A REPLY

TO THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS ADVANCED BY

COBBETT AND OTHERS

AGAINST THE

FRAMEWORK KNITTERS' FRIENDLY RELIEF SOCIETY.

[PUBLISHED IN 1821.]

A REPLY.

THE virulent opposition made to the Framework Knitters' Friendly Relief Society-a protective policy to secure themselves from the pressure of poverty and the pains of hunger-may well excite the surprise of the reflecting and humane part of the public. This violence with which it is assailed forms, indeed, the most remarkable feature of the business, and is alone sufficient to awaken suspicion of a design not distinctly avowed. Its opponents are loud in proclaiming their conviction that it cannot possibly endure, that it must shortly come to an end. Why then not leave it to its fate? Why display this anxiety to accelerate its overthrow, these violent and persevering efforts to crush the feeble and precipitate the falling? If, as they contend, it contains within itself the seeds of speedy dissolution, no evil can result from abandoning it to the operation of its native tendencies, and suffering it to die a natural death. Is it not apparent that all this commotion and effort indicate a suspicion that it is not so fraught with the elements of self-destruction as they pretend, and that it requires to be powerfully assailed.

Its opponents confidently assert that it has no tendency to keep up the rate of wages, that these are regulated by causes over which it has no control, and that, in defiance of every possible arrangement, they will infallibly find their level. If such is really their conviction, their zeal is still more preposterous. For where is the policy or the prudence of exposing themselves to the suspicion of insensibility to the distresses of the working classes by opposing a scheme which can have no effects, produce no consequences while it continues, and the futility of which will be shortly apparent to all? The list of prices agreed upon between the employers and their men, they assert, is higher than the state of the trade will allow; and that, could it be maintained, it would be detrimental to the manufacturing interest by preventing the sale of the article. Admitting this, it would afford a sufficient reason for opposing a measure which had a tendency to produce that effect, namely, the continuance of the statement. But as it is loudly affirmed that the Framework Knitters' Union has no such tendency, but will leave the rate of wages just as it was, why this superfluity of zeal in opposing what can produce no mischief? If such is their real opinion, they are fighting with a shadow-combating a phantom. This, however, will hardly be supposed. Men are not accustomed to exert themselves with vehemence against an object of

which they entertain no apprehension: they usually proportion their efforts to their alarms.

It is impossible not to discern, in the wanton and virulent attack of Cobbett and others on the Framework Knitters' Society, that more is meant than meets the ear-that a purpose is aimed which is not yet ripe for disclosure. Of this we may be assured, that there lurks at the bottom of this opposition a secret persuasion that the permanence of the Union will effect a permanent elevation of wages, above that extreme point of depression to which they had before subsided.

Here the first question which arises is, whether the recompense of labour previous to the establishment of a fund was such on an average as to enable a workman to procure for himself and his family the ordinary necessaries of life. For the answer to this we might refer the reader to our opponents, who, with some variation in their statements, unanimously acknowledge they were not sufficient for that purpose. The anonymous writer who styles himself "An Observer" feebly attempts, it is true, to palliate the wretched condition of the workmen by referring us to the price of provisions, not in Leicestershire, be it remembered, but in Taunton, and by informing us that a man working a frame of thirty-two or finer gauge twelve hours a day can earn eight shillings a week. As in this very passage he is declaiming against "extreme statements as suspicious," who would suspect that the very passage which censures contains an example of it? But so it is; for the writer is informed by the most experienced manufacturers that the kind of work adduced is of a superior order, on which very few, in comparison, are employed; and that the average earnings previous to the Union were from five shillings and sixpence to six shillings a week, not a moiety of the sum adequate to the decent support of an industrious family. The enormous pressure on the parishes which are the principal seats of manufacture place the matter of fact for which we are contending beyond all controversy. But that the "labourer is worthy of his hire" is as much the dictate of reason as of Scripture: and if there be any spectacle which shocks the natural feeling of justice, it is the sight of industry rewarded with famine-of a life devoted to severe and incessant toil, without the power of procuring the means of its own support. This is a state of things from which humanity recoils, but such was the condition of the greater part of the workmen previous to the Union.

The next question is, whether the sufferers have not a natural right to attempt the melioration of their condition, and by any means consistent with the peace of society, and the inviolable security of property, endeavour to rescue themselves from a state in which death is preferable to life. For what purpose, let me ask, is reason bestowed, if not to assist its possessor in contriving the means of alleviating his calamities and of improving his situation? The skill and labour of the poor man constitute his whole possession, and he has a right to place it to the best advantage, for precisely the same reason that the rich capitalist is entitled to make the most advantageous disposal of his * Observer, p. 5.

↑ Ibid. p. 6.