Why factor reform was passed?? 5 factors Flashcards
Factor 1- parliamentary concern for working children
Facts- 49% of workers under 20
- children were small, fit in small mines, get under machinery if necessary eg pieceners could wind threads back into machines without stopping them
- 1859, Martha Appleton, 13, severed her hand in a machine
- By 1842 one third of mining workforce were children under 19 and 3/20 children died in first year
Result of this- mining act 1842 recognised hardships of child labour, children under 10 couldn’t work in mines, raised to under 12s in 1850. Children 13-18 could work only 12 hr days and official inspections/ registers introduced.
why- parliament expected public attitude to change as work of children became publicised (vivid illustrations of child labour) investigation by royal commission into child labour. 1847 act introduced 10 hour day for children/women with help of John Fielden, less focus on profits for businesses.
Factor 2- parliamentary concern for women workers
Facts - women earned bare minimum, just enough to live, 12s-15s per week
- lived in poor back to back houses built by employers, with no natural light and 3 brick deep foundations.
- 2/3 of workers in Brum lived in these houses
- women couldn’t afford housing with good sanitation (cesspits full of sewage often leaked into water supplies, causing diseases like cholera, outbreak in Sunderland 1831 killed 32,000.
what resulted- employers and politicians saw this was unsustainable with the growth and sympathy grew for female workers especially, eg lord Ashley tried to introduce factory bills in 1838,39,40. 1844 factory act banned night work for women and could work no more than 12 hour days. dangerous equipment was fenced off and more inspections regarding safety took place.
Why- needs of workers more important for politicians to gain votes during growth of party politics during reform, interest of workers more prevalent in campaigning and gaining votes.
Factor 3- parliamentary concern for workers in general/ males
Facts- factories previously wanted to keep costs as low as possible and increase profits.
- hundres of workers crammed into limited floor space 2/3 of workers employed in manufacturing by 1871, making it inefficient and dangerous.
- Combined with 14 hour days, 6 days a week for men
- To reduce costs, workers could be fined 2 hours wages for being 10 minutes late, and 1/5 of daily wage if caught talking.
What resulted- politicians began to feel sympathy when they realised workers safety and rights had no consideration at all, more safety features would reduce profits and take too long to implement. Politicians like MP Michael were moved by letters by Richard Oestler in York explaining the hardships factory work.
Why were all groups of workers such a concern to politicians (judgement)
All 3 factors were widespread problems, not niche groups of people suffering from industrialisation, which is why it was so important for politicians to introduce positive change in the form of factory reform for workers; the majority of the country’s population. The new paternalistic government from 1833 also increased the sympathy for workers.
Factor 4 (popular agitation/pressure groups) swing riots.
Facts- swing riots were agricultural riots from farmers who felt their jobs were being replace by threshing machines 1830-32. one machine could do the job of 15 men, more cost efficient for employer.
- lack of money in agriculture compared to factories also caused riots, with first burning in Kent 1830
- The rioters demanded stable wages, employment opportunities and rent reductions
- riots spread across 16 counties, 1976 arrested and 19 executed.
Argument to support popular agitation- They demonstrated to parliament the influence of the rural community and the need for more widespread industrial reform to include agriculture
limitations to argument-However, their argument is limited by the fact that they received no help from the factory reform act, as they were in different industries, and so were of less concern to the government anyway; the government wanted to suppress the riots but not necessarily help them, and the agitation might not even be considered popular in comparison to the unrest of workers in manufacturing.
Factor 5 (popular agitation/pressure groups) Ten hour movement
Facts- 10 hour movement led by George Bull and Richard Oestler
- wrote letters and made speeches highlighting awful factory conditions for workers, and safety issues, protesting against 14 hour working day
- groups of workers formed short term committees in hope of collaboration with. trade unions.
Successes of group- gained support of MP Michael Sadler and Lord Ashley, who were parliamentary driving forces in investigating conditions.
-Short term success as 1833 factory act limited child labour to 9 hours a day, and 10 hours achieved in 1847
This was a stronger form of popular agitation than the swing riots because it provoked the interest of industrial workers; a bigger and more important group of people pushing for factory reform. However, it was people like Oestler and Bull that not only caused popular agitation, but provoked political sympathy too, and in this case it’s likely that the popular agitation led to the political realisation regarding the problems of industrialisation.
Popular agitation/ pressure groups v parliamentary concern/ individuals argument
Overall, it was political sympathies that led to the reform act, that came as a result of popular agitation, because it was the politicians that had the power to make changes to industrialisation but wouldn’t have done it without the uprisings of so many workers involved in the industrialisation of Britain. There is a clear link between the agitation of those involved in the ten hour movement and the political sympathies that come as a result, as Bull and Oestler were successful in persuading politicians Michael Sadler and Lord Ashley to get involved and push for industrial reform. However in the example of the swing riots, another popular agitated group, there was no reform for agricultural workers because they were unsuccessful in gaining political sympathy, showing that popular agitation alone would not have led to the reforms as quickly as they did with parliamentary support.
