The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-25 00:00:00

South Nottinghamshire, he would attend ritoahim.-(Loud pro-
tectionist cheers.) When the Right Hon. Gentleman said that crime
had not increased, he would call his attention to the address of Mr.
Justice Coleridge to a jury in the north, in Nov., 1844. That Learned
Judge said that a steady increase of crime had taken place throughout
the country, and in their own county the increase was not so much
in crimes of a petty nature as those of a more serious character.
Within the last eight years the number of prisoners had nearly
doubled In that county. That county was the manufacturing county
of York. At the present moment the number of prisoners in Wake-
field gaol were greater than it had ever been known
before. When he was in the north of England he was thrown
into contact es ith large bodies of the working classes.
and they instructed him to bring their case before the House, for
they said that the battle was the battle of labour against capital,
and they told him, that far from the extension of trade in this coun-
try being of the slightest benefit to them, it had been their bitterest
curse, and they produced to him statements of the greatest import-
ance to prove that such was the fact. ills Hon. Friend, the Mem-
ber for East Cornwall, had 1 itchy published, at his own expense, a
history of the working population in the manufacturing districts in
the north of England for the last sixty years. This was written by
a working man, but who had shown ability far above his order. [The
Hon. Gentleman then read several extracts from the work in ques-
tion, from which it appeared, that while trade had largely ex-
tended, the wages of the labourer had been decreased hi proportion.]
He would now quote a statement made by Mr. Muggridge, the Com-
missioner appointed to inquire into the state of the manufacturing
districts in the midland counties. In examining a weaver at Roch-
dale, he asks, " What had you for weaving this piece of cloth in
1829 ?" The weaver replied, " 21. 55." Mr. Muggridge then asked
him what he received for it now, and he replied " 19s ," and added,
e asked the following questions:-
as well jurffgildtghe corn-laws were repealed, as you
" that trade had neore than doubled since 1829.0 Its examining a
80l
were in a given year ?" " No• If you gave me all my food for
be,
nothing I should net be so well off, because, since that period, the
toounl dwyeoauver,
reduction which has taken place in my wages amounts to more than
the price of all the food I eat, and tke clothes I wear." Now,
that was the statement of a Bolton weaver ; and he had other in-
stances which he could quote, of a still more startling character. It
would suffice, however, for him to pledge his word to the House that
ever since machinery had been introduced into this country for the
purpose of manufacturing goods, the wages of the working people had
been gradually falling. He had been charged by the Hon. Member
for Stroud as being the opponent of every description of machinery.
Now, he positively denied that charge-he was in favour of machinery
so long as it was subservient to manual labour ; but when it destroyed
menial labour, he said, in the language of the late Sir Hobert Peel,
that machinery became a curse rather than a benefit to the country.
Was any Hon. Member opposite prepared to say that the price of
food did not regulate wages? Was the Hon. and Learned Member
for Bolton prepared to say that it did not ?
Dr. BOWRING-I am.
Mr. FERRAND continued - Well, then, if the Hon. and Learned
Member would refer to his speech which he made on the 26th
January, 1835, he would find a statement to the effect that
the foreigner was enabled to compete with the Bri-
tish manufacturer through the cheapness of food abroad,
rending it unnecessary to give his workmen the same wages as were
paid in England. The Hon. and Learned Member for Cork, Mr.
Ricardo, the Hon. and Learned Member for Birmingham, and Mr.
Rathbone Greg, all agreed in this opinion. Now, something had
been said about the country gentlemen of the South of England ',re-
posing to the manufacturers to take off their hands the surplus popu-
lation of their districts. He was glad to see the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton in his place, and he called upoc him, if lie dared, to
refute this statement.
Mr.:VILLIERS-No ; I will not indeed.
Mr. FERR AND continued-No; he was eonvinced the Hon. Mem-
ber would not, for he had always conducted the corn-law debate in a
niode-ate and honourable tone, and had o .ly made one
thaw against the agricultural body, which he should show
shortly that the lion. Member. had failed to prove.
He would assert it, without fear of contradiction, that the agricultu-
ral population of the south of England were er'ginally taken into
Lincolnshire by the League manufacturers-(Hear, hear)-tliat the
proposition was never made to the agricultural Members, or to the
employers of those labourers-that they, in fact, never heard of it
until the thing was carried Into effect.-(Hear, hear.) The autho-
rity which he had for saying this was the letter an Quaker, which,
before he had done with him, he would prove to be a trafficker in
human blood. That letter was addressed to Mr. Chadwick, the Se-
cretary to the Poor-law Commissioners. That Quaker recommended
that the agricultural labourers of the south of England should be sent
into Lancashire for the purpose of being employed in the cotton
manufacture, where there was good remuneration for labour ; and
yet at that very moment a Committee of that House was sitting, at
which it was clearly proved that he was in the practice of giving
no more than 23e d. per day to his hand-loom weavers. That Quaker
was Mr. Henry Ashworth, of Bolton, who, in consequence of the
great support which he gave to the Leaguers, was called the head of
the Anti-Corn-law League. Now was it not disgraceful that any man
'could be found who would be guilty of such conduct ?-(Hear. hear.)
But there was Mr. Robert Hyde Greg, another Anti-Corn-law
League manufacturer, a gentleman who subscribed his thousands to
the League, to whom he would refer. Mr. Greg wrote a letter on
the 17th of September, 1844, only three months after the
date of Mr. Henry Ashworth's letter, and his letter was
a kind of refresher to Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Greg said in
his letter, that he had for some time thought of addressing Mr.
Chadwick on the same subject as his friend Henry Ashworth had
written upon a short time before. It was, lie said, a most important
question, and one which deserved immediate attention. He then
went on to recommend that all poor men and women, of every age,
and even children and orphans, should be transmitted from the south
of England to Lancashire and Yorkshire. He said that they would
be most acceptable to manufacturers wisp were short of labourers, or
those that were starting new concerns, because the variety of
the manufacturers' wants were great.--(Hear.) That proposal came
from Mr. Greg, the Anti Corn-law League manufacturer, and the
Proposals in his letter were adopted. He (Mr. Ferrand) held Its his
hand a reedier invoice which was sent of a fatnily that had been
packed off into Lancashire, after they had been kidnapped in the
agricultural counties to supply the wants of the manufacturers. He
also held in his hand an extract from an article which had
appeared in the Manchester Guardian with regard to sending the
agricultural population of the south of England into the manufactur-
ing districts. The editor of that paper expressed his earnest hope
that another draft might be made from the same source, for the
purpose of giving comfort to the agricultural labourers. Two years
ago the Hon. Member had moved for certain returns which should
prove to this House and to the country that the population
had been worked to death in the manufacturing districts.
Parliament then called upon the Poor law Commissioners to
account for the tens of thousands of the inhabitants of
the • agricultural districts who had been induced to go into
Yorkshire and Lancashire-8,000 was the whole number for which
they could account, and he was in a position to prove that the re-
mainder were worked to death. Before, however, he did that, be
would read to the House some extraordinary documents connected
with the Poor law Commissioners, which had come to his hands ; and
now the country would begin to know what has been going on at
Somerset House between these Poor-law Commissioners and these
manufacturers connected wills the League. Within these trait ten
days he had received a letter, of which the following was a copy :-
. " Ludlow Parish, West Wycombe, Bucks.
" Sir,-I beg to inclose you an account made out against Ludlow
parish, for the charge of four persons belonging to the same, who
were tempted to migrate at the instance of Mr. Ashworth. This
parish of Ludlow, in 1839, refused to pay any snore money to Mary
Awls, as they considered that 4e. Gd. per week, paid by the parish,
did not go to her, but for wages. She was, therefore, discharged to
try it on with the parish, and ultimately went back unfit for agricul-
tural labours. The parish subsequently settled -the account (71.),
under the threat of legal proceedings.-I remain, Sir, your obedient
servant, 16
Ile would now call the attention of the House to the sufferings of
these poor people, and he thought he could not better effect his pur-
pass than by calling their attention to the following extraordinary
document :-
" Messrs. 11. and E. Ashworth, Drs. to Dr. Barry :-Mary Ann
Avis, child burnt and died, 1/. ; Mary Ann Avis, small-pox, 11.55. ;
George Allen and family, typhus fever, 1/. 9s. Bd. ; George Gilbert
alai family, sickness, 1/. ; George Gilbert and family, small-pox,
61. 15s. ; to cash paid in aid of wages, at 4s. 6d. per week, 471. 13s. 4d.
Total, 591. 3d. Settled the sixth day of the third month by the Poor-
law Commissioner, Assistant Parker."
Thus the House would see that these Poor-law Commissioners
paid for the single item of wages to Messrs. Ashworth the sum of
471. 13s. 4d. Now, this was part of the exposure-it was not all-
ho had other documents. No. 958 of the Commissioners papers proved
the payment of 61. 15s. 4d. to Mary Gregg on the same account. On
February 7 he received another document, proving the payment
of a further sum of 141. Se. 2d. to Mary Avis. After this payment, it
seems she, with her family, was sent home by an order of removal, but
in what state will be seen by the following invoice sent with her to
the parish of Laidlaw : -Maria, aged 10 years ; Emma, aged 5 years ;
illegitimate, one year. He had another letter which he would also
read, in which Messrs. Ashworth acknowledged the receipt from the
poor-law Commissioners of the sum of 221. Is 6d., paid by them to
Widow Avis ; and they also considered that it was an unworthy re-
turn, and that thoy should look to the West Wycombe Union for the
payment of the full sum of 4s. 6d. per week, which had been paid by
them to Widow Avis. The Hon. Member for Manchester, who
stated at a public meeting in that town that they could buy up the
whole of the land In England, declared that the working population
of Manchester were starving to death, arid living, if living it could be
called, upon wages, if wages it could be called, at the rate of Id. a day.
The Hon. Member for Oldham stated himself that the people in his
borough were starved to death. That was the state of the working
population in the manufacturing districts. The Anti-Corn-law
League manufacturers had proposed to the agricultural labourers
to go down to the north of England fur the purpose of getting food
and higher wages. He held in his hand two statements, one of them
the copy of a document, which was laid on the table of that House,
which would show that the unfortunate agriculturist la-
bourers were actually kidnapped and carried deism to
Lancashire, The House and the country should hear that night
what had become of them. And then he thought they would de-
ceive the working classes, and that they would oppose the measure of
her Majesty's Government. The manufacturers admitted that the
measure would throw out of cultivation the poorer descriptions of
land. Now that House should hear how the manufacturers treated
their poor workmen, and the lion. Members opposite would them-
selves be ob7iged to say that the cases which lie would aUude to
would surpass anything of the kind they had ever heard. lie (Mr.
Ferrand) had taken some pains to collect for three years the number
of accidents which had taken place in manufactories in the North,
and he found them to consist of 31a, out of which 36 were caused by
the machinery being in motion at time time, Out of those 340 cases
he only knew of two in which the manufacturer had made any rep a-
rat ion, or compensation to the injured Pada% Three hundred
and forty I torn limb from limb by the machinery of those free
traders ! He would challenge any Hon. Member opposite who re•
presented the. Anti-Corn-law League to produce any case in the
country of an agricultural labourer being injured without receiving
compensation. Their Reiterant preacher, convicted of blasphemy-
their discharged soldier, with his lashes marked upon his back-such
were the persons they sent to inquire into the conduct of country
gentlemen.-(Cheers from the protectionists.) They should now hear
from the lips of a manufacturer, mid a Member of that House, what
had become of the agricultural labourers to whom he had alluded.
The Hon. Member then read a statement, in which it was alleged
that ih many inetarteeri the poor Creatures were starved while flogged
to their work, and were erten driven by the harsh treatment which
they received, to the committal of suicide.- (Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") That was the treatment the poor agricultural labourers
received, torn from their green lanes and 'shady valleys, to drag out
a miserable existence in the manufacturing districts. And now, if
these facie Were true-arid he challenged any Member to deny it-
was it not the duty of the Government, as well as of every county
Member, to demand that the agricultural labourer should be pro-
tected, and that they should be permitted to exist on the land on
which they had been bent, rather than be iacrifled and immolated for
the benefit of the Cotton lords Of the North of England ?- (Cheers.)
Ile had not exposed the one-fourth of what he in-
tended ; but the day would arrive when he should
do so, and he *as Very much inclined to believe that he had said
sufficient that night to be remertibered for a long time by the Anti-
Corn-law League. .But now he would exhibit their complete selfish-
ness. The House may remember (having frequently heard it men-
tioned) the name of a Mr; George Wilson, who was the chairman
of the Anti-Cotnslew Leagtte-Who presided at the League meet-
ings-and who was a president of that society. This gentleman
also adopted the motto-" Oh, Lord love ye, we're all for ourselves,"
for when the Right lion. Baronet in the alterations which he proposed
In the Tariff 1842 lit wits abotit to reduce the duty on foreign starch
from 9/. or 101. to 11., this gentlein an, Who *as a manufacturer of that
article, said " Oh, this will never do; free trade ill Core, If you like,
but no reduction in the duty on starch (Laughter). He did slot
however, rest till he had convened a meeting of tue starch menu-
factltrers doveli et Manchester and at thin meeting resolutions were
expressed to send a deputation to tilt Mintier with the view of in-
ducing him to alter his proposals so far as stareli Concerned.
Lobsters and starch were the only articles which were exempted
from the reduction then made. He received a letter front a friend of
his at that time detailing the above circumstances. This individual
was also a free trader, but this extraordinary con-
duct' on the part of Mr. Wilson and the other members
of the League With regard to this subject excited his disgust. (The
Hon. Gsntleman here read the letter in question.) It was somewhat
extra rdinary that in this new tariff of the Right lion. listronet the
wishes of Mr. G. Wilson were equally protected, mid the prohibitory
duty, as far as starch was concerned, was not affected.-(" Hear,
hear," and laughter.) That was the way the Government of the
country truckled to the members of the League-(Laughter.) He
had then in conclusion to allude to a subject which was of a personal
nature. He had suffered not a little frotn the conduct of an Hon.
Member of that House ; and perhaps he should never have-alluded to
the matter but that the gentleman had asserted at a public meeting
that he intended repairing to Knaresborough to deprive him (Mr.
Ferrand) of the representation of that borough, and lie called on the
Anti-Corn-law League to assist him in carrying out
his object. Now as he (Sir. Ferrand) was to be opposed by
the Honourable Gentleman, he alluded to the Member for
Stockport, or his nominees, it would be only fair that they both
should stand upon equal e,rounds.-(Hear, hear.) Owing to state-
ments that had been made in reference to him (Mr. Ferrand) he
applied 'for, and obtained, a Commission of Inquiry, at which Lord
Ashley presided. The lion. Member then quoted questions from the
report, the answer to which was that certain individuals, who were
rnillowners, kept cows and let them out, and that many workpeople
were compelled to take more mile thair they required ; and that all
the miliowners were in the habit of getting 50 per cent. out of
their shops. Ile then went on to say, that he would not
utter another word upon this question, but he would
appeal to the gentlemanly feeling of this House ur on
the question ;It 'u-as late, he admitted, to do so, but he would leave
the question now to the House to decide whether the two Hon.
Members opposite had not made a charge which was totally divested
of a shadow of a shade of foundation.-(lieer, hear.) He would be
prepared to meet him at the hustings, but it would cost the lion.
Member 1,5001. He begged to thank the House for the kind atten-
tion wills which he had been heard. He had performed his duty to
his constituency; he was prepared to go bethre them again, and he
hoped other M embers would be able to do the same.
Mr. W. MILES said, that if his opinion had been taken, the divi-
sion on this question should have been taken that night, but at the.
same time, lie thought that a question of such importance shouldt
have the fullest consideration. Wednesday had been set apart for
separate business, and, therefore, he did hope that it would he ad-
journed to Thursday, and he trusted that the Hon. Member who
moved the adjournment evould be satisfied with such en arrangement.
lie believed that he could undertake that this debate would
not go on beyond
Friday. The discussion kept the country 111 a state
ofi suspense, yet as several gentlemen still wished to speak on the
s fleece, he thought that he stilled in asking the
was ju delay, as, in
41400u10n, the debate could not contain beyond Friday, mild might