Sa FACTORY LBGISLATION. 301
The factory question from this time, down to the passing of
the Ten, Hours Act, was part of the wider struggle between
the Country gentlemen and the manufacturers. The Tories
Were taunted with the condition of the labourers in the fields,
ud they retorted by tales of the condition of the operatives
" factories. The manufacturers rejoined by asking, if they
Were go anxious to benefit the workman, why they did not,
by Yepealing the Corn Law, cheapen his bread. The landlorgs
 and the millowners each reproached the other with
Xereising the virtues of humanity at other people’s expense.
This Was not Lord Ashley’s own position. He was ab this
time in favour of the Corn Law, but his exertions for the
factory population were due to a disinterested and genuine
“erest in their welfare. In 1842! Cobden took a more
Boneroyg, or rather a more just, view of Lord Ashley’s
Charg cpp than he had been accustomed to express in his
lottery and conversation. He would confess very frankly
that before he entered that House, he had entertained
doug, in common with many of the employors in the north,
Whether those advocates of the Short Hours Bill who sup-Ported
 the Corn Law were really sincere. But since he
hag had an opportunity of a closer observation of the noble
lorg, he wag perfectly convinced of his genuine philanthropy.”
That, kowever, was no reason why Lord Ashley should not
be tesisted, if his philanthropy led him wrong; and Mr.
Bright, while not denying that the hours of labour were
longer than they ought to be, made a vigorous onslaught on
bi, “It was a perilous effort,” Cobden wrote, ‘“ especially
‘0 the canting tone of the country, but our friend came off
well, ang there is much credit, due to him for taking the bull
by the horns. The Tories have gained nothing bv the last
Week q debate.” ?
Charles Buller defended Lord Ashley’s proposal in what
Tug g, 2 To F. W. Cobden. London, March 16, 1844.

1844.
Zr. 40.