Cotton Mills and Factories Act 1819

Last updated

Cotton Mills and Factories Act 1819
Act of Parliament
Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (1816-1837).svg
Citation 59 Geo. 3. c. 66
Introduced by Sir Robert Peel (Commons)
Other legislation
Repealed by Labour in Cotton Mills Act 1831
Status: Repealed

The Cotton Mills and Factories Act 1819 (59 Geo. 3. c. 66) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which was its first attempt to regulate the hours and conditions of work of children in the cotton industry. It was introduced by Sir Robert Peel, who had first introduced a bill on the matter in 1815. The 1815 bill had been instigated by Robert Owen, but the Act as passed was much weaker than the 1815 bill; the Act forbade the employment of children under 9; children aged 9–16 years were limited to 12 hours' work per day and could not work at night. [1] There was no effective means of its enforcement, but it established the precedent for Parliamentary intervention on conditions of employment which was followed by subsequent Factory Acts.

Contents

Background

The Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802 had been introduced by Sir Robert Peel to improve conditions for apprentices working in cotton mills. Peel was one of the richest millowners in England, and had become concerned at the poor health of child apprentices working in his mills (which he blamed on 'gross mismanagement' by his subordinates) and in cotton mills in general. Early mills had been water-powered, and hence sited where there was a useful fall of water, rather than where there was an available workforce. Child apprentices had been widely used as a cheap and captive workforce. [lower-alpha 1] The Act required that cotton mills and factories be properly ventilated and basic requirements on cleanliness be met. Apprentices in these premises were to be given a basic education and to attend a religious service at least once a month. They were to be provided with clothing and their working hours were limited to no more than twelve hours a day (excluding meal breaks); they were not to work at night. [2]

The Act was not effectively enforced, and did not address the working conditions of 'free children' (children working in mills who were not apprentices). Improvements in the generation of rotary motion by steam engines made steam-powered cotton mills a practical proposition; they were already operating in Manchester in 1795, using free children drawn from the local population. The great advantage parish apprentices had had was that they were tied to the mill, no matter how remote the mill had to be to avail itself of water power. If the mill no longer had to be remote, it became a problem that the mill was tied to the apprentices. Apprentices had to be housed clothed and fed whether or not the mill could sell what they produced; they were in competition with free children whose wages would fall if the mill went on short time ( and might not reflect the full cost of housing clothing and feeding them, since that was incurred whether they were working or not) [3] and who could be discharged if sick, injured or otherwise incapable of work. [4] :15–16 Consequently, the use of free children came to predominate: the Act became largely a dead letter within its limited scope, and inapplicable to most factory children. [5]

In 1819, a Lords Committee heard evidence from a Bolton magistrate who had investigated 29 local cotton mills; 20 had no apprentices but employed a total of 550 children under 14; the other nine mills employed a total of 98 apprentices, and a total of 350 children under 14. Apprentices were mostly found in the larger mills, which had somewhat better conditions; some even worked a 12-hour day or less (the Grant brothers' mill at Tottington worked an 11.5-hour day: "This establishment has perfect ventilation; all the apprentices, and in fact all the children, are healthy, happy, clean, and well clothed ; proper and daily attention is paid to their instruction ; and they regularly attend divine worship on Sundays."): in other mills children worked up to 15 hours a day in bad conditions (e.g. Gortons and Roberts' Elton mill: "Most filthy; no ventilation; the apprentices and other children ragged, puny, not half clothed, and seemingly not half fed; no instruction of any sort; no human beings can be more wretched"). [6]

In 1815, Robert Owen, owner of a prosperous mill at New Lanark approached Peel with a draft Bill to regulate the use of children in the textile industry. Peel agreed to steer the Bill through Parliament. [7] Owen's draft was given a First Reading late in the 1815 session (so that copies could be printed and sent out for consultation before the 1816 session; other bills were given similar 'advance notice' First Readings at the end of the 1815 session). In the 1816 session Peel chaired a Commons Committee collecting evidence intended to show the necessity for legislation. Peel did not bring forward a Bill in the 1817 session (because - he explained later [5] - he was ill; he certainly withdrew from business in January 1817 [8] ). In 1818 he did: the Bill got as far as the House of Lords, but lapsed when a General Election was called. In 1819, he again presented a Bill; the Lords felt it necessary to set up a Committee of their own to hear evidence on the issue; nonetheless in 1819 an Act was finally passed to regulate the working conditions of children working in cotton mills and factories. [3]

The Act

The Act passed in 1819 was only a pale shadow of Owen's draft of 1815. The bill presented in 1815, applied to all children in textile mills and factories; with children under ten were not to be employed; children between ten and eighteen could work no more than ten hours a day, with two hours for mealtimes and half an hour for schooling this made a 12.5 hour day; Magistrates were to be empowered to appoint paid inspectors (to be independent of the mills and factories they inspected); and Inspectors were to be able to demand admission to mills at any time of day. [7]

Meanwhile, the Act passed in 1819, only applied to children in cotton mills and factories; with only children under nine to not be employed; children between nine and sixteen could work no more than twelve hours a day (not including mealtimes or schooling); the twelve hours to be worked between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m.; at least half an hour to be allowed for breakfast, and a dinner break of at least an hour to be taken between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. [9] (an amending Act in the next session (60 Geo. 3 & 1 Geo. 4. c. 5) amended these limits to 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.); There was no provision for routine inspection of mills; if two witnesses gave information upon oath that a mill was breaking the Act, local magistrates could send their clerk (or a paid deputy) to inspect the mill. If the mill was indeed breaking the Act, then it was liable to further inspections without fresh informations being laid. [4]

The Act therefore did little more than establish the principle of government intervention and set forth a relatively unambitious and virtually unenforceable standard.

An amending Act (60 Geo. 3 & 1 Geo. 4. c. 5) was passed in December 1819. It was introduced by Sir Robert Peel, who explained that "the object of the amendment was, when any accident by fire or otherwise took place in a factory, to allow the people thrown out of employment by such accident, to work by night, in such part of the works as were not destroyed, till the accident was made good. If this was not allowed, the worst consequences must arise, from letting loose on society a number of people without employment." [10] (Contemporary newspaper reports indicate that this followed a fire at one of the mills at New Lanark, and that Peel indicated that unless the Act was passed by the start of January, many of the workers there would become unemployed.) [11] [lower-alpha 2]

Objections

Robert Owen blamed the failure to get an Act closely matching his bill passed on Peel's failure to move swiftly before opposition had a chance to get organised. However, the 1815 bill was extremely ambitious and the dates at which subsequent factory legislation matched its provisions (paid inspectors 1833 Act; ten-hour day 1847 Act, minimum age ten 1874 Act) do not suggest that if passed it would have been regarded as a definitive settlement. Objections to the much weaker 1819 bill were still strong and varied; a contemporary pro-bill pamphlet [4] listed (and to its own satisfaction rebutted) eight different arguments against the bill, most of which were to continue to be urged against subsequent factory legislation for many years:

  1. that nothing in the working conditions of mill children showed any need for legislation
  2. that the bill is inquisitorial, interferes with free labour, with parental authority, and in effect with the labour of adults, because the adults cannot work without the children [lower-alpha 3]
  3. that the bill would make British industry uncompetitive on the world market
  4. that the bill created a dangerous precedent "If eleven hours actual labour be fixed as a maximum in Cotton Mills, how can Parliament refuse to impose a similar maximum for all other trades?"
  5. that there was no need for legislation; enlightened millowners already saw the need for good working conditions; given time the rest would also
  6. that restricting working hours was unfair to water-powered mills [lower-alpha 4]
  7. that restricting the hours of children would mean millowners would employ men rather than children – rather than benefitting children the bill would make them unemployable
  8. that reducing the hours mills were operated would have a bad effect on the morals of the millworkers [lower-alpha 5]

Related Research Articles

Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court struck down a federal law regulating child labor. The decision was overruled by United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quarry Bank Mill</span> National Trust preserved textile mill in Cheshire, England

Quarry Bank Mill in Styal, Cheshire, England, is one of the best preserved textile factories of the Industrial Revolution. Built in 1784, the cotton mill is recorded in the National Heritage List for England as a designated Grade II* listed building. Quarry Bank Mill was established by Samuel Greg, and was notable for innovations both in machinery and also in its approach to labour relations, the latter largely as a result of the work of Greg's wife, Hannah Lightbody. The family took a somewhat paternalistic attitude toward the workers, providing medical care for all and limited education to the children, but all laboured roughly 72 hours per week until 1847 when a new law shortened the hours.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Oastler</span>

Richard Oastler was a "Tory radical", an active opponent of Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform and a lifelong admirer of the Duke of Wellington; but also an abolitionist and prominent in the "anti-Poor Law" resistance to the implementation of the "New Poor Law" of 1834. Most notably, as his sobriquet of the "Factory King" indicates, he was at the heart of the campaign for a ten-hour working day in its early years: although less so by the time of its successful culmination in the Factories Act 1847, he retained the sobriquet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cotton mill</span> Building producing yarn or cloth from cotton

A cotton mill is a building that houses spinning or weaving machinery for the production of yarn or cloth from cotton, an important product during the Industrial Revolution in the development of the factory system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Textile manufacture during the British Industrial Revolution</span> Early textile production via automated means

Textile manufacture during the British Industrial Revolution was centred in south Lancashire and the towns on both sides of the Pennines in the United Kingdom. The main drivers of the Industrial Revolution were textile manufacturing, iron founding, steam power, oil drilling, the discovery of electricity and its many industrial applications, the telegraph and many others. Railroads, steamboats, the telegraph and other innovations massively increased worker productivity and raised standards of living by greatly reducing time spent during travel, transportation and communications.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Factory Acts</span> UK laws on employment

The Factory Acts were a series of acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom beginning in 1802 to regulate and improve the conditions of industrial employment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Dale</span> Scottish merchant (1739–1806)

David Dale was a leading Scottish industrialist, merchant and philanthropist during the Scottish Enlightenment period at the end of the 18th century. He was a successful entrepreneur in a number of areas, most notably in the cotton-spinning industry, and was the founder of the cotton mills in New Lanark, where he provided social and educational conditions far in advance of anything available anywhere else in the UK. New Lanark attracted visitors from all over the world. Robert Owen, who married Dale’s daughter, Caroline, in 1799, used New Lanark to develop his theories about communitarian living, education and character formation. Scottish historian, Tom Devine, described Dale as ‘the greatest cotton magnate of his time in Scotland’.

Robert Blincoe was an English author and former child labourer. He became famous during the 1830s for his popular autobiography, A Memoir of Robert Blincoe, an account of his childhood spent in a workhouse. However, there are some doubts about whether this detailed observation of Blincoe's early life can be considered autobiography.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sir Robert Peel, 1st Baronet</span> British politician (1750–1830)

Sir Robert Peel, 1st Baronet, was a British politician and industrialist and one of early textile manufacturers of the Industrial Revolution. He is one of ten known British millionaires in 1799.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Fielden</span>

John Fielden was a British industrialist and Radical Member of Parliament for Oldham (1832–1847).

Child labor in the United States was a common phenomenon across the economy in the 19th century. Outside agriculture, it gradually declined in the early 20th century, except in the South which added children in textile and other industries. Child labor remained common in the agricultural sector until compulsory school laws were enacted by the states. In the North state laws prohibited work in mines and later in factories. A national law was passed in 1916 but it was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1918. A 1919 law was also overturned. In the 1920s an effort to pass a constitutional amendement failed, because of opposition from the South and from Catholics. Outside of farming child labor was steadily declining in the 20th century and the New Deal in 1938 finally ended child labor in factories and mines. Child labor has always been a factor in agriculture and that continues into the 21st century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sadler report</span>

The Sadler Report, also known as the Report of the Select Committee on Factory Children's Labour or "the report of Mr Sadler’s Committee," was a report written in 1832 by Michael Sadler, the chairman of a UK Parliamentary committee considering a bill that limited the hours of work of children in textile mills and factories. In committee hearings carried out between the passage of the 1832 Reform Act and Parliament’s subsequent dissolution, Sadler had elicited testimony from factory workers, concerned medical men, and other bystanders. The report highlighted the poor working conditions and excessive working hours for children working in the factories. Time prevented balancing or contrary evidence from being called before Parliament was dissolved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael Thomas Sadler</span> British politician

Michael Thomas Sadler was a British Tory Member of Parliament (MP) whose Evangelical Anglicanism and prior experience as a Poor Law administrator in Leeds led him to oppose Malthusian theories of population and their use to decry state provision for the poor.

Life in Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution shifted from an agrarian based society to an urban, industrialised society. New social and technological ideas were developed, such as the factory system and the steam engine. Work became more regimented, disciplined, and moved outside the home with large segments of the rural population migrating to the cities.

The History of labour law in the United Kingdom concerns the development of UK labour law, from its roots in Roman and medieval times in the British Isles up to the present. Before the Industrial Revolution and the introduction of mechanised manufacture, regulation of workplace relations was based on status, rather than contract or mediation through a system of trade unions. Serfdom was the prevailing status of the mass of people, except where artisans in towns could gain a measure of self-regulation through guilds. In 1740 save for the fly-shuttle the loom was as it had been since weaving had begun. The law of the land was, under the Act of Apprentices 1563, that wages in each district should be assessed by Justices of the Peace. From the middle of the 19th century, through Acts such as the Master and Servant Act 1867 and the Employers and Workmen Act 1875, there became growing recognition that greater protection was needed to promote the health and safety of workers, as well as preventing unfair practices in wage contracts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of labour law</span>

The history of labour law concerns the development of labour law as a way of regulating and improving the life of people at work. In the civilisations of antiquity, the use of slave labour was widespread. Some of the maladies associated with unregulated labour were identified by Pliny as "diseases of slaves."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Factories Act 1847</span> 1847 United Kingdom Act of Parliament

The Factories Act 1847, also known as the Ten Hours Act was a United Kingdom Act of Parliament which restricted the working hours of women and young persons (13-18) in textile mills to 10 hours per day. The practicalities of running a textile mill were such that the Act should have effectively set the same limit on the working hours of adult male mill-workers, but defective drafting meant that a subsequent Factory Act in 1850 imposing tighter restrictions on the hours within which women and young persons could work was needed to bring this about. With this slight qualification, the Act of 1847 was the culmination of a campaign lasting almost fifteen years to bring in a 'Ten Hours Bill'; a great Radical cause of the period. Richard Oastler was a prominent and early advocate; the most famous Parliamentarian involved was Lord Ashley who campaigned long and tirelessly on the issue, but the eventual success owed much to the mobilisation of support among the mill-workers by organisers such as John Doherty and sympathetic mill-owners such as John Fielden, MP who piloted the Act through the Commons. The 1847 Act was passed soon after the fall from power of Sir Robert Peel's Conservative government, but the fiercest opponents of all ten-hour bills were the 'free trade' Liberals such as John Bright; the economic doctrines that led them to object to artificial tariff barriers also led them to object to government restricting the terms on which a man might sell his labour, and to extend that objection to women and young peoples. Karl Marx, speaking at the International Workingmen's Association meeting in November 1864 said of it "This struggle about the legal restriction of the hours of labour raged more fiercely since; apart from avarice, it told indeed upon the great contest between the blind rule of the supply and demand laws which form the political economy of the middle class, a social production subjected to a foreseeing social control which forms the political economy of the working class. Hence the Ten Hours’ Bill was not only a great practical success; it was the victory of a principle; it was the first time that in broad daylight the political economy of the middle class succumbed ignominiously, ludicrously, before the political economy of the working class".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mule scavenger</span>

Scavengers were employed in 18th and 19th century in cotton mills, predominantly in the UK and the United States, to clean and recoup the area underneath a spinning mule. The cotton wastage that gathered on the floor was seen as too valuable for the owners to leave and one of the simplest solutions was to employ young children to work under the machinery. Many children suffered serious injuries while under the mules, with fingers, hands, and sometimes heads crushed by the heavy moving parts. Legislation introduced in 1819 tried to reduce working hours and improve conditions but there were still deaths recorded well beyond the middle of the 19th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802, sometimes known as the Factory Act 1802, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom designed to improve conditions for apprentices working in cotton mills. The Act was introduced by Sir Robert Peel, who had become concerned in the issue after a 1784 outbreak of a "malignant fever" at one of his cotton mills, which he later blamed on 'gross mismanagement' by his subordinates.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Factory inspector</span>

A factory inspector is someone who checks that factories comply with regulations affecting them.

References

Citations

  1. Early factory legislation. Parliament.uk. Accessed 1 August 2014.
  2. Statutes at Large: Statutes of the United Kingdom, 1801–1806. 1822.
  3. 1 2 3 Hutchins & Harrison (1911).
  4. 1 2 3 Answers to the objections to sir R. Peel's bill, for ameliorating the condition of children employed in cotton factories. Manchester: R & W Dean. 1819. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
  5. 1 2 "COTTON FACTORIES BILL". Hansard House of Commons Debates. 37 (cc559-66). 19 February 1818. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
  6. "Section II: Extracts from the Evidence of James Watkins Esq….". Reasons in favour of Sir Robert Peel's bill, for ameliorating the condition of children employed in cotton factories; comprehending a summary view of the evidence in support of the bill, taken before the Lords' committees in the present session of parliament. W. Clowes. 1819. pp. 41–46. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
  7. 1 2 Hutchins, B L (1912). Robert Owen : Social Reformer (Fabian Tract 166) (PDF). London: Fabian Society. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 July 2011. Retrieved 25 July 2014.
  8. Manchester Mercury. 11 March 1817.{{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  9. Statutes at Large, 59 Geo. 3. c. 66, LXXIII, pp. 418-419 ;relevant excerpts reproduced at "The Factory Act of 1819". Aspects of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. University ofMassachusetts. Retrieved 28 July 2014. quoting A. Aspinall; Anthony Smith (1959). English Historical Documents, 1783-1832. Oxford University Press. pp. 734–5. since reprinted with same pagination by Psychology Press (1996, ISBN   978-0-415-14373-8)
  10. "COTTON FACTORIES BILL". Hansard House of Commons Debates. 41: cc815-6. 7 December 1819. Retrieved 19 December 2015.
  11. "House of Commons". Chester Courant. 14 December 1819.
  12. "ARTIZANS—MACHINERY—COMBINATION LAWS". Hansard House of Commons Debates. 10 (cc141-51). 12 February 1824. Retrieved 29 July 2014.

Notes

  1. In some cases this is more than a figure of speech: apprentices were not allowed to leave the mill at any time
  2. The act is described as 'of a retrograde tendency' [3] by Hutchins and Harrison, who fail to indicate its connection with New Lanark and their progressive hero Robert Owen
  3. 'Inquisitorial' because agents of government could demand access to a man's property, 'interfering with free labour (sic)' because the orthodoxy of the age was that man and master should reach an agreement on pay and conditions without outside interference
    "The property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbour, is a plain violation of his most sacred property."
    Adam Smith Wealth of Nations, quoted by Joseph Hume (a Whig): William Huskisson (a Tory) endorsed those sentiments [12] (Smith's quote (Wealth of Nations Book I Chapter 10, part ii) was originally aimed against artificial restrictions (such as apprenticeships) on men entering a trade)
  4. Not because water flowed past the mill 24 hours a day, but because it didn't; flow was irregular and should be used whenever available
  5. Both in the obvious sense that one hour less in the mill would be one hour more drinking time and in a more political sense that it was the discipline of the cotton industry that kept the lower classes of the cotton towns under control (1819 was the year of the Peterloo Massacre). Mancunian supporters of the 1819 bill also had to defend themselves from the claim that the talk about the bill had unsettled the millworkers and was therefore responsible for recent strikes (then particularly alarming because illegal under the Combination Act)

Bibliography

Further reading