The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, APRIL 23, 1844.

Mr. HUME wished to know whether any arrange-
ment had been cot 'bas to when the discussion on
this Bill was to take !We ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said no arrangement
whatever had been made beyond what the Hon.
Member must be aware was stated by the Noble Lord
(Ashley) would be the course to be adopted. There
was only one clause of the Bill which at all interfered
with the period of labour; and it would be for the
Hon. Member for Montrose to consider whether it
would be more expedient to take the discussion on it
on going into Committee, or to raise it now. But
he (Sir J. Graham) should hope that as this measure
had been before the House some time, not only in this
session but in former ones, and that division after
division had been taken upon it—he should hope that
on the whole, it would not be opposed now, but that the
discussion would be taken on going into Committee,
either on the amendment of the Noble Lord the
Member for Dorsetshire, or the resolution of the
Hon. Member for Bath. He would give notice that,
on Friday next, he would take the order for going
into Committee as the first order of the day.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME said it would be convenient to the
House if there was only one discussion, and he would
not throw any obstacle in the way of the second
reading, on the understanding that the notice just
given by the Right Hon. Gentleman would he ad-
hered to.
Mr. WARD apprehended that another discussion
would take place on the motion of which he had given
notice, that the clause should be omitted altogether.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the proposal of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Bath to take the dis -
cussion on a resolution of the whole House, before
going into Committee, was a proper and convenient
course, as it would give more solemnity to the matter
in debate to take the question before the House went
into Committee, and while the Speaker was in the
chair. He understood the Right Hon. Baronet op-
posite to say that this Bill was in conformity with
the Bilis introduced on the same subject in former
years. By the clauses in the Bill of last year female
labour was restricted up to the age of twenty-one,
but by the Bill now introduced there was an en-
tirely new proposal.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had alluded to the pre-
ceding Acts on this subject, but the Noble Lord was
mistaken in supposing he alluded to that which the
Noble Lord had referred to, namely, the restriction
of female labour.
Mr. BERNAL said it appeared to him that there
was no difference, except in words, between moving a
negative resolution, and moving an instruction to the
Committee. He believed that the discussion wished
for could not be taken on the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Bath. He believed the intention of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was to move a general,
solemn resolution that such a thing should not be
done. He never recollected that any step on any occa-
sion intervened between going into Committee, unless
it was a resolution in the shape of an instruction to
the Committee. He thought it better to state this
now as it would prevent any supposition that they
wished to obstruct the intentions of' his Hon. Friend.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought it was competent for
him to make his motion, either on- the motion for
reading the Order of the Day, or for the Speaker
leaving the chair, and that he could not be prevented
from doine. so. He might be unwise in doing so, but
that he had a right to move anything restricting the
Factories Bill on the- motion for the Speaker leaving
the Chair, was as well settled as anything possibly
could be. If he chose he might even go further, but
he was satisfied with the mode he had taken to bring
the subject under the consideration of the House, the
only effect of which would be that the consideration
of the subject in Committee would be put off one day.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said it was his intention to
move for a Select Committee up stairs, but 'he be-
lieved when the Order of the Day for the House re-
solving itself into a Committee of the whole House
on the Factories Bill was put, then must be the
proper time for him to move that it be referred to a
Committee up stairs. The Committee would be
confined to the question of wages, because (there
was no use in the House deceiving itself on the
subject) there was a strong impression amongst the
operatives that the restriction of labour to ten hours
would not reduce wages. He kneW that they said,
and that others in their behalf also said, that they pre-
ferred taking their chance of a lieduction of wages;
but then they always said that a reduction of wages
would not be the consequence.—(Hear, hear.)
The opposition of the Government to the Noble
Lord's proposition was founded upon the argument
that it would be injurious to the working classes, in
consequence of the reduction of wages that would ne-
cessarily ensue from it. On a consultation with the
Short- time Committee lately, he (Mr. Duncombe)
told them that he believed that a different impres-
sion from that which they entertained prevailed in
the House of Commons. They complained of the
ignorance of the House of Commons on this ques-
tion and, as practical men, be_(,Mr. Duncombe) pro-
pOsed to them to go to a Committee of the House of
Commons, and explain their grievances on the mat-
ter there, and, with regard to this particular point,
meet the argument of the master manufacturers, that
this limitation would reduce the amount of wages.
They complained, and he thought justly, that the
House attended more to the statements of mai-
ters and millowners, than to the feelings and
representations of the operatives. He (Mr. Dun-
combe) believed it would be satisfactory to a great
portion of the working classes, and he thought it was
also due to the public, that some further investigation
should take place on this subject. He did not belie4e
that which he was told would be the case if this Bill
were referred to a Committee up stairs, that it would
be hung up for the remainder of the session. He
thought it better that it should be hung He
for the remainder of the present session thain
that it should be passed in the shape to which Minis-
ters had at present reduced it. That it would pais
in that shape there could not be the slightest doubt.
It was a perfect delusion to suppose that the mo-
tion of the Noble Member for Dorsetshire could by any
possibility be carried, or that it would be acceded
to by the Houie. The only chance the Noble Lord
had of carrying his point was by fighting step by step
in every stage in the progress of the Bill through the
House for the principle which the House hatl
already agreed to. The Noble Lord gave up
an opportunity of introducing a clause
Committee, and he had given notice of his
proposition for the third reading. The Noble Lord
might have introduced the clause in Committee, and
he might also have introduced it on the report, but
he let those opportunities go by, and deferred it to the
time when the Speaker was going to put the question
from the chair, that the Bill do pass. Then it
wa
that the Noble Lord's clause was to be brought up,
and the Right Hon. Baronet and the Government
would then properly say to the Noble Lord and to
the House, that the clause which he proposed mili-
tated so against the whole principle of the Bill, and
the provisions which had been already agreed to, that
it would be totally impossible for the House now t 6
accede to it. There would be perfect good sense in that.
It was perfectly proper on the part of the Go-
vernment so to do if they allowed, as the
Noble Lord was about to do, the Bill to
slip through the House =until it was about being
passed. Then the Noble Lord would, as it were,
take a flying shot at the Bill. But, as it was
to pass, and when he went to discharge his second
barrel at it, he would find that the game was gone.--e,
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) That would be the,
result of all the discussion that had takenl
place, and of the decision which the House had
come to, that women and children should not'
work for more than ten hours.—(Hear, hear.)
The operatives thought that the Noble Lord (Ashley)
and the House had been trifling with their interests
that the whole thing was a delusion from beginning
to end. The only course now was for the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Graham) to agree'
to a Committee. Let the masters and the men'
meet before an impartial Committee, and let the
public be thus satisfied who was in the right, and who
in the wrong. Only by these means could they dis-'
abuse the public mind of the impression which
prevailed that they were totally ignorant of the
interests of those for whom they were legislating.
Lord ASHLEY said it had not been his intention
to make a single remark, but the observations of the
Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) in-
duced him to read to the House three lines of a letter
received by him (Lord Ashley) that morning. The
Hon. Gentleman said the operatives considered that
he (Lord Ashley) had deluded them—that his con-
duct was, in fact, tantamount to a surrender. Now
he (Lord Ashley) believed that the operatives
of England were quite as fit judges of what was for
their own good as the Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Finsbury—(Hear, hear)—and he also thought
they had amongst them ten times more justice and
ten times more candour than he could pride himself
upon.—(Cheers and laughter.) The letter, from
which he was going to quote, was written by autho-
rity of the Central Short Time Committee of Lan-
cashire, and it said thus—" We are all of opinion that
the course you have adopted is the best that
under the circumstances you could have taken. We
shall give you all the support that lies in our power."
Mr. AGLIONBY said he hoped the Hon. Member
for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) would not take any
course that would interfere with the Noble Lord the
Member for Dorsetshire (Lord Ashley). He had ever
seen that Hon. Member (Mr. Duncombe) foremost
to protect the privileges of the working classes, but
he would not show himself the zealous friend he had
been to them, if he took any proceeding upon the
subject before the House without the sanc-
tion of that Noble Lord (Ashley). The
sincerity of the Noble Lord. was great, and
his judgment was as great as his sincerity.
He placed implicit
faithhis judgment
tdi
iintmheen Noble
aonbdlesLinocrder,ityan. d-
Here-
lied
believed that the Noble Lord's course was approved
entirely upon
of by the working classes.—(Cheirs.) Many of those

who had cheered the Hon. Member for Finsbury were
directly opposed to the motion, and might, perhaps,
be induced to urge him to go on, in hopes of defeat-
ing the measure.—(Hear, hear.) They had heard of
delusions in the minds of the working classes on this
subject, and that wages must inevitably fall in cc.nse-
quence of this measure. He believed that the greater
nnmber of the working classes were as able to judge
of this question as any of the Members of that House.
They had the greatest interest in it, and it was too
much for Members who had no acquaintance with
the practical details to presume to theorise as they
did. He believed that too much attention

was paid to the master mill-owners and to political
economi,tc He acknowledged that the question
was one of great difficulty, but he believed that the
intelligent members of the working classes had well
considered the question and were perfectly competent
to decide it. He should certainly support the Noble
Lord.—(Cheers.)
Mr. STUART WORTLEY complained that
the House should be called upon to discuss these
motions on the second reading of the Bill.
The Honourable Member for Bath bad given

notice of a motion on going into Commit-
tee, and the Honourable Member for Finsbury
had also given notice of his intention to move that
the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The

Honourable _ Member for Sheffield had also given

notice of his intention to propose an amend-
ment on the discussion of one of the clauses.

Now, it struck him that it would be exceedingly in:

convenient to have all these motions discussed at

once; and he wished to ask the Speaker which mo-
tion would have precedence—that of the Hon. Member
for Bath, or that of the Hon. Member for Finsbury ?
The SPEAKER said that, according to the rules

of the House, after the order of the day had been
read, the Hon. Member for Finsbury might move
that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and

when that motion was disposed of, it was competent
to any Hon. Member to move a resolution, provided

it was relevant to the question.
Mr. STANSFIELD (who was almost inaudible,
owing to the noise and confusion in the House) was
understood to say, that he had several alterations and
amendments to propose in this Bill when before the
Committee, and which would affect several other
branches of manufactures as well as the woollen trade.
Mr. ROSS said there was so much exaggeration
and so many misstatements upon this subject, that he
had thought it his duty to appeal to those who had
the best means of coming to a true conclusion on the
matter, so he appealed to several of his constituents in
the town of Belfast, and in consequence he had been
induced to a certain degree to alter his opinions.
Petitions, numerously signed by working-men and
young persons about the age of 15, had been presented
to the House, praying it not to interfere
with labour. The petitions, taking a different view
from that of his Honourable Friend, asserted
that the inevitable consequence of reducing the hours
of work would be the reduction of wages. . Seeing,
therefore, the opinion of the manufacturing employers,
backed by that of the working men, he had determined
to change his course. Although his conduct might:ap-
pear inconsistent, he thought the best consistency
was that of always endeavouring to act according to
what he believed the rights of any particular case.
Mr. HINDLEY thought the best argument in
favour of the course suggested by the Honourable
Member for Finsbury was the speech of the
Honourable Member for Belfast. This change of
opinion showed the necessity .of probing this
whole question to the bottom. When the doc-
trines of political economy were understood,
they would be found in favour of humanity.
The Right Hon. Gentleman reproached a majority of
the House with being a tyrant majority. But the
conduct of the Government was such as to deserve
the reproach of a tyrant minority.—(Hear, hear.)
In fact, he never saw a Government act in so perverse
and ungracious a manner„—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. PHILIPS was astonished at the course
now taken by the Hon. Gentleman who had spoken
last, and who had, in former times, voided all the pro-
visions of the Factories Act. But he might not be as-
tonished at what had fallen from the Hon. Mem-
ber for Ashton-under-Lyne.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
He would leave it to the Hon. Gentleman to recon-
cile his own former acts with the opinions which he
now expressed.—(Hear). He (Mr. Philips) would
take the judgment of the Hon. Member for• Belfast,
in preference to the statement of the Hon. Member
for Ashton-under-Lyne. The Hon. Member for
Belfast had been influenced on a former occasion by

the exaggerations which had prevailed in the
House upon this subject, and he voted in
favour of the Noble Lord (Ashley). But
then the Hon. Gentleman inquired into the matter in
a judicious manner, deriving his information from
practical persons, both men and masters, and he now
came forward manfully to declare that he was wrong
in his former vote.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. P.) had
always been opposed to interference with the labour
of adults. He believed, that if they once
commenced a series of experimental operations on
labour, where would they stop ?—(Hear, hear.)
They would next have to regulate wages—(Hear)—
and did they think that they could confine their in-
terference to the walls of the factories ? They
could not. They must push their experiments into
every department of labour, and inevitably drive the
trade out of the country.—(Hear.) Did they hope
that they could interfere also with the labour of other
countries ? Let the Hon. Member for Ashton-under-
Lyne go upon the Continent, in the vacation, and try
his influence with the natives there.—(Hear, and a
laugh.) '1 he Hon. Gentleman would be of course an
unpaid commissioner, but no doubt, he would also be
a zealous one.—(A laugh.) But he would find that
he could not induce the people on the Continent to
tie their hands before or behind.—(Hear, hear.) The
result of the commission would be just nothing. But,
in fact, upon this question, there was a system of
delusion practised on the people.—(Hear, hear.)
He apologised to the House for detaining it so long,
This was the only reference which he wished to make
to the Bill itself. He had always been opposed to the
appointment of sub-inspectors to factories. He had
always wished that inspectors should be gentlemen of
a certain claas and standing in society, whose reports
might be relied upon by the Legislature and the
country. He should like to see those individuals
selected from a higher class, for he did not
wish to see subordinates sent into mills
and factories, by which the • secrets of trade
might transpire in quarters which the House never
intended. What he should recommend was, that
they should select men of talent and education
for this office. He also objected to any
central office being fixed in London, be-
cause if there was any business to be done, it
ought to be done in the manufacturing districts.
If there was to be any inspection at all, let it be full
and efficient. It was not in the large towns that
inspection was so much required as in the more
remote localities. He also thought that those clauses
in the Bill which referred to the guarding of ma-
chinery were superfluous, as he believed that the acci-
dents arising from this cause had been grossly exag-
gerated.
Mr. HINDLEY rose to explain. He said he had
heard those charges repeated three times during the
debate of 1836 ; he did not reply to them at the
time, but as he heard them cheered by Hon. Mem-
bers now, he supposed that they really believed them
to be true. In 1836 he was connected with a large
concern in the north of England, and he expressed a
wish that they would observe the provisions of the
Factories Bill. He himself lived 200 miles away
from it in the metropolis so that he could not per-
sonally apply to know if his partners observed its
provisions. After the House broke up he went down,
and asked the manager if be observed the Factories
.The manager replied " No." He (Mr.
Hindley) said " I hope you have worked only twelve
hours.' He said they had worked twelve hours and
a half. He (Mr. H.) asked why they did so. The
manager replied that at Stayley-bridge they worked
twelve hours and a half, and that they were, therefore,
obliged to work the same time. When he had become
acquainted with these facts, he took care that they
should-not;continue so a minute longer than he had
the power of correcting them. When the factory
inspectors brought the matter before the bench, he.
(Mr. H.) did not seek to diminish the force of the
accusation. He did not even make his appearance on
the bench. The sons of his partners came to him to
know what, should be done. He (Mr. Hindley) told
them that they must pay; whatever fine the Magis-
trate ordered, and if they did not do so, he should pay
it himself, because, being in partnership, he was
legally bound to do so. They were fined 201. each,
and he believed that this 401. was the largest fine ever
paid. But what was the real state of the case The
pienechaainst him as
ordera to diminish
g
That was what he cared
factory taiownr
fly.
mu seaunkpc
eee
rr
ann
nt ethat
e niait
wso
-limbs
era
ed.
ae k ae
rs,
peech, and disse-
minatedfwoar Opponents
s.
not
tit to
wayto
every
vno
efr
y his
whichA eht
mie aeb r
opponentsthe of the measure
should have acted. They thought to crush him and
the question ; but they would be mistaken.—(Hear.)
Mr. FERRAND said he had attended a meeting of
the operatives of Manchester on Wednesday evening
last, who expressed their delight that they were about
to legislate for the working classes of the country.
They had expressed a desire that the two Hon. Mem-
bers for Manchester would meet him, but they did
.not show their face, because they knew that the merits
of the case were with the operatives. How came it
that the master manufacturers throughout the coun-
try did not meet the operatives ? Because they knew
that the working classes had truth on their side, and
that falsehood and injustice was on the side of the
master manufacturers. If they had not felt afraid,
why did they not come forward and confront the ope-
ratives ? Because the operatives were an intelligent
class of men, and men better able to discuss the ques-
tion than two thirds of the Members whom he now
addressed.

The Bill was then read a second time

On the motion that the Bill be committed, in order

that it be postponed,
Mr. ROEBUCK said he wished to put a question
to the Hon. Member for Knaresborough. That Hon.
Gentleman had stated that a Minister of the Crown

had used his influence as a Minister of the Crown to

induce an officer of the Government, he believed an
Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, to make a false re-

turn to that House for the purpose of crushing a
Member of that House.—(Hear hear.) He was jus-
tified in asking who was that Minister of the Crown
who had thus used his power ; who was the officer
whom the Crown employed ; and who was the Mem-
ber sought to be crushed, for it must have been that
a fly was crushed upon the wheel. The Hon. Gentle-
man must give them a peculiar light on the matter as
to who the Minister of the Crown was who had used

the power of the Government to induce a sworn
officer to make a false charge to the House for the
purpose of crushing a Member of the House. But if
the charge turned out to be false, what where they to
think of an Hon. Member who accused a Minister of

the Crown with using the authority of the Govern-
ment to induce an officer of the Government to pro-

pagate falsehoods which would be a disgrace to hu-man
nature ?

Mr. FERRAND said the Right Hon: Gentleman had

not been able in this case to avail himself of that system
to which he generally resorted in that House, of coming
down to take an undue advantage of an llon. Member.

Luckily, he (Mr. Ferrand) was prepared, as far as his own
recollection went, to state to the House the circumstances
to which he referred. During the discussion of the New
PoOr4aw in that Honse, it happened that he addressed
the 'House. After he had sat.down—he it was

immediately on his resuming his seat—the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment drew out of the box opposite to him a report, from
which he made charges against him (Mr. Ferrand) as a
rate-payer and inhabitant of the Keightley union, which
he knew were false. That report had been obtained by
the Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, Mr. Mott.—

(Hear.) A Committee of that House was appointed
to inquire into the allegations of that report. Magis-
trates, poor-law guardians, servants of the Union, de-
clared, one after the other, that it was untrue, and some
of them that it was scandalously false. A Committee
of that House had declared, though he was sorry to say
that that Committee did not do justice under the circum-
stances of the case, still it declared that many parts of
that report were overcharged. But he was not going to
be put down by the report of that Committee. He came
to that House and asked for fresh returns, to procure
justice for himself and liar the fate-payers of the parish.
The Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury,
and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, op-
posed those returns. He in vain applied to that House to
grant them. There was an inclinaron at first to prevent
him from obtaining them, but, at last, the Noble Lord,
the Member for the City of London, said he thought it
would be unjust on the part of that House to refuse him
those returns. Noes were counted on that order, and it
was found by the Government that they would be in a
minority if they resisted his motion. But what was the
result ? The returns, which were not laid on the
table till the end of the session, proved that the report
was false ; and before another session came Mr. Mott,.
the Poor-law Commissioner, was dismissed, and thus
prevented from being brought to the bar of that House.
Under the circumstances of the case, it was the duty of
the Government to give information to that House and
to this country as to the reasons of the dis-
missal of Mr. Mott.—(Hear, hear.) He himself
again brongkt that question under the notice
of the House. He appealed to the First Lord of the
Treasury to do justice to the rate-payers of the parish
of Bingley. He could tell him that there was not a
rate -payer of that parish who was not fully prepared to
stand by him, and to prove that the report was scanda-
lously false; and until the Right Hon. Baronet the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department told him (Mr.
Ferrand) and the country how it was that report was
brought out of the box, he could not cease to repeat
what he had said on this subject.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he must complain that his ques-
tion had not been answered. He had appealed to him to
establish that an officer of the Crown had used his power
and influence over an officer in the employment of the
Government 'to induce him to make a false report.—
(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had done nothing but
prove that the report was false. The charge still remainedthat an officer of the Crown had used his power for such
a purpose, and how scandalous the charge was the Hon.
Member had not shown.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FERRAND did not know what the Hon. Mem-
ber meant by using such language.
Mr. ROEBUCK said his language was plain, and

what he meant was plain. - -
Mr. FERRAND said the Hon. Member was not go-
ing to school him. He had used language in that House
which was unbecoming him as a Member of that House,
and as a gentleman.—(Hear, hear.)
The SPEAKER said he must call upon the Hon.
Member to retract his expressions.
Mr. FERRAND said he would 'willingly do every
thing the Speaker wished.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know whether the Hon.
Member repeated the charge to which he had referred?

(Hear, hear.)
Nlr. FERRAND said what he stated was, that the
Right Hoh. Gentleman had used his influence to procure
a &lie report.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, until the last words which fell

From the Hon. Member he had looked with great indif

ference both to the charge and to the discii.ssion itself.
The Hon. Member had deliberately asserted that which
he (Sir J. Graham) had hardly thought he could
have taken upon himself to assert of him, much
less in his presence and before that House, viz.,
that he (Sir James Graham) had used his official
power to obtain a false report. He (Sir J. Graham)
did not think it worth while to move that the words be

taken down, which was the usual course in such
But there was no mistake that the Hon. Gentleman had
distinctly stated, after some deliberation—because he
avoided unnecessarily the question in the first instance,
and the question was then repeated—that he was pre-
pared to assert that he (Sir J. Graham) had used his
official power and influence to obtain a false report for
the purpose of crushing him (Mr. Ferrand). He thought
it would be impossible, considering that assertion, and
considering the position which he (Sir J. Graham) held
by favour of her Majesty—considering that the assertion
was deliberately made—he was quite sure the Hon.
Member would, as well as himself, feel that it was im
possible to demand redress then, but he hoped that the
Hon. Gentleman was prepared to take the proper course
to substantiate the charge.—(Opposition cheers.)
—MI.HUME said there was another question which
he deemed of greater importance. It had been asserted
that the Right ;lon. Secretary of State had made use of
his official influence to induce the Hon. Member who
sat behind -him (Mr. Hogg, we understood the Hon.

Gentlematan refer to), when Chairman of the Notting-
ham Election Committee to commit perjury ; for such
was in reality the nature of the charge, as he presumed
the Chairman, as well as the other members of an Elec
tion Committee was sworn to deliberate and decide, ac-
cording to his conscience. It appeared to him that that
was a most serious charge brought against the Right
Hon. Baronet himself, and against the lon. Gentleman
who was Chairman of the Committee in question, and
he should be happy to hear some explanation of it.
Mr. FERRAND—I beg leave to say that I never used
such an expression.—(oh, oh.)
Mr. WARD—I am bound to say that the impression
was sedulously inculcated in the country at large—
(Cheers)—that the Chairman of a Committee of this
House, in the tlischarge of his duty, which was to decide
between the conflicting claims of two parties, had grossly
violated that duty, and that he used subterfuge in order
to get rid of a Member of this House who was supposed
to be obnoxious to the persons in power, and who was
an advocate of the rights of the working classes—that
he (the Chairman of the Committee) discharged his
. duty in such a way as to cause the whole House to cry
shame upon him when he made the report to the House,
and that the only, the solitary voice which cheered him,
was that of the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for
the Home Department. And I had no idea when I Ca-
tered this House that such a question as that which is
now before us would have been brought forward, and of
course I could have no intention of taking part in it;
but I will just advert to something which has been
stated at several of these public meetings to which refe-
rence has been made, which was, that such was the sense
entertained by the House respecting the Factory Bill,
that the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Govern-
ment had stated on one night, when leaving the House
after a discussion on this Bill, that the Christian feeling
of the House had beaten the Government on the factory
question.—(Loud cheers.) I cannot help hoping that
the good feeling of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand)
will induce him to say that he has been misled
by the warmth of his own feelings on a subject
in which he takes an interest; and that he had not at-
tached sufficient importance to the words he was using,
and that he was not at the moment aware of the deep im-
pression which they were calculated to make on the
minds of men who naturally supposed that the Hon. Gen-
tleman must be better acquainted with what is passing
here than they could be.
Mr. FERRAND—I am quite prepared to stand by
what I have said, but I never recollect any such expres-
sion falling from me.
Mr. WARD—Mr. Oastler.
Mr. FERRAND—I am not Mr. Oastler's keeper. The
Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary was, a short
time ago, but he is now at liberty.—(Laughter.) But
with respect to the language I used relating to the Not-
tingham electi" I have to state that I never said " the
whole House." I said, " those who sat on thisside of the
House."—(Cries of " Oh, oh.")
Mr. HOGG—I hope the Hon. Gentleman will be kind
enough to state to the House what lie did say.—(Loud
cheers.) I hope he will be kind enough to state distinctly
what he did state, and I hope that he will either avow or
disavow the report of his speech, which never would
have met my eye if I had not seen a prominent part of
it, which was given in one of the leading columns of the
Times. That particular statement respecting myself I
saw, but the other statement which has been alluded to
I never saw, and never heard of until this moment.--
(Cheers.) But I hope the Hon. Gentleman will be kind
enough to tell the House whether he has seen the re-
port of his speech in the Times newspaper, and I hope
that he will distinctly state to the House, and I hope the
House will think that I have a right, not only to request
—(Here the Hon. Gentleman was interupted by loud
cheers)—as an officer of this House, in the discharge of
a most solemn duty—a right to demand that this House
will require that HOB. Gentleman distinctly to avow or
to disavow the speech as reported, and which has been
so promisiently put forward in a leading article of the
Times newspaper.—(Great cheering.) '
Mr. FERRAND—I saw the leading article in the
' Times, and the words which I used, and what I asserted
on the occasion referred to, are there Incited, and are

entirely correct —(Oh, oh, some cheering, axd consi-
derable disapprobation.)
Mr. HOGG (with much warmth)—l beg, then, so
lemly to declare that it was not my intention to take the.,
slighteq notice of what appeared in that paper, or of
what . fell from the Hon. Gentleman. I did not act

solely upon my own impression, or upon my own opinion.
I am not peculiarly sensitive, for I know that men in
public situations of life are ,liable to have their
conduct made the subject of public comment,
and I am not particularly sensitive When I know
the quarter from which imputations come.—(Cheers.)
I took the opinion of friends upon both sides of the
House, and of gentlemen out of this House, as to the
course I should pursue. They told me that this matter
was unworthy of notice—(Cheers)—and they desired me
to take no notice of it, either out of the House or in the
House, and I confess that that advice accorded with my

own impression. Sir, I have been for a long period a
Member of this House, and elsewhere I have been long

before the public. I hail no anxiety—l hope I did not

place a presumptuous confidence in my own character—
but I had no anxiety—and, therefore, I felt satisfied with
the advice given to me, that the observations which were
made by the Hon. Gentleman were not deserving of con-
sideration.—(Cheers.) But it now assumes a very dif
ferent character. I should disregard what fell from the

lion. Gentleman when he was itinerating the country,
and vituperating men with wholesale and foul calumny.

But when he avows before this House—when he states
in his place in Parliament, that a sworn officer of this
House, in the discharge of his public duty, was influ-
enced by a Minister of the Crown grossly to abandon
that public duty (a duty which he was sworn upon oath

Lo di;charge) for an in" and a foul purpose—Sir, it be-

~. . - -
comes incumbent upon me no longer to treat the matter
- - - -.—

with indifference or contempt, but to call upon the
Hon. Gentleman to substantiate his charge.—(Cheers.)
Ido nut want him to substantiate the charge. I call
on that Hon. Gentleman to rise in his place, and leave,
if he can, upon the minds of this House a doubt—or
leave upon this House the slightest suspicion, that in the
discharge of my public duty I was influenced by dis-
honest or dishonourable motives.—(Great cheering.)

If he should raise that doubt—if he -should raise that
suspici,,n—let me be covered with well-merited obloquy,
and let me depart this House as a man no longer worthy
to take his seat, being no longer worthy of confidence.—
(Continued cheering.) But there is another view of the
question. If that Hon. Gentleman cannot raise that
doubt in the minds of this House—if he fail to satisfy
this House as to his grounds for doubting my hone ur
and integrity, then let that Hon. Gentleman be branded
as the asserter of foul and false calumnies—let him stand
convicted as such before this House and before the coun-
try, and it will be then for him to consider whether he
is worthy longer to sit in this assembly, or command
respect as a gentleman.—(Continued cheering.) I repeat
my calm declaration, that I had not the slightest
intention of bringing this matter before the House,
but when it was repeated by the Hon. Member in his
place in Parliament, I must of course notice it, and
throw myself not only on this side of the House but on
the other. I appeal to your feelings as gentlemen—
those feelings which, I know, are always responded to.
Since I have had the honour of a seat in this House—l
speak in the presence of those gentlemen who are in
the habit of appointing Committees—and I say that I
have never sought to be placed on any Committee in my
life; and I may add, that I never refused to discharge,
to the best of my humble ability, any duty the House
might be pleased to impose upon me. They imposed
on me the arduous—the painful—the sacred—the so-
lemn duty of Chairman of an Election Committee, which
I discharged to the best of my humble ability as their
sworn officer, and I claim from them the right to be
supported. I claim this from them. If lam guilty, I
will willingly submit to the consequence, and I will
submit to be branded with infamy. But I require from
this House protection. If the Hon. Gentlemen cannot
state the grounds for his accusation, or raise a doubt in
the minds of this House, then I claim that he should be
branded in the manner he deserves.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. FERRAND—When, Sir, I uttered the language
which the Hon. Gentleman has now brought before the
Houso, I was alluding to the feeling of this House on the
occasion when the Hon Gentleman presented his report,
and I said that when then the Hon. Gentleman did so he
displayed a good deal of " haggling."
Mr. HOGG—That is not the part. It is that part in
which you said, the Right Hon. Baronet influenced me to
commit perjury.
Mr. FERRAND—The Hon. Gentleman is, I believe,
labouring under a mistake when he says that I used such
language, I did not say anything of the kind. If the
lion. and Learned Member for Bath had given me notice
of his intention to put these questions to me, or if the Hon.
Member for Montrose had done so, I should have had
the newspaper in my hand, and I should have been pre..
pared to have read the language which I uttered. They
have not given me that opportunity, knowing, that as I
had not the newspaper present, it would be a good time
for them to take me at a disadvantage, and they have
done so. When I used the language to which the Hon.
Member for Beverley has referred, I was alluding to the
feeling of this House on the occasion on which he pre-
sented his report; and I said that when the Hon. Mem-
ber for Beverley was " haggling" and " higgling"
through an excuse, those on this side of the House lis-
tened with feelings of disgust. There was but one
Member on this side who cheered, and that Member
was the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for
the Home Department.—(Laughter.) Now I believe

that is as nearly the language I used on that occasion as
possible.—(Cries of" No, no.") Yes; and if I had known
I would have been prepared to read the very words to
the House, and, as I told the Hon. Gentleman, those words

in the leading article to which the Hoa. Gentleman has
referred, to the best of my knowledge, are the words I
uttered. But if the House and the Hon. Gentlemen

think proper, I will to-morrow bring down the Times
newspaper with me, and I will be prepared to stand by
those words again to-morrow. I will not retract them,
for the words I used were the result of deliberate obser-
vation as to what took place when the Hon. Gentleman
explained to the House his proceedings on the Notting-
ham Election Committee. The Hon. Gentleman could
not have forgotten that he felt himself called upon to
explain the proceedings of that Committee. There was
a strong feeling in the country that the Hon. Gentleman
should not hold his peace as to his conduct on this oc-
casion ; and after the report was presented, the Hon.
Gentleman found it necessary to stand up for half an
hour together and attempt to explain the proceedings in
that Committee. lam a public man as well as a Mem-
ber of this House, and I have a right to form an opinion
as to the proceedings of that Committee, or of the mem-
bers who were upon it. I will not hesitate to give my
opinion upon them or upon what I should consider the
public conduct of this House. If this House, or
any friend of mine should tell me that I
used language that was too strong, I will re-
tract it, but I will not be intimidated, as I have been
attempted to be intimidated, by men who have not dared
to meet me on the hustings—(Laughter)—but who are
jealous of the unanimous regard and affection which has
been shown to me by tens of thousands of injured men—
men whom you (pointing to Lord J. Russell) have de-
ceived—yes, and who have cast you oft.—(Laughter.)
I will stand to what I have uttered out of this House,
and I will maintain it.
Sir R. PEEL rose, but gave way to
Sir J. GRAHAM, who said —Sir, there is no "hag-
gling" or " higgling" here.—(Cheers.) We are in the
British House of Commons ; and the Honourable Gen-
tleman has accused me, as a Minister of the Crown, of
having exerted my influence as a Minister to obtain a
false report for the purpose of crushing him. There shall
be no surprise. He says that I, as a Minister of the
Crown, used my influence with a Member of this House—
Mr. FERRAND—No, I did not say so.
Sir J. GRAHAM—I understood the Hon. Gentleman
to refer to the Hon. Member for Beverley, as Chairman
of a Committee of this House, with whom I used my in-
fluence.
Mr. FERRAND—No, no.
Sir J. GRAHAM—Very well. I will have no sur-
prise. Again, I repeat, that we have no " haggling" or
" higgling" here, but to-morrow I will not appeal to the
generosity or the fairness of the Hon. Gentleman, but
I will appeal to the generosity and the fairness of both
sides of the House, and I expect that to-morrow the
Hon. Gentleman will come down with a specific charge
against me—not only as a Minister of the Crown, but as
a Member of this House, whose honour he impeaches,
and whose official character he impugns. I call on him,
or rather I call on the House to compel the Hon. Gen-
tleman, to be specific in his allegations, and I challenge
the Hon. Gentleman to any inquiry before any tribunal
—before any Committee of this House, however consti-
tuted. I will not challenge the name of any Hon. Gen-
tleman who may be placed on that Committee, and I
challenge the Hon. Gentleman to prove any such charge
as that he has brought against me.
Mr. FERRAND—To-morrow I hope the Right Hon.
Baronet will be pressed to explain how he became pos-
sessed of that document which he took out of his box to
use against me.—(Cheers and laughter.)i
thl inb:gth)erou
pnrdon, but is no laughing matter; and
in-
terruptionsunbeeomingoLt(hßeeHneowne.
dMleamuglibetrefro.)r Blatahgaarine excessivelythat
I expect i
s on
that
his
trialto a
tomorrow
wellrow a
thes Rightmyself—will
sel—
wHon.il
beß a rubonl ee t
for he to
explain to the House in what manner he became pos-
essed of that report, which he drew out of his box, and
vZhich he used against me almost immediately, if not
immediately, on my resuming my seat in the debate on
the new poor-law.
Mr. HOGG—I hope that I shall be permitted to bring
the report to which the Hon. Gentleman has referred,
and to read that report to the House ; and if itdshould
not be liable to the imputation which has been east upon
it by him, I hope the House will call on that Hon. Gen-
tle ma nto disavowany
mannert hat whichyou
hpele please, either utter e db,eoforr to e
this re-
quire
him,in
or any other tribunal, to bring his proofs; tmd I will be
satisfied, if he should raise a doubt or suspicion as to my
integrity, to submit to the consequences. If on the con-
trary, he should fail to do so, I hope the House will visit
him in the manner he deserves.—(Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I do not think that it very
much matters what are the particular words and ex-
pressions which were either used by the Hon. Gentle-
man, or were reported in the Times newspaper. The
question will be whether the Hon. Gentleman can al-
lege, or can give proof in support of such allegation, that
the Right Hon. Gentleman caused, or directed, or pro-
cured, a false report to be made to him for a specific
purpose. It would be beside the question to say that
the Right Hon. Gentleman had received a report in
which some of the facts were inaccurately stated, and
that he used that report, relying upon the authority of
an inspecting officer without having verified fhe facts.
The question is whether the Right Hon. Gentleman
used his influence, with the intention of procuring
such a result. Then with regard to the Hon. Member
for Beverley, the Hon. Gentleman said that the Hon.
Memberrfor Beverley had thought it necessary to make
an explanation as to his conduct as chairman of the
committee, and that certain Members of this House—
on a certain side of this House—had listened to that ex-