population of the extra-metropolitan districts of Surrey was, in 1841, 187,868, and the population of the town sub-districts of Manchester was 163,856; and in Manchester, with this less population, the deaths registered in seven years (1838-44) were 39,922, and those in Surrey only 23,777, making a difference of 16,145.' It is added The population of Surrey exceeded that of Manchester; yet, in seven years, 16,000 persons died in Manchester over and above the deaths in Surrey, the mortality in which, from the poverty of the labourer and slighter degrees of the influences so fatal in Manchester, is higher than it should be. There were 23,523 children under five years of age in Surrey, and the deaths of children of that age were 7364; the children in Manchester were 21,152, the deaths 20,726. In the seven years, 13,362 children in Manchester alone fell a sacrifice to known causes, which it is believed may be removed to a great extent; and the victims in Liverpool were not less numerous. Other parts, and particularly the towns of England, are similarly afflicted.' In the same page follow these remarks-The returns of the past quarter prove that nothing effectual has been done to put a stop to the disease, suffering, and death, by which so many thousands perish. The improvements, chiefly of a showy, superficial, outside character, have not reached the homes and habits of the people. The house and children of a labouring man can only be kept clean and healthy by the assiduous labour of a well-trained, industrious wife; as any one who has paid the least

This is overlooked in Lancashire, where the woman is often engaged in labour from home. The consequence is, that thousands, not only of the children, but of the men and women themselves, perish of the diseases formerly so fatal for the same reasons in barracks, camps, gaols, and ships."" Mr. Fielden cited further passages from the same report, showing how children suffer from every kind of neglect while the mother is employed in factory labour; how their health is undermined by the use of opiates, and by the illkept state of their homes. Such results, he said, exceeded "the horrors of war," and were not justified by the assumed " plea of necessity." He contended that his measure was not opposed to the doctrines of sound political economy; "political economy" meaning the right government of a state, and admitting any needful regulation for the welfare of the state.

In May last, Mr. Cobden had said, that if the measure were put off for a year the feelings of the working classes upon the subject would change: he (Mr. Fielden) had employed the subsequent eight months in efforts to ascertain the sentiments of the working classes, and he had found, not a weakening, but a strengthening conviction in favour of the measure. The factories were now actually working short time; but such short time as then prevailed disturbed every thing, reduced wages, deranged the market, and injured even those manufacturers whose narrow means obliged them to sell their stocks, which the wealthier class bought up in times of depression.

Mr. Ferrand seconded the motion.

the introduction of the Bill, reserving the discussion on its principle and details till the second reading. He only guarded against the construction put upon the Report of the Registrar-General, which referred not to any distinction between factory-labour and other kinds of labour, but to that between the condition of people in densely peopled towns and in rural districts. The mortality in Liverpool for instance, where there was no factory labour, was greater than in large towns where the factory system was in operation.

Mr. Trelawney announced that he should resist the attempt to interfere with the labour-market. But Sir Robert Peel observed, that such resistance would be inconsistent with the understanding that leave would be given to bring in the Bill without discussion; upon the strength of which Sir George Grey had abstained from entering into the subject. Mr. Hume and Mr. Bickham Escott confirmed that representation; and Mr. Trelawney withdrew his opposition.

Mr. Ferrand having alluded to Mr. Ward's late speech at Sheffield, which hinted that the Bill would receive some official support, Mr. Bickham Escott asked whether it was the intention of Government to support the Bill; or whether the Government intended at some future stage to exert themselves in opposition to it; or whcther, as was perhaps the more probable case, it was not to be made a Government question at all?

No answer being at first given to Mr. Escott's question, he repeated it, and pressed for an anAfter a long pause, Lord

swer.

John Russell said:

"I may just say, that it seems

agreed on all hands that the Bill should be read a first time without opposition: when we come to a future stage, I shall be prepared to state what course the Government will take."

Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.

On the 10th of February, Mr. Fielden having moved the second reading, Mr. Hume delivered a long speech against the Bill, as opposed to the principles of political economy. He moved that it be read a second time that day six months. Sir George Grey then rose, and began by saying that, after what had passed at the close of the last Session, the House would not expect to see the members of the Government unanimous on this subject. There were, he said, no new arguments to consider. The only new point for consideration was the present feeling of the public mind. He had once hoped that the object would be attained by a mutual arrangement between the employers and the employed; but he had been disappointed. He would be no party to the delusion that a reduction of the hours of labour would not affect the rate of wages: but it was just one of those cases in which advantages were to be gained by individuals from breaking voluntary engagements; such voluntary engagements were thus frustrated-as in the case of Sundaytrading, and the early closing of shops. Reviewing the chief ments against the measure, he found that they all resolved themselves into mere predictions of the loss, and ruin, and misery which would follow its adoption. Various laws, however, going upon the same principle as this Bill, and restricting the labour of children, had

argu

been passed and had been in operation without any of the deplorable results which had been predicted. Parliament had legislated with advantage for the class called "children" in the Factory Acts. The Inspectors' report showed that the condition of children was greatly improved, and that the character of their education was rapidly advancing. He thought that the Legislature had failed to secure proportionate advantage for the class called "young persons;" and he could not satisfy himself that the predictions of injury and the calculations of loss in the present case, as in the previous cases, had not been very much exaggerated. With respect to women, also, he thought that their total removal from home except in the hours of sleep was very injurious. He differed from Mr. Fielden as to the causes of the mortality to which he had alluded in factory towns; and Sir George quoted further extracts from the report of the Registrar-General to show that the mortality belongs rather to the incidents of all large towns than to the peculiar kind of employment in factories. He recurred to Lord John Russell's declaration at the end of the last session, in reply to Mr. Thomas Duncombe, that he should be prepared to support an eleven hours Bill; and, also, that the measure, involving no new principle, but only a matter of detail, should be an open question in the Cabinet. In those views Sir George Grey concurred. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill, and for the clause which restricted the hours of labour to eleven instead of twelve; but should oppose that clause which went further to restrict the hours at the end of the year to ten.

VOL. LXXXIX.

Mr. Bankes replied to Sir George Grey, and was followed by the Marquis of Granby, Mr. Muntz, and Lord John Manners. The latter contended that the present time would be very suitable for the change, inasmuch as the mills were already working short time on account of depression in trade; and, were the Bill passed, it would prevent that wild and injurious reaction which had hitherto attended the recurrence of prosperity in manufacturing districts.

These arguments were controverted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that he and the other opponents of the Bill were the true friends of labour. He said :—

"If you diminish the hours of labour, you increase the cost of production. If you reduce the time of labour in the production of articles of manufacture, the amount of fixed capital employed in the factory must be increased; and either the cost of the article must be augmented, or the addi tional expense must fall either on the profits of the manufacturer or on the wages of the labourer, or it must be divided between them. I have never heard this argument met: and if it be so, and if foreign competition presses us, as the noble lord says it does, and the price of the article is increased, our ́trade will be driven from the foreign markets. This, therefore, is a most important point."

Sir Charles Wood's own conviction was, that the working men, if they chose, could shorten the hours of labour; but that they would not do so freely, because they did not choose to incur the corresponding reduction of wages. He stated the results of actual experience on this point in the town which he represented, Halifax; where he had.