SECTION IV

[359] Cf. Fielden's proposals, as reported by the Committee's Second Report, 1835 (XIII), p. 14.

"The principal feature of Mr. Fielden's Bill is, that returns shall be made every three or six months of the prices of weaving paid by the smallest number of manufacturers, who collectively made one-half of the goods of any description in the parish or township whence the returns are sent, and the average of the highest prices paid by a majority of such manufacturers, shall be the lowest price to be paid in such parish or township during the succeeding three or six months. The effects of the measure would be to withdraw from the worst-paying masters the power which they now possess of regulating wages, and to confer it upon those whose object it is to raise the condition and character of the workpeople."

X. And whereas the practice of paying wages to workmen at public houses is found to be highly injurious to the best interests of the working classes; be it therefore enacted, that from and after the expiration of three months from the passing of this act no proprietor or worker of any mine or colliery, or other person, shall pay or cause to be paid any wages ... at or within any tavern, public house, beer shop, or other house of entertainment.

And here let me anticipate the constant, but unjust, accusation that I am animated by a peculiar hostility against factory masters, and I have always selected them as exclusive objects of attack. I must assert that the charge, though specious, is altogether untrue. I began, I admit, this public movement by an effort to improve the condition of the factories; but this I did, not because I ascribed to that department of industry a monopoly of all that was pernicious and cruel, but because it was then before the public eye, comprised the wealthiest and most responsible proprietors, and presented the greatest facilities for legislation.

As soon as I had the power, I showed my impartiality by moving the House for the Children's Employment Commission. The curious in human suffering may decide on the respective merits of the several reports; but factory labour has no longer an unquestionable pre-eminence of ill fame; and we are called upon to give relief, not because it is the worst system, but because it is oppressive, and yet capable of alleviation. Sir, I confess that ten years of experience have taught me that avarice and cruelty are not the peculiar and inherent qualities of any one class or occupation—they will ever be found where the means of profit are combined with great and, virtually, irresponsible power—they will be found wherever interest and selfishness have a purpose to serve, and a favourable opportunity.

This will conclude the statement that I have to make to the House—and now, sir, who will assert that these things should be permitted to exist? Who will hesitate to apply the axe to the root of the tree, or, at least, endeavour to lop off some of its deadliest branches? What arguments from general principles will they adduce against my proposition? What, drawn from peculiar circumstances? They cannot urge that particular causes in England give rise to particular results; the same cause prevails in various countries; and wherever it is found, it produces the same effects. I have already stated its operation in France, in Russia, in Switzerland, in Austria, and in Prussia; I may add also in America; for I perceive by the papers of the 1st of February, that a Bill has been proposed in the Legislature of Pennsylvania, to place all persons under the age of sixteen within the protection of the "ten hours" limit. I never thought that we should have learned justice from the City of Philadelphia. In October last I visited an immense establishment in Austria, which gives employment to several hundred hands; I went over the whole, and conversed with the managers, who detailed to me the same evils and the same fruits as those I have narrated to the House—prolonged labour of sixteen, and seventeen hours, intense fatigue, enfeebled frame, frequent consumptive disorders, and early deaths—yet the locality had every advantage; well-built and airy houses in a fine open country, and a rural district; nevertheless, so injurious are the effects, that the manager added, stating at the same time the testimony of many others who resided in districts where mills are more abundant, that, in ten years from the time at which he spoke, "there would hardly be a man in the whole of those neighbourhoods fit to carry a musket."

Let me remind, too, the House of the mighty change which has taken place among the opponents to this question. When I first brought it forward in 1833, I could scarcely number a dozen masters on my side, I now count them by hundreds. We have had, from the West Riding of Yorkshire, a petition signed by 300 mill-owners, praying for a limitation of labour to ten hours in the day. Some of the best names in Lancashire openly support me. I have letters from others who secretly wish me well, but hesitate to proclaim their adherence; and even among the members of the Anti-Corn-Law League, I may boast of many firm and efficient friends. Sir, under all the aspects in which it can be viewed, this system of things must be abrogated or restrained—it affects the internal tranquillity of those vast provinces, and all relations between employer and employed—it forms a perpetual grievance and ever comes uppermost among their complaints in all times of difficulty and discontent. It disturbs the order of nature, and the rights of the labouring men, by ejecting the males from the workshop, and filling their places by females, who are thus withdrawn from all their domestic duties and exposed to insufferable toil at half the wages that would be assigned to males, for the support of their families. It affects—nay, more, it absolutely annihilates, all the arrangements and provisions of domestic economy—thrift and management are altogether impossible; had they twice the amount of their present wages, they would be but slightly benefited—everything runs to waste; the house and children are deserted; the wife can do nothing for her husband and family; she can neither cook, wash, repair clothes, nor take charge of the infants; all must be paid for out of her scanty earnings, and, after all, most imperfectly done. Dirt, discomfort, ignorance, recklessness, are the portion of such households; the wife has no time for learning in her youth, and none for practice in her riper age; the females are most unequal to the duties of the men in the factories; and all things go to rack and ruin, because the men can discharge at home no one of the especial duties that Providence has assigned to the females. Why need I detain the House by a specification of these injurious results? They will find them stated at painful length in the Second Report of the Children's Employment Commission. Consider it, too, under its physical aspect! Will the House turn a deaf ear to the complaints of suffering that resound from all quarters? Will it be indifferent to the physical consequences on the rising generation? You have the authority of the Government Commissioner, Dr. Hawkins, a gentleman well skilled in medical statistics—

"I have never been (he tells you) in any town in Great Britain or in Europe, in which degeneracy of form and colour from the national standard has been so obvious as in Manchester."

I have, moreover, the authority of one of the most ardent antagonists, himself a mighty mill-owner, that, if the present system of labour be persevered in, the "county of Lancaster will speedily become a province of pigmies." The toil of the females has hitherto been considered the characteristic of savage life; but we, in the height of our refinement, impose on the wives and daughters of England a burthen from which, at least during pregnancy, they would be exempted even in slave-holding states, and among the Indians of America. But every consideration sinks to nothing compared with that which springs from the contemplation of the moral mischiefs this system engenders and sustains. You are poisoning the very sources of order and happiness and virtue; you are tearing up, root and branch, all the relations of families to each other; you are annulling, as it were, the institution of domestic life, decreed by Providence Himself, the wisest and kindest of earthly ordinances, the mainstay of social peace and virtue, and therein of national security.

Sir, I never rose to discharge any duty in this House which I considered at the same time more painful and more imperative. The pain, I must admit, is considerably increased by the eloquence of the address which my noble friend has just concluded, and especially of the passage which marked the close of his speech. The noble lord has asked whether any man will be found in this House to resist the proposal which he has thought it his duty to make, and he has appealed to considerations of justice and mercy, intimating, if not directly, at least by implication, that resistance to his motion is inconsistent both with justice and mercy. I, on the other hand, having due regard to those sacred principles which my noble friend has invoked, am bound, on my own part, and on the part of the Government, to offer to the proposal of the noble Lord my decided opposition.

The noble lord said, the time is come when, in his opinion, it is necessary to lay the axe to the root of the tree. Before we do this let me entreat the Committee carefully to consider what is that tree which we are to lay prostrate. If it be, as I suppose, the tree of the commercial greatness of this country, I am satisfied that although some of its fruits may be bitter, yet upon the whole it has produced that greatness, that wealth, that prosperity, which make these small islands most remarkable in the history of the civilised world, which, upon the whole, diffuse happiness amidst this great community, and render this nation one of the most civilised, if not the most civilised, and powerful on the face of the globe.

My noble friend stated that he would not enter into the commercial part of the question; but if I can show that the inevitable result of the abridgement of time will be the diminution of wages to the employed, then I say, with reference to the interests of the working classes themselves, there never was a more doubtful question before Parliament than this. The House will remember that the branches of manufacture affected by this Bill are dependent upon machinery. Such is the rapidity with which improvements are made, that no machinery can last more than twelve or thirteen years without alterations; and master manufacturers have been obliged to pull down machinery that was perfectly sound and good to make the necessary alterations which competition forces upon them. Well, then, it is necessary to replace machinery in the course of twelve or thirteen years. You are now discussing whether you shall abridge by one-sixth the period of time in which capital is to be replaced, all interest upon it paid, and the original outlay restored. Such an abridgement would render it impossible that capital with interest should be restored. Then in the close race of competition which our manufacturers are now running with foreign competitors, it must be considered what effect this reduction of one-sixth of the hours of labour would have upon them. The question in its bearing upon competition must be carefully considered; and I have been informed that in that respect such a step would be fatal to many of our manufacturers—a feather would turn the scale: an extra pound weight would lose the race. But that would not be the first effect. The first effect would fall upon the operative. It is notorious that a great part of the power of the mill-owners, a power which alone justifies such legislation as this, arises from the redundant supply of labour. It follows that when a master is pressed upon by your legislation, he will compensate himself by forcing upon those in his employ a decrease of wages. I believe the large majority of intelligent operatives comprehend that proposition thoroughly. I have seen many, and conversed with them, and they have admitted that the proposal involves a necessary decrease of wages. In the report presented in 1841 by my excellent friend Mr. Horner, who has discharged with the most honourable fidelity the duty of inspector of factories, there is information upon this point, and with the permission of the House I will read a passage—a single passage only—but one which goes to the root of the whole subject. Mr. Horner said:

"I have made an estimate of the loss a mill would sustain from working eleven hours a day only instead of twelve, and I find it would amount to £850 per annum. If it were reduced to ten hours, it would be about £1,530 per annum. Unless, therefore, the mill-owner can obtain a proportionately higher price for the commodity, he must reduce wages or abandon his trade. I have made some calculations as to the probable reduction of wages, and of the whole loss that would be thrown on the operatives. I make the amount in the case of eleven hours a day to be 13 per cent., and in the case of ten hours a day 25 per cent. at the present average rate of wages."

Now, I believe this to be perfectly accurate. The question then arises, whether you shall create in the manufacturing districts one sudden general fall of wages to the amount of 25 per cent? I believe that the adoption of the motion of my noble friend would produce that effect. Though I am most anxious to take every precaution with regard to infant labour—though I am as firmly resolved as my noble friend to urge upon the House to put a limit upon female labour, still, upon the whole, I cannot recommend the House to adopt an enactment which limits the labour of young persons to a shorter period than twelve hours.

As the right hon. baronet had alluded to the argument of not destroying the profits upon manufactures, he (Mr. Gibson) would read some remarks upon that point by Mr. Senior, a gentleman whose name would be of great weight with hon. members. In 1836 or 1837, Mr. Senior, with some other gentlemen, went into the manufacturing districts with the view of ascertaining the effect of factory legislation, and making observations upon the factory population. Mr. Senior wrote a letter dated the 28th March, 1837, to Mr. Poulett Thomson to the following effect:—

"Under the present law, no mill in which persons under eighteen years of age are employed (and, therefore, scarcely any mill at all), can be worked more than eleven and a half hours a day, that is twelve hours for five days in a week, and nine on Saturday. The following analysis will show that in a mill so worked the whole net profit is derived from the last hour. I will suppose a manufacturer of 100,000l.—80,000l. in his mill and machinery, and 20,000l. in raw material and wages. The annual return of that mill, supposing the capital to be turned once a year, and gross profits to be 15 per cent., ought to be goods worth 115,000l. produced by the constant conversion and reconversion of the 20,000l. circulating capital, from money into goods and from goods into money, in periods of rather more than two months. Of this 115,000l., each of the 23 half hours of work produces 5-115ths, or 1-23rd. Of these 23-23rds (constituting the whole 115,000l.) 20, that is to say, 100,000l. out of the 115,000l., simply replace the capital; 1-23rd (or 5,000l. out of the 115,000l.) makes up for the deterioration of the mill and machinery. The remaining 2-23rds, the last two of the twenty-three half hours of every day, produce the net profit of 10 per cent. If, therefore (prices remaining the same), the factory could be kept at work thirteen hours instead of eleven and a half, by an addition of about 2,600l. to the circulating capital, the net profit would be more than doubled. On the other hand, if the hours of working were reduced by one hour per day (prices remaining the same), net profit would be destroyed; if they were reduced by an hour and a half, even gross profit would be destroyed. The circulating capital would be replaced, but there would be no fund to compensate the progressive deterioration of the fixed capital."

It was clear that this principle of Mr. Senior's was sound, and if hon. gentlemen would consider it carefully they would find it indisputable. The House would consider whether they would not, as the right hon. baronet had expressed it, be affecting the safety and stability of the great staple manufactures, under the impression that they were legislating humanely for the working classes, while, in point of fact, the result would be that by the depreciation of manufactures, the greatest possible injury would be inflicted upon the operatives.

Mr. J. Bright[362] said, It is with unfeigned reluctance that I rise to speak, having so recently addressed the House at some length, but being intimately connected with the branch of industry which is affected by the proposition now under consideration, and having lived all my life among the population most interested in this Bill, and having listened most attentively for more than two hours to the speech of the noble lord, the member for Dorsetshire, I think I am entitled to be heard on the question now under discussion. I have listened to that speech without much surprise, because I have heard or read the same speech, or one very like it, on former occasions, and I did not suppose that any material change had taken place in the opinions of the noble lord. It appears to me, however, that he has taken a one-sided view, a most unjust and unfair view of the question; it may not be intentionally, but still a view which cannot be borne out by facts; a view, moreover, which factory inspectors and their reports will not corroborate, and one which, if it influence the decision of this House, will be most prejudicial to that very class which the noble lord intends to serve. The right hon. baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, who is, I presume, the promoter of this Bill, should have given the House some reason for the introduction of a new Factory Bill. No such reason has yet been given, and I am at a loss to discover any grounds on which it can with fairness be asserted that the Bill now in operation has failed in its effect. I know the inspectors affirm that it cannot be fully carried out. Every body who knows anything of the manufactories of the North, knew when it was passed that it could not be fully carried out; and the proposition now made, is to render this impracticable Act more stringent. In a trade so extensive, employing so many people, carried on under circumstances ever varying, no Act of Parliament interfering with the minute details of its management, can ever be fully carried out. I am not one who will venture to say that the manufacturing districts of this country are a paradise; I believe there are in those districts evils great and serious; but whatever evils do there exist are referable to other causes than to the existence of factories and long chimneys. Most of the statements which the noble lord has read, would be just as applicable to Birmingham, or to this metropolis, as to the northern districts; and as he read them over, with respect to the ignorance and intemperance of the people, the disobedience of children to their parents, the sufferings of mothers, and the privations which the children endure, I felt that there was scarcely a complaint which has been made against the manufacturing districts of the north of England, which might not be urged with at least as much force against the poorest portion of the population of every large city in Great Britain and Ireland. But among the population of Lancashire and Yorkshire, where towns are so numerous as almost to touch each other, these evils are more observable than in a population less densely crowded together. I can prove, however, and I do not wish to be as one-sided as the noble lord, I can prove from authorities, which are at least as worthy of attention as his, the very reverse in many respects of what he has stated as the true state of those districts. Now the Committee will bear in mind that a large portion of the documents which the noble lord has quoted, have neither dates nor names. I can give dates and names, and I feel confident that the authorities I shall cite are worthy of the deepest attention. I must go over the grounds of complaint which the noble lord has urged, and although I may run the risk of being a little tedious, yet considering that for two hours or more I have listened to the charges which he has made, I do think that, connected as I am most intimately with the population and the district to which the noble lord has alluded, I have a right to an audience for the counter-statement which I have to make. Now, with respect to the health of the persons employed, and I will speak more particularly of the cotton trade, with which I am more immediately connected, Mr. Harrison, the inspecting surgeon for Preston, says:—

"I have made very particular inquiries respecting the health of every child whom I have examined, and I find that the average annual sickness of each child is not more than four days; at least not more than four days are lost by each child in a year in consequence of sickness. This includes disorders of every kind, for the most part induced by causes wholly unconnected with factory labour. I have been not a little surprised to find so little sickness which can fairly be attributed to mill work. I have met with very few children who have suffered from injuries occasioned by machinery; and the protection, especially in new factories, is now so complete, that accidents will, I doubt not, speedily become rare. I have not met with a single instance, out of 1,656 children whom I examined, of deformity that is referable to factory labour. It must be admitted that factory children do not present the same blooming, robust appearance, as is witnessed among children who labour in the open air; but I question if they are not more exempt from acute disease, and do not, on the whole, suffer less sickness than those who are regarded as having more healthy employments."

This was the statement of a man who had for a long time been inspecting-surgeon in a district where there are a large number of mills, and it may be taken as a fair criterion of the rest. In the analysis of the Factory Report, page 16, I find the following statement:—

"In conclusion, then, it is proved, by a preponderance of seventy-two witnesses against seventeen, that the health of those employed in cotton mills is nowise inferior to that in other occupations; and, secondly, it is proved by tables drawn up by the secretary of a sick club, and by the more extensive tables of a London actuary, that the health of the factory children is decidedly superior to that of the labouring poor otherwise employed."

From the Factory Inspector's Reports in 1834 I have extracted the following testimony, and no doubt this evidence is quite as good as if it had been given this year; for from that time to this there has been a progressive improvement in everything relating to the management of the factories of the north of England.

"The general tenor of all the medical reports in my possession confirms Mr. Harrison's view of factory labour on the health of the younger branches of working hands. It is decidedly not injurious to health or longevity, compared with other employments." Then, in page 51, Mr. Saunders says, "It appears in evidence, that of all employments to which children are subjected, those carried on in factories are among the least laborious, and of all departments of in-door labour, amongst the least unwholesome." Mr. Horner says, "It is gratifying to be able to state, that I have not had a single complaint laid before me either on the part of the masters against their servants, or of the servants against their masters; nor have I seen or heard of any instance of ill-treatment of children, or of injury to their health by their employment." And on the 21st of July, 1834, speaking on the employment of children, he says: "And as their occupation in the mills is so light as to cause no bodily fatigue, they would pass their eight hours there as beneficially as at home; indeed, in most cases, far more so."

I think I have now said enough with regard to this part of the subject—apparently too much for hon. gentlemen opposite, who appear only anxious to hear and applaud one side, and many of whom have not even heard that. But notwithstanding all these facts I admit there are evils, serious evils, and much distress in the manufacturing districts; many are still out of employment, and in many branches of trade wages are low. We have violent fluctuations in trade, and periods when multitudes endure great suffering and it becomes this House to inquire why do these fluctuations occur, and what is the great cause of their suffering. I attribute much of this to the mistaken and unjust policy pursued by this House, with respect to the trade and industry of the country. Hitherto manufacturers have had no fair chance: you have interfered with their natural progress, you have crippled them by your restrictions, you have at times almost destroyed them by monopolies, you have made them the sources of your public revenue, and the upholders of your rents, but at your hands they have never to this moment received justice and fair dealing. I do not charge the noble lord with dishonesty, but I am confident if he had looked at this question with as anxious a desire to discover truth, as he has to find materials for his case, he would have found many subjects of congratulation to counterbalance every one which he would have had reason to deplore. The noble lord and hon. gentlemen opposite, when they view from their distant eminence the state of the manufacturing districts, look through the right end of the telescope; what they see is thus brought near to them, and is greatly magnified; but when they are asked to look at the rural districts, they reverse the telescope and then everything is thrown to the greatest possible distance and is diminished as much as possible.

The noble lord, the Member for Liverpool, says, he is most anxious to improve the condition of the working classes; he points to more education, a higher state of morals, better food and better clothing, as the result of the adoption of the proposition now before the House. But there is one thing that the noble lord has failed to prove; he has failed to show how working only ten hours will give the people more sugar. The noble lord is the representative of the sugar monopolists of Liverpool, and, after voting to deprive the people of sugar, he is perfectly consistent in denying them the liberty even to work. The people ask for freedom for their industry, for the removal of the shackles on their trade; you deny it to them, and then forbid them to labour, as if working less would give them more food, whilst your monopoly laws make food scarce and dear. Give them liberty to work, give them the market of the world for their produce, give them the power to live comfortably, and increasing means and increasing intelligence will speedily render them independent enough and wise enough to bring the duration of labour to that point at which life shall be passed with less of irksome toil of every kind, and more of recreation and enjoyment. It is because I am convinced this project is now impracticable, and that under our present oppressive legislation, it would make all past injustice only more intolerable, that I shall vote against the proposition which the noble lord, the member for Dorset, has submitted to the House.

XXX. And be it enacted, that no child shall be employed in any factory more than six hours and thirty minutes in any one day, save as hereinafter excepted, unless the dinner time of the young persons in such factory shall begin at one of the clock, in which case children beginning to work in the morning may work for seven hours in one day; and no child who shall have been employed in a factory before noon of any day shall be employed in the same or any other factory, either for the purpose of recovering lost time or otherwise, after one of the clock in the afternoon of the same day, save in the cases when children may work on alternate days, or in silk factories more than seven hours in any one day, as hereinafter provided.

XXXI. And be it enacted, that in any factory in which the labour of young persons is restricted to ten hours in any one day it shall be lawful to employ any child ten hours in any one day on three alternate days of every week, provided that such child shall not be employed in any manner in the same or in any other factory on two successive days, nor after half past four of the clock in the afternoon of any Saturday: Provided always, that the parent or person having direct benefit from the wages of any child so employed shall cause such child to attend some school for at least five hours between the hours of eight of the clock in the morning and six of the clock in the afternoon of the same day on each week day preceding each day of employment in the factory, unless such preceding day shall be a Saturday, when no school attendance of such child shall be required: Provided also, that on Monday in every week after that in which such child began to work in the factory, or any other day appointed for that purpose by the inspector of the District, the occupier of the factory shall obtain a certificate from a schoolmaster, according to the form and directions given in the schedule (A) to this act annexed, that such child has attended school as required by this act; but it shall not be lawful to employ any child in a factory more than seven hours in any one day, until the owner of the factory shall have sent a notice in writing to the inspector of the district of his intention to restrict the hours of labour of young persons in the factory to ten hours a day, and to employ children ten hours a day; and if such occupier of a factory shall at any time cease so to employ children ten hours a day he shall not again employ any child in his factory more than seven hours in any one day until he shall have sent a further notice to the inspector in the manner hereinbefore provided.

XXXII. And be it enacted, that no female above the age of eighteen years shall be employed in any factory save for the same time and in the same manner as young persons may be employed in factories; and that any person who shall be convicted of employing a female above the age of eighteen years for any longer time or in any other manner shall for every such offence be adjudged to pay the same penalty as is provided in the like case for employing a young person contrary to law: provided always, that nothing herein or in the Factory Act contained as to certificates of age shall be taken to apply to females above the age of eighteen years.

That the management of the drainage of the entire area, as defined for each district, be placed under one jurisdiction.

That the construction of sewers, branch sewers, and house drains, be entrusted to the local administrative body.

That the duty of providing the funds necessary to be imposed upon the local administrative body, and that the cost of making the main and branch sewers be equitably distributed among the owners of the properties benefited; and that the expense of making the house-drains be charged upon the owners of the house, to which the drains are attached, etc.

That some restriction be placed on the proportionate rates in the pound to be levied in one year, but if the local administrative body finds that there is need for larger funds, for the immediate execution of works for sanitary measures, than can be provided by such rates, it be empowered to raise, by loan on security of the rates, subject to the approval of the Crown, such sums as may be requisite for effecting the objects in view.

That provision always be made for the gradual liquidation of such debts, within a given number of years.

That the whole of the paving, and the construction of the surface of all streets, courts and alleys be placed under the management of the same authority as the drainage.

That the provisions in local Acts, vesting the right to all the dust, ashes, and street refuse in the local administrative body, be made general; and that the cleansing of all privies and cess-pools at proper times, and on due notice, be exclusively entrusted to it.

That it be rendered imperative on the local administrative body, charged with the management of the sewerage and drainage, to procure a supply of water in sufficient quantities not only for the domestic needs of the inhabitants, but also for cleansing the streets, scouring the sewers and drains, and the extinction of fire....

That measures be adopted for promoting a proper system of ventilation in all edifices for public assemblage and resort, especially those for the education of youth.

That, on complaint of the parish medical or other authorised officer, that any house or premises are in such a filthy and unwholesome state as to endanger the health of the public, and an infectious disorder exists therein, the local administrative body have power to require the landlord to cleanse it properly, without delay; and in case of his neglect or inability, to do so by its own officers, and recover the expense from the landlord.

That the local administrative body have power to appoint, subject to the approval of the Crown, a medical officer properly qualified to inspect and report periodically upon the sanitary condition of the town or district, to ascertain the true causes of disease and death, more especially of epidemics increasing the rates of mortality, and the circumstances which originate and maintain such diseases, and injuriously affect the public health of such town or populous district.

[Provisions for abating factory exhalations and nuisances; for regulating the width of new courts, the accommodation of cellar-dwellings and the sanitation of new houses; for power to buy out new water companies at the end of a term of years; for controlling lodging-houses; for providing public spaces and walks.][363]

SECTION IV

The Master Tailors and the employers in some other trades were successful in procuring special Acts of Parliament forbidding combinations (No. 2, note). At the end of the eighteenth century the two general Combination Acts made most kinds of trade union action specifically illegal (No. 5 and No. 6). Combination still survived, but their leaders were always open to attack in emergencies like that of the Scotch weavers' strike (No. 7). Their special liability under the Act of 1800 was removed in 1824, and, though an outburst of strikes led to a revision of the law, the skilled assistance of Francis Place and Hume saved the Trade Unions from being thrust back into their former position (Nos. 8 and 10). But organised striking could also be brought within the common law of conspiracy. Strikers had been proceeded against in this way before (No. 9); and this liability remained after 1825, as well as liability under an Act against oaths of secrecy (No. 11). The case of the Dorchester agricultural labourers (No. 11) also serves to illustrate the great, though short-lived enthusiasm of the Trade Union movement in the 'thirties. Its failure was followed by the rise of Chartism. The immediate objects of the Chartists were political, but their real grievances and ideals were economic, as their early manifestos plainly show (No. 12); and their leaders wavered between political methods and the direct action of the general strike (No. 13). The Rochdale Pioneers co-operative society (No. 14) was founded in the middle of this period of Trade Union and Chartist agitation, and illustrates a third parallel development of working-men's combinations under the stress of the Industrial Revolution.