of torture inflicted on children not daring to resist, but in this tender age one is not allowed to harrow even the feelings of a reader. Yet we may perhaps be allowed to quote one more example from a speech of Richard Oastler's1: "I will not picture fiction to you," this brave reformer said, in the early days of the factory movement, "but I will tell you what I have seen. Take a little female captive, six or seven years old; she shall rise from her bed at four in the morning of a cold winter day, but before she rises she wakes perhaps half-a-dozen times, and says, Father, is it time? Father, is it time? And at last, when she gets up and puts her little bits of rags upon her weary limbsweary yet with the last day's work-she leaves her parents in their bed, for their labour (if they have any) is not required so early. She trudges alone through rain and snow, and mire and darkness, to the mill, and there for 13, 14, 16, 17, or even 18 hours is she obliged to work with only thirty minutes' interval for meals and play. Homeward again at night she would go, when she was able, but many a time she hid herself in the wool in the mill, as she had not strength to go. And if she were one moment behind the appointed time; if the bell had ceased to ring when she arrived with trembling, shivering, weary limbs at the factory door, there stood a monster in human form, and as she passed he lashed her. This," he continued, holding up an overlooker's strap, "is no fiction. It was hard at work in this town last week. The girl I am speaking of died; but she dragged on that dreadful existence for several years." Such was the terrible nature of the evidence taken before the Sadler Committee of 1833; but even yet it was found impossible, for various reasons, to get a Bill passed. The Government appointed yet another Committee, which, however, reported so strongly in favour of legislation, that at length something had to be done. The result was the famous Act of 1833. 1 Speech at Huddersfield, Dec. 26, 1831, quoted in Alfred's History, i, 226. 2 Cf. Taylor, Factory System and Factory Acts (1894), p. 74, § 231. The Various Factory Acts. But to gain a complete survey of Factory Legislation we must go back a few years. After the Act of 1802, already referred to, for improving the condition of apprentices, an Act for the regulation of work in cotton mills was passed in 1819, allowing no child to be admitted into a factory before the age of nine, and placing 12 hours a day as the limit of work for those between the ages of nine and sixteen. The day was really one of 13 or 14 hours, because no meal-times were included in the working day. Then, again, in 1831 an Act 2 was passed forbidding nightwork in factories for persons between nine and twenty-one years of age, while the working day for persons under eighteen was to be 12 hours a day, and 9 hours on Saturdays. But this legislation only applied to cotton factories; those engaged in the manufacture of wool were quite untouched, and matters there were as bad as ever. But a spirit of agitation was fortunately abroad in the country. These were the days of the Reform Bill and of the rise of Trades Unions. The workmen cried out for the restriction of non-adult labour to 10 hours a day, and the Conservative party, who were chiefly interested in the land and not in the mills, supported them readily against the manufacturers, who were mainly Liberals and Radicals. The long struggle against factory slavery was at last successful, and one of the most important Acts to prevent it was passed. The Act of 1833, introduced by Lord Shaftesbury, prohibited night-work to persons under eighteen in both cotton, wool, and other factories; children from nine to thirteen years of age were not to work more than 48 hours a week, and young persons from thirteen to eighteen years were to work only 68 hours. Provision was also made for the children's attendance at school, and for the appointment of factory inspectors. Children under nine years of age were not to be employed at all. These restrictions in the employment of children led to a great 3 1 The 59 Geo. III., c. 66. 2 The 1 and 2 William IV., c. 39. 3 Cf. Toynbee, Industrial Revolution, pp. 208, 209, 215. 4 The 3 and 4 William IV., c. 103. 3 increase in the use of improved machinery to make up for the loss of their labour, and it is probable that they accelerated the use of steam instead of water power in the smaller and more old-fashioned mills, where also the worst abuses in children's employment had chiefly prevailed.1 Then, after one or two minor Acts, the famous Ten Hours' Bill was passed in 1847, which reduced the labour of women and young persons to 10 hours a day, the legal day being between 5.30 A.M. and 8.30 P.M. Manufacturers tried to avoid the provisions of this Bill by working persons thus protected in relays, and making elaborate regulations to nullify the law, but this was stopped by the fixing of a uniform working day in 1850, so that young persons and women could only work between the hours of 6 A.M. and 6 P.M., and on Saturdays only till 2 P.M.5 Since the passing of these Acts many much-needed extensions of their provisions to other industries have been made, especially in 1864, and in 1874 the minimum age at which a child could be admitted to a factory was fixed at ten years." The limitation of the labour of women and young persons necessarily involved the limitation of men's labour, because their work could not be done without female aid. Thus the Ten Hours' Day fortunately became universal in factories. § 232. How these Acts were Passed. It is curious to notice how these Acts were passed. They all showed the steady advance of the principle of State interference with labour, a doctrine most distasteful to the old Ricardian school of economists, even when that interference was made in the interests of the physical and moral well-being, not only of the industrial classes, but of the community at large. Hence the economists of the day 1 Cf. Cunningham, Growth of Industry, ii. pp. 626, 627. 2 The 7 Victoria, c. 15; 8 and 9 Vic., c. 29; and others; see Taylor, Factory System and Factory Acts (1894), ch. iv. 3 The 10 Vic., c. 29, and cf. Taylor, ib., pp. 88, 89. Cf. Taylor, u. 8., pp. 89 and 78. 7 The 37 and 38 Victoria, c. 44. 5 The 13 and 14 Victoria, c. 54. cf. Taylor, u. 8., p. 95. 8 Cf. Taylor, Factory Acts, p. 107, It aided the manufacturers in opposing these Acts to the utmost of their power, and the laws passed were due to the action of the Tories and landowners.1 Lord Shaftesbury, Fielden, Oastler, and Sadler were all Tories, though they were accused of being Socialists. They were supported by the landed gentry, partly out of genuine sympathy with the oppressed, and partly out of opposition to the rival manufacturing interest. 2 But the millowners had their revenge afterwards when they helped to repeal the Corn Laws, in spite of the protest of the landlords, who did not mind the workmen having shorter hours at other people's expense, but objected to their having cheap bread at their own. has been remarked by an economist, who does not hesitate to point out the virtues as well as the vices of the landowners, that, where their own interests were not touched, they tried to use their power for the good of the people. The remark is so true that it is almost a truism. Most men are benevolent as long as benevolence costs them nothing. The working classes, however, seem to have a suspicion that each political party is their friend only in so far as they can injure their opponents, or at least do no harm to themselves. The Manchester School of Radical Economists bitterly opposed the Factory Acts, and John Bright especially distinguished himself (February 10, 1847) by his violent denunciation of the Ten Hours' Bill, which he characterised as "one of the worst measures ever passed in the shape of an Act of the legislature." But when we look back upon the degradation and oppression from which the industrial classes were rescued by this agitation, we can understand why Arnold Toynbee said so earnestly: "I tremble to think what this country would have been but for the Factory Acts." 5 They form one of the most interesting pages in the history of industry, for they show how fearful may be the results of a purely capitalist and com1 Toynbee, Industrial Revolution, p. 214. 4 2 Ib. 3 Toynbee, Industrial Revolution (Are Radicals Socialists ?), p. 215. As John Bright was always looked upon as "the people's friend," it may be well to observe that this extraordinary utterance is to be found in the records of Hansard, Third Series, Volume LXXXIX., p. 1148. 5 Industrial Revolution, p. 215. petitive industrial system, unless the wage-earners are in a position to place an effectual check upon the greed of an unscrupulous employer. It may be thought that too large a space has been devoted to them in this chapter, but when we consider the enormous and profound influence which the Factory System has had upon the life of the nation, it must be acknowledged that no outline of industrial history would be at all adequate that does not include a very marked reference both to the system itself and the Acts which now regulate it. The factory has so completely revolutionised the methods of industry in the last hundred years, and has thereby so completely altered the social and industrial life of the majority of the workers in this nation, that it is practically impossible to overestimate its importance as a feature in the national life. How far it has operated for good or for ill must be left to the historians of the future; but no one who has lived for any length of time (as the writer has done) amid the centres of a large manufacturing population, can fail to regard with considerable uneasiness the peculiar developments of life and character which this system has called forth. It has been acutely, if somewhat gloomily, remarked1 that human progress is after all only a surplus of advantages over disadvantages, and that being so, one must attempt to regard the various disquieting features of the Industrial Revolution with philosophic equanimity. Its advantages have been great, but its drawbacks are great also, and the greatest drawback of all is probably to be found in the concentration of population in large towns, where the mill hand spends his life amid surroundings of repulsive ugliness, and engaged in an occupation of wearisome monotony. The fact that he has grown to like both his occupation and his surroundings is possibly a matter for even greater concern. But whatever we may think of the effects of the factory system, they form a striking example of the truth that the history of mankind is to be found written in the history of its tools, for there are few factors in modern English history more important than the inventions of the Industrial Revolution. 1 Lecky, History of the Eighteenth Century, vi. 220. |