[Footnote 294: A fustian-weaver was said to be able to earn 1s. to 2s. a day. Fustian-weavers appear always to have been a poorly paid class. Cf. _Report on State of Children Employed in Manufactories_ (1816), p. 99, Evidence of Mr. George Gould: “In the fustian trade I think there never was a period when a good hand could get above thirteen or fourteen shillings.”] The evidence in favour of the patent machines so impressed the Committee that the gist of it was embodied in a series of resolutions, and agreed to by the House without opposition--indeed there was no other reasonable course. The evils complained of in the first petition were due to the use of the patent machines only in a small degree; they were much more the social consequence of the conflict proceeding at the time. CHAPTER IV THE OPPOSITION TO THE PATENTS The episodes of 1767 and 1779 were the two most important direct attempts to obstruct the use of the new spinning machinery, and there is no reason to think that they were in any degree effective.[295] As already mentioned, more important opposition was directed against the patents granted to Hargreaves and Arkwright, and this came from those who wished to use the machinery without complying with the rights the patents conferred. Any opposition of this class to its use was secondary to their opposition to the patents, and as the patent of Hargreaves was never upheld, the machine to which it referred was always freely used. [Footnote 295: An attack was made on the first Robert Peel’s machinery when he lived at Peel Fold near Blackburn. “Mr. Peel was accustomed to say that the destruction of his machinery by the populace was a very fortunate occurrence for him, inasmuch as he was forced thereby to adopt Arkwright’s machinery, which otherwise he never should have done, he having a strong and not unnatural affection for his own inventions” (Wheeler, _History of Manchester_ (1824), p. 519).] As regards Arkwright’s machinery, the nearest approach to obstruction of its use took the form, first, of refusing to use the yarn made by it, which led Arkwright and his partners to utilise it themselves in making cotton calicoes, thus giving rise to a new branch of manufacture; and secondly, when it was found that this manufacture was hampered by the Acts passed in 1714 and 1721, by opposing their efforts in 1774 to secure modification of the Acts.[296] By the 1714 Act, calicoes had been made subject to an additional excise duty of 3d., making 6d. in all, and by the 1721 Act the wear or use of printed calicoes had been prohibited. The 1736 Act, it will be remembered, had modified the 1721 Act only in so far as goods made with a linen warp were concerned. The modifications requested by Arkwright and his partners were the removal of the additional duty, and of the prohibition, and as their efforts were successful, goods made wholly of cotton, even though printed, were henceforth on the same footing as mixed goods.[297]