
the corn-laws the former would withdraw their oppo-
eition to- the Ten Hours' Bill. Now, in answer to that
he could prove that in 1843 sad 1844, when the League was
not very popular with the operatives, his old. friend Mr.
Brookes, of " God bless you, we're all for ourselves" noto-
• riety made efforts to convince the leaders of the factory
operatives, if they would support the repeal of the corn-laws,he
and many other manufacturers would support the Ten Hours'
Bill. Mr. Ashworth had also corresponded with the short-
time delegates in London, to the effect that the corn-laws
were the cause of long hours of labour, and that they should
be repealed before any reduction in the hours of working took
place. (The Hon. Member then read several extracts from
letters and documents in support of what he had advanced.)
The League had obtained the repeal of the corn-laws; were '
they prepared to fulfil their contract?—(Bear, hear.) He
would not argue the question of foreign competition with
-them, but ke claimed it of them, as an act of duty, justice,
and honour, to carry out their pledge, and not endeavour to
intimidate the House in order to rob the poor man of his
rights. The Manchester manufacturers had also pledged
themselves to Lotd Ashley, through Mr. Greig, that if the
Corn-laws were repealed they would not oppose a Ten Hours'
Bill. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read a letter, ad-
dressed by Lord Ashley 'to the Secretary of the Operative
Short-Time Committee, sitting in London. His Lordship
said that Mr. Greig of Manchester had done him the honour
to call upon him at the Albion Hotel, and he there ex-
pressed his strong desire for the settlement of the short-
timd question. The manufacturers had been benefited by
the repeal of the duty on raw cotton, and they would be
further benefited by the repeal of the corn-laws ;
and he thought it but fair justice that the
workman should receive his share of those advantages
in abridged hours of labour. This he conceived could only
be done by legislative enactment, as every proposition for
regulations between the employers and the workmen had
failed already. So much for the opinion of Mr. Grieg.
Now, he thought that he had proved to the House that a
deliberate compact had been entered into between the manu-
facturers and the work-people. But what had been the con-
duct of some of the largest manufacturers in Manchester,
after the poor people bad been at the expenseof sending up to
London delegates to watch over theirinterests ? It was, perhaps,
lucky for them that they did so, as he (Mr. Ferrand) had been
informed that there was in the House a document purporting
to be from some of the workmen of Manchester (for the
purpose of showing that they were opposed to the Ten Hours'
Bill), and he believed that that paper would be used in the
course of that debate It was lucky for the operatives that he
(Mr. Ferrand) had caught the Speaker's eye before the Hon.
Member had, as he thus had an opportunity of forestalling the
statement made by the Hon. Member. Now what had the
manufacturers been doing inManchester? On Monday last the
overlookers and managers of Messrs. Murray's works—and he
wished to call the attention of the House to this fact, in
order to show the degree of intimidation which was used
against the operative. The overlookers and managers of
these mills went round among the workmen, with books in
their hands, all ruled in columns, under these heads—
" Ten hours' work and ten hours' wages "—" Eleven hours'
work and eleven hours' wages "—" Twelve hours' work and _
twelve hours' wages ;" and to each worker they put the in-
quiry, Do you prefer a twelve hours' work and a twelve
hours' wages, or an eleven or ten hours' work with an eleven
or ten hours' wages 1-0 Hear, hear," from Mr. Bright.)
There was no option left here for the workmen. They were tc
be bound down to these agreements. The manufacturers were
determined to protect themselves—("Hear,"from Mr. Bright)
—but there was no protection extended to the workmen—
(Hear, hear)—for they were given to understand, in almost
as many words, that as they chose the alternatives offered.
so would they please or displease their masters. The Messrs.
Holdsworth had adopted the same course, and the men there
had signed for eleven hours' work and eleven hours' wages,
and the women for twelve—thus the weakest went to the
wall. Messrs. M'Connelt had adopted a similar course, but
they gave some hours' notice, and the men chose ten hours
labour, and informed their employers that they would take
their chance of the wages. Now, if the House would listen
to what took place in the borough of Manchester the House
would understand the workpeople would no longer be trifled
with. The lion. Member proceeded to read—" Last night a
meeting was held in the Mead House (one of the largest halls in
Manchester), which was crammed to excess. The meeting
was entirely conducted by operatives. The first resolution
adopted was—' That this meeting cannot but view with
a feeling of regret and indignation the conduct of those mass
ters who had adopted the disreputable course of sending their
managers and overlookers through the mills with books in
their hands, demanding in a hasty and peremptory manner
whether they were in favour of a ren, an Eleven, or Twelve
Hours' Bill—the object being to receive such answers as
would enable Hon. Members to offer some further opposition
to the Bill now beforejthe House.' The second resolution
was, " That the factory workers are prepared to accept a Ten
Hours' Bill, regardless of its effect on wages, leaving the
prices of their labour to be regulated by the same principle
which fixed the prices of other commodities in the market.'
lie (Mr. Ferrand) had intended to have alluded to several
other mis-statements made by the Honourable Member
for Durham, but he did not know that he would be justified
in taking up the time of the House. Before he sat down he
should wish to tell the House that the factory operatives
throughout the land would no longer be trifled with. The
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taunted
them in this House that they
Far
yMh adnraoutds) wastruck glad through-
out England.—(Hear.) England.--(Hear.) He
they had not done so. The horny-handed men of England
had come to this House praying for protection for their
wives and children, and their prayers had been denied.
They had not denied protection to the wives and childree
which illustrated the
excited in their
favourorthe
blue book.—(Hear, hear.) The factory operatives
miners,the
decorations sympathy
would get up similar decorations. They would also work
cripples, assembled in
upon the feelings of lion. Members, if they could not rely
upon their justice, and 500 factory
Palace-yard;would raise a shout of supplication to the House
of Commons, and the universal burden of their prayer would
be, " We will have the Ten Hours' Bill."
Mr. ROEBUCK said he would pass over the noisy decla-
mation of the Hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his
seat, and direct his attention to the little argument con-
tained in his speech. He was in no way connected with the
commercial interest of this country, and therefore
could have no other motive for opposing this
Bill, except that he considered it would be for