the prepared cotton, it is useless to continue the labour of preparation. Hence there is a necessity of having a unity in the organization of the cotton manufacture; and the establishment of such a unity is facilitated by the singleness of the moving power-the water-wheel, or the steam-engine.

The common objections raised against the agency of artificial power, working through machinery, arise from careless thinkers confounding together two things which are perfectly distinct-the saving of labour, and the diminution of employment. There is infinitely less labour in producing a printed than a written book; but there are infinitely more persons employed in printing than ever were engaged in transcribing. A hank of yarn is produced with infinitely less expenditure of time and toil by the machinery of the mill, than by the old hand-cards and spinning-wheel; but there are infinitely more persons employed in spinning yarn now, than were so employed before the inventions of Arkwright, Watt, Hargreaves, and Crompton. These undeniable facts sufficiently prove, that a diminution of labour is a very different thing from diminution of employment; and yet no two matters are more frequently confounded.

The real tendency of improvements in machinery is, to substitute the light toil of feeding the engines, and superintending their work, for mere exertions of physical strength. hence, women and children can be employed in cotton-mills without having their strength overtasked, because the chief requisites of their occupation are regularity, vigilance, and attention. But a uniformity of work, however light, must, when too long continued, produce an injurious effect on the physical and mental constitution, particularly in childhood. Hence, Sir Robert Peel considered that some legislative regulation was necessary for the purpose of restricting the employment of young children in manufacturing labour, and he brought the subject before the House of Commons on the

6th of June, 1815. He said, it was well known that a bad practice had prevailed, of condemning children, whose years and strength did not admit of it, to the drudgery of occupations often severe, and sometimes unwholesome. What he was disposed to recommend, was a regulation, that no children should be employed under the age of ten years, either as apprentices or otherwise; and the duration of their labour should be limited to twelve hours and a half per diem, including the time for education and meals, which would leave ten hours for laborious employment. The accounts he had recently seen showed, that it was not so much the hardship of the labour as its duration, which had produced mischievous effects on the health of the rising generation. It was to be lamented, however, that the inspectors, appointed under a late act, had been very remiss in the performance of their duty. He should, in consequence of this misfortune, propose that proper persons be appointed at quarter-sessions, and that they should be paid in due proportion for their trouble. It was gratifying, however, to observe, that the loss of life had been of late exceedingly small, not exceeding one per cent. per annum; a loss falling short of the average loss sustained in every other class of manufacturing industry. As he was desirous that the measure he was now suggesting should be put into the most perfect state that was attainable, he submitted that the bill, for which he intended to move, should be read a first time, and then printed. During the recess, it might be circulated through the country, and receive the proper amendments.

In the following session, he moved, that the condition of the children in the different manufactories of the kingdom should be referred to the consideration of a committee, and, after a slight discussion, the proposition was adopted. But while the subject was in the course of examination, Sir Robert Peel greatly injured his cause, by combining it with a

proposition for limiting the hours of adult labour; to which the leading political economists objected, as an unwarrantable interference with the market for free labour, and showed that every attempt made by the government to regulate the relations between the employers and the employed, had been a mischievous failure. He felt that he had thus raised difficulties in his way, and he endeavoured to remove them when he proposed the second reading of his bill, Feb. 23rd, 1818. He said the principle of the bill was exactly the same as of that which he had proposed in 1815, and he hoped, for the sake of those unhappy children for whose protection it was intended, that he should succeed in his object. When he brought in a bill for regulating the labour of apprentices in cotton-mills, in 1802, he told the House that he was an advocate of free labour. He was still an advocate of free labour, and he wished that that principle should not be infringed on. He could not think that little children, who had not a will of their own, could be called free labourers. They were either under the control of a master or a parent. He hoped the House would take these children under their protection. If ever there was a case which deserved the attention of every member of the House, this was the case. He well knew that many factories were conducted in the most reputable manner; but, at the same time, he knew that there were other factories conducted very differently. There were many poor children, in every part of the kingdom, whom there was no way of protecting but by act of parliament. He hoped that the same course which was adopted three years ago, would be adopted now-that the second reading would be agreed to, and the clauses of the bill filled up in a committee: plenty of time would be allowed for circulating the bill up and down the country. He pledged himself that no future proceeding should take place till after the holidays, and that, therefore, no person should be taken by surprise.

tered, the landowner ought to participate. By the measures now upon the table, the wise system pursued for years was about to be subverted, and the labourers prevented from putting the real wealth of the country into that marketable shape by which this country had hitherto been made the envy of surrounding nations.

At a subsequent stage of the bill, he declared that a bounty on the importation of corn when the price was high, would be by far a more preferable measure than the one embraced by Mr. Robinson's bill. On the presentation of a petition from Manchester, he returned to the subject, and said, that the petition showed the unanimous opinion entertained of this bill in our largest manufacturing town. He begged the House also to observe, that the petition was not urged by any want of attachment to the government, for during the most pressing periods of the war, the people of Manchester had abstained from all complaints, because they had hoped that the return of peace, whenever it might arrive, would cause a cessation of their burdens. He had witnessed their feelings on former occasions with great uneasiness, as they arose from a want of bread; but when they were told that it would be ungenerous to publish their complaints, they submitted to their hard condition with the most praiseworthy silence. He considered the present bill as the most injurious and unprecedented measure which had occurred in his time, as it went to affect an immensely numerous and loyal body of people, who had supported government by their labour, and the advantages derived from its exercise. Was it then to be endured that ministers should lend themselves to such a measure? He would tell them that they had but one interest to consult, and that was to support the labourer in manufacturing industry. Was it intended that we should for the future live only on the produce of our land? If so, what would become of the resources from our manufactures when

our machinery should be lost? He was persuaded our manufacturers would not sit still and see their trade frittered away and destroyed; they would go abroad, and exert themselves where their labour would be properly appreciated, and enable them to procure the necessaries of life. He, however, yet hoped, that as the injurious tendency of the measure must now be evident, it would not be suffered to proceed, but that ministers would convince the anxious multitude that they were alive to their real and vital interests. The fact was,

that the more the measure became known, the more generally it was execrated and condemned. The people were not to be cajoled by such arguments as that the bill would give them cheap bread; they knew better; they knew the thing was impossible, and, considering the inevitable consequences of the measure, he hoped the House would not suffer it to proceed further.

In order to weaken the force of such high authority, Mr. Cawthorne observed, that the worthy baronet had for some time ceased to reside in Lancashire, and could not therefore be received as a representative of public opinion in that county. Sir Robert Peel replied, that though he had been partially absent from the county, his great capital had been constantly employed in it, and had contributed to the support of the people, whose sentiments he could not but know as well as any man.

We are not here about to write the history of the Cornlaws; they will come more legitimately under our notice when examining the career of the second Sir Robert Peel; but it is only justice to observe, that the resistance offered to the imposition of those laws by the first Sir Robert Peel was based on more legitimate grounds than the demand for their repeal, when first raised by the modern manufacturers of Manchester. They took the untenable and unpopular ground that it was necessary to have cheap bread in order to reduce