II. A SOCIAL ISSUE
3. Social and Educational Reformation
Warwick, in the Midlands, where poor children could be freely treated and lodged45. Gradually, science and medicine progressed: anesthesia and rabies vaccine were discovered; psychology studies developed; maternity ward were built; more and more children hospitals were built. In 1851, doctor Charles West, and surgeon and physician to the Queen Victoria William Jenner founded an hospital dedicated to the children of the poor, in London: the London Hospital for Sick Children. The Queen offered her patronage. About a decade after the hospital opened, physician and writer Henry Morley wrote an article for Charles Dickens' weekly magazine, All the Year Round. In that article, he asserts the result of his inquiry on Charles West and William Jenner's hospital.
He points out that:: “so much good and wholesome work on behalf of childhood has been connected with the London Children's Hospital, since we first made its acquaintance, that we hardly know where to begin another report upon it.46” Here, Henry Morley's commentary was pertinent. Indeed, children's health-care tended to be improved in Victorian society. However, at the beginning of the period, young disabled workers, if not dead, bore the striking marks of the suffering from a sad childhood. Thus, after hardest days, weeks, or years spent in the dangerous mines and factories, their teenage and adult life was affected by deep misery and strong illiteracy.
Doctor's involvement in working children's care highly contributed to the vote of the parliamentary acts between 1802 and 1878, improving children's working conditions, and consequently limiting the consequences which resulted of that over-exploitation47. Yet, doctors were not alone to point out necessary social changes.
Indeed, a growing number of politicians and factory owners began to think that the situation needed to be reformed, to overcome social problems. They were called 'social reformers'. Consequently, we could wonder now who were these social reformers and what social reforms did they try to set up.
life of working-class children. When the party came back to office, the Parliament granted a real importance to the worries of the most involved social reformers. Surprisingly, most of these reformers belonged to the Tory party. However, if the majority of them were revolutionary, Karl Marx and Sir Lord Ashley included, others did not advocated extremist ideas. Such was the case for example, of Robert Owen. Furthermore, social reformers did not appear for the first time in the 1830's. Indeed, mainly motivated by their religion, they started to be involved in the child labour issue early in the century. The first factory Bill was introduced by the politician Sir Robert Peel, already mentioned in previous chapters. As we already know, he proposed a reformation of the apprentices' working conditions and education to the House of Commons. That reform was based on doctor Percival's research, and took place after the fever epidemic in Robert Peel's cotton mill. The reformation request was analyzed several years after, in 1802 and resulted in the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act. The act imposed new sanitary clauses, a decrease in the length of the day work, and the obligation for all children to receive an education.
Indeed, the workshop's ceilings and floors had to be whitewashed a least twice a year; ventilation system might be ameliorated; girls and boys were not allowed to sleep in the same dormitories, and an adequate number of bed was required. Moreover, children had to learn to read, to write and to add up. That reformation seemed to be a big social progress. Yet, the possibilities that it was effective were very low. The factory owners were not ready to enforce such modifications, and the justices of the peace, led by the Tory party during that period, did not provided the necessary number of inspectors, known as visitors, to control the potential law breakers. In his report about the British factories legislation, German historian Ernst Freilherr Von Plener underlines this idea, explaining that “this law, which to this day has not been formally repealed, has in a great measure proved inoperative through want of the necessary provisions for carrying it into effect, and owing also to the still undetermined state of the new manufacturing system.48” Robert Peel himself was disappointed and felt powerless in front of the situation.
Desperate, he asked the government for a reinforcement of the act, but with no success49. Later, other social reformers started to think about child labour matter and suggested new proposals to complete that first act. In 1815, Robert Owen, a reformer from New Lanark and a mill owner proposed to the House of Commons a revised version of Robert Peel's Apprentices Act. In 1819 was voted the Cotton Mills and Factory Act. It fixed a minimum legal working age to nine-year-old, and covered all children working in the cotton industry. The day work was also reduced to twelve hour for children under sixteen-year-old. Here again, for the same reasons than for the previous try, the law was inoperative. Nonetheless, the vote of these two laws was a major advancement in the regulation of child labour, since for the first time the consequences of the Industrial Revolution on the working children were highlighted in a political decision. The principle of the laws was to take care of these children who
48 Von Plener, Ernst Freihrr. The English Factory Legislation, from 1802 to the Present Time, London:Chapman and Hall, 1973, p.3. Print.
49 Folhen, Claude, and Bédarida François, Histoire Générale du Travail, Paris: Nouvelle Librairie de France, 1976, p.44. Print.
PRADON Fanette | Child Labor – The children of a Revolution
could not take care of themselves. Robert Owen was not a common social reformer. He has been considered as the
“founder of the infant childcare in Great Britain50”, considering his high involvement on the improvement of children and women's working conditions. He was also famous for his good treatment and humanity while he managed the New-Lanark Mills. Indeed, Robert Owen thought that to treat respectably and decently an employee led him to work harder and better. Therefore, that would increase the benefits of the factory. It is said as well that
“he refused to employ young persons of under ten-year-old. He shortened hours of work, provided for adult and child education, improved the environment and still was financially successful.51” However, if his social efforts were well received by the House of Commons, the House of Lords judged it totally effete. According to English historian Henry Waldron, Robert Owen's influence on English political life turned to be limited by “his professed atheism and socialism, which were wholly unacceptable to his manufacturing colleagues.52” That ideological gap between the reformer and some of the factory owners could also explain the inefficiency of the 1819 Cotton mills and Factory Act. Thereafter, Robert Owen emigrated to the United States, in Indiana, then to Naples, in Italy.
Other social reformers tried to improve their employees' working conditions. Such was the aim of Samuel Oldknow, a great manufacturer from Lancashire. He provided housing, food, milk and clothes to the employees of his weaving factory. Being a religious man, Samuel Oldknow made rebuilt a decaying church in Marple, in 1826, were the child labourers could attend to church and class.
Social reformers ideology started to be really supported by the government in the 1830's. In that very year, the reformer Richard Oastler, Tory- radical from the Yorkshire, wrote a letter to the Leeds Mercury newspaper, in which he exposed the cruelty of the English factory system. He claimed that “long hours, wretched conditions and cruel exploitation, especially of children, had reduced factory workers to a state of slavery, more horrid than the victim of that hellish system 'colonial slavery'.53” We could suppose here that Richard Oastler created a parallel between slavery and factory work to highlight the importance of reforming the regime.
Unfortunately, the parliament did not answer his provocation. However, two years later, Evangelical reformer Michael Sadler, a Tory member of Parliament from Leeds, and Richard Oastler's friend, created his committee investigating on the adults and children's working conditions in factories, gathering testimonies, mostly from children and women. The publication of the committee report deeply shocked public opinion as people discovered the horror of the workplaces and the overseers' inhumanity. Although highly contested by factory owners, that
50 Shook, John. Dictionary of Early American Philosophers, New-York:Bloomsbury editions, 2012, P.794.
Print.
51 Waldron, Henry. Occupational Health Practice, London : Butterworth and Heinneman editions, 1989, p.6. Print.
52 Waldron, Henry. Occupational Health Practice, London : Butterworth and Heinneman editions, 1989, p.6. Print.
53 Roberts, Matthew. Political Movement in Urban England, 1832-1914, London: Palgrave MacMillan Editions, 2008, p.30 Print.
PRADON Fanette | Child Labor – The children of a Revolution
report opened the way to the realization of social reformers' ideal54. Michael Sadler based nonetheless the conclusion of his researches on concrete evidences such as medical reports. Indeed, when introducing his draft bill to the House of Commons, he explained himself in his speech: “I hold in my hand a treatise by a medical gentleman of great intelligence, Mr Tackrah of Leeds.55” However, one year had passed before the House of Commons dared really focus on the matter, and voted the first effective law regulating child labour, the Factory Act of 1833. That act was the starting point of strict working regulations, as well as of a public recognition of the reformer's struggle.
b. The Social Turning Point of the 1830's.
The Factory Act had its origins in the reformist ideology. Indeed, in 1832, the Evangelical and Tory, Lord Ashley, Earl of Shaftesbury became the leader of the reformist movement in the Parliament. Numerous campaign were organized to advocate child labour reformation. As we explained earlier, measures were finally taken in 1833. Children's working conditions were largely improved, and they could now think of a more cheerful future.
Indeed, the law empowered national inspectors with a free entry into the factories what significantly reduced the number of law breakers. Furthermore, these ones got the right to arrive unannounced in the workplaces and Factory Inspectorate was created. That time again, children under nine were not allowed to work. The time of work was limited to 68 hours a week for children under sixteen. Children between nine and thirteen-year-old were obliged to receive a part-time education. Although the Factory Act of 1833 was important because it was the first ever enforced.56 Following its success, social reformers supported the vote of four other Acts. There were Robert Peel's Mines Act in 1842, Graham's Factory Act in 1844 which provided birth certificate to children after a surgeon approbation, John Fielden's then Hours Act in 1847, which established a day length of ten hours for all the workers, and finally the Factory and Workshops Consolidation Act of 1878. That last one used the same working regulations than the previous acts, but covered all kind of factories and workshops, not only the textile industry.
Moreover, their timetables were adapted to their age, including time for playing and learning. Therefore, it seemed that in the second part of the century, children stopped being considered as commodities for employers and masters. They progressively became young individuals.
That succession of social reformations during the nineteenth century totally disrupted the working organization within the different industries. It obviously brought positive changes since children were treated more decently than on the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Their health and mental conditions could be
54 Bernstein, Andrew. The Capitalist Manifesto, New-York : University Press of America, 2005, p. 58.Print.
55 Waldron, Henry. Occupational Health Practice, London: Butterworth and Heinneman editions, 1989, p.7. Print.
56 Folhen, Claude, and Bédarida François, Histoire Générale du Travail, Paris: Nouvelle Librairie de France, 1976, p.44-45. Print.
PRADON Fanette | Child Labor – The children of a Revolution
preserved from the debilitating and dangerous jobs in factories and mines. However, their future still remained unpredictable. Indeed, historians agree on the purpose. Disruption resulted in the arrival of a new social problem.
The clauses progressively included in the Factory Acts had let employers to face more and more constraints of employment when they dealt with young workers. Therefore, they started to hire women instead of free-labour children, as they were less expensive than men, were allowed to perform more tasks than children, and for a longer time. Consequently, numerous children lost their jobs or struggled to find one. As for orphaned children, or those whose parents could not support them, they were given up to street misery. A lot of them, destitute yet in good health tried to overcome poverty begging or stealing. Others became child prostitutes or vagrants. The law considered these children as juvenile offenders. Although juvenile delinquency existed long before the nineteenth century in England, it appeared that the children's crime rate considerably increased, from the 1820's to the 1850's.
According to English physician Peter Gaskell, in 1836: “The 'Factories Regulation Acts has caused many of these children to be dismissed, and has only increased the evils it was intended to remedy.57” Despite their praiseworthy intents, social reformers had to face an unfortunate phenomenon. In the early Victorian era, English society endured a time of social crisis. While researching on working-class's role during the industrialization of England, historian John Belchem discovered that during that period, “ there was an urgent need for a professional police force both to control politically motivated crowd disturbance and to contain juvenile delinquency -master less apprentices, orphans, under-employed youths and child prostitutes- all seemed to symbolize a breakdown in the order of the family, the parish and the workshop.58” Apparently, juvenile delinquency was not an isolated problem.
After the establishment of the industrial society, in which traditional working and living standards were left and replaced by new ones, people had lost their bearings and easily fell into delinquency. Thus, juvenile crime appeared in a contentious atmosphere, filled with social tensions and mass unemployment. In order to eradicate the problem of juvenile delinquency, partly generated by the creation of the Acts, social reformers decided to establish a new program of reforms, deeply involved in children's education. Indeed, as “an endangered child contained the possibility to become a criminal child, 59”they thought the best solution would be to involve children into a new educative system.
c. The Evolution of Educational Reformation
Although reformers had an eye on education from early in the century, it seemed that it became a decisive issue after the enactment of the Factory Act in 1833. Indeed, at the end of the eighteenth century, and the
57 Gaskell, Peter. Artisans and Machinery, the Moral and Phisical Conditions of the Manufacturing Population, London:John Parker, 1836, p.67.
58 Belchem, John. Industrialization and the Working Class : The English Experience, 1750- 1900, Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1990, ch.7, p.145. Print.
59 Flegel, Monica. Conceptualizing Cruelty to Children in Nineteenth Century England, Surrey : Ashgate Publishing, 2013,p.158
PRADON Fanette | Child Labor – The children of a Revolution
nineteenth century, the Church of England ran most of schools. There were Grammar Schools, Sunday Schools, Blue Coat Schools, Dame Schools and Industrial Schools, dedicated to prepare children to endure the factory environment, and for them to acquire the basis of religious education. However, in the 1830's, the situation differed and the need of a new system of education in England became obvious. As underlines John Belchem,“
through a number of institutions- penitentiary prisons, union workhouses, juvenile reformatories, industrial schools and the like- reformers sought to isolate the deviant dangerous classes[...]to promote an effective education of their children, and to shelter them from corrupting agencies.60” In 1838, the government started to investigate the teaching methods in schools. Social reformers and educationists advocated for a national system of free compulsory education. In 1839, public education was placed in the hands of the Privy Council for Education.
The appointed secretary was educationalists and politician James Kay-Shuttleworth. Historians agree to say that he took responsibility for working-class children, in order to “raise a new race of working people: respectful, cheerful, hard-working, loyal, pacific and religious.61” Henceforth, schools were controlled by commissioners and inspectors of factories, in charge of reporting every dysfunction in the various establishments. The most famous of them was Scottish, educational reformer Leonard Horner. In 1833, he was appointed inspector of factories and held that post for twenty-six years. While inspecting schools in Manchester, Leonard Horner noticed the variety of educational situations. Indeed, he made really positive reports on factories' schools such as the one of the MacConnel and Kennedy spinning factory. Yet, while controlling other industrial schools in the town, the same day, he denounced appalling teaching conditions. In one of them, he observed that the classroom was situated in the boiler room, the books were blackened by coal, and the teacher was one of the overseers62. Thanks to this kind of report, measures had been taken to establish a more stable educational system. Therefore, for the first time, in 1833, the state provided funds to elementary education. An annual grant of £20,000 was offered to religious voluntary societies to provide weekly education to working-class children and apprentices. The aim of that donation was double. It enforced the education clause included in the Factory Act of 1833, as it gave a financial opportunity to hire more teachers, and inspectors. Furthermore, it brought the possibility of a reinforced control on juvenile offenders, who, in exchange, benefited of a schooling. In 1839 the State's grant increased to £30,000 and contributed to reinforce the Privy Council for Education's Inquiry. Five years later the Factory Act of 1844 was voted, allowing inspectors to disqualify inefficient teachers. Yet, it seemed that the spread of a national education among working-class children faced social barriers. Indeed, that same year, reformers and educationists had demanded the Parliament to establish a secularization of schooling. But with no success, considering the variety of
60 Belchem, John. Industrialization and the Working Class : The English Experience, 1750- 1900, Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1990, ch.7, p.145-147. Print.
61 Belchem, John. Industrialization and the Working Class : The English Experience, 1750- 1900, Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1990, ch.7, p.145-146. Print.
62 Folhen, Claude, and Bédarida François, Histoire Générale du Travail, Paris: Nouvelle Librairie de France, 1976, p.45. Print.
PRADON Fanette | Child Labor – The children of a Revolution
religious denominations. Economist Friedrich Engels accused the different religious 'sects' of abusing the schooling system to transmit to children and young workers their religious beliefs. He explained: “The minister is the obedient servant of the bourgeoisie, and the bourgeoisie is divided into countless sects; but each would gladly grant the worker the otherwise dangerous education on the sole condition of their accepting the dogmas peculiar to the especial sect in question.” Furthermore, to that explanation he added that conclusion: “As these sects are still quarreling among themselves for supremacy, the workers remain for the present without education.63”The conclusion of the economist could draw our attention on the illiteracy in the country, during the Victorian period.
Schooling in the remotest rural areas had remained unsatisfactory along the century. However, as opposed to Friedrich Engels' point of view, education concerned more and more children in urban areas, and especially boys.
In the South Midlands counties, historians report that “in 1855, 79 per cent of pupils in inspected schools in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Middlesex were aged ten or less: an increase of 13% since 1843. Up to the age of ten more boys than girls attended school in these industrial districts.64” In the Midlands counties, the new educational system was not totally popularized. Historian Christopher Stephens explains that
“by the late 1860's there is every reason to believe that only universal compulsory education could meet the needs of the midlands.65” In Western counties, “the Cornish were seen as a shrewed intelligent race of people not unwilling to avail themselves of a good education for their children. But they, too, took them from school as soon as they could earn in the mines.66” Indeed, in 1852, of 150 miners who could read, half of it learned at evening school, an the rest learned by themselves.
Despite the difficulties of establishing an educational reformation, English children was progressively involved in schooling. The last and decisive Act was passed in 1870. It was the Elementary Education Act, more commonly known as the Forster's Act, because of its drafter, William Forster, a liberal Member of Parliament. It made compulsory schooling for all children between five and thirteen-year-old, whether they came from the lower or upper classes. Moreover, the annual grant provided by the government raised £895,000. However, the Act laboriously passed as numerous people opposed to it. Indeed, it seems that the upper and middle-class population feared that education would lead working-class people to think of their appalling living standards and revolt. John Belchem underlines it, claiming that “ some conservatives critics feared the revolutionary consequences of popular
63 Engels, Friedrich. The Conditions of the Working-class in England, in McLellan, David, Friedrich Engels, London: Penguin Books, 1977, p 186.Print.
64 Stephens, Christopher. Education, Literacy and Society, 1830-70, Manchester : Manchester University Press, 1989, p.175. Print.
65 Stephens, Christopher. Education, Literacy and Society, 1830-70, Manchester : Manchester University Pres, 1989, p.161. Print.
66 Stephens, Christopher. Education, Literacy and Society, 1830-70, Manchester : Manchester University Pres, 1989, p.225. Print.
PRADON Fanette | Child Labor – The children of a Revolution