The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-08 00:00:00

appointed, they would hardly dare to come for-
ward. He would prove that all he had stated
was true before he sat down. He had given
:an instance of what had occurred in
Lancashire, he would now state to the House what
had occurred in Yorkshire, in his own neighbourhood.
The Hon. Member then read a letter which pur-
ported to be from a poor weaver residing in Yorkshire
who had been employed by a person who kept a shop upon
the premises, and in which the working men em-
ployed by him understood that they were to spend
their wages ; the writer of that letter incurred a
debt of ten shillings, which he allowed to be liqui-
dated by a deduction of one shilling a week from
his wages. On Saturday, the 19th of February last,
his employer deducted the full ten shillings, dis-
charged him his service, and refused to give him
further employment. On the Monday following that
poor man applied to a Magistrate for a summons in
order to obtain his wages, and the result was the Ma-
gistrate gave an order that it should be paid, and he
(Mr. Ferrand) was happy to say that the Cleric al-
lowed the poor man the tee for the summons, and thus
ended the investigation of the case by the Magistrate.
These were Anti-Corn-law League men.—(Laugh-
ter.) He (Mr. Ferrand) had scores of such facts to
lay before the House, and he was prepared to prove
them before a Select Committee ; not only that, but
the working classes of England were rising up
throughout the country to prove every word he
stated in that House. What would the
House say when he told them that the
working classes of Birmingham had assembled the
other day, and unanimously passed a vote of thanks
to him ?—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Yes, he
repeated it, the working classes of Birmingham
had assembled and adopted a vote of thanks
to him for opposing the conduct of their
hard-hearted task-masters.—(Mr. Ferrand then pro-
ceeded to read the resolutions to which he had
alluded.) He would not detain the House with
reading the whole of what had taken
,place at that
meeting, but he said the people who adopted that
resolution were working men, who not only approved
of everything. he stated within the walls of that
House, but justified it, and declared themselves
ready to prove it. Let it not be said that these state-
ments depended upon him (Mr. Ferrand). Again he
challenged Hon. Gentlemen opposite to call for a Select
Committee, and if they did not, he would do so.
The Noble Lord the Member for London had said
that he had understood that he (Mr. Ferrand) had
only urged his charges against a limited number of
manufacturers. He (Mr. Ferrand) had said that he
had brought charges against a large number of manu-
facturers. On Saturday last he (Mr. F.) had thought
it his duty to the Noble Lord, considering the
high position which that Noble Lord held, not only
in the House, but out of the House, to send him a
sample of the calico which was commonly sold to the
working classes—(A laugh)—and he (Mr. F.) had
also thought it his duty to send a sample of that
calico to the Prime Minister of England—(Loud
laughter)—that they might have ocular demonstration
of the sort of stuff that was sold to the working peo-
ple ; and he was prepared to prove it. Would Hon.
Members opposite contend that calico was not
daubed with flour and paste ? He would call
upon the Noble Lord to rise in his place and say if
ever in all his life he had known such plunder as that
which was practised on the poor in this particular ? It
was really horrible to behold.—(Cheers and laughter.)
The shirting sold to the working people was com-
pletely daubed over with flour paste. Now he (Mr.
Ferrand) would ask if that was true ?—(Cheers
and laughter.) If it were untrue was there ever
such an opportunity as that now afforded for
giving him a contradiction.—(Cheers and laughter.)
Was it not the duty of the Legislature to afford these
poor people protection. They had sent to him to ask
him to claim protection for them from the House.
Did he say anything that was unfair ?—(Cheers.)
It was well for Hon. Members to smile and cheer,
but would those who cheered attempt to contradict
him ?—(Hear, hear). It was at the request of the
poor people that he had acted as he had done, and if
an Hon. Gentleman opposite would take up the cause, he
(Mr. Ferrand) would give way.—(Cheers.) He
therefore begged of them not to sneer at him.—(Cheers
and laughter.) His heart had urged him to do what
he had done.—Cheers and laughter.) He besought
them to bear with him for the cause he advocated.
He would read a letter from the Manchester Guardian,
the organ of the Anti-Corn-law League, which had
appeared in that paper on Ist December last. (The
Hon. Member here read the letter alluded to, which was
signed " A Manufacturer," and which stated that one
manufacturer paid 7501. per annum more than he had
done in 1815 for flour for dressing, in consequence of
the operation of the Corn-laws. That letter then
went on to state that more flour was consumed in a
manufactory in filling up the cloth than was used by
the labourers employed in it for food, and con-
tended that while foreign manufacturers pro-
, cured their flour for those purposes at a
cheap rate, it 'was impotssible that British manu-
facturers could compete With them without a
repeal of the Corn-laws. The reading of this letter
was ' met by ironical cheers and loud laughter
from the Opposition.) No wonder the price of
corn was kept up in the manufacturing districts.
Now he would ask llon. Gentlemen opposite would
they deny that calico contained paste ? He had taken
that letter from their own organ. When he stated that
100,000 quarters of wheat were consumed to defraud
the public, more especially the poorer classes, that
statement was considerably within bounds. He had
deemed it to be his duty, on Saturday last, to inform
the Noble Lord, the Member for London, that it
would be his duty, in defending himself that
evening to refer to a correspondence which took place
between the Noble Lord and Mr. Baker, the Superin-
tendent of Factories. That correspondence was
ordered to be printed by the House of Commons,
on the 21st of June, 1836. He (Mr. Ferrand)
believed that the Noble Lord the Member for
London was, at that period, Secretary of State
for the Home Department. He (Mr. Fer-
rand) did not blame the Noble Lord
for not being acquainted with the shoddy trade.
But he would read to the House the statement of the
Sub-Inspector of Factories, which statement was
ordered to be printed by that House, as he had
stated before, on the 21st June, 1836. He said,
addressing his Lordship, " that he had to inform
him that his report of Taylor, Ibbotson,
and Co. (Anti-Corn-law League-men), having
worked their boys twelve and fifteen hours
was correct. The district was Dewsbury, in
Yorkshire, a neighbourhood thickly populated,
depending entirely on the manufacture of shoddy
cloth, which was made from woollen rags torn
in pieces by a powerful machine, and reduced
as far as possible to its original form, and the wool
worked again into cloth." Now, he asked Honourable
Gentlemen to listen to this, in tearing up these
rags a great quantity of dust was emitted—
this was called " devils' dust "—so much so
that in general persons standing three or four yards
apart could scarcely distinguish the other persons in
the room, while the machinery was propelled with
great velocity. Would they listen to him while
he read four or five lines of the Report to
which he had alluded, to prove to them the cruelty
practised upon the poor while their oppressors defrauded
the public ? There was a charge brought against
these men before the Magistrates. A charge which the
inspector declared the law did not give him official
authority to go into. He took it from the mouth of the
sufferers themselves, and they stated that on
the 27th of September they went to work at six
o'clock in the morning, and with the exception of meal
hours, and one hour at midnight, they did not cease
working till four o'clock on the Saturday afternoon.
Did not this justify his charges against these men—
men of the Anti-Corn-law League—men who felt
so much for the suffering of the poor, and
who went for the repeal of the Corn-laws, not
for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the people.
He would now read five or six lines from the letter of
another working man, relative to the shoddy trade, one
of those poor men for whom Hon. Gentlemen opposite
pretended to feel so much, and to whose letter, there-
, fore, he (Mr. F.) hoped they would listen. This
poor man said, " I am engaged in the shoddy
trade in Battely, near Dewbury, I have not seen
your last speech on the Corn-laws, but I am told you
made some observations relative to the shoddy trade.
In every piece made there are three pounds of flour used
to stiffen it, which deceives the wearer entirely,
and spoils the trade. In another village, about
a mile from Dewesbury, there used to be a
good trade in the manufacture of paddings
and drugget." He (Mr. Ferrand) would ask
Honourable Members to listen, and he would
tell them how the trade in that village
had been lost out of the mouth of this
working man —not by the operation of
the Corn-laws, but by the behaviour of the manufac-
turers themselves. The workman went on to say, " they
carried this shoddying and stiffening to such a length
that the trade was lost. The trade was entirely lost,
but a few manufacturers have retired with
fortrasixrpuoon slna.
dd s Theypofrproved
voe
rw
his
ir in
nse
es statement
habit
me
epnietcefi.
rs,He
, of using five or
t all@frrroMFtehre-
Aw
onrtki
nCgo rn
classes,-law Laenaaguteh,eythseiniouflrdomnowtheseemwoihitahtsdoesef
rithpe.
Lion manufacturers. gave of it, and then he should
challenge the Hon. Members opposite once more to ask
for a Select Committee. (The Hon. Gentleman then
proceeded to read a letter from a manufacturer, of
Whitney, in Oxfordshire, relative to the
,practice of
shoddying.) He would ask Hon. Gentlemen opposite to
do him justice, and he would here bear record to the
noble exertions of the Hon. Member for Salford on be-
half of the factory children, and though they were opposed
on this question, he (Mr. Ferrand) hoped soon
to be able to unite heart and band with that Hon. Member
for the preservation of the factory children. He had now
only spoken to defend himself from the remarks made
against him on Friday last. He felt be had only done
hts duty to the working men in England, whom he re-
presented, and from whom he daily received scores and