The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-28 00:00:00

He thought the Honourable Member for Durham was
the last man to stand up in that House and
attack Hon. Members for making statements which were un-
founded. Was the Hon. Member aware that within the last
few days meetings had been held in Lancashire to rebut state-
ments he had lately made in that House ?—and not only to
rebut them, but to assert to the world that they were entirely
without foundation ? He should defend himseif in the man-
ner he had done before, and he hoped he should justify himself
before the House, and after imparting to the House certain in-
formation, he should leave it for the House to say whether they
could ever afterwards place any confidence in the statements of
the Hon. Member for Durham. He held in his hand an ex •
tract from the Bolton Chronicle, which was published by the
Hon. and Learned Member opposite. The extract was headed
" Mr. John Bright's Veracity Meeting." He must state to
the House that the Hon. Member f,,r Durham, on the intro-
duction of Lord Ashley's Factory Bill, made certain state-
ments which reflected on the people of Preston and Rochdale,
and these meetings were convened by the people themselves
to consider the statements which the Hon. Member had made.
The people of Preston had done their duty, and so had the
Itown of Rochdale.—(Protectionist cheers.) The Hon. Mem-
ber was proceeding to read extracts from the Bolton Chronicle,

when
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Number could not
read any extract which referred to the debates in the fiou.e.
Mr. FERRAND—This is an account of proceedings which
took place in Lancashire, and which I may, perhaps, read to
the House ?

The SPEAKER—No.
Mr. FERRAND—Very well; then he would do hie utmost
to leave out every thing which referred to the debates.—
(Laughter.) He would merely allude to what took place at
those two meetings. The paper went on to say that Rochdale
had also raised its voice, arid, on the Monday evening previous,
one of the most crowded meetings that had ever been held
there tick place in the People's Institution, chiefly to disprove
the statements made by Mr. Bright. That Hon. Gentleman
had said that the people of Rochdale were unfavourable to the
Ten Hours' Bill. The meeting was called for eight o'clock,
but long before that time the spacious hall, which was the
largestroom in the town, was crowded to suffocation, and hun-
dreds were compelled to go away, as they were not able to ob-
tain admission. Mr. John Whittaker, the High Constable of
Rochdale, presided, and it was a remarkable fact that the pro-
ceeding* were conducted by factory workers. There were
present a large number of factory girls, who appeared to take
great interest in the proceedings.—(Laughter. ) The Chair-
man briefly opened the proceedings, and said that the requisi-
tion which had been presented to him was of sufficient import-
ance to justify him in calling that meeting. The whole meet-
ine declared by their cheers and their resolutions
that they were in favour of the Ten Hours' Bill.
—( Hear, hear.) Mr. Bright had been invited to
attend that meeting to make good his statements, but he did
not make his appearance. The meeting pronounced the state-
ments of Mr. Bright to be (he dare not make use of the word
in that House)—lies.—( Laughter.) Now, then, that *as the
result of the meeting of the operatives of the town of Rochdale
—a town at which the Hon. Member resided when he was at
home.—(Laughter.) He (Mr Ferrand thought it would be
well for the Hon Member for Durham if in future he took care
how he attacked either himself or any other Hon. Member of
that House.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member
for Bolton (Dr. Bowring) was pte sent in the House last even-
ing, and in his (Mr. Ferrand's) absence he stated that he
(Mr. Ferrand) had said that the factory workers were naked,
and that their dwellings were of the most wretched description.
He would ask the Hon. and Learned Member whether he had
made that statement ? Did the Hon. and Learned Member
mean to say that he used those words ?
Dr. BO WRING—Go on.
Mr. FEHR AND —Then he begged to state that he never
uttered one word of the kind. The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber had therefore stood up in that House in his (Mr. Fer-
rand's) absence, and had put words intohia mouth which he had
never used—(Loud cheers)—for the purpose of injuring him
in the opinion of that House and of the country.—(Cheers.)
Now, he asked if this was fair, manly, or honourable conduct?
—(Hear, hear.) He was prepared to fight the battle of poli-
tics, which he espoused, but he would not make a single charge
which he did not solemnly believed to be true, and he
was not prepared to stand by. Would the House listen
to the words he did make use of ? He said that Mr. Ashworth
complained in a letter to the Poor-law Commissioners that
wages had risen 10 per cent., and he asked the Poor-law Com-
missioners to send some agricultural labourers to his mill. A
Committee was inquiring at the time into their conditi in.
He called upon the Hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bow-
ring) to deny the statement—to set aside all consideration of
their former friendship—that it was proved on this Commit-
tee that the labourers surrounding the mill were living upon
24d. a day; and, more than this, it was proved that many of
them had not worn a shirt for five years ; that they had no fur-
niture, no clothes, no chairs, no tables—a single tea-chest
served for a table and drawers.—(" Hear" from the protec •
tionists. ) He made these statements upon the evidence of a
Mr. Macgill, a large manufacturer at Manchester, who stated
on the Bth of June, in the year 1844, before a Committee ap-
pointed by this House, in answer to a question put to him on
the nature of the food of the labourers, that the chief portion of
their food was oatmeal porridge, potatoes, and a small quantity
of butcher meat, which they might perhaps obtain once a week.
With reference to the amount of earnings, he stated that they
could not earn more than 2std. a day; and as to their clothing,
he could not recollect a single case where any weaver ever bought
a new jacket for years. He had known some of them who had
no blankets, and whose only covering was a coarse covering
which originally cost 2s. 6d. With reference to furniture, he
stated that he observed many of their houses without a chair,
without a stool, the only article of furniture being a tea-chest,
which served for the purposes of a table and drawers. Having
made this statement, he would now call upon the Honourable
Member to repeat the statements he had made, or, if he had
the feeling of a gentleman, to retract them.—(Hear.) As to
the Noble Lord, the Member for Yorkshire, he (Mr. Ferranti )
felt assured that the Noble Lord would shrink with horror
from making any statement to this House that he did not be-
lieve to be true ; but, at the same time, he was aware that the
Noble Lord had made statements which he (Mr. Ferrand)
could satisfy him were not founded in fact. He could tell the
House that he was aware that there were many men who, to
his knowledge, were employed in factories, and had been com-
pelled to sign petitions in favour of the corn-laws.—( Hear,
hear.) And be would say it was now high time for this House
to take cognisance of the manner in which petitions to the House
were manufactured and were paid for by the League.—
( Hear, hear.) And this he was prepared to prove before a
a Committee of this House.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard
of some cases in which men were actually paid for procuring
names, and one man had been paid lor procuring 1,400 names
—( Hear, hear)—and if any man said ":No" to his statement, he
should challenge him to demand a Committee, and he would
prove this statement. He now held in his hand a letter from
a man employed in a mill near Leeds, who was ready to prove
the manner in which names were procured for these petitions.
He would hand the letter to the Hon. Member opposite, but
he should request of him not to disclose his name, as it might
iujure him. He (Mr. Ferrand) thought he had now satis-
fied the House of the injustice of the charges that had been
made against him ; and if any others should be made, he would
be able to meet them also.
Mr. C. BERKELEY said he roseimerely for the purpose of
saying a few words on the subject of the manufacturing pe-
titions to which the Honourable Member had alluded.—( Hear. )
He had himself received a petition for presentation to that
House on Wednesday last, containing 954 signatures. The
petition purported to be that of the inhabitants of Cheltenham,
praying for a repeal of the corn-laws. After perusing the
petition, his attention was drawn to the fact that it bore the
Manchester post-mark instead of the Cheltenham.—(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear," from the protectionist side of the
House.) This made him suspect that all was not as it should
be, and he accordingly wrote to his agent at Cheltenham, stat-
ing his suspicions, and requesting him to make an inquiry.
He also wrote to the four gentlemen whose names appeared
on the top of the petition, one of whom was a Mr. Stephen
Ree. Now he (the Hon. Member) had received a commu-
nication from that gentleman to the effect that there was only
one of that name in Cheltenham, and he begged to assure him
that he had never signed such a petition, nor had he autho-
rised any one to sign it for him.—( Loud cheers from the pro-
tectionists.) The next letter which he had to submit to the
House was from his agent. That gentleman informed him that
several of the names to the petition were genuine, so far as
the persona residing in Cheltemham were concerned, but that
not one of them, upon whom he had called, had authorised
their names to be attached to the petition.—(Hear.) One
of the gentlemen, whose name appeared to the petition
informed him that he had never signed it, nor had
he been consulted about it, although, if he had
been asked to sign a petition for a repeal
of the corn-laws, he would have had no objection to sign such
a petition.—( Loud and protracted cries of •' Hear, hear," from
the protectionists.) This he (Mr. Craven Berkeley) thought
a most improper proceeding, for it would appear that the pe-
tition had never been seen at Cheltenham at all, but had been•
got up at Manchester, and sent direct to London.—(Cries of
" Hear, hear," from the pro-corn-law party.) During the
whole time he had had the honour of a seat in that House he
had been in the habit of voting for free-trade measures but
he is ould scorn to support any measure, cr any system, by such
means as the present.—( Loud cheers from the protectionists. )
If free trade could not stand upon its own merits, then, indeed,
did it not deserve the support of Hon. Members.—( Loud
cheers and protracted cries of " Hear; hear.") Now, looking
at the case he had just brought before the House, he
begged to give notice that, on Monday, he would call the
attention of the House to the conduct of the parties who had
imposed on the Legislature by lorging a petition, and so de-
ceiving the House, which was a gross breach of privilege.
He claimed the support of the members of the Anti-Corn •
law League in endeavouring to trace out the author of this
r forgery, for if be did not receive assistance at their hands he
maintained that the obloquy which would naturally attach
itself to the author 'of this petition would also fall upon them.
The Hon. Gentleman then sat down, but rose again upon
cries of " Read the prayer of the petition." He read the
prayer, which was for a repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. BRIGHT—The Hon. Member for Cheltenham has
done what he could to corroborate the statement of the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough. I believe there is no Member of
this House who will not believe that this case ought to receive
the fullest. investigation. I should recommend the • Hon.
Gentleman to move for a Committee to inquiie into it, and I
should be glad to second it. I would assist him or any other
Member in making the fullest investigation into the case he
had now laid before the House. The Hon. Member for
Knaresborough, in endeavouring to answer the attack which
he says I made upon him last night, has merely restated
what he said the night before, giving up a letter which he had
had some two years since in his pocket, as a proof that hie state-
ment was correct. Now, lam prepared to say still that I be-
lieve every portion of his statement is utterly - unfounded.
I have here a letter from Mr. Rawson, whose name the
Hon. Gentleman mentioned as having formed one of the deputa-
tion of the Board of Trade, respecting the duty on starch. He
says—" Mr. Wilson did not issue the circular requesting the
starch-makers to assemble in Manchester. Mr. Wilson did
not act as chairman." Now this replies to the two statements
made by the Hon. Member. "Nor did any meeting of the
sort take place, and no deputation proceeded from such a meet-
ing, either of the individual members of the council of the
League, or any other gentleman. It is true that two other
gentlemen and myself—Mr. Wilson was not of the number—
proceeded to London, our object being, however, not to seek
protection." They stated to the Board of Trade, "if we are
allowed to use the raw material, wheat, free of duty, we do not
desire any protective duty on the article of starch ; or, if this is
declined, we then ask for an equivalent duty to be levied on
wheat or flour." The next extract which I shall read is from a
memorial to the Board of Trade, which states, " That our ob-
ject in seeking a remission of these protective duties is this—
that with the free trade in wheat we should not be afraid of
foreign competition—( Hear, hear)—except when the raw ma-
terial is kept up in price by the operation of the core-laws."
The proposed small duty of 5/. per cent. on foreign-made
starch threatened to destroy their trade, and gave them no
hope with the foreign manufacturer.--(Hear, hear.) From
the speeches which we have heard from the Hon. Member and
others, I dare say it is possible it will not be understood.—
(Cheers and laughter.) The Hon. Member is not able to see
that I wish a duty on the foreign article to eouoterbalance the
duty on the raw material of which that article is rnadoin this
country ; its manufacturers derive much hardship, inasmuch as
the protective duty materially injures their trade.—(Hear,
hear.) But the Hon. ..Memher's statement—and he has
repeated it—was this : that Mr. Wilson convened 'a meeting
of starch manufacturers, in order to memorialise the Govern-
ment. I say' distinctly and positively that that statement is
wholly without foundation,' and that it is no more true than
the other statements which the Hon. Member persists in.—