The most remarkable act of Parliament in 1802 actually kicked off a whole century of significant Factory reform.
The Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802 was inacted based on recommendations by Thomas Percival following an outbreak of fever at a mill owned by “master mill owner” and noted industrial reformist Robert Peel. It was “the first expression of interference” from Parliament on the hours and conditions within factories, and surprisingly passed with little opposition (Dangerous Trades and Legislation, 1905)
The Act mandated that mills and factories provide proper ventilation, and required a minimum standard of cleanliness. This included the requirement the floors and ceiling be cleaned at least twice a year with quicklime and water. Rooms generally, it was recommended, should be swept daily and floors washed weekly with lime water. Pure oil, rather than rancid oil, was advised to be used to lubricate machinery, and the privies were ordered to be daily cleaned. Children were also to take occasional baths.
It also regulated the treatment of apprentices, generally children of both genders, by limiting their working hours (to no more than 12 a day) and requiring the provision of clothing. By many accounts in 1800 there were 20,000 apprentices working in cotton mills. Mill owners were required to provide apprentices with “two whole and complete suits of clothing, with suitable linen, stockings, hats and shoes; one new complete suit being delivered to such apprentice once at least in every year” (The Factory Acts, Including the Bleach and Dyeworks Act).
The Act also required that the apprentices be given a basic education and access to religion. During the work day, apprentices were to be taught at a minimum reading, writing and mathematics.
No more than two apprentices could sleep to a bed, and apprentices were to be separated by gender.
Local magistrates had to appoint two inspectors known as ‘visitors’ to ensure that factories and mills were complying with the Act. One ‘visitor’ should be a clergyman and the other a Justice of the Peace. The ‘visitors’ had the power to impose fines for non-compliance and the authority to visit at any time of the day to inspect the premises.
Similar to today’s labor regulations, including minimum wage postings and worker’s rights, The Act was to be displayed in two places in the factory. If the factory owner refused to comply with any part of the Act, he could be fined between £2 and £5.
Ultimately, the Act was rarely enforced as mill owners were able to influence the selection of inspectors (although the Act tried to anticipate, and prohibit this) and often appointed individuals with a vested interest in turning a blind eye. Because these visitors were unpaid and unprofessional, they had little incentive to turn in mills in violation of the act.
Furthermore, to circumvent the restrictions on apprentices, mill owners began classifying child labor as “free” workers, meaning children were hired directly from the streets where they would continue to live even after employment.
Although it was ineffective, the Act’s implementation paved the way for subsequent Factory Acts that would regulate the industry.
The exploitation of child labor would continue to be debated, as the impact and continuation of the poor laws shaped an industrializing nation.
While on the surface, an imperfect law may seem decidedly unsexy and worth little more than a footnote, particularly on a blog dedicated to the glittering world of the Upper Orders ala the Regency Romance novel.
However, this act is singularly fascinating to me (and hopefully to you, too) because it begins to tackle issues facing a rapidly changing world and workforce. This Act also began to anticipate some of the significant reforms with education and the redefinition of childhood as we moved from an agricultural/feudal culture to a industrialized society.
