"That your Memorialists approve of the principle of appointing responsible superintendents over the mills and factories of the United Kingdom, and are favourable to a restriction of the employment of young persons under twenty-one years of age to sixty-nine hours in the week.
"Your Memorialists, therefore, pray that a Bill may be forthwith introduced by his Majesty's Government, which shall prevent the latter part of the above-mentioned section from coming into operation on the first of March next, and which shall permit children of eleven years of age to be employed for sixty-nine hours per week in the mills and factories of the United Kingdom."
This memorial is signed by seventy-two mill-owners, but I do not think it necessary to publish their names. The following is the answer that I returned to Mr. Clegg:
"London, February 29, 1836.
"Sir,
"I have received your letter of the 27th, and a copy of the memorial sent to Mr. Lees.
"The prayer of the Memorialists, that young children between eleven and thirteen years of age should be allowed to work in factories sixty-nine hours in the week instead of forty-eight hours a week, which the law now prescribes, is so revolting to my feelings, and so opposed to my views of the protection such children are entitled to, that I must decline supporting the prayer of the Memorialists.
"The work-people have long petitioned that the maximum of time for those under twenty-one should be fifty-eight hours per week. This I should be glad to see adopted, as an experiment, and would support such a proposition by my vote; but I do not think the restriction is sufficient.
"I am embarked in the same business with the Memorialists. I have had long experience in it. I have paid great attention to this question; and, after mature consideration of it, I am convinced that eight hours work per day, in factories, is as long as ought to be exacted from either children or adults, and I am of opinion, too, that such a regulation, combined with a daily system of training and instruction, would be more advantageous both to masters and servants, than the regulation now in practice. But the subject is so important, and is likely to be brought under the consideration of Parliament so soon, that I propose to publish my opinions, and the reasons for those opinions, and the conclusions I have come to on this question, in reply to the Memorialists.