tion," will not eventually be fully realized.

It is well known that those clauses of the new Poor Law which gave most offence to a large portion of the community, were the " bastardy clauses:" and that those clauses were designed to protect respectable members of society from formidable evils (such as domestic strife and public odium) which every wanton, who might find her way as a servant into a large family, had it in her power to inflict on the head of that family, by swearing falsely. Such of our readers as have taken the pains to examine the evidence submitted to parliament, will be aware of the strong cases which were brought before the legislature, when the bastardy clauses were discussed; and to such persons, especially if they happen to have had any experience as overseers of the poor in populous districts, the necessity for some attempt to devise a remedy for the evil will be quite evident, even though they should be led to question the fitness of the remedy adopted.

We scarcely need repeat, that we are as much opposed, as this writer can be, to the antisocial doctrines of Malthus; but there are, in our opinion, connected with the obligations of mankind to propagate their species, questions of civil polity, which it is the imperative duty of each individual seriously to examine, with a view both to the better regulation of his conduct as a member of society, and to the interests of his eventual offspring. Among these are the means of education, or of the training of human beings, with reference both to their intellectual developement, and to the claims which society justly makes upon all its members for

service.

Without attention to these important subjects, a mère augmentation of the numbers of the human race, by the reckless procreation of children, will not prove a benefit but a bane both to the individuals and to society, and will, in no sober sense of the words, be a fulfilment of the Divine injunction to "replenish the earth;" unless it is to be contended that the filling of great numbers of graves with the bodies of diseased and disowned children, or of persons of more mature age, whose vices, the fruits or usual concomitants of want of in

struction, have hurried them prematurely out of life, is a fulfilment of that command..

In the further prosecution of his argument this writer, after expressing doubts respecting the tendency of population, in free countries, to increase beyond the means of subsistence, offers some observations on the best means of disposing of any possible surplus of labouring hands, either by an extension of cultivation at home, or by colonization abroad. These points we shall notice, after we have considered the next article before us; which is,

III. Mr. Gaskell's Prospects of In-
dustry.

Mr. Gaskell, in his preface, states, that he is "not amongst those who have joined the hue and cry against the new Poor Law, for," says he, "I am fully aware of the evils which have arisen from a mal-administration of parochial relief, and from a departure from the only legitimate grounds on which poor rates should rest." Yet on his concluding page he asserts" it has been said to the poor, you are in distress; to support you is ruinous to the rest of the community; profits are eaten up by poor rates; you are wrong, you ought not to be paupers, and you shall not be paupers; or if you will, you shall go to prison. A man who is a pauper is not worthy of being considered on equality with the rest of his species; what right have you to cherish a wife and family when you cannot support them? Overseers are as much to blame as you. Such a state of things can no longer be borne.' This is the language of the framers of the Poor Law Bill. It is a language at variance with religion, with humanity, and with sound and enlightened policy."

After perusing a paragraph so declamatory as that last quoted, against a measure which was unquestionably the result of much painful and anxious deliberation, and which, we have reason to believe, has done, and is still doing great service to the country, by overturning vicious systems, and ruinous practices, and by substituting for them less exceptionable means of administering relief to the poor, we might have been justified, notwithstanding the attention which Mr. Gaskell ap

pears to have given to the subject, had we laid his pamphlet aside, and taken up the work of some more candid writer: but lest this gentleman, and those who incline to his views, should imagine that he has not received due attention from us, we will lay before our readers the few notes we have penned as we turned over his pages.

He begins by repeating the oftenrefuted objections to machinery, which we do not feel ourselves called upon again to rebut by rehearsing at any length the arguments in its defence. It has never been denied by the defenders of machinery, that it has a tendency, temporarily, to diminish the call for labour in certain channels, and thereby to create, for a time, a surplus of labour in the market: but, on the other hand, machinery has opened for that surplus, so created, new and in many respects better channels; while it has furnished improved means of supplying the wants both of the employed and unemployed, as well as of much higher social enjoyment to every member of the community, and of greater national advancement. Improvements in machinery have likewise been, in an eminent degree, favourable to the moral and intellectual advancement of the human race.

Nor should it ever be forgotten that, were the arguments which are brought against improved machinery carried out to their full length, they would lead to the rejection of the plough, the spade, and the trowel, because these are machines the use of which does necessarily diminish the demand for labour, and consequently of labourers.

But if the use of machinery be not altogether rejected, we see not how it is possible to fix any other limit to it than its capabilities. It does not appear to us practicable to draw any line of demarcation which will satisfy all the claims and prejudices of the various classes of society who have an interest in the question.

Mr. Gaskell refers to the excessive employment of children in factories as one of the evil consequences of the use of machinery. An evil it unquestion ably is, and connected with the factory system, though not necessarily with machinery. It is an evil the removal or prevention of which may require, in addition to religious and moral in

culcation on the parents and others who have charge of children, some stronger legal restraint. We have no doubt that a wholesome law is required in order to protect weak and defenceless infancy, both from the oppressive exactions of sordid commercial speculators, and the cupidity or supineness of unnatural and improvident parents; and surely, if there were wanting an argument in favour of deferred marriages among the poor, the evils which arise out of the cruel though (through the poverty of the parents) necessary introduction of children into factories at too early an age, to the prejudice of their physical constitutions, and always to the neglect and sometimes to the complete contamination of their minds, would furnish one. Greatly

as the existence of such an evil is to be regretted, it is quite evident that it is a consequence, not of the introduction of machinery into factories, but of the demoralized state of the labouring classes; because the same neglect of the true interests of the rising generation, and the same disposition to oppress them as is found in factories, may be found in the cottages of many mechanics, even of the cotton spin

ners.

With respect to the domestic economy of the labouring classes, Mr. Gaskell knows little of the state of large towns, if he does not know that great numbers of parents who are raising families, or at least producing great numbers of children, and who could, were their habits domestic and industrious, earn as much per week as the cotton spinners could in their cottages, and some of them a great deal more, and who might thus enable themselves to raise their families in cleanliness and health, and give them a virtuous edution, do actually, by wasting the larger portion of their incomes in intemperance, in beer-shops and gin-palaces, deprive both themselves and their offspring of all real comfort and domestic enjoyment, and when sickness, or temporary want of employment, or any other misfortune comes upon them, have no resource, either in savings' banks, friendly societies, or any other depository, but fly to the parish for support. To the families of persons of this description it is in most cases an act of mercy to compel them, when

they apply for relief, to go into the workhouse.

On page 13, Mr. Gaskell quotes a statement by Mr. Babbage, which shows that a cotton spinner who, in 1810, earned 17. 5s. 10d. by spinning 400lbs. of cotton, at 1s. 3 d. per score, could, in 1832, by means of improved machinery spin 1200lbs. at 6d. per score, and earn 17. 10s. But the circumstance of one cotton spinner having been able to do this, leads Mr. Gaskell, looking at that fact alone, and not at the greatly increased demand consequent upon the reduction of price, to infer that mechanism "dams up the outlets of labour." To this inference, as far as we understand his terms, we object; and will refer him to page 26 of his own pamphlet, in which he has stated that between 1701, when there was no machinery, and 1833, when machinery had attained to its present height, the value of the British cotton trade for one year had increased from the inconsiderable amount of 20,000l. to the immense sum of 18,486,000l., and ask him whether this great increase could have taken place had it not been for the introduction and improvement of machinery? We believe not. We also believe that, at the latter period, notwithstanding the use of machinery, the cotton manufacture employed beyond comparison the greater number of hands. It is well known, and has often been adduced in argument, that facilities for culture and manufacture, which depend more or less on machinery, by promoting consumption in proportion as they reduce the prices of the articles consumed, do in fact increase the demand for labour.

In advocating the claims of the handloom weavers, more particularly, whose earnings are stated to have declined from 17. 13s. 6d. per week to 4s. lid., in consequence of the competition with machinery, but who have nevertheless perseveringly adhered to the practice of their art, and refused to abandon it for more profitable employment when offered to them, Mr. Gaskell forgets that the hand-loom is itself a machine, and that the question at issue is not as to the introduction of machinery, but as to the abridgment of labour and reduction of expense by improvements in machinery. Mr. Baines, the mem

ber for Leeds, has, it appears, advocated the former on the sound principles to which we have adverted above; and we are surprised at finding his argument opposed by so untenable a doctrine as that improvements should not be allowed to progress, even though their advancement favour the general interests of society, when their progress offends the tenacity, to use a mild term, of any valuable class of society-the hand-loom weavers for instance-in favour of their own particular craft.

It is a curious fact, noted by Mr. Gaskell (p. 25), and one which tells strongly against the opposers of machinery, that, in 1700, the agriculturists were in this country in the proportion of 2 to 1 of the manufacturers; and that in 1830 the case was completely reversed, and the manufacturers were then in the proportion of 2 to 1 of the agriculturists. To those who consider how much moral, literary, political, and we would fain add religious improvement, are connected with the latter period, this change will not be an occasion of regret.

On page 16 Mr. Gaskell gives a comparative census of the population of Lancashire and Norfolk, the former a manufacturing and the latter an agricultural county, between the years 1700 and 1831, which represents the former as having in that period increased ninefold, and the latter at the rate of only one and three-quarters. It is also stated that, on a comparison of the entire population of England, the manufacturing and agricultural counties had increased in the proportion of 140 in the former to 50 in the latter. This calculation, if correct, proves that the less active habits of manufacturers are not unfavourable to a rapid increase of population, and we admit that it may be used, as Mr. Gaskell uses it, as an argument in favour of manual husbandry. It may also be used as an argument in favour of emigration, or of any other measure which may be calculated to place a part at least of an overflowing population in circumstances which will render greater physical exertion necessary for the procurement of subsistence.

Adverting to this fact, we deplore, as much as Mr. Gaskell can do, any diminution of agricultural cottages (page

13), in which poor families formerly maintained themselves in a desirable state of independence: this is, however, an evil, which the new Poor Law did not create, and which it does not, in our opinion, in the least aggravate, and cannot prevent. The remedy for this evil is the restoration of cottage husbandry, to which we shall now call the attention of our readers in a very few observations on,

IV. The Labourers' Friend, &c.
V. Useful Hints, &c.

VI. The Labourers' Friend Society, &c.

There are some aged persons who recollect those uninclosed plots of ground, of which there was formerly one in every parish, called the common, because upon it the resident agriculturalists possessed a common right of pasturage, and round it erected cottages, each inclosing and cultivating a small piece of garden ground. It will also be recollected that, about sixty years since, a great many acts of parliament were passed for the inclosure of these commons, and the allotment of them to the inhabitants, in quantities proportioned to their existing landed interests in the several parishes, and that there was at the time considerable discussion respecting the wisdom or expediency of this proceeding. Its advocates could see no objection to it. It was in their judgment not only feasible but expedient. They regarded and defended it, as being merely the equitable division of a common property among the proprietors, assigning to each individual his just proportion.

Its opponents, on the other hand, augured from it consequences unfriendly to the interests of the poor. And it now appears that time, that great solver of doubts and rectifyer of opinions, by casting the light of truth on this question, has fully confirmed the doubts of those by whom the measure was opposed.

It now appears to have been one of its most fatal consequences, that it enabled the improvident fathers of families to alienate, for small sums of money which were soon dissipated, their portions of the common property, whereby the allotments of land have been severed from the cottages, and absorbed by the large farms; and as a necessary consequence, the families of

many small cottagers have been thrown for support on the respective parishes.

Hence has arisen, in several agricultural parishes, a much more extended pauperism, and the introduction of pauperism into other parishes where it had previously been unknown. Thus, also, has it become an ascertained truth (for the documents contained in the works before us, and particularly in No. IV., demonstrate it) that under the old system of commonage the labouring agriculturists provided for their families more easily and with less expense than their richer neighbours can now provide for them by the operation of poor laws.

It has, under these circumstances, been proposed to return, so far as may be practicable, to the old system, by the assignment of small pieces of land and cottages on very moderate terms, with facilities for the cultivation of the land, to such labourers in husbandry as have families: thus enabling them to subsist, and train up their families, without parrochial aid.

The publications of the Labourers' Friend Society exhibit the system of cottage husbandry in its details, displaying its advantages, its successes, its effects in reducing or preventing pauperism, and its consequent claims to patronage as a means of elevating the virtuous and industrious poor, who inhabit the agricultural districts, above the contingency of pauperism. claims are so powerful, that we cannot withhold from them our suffrage, but wish the experiment all imaginable

success.

It is scarcely necessary to observe, that, among the regulations for the management of cottage husbandry, domestic habits, temperance, and religion occupy an important place. It is also laid down, as the result of much experience, that, in order to secure the desired benefits to the husbandman and his family, the land and the cottage should be contiguous. It is by redeeming small portions of time, with the aid of a wife and children, and the use of the spade, that the cottage husbandman renders the system subservient to his and his family's real advantage; and this he cannot do if his cottage and land are detached from each other. His garden and domestic farm are the objects of his attention in the morning

before he quits his home to labour for hire, and after he returns to it in the evening; and in the summer season he leaves not a little light work to be performed every day during his absence, by his family; but of this aid he would necessarily be deprived were his resi. dence and land detached.

Colonization and Emigration are other topics embraced in some of these pamphlets, which we shall very briefly notice. The author of the Malthusian Boon, &c. as already remarked, contends that population does not increase in any country at anything like the rate assumed by the hypothesis of Malthus, and that the British Islands are by no means now full of people; and that certain economical arrangements, such as the cultivation of waste. lands and substitution of steam or water conveyance for the services of draft cattle, would render our country, for ages yet to come, capable of containing and feeding more inhabitants by several millions than it now supports. Mr. Gaskell takes nearly the same ground, calling upon us to wait till it has been proved that we are overpeopled, before we begin to prepare for colonization. The fact of a great increase in our population has been long since proved to our satisfaction, by parliamentary returns; we are therefore somewhat surprised at the course of argument which these gentlemen have taken; and recollecting how much, with them, the want of adequate employment for the labouring classes had been a subject of complaint, we feel surprised at their demurring to the present discussion of plans of beneficial

colonization, which would unquestionably, by diminishing the disposable surplus of labourers, raise their value in the labour market.

If we consider that the boundaries of our country are fixed by the immutable laws of Providence; that population swarms around us in all directions, and that manual labour is, as we all know, at a discount, what need have we of further evidence?

The existence of a surplus of ablebodied unemployed labourers is the only fact which we need consider; and being satisfied as to this fact, colonization, whereby a man who was a virtuous pauper in England, may in a few years become the proprietor of a farm in one of the colonies, offers itself for our relief.

Happily for us, our present state of international peace, affords both the means and the opportunity for extending colonization; and we trust that it will be so wisely conducted as not only to extend our connexions, but add to our influence in all other parts of the world, with which our common language and literature, as well as many natural ties, will be a permanent bond of union.

On the subject of Education, the only other point noticed in these tracts, we must for the present postpone our remarks; merely observing that, although it was not one of the professed objects of the new Poor Law to provide for general education, we have seen nothing in that law which is unfriendly to it: but that, the more the subject is examined, a strictly national education is found to be a question of considerable difficulty. T. F.

GENT. MAG. VOL. IV.

2 Z