poor man from the parish in which he had resided five years; of the wife from her husband's parish; or of the children from their parents' parish, was at last forbidden; and the hardships which the poor had undoubtedly endured were to some extent alleviated.1

In fact, the heat which a long controversy had produced had gradually cooled; the advantages of the new law were discovered to outbalance its inconveniences; its most violent opponents reconciled themselves to its continuance; and, instead of clamouring for its repeal, endeavoured to improve its administration. The Poor Law had already been extended to Ireland. In 1843 a Commission was appointed to inquire into the state of the Scotch poor.2 In 1844 the Commission reported; and in 1845 most of the principles of the English Poor Law were extended to Scotland.3

and

A feeling, however, was gradually arising that other reme. dies than the compulsory relief of the poor were urgently required. Ashley had already obtained distinction by his efforts in the cause of the Factory Bill of 1833. In 1840 he moved for the commission of inquiry into the em- Employployment of women and children in mines collieries, which produced the sensational report whose contents have already been alluded to in a preceding chapter. In 1842 he introduced a bill to give effect. to the Commissioners' recommendations, and urged it on the House in a speech which quoted freely from the Report—this

ment of children in

women and

mines.

1 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. It ought perhaps to be added that, when the Act of 1842 expired in 1847, a change was made in the constitution of the Poor Law Commissioners, and the president and secretary were allowed to sit in the House of Commons. The second reading of the bill making this change was carried, after four nights' debate, by a large majority-218 votes to 42. Hansard, vol. xcii. p. 1236. But a clause was inserted in committee against the wish of the Government, compelling the guardians to give joint accommodation in workhouses to old married people. Ibid., vol. xciii. p. 898. The Act is the 10 & 11 Vict. c. 109; the clause is section 23 of the Act.

2 For a debate on the appointment see Hansard, vol. lxvi. p. 179.

The report is in Parl. Papers, 1844, vol. xx. ; for the Lord Advocate's speech introducing the bill, Hansard, vol. lxxviii. p. 1399. The debate on the second reading is in ibid., vol. lxxxi. p. 398. The bill became the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 83.

"awful document," which excites "a feeling of shame, terror, and indignation." The "awful document" had done its work; and the House assented to the first reading of the bill, which excluded women from mines, forbade the employment of children under thirteen years of age, and sanctioned the appointment of inspectors to enforce its provisions.1 The colliery owners of the North of England were alarmed at the prospect of so radical an interference with their industry, and insisted on the impossibility of conducting their business if the employment of boys of eight was forbidden. Londonderry, one of their number, who was no friend to what he was pleased to term "the hypocritical humanity which reigned so much at present, gave them his warm support, and secured for them a compromise which suffered them to employ boys of ten on three days a week. Ashley was bitterly disappointed at the alterations which were thus made in the bill; but he was wise enough to reflect that the half loaf was better than no bread, and to accept the mutilated measure which Londonderry offered him.

During the passage of the bill, the mine owners had frequently employed an argument which it was difficult to answer. Assume, they said in effect, all the cruelty with which the Report charges us, similar grievances exist in other employments. Why select a single industry for reform, and leave the evils which characterise other occupations unremedied? The true answer to the contention was that Ashley had no intention of dealing with mines and collieries alone; on the contrary, he had been the constant advocate of further reform. In 1837 he had urged the Government to take up the matter; in 1838 he had himself taken up a bill which the Government had introduced, and on its failure had asked the House to express its regret that the Factory Act had been so long without amendment; his motion had virtually compelled the Govern

1 Hansard, vol. Ixiii. pp. 1320-1364.

2 The remonstrance of the northern mine-owners is printed in Hansard, vol. lxiv. p. 544, note.

3 Ibid., vol. lxv. p. 104.

4 Ibid., p. 3.

ment in 1839 to make a more serious attempt to legislate; while in 1840, he had obtained an inquiry into the whole subject. But the information, which was thus gained, proved that an Act, which merely regulated labour, would do very little. Every commission, and every committee, which inquired into the subject, and every person who was brought into contact with the labouring classes, were struck by the lamentable ignorance which universally prevailed. Education,

Education.

it was gradually seen, was the chief thing needful; and, at the commencement of 1843, Ashley proposed an address to the Crown, praying it to adopt measures for diffusing the benefits and blessings of a moral and religious education among the working-classes. The address, supported on all sides of the House, was carried without a division. The queen returned a gracious answer to it; the Government agreed to legislate; for one night, at any rate, a whole assembly professed a unanimous desire to throw a little light into the darkest corners of modern England.

But the abstract is frequently more acceptable than the concrete. The thesis which commands universal assent in the one shape, is attacked on all sides in the other. The first words which man attributes to his God, are a command for light; the noblest prayer in the great epic of the ancient world is a prayer for light; the last words, which were uttered by the great philosophic poet of the nineteenth century, were a cry for light. In theory, in 1843, every man of education or position would have readily joined in the petition, "Lighten our darkness." They admitted the necessity for more light: they were even ready to pay for it, provided—for the whole admission was in the proviso-the light was the light of their own farthing candles.

Graham proposed to redeem the pledge which the House had given by introducing a measure regulating factories, and

1 See Hansard, vol. xliv. p. 383. Lord Ashley's motion in 1838 was only defeated by 121 votes to 106. Ibid., p. 443. The Government Bill of 1839 is in ibid., vol. xlv. p. 434. For the inquiry of 1840, cf. ibid., vol. lii. p. 860; and vol. lv. p. 1260.

2 For the debate, ibid., vol. lxvii. p. 47.

providing for the education of the children employed in them. No child under eight years old-so he proposed-should be The Factory employed at all; no child under thirteen should be Bill of 1843. employed for more than six hours and a half a day; no young person under eighteen, and no girl under twenty-one, should be employed for more than twelve hours a day on the first five working days of each week, or for more than six hours on a Saturday. Children, in factory districts, who were above eight years old and under thirteen, were to attend school. The inhabitants of the district, with the assistance of the Government, were to provide adequate school accommodation for the purpose. The schools to be erected were to be vested in two trustees, one of whom was to be the clergyman of the parish. The master of the school was to be appointed by the Diocesan ; the inspector, who visited the school, was to be approved by the Diocesan; the version of the Scripture authorised by the Church was to be used in the school; the books employed in it were to be selected by the Diocesan. Even these provisions did not satisfy the requirements of extreme Churchmen like Inglis. They were received with a yell of dismay by Roman Catholics and Dissenters. The Dissenters of Manchester pledged themselves to oppose the measure by every means in their power. The Roman Catholics declared that no Roman Catholic child could conscientiously attend the new schools. Had not the Church of England, so they argued, already obtained an adequate monopoly? Had she not already sole possession of the wealthy universities and schools? Is not she contented "with these vast advantages, but, after having herself most reprehensively neglected the education of the poor, when a measure is proposed to rescue the infant operative from the degradation and depravity of ignorance, is she to come forward with her pretensions, and claim, as a matter of ecclesiastical prerogative, the instruction of factory infants upon whom she never cast away a thought before?" 1

Frightened by the storm which he had raised, and the multi

1 The words are Sheil's, in Hansard, vol. lxix. p. 553. For the bill, ibid., vol. lxvii. pp. 422, 1477.

tude of petitions against the bill, which rained night after night on the table of the House, Graham endeavoured to modify his measure. He proposed to increase the number of the trustees; to confine the religious instruction of the children to particular hours, at the commencement or at the end of each school time; to insist on it being given in separate class-rooms; and to allow the parent a right of forbidding its child religious teaching. But these concessions did not conciliate the Opposition. The whole thing, said Roebuck, depended on the Church; the whole scheme was designed to promote the influence of the Church; and, "in no plan of education, maintained and enforced by the State "-so he asked the House to resolve"should any attempt be made to inculcate peculiar religious opinions." Roebuck did not, indeed, succeed in carrying his proposition. Members of Parliament, in 1843, were too busily engaged in fanning the flames of their own candles to admit that they had no right to extinguish the lights of other people, and they accordingly rejected Roebuck's resolution by a large majority.2 But the motion. defeated as it was, had done its work. A month afterwards, Graham, finding that he had failed to satisfy the Church, and that he had affronted dissent, withdrew the educational clauses. The labour clauses cumbered the notice paper a little longer, when they too were withdrawn.

1

Religious differences had produced the ordinary result. A measure, which all humane men admitted to be necessary, had been postponed because the sects into which Christianity was divided were all intent on moving by the solitary light of their

1 Hansard, vol. Ixix. pp. 530, 539.

2 By 156 votes to 60. Ibid., p. 564.

3 Ibid., vol. lxix. p. 1567. Hume, later on, proposed a resolution on the subject of education, but the House was counted out. Ibid., vol. lxx. p. 1350. The Church, as a rule, has clung so persistently to its notions of religious education that it ought perhaps to be added that Hook, the vicar of Leeds, the leader of the High Church party, and perhaps the best specimen of an English clergyman then living, saw clearly enough that the State had no business with religion, and that the only education which it could provide must be of a purely secular character. See Stephen's Life of Hook, p. 261; and Hook's letter to Mr. Gladstone in ibid., p. 346.