A.D. 1776 
—1850. 
and hoped 
hat shifts 
would be 
rgamised. 
LAISSEZ FAIRE 
njurious, so far as adults were concerned'. The Commissioner 
proposed instead, that shifts should be arranged? and that 
the labour of children should be so organised that they should 
work in the same mills, but for shorter hours than the adults. 
An experiment of this kind was tried with great success in 
1RA4 
works must work. I would rather stay and do it than that any body else should 
some in my place.” * * * “Have worked here (Milne's) two years; am now 
fourteen ; work sixteen hours and a half a day. I was badly, and asked to stop at 
sight one night lately, and I was told if I went I must not come back.” “I have 
worked till twelve at night last summer. We began at six in the morning. I told 
s00k-keeper I did not like to work so late; he said I mote. We only get a penny 
an hoar for over-time.” ‘We used to come at half-past eight at night, and work 
all night, till the rest of the girls came in the morning. They would come at 
seven. Sometimes we worked on till half-past eight the next night, after we had 
been working all the night before. We worked in meal-hours, except at dinner. 
[ have done that sometimes three nights a week, and sometimes four nights. It 
was not regular; it was just as the overlooker chose. Sometimes the slubbers 
would work on all night too, not always. The pieceners would have to stay all 
night then too. They used to go to sleep, poor things! when they had over-hours 
in the night.” “In 1829 they worked night and day. The day set used to work 
from six till eight and nine, and sometimes till eleven or twelve. The children 
who worked as pieceners for the slubbers used to fall asleep, and we had much 
rouble with them.” Reports, 1833, xx. 16. 
1 It appeared probable to the masters and economic experts that a reduction of 
aours would involve a reduction of wages. 
3 The difficulty which they tried to meet is well stated by the Commissioners: 
“The great evil of the manufacturing system, as at present conducted, has 
appeared to us to be, that it entails the necessity of continuing the labour of 
shildren to the utmost length of that of the adults. The only remedy for this 
ovil, short of a limitation of the labour of adults, which would in our opinion 
sreate an evil greater than that which is sought to be remedied, appears to be the 
plan of working double sets of children. To this plan there have been intimated 
to us great objections on the part both of masters and of workmen: on the part of 
the masters, because it will be attended with inconvenience, and somewhat higher 
wages: on the part of the workmen for various reasons; 1st, Because when 
working by the piece increased expense in hiring or increased trouble in teaching 
shildren will necessarily diminish their net earnings: —2nd, Because by a more 
general limitation to ten hours they expect to get twelve hours’ wages for less 
work ;:—8rd, Because the reduction to half wages or little more of the children 
reduced to six or eight hours’ work must necessarily in so far tend to reduce the 
earnings, and consequently the comforts of the family: 
«There can be no doubt, from the whole tenor of the evidence before us, that 
the plan of double sets will be productive of more or less inconvenience and 
expense to the manufacturer. It has appeared to us, however, that the same 
objections must attach more or less to any change of the present modes of 
working; but we consider the object aimed at by the working of double sets, 
namely, that of counteracting the tendency to an undue employment of infant 
labour, to be such as more than compensates for the sacrifice to be made in 
attaining it. And no other mode of effectually accomplishing that most desirable 
object has occurred to us likely to be attended with so little evil or suffering as 
that which we have ventured to recommend.” Reports. 1833, xx. 57.