170 Machinery. [FEB. 



krcp up the health and strength of the labourer: nor is there a shadow 

 of probability to expect matters will mend. The very masters complain 

 they cannot get remunerating prices no adequate return upon their 

 capitals, with all their pinching and screwing of the workmen. This, 

 however, only means that they can no longer get so large a return ; but 

 that is* surely an indication that they have overdone the thing have 

 gone beyond the mark. 



In the midst of our gloomy view of these matters, here, however, 

 springs up a ray of cheering light. In proportion as great capitals fail 

 of producing great returns, will the owners of them be prompted to with- 

 draw from the conflict, and then the sovereignty of machinery drops the 

 sceptre. It is great capitals that have done the mischief yes, mischief 

 we repeat, in spite of contemptuous smiles; without enormous capitals, 

 machinery could never have spread to the pernicious extent it has done, 

 nor could monopoly have scourged the nation so unmercifully. 



But the only direct remedy is legal restriction ; and what is a govern- 

 ment for, but to prevent, or restrain, one class from injuring another? 

 Do not we English folks, especially, glory in a constitution made, as 

 every body says, for the common good ? Well, then, when one class is 

 getting every thing to itself, and another losing its all is it not a time 

 for this superintending government to step in with the exercise of its 

 delegated functions ? But you interfere with freedom! Whose freedom ? 

 That of the capitalists. What freedom ? That of grinding the poor ; 

 and should not such freedom be interfered with ? There is interference 

 enough, Heaven knows, on the part of this Government, with our 

 pockets to raise a revenue for extravagant and profligate purposes ; and 

 shall there be no interference for the just purpose of rescuing a whole 

 class, and one which outnumbers all the rest, from unparalleled misery 

 and unprovoked oppression ? 



What would we do then ? Would we interpose with acts of legis- 

 lation ? To be sure we would. Are we of the British isles so new to 

 acts of legislation, that we should startle at any fresh application of 

 them ? Is there any thing the legislature does not, at times, take under 

 its direction ? Is there any institution, however venerable, however old 

 or young, that has not of late been interfered with ? Any principle, 

 however respected of old, that has not been handled with authority, or 

 treated with contempt ? The will of one party has trampled upon the 

 acts of another ; and shall not a legislature chosen for common interests, 

 interpose to check tyranny, and protect its victims ? Would we then 

 break up machinery, and do that for which we have just been hanging 

 we know not how many ? No, we have another remedy apparently a 

 favourite one for a century past taxation. Taxation on machinery, and 

 a minimum of wages Oh ! oh ! this is breaking in upon all the best 

 recognised principles of government upon what are the best and 

 brightest proofs of intellectual advancement in modern times ! That 

 we cannot help. The existing circumstances of society compel us to break 

 in upon them. They may once have been good they are so no longer. 

 Expediency is the test ; and that has, since the world stood, varied with 

 circumstances. Have the economists themselves any principle more fixed 

 and permanent ? They have advocated freedom of trade on the ground 

 of expediency but in whose favour ? The capitalists, and the capital- 

 ists only. But in whose favour, they will reply, do we advocate 

 restriction ? The workmen, and the workmen only, do we not ? and 



