III. A LONG ROAD TOWARDS ABOLITION
1. An Obvious Factor of Economic Progress
a. The Beginning of Child Labour Decline in Industries.
During the Victorian era, the use of children in industries and mines had been at its height, while the upper and middle-classes enjoyed the economic glory of the Industrial Revolution. Despite the establishment of a strict regulation of children's working conditions, and of compulsory schooling, the abolitionist ideology only started to appear at the end of the century. Although numerous people struggled against cruelty and over- exploitation of English children, the exclusion of young labourers from the workplaces was a progressive phenomenon. Indeed, the Mine and Factory acts voted along the century and supported by the reformism movement led to a decrease in child labour, but it did not ban it. Moreover, the contribution of these children to the growing industrial society had been so striking, that a direct abolition could not be possible without breaking the standards of the industrial organization of work. British writer Alison Watson asserts that“the use of child labour during Britain's industrialization was widespread, economically important, and largely unquestioned morally.1” Thus, it was not easy to develop a kind and paternalistic behaviour towards working-class children, in a society economically marked by child labour and industrialization. Opponents to that abolition were as numerous as those in favour of it.
Historians agree on the report of a decrease in child labour from the 1870's. Indeed, it seems that between 1871 and 1881, child labour in mines reduced by 34 per cent and the number of children employed in the textile industry reduced of 32 per cent. Moreover, thanks to the 1878 Factory Act which forbade the employment of children under fifteen in the textile industry, the majority of children were at least fifteen-year-old2. Therefore, the policy changes turned to be effective, as it contributed to the reduction of young workers employment. Apparently, that was not the only explanation. Historians sharply divide on the reasons which caused that decline. Several economic historians seem to point out the prosperity of the country. The economic growth brought a reduction of poverty, since the standard of living significantly improved at the end of the century. Consequently, children did not need to work to contribute to family's income. In 1900, American economist Clark Nardinelli explained the decline” in children's participation in factory work not by legislative changes, but by rising male real earnings
1 Watson, Alison. An Introduction to International Political Economy, London : A and C Black, 2004, p.137. Print.
2 Booth, Charles. On the Occupations of the People of the United Kingdom,1801-1881. Web p.314.
Economic history.net, 26 June 2015. Web.
PRADON Fanette | Child Labor – The children of a Revolution
which allowed fathers to purchase leisure time for their children.3” Nine years later, English professor of history Michael Lavalette explained in his book, A Thing of the Past, that “increased adult male wages meant there was less need for children's wages and working-class families could thereby invest in their children and their education, protecting them from exploitative labour.4” In 2001, economic historian Lawrence Reed drew the same conclusion: “Child labor was virtually eliminated when, for the first time in history, the productivity of parents in free labor markets rose to the point that it was no longer economically necessary for children to work.5” Therefore, we can notice that the economic context largely impacted children's life. According to these observers, if many families lived again beneath the poverty line, finally, most of children no longer needed to go to work. However, demographers finds out that the proportion of people living in poverty remained extremely important. In 1899, Henry Isaac Rowntree, a writer and business man from York claimed that in that city, the proportion of inhabitants living in misery reached 28 per cent.6 Two years later, Charles Booth estimated that at the turn of the century, 31 per cent of the population in London was pauper7. Therefore, considering that misery persisted in the lower- classes, we could imagine that an increase in wages and an improvement of the standard of living were not the only phenomenons at the origin of the reduction of child labour. Perhaps that decline was not engendered by the vote of new legislations, but by the industrial progress itself. Thereby, it would be pertinent now to wonder why at the end of the century, children did not find jobs as easily as previously in factories and mines.
b. The Economic Reasons of Child Labour Abolition in Industries.
At the turn of the twentieth century, English industries continued to progress. New technologies supplanted children's work. In the textile industry, revolutionary machines were created. Indeed, in 1891, the English inventor James Henry Northrop invented a major machine: the fully automatic loom. The Northrop loom replaced the semi-automatic Lancashire loom, invented by James Bullough and William Kenworthy in 1842.
Children were no longer needed to repair broken threads while the machine was working. In fact, the loom stopped immediately when a thread broke. Therefore, adults could perform the task, even if deprived of child dexterity. Moreover, the mechanism created by James Henry Northrop made the loom replacing automatically the
3 Janssens, Angelique. The rise and Decline of the Meale Breadwinner Family. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.56. Print.
4 Lavalette Michael. A Thing of the Past : Child Labour in the Ninetieenth and Twentieeth Century, Liverpool : Liverpool Universtiry Press, 1999, p. 137. Print.
5 Reed, Lawrence. Child Labor and the British Industrial Revolution, 7. dec. 2001, web magazine of The Educational Institute Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michigan, 11 June 2015. Web.
6 Fitzgerald, Robert. Rowntree and the Marketing Revolution, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 198. Print.
7 Englander, Dand. Mr Charles Booth's Inquiry : Life and Labour of the People in London, London : A and C Black, 1992, p. 128. Print.
PRADON Fanette | Child Labor – The children of a Revolution
empty pirns by new ones. Thus, without contesting the great economic contribution of child workers during the nineteenth century, we noticed that by 1880, piecers and scavengers massively disappeared from the textile industry. Right from the 1830's, politicians and economists claimed the impact of these children on the British economy. In 1833, the British politician and journalist William Cobbett developed this argument in a speech addressed to the Parliament. He declared: “all our greatness and prosperity, our superiority over other nations, is owing to 300,000 little girls in Lancashire. If these little girls work two hours less in a day than they do now, it would occasion the ruin of the country.8” William Cobbett feared that the ruin would come from a possible decrease in child labour, which would “enable other nations to compete with [England], and thus make an end to [the English people's] boasted wealth.9” In 1833, members of Parliament did not imagine that progress could positively impact child labour. Economists neither. Indeed, English economist David Ricardo and German economist Karl Marx were both the preachers of a dire future for the capitalist English nation. Karl Marx thought that the always growing progress would lead to an infinite accumulation of wealth by the upper-class, and would improve the gap between poor and rich. According to the economist, an increase of that gap could bring the English nation to a social revolution10. As we saw earlier, progress obviously generated child labour, as small and cheap workforce was needed to operate the machines in that new factory system. In 1848, Karl Marx wrote with his friend Friedrich Engels a manifesto in which they explained the misdemeanor of the capitalist system on children. They claimed that “in so far as machinery dispenses with muscular power, it becomes a means of employing labourers of slight muscular strength, and those whose bodily development is incomplete. The labour of women and children was, therefore, the first thing sought for by capitalists who used machinery.11” As shows this quote, Karl Marx did not imagine that progress could help abolishing child labour. Yet, at the end of the century, new machines in the textile industry mainly replaced the young worker's skills and increased factories' productivity. For instance, English Professor of Entrepreneurship Mary Rose explains in her research that the Northrop loom “doubled and trebled the productivity of weavers.12” Consequently, to answer the high demand in manufactured good, manufacturers did not need to hire cheap workforce. That new capitalist system could be largely supported by efficient technological advances. American historian Aviva Chomsky highlights that argument, explaining that “ the drive to lower costs is an inherent aspect of the capitalist system of production, and technological development and automation are inherent aspects of industrialization.13” To that deduction, Aviva Chomsky adds a description of the Northrop loom's efficiency. She says: “ to compete successfully, textile
8 Robson, Catherine. Men in Wonderland : The Lost Girlhood of the Victorian Gentlemen, Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2001, p.60. Print.
9 Robson, Catherine. Men in Wonderland : The Lost Girlhood of the Victorian Gentlemen, Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2001, p.60. Print.
10 Piketty, Thomas. Le Capital au XXI eme Siècle, Paris : Editions du Seuil, 2013, p.22. Print.
11 Marx, Karl. The Essential Karl Marx, New-York : Courier Corporation, 2013, p.129. Print.
12 Rose, Mary. International Competition and Strategic Response in the Textile Industries Since 1870, London : Routledge, 2013, p.155. Print.
PRADON Fanette | Child Labor – The children of a Revolution
factories must reduce the cost of labor, and the Northrop loom was the way to do it.14” Thus, at the end of the century, the role that played children in the textile industry proved to be largely diminished.
Concerning the mining industry, in the 1900's, child labour declined mainly thanks to legislation who forbade boys and girls under thirteen to work underground. That was stated in the Mines Act, voted by the Parliament in 1900. More than 3500 children were concerned by the reform15. Moreover, at the end of the century was made compulsory the settlement of at least two air ducts per mine. Thereby, the work of trapper vanished from the mining environment. However, at the death of Queen Victoria, in 1901, children aged above thirteen- year-old were still employed in mines. In 1920 was introduced a new law forbidding children under fourteen to work. However, the interdiction of work for the children aged under sixteen only appeared several decades later16. The reason of a late decline of child labourers in mines could be explained by the still growing demand of coal in England, as railways expanded, and steam engines continued to spread in the different industries.
In the agricultural sector, new machines started to replace children's work in the fields. Children were slowly relegated to simple tasks such as cattle feeding. Indeed, with the advent of steam tractors, boys did not need to drive horses as the machine substituted the animals. Although engines remained expensive, their efficiency overpassed their price. English historian Joan Thirsk explains in her inquiry that “a steam tractor cost more than twice as much as the four horses it replaced, but operating costs were much lower. With journey distances around 20 miles farmers with large loads of over two tons obtained the greatest benefits from this method.17” Farmers understood than in the long term, machines were more profitable than children. They did not need to pay them for driving horses, and they did not have to feed and shoe animals. Children sowing crops in the fields also knew difficulties to find a job because of the invention of the press drill, sowing automatically the grains. Therefore, the evolution of technology in the late nineteenth century England had a great impact on child labour. These inventions, largely contributed to the growing economy of the country and therefore took part in child labour decline. Therefore, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' forecast did not happen. Furthermore, the following English expression exactly highlights the economic situation of the country at that time: “growth is a rising tide that lifts all boats.18” If the English capitalist society had previously highly exploited children for their low costs and their
13 Chomsky, Aviva. Links Labor Histories, Durham, North Carolina : Duke University Press, 2008, p.17.
Print.
14 Chomsky, Aviva. Linkes Labor Histories, Durham, North Carolina : Duke University Press, 2008, p.17.
Print.
15 Alford, Charles John. Mining Law of the British Empire, New-York : Griffin editions, 1926, p.290. Print.
16 Scaife, Michael. History : Modern British and European, London : Letts and Losdale, 2004, p.40.Print.
17 Thirsk, Joan. The Agrarian History of England and Wales, Volume 7, Part 2, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1967, p. 969. Print.
18 Piketty, Thomas. Le Capital au XXI eme Siècle, Paris : Editions du Seuil, 2013, p.30. Print.
PRADON Fanette | Child Labor – The children of a Revolution
efficient skills, it seems that, at the turn of the nineteenth century, that same capitalist society found a more profitable workforce. That was the machines.
Another aspect of child labour abolition had been highlighted by historians. That is educational progress.
At the end of the century were added two more amendments to the Foster Act of 1870. In 1991, the school was finally compulsory, and free. Thereby, education could also constitute a reason why child labour reduced during that period. Indeed, children did not go to work, but to school. Historians Kerry Carrington and Margaret Pereira highlight that idea in their researches. They explain that “compulsory schooling had a significant effect on reducing child labour, increasing the age at which children entered the workforce and structuring the time of unemployed children.19” Thus, combined with technological development and economic growth, it seems that educational progress and new legislations permitted to protect children against the harsh and dangerous world of work. However, that reduction of child labour had faced numerous opponents.
c. Economic Opponents to Child Labour Abolition.
In the nineteenth century, many were those who thought that children were a necessary and indispensable workforce in the growing industry. As soon as child labour regulation started to be effective, in 1833, protests appeared. Indeed, the first protest was about a reduction of working time. Several manufacturers opposed to a progressive idea of a regulation of hours for child labourers and apprentices. First, that opposition would come from the owners of small firms, since the new legislation prevented them from cutting prices, overworking young labourers. According to British professor and historian Bob Whitfield, for the smaller manufacturers, “shorter hours would undermine competitiveness and interfere with the free market in labour.20” The great majority of these manufacturers constituted the English prosperous middle-class, which had been widely enriched through the process of industrialization and the employment of children. Therefore, that new wealthy class feared to loose its supremacy over working-class people, who were at the origin of an increase in productivity. It would be interesting here to study the case of silk factory owner Samuel Courtauld, from Essex, as he was a striking example of a middle-class opponent to child labour. In the 1830's, he deeply opposed Factory Act and kept going on contesting child labour regulations afterwards. He stated that “legislative interference in the arrangement and conduct of business is always injurious, tending to check improvement and to increase the cost of production21” Mr. Courtauld was highly dependent on child female workers, as most of silk factory owners. Indeed, in the 1840's, ninety per cent of the workforce were women, and seventy per cent were girls under thirteen-year-old.
19 Carrington, Kerry and Pereira Margaret. Offending Youth : Sex, Crie, and Justice, Annandale : The Federation Press, 2009, p.8. Print.
20 Whitfield, Bob. The Extension of the Franchise, 1832-1931, London : Heinman editions, 2001, p.86.
Print.
21 Reuvid, Jonathan. Sustainable Entreprise, London : Kogan Page, 2006, p.121. Print.
PRADON Fanette | Child Labor – The children of a Revolution
According to Lou Taylor, writer and Professor of Textile History at the University of Brighton, Samuel Courtauld denied the possibility that these girls could have suffered from their work. Apparently, in his manufactures, children received an education, were sufficiently fed and got convenient clothes. We could notice that the manufacturer pointed out the good treatment they received in his mills to promote the social benefits and the necessity of child labour. In her book, Lou Taylor explains that “Samuel Courtauld claimed that work for child workers in his silk mills was light and that to limit child labour to ten hours a day was unnecessary.22” Moreover, he would have maintained that his behaviour was kindly to the girls who needed to earn money. He states that “the really painful task of a master is the daily necessity of refusing employment to numbers of famishing.23” We could suppose that in this quote, Samuel Courtauld hinted the fact that he was obviously economically dependent on child labour. Indeed, at the end of the century, the situation had changed. Since child labour was no longer allowed in the textile industry, the manufactures' production quickly declined. Therefore, he introduced new machinery that took the place of children and brought out a new line of cheap crape: the Bengali silk. The majority of the pieces were sold to working-class families, in which the mourning tradition was still strongly observed. During the nineteenth century, numerous middle-class people had shared Samuel Courtauld's ideology and had contested child labour abolition. We could quote the cotton manufacturer John Bright, John Marshall, a draper from Leeds, but also the teacher John Edward Taylor, from Somerset, and the English journalist Edward Baines Junior, who argued the idea that “factory labour is far less injurious than many of the most common employments of civilized life.24” He added that unhealthy working-class children “would sink under factory labour, as they would under any other kind of labour, or even without labour.” Contrarily to historians like Jane Humphries, John Belchem and the Hammonds, largely studied in chapter one, and like the economist Karl Marx, who was a fervent defendant of the social classes' struggle, Edward Baines Junior was not so disposed to denounce child workers' misery. In fact, he was not so pessimistic and exonerated employers of the children's natural difficulty of performing working tasks.
These opponents supported child labour, fearing to see English economic supremacy fall down if the employing cost would increase. However, we have to underline that in the last decades of the nineteenth century, England still held the first place on the international economic market, even if child workers contributed less to the employers' prosperity. Furthermore, thanks to social reformers, legislation and educational reformation prevented children from being over-exploited, while machines appeared to be a new profitable source of income for industrialists. Thus, in that new capitalist society, children appeared to be an obvious factor of economic progress, no longer as employees, but as consumers. Besides, child labour abolition did not happen in the economic sector only. That abolition was also a political issue.
22 Taylor, Lou. Mourning Dress, London : Routledge, 2009, p.118. Print.
23 Coleman, Donald. Cotaulds : An Economic and Social History, Volume 1, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1969, p.235. Print.
24 Baines, Edward. History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain, Cambridge : Cambridge university Press, 2015,p.454. Print.
PRADON Fanette | Child Labor – The children of a Revolution