1856, we are compelled to believe that some English statesmen are, in
principle and in their ideas of political economy, where a portion of
the English cotton-spinners were a hundred years ago
Turning again to the discussion in the British Parliament of April,
1856, we are compelled to believe that some English statesmen are, in
principle and in their ideas of political economy, where a portion of
the English cotton-spinners were a hundred years ago. The
cotton-spinners thought the invention of labor-saving machinery would
deprive them of bread; and a Mr. Ball gravely argues that schools will
so occupy the attention of children, that the farmers" crops will be
neglected. I am inclined to give you his own words; and I have no doubt
you will be in a measure relieved of the dulness of this essay, when you
listen to what was actually cheered, in the British Commons. Speaking of
the resolutions in favor of a national system of instruction, Mr. Ball
said: 'It was important to consider what would be their bearing on the
agricultural districts of the country. He had obtained a return from his
own farm, and, supposing the principles advocated by the noble lord were
adopted, the results would be perfectly fearful. The following was the
return he had obtained from his agent: William Chapman, ten years a
servant on his (Mr. Ball"s) farm; his own wages thirteen shillings,
besides a house; he had seven children, who earned nine shillings a
week; making together twenty-two shillings a week. Robert Arbor, fifteen
years on the farm; wages thirteen shillings a week, and a house; six
children, who earned six shillings a week; making together nineteen
shillings. John Stevens, thirty-three years a servant on the farm; his
own wages fourteen shillings a week; he had brought up ten children,
whose average earnings had been twelve shillings weekly, making together
twenty-six shillings a week. Robert Carbon, twenty-two years a servant
on the farm; wages thirteen shillings a week; having ten children, who
earned ten shillings a week; making together twenty-three shillings a
week. Thus it appeared that in these four families the fathers earned
fifty-three shillings weekly, and the children thirty-seven shillings a
week; so that the children earned something more than two-thirds of the
amount of the earnings of the fathers. He would ask the house, if the
fathers were to be deprived of the earnings of the children, how could
they provide bread for them? It was perfectly impossible. They must
either increase the parent"s wages to the amount of the loss he thus
sustained, or they must make it up to him from a rate. Then, again,
those who were at all conversant with agriculture knew that if they
deprived the farmer of the labor of children, agriculture could not be
carried on. There was no machinery by which they could get the weeds out
of the land.'--_London Times_.
