Factory Reform During the British Industrial Revolution
With Contrasting Motivations
Report on Committee on Children in Manufactories (1816), testimony by Robert Owen and Sir Robert Peel was a document written on the account of the testimony of Sir Robert Peel and Robert Owen. The testimony took place in England in the year of 1816, during the British Industrial Revolution. This document was a written account of the testimony preceding the House of Commons Committee regarding the Poor Law that the increasing automation of industrial production robbed the working people of their jobs, children in particular. Sir Robert Peel was a British Politician and industrialist. Robert Owen on the other hand, was a utopian socialist and his motivations to limit the labor hours and the age limit were different than Peel’s. Owen testified on behalf of the dismay of the living and working conditions the workers were put through. Sir Robert Peel and Robert Owen have mirroring expectations about the overall labor conditions in which the children were forced to work in such as the reduction of labor hours, incorporation of schooling with the labor, and the passing of bills for factory reform during the Industrial Revolution. But despite their coinciding perspectives on factory reform, their motivations behind their reasoning are different due to their contrast in political and social backgrounds with Owen’s utopian socialist outlook and Peel’s conservative parliamentarian viewpoint.
Sir Robert Peel was a business owner and politician that came from a stature of higher-class. Peel, First Baronet was born in Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire on April 25, 1750. Peel, an industrialist and an early textile manufacturer of the Industrial Revolution. Peel came from a family of higher nobility, as his father owned a calico-printing firm, Maworth, Peel &Yates (Sir Robert Peel and The Peel Family). Robert Peel was made partner in the company and this promotion allowed Peel to take command of the company by the ripe age of 23. He took advantage of the new inventions in the textile industry but was worried his textile workers would respond negatively to the new changes. Peel solved the issue of finding workers for his new factory in Tamworth, Staffordshire by importing workhouse children from London. This “solution” was quite ironic considering he will be “fighting” for the reduction of hours and improvement of labor conditions for children with Robert Owen. This solution boomed Peel into becoming one of Britain’s leading industrialists by the 1790s with the employment of over 15,000 workers (Sir Robert Peel and The Peel Family). As a result of his mill business, he became quite wealthy and adverted his attention to politics. In 1790 Peel was elected as a Member of Parliament for Tamworth. Peel was aware of the brutal conditions in which pauper apprentices were forced to burden in factories, as well as in his own. His mills were in conditions so barbaric that many of the apprentices died of an outbreak of “fever”. But as a result of his consciousness of the situation he was conflicted to stop employing the children because these “apprentices” were not receiving wages, which was cut the overall cost of the finished textiles. Peel, looked from the perspective of a businessman and used his political prestige to devise the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act of 1802 with the influence of Robert Owen. Selfishly, Peel hailing from a higher social status was not genuinely looking out for the well being of the children in which he employed and “fought” for. “Finding our own factories under such management, and learning that the like practices prevailed in other parts of the kingdom where similar machinery was in use, the children being much over-worked, and often little of no regard pair to cleanliness and ventilation in the buildings…” Peel acts so innocent as he claimed that the conditions in which the children were forced to work under were so merciless as he testified in front of Parliament. When really, Peel was only looking out for the wellbeing of his own business. He mentioned his own mill’s conditions, but does not forget to sneakily acknowledge the other mills within the area in his testimony. Peel stated that the purpose of the passing of this bill was to regulate the cleanliness of the factories and limit the amount of hours in which the apprentices were allowed to work. As this testimony took place fourteen years after the Health and Morals Act of Apprentices was enacted, Peel stated that since then, they had seen an improvement in the overall health conditions of the mills. Although he modeled his association with the Factory Act as being interested in the improvement of labor conditions for the children, it was merely a façade to not only help his own business, but it kept the competitors at a disadvantage.
Robert Owen was a Welsh manufacturer turned reformer. Owen was born in Newtown, Montgomeryshire,Wales and was one of the most influential early 19th- century supporter of utopian socialism. While under apprenticeship to a clothier at a young age, his employer at the time had a well-stocked library. This was where the seed of the idea of utopian socialism was planted. Owen read books on religious controversies, which led him to conclude that there were fundamental flaws in all religions. By the age of nineteen, Owen had been promoted and had become superintendent of a large cotton mill in Manchester. Under his wing, the Manchester mill had quickly become one of the leading mills of its kind in Great Britain. With all of his success, he eventually became manager and a partner in the Manchester firm, and with the help of his partners, they purchased the New Lanark mills in Lanarkshire (GREAT THINKERS: Robert Owen 1771-1858). New Lanark held a population of about 2,000 people and 500 of who were young children that were a part of the poorhouses and charities of Endinburgh and Glasgow. Although the former owner treated the children pretty decently, their living conditions were so primitive. Education and sanitation were ignored; the housing quarters were unlivable and therefore led to more crime and vice due to the detrimental circumstances. Owen unlike Peel, truly cared about his workers, and improved the houses. With his personal influence, gained his workers trust, which encouraged the people in habits of order and cleanliness. Owen had a different motivation behind his factory reform. He created rules at his mill that upset his partners because their business was losing money due to Owen’s inaction of philanthropic motives. Robert Owen created schools for the child laborers and refused to employ children under the age of ten. With Robert Owen’s utopian socialist background he believed that people’s characters were a product of the environment they situated them in, and argued that people were naturally good but could be corrupted by harsh treatment. Owen persuaded Robert Peel to present The 1802 Health and Morals of Apprentices Act through Parliament. This legislation was the first attempt at reforming working conditions in factories. In contrast to Robert Peel, his motivation behind factory reform were true and genuine for the prosperity of his workers lives, and not just for his business. He was actually losing money with the amount of programs and rules that were set to improve the working conditions of the children in his factory. Unlike Robert Peel, he didn’t promote factory reform for personal benefit, but because he felt that that was the moral thing to do.
This written account of the testimony preceding the House of Commons Committee involved the testimonies of Sir Robert Peel and Robert Owen. Peel was a British Politician and industrialist was responsible for the Health and Morals or Apprentices Act, with the influence of Robert Owen. Together, they wanted to limit the number of hours the children worked and regulate the sanitation of the overall conditions. Although they expressed an emulated outcome, Sir Robert Peel used his high political background to his advantage in order to save his mill from going out of business. Robert Owen had focused his motivations behind his overall wellbeing and genuine philanthropic opinion. Although their perspectives on factory reform coincide, their motivations behind their reasoning are different due to their contrast in political and social backgrounds with Peel’s conservative parliamentarian conviction and Owen’s utopian socialist understanding.
Sir Robert Peel was a business owner and politician that came from a stature of higher-class. Peel, First Baronet was born in Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire on April 25, 1750. Peel, an industrialist and an early textile manufacturer of the Industrial Revolution. Peel came from a family of higher nobility, as his father owned a calico-printing firm, Maworth, Peel &Yates (Sir Robert Peel and The Peel Family). Robert Peel was made partner in the company and this promotion allowed Peel to take command of the company by the ripe age of 23. He took advantage of the new inventions in the textile industry but was worried his textile workers would respond negatively to the new changes. Peel solved the issue of finding workers for his new factory in Tamworth, Staffordshire by importing workhouse children from London. This “solution” was quite ironic considering he will be “fighting” for the reduction of hours and improvement of labor conditions for children with Robert Owen. This solution boomed Peel into becoming one of Britain’s leading industrialists by the 1790s with the employment of over 15,000 workers (Sir Robert Peel and The Peel Family). As a result of his mill business, he became quite wealthy and adverted his attention to politics. In 1790 Peel was elected as a Member of Parliament for Tamworth. Peel was aware of the brutal conditions in which pauper apprentices were forced to burden in factories, as well as in his own. His mills were in conditions so barbaric that many of the apprentices died of an outbreak of “fever”. But as a result of his consciousness of the situation he was conflicted to stop employing the children because these “apprentices” were not receiving wages, which was cut the overall cost of the finished textiles. Peel, looked from the perspective of a businessman and used his political prestige to devise the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act of 1802 with the influence of Robert Owen. Selfishly, Peel hailing from a higher social status was not genuinely looking out for the well being of the children in which he employed and “fought” for. “Finding our own factories under such management, and learning that the like practices prevailed in other parts of the kingdom where similar machinery was in use, the children being much over-worked, and often little of no regard pair to cleanliness and ventilation in the buildings…” Peel acts so innocent as he claimed that the conditions in which the children were forced to work under were so merciless as he testified in front of Parliament. When really, Peel was only looking out for the wellbeing of his own business. He mentioned his own mill’s conditions, but does not forget to sneakily acknowledge the other mills within the area in his testimony. Peel stated that the purpose of the passing of this bill was to regulate the cleanliness of the factories and limit the amount of hours in which the apprentices were allowed to work. As this testimony took place fourteen years after the Health and Morals Act of Apprentices was enacted, Peel stated that since then, they had seen an improvement in the overall health conditions of the mills. Although he modeled his association with the Factory Act as being interested in the improvement of labor conditions for the children, it was merely a façade to not only help his own business, but it kept the competitors at a disadvantage.
Robert Owen was a Welsh manufacturer turned reformer. Owen was born in Newtown, Montgomeryshire,Wales and was one of the most influential early 19th- century supporter of utopian socialism. While under apprenticeship to a clothier at a young age, his employer at the time had a well-stocked library. This was where the seed of the idea of utopian socialism was planted. Owen read books on religious controversies, which led him to conclude that there were fundamental flaws in all religions. By the age of nineteen, Owen had been promoted and had become superintendent of a large cotton mill in Manchester. Under his wing, the Manchester mill had quickly become one of the leading mills of its kind in Great Britain. With all of his success, he eventually became manager and a partner in the Manchester firm, and with the help of his partners, they purchased the New Lanark mills in Lanarkshire (GREAT THINKERS: Robert Owen 1771-1858). New Lanark held a population of about 2,000 people and 500 of who were young children that were a part of the poorhouses and charities of Endinburgh and Glasgow. Although the former owner treated the children pretty decently, their living conditions were so primitive. Education and sanitation were ignored; the housing quarters were unlivable and therefore led to more crime and vice due to the detrimental circumstances. Owen unlike Peel, truly cared about his workers, and improved the houses. With his personal influence, gained his workers trust, which encouraged the people in habits of order and cleanliness. Owen had a different motivation behind his factory reform. He created rules at his mill that upset his partners because their business was losing money due to Owen’s inaction of philanthropic motives. Robert Owen created schools for the child laborers and refused to employ children under the age of ten. With Robert Owen’s utopian socialist background he believed that people’s characters were a product of the environment they situated them in, and argued that people were naturally good but could be corrupted by harsh treatment. Owen persuaded Robert Peel to present The 1802 Health and Morals of Apprentices Act through Parliament. This legislation was the first attempt at reforming working conditions in factories. In contrast to Robert Peel, his motivation behind factory reform were true and genuine for the prosperity of his workers lives, and not just for his business. He was actually losing money with the amount of programs and rules that were set to improve the working conditions of the children in his factory. Unlike Robert Peel, he didn’t promote factory reform for personal benefit, but because he felt that that was the moral thing to do.
This written account of the testimony preceding the House of Commons Committee involved the testimonies of Sir Robert Peel and Robert Owen. Peel was a British Politician and industrialist was responsible for the Health and Morals or Apprentices Act, with the influence of Robert Owen. Together, they wanted to limit the number of hours the children worked and regulate the sanitation of the overall conditions. Although they expressed an emulated outcome, Sir Robert Peel used his high political background to his advantage in order to save his mill from going out of business. Robert Owen had focused his motivations behind his overall wellbeing and genuine philanthropic opinion. Although their perspectives on factory reform coincide, their motivations behind their reasoning are different due to their contrast in political and social backgrounds with Peel’s conservative parliamentarian conviction and Owen’s utopian socialist understanding.
Primary Source: Report on Committee on Children in Manufactories (1816), testimony by Robert Owen and Sir Robert Peel
Mr. Robert Owen, Again Called in, and Examined
Have you anything to add to your evidence of yesterday?--Some questions were put to me yesterday respecting the early age at which children are employed at Stockport; I knew I had made a memorandum at the time, but I could not then put my hand upon it; I have since found it; and I can now reply to the questions regarding those cases. Mr. George Oughton, secretary to the Sunday school in Stockport, informed me about a fortnight ago, in the presence of an individual, who will probably be here in the course of the morning, that he knows a little girl of the name of Hannah Downham, who was employed in a mill at Stockport at the age of four. Mr. Turner, treasurer to the Sunday school, knows a boy that was employed in a mill at Stockport when he was only three years old...
They were mentioned to you as a rare instance?--They were mentioned to me in the midst of a very numerous assembly of very respectable people; I inquired of them whether they knew, as they were surrounded with, I believe, two or three thousand children at the time, what was the age at which children were generally admitted into cotton mills; their answer was, Some at five, many at six, and a greater number at seven. I have also received very important information from a very respectable individual at Manchester, relative to the age at which children are employed, the hours they are kept at work, and a variety of other particulars from very authentic sources...
Does the information you propose to give come from the manufactory to which it relates?--No manufacturer would give information against himself.
State what you know relative to the number of hours which children and others are employed in their attendance on mills and manufactories?--About a fortnight ago I was in Leeds; and in conversation with Mr. Gott, whose name is well-known to many gentlemen in this room, he stated to me that it was a common practice, when the woollen trade was going on well, to work sixteen hours in the day: I was also informed by Mr. Marshall, who is another principal, and considered a highly respectable manufacturer in Leeds, that it was a common practice to work at flax-mills there sixteen hours a day whenever the trade went well: I was also informed by Mr. Gott, that when the Bill, generally known by the name of Sir Robert Peel's Bill, was brought in last session of Parliament, the night-work at Leeds was put an end to. In Stockport, on Sunday fortnight, I saw a number of small children going to the church; they appeared to me to be going from a Sunday school; the master was with them; I stopped the master, and asked him what he knew of the circumstances of the manufacturers in Stockport; he said he knew a great deal, because he himself had formerly, for many years, been a spinner in those mills; his name is Robert Mayor, of the National School in Stockport; he stated the he was willing to make oath that mills in Stockport, within the last twelve months, had been worked from three and four o'clock in the morning until nine at night, that he himself has frequently worked those hours.
Sir Robert Peel, Bart.
The house in which I have a concern gave employment at one time to near one thousand children of this description. Having other pursuits, it was not often in my power to visit the factories, but whenever such visits were made, I was struck with the uniform appearance of bad health, and, in many cases, stinted growth of the children; the hours of labour were regulated by the interest of the overseer, whose remuneration depending on the quantity of the work done, he was often induced to make the poor children work excessive hours, and to stop their complaints by trifling bribes. Finding our own factories under such management, and learning that the like practices prevailed in other parts of the kingdom where similar machinery was in use, the children being much over-worked, and often little or no regard paid to cleanliness and ventilation in the buildings; having the assistance of Dr. Percival and other eminent medical gentlemen of Manchester, together with some distinguished characters both in and out of Parliament, I brought in a Bill...for the regulation of factories containing such parish apprentices. The hours of work allowed by that Bill being fewer in number than those formerly practised, a visible improvement in the health and general appearance of the children soon became evident, and since the complete operation of the Act contagious disorders have rarely occurred.
From: Owen, Robert and Sir Robert Peel. Report on Children in Factories,1816.
Have you anything to add to your evidence of yesterday?--Some questions were put to me yesterday respecting the early age at which children are employed at Stockport; I knew I had made a memorandum at the time, but I could not then put my hand upon it; I have since found it; and I can now reply to the questions regarding those cases. Mr. George Oughton, secretary to the Sunday school in Stockport, informed me about a fortnight ago, in the presence of an individual, who will probably be here in the course of the morning, that he knows a little girl of the name of Hannah Downham, who was employed in a mill at Stockport at the age of four. Mr. Turner, treasurer to the Sunday school, knows a boy that was employed in a mill at Stockport when he was only three years old...
They were mentioned to you as a rare instance?--They were mentioned to me in the midst of a very numerous assembly of very respectable people; I inquired of them whether they knew, as they were surrounded with, I believe, two or three thousand children at the time, what was the age at which children were generally admitted into cotton mills; their answer was, Some at five, many at six, and a greater number at seven. I have also received very important information from a very respectable individual at Manchester, relative to the age at which children are employed, the hours they are kept at work, and a variety of other particulars from very authentic sources...
Does the information you propose to give come from the manufactory to which it relates?--No manufacturer would give information against himself.
State what you know relative to the number of hours which children and others are employed in their attendance on mills and manufactories?--About a fortnight ago I was in Leeds; and in conversation with Mr. Gott, whose name is well-known to many gentlemen in this room, he stated to me that it was a common practice, when the woollen trade was going on well, to work sixteen hours in the day: I was also informed by Mr. Marshall, who is another principal, and considered a highly respectable manufacturer in Leeds, that it was a common practice to work at flax-mills there sixteen hours a day whenever the trade went well: I was also informed by Mr. Gott, that when the Bill, generally known by the name of Sir Robert Peel's Bill, was brought in last session of Parliament, the night-work at Leeds was put an end to. In Stockport, on Sunday fortnight, I saw a number of small children going to the church; they appeared to me to be going from a Sunday school; the master was with them; I stopped the master, and asked him what he knew of the circumstances of the manufacturers in Stockport; he said he knew a great deal, because he himself had formerly, for many years, been a spinner in those mills; his name is Robert Mayor, of the National School in Stockport; he stated the he was willing to make oath that mills in Stockport, within the last twelve months, had been worked from three and four o'clock in the morning until nine at night, that he himself has frequently worked those hours.
Sir Robert Peel, Bart.
The house in which I have a concern gave employment at one time to near one thousand children of this description. Having other pursuits, it was not often in my power to visit the factories, but whenever such visits were made, I was struck with the uniform appearance of bad health, and, in many cases, stinted growth of the children; the hours of labour were regulated by the interest of the overseer, whose remuneration depending on the quantity of the work done, he was often induced to make the poor children work excessive hours, and to stop their complaints by trifling bribes. Finding our own factories under such management, and learning that the like practices prevailed in other parts of the kingdom where similar machinery was in use, the children being much over-worked, and often little or no regard paid to cleanliness and ventilation in the buildings; having the assistance of Dr. Percival and other eminent medical gentlemen of Manchester, together with some distinguished characters both in and out of Parliament, I brought in a Bill...for the regulation of factories containing such parish apprentices. The hours of work allowed by that Bill being fewer in number than those formerly practised, a visible improvement in the health and general appearance of the children soon became evident, and since the complete operation of the Act contagious disorders have rarely occurred.
From: Owen, Robert and Sir Robert Peel. Report on Children in Factories,1816.
Bibliography
"Sir Robert Peel and The Peel Family - Visit Tamworth." Visit Tamworth. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Owen, Robert. Peel, Robert. “Report on Committee on Children in Manufactories (1816), testimony by Robert Owen and Sir Robert Peel.” History Teacher (website). Originally published in 1816, re-published on History Teacher. Web. Accessed 5 March 2014.<http://www.historyteacher.net/APEuroCourse/WebLinks/WebLinks-IndustrialRevolution.htm> Online text taken from: English Historical Documents, XI 1783-1832, ed., A. Aspinall and E. Anthony Smith (Oxford University Press, 1959), pp. 728-32.
This primary source document was a testimony given by Sir Robert Peel and Robert Owen in front of Parliament. The testimony took place in England in the year of 1816. This primary source was a written account of the testimony before the House of Commons Committee on the Poor Law that the increasing automation of industrial production robbed the working people of their jobs. Sir Robert Peel was a British politician and industrialist. As a result of his mill business, he became quite wealthy and turned to politics and was considered a “Church and King” man. This was unusual because many of the Lancashire mill owners were nonconformist and radical. Peel was responsible for the Health and Morals or Apprentices Act to limit the number of hours the children worked and institute some sort of schooling for them. Robert Owen on the other hand was a utopian socialist and his motivations to limit the labor hours and the age limit were different than Peel’s. He came from a utopian socialist background, where propertied groups base socialism on a belief that social ownership of the means of production can be achieved by voluntary and peaceful surrender of their holdings. Owen created schools for the child laborers and was considered a century ahead of his time. He felt that villages of 1,200 people should be set up on 1,200-acre lots. This would devote a mix of agricultural and industrial production, therefore reducing the amount of poverty within the villages. Owen testified on behalf of the dismay of the living and working conditions the workers were put through. Although they both want similar outcomes, their motivations behind their actions are very different.
Margerison, Charles. “GREAT THINKERS: Robert Owen 1771-1858.” Training Journal (2005): 49. ProQuest. Web. 15 April 2014.
This secondary source is an article from the Training Journal and discusses the important aspects of Robert Owen’s life and his achievements. The one page article starts with the background of Robert Owen. He was a son of a saddler and ironmonger from Newtown in Wales and at the young age of ten, he became interested in the new developments of manufacturing textiles. Eventually he became a manager of a large Manchester factory and during this time, he met David Dale. The two became close friends and eventually married his daughter. With the combining of the families, Owen purchased Dale’s four textile factories in New Lanark and it expanded rapidly. Although Owen was gaining wealth, that was not his primary concern. He wanted to create a new type of community. Owen believed that people’s characters were a product of the environment they situated themselves in. He also argued that people were naturally good but could be corrupted by harsh treatment. He very clearly opposed physical punishment in schools and factories and banned its use in new Lanark. Having power in New Lanark, he fostered a community where his workers could have good housing, and where cleanliness and thrift were encouraged. This article is relevant to my essay and primary source because it gives valuable information behind Robert Peel’s motivations on factory reform and testifying in front of Parliament.
Owen, Robert. Peel, Robert. “Report on Committee on Children in Manufactories (1816), testimony by Robert Owen and Sir Robert Peel.” History Teacher (website). Originally published in 1816, re-published on History Teacher. Web. Accessed 5 March 2014.<http://www.historyteacher.net/APEuroCourse/WebLinks/WebLinks-IndustrialRevolution.htm> Online text taken from: English Historical Documents, XI 1783-1832, ed., A. Aspinall and E. Anthony Smith (Oxford University Press, 1959), pp. 728-32.
This primary source document was a testimony given by Sir Robert Peel and Robert Owen in front of Parliament. The testimony took place in England in the year of 1816. This primary source was a written account of the testimony before the House of Commons Committee on the Poor Law that the increasing automation of industrial production robbed the working people of their jobs. Sir Robert Peel was a British politician and industrialist. As a result of his mill business, he became quite wealthy and turned to politics and was considered a “Church and King” man. This was unusual because many of the Lancashire mill owners were nonconformist and radical. Peel was responsible for the Health and Morals or Apprentices Act to limit the number of hours the children worked and institute some sort of schooling for them. Robert Owen on the other hand was a utopian socialist and his motivations to limit the labor hours and the age limit were different than Peel’s. He came from a utopian socialist background, where propertied groups base socialism on a belief that social ownership of the means of production can be achieved by voluntary and peaceful surrender of their holdings. Owen created schools for the child laborers and was considered a century ahead of his time. He felt that villages of 1,200 people should be set up on 1,200-acre lots. This would devote a mix of agricultural and industrial production, therefore reducing the amount of poverty within the villages. Owen testified on behalf of the dismay of the living and working conditions the workers were put through. Although they both want similar outcomes, their motivations behind their actions are very different.
Margerison, Charles. “GREAT THINKERS: Robert Owen 1771-1858.” Training Journal (2005): 49. ProQuest. Web. 15 April 2014.
This secondary source is an article from the Training Journal and discusses the important aspects of Robert Owen’s life and his achievements. The one page article starts with the background of Robert Owen. He was a son of a saddler and ironmonger from Newtown in Wales and at the young age of ten, he became interested in the new developments of manufacturing textiles. Eventually he became a manager of a large Manchester factory and during this time, he met David Dale. The two became close friends and eventually married his daughter. With the combining of the families, Owen purchased Dale’s four textile factories in New Lanark and it expanded rapidly. Although Owen was gaining wealth, that was not his primary concern. He wanted to create a new type of community. Owen believed that people’s characters were a product of the environment they situated themselves in. He also argued that people were naturally good but could be corrupted by harsh treatment. He very clearly opposed physical punishment in schools and factories and banned its use in new Lanark. Having power in New Lanark, he fostered a community where his workers could have good housing, and where cleanliness and thrift were encouraged. This article is relevant to my essay and primary source because it gives valuable information behind Robert Peel’s motivations on factory reform and testifying in front of Parliament.
Mutlimedia Gallery
Child labor was first integrated into the first factories, mines, and mills in Great Britian. In textile mills, as new power looms and spinning mules replaced skilled workers, factory owners like Sir Robert Peel used children to decrease the cost of production. And, child labor was the cheapest labor of all. Some of these machines were so easy to operate that a small child could do the simple, repetitive tasks and perform maintenance tasks, such as squeezing into tight spaces.
In this drawing, the children are pushing carts in a mine. This picture depicts how tight the spaces were, and how harsh the conditions in which the children were forced to work. Children were clearly better fit for this type of work, but the conditions were quite brutal.
This is a photograph of the view of new Lanark, Scotland. THis was Robert Owen's cotton mill with the rightmost buulding which housed the School for the Children in which he employed. The other five large buildings were where most of the cotton operaitons took place.
This is an engraving of Sir Robert Peel, 1st baronet completed by John Henry Robinson. Sir Robert Peel was resonsible for the sponsorship of the Health and Morals Act of Apprentices in 1802 with the influence of Robert Owen. This bill helped improve the working conditions of the young children who worked in the factories during the Industrial Revolution.