Herefordshire Through Time
Herefordshire Through Time
Child labour is one of the more harrowing aspects of 19th century history and undoubtedly an emotive topic. To get employment reform acts passed as legislation, reformers highlighted stories of the horrific treatment of children in mills and down the mines. How common, though, were long hours, poor pay, frequent beatings and abuse? Were all children treated badly? Were all working children unhappy and unhealthy? Another question that needs to be addressed is how many children actually worked in these industries.
It is argued that figures for the middle of the 19th century demonstrate that only 2-3.5% of 5-9 year-old children were officially employed. If you consider that most working children started their working life at the age of 8 or 9 (the 1851 Factory Act excluded children under eight and the Mines Act all boys under 10), then the number of very young children in formal employment must have been very small (see Eric Hopkins, "The Victorians and Child Labour" in The Historian, number 48, 1995, p.11). However, this includes neither the children working for their parents nor the children who would have wanted to work because they needed the wage but could not find employment. Children who lived and worked with their families on canal boats, for example, would not have been included in any official statistics.
Some work situations attracted the attention of reformers more than others. The working conditions in the cotton mills were notoriously bad. Nevertheless, according to Eric Hopkins, "even before the Factory Acts began to take effect, in 1830 there were only 26,000 children employed in the textile mills" (p.10).The welfare of children in factories and workshops depended to a large extent on the employer. Some mill owners, such as Robert Owen, were relatively enlightened and made good provision for the needs of the employees. Owen, for example, provided shops, schools and housing. Others were less inclined to consider the health and welfare of the workers. Consider the evidence given to the Children's Employment Commission (1842) by Henry Morton, Agent for the Countess of Durham's Collieries:
"I believe that employing children in coal mines is perfectly consistent with good health. They earn good wages. Working on the night shift does no harm, the air and ventilation are the same at one period as at another. I have never heard of boys injuring themselves down pits from the nature of work, only by accidents. I do not think any change in the hours of work is necessary for children. I would not object to a law preventing children from working before ten years old but would rather leave it to the manager to accept or refuse them. Any such law would be unfair on parents with large families... I do not think that working in the pit means that boys are incapable of having lessons after a day's work. Most coal mines could not carry on without the labours of young boys."(Simon Mason, Work Out Social and Economic History, GCSE, Macmillan, 1988, p.145)
Another deeply abhorrent and dangerous occupation for very young or small boys was "climbing". Chimney sweeps often employed climbing boys to climb up into the chimneys to clean them out. Inhaling the soot caused cancer and the life expectancy of the boys was severely diminished. Even though it is thought that never more than about 4,000 boys were employed in this trade at any one time (see Hopkins, p.10), the job was so horrific that already in 1778 attempts were made to have a law passed banning the use of boys for climbing. It was not until 1875, however, that Parliament passed an act which stated that all chimney sweeps had to be licensed, and licenses were only issued to sweeps not using climbing boys (see Simon Mason, British Social and Economic History, Blackwell Education, 1990, p. 166).
Reformers eventually made themselves heard and, as you can see from the list below, several Acts were passed during the 19th century to limit the amount and nature of child labour. Yet it is questionable how effective some of this legislation was. It was quite common for the employment laws to be flouted as there were not enough inspectors and the fines they were allowed to impose were too low to have any real impact on the factory owners. Many children did not have birth certificates and parents who wanted their children to work were prepared to lie about the child's age. Above all, the mill and factory owners, magistrates and other influential people often did not believe in these reforms and obstructed them whenever possible (see Ben Walsh, British Social & Economic History, John Murray, 1997, p. 91).
Although exact figures for the numbers of children employed in the different sectors are not available, it is fair to say that by far the largest number was employed in agriculture. According to the census of 1851, agriculture was still the largest occupation for all ages. Most children in Herefordshire who had to work were employed in agriculture.
The relationship of parents and children during the 19th century was perhaps more formal than today and parents were stricter in general, but most parents still cared about their children. We have to keep in mind though that attitudes were different. Perhaps, having worked themselves as children, parents did not see child labour as a bad thing, but a fact of life. Reading and writing were not necessary skills for farm work, so education would not have been a priority with many parents. Agricultural work, which so much depended on weather, good harvests and the price of produce, was very precarious and badly paid. One wage per family would not have been enough and the women and children had to work to supplement the agricultural worker's meagre income. If the children had not worked, there simply would have been not enough food to go around. It is difficult for us in the days of the welfare state to imagine the demands of daily life when there was no safety net available in times of illness and unemployment. Some of you will have grandparents or great-grandparents who had to go out to work at a young age because their families did not have enough money to keep them in school.
Farm workers, unless they were live-in servants, were only paid for the work done. So if the ground was frozen or there simply was no work, they would receive no pay. If you were ill or injured and could not work, you were not paid. Working hours were variable. During harvest and in the summer when there was more daylight, working hours were very long; however, these periods alternated with periods, especially in the winter, when little work was available. It is doubtful, though, that children employed in agriculture had to work such terribly long hours as youngsters working in the dressmaking workshops, who might work up to 18 hours non-stop during the London season (the "season" was the time of year when the upper classes resided in their London houses and gave sumptuous balls. Many ladies ordered several new gowns from their outfitters which they wanted specially made up, often with very little notice.) (See Eric Hopkins, p. 12)
In agriculture, children had to work the same hours as adults and therefore a twelve-hour working day, with time off for meals, was not unusual.
Similar to some large cities in South America today, some children were street children and survived by trading, sweeping road crossings, begging, stealing or prostitution. It is probable that the number of such children was higher in the large cities and industrial centres such as London or Manchester, but Hereford too had its share of neglected children.
One terrible example of neglect was raised at a meeting of the Hereford Poor Law Guardians in December 1839. A fourteen-year-old girl was received into the workhouse in a state of utter destitution and infected with venereal disease, which she had contracted while working as a prostitute in a brothel in Hereford.
Very poor families could apply to the parish for outdoor relief. Boards of Guardians, however, when assessing need, often required that children regarded as of working age would find work before giving aid to the parents (see Peter Wood, Poverty and the Workhouse in Victorian Britain, Alan Sutton, 1991, p. 103). Many orphans were put into workhouses. These children posed a particular challenge to the workhouse guardians. The authorities wanted to make the children as independent as possible so that they would not become a long-term burden on the rate-payers or perhaps come under the influence of less savoury inmates.
One solution was to segregate them from the older workhouse population and to provide a teacher. Another, much cheaper, solution was to send the children out to employers. In this way many girls became household servants working for little more than room and board for people who could not afford more professional domestic servants (see Peter Wood, p. 103). Few children from a workhouse managed to get into positions leading to better jobs.
Local tradespeople sometimes applied to the workhouse for an apprentice, as for example a milliner (hat maker) in Church Street who wanted to employ a young girl named Julia Ashbury (see Sylvia A. Morrill, "Poor Law in Hereford 1836-1851" in Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists' Field Club, Volume XLI, 1974, p. 247).
Larger companies applied for several apprentices at one time. Keep in mind that the term "apprentice" here is more likely than not to be a euphemism for "cheap labour". Herefordshire Record Office holds records of these requests, along with the terms and conditions offered.
Education was not compulsory until 1880, and according to the Newcastle Commission Report less than one-half of Britain's children went to school in 1858. The Victorians abhorred "idleness" and believed that it led to all kinds of wickedness. (A popular saying was "the devil makes work for idle hands".) Even today, the government tries to discourage schools from excluding pupils, because if not cared for in schools, many young people get into trouble if left to their own devices. In the 19th century too, many mothers had to go out to work and could not stay at home and supervise youngsters. If children themselves were at work at least they were contributing to the financial welfare of the family and staying out of trouble at the same time. The lucky children would be in positions where they could learn useful skills, but formal apprenticeships cost money and were not possible for many. Building more schools, and ensuring that children attended, was a major factor in reducing child labour. Education also helped to provide at least some children with prospects for better jobs in the future.
Forster's Education Act of 1870 aimed to make schools more available to a wider range of people by ensuring that schools were set up at the expense of ratepayers and managed by locally elected school boards. However, school attendance itself was not compulsory until 1880, and even then parents had to pay for their children to attend (see Edna D. Pearson, "Schools and Scholars" in Bromyard: A Local History, edited by Joseph G. Hillaby and Edna D. Pearson, 1970, p. 69). The average fee was three or four pence a week (one penny to one and a half pence in today's money), with a reduction when more than one child per family attended. It does not seem much to us, but keep in mind that a farm labourer might have earned only 12 shillings a week (about £1.50 today). If the children failed to attend, the parents were fined or even sent to prison if they could not pay the fine.
In the harsh winter of 1891, so many men were unemployed in the Bromyard area that a local benefactor, Mr. Phipps, paid the school fees and provided hot dinners for the children (see Edna D. Pearson, p. 69). Schools in rural areas often arranged the holidays around the times of peak periods in agricultural work, such as harvest or the planting season. Otherwise, there is plenty of evidence that families kept their children at home at these periods. The Hereford Record Office has copies of letters parents wrote to the schools asking permission to keep the children at home during these busy periods.
The main rite of passage for a small child today is the beginning of school. Around the world there are cultural differences with regard to child rearing. Some people in other European countries are appalled when they hear that in Britain children start school as young as four. Some children have difficulties adjusting to school life, others enjoy the new experiences offered. It depends to a large extent on the nature of the child, the parents, the teachers and the school environment.
In a similar way, starting work for a Victorian child need not have been a traumatic experience. Many children were able to work alongside a parent or sibling, others might have enjoyed the new challenges posed. Some work places may have been friendlier than others. If you are raised to expect to have to work and you see your older brothers and sisters going out to work, you take that type of lifestyle for granted. Acquiring new skills and earning a wage, even if handed over to parents, would have helped to bolster self-confidence and self-worth. You could argue that the transition to adulthood is easier later on if the child has been holding his or her own in the adult world. According to Eric Hopkins, "it was not unknown for an able and experienced fourteen year old to be a foreman" (p. 13).
Nevertheless, you cannot argue that child labour is desirable. You only have to look at the developing world to see the poverty and deprivation experienced by so many children, the lack of educational opportunities and the need for children to have to work in such terrible conditions. Here in the United Kingdom, even though we are more fortunate, child labour has not been completely eradicated, even though it is more invisible. There are numerous children looking after younger siblings or caring for disabled adults single-handedly. In fact, even in Britain today, there are many children who need to hold down part-time jobs at very low wages to augment the family income. These children are not saving up for their gap year or a motorbike, but working to put food on the table.
1802 Health and Morals of Apprentices Act (not enforced): No apprentice in textile factories to work more than 12 hours a day. Night work was banned.
1819 Factory Act limits working day for children in cotton mills to 12 hours. Children under the age of 9 should not be employed, but magistrates did not enforce this.
1833 Factory Act limits work for children in textile factories (children aged 9-13 should work no more than 48 hours a week) and includes provision for the education of children working in the textile factories (children under the age of 13 to attend school for 12 hours a week). Inspectors employed to enforce law.
1842 Mines Act: Women and girls, and boys under the age of 10, were not allowed to work underground. Boys under the age of 15 were not allowed to work machinery.
1844 Factory Act: Children under 13 to work no more than 6.5 hours per day. Women and children aged 13-18 to work no more than 12 hours a day.
1844 "Ragged Schools" set up for poorest children
1847 Factory Act limits women and children under 18 to 58-hour working week.
1850 Factory Act establishes standard working day
1860 Mines Act: Boys under 12 not allowed underground unless they could read and write
1870 Education Act (Forster's Act): sets up School Boards to provide schooling for 5-11 year olds.
1875 Act passed which required all chimney sweeps to be licensed. Licences were issued only to sweeps not using climbing boys.
1878 Factory and Workshops Act: Employment of children under 10 banned. Regulations of control safety, ventilation and meals.
1880 Education Act makes school compulsory for children aged 5-10.
1891 Assisted Education Act funds each child, allowing schools to stop having to charge fees.
1918 School-leaving age raised to 14.
1944 School-leaving age raised to 15.
1973 School-leaving age raised to 16.
[Original author: Toria Forsyth-Moser, 2004]