the English spinner to compete, whilst his machinery is restricted to fifty-six hours' work, against the foreigner who works his for seventy-two hours. In many trades, no doubt, as stated by the late Mr. Roebuck, as much can be done in a day's work of nine hours as of ten. But bear this in mind, when making up your mind about "factory legislation" in spinning and in manufacturing, the machinery does the work, the operative merely attends to the machine; if wise, we should relieve the operative, but the machine should never be idle. The Act of 1874, in reducing the hours of labour in factories from sixty to fifty-four hours per week, struck off "one-fifteenth" part of the entire manufacturing power of the country. No increase of speed by better machinery, &c., could make up for this loss of power. Foreigners, by the same machinery from our best makers, drive as fast, and work seventy-two hours against our fifty-six hours per week; yet people wonder why our exports are decreasing and our imports increasing. The machinery represents the "sunk capital " of a manufacturer. The difference in the number of hours that his machinery works for him per day, enables the French capitalist to make good profits at prices that would ruin the English capitalist. The loss to the nation in the reduction of the productive power of our machinery by Factory Acts is enormous-more ruinous to the nation than the most costly war we ever engaged in.

It is most important for us to see as soon as possible that we have made a great mistake in enacting laws that raise our cost of production, so as to prevent our competing with foreign manufacturers whose hands are not so tied. We have been