The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-03 00:00:00

got rid of many old things, and they should get rid of these
pnaltiei among the rest. He hoped they would have free
trade in debate as *ell as free trade in Other thingS.
In answer to some observations from Mr. WATSON,
which were inaudible in the gallery,
Mr. DUNCO3IBE said that the Bill did not apply to Ire-
land at present.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
THE PORT OF LIMERICK BILL.
Mr. t. O'BRIEN postponed the motion of which he had
given notice, respecting the port and harbour of Limerick.
IMPRISONMENT OF FACTORY GIRLS.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose to call the attention of the House
to a petition presented by William Scott, chairman of a public
meeting held at Dundee, complaining of the illegal treatment
and imprisonment of six factory girls. Judging from the alle-
gations of the petition, he had rarely known a case of greater
hardship. Four out of the six girls were fatherless and un-
protected, and in the present case they were opposed by many
leading persons in Dundee, manufacturers, great and powerful
merchants, bankers, and shipowners, and others engaged in
trade and commerce—many of them great and liberal men—
great free traders, too, who had subscribed 6001. to the Anti-
Corn-law League.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear," from the
Protectionists.) It was against these powerful parties that he
asked for justice on bhalf of these poor girls. The oldest
was 20 years of age, and the youngest was between 14 and 15,
and they had been in the service of the Mess's. Baxter, of Dun-
dee, ever since they were nine years of age. During that period
not one of them had been guilty of the slightest offence or neg-
lect till then. And what did it amount to? It appeared that
those girls were earning from ss. 6d. to ss. 9d. per week ; and
iine of the flats or stories of the factory, having obtained a rise
of wages, they asked for the same; the amount additional sought
by them, being but 3d. per week. The request not having
been met, on the 27th of October these girls left the factory at
the dinner time, and did not return that evening, though they
should have returned at two o'clock. The next morning they
returned to work at the usual hour. About five o'clock that
day, they were apprehended by four men, and taken to a pri-
vate office, where they were kept till nearly twelve o'clock.
Instead of then being taken before the public Court and
examined, they were taken to another private office,
at which there were present but one magistrate, and Mr.
Baxter and his overseers. They were told to sign a paper,
and two of them, who could write, did 33, while the other four
attached their mark. They were then taken before the magis-
trates, and being shortly examined, after Mr. Baxter had whis-
pered something into the magistrate's ear, they were sentenced
to 10 days' imprisonment, with hard labour. In all s,milar
cases of this kind, for leaving work for any number of hours,
the usual penalty was to deduct a fine equal to the wages of the
time lost and half as much more. But instead of deducting
the fine of one and a half time, these girls were sent to hard
labour for 10 days. And what said Mr. Baxter to this ? He
said that combinations and strikes prevailed, and that something
was necessary to keep them in check. But because this was
so, was Mr. Baxter to take the law into his own hands?
Through the exertions of an Hon. Member near him (Mr.
Hume), the combination laws had been repealed, and these
parties had a perfect right to combine and strike if they thought
fit ; and admitting the rules of the factory to be such as re-
presented, the only penalty that ought to have been inflicted was
the taking cone and a half wages for the time lost. But this
abstraction out of the miserable wages of ss. 6d. per week did
not suffice. But they also complained that not a single person
was allowed to approach them while in confinement, to prepare
them for trial. One of the girls had a brother, and when they
were before the justices he tried to get in, but was not allowed.
One of the other girls had some sisters. Two of them came to
the door of the justice-room, and asked for permission to see
their sister, but they were repulsed from the dour, and told that
it they did not go about their business they would be tried and
imprisoned too. Was that a fair trial, he would 'ask ? He
would ask the question of the Lord Advocate. Would' he say
that this was a fair trial ? He was certain that the Lord Ad-
vocate would do no such thing. The Messrs. Baxter stated
that cases of a similar character had occurred before in Dun-
dee. He (Mr. Duncombe) had made inquiry, and he had as-
certained that no factory girl had ever before been imprisoned
under the same circumstances. Imprisonments, indeed, oc-
curred when sailors deserted from ships about to sail from port,
because in that case a distinct contract had been broken, but here
there was no contract. The penalty for leaving the factory
was the fine of a time and a halt, and if they intended to leave
altogether they had but to give a week's warning before they
did leave. He asked again what sort of law was this ? The
Messrs. Baxter stated that they pi titioned on the same even..
ing, and got a warrant, on which the parties were apprehended.
That was not according to Act of Parliament. It was not
according to Act of Parliament that a petition should be sent
to the magistrates by a servant—that servant merely stating
that such petition had emanated from such and such parties.
The Act of Parliament said that the magistrates or justices of
the peace should be authorised to grant warrants on complaint
made on oath by the parties with whom the servants had con-
tracted, but these girls had had no contract at all
with the Messrs. Baxter. They had entered as servants
from week to week, and there was no considerable
doubt on the minds of legal gentlemen whether the
Act did not apply only to servants employed and en-
gaged by the year. He (Mr. Duncombe) could not find
that the flax-spinners were included in the Act, but Gentlemen
from the manufacturing districts, and he saw many around him,
could inform the House, whether in any one instance one of
their factory operatives could be taken before a magistrate under
circumstances like these. He was sure that they could not
cite one instance. He would say that this was a most monstrous
and cruel sentence, for it was notorious that these girls were
selected and picked out from the rest, because they were father-
less and unprotected. One of these only had a brother, and
yet he had been refused admittance into the justice room. He
had a statement in his hand of the miseries endured by the
mothers of those girls who were existing by their labour, but
he would not detain the House by referring to it. A complaint
was made to the Lord Advocate of Scotland, and he instituted
an inquiry into the circumstances. If the Lord Advocate
would give him the result of his investigation, what was
called a precognition, he believed, in Scotland, he would be
willing to forego his motion for a Committee, but the Lord
Advocate said that although he was willing to give up the
names of the justices—to give up the warrants and the other
papers connected with the apprehension of the girls—yet he
could not give him his own investigation, because such a eourse
was altogether unprecedented. The Messrs. Baxter asked for
every inquiry ; and as the Lord Advocate refused to give hire
( Mr. Duncombe) the papers he required, he would give the
Messrs. Baxter the opportunity of disproving the statements
he had made. He therefore moved for a Select Committee to

inquire into the allegations in a petition from Dundee, com-
plaining that Jane Bennet and other factory girls were illegally
imprisoned.
Mr. DUNCAN begged to second the motion. He believed
that when the investigation should have been gone
into, it would be found that the Messrs. Baxter, in-
stead of being the cruel and oppressive masters they
were represented to be, would be found to have
uniformly acted in the most kindhearted and liberal manner
towards their work-people. The Honourable Member also
brought a charge against the justices of the peace in Dundee.
If this Committee was not granted, an impression would go
abroad among the working classes that the case was prejudged,
because their opponents were rich men, and they themselves
were poor. He (Mr. Duncan) had often acted as justice of
the peace along with the gentleman who had tried this case,
and he could only say that no kinder-hearted gentleman, or
more just magistrate, existed. He was also intimately
acquainted with the Messrs. Baxter, and he had great pleasure
in assigning the best motives to all their actions. Previous to
his leaving Scotland a meeting had been called of the working
classes in Dundee, which in that petition was stated to be a
meeting of the inhabitants. A deputation from that meeting
called upon him relative to the trial and sentences upon these
girls. He ( Mr. Duncan) stated, that as it had been a
judicial investigation, he had no right as Member for the Borough
to take cognizance of it ; but with regard to one part of
it, he felt that it was his duty to call the attention of the Lord
Advocate to it. That portion was the refusal to admit the re-
latives of the girls into the justice-room. The Lord Advo-
cate instituted an inquiry, and he found that that order did
not emanate from the Court, did not emanate from the justice,
but arose solely from the ignorance of the door-keeper. He
(Mr. Duncan) intimated to that deputation that the Lord
Advocate had taken measures to prevent any obstruction of
the virile kind again, and he trusted that this would prove sa-
tisfactory. He held in his hand a letter from one of the par-
ties interested in the case, and whose name was adhibited to
the petition of the girls—that person's name was John Craig ;
and to the same person he had, as he had already stated,
written on the Bth of February. The first notice that he had
of the matter not being settled was the presentation of a peti-
tion from the inhabitants by the Hon. Member for Finsbury
on the other evening. He had also written to the Lord Pro.
vost, and he had received a communication in reply,
stating that the Messrs. Baxter and the justices concerned in the
case were men incapable of abusing their power. Then it
was stated that the Messrs. Baxter were great shippers, and
that they exercised an influence over the smaller merchants of
Dundee, and that, therefore, they would find individuals to ad-
vocate their cause. He (Mr. Duncan) had as warm a feeling
for the working classes as the Hon. Member for Finsbury had.
It had been also stated that these five girls had none to advo-
cate their cause. Now, how stood the matter? He held in
his hand an extract from the books in the Messrs. Baxter's
office. He found that the girls, whose five names were in that
petition, had been in the employ of the Messrs. Baxter for
many years, and that their ages were not, as stated by the
Hon. Member for Finsbury. He found that the girl Miller
had entered on the 4th of April, 1837, and that she was then
registered thirteen years of age; that Barnet entered in Sep-
tember, 1838, and was thirteen years of age ; that Roys en-
tered July, 1838, and was thirteen years and five months;
that Downie, the leader, entered in 1836. and was thirteen
years of age ; and Conolly, November, 1837, and was thir-
teen years of age—so that not one of them was under 20i %ears,
Downie having been upwards of ten years in their employment,
and none of them under seven years ; and with regard to wages,
he found that in the seven years of 1841, 1842, and 1843, they
had had constant work allowed them, when three-fourths of
the workers were going idle. The Messrs. Baxter had 2,500
workers in and around Dundee. They bad 1,500 in this
very work, and on the evening when these girls left,
because an advance of wages which they had asked had
not been allowed them, thirty-four out of thirty-seven girls in
the same room left in a similar manner. He would put it to
Hon. Gentlemen connected with the manufacturing districts of
Englandu
n ch wechkeed.
ther this state of things ought to be allowed to
pass
On the motion being rout,
Dr. BOWRING said, that although a fine-minded man
might be ready to inquire into and remedy any case of distress,
yet, he was bound to bearheihsfe _ had received a communication
tthesetiwmeornkyintgoetlhaesicehs.
Then character of the
A rE
Messrs. Baxter in the con duct of their establishment. Not-
withstanding
was
iconsequenceezlyetdo ton
outbe
and
used
os n
ef that com-
munication,
that
this, however, thought that every facility ought
to be
e a Lt grantedeon Rhoe fortAh teohe
thought
it
duty to inquire whether a crimi-
nal of
is
on the Bth of November, and in
tl
okjoee
prosecution should be instituted against these parties, and
it was in consequence of that inquiry, that he founghdahagttat h that
utasqtotsihed
theable
rey
againstipt nhafarott ri
mtehsa,i andhis oen
objectedprtaehre ateitei nienwdofthowhroiamnsggaaltvici de .
o obi
be more detrimental against
the administration of public justice, and the Lord Advocate ;
the public prosecutor, was bound to protect the parties from
on
the consequences of the information which they
i
i hnafodrmgiavteionn.
appearedl to wish for
should
dthe e
keptgen back.eral E
interestsach of
these young
twn not suffered to
amined, but he would be committing
a dua societywomenliction of his duty if he
had been ex-
t anyopportunity
rt
parties
t
othis
petitiont h e partiessu gh who
toyb
e
a conviction. On that inquiry
it certain
gathavte h pro-
ceed. The point to which he had to direct his appeared to him
attention was
not as to the facts alleged to the petition, but
as to whether
there had been any offence against the statute. It
certainly did
appear to him that no such offence against the statute had been
committed. At the time thiswarrant was granted, which was on
the 27th of October, and on the morning of the 28th, no
evidence was adduced to justify the prosecution. The Court
had been held in a room which was not legally entitled to the
freedom of the Court. There was another point, for it ap-
peared that a sister of the party to the prosecution and the
sheriff of the county had determined that she should not be
heard. He was of opinion that it did fall within
to issue a vote on that subject, and to requirethe
his province
e attention of
the officers to the complaint. It appeared to
him
inquiry that no suf-
ficient grounds had been found in the in- •
ry for a criminal
orosecutian. It appeared that on the very night of the im-
prisonment, a brother of the girl hail applied for he
liberation
of his fitter, but bad given, no sufficient reasons for
her release.
The officer himself was satiated that there was n
for criminal proceedings. The parties wereperfectly ground
at
liberty to allege a petition and institute
pr lags.

a.

tie admitted that the parties might have a right of action, but
he would submit to the House whether their interfering in the
matter would not clash witL the claini of the one party or the
defence of the other. He thought it would be much better,
then; for the House not to take any step in the affair at all.
Lord DUNCAN; as one of the magistrates of the district
where the occurrences had taken place, wished to say a few
seords. lle bad Made it his duty to inquire into the facts of
the case, and in the outset he might state he had received a
communication from Messrs. Baxter, who expressed their
regret that any officer in their employment should have been
guilty of ill-using some of their workpeople, and praying that
their own conduct might be fully and fairly
inquired into. Their factory had frequently been in-
spected by the public officer appointed for that
purpose, and their mode and manner of conducting it had
been frequently spoken of by that functionary in terms of
praise. He was instructed to contradict many of the allega-
tions contained in these petitions, and he was sure if the Hon.
Member who had made the present motion would make in-
quiry into their character, he was sure he would be con-
vinced that these gentlemen could never have been guilty of
the conduct imputed to them.
Mr. AGLIONBY neither knew the petitioners nor tke
Messrs. Baxter, but he thought, as nobody who had spoken
either on one side or the other, appeared opposed to any
inquiry into the matter, they had better grant the Com-
mittee. The Learned Lord must have been mistaken when
he supposed their interfering in the matter would be clashing
either with the claim or the defence of one party, because
on looking over the petition, he did not find any indication of
the intention of the parties to have recourse to a court of law.
But the parties alleged matters which a tour of law
could not take cognizance of, and this, in. his
opinion, was an additional reason why there should be inquiry.
Without expressing any opinion whether the magistrates were
right or wrong, the petitioners stated sufficient to justify the
appointment of the Committee ; and he, for one, must give
his support to the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
Mr. DUNCAN and the LORD ADVOCATE here explained.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the conduct of the girls was
entirely a secondary question. He by no means denied the
competency of the House to inquire into the allegations of the
petitioners, but while he admitted the right of the House to
do so, he did not think that it was a proper way to deal with
judicial questions.—( Hear, hear.) He would lay that down as
a general rule, and he thought it would be attended to by
the Hon. Member for Cockermouth. He begged the indul-
gence of the House, while he explained to them the law and
practice in Scotland with reference to cases of this
description, which was quite distinct fienn the law and prac-
tice of any other part of the United Kingdom. The advo-
cates of Edinburgh appointed a portion of their body, men of
the most distinguished practice at the Scottish bar, to whom,
as a standing Committee, questions of this kind were referred-
For instance, if the petitions of the girls in question had
been presented, complaining of the alleged injustice, and they
sued in farina pauperis, the matter would be sent to the
Standing Committee, who assigned counsel and agents, and
those girls, humble as they were, would have ample means of
obtaining justice before the Court of Sessions. But having
stated thus much, he must still vote against the motion for a
Committee, because he did not consider it a proper mode of
satisfying the parties in question.
Mr. HUME would vote for the Committee, principally on
the ground that the public would conclude that the House had
refused the inquiry merely on account of the poverty of the
petitioners. He had no doubt of the respectability of the
Messrs. Baxters, and the misconduct of the girls was admitted
in their own petition, and were it not for the ground thus
stated he should oppose the appointment of a Committee.
Mr. DUNCOMBE replied. The Right Non. Baronet,
the Secretary of State for the Horns Department, had ad-
vised the girls to go to law, but what funds did ss. 6d. per week
afford them. The respectability of the Messrs. Baxter had
been talked of, but if they attempted to do in Manchester or
Stockport what they had done in Dundee, there would be little
less than a revolution amongst the people. Mr. Stuart, the
factory inspector, had also been quoted as evidence in favour of
the respectability and kindliness of those gentlemen ; but the
House and the country might judge what care they took of the
education of their people, when four out of the six petitioners,
who have been eight or ten years in their employment, were
actually obliged to subscribe their marks instead of their
names. He contended that the trial was not a fair one—that
it was carried on with closed doors, and it was no wonder that
the poor girl had been noisy in demanding admission into the
room. The trial was not a fair one in England, if it was in
Scotland. He maintained that the conduct of the magistrates,
and those who acted in unison with them, had been most tyra-
nous and cruel towards these poor girls. He hoped
that the House would show to the country that there was still
a court of redress where the poor could have justice done to
them ; he hoped, therefore, that the House would grant the
Committee for which he had moved, and he would undertake
to prove before them the truth, if not of all, yet of a greater
part of the allegations contained in the petition.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and a division
took place, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it 63
Majority against the motion —2s
Upon our re-admission into the gallery, we found
111 r. L. O'BRIEN moving for returns of the total amount of
public money (whether derived from local funds, or from funds
voted by Parliament,) which had been paid for services as a
Crown witness, or for other services, to a man named Robert
Reily, alias Geo+ ge Reily, alias Robert Alexander, alias
George Rowan, alias Hugh O'Neil, who was sentenced to
transportation as a vagrant at the late Spring Assizes for the
county of Tyrone, specifying the service for which such
monies had been paid, the department, and the public officer,
by whom such payments have been made, and the period of
time during which such payments had been made.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had no opportunity of receiving
any communication from Ireland, since the Hon. Member had
given notice of his intention of making the present motion, and
he had no knowledge whatever of this particular case, but he
would say that the Government would consider the employ-
ment of spies for the purpose of creating crime as a mast flag-
rant outrage.—(Hear, hear.) And he was fully aware that
the Government bad communicated to the commanding-officer
of the police, in Ireland, Col. M'Gregor, that any such em-
ployment of persons would be one of the gravest possible
offences; and until there was a case fully established, he could
not possibly believe that there was any truth in allegations
made with respect to this subject. In conclusion he would
say that he had no possible objection to grant the wished-for
return.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. GRATTAN said there was a very prevalent idea
throughout Ireland that the Government did employ persons
in the capacity alluded to. Need he remind the Right Hon.
Baronet of the case of Shinrone, of the cases of Parker and
Brophy. There was also the case of a dismissed policeman,
who, passing under the name of Molyneaux, under pretence of
papng a visit to England, was said to have gone to the west of
Ireland for the purpose of swearing ribbon men. There was
also the case of Casey, in the county
.of Longford, who was
discovered by the merest chance to be placing a ribbon docu-
ment in the p ,cket of a countryman. There was another point
to which he would allude, namely, to the corps called the Detec.
tives, who were in the habit of dressing themselves in the
clothes of women, and so far had this practice been carried that
rho sources of benevolence were almost dried up, for before
charity would now be administered the question was "Please
Ma'am are you a policeman."—(Great laughter.)
Mr. B. ESCOTT wished to ask the Honourable Member
for Limerick whether the law of Ireland permitted the poor to
be transported for vagrancy.
Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN submitted that
several cases of transportation had occurred for the crime of
vagrancy.
Mr. HUME said he did expect to have heard from the
Government some explanation of the charges which had been
made, especially when charges had been made and parties
names mentioned. And if such a state of facts existed, could
they wonder at the social state of Ireland—( Hear, hear )
and that at a period when they were called upon
to adopt coervive measures. Why, if such a state of
excitement existed in Dundee in consequence of the imprison-
ment of a few factory girls, what ought to be the feelings of
the Irish people at such conduct, no matter by whom counte-
nanced? If such demoralising procedings be allowed, could
they, he would again repeat it, wonder at the present state of
the social system in Ireland. —( Hear, hear.) He did hope that
he would hear some explanation of these facts.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he believed that the Hon. Member
could not have heard the statement which had been made to
the Member for Limerick. He would again repeat that he had
received no communications from Ireland, and that he had no
knowledge, as yet, of the facts which had been stated by the
Hon. Member for Meath.
The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. O'CONNELL moved for a copy of any report sent to
Government by a stipendiary or other magistrate, or by any
police authority, of any attack made, or alleged, on the house
of Mr. P. B. Ryan, or on himself, in the year 1845. Also of
any attack made, or alleged to have been made, on the house
of the said Mr. P. B, Ryan in the month of March, 1846.
Also, a return of the discharge of the said Mr. P. B. Ryan by
the Insolvent Court, in the county of Tipperary, and a copy of
the schedule filed by him on that occasion.
Sir J. GRAHAM intimated that he had no hesitation in at
once acceding to the motion of the Hon. Member.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that his object in moving for a
copy of the schedule, filed by Ryan, was to see the return of
property which he then stated he was possessed of. He had no
recollection that ever his Noble Friend—(Laughter)—had been
chairman of the Catholic Association in 1828.
EVICTION OF TENANTS IN GALWAY.

Mr. S. O'BRIEN moved that an humble address be pre-
sented to her Majesty, to inform her Majesty that the atten-
tion of this House has been directed to a case of ejectment of
tenantry which has recently taken place at a village named
Ballinglass, in the county of Galway, in which it is stated that
not leas than 61 families, comprising 270 individuals, have in one
day been expelled from their habitations, under circumstances
the most cruel and most heart-rending, and to pray her Majesty
that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the
stipendiary magistrates, and other officers of the Irish con-
stabulary, who are in the habit of reporting to the executive
outrages committed by the peasantry of Ireland, or such
Commissioners as her Majesty may be pleased to appoint, be
required to furnish to her Majesty's Government such au-
thentic information respecting the facts of this case as they
may be able to collect upon the spot, and that such reports
may be laid before Parliament at as early a period as possible.
He (Mr. Smith O'Brien) said, that after the debate which
had just taken place, on the motion of Mr. Thomas Duncombe,
relative to the six factory girls, he hoped that the House would
indulge him while he directed their attention to this case of
ejectment. An account of the case had recently appeared in
the newspapers, and, in consequence of the sensation which it
caused, Dr. Gray, of the Freeman's Journal, who, he believed,
was a gentleman incapable of doing anything inconsistent with
the highest principles of honour, sent down a reporter to obtain
accurate information of the circumstances. That report he
would take the liberty of reading to the House. It was drawn
up, he would confess, in rather strong language.—(The
Honourable Gentleman then produced a copy of the
Freeman's Journal, from which he read the report in question.)
The cases of ejectment excited considerable interest amongst
the Hon. Members present. Having concluded reading the
extract, the Hon. Member went on to say that he knew nothing
of this but from what he had written in the papers. He had
heard much about the state of the Seikhs ; but he would ask
whether they or the Irish were in a state of the greater
wretchedness. The Irish people had been called bar-
barians ; but it would be better for them to be barbarians
than to live in this state. He would ask what could be ex-
pected from people who were treated in this way. He would
ask now, would the Government institute inquiry into this
transaction, with a view to a,scertain what class of people in
Ireland it is that ought to be coerced ; whether it was the
peasants, or the landlords? The Hon. Member concluded by
reading the Address to her Majesty, of which he had given
notice.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the Hon. Gentleman who
had moved that address, had stated that he knew nothing
of the correctness of the statement he had read in a newspaper,
and that he also knew nothing of a letter that had appeared in
contradiction of them, and those were the grounds upon which
that address had teen moved. He believed that a better order of
things was about to exist in Ireland as regarded the conduct
of landlords, and that, even if that statement were true, he be-
lieved it was rather the exception than the rule. But if the
Bill now before the House should not be carried into law, he
did not see how the conditition of the tenant would be rendered
better, or how the deplorable clearance system could he prevented.
There was an inquiry now in progress on the subject, and. it
would be superfluous to make this address, as they would in-
quire into the real facts of the case. It would be only justice
to the parties concerned that the House should suspend this
ur mease. lie was in the hope that the report which had been