lo the Prospe rity of the Working Classes. 305 



published, unless that which has been long forgotten be called 

 such. If he intended his remark to apply only to old errors 

 and prejudices, there would be some point in it ; for all ages 

 have been so fertile in this way, that no one can now have the 

 advantage of priority. For instance, the pretended philan- 

 thropists of our day have not even the merit (if merit there be) 

 of having invented the system I am now examining. For 

 behold poor William Lea exhibiting the first stocking-frame 

 in the presence of King James I. The mechanism appeared 

 admirable ; why then reject it ? Simply from the pretext, that 

 the working classes would suffer. Nor was France a whit wiser 

 than England. Lea found no encouragement there, and he 

 died in an hospital, like so many other men of genius who have 

 had the misfortmie to advance beyond their age. 



It should here be observed, that a person would very much 

 deceive himself if he supposed that the stocking-knitters, of 

 whom William Lea thus became the victim, were a numerous 

 body. In the year 1583, none but individuals of high rank 

 and large fortune wore stockings. The middle classes, instead 

 of this part of our clothing, wore tight bandages of various 

 stuffs. The rest of the population, that is to say, nine hundred 

 and ninety-nine out of every thousand, went bare-legged. Now, 

 on the contrary, out of a thousand individuals, there is not 

 perhaps more than one who is not able, owing to their extreme 

 cheapness, to provide a pair of stockings. And hence, an im- 

 mense number of workmen in all countries, are engaged in this 

 kind of manufacture. 



Were it at all necessary, I might add, that, at Stockport, 

 the substitution of steam for the labour of the hands in the 

 manufacture of lace, has increased the number of workmen 

 engaged in this branch of manufacture, and this to the ex- 

 tent of one-third, in a very few years. 



We must now, finally, drive our adversaries from their last 

 retreat, for they must not be allowed to say, that we havQ^ad- 

 duced our proofs solely from antiquated subjects of human in- 

 dustry. We accordingly remark, that their lugubrious anticipa- 

 tions respecting the recent engraving on steel, were not a whit 

 less wide of the mark. A copper-plate, they observed, cannot 

 produce more than two thousand impressions. A steel plate, 



