finally repealed in 1813 and the apprenticeship clause in the following year, but long before they had become practically obsolete (Unwin, _Industrial Organisation_, pp. 137-141, 252; Tawney, _The Assessment of Wages in England by Justices of the Peace_; Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_, pp. 25-44; S. and B. Webb, _History of Trade Unionism_, chap. i.).] It appears that, about this time, a suggestion was made that the dispute should be referred to the country gentlemen for settlement, or to Mr. Percival alone, and also that he saw the above proposals, and that he disapproved of them.[165] [Footnote 165: _Letter to a Friend_, p. 48.] In any case, a second set of proposals was addressed to him from Ashton by the weavers, with the request that, if he thought proper, he would put them into form and make such alterations as he might find necessary for bringing about an accommodation between the parties.[166] In these proposals, it was suggested that seven men should be appointed by each side, including one or two magistrates, and that the magistrates should choose (presumably from among those who had been thus appointed) four persons who had been in the trade, but who had no present connection with it, to settle the differences. Cases of spoiled work, which the master and weaver concerned could not settle, were to be referred to two persons chosen by them, both parties to submit to their decision. The masters were to allow the weavers to keep a charity box, and the weavers were to have liberty to take two or more apprentices, but not for a shorter period than seven years, and no person was to be acknowledged as a weaver unless he or she had served that time, although all weavers then engaged in the trade were to be recognised. The weavers still asked that a standard length of eighty yards should be fixed for certain kinds of goods, but the length of other kinds was to be fixed by the committee, and wages were to be agreeable to the times as heretofore.[167] [Footnote 166: _Ibid._, p. 13.] [Footnote 167: _Ibid._, App. II.]