In the bill brought in in 1815, the age at which children might be employed was fixed at ten. He now proposed the age of nine years, and that the powers of the act should terminate when the child reached the age of sixteen, and could be considered a free agent. He therefore now recommended, that children employed in cotton factories should, from nine to sixteen, be under the protection of parliament, and before nine that they should not be admitted; that they should be employed working eleven hours, which, with an hour and a half for meals, made twelve hours and a half. It was his intention, if possible, to prevent the recurrence of such a misfortune as that which had recently taken place: he alluded to the fourteen poor children who were recently burnt in the night, in a cotton factory. He knew that the iniquitous practice of working children at a time when their masters were in bed, too often took place. He was ashamed to own, that he had himself been concerned where that proceeding had been suffered; but he hoped the House would interfere, and prevent it for the future. It was his wish to have no nightwork at all in factories.

These arguments were repeated with little variation, when a discussion arose on the committal of the bill; but Sir Robert Peel availed himself of the opportunity of explaining the causes why the Apprentices Bill, which he had carried into law sixteen years before, was no longer a remedy for existing evils. He said, that the measure had almost become a dead letter, in consequence of the change which took place in conducting the business to which it referred. The cotton trade found its way from the country into large towns, where, the population being numerous, manufacturers were no longer under the necessity of receiving children as apprentices. Although ten times the number of children were employed, compared with the period when the Apprentice Bill had passed, none of them were bound by articles, or anything in

the shape of a permanent contract. The children were not entitled to, nor could they rely on, the protection hitherto afforded by masters to those in their employment.

Lords Stanley and Lascelles, Messrs. Finlay, Phillips, and others, opposed the bill, as an unjust interference with one kind of labour, and required that some special case should be made out, to distinguish factory labour from other branches of industry. Mr. Peel, the present baronet, came to his father's assistance. He asked, Did the cotton-trade present such an exception as called for the application of the proposed remedy? He contended for the affirmative, because of the large size of factories, the heated atmosphere in which fine spinning was conducted, the large number of children engaged (amounting, in Manchester alone, to nearly twelve thousand) and the little interest that masters in towns had to protect the health of their operatives, as they could easily supply the place of those who were sickly, or worn out. It was remarked at the time, that the son showed little practical knowledge of the business by which his father had made his fortune; and he fell into some strange statistical errors, respecting tables of mortality, which provoked some severe criticism. The bill, however, passed the House, and ultimately became law.

With the termination of his labours as a factory legislator, we should close this account of the public career of the first Sir Robert Peel, but there was another great question—that of the currency-in which he placed himself in direct opposition to the course of policy advocated by his son; and it will be sufficient here to put his sentiments on record, without comment, as in a future chapter we shall have to enter into an extended examination of the subject. The part of the speech in which Sir Robert Peel refers to the difference of opinion between himself and his son, cannot be read without emotion by any man of right and generous feeling.

On presenting the petition of certain merchants of London,

in favour of a continuance of the restriction of cash payments, Sir Robert Peel said, that he now stood in a situation which he had never experienced before, although he had sat in that house forty years. The petition which he was now about to submit to the House, was from a body of men entitled to the very first consideration-a body of men who, in the time of public distress and pecuniary want, were the very first to come forward and relieve the government. He should wish to call to the recollection of some members who he believed now heard him, whether they did not remember a meeting of the merchants and bankers called in 1797? At that time, the Bank-Restriction Act was projected, and could not have passed if that very meeting of merchants and manufacturers had not expressed themselves strongly in its favour. He begged the House would pay particular attention to the petition which he now held in his hand; it was one of no common character, but that of a great and important body, all of the first respectability, praying that those resolutions which were intended to be submitted to the House, may not be carried into effect. He begged leave to state his opinion, that the petitioners were the best judges of such a measure. would add, also, that though they were intimately connected with all that concerned the welfare of the country, the most experienced men, and the best qualified, from their connection with our commerce and manufactures, yet they had not been examined by the committee: he hoped, therefore, that before a measure so destructive of the commercial interests of the country was passed, (and when he said that, honourable members would conclude every other interest to be combined with those, and to go along with them,) the House would pause awhile, in order to collect the information which they so particularly wanted. In looking at the reports which had been published on the subject, he must say, that the witnesses were not men likely to give any information to government—not

He

men acquainted with the state of the country; the last men who should have been questioned, if government wanted to arrive at the merits of the case. In attending, lately, a meeting in London, he begged it might be understood, that that was the only one he was ever interested in, except the meeting of 1797; and the latter one was considered of consequence enough to save the country. If, then, that was a meeting which deserved the attention of the House, he hoped the present one, which originated this petition, would be considered as equally entitled to it. He happened on that occasion, however, to be in company with some whom he could not deem the best friends of their country, but he should not do justice to the persons who attended there, Messrs. Hunt and Wooler, if he did not say that they behaved in a manner the least disorderly in the world, which he attributed to their new and singular alliance with his Majesty's ministers; for they supported the measure in question-they inveighed against any attempt at deferring the period of resuming cash payments. He must confess, that the circumstance, so new, of these men being supporters of the administration, constituted the outline of a very good caricature. To see the noble lord and his honourable friends on the one hand, and Messrs. Hunt and Wooler on the other, united in their attempt to pull down the mighty fabric erected by the immortal Pitt, was at once ludicrous and painful. He would implore the House to pause before any rash step was taken which might forward such an attempt. He really thought the resolutions were of a very extraordinary character. It was true that he should have to oppose a very near and dear relation; but while it was his own sentiment, that he had a duty to perform, he respected those who did their's, and who considered them to be paramount. The gentlemen who opposed him at the meeting, of which he had spcken, were rather indignant at his mentioning the name of Mr. Pitt: his own impression was certainly a

F

strong one in his favour; he always thought him the first man in the country. All of us had some bias; and he should not quarrel with those who preferred some other name. He well remembered, when that near and dear relative was only a child, he observed to some friends who were standing near him, that the man who discharged his duty to his country in the manner Mr. Pitt had done, was most to be admired, and most to be imitated; and he thought, at that moment, if his own life, and that of his dear relation, should be spared, he would one day present him to his country, to follow in the same path. It was very natural that such should be his wishes, although those who did their duty might be at once contented with their conduct. He was well satisfied, that the head and heart of that relation were in the right place, and that though he had deviated a little from the path of propriety in this instance, he would soon be restored to it.

The currency measure, which Sir Robert Peel thus earnestly deprecated, was that very night introduced by his son, and, in the course of the session, carried to a triumphant issue. Increasing age induced the wealthy baronet to retire from public life, and at the general election, in 1820, he resigned the borough of Tamworth to one of his sons. He passed the rest of his life tranquilly at Drayton Manor, watching with interest the progress in life of his numerous descendants; indeed, so patriarchal was his family, that on the anniversary of his seventy-eighth birthday, in 1828, he presented a silver medal to each of fifty children and grandchildren. Toward his necessitous neighbours and dependants, he was a most generous patron; in consequence of his munificence, many of those who were in his confidential employment have risen to be the proprietors of large commercial and manufacturing establishments. In this respect, his conduct is honourably contrasted with that of Arkwright, who is said to have been meanly jealous of the prosperity of every