DBQ Assignment: Revolutions of 1848
Directions: The following question is based on the accompanying documents 1-12. (Some of the documents have been edited for the purpose of this exercise.) Write your answer on separate sheets of paper.
This question is designed to test your ability to work with and understand historical documents. Write and essay that:
You may refer to relevant historical information not mentioned in the documents.
1. Identify why Great Britain achieved reforms during the revolutions of the 19th century in a peaceful manner and analyze how they were able to modernize their country without bloody revolutions.
Historical Background: Whilst reform in many European states was only achieved with the aid of bloody revolution, British parliamentary democracy meant that Great Britain could reform and modernize relatively peacefully. The most notable instance of this is the Reform Act of 1832, which reallocated seats in the House of Commons to address the new industrial cities of Britain, and increased suffrage from 500,000 men to 800,000 men. This was to be followed thirty years later by the Reform Act of 1867 granted suffrage to 1/3 of British men. By 1884, 2 to 4.5 million men had suffrage in Britain, including urban workers. Britain saw other reforms, such as the 1833 Factory Act, which outlawed the employment of children under the age of 9 and limited the workdays of all children. The Mines Act of 1842 was a similar piece of reformist legislation, formally prohibiting women and children from working underground.
Document 1
"Whereas it is expedient to take effectual measures for correcting divers abuses that have long prevailed in the choice of members to serve in the commons' house of parliament to deprive many inconsiderable places of the right of returning members to grant such privilege to large populous and wealthy towns to increase the number of knights of the shire to extend the elective franchise to many of his majesty's subjects who have not heretofore enjoyed the same and to diminish the expense of elections Be it therefore enacted by the king's most excellent majesty by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and commons in this present parliament assembled and by the authority of the same That each of the boroughs enumerated in the schedule marked (A) to this act annexed ˆ shall from and after the end of this present parliament cease to return any member or members to serve in parliament in And be it enacted that each of the boroughs enumerated in the schedule marked (B) to this act annexed shall from and after the [.....]"
Taken from: Reform Act, 1832
Date: 1832
Copyright: Copyright © Parliamentary Archives. Used by permission.
Shelfmark: Parliamentary Archives HL/ PO/ PU/ 1/ 1832/ 2&3W4n147
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/struggle/chartists1/historicalsources/source2/reformact.html
Document 2
A girl pulls a tub of coal (1842)
Mines Act of 1842
Document 3
Extract from a Factory Inspectors report – British Parliamentary Papers (1836) No 353
"My Lord, in the case of Taylor, Ibbotson & Co. I took the evidence from the mouths of the boys themselves. They stated to me that they commenced working on Friday morning, the 27th of May last, at six A.M., and that, with the exception of meal hours and one hour at midnight extra, they did not cease working till four o’clock on Saturday evening, having been two days and a night thus engaged. Believing the case scarcely possible, I asked every boy the same questions, and from each received the same answers. I then went into the house to look at the time book, and in the presence of one of the masters, referred to the cruelty of the case, and stated that I should certainly punish it with all the severity in my power. Mr Rayner, the certificating surgeon of Bastile, was with me at the time."
1833 Factory Act
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/1833-factory-act/source-1/
Document 4
In 1844, Friedrich Engels wrote about conditions in the mines.
Here, by three ponderous folios, we have disclosed to us - in our own land, and within our own ken - modes of existence, thoughts, feelings, actions, sufferings, virtues, and vices, which are as strange and as new as the wildest dreams of fiction. The earth seems now for the first time to have heaved from its entrails another race, to astonish and to move us to reflection and to sympathy.
Here we find tens of thousands of our countrymen living apart from the rest of the world - intermarrying - having habits, manners, and almost a language, peculiar to themselves - the circumstances surrounding their existence stamping and moulding mind and body with gigantic power. The common accidents of daily life are literally multiplied to this race of men a hundredfold; while they are subject to others which have no parallel on earth. It is not, then, a matter for wonder that their minds should borrow from the rocks and caverns they inhabit something of the hardness of the one and something of the awful 'power of darkness' of the other; and that their hearts and emotions should exhibit the fierceness of the elements amidst which they dwell.
It is mainly to Lord Ashley, who has headed this great movement for the moral improvement of the working classes, that we are indebted for these volumes, issued apparently for the purpose of letting the public know the true condition of the mining population, and so forcing, by the weight of opinion and individual co-operation, society at large to attempt an amelioration.
The legislature of past years has undoubtedly been to blamed in taking no cognizance of such a state of things as is now exhibited. But are they blameless who employ these men, and reap the benefit of labours which have induced a premature old age in their service? Have they, which so much in their power, fulfilled their duties - have they considered how to strengthen the connection of the master and the hireling by other ties than those of gain? Has our Church, clerical and lay, been diligent in civilizing these rough natures? Have proprietors, enriched by the development of minerals enabled the Church to increase her functionaries in proportion to the growth of new populations? These are questions which must be asked, and answered, before the burden of change is laid on a few, which should be borne by many. We feel that this benefit must be conferred by all; and the power of the state must be propped by the self-denial of the owner - and the mild, untiring energies of the Church must be aided by the kindly influences of neighbourhood - before it can be hoped that such a race as the miners can be brought to abandon their rooted prejudices and brutal indulgences. Living in the midst of dangers - and on that account supplied with higher wages, and with much leisure to spend them - they unite in their characters all that could flow from sources which render man at once reckless and self-indulgent - a hideous combination, when unleavened by religion and the daily influences of society - little likely to be removed by Acts of Parliament alone, and never if Acts of Parliament find none but official hands to aid in enforcing them. ...
If there was anything which could tinge with a deeper hue these scenes and deeds, it would be the possibility that all such evils might be inflicted on women; and so they are in the following districts, which we purposely name:
'Until the last eight months,' says William Hunter, overman in a colliery at Arniston, ' women and lassies were wrought below in these works, when Mr Alexander Moxton, our manager, issued an order to exclude them from going below, having some months prior given intimation of the same. Women always did the lifting, or heavy part of the work, and neither they nor the children were treated like human beings; nor are they where they are employed, Females submit to work in places where no man nor even lad could be got to labour in: they work in bad roads up to their knees in water, in a posture nearly double: they are below till the last hour of pregnancy: they have swelled ankles and haunches, and are prematurely brought to the grave, or, what is worse, a lingering existence. Many of the daughters of miners are now at respectable service. I have two who are in families at Leith, and who are much delighted with the change.'
The Duke of Buccleuch's manager, Mr James Wright, says: -
'I feel confident that the exclusion of females will advantage the collier in a physical point of view, and that it will force the alteration of the economy of the mines. Owners will be compelled to alter their system. They will ventilate better, make better roads, and so change the system as to enable men who now work only three or four days a week to discover their own interest in regularly employing themselves. Since young children and females have been excluded from his Grace's mines, we have never had occasion to increase the price of coal.'
Quarterly Review, LXX (1842), 158 et seq.
Document 5
This document, written in 1838 mainly by William Lovett of the London Working Men’s Association, stated the ideological basis of the Chartist movement. The People's Charter detailed the six key points that the Chartists believed were necessary to reform the electoral system and thus alleviate the suffering of the working classes – these were:
Universal suffrage (the right to vote)
When the Charter was written in 1838, only 18 per cent of the adult-male population of Britain could vote (before 1832 just 10 per cent could vote). The Charter proposed that the vote be extended to all adult males over the age of 21, apart from those convicted of a felony or declared insane.
No property qualification
When this document was written, potential members of Parliament needed to own property of a particular value. This prevented the vast majority of the population from standing for election. By removing the requirement of a property qualification, candidates for elections would no longer have to be selected from the upper classes.
Annual parliaments
A government could retain power as long as there was a majority of support. This made it very difficult to replace of a bad or unpopular government.
Equal representation
The 1832 Reform Act had abolished the worst excesses of 'pocket boroughs'. A pocket borough was a parliamentary constituency owned by a single patron who controlled voting rights and could nominate the two members who were to represent the borough in Parliament. In some of these constituencies as few as six people could elect two members of Parliament. There were still great differences between constituencies, particularly in the industrial north where there were relatively few MPs compared to rural areas.
The Chartists proposed the division of the United Kingdom into 300 electoral districts, each containing an equal number of inhabitants, with no more than one representative from each district to sit in Parliament.
Payment of members
MPs were not paid for the job they did. As the vast majority of people required income from their jobs to be able to live, this meant that only people with considerable personal wealth could afford to become MPs. The Charter proposed that MPs were paid an annual salary of £500.
Vote by secret ballot
Voting at the time was done in public using a 'show of hands' at the 'hustings' (a temporary, public platform from which candidates for parliament were nominated). Landlords or employers could therefore see how their tenants or employees were voting and could intimidate them and influence their decisions. Voting was not made secret until 1871.
The Charter was launched in Glasgow in May 1838, at a meeting attended by an estimated 150,000 people. Presented as a popular-style Magna Carta, it rapidly gained support across the country and its supporters became known as the Chartists. A petition, populated at Chartist meetings across Britain, was brought to London in May 1839, for Thomas Attwood to present to Parliament. It boasted 1,280,958 signatures, yet Parliament voted not to consider it. However, the Chartists continued to campaign for the six points of the Charter for many years to come, and produced two more petitions to Parliament.
Taken from: The People’s Charter
Author / Creator: London Working Men's Association
Date: 1938
Copyright: By permission of the British Library Board
Shelfmark: C.194.a.938 [8138.bb.87], tp.
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/struggle/chartists1/historicalsources/source4/peoplescharter.html
Document 6
The People's CharterTaken from Norman Gash, The Age of Peel (London, Edward Arnold, 1973), with the kind permission of Professor Gash. Copyright of this document, of course, remains with him.
This document was the first Charter produced in 1839 by the Chartists. They made a variety of demands for further reform of parliament. It was presented to the House of Commons by Thomas Attwood and was reprinted in the Chartist Circular. Benjamin Disraeli supported the hearing of the Charter in parliament.
Being an Outline of an Act to provide for the just Representation of the People of Great Britain and Ireland in the Commons' House of Parliament: embracing the Principles of Universal Suffrage, no Property Qualification, Annual Parliaments, Equal Representation, Payment of Members, and Vote by Ballot.
Prepared by a Committee of twelve persons, six members of Parliament and six members of the London Working Men's Association, and addressed to the People of the United Kingdom.
An Act to provide for the just Representation of the People of Great Britain and Ireland, in the Commons' House of Parliament.
Whereas to insure, in as far as it is best possible by human forethought and wisdom, the just government of the people, it is necessary to subject those who have the power of making the laws, to a wholesome and strict responsibility to those whose duty it is to obey them when made:
And, whereas, this responsibility is best enforced through the instrumentality of a body which emanates directly from, and is itself immediately subject to, the whole people, and which completely represents their feelings and their interests:
And, whereas, as the Common's House of Parliament now exercises in the name and on the supposed behalf of the people, the power of making the laws, it ought, in order to fulfil with wisdom and with honesty the great duties imposed in it, to be made the faithful and accurate representation of the people's wishes, feelings and interests.
Be it therefore Enacted,
Arrangement for Nominations
Duration of Parliament
Document 7
Now, what is the mode in which these gentlemen go to work to benefit the agricultural labourers? They call them together for a ploughing match, then they bring them into the room and give them a glass of wine, and they give a reward of thirty shillings to one man who has ploughed best! Then they inquire who has served for twenty-five years in the same place, and, perhaps, they condescend to give him thirty shillings as a reward for good conduct. Then the farmers - the farmers who sit at the table - have their names read over, and prizes are awarded: to one for successfully cultivating turnips, to another for having produced a good fat ox, and to another for having accumulated the greatest quantity of lard a pig. And this is the way in which agriculture is to be improved! What should you think if a similar plan was adopted to assist you in your business? Let us suppose that a number of monopolists came down once a year, and then it is only about two hours and a half long - that they held a meeting, in which they would have a spinning match and weaving match. And after they had been into some prize mill to see this spinning and weaving match, they sat down to dinner; and Job Hargreaves or Frank Smith is brought in, stroking his head down all the while as he comes before the squirearchy, and making his very best bow, to receive from the chairman thirty shillings as a reward for having been the best spinner and the best weaver! And, this being disposed of, imagine such a manufacturer getting a prize of five pounds for the best piece of fustian! And another 'ditto', 'ditto', for the best yard-wide calico! Then imagine a shopkeeper rising from his seat to the table while the chairman puts on a grave face, and addressing him in complimentary terms, presents him with five pounds for having kept during the past year his shop-floor and his counters in the cleanest state! Then they call up a manufacturer, and he has an award of five pounds, because the inspectors had found his mill to be in the best working condition. Then the merchant rises up, and gets his reward of five pounds for having been found by the inspectors to have kept his books in the best order by double entry.
You laugh at all this, and well you may; you cannot help it. Where is the difference between the absurdity, the mockery of bringing up men in round frocks to a dinner-table and giving them thirty shilling, because they had ploughed well, or hoed well, or harrowed well - bringing up farmers to give them prizes for having the cleanest field of Swedish turnips, or for having managed their farm in the best way? Where is the difference, I ask, between offering these rewards and giving out here of such rewards as I have just now alluded to? Let us suppose, if you can keep your countenances, that such a state of things existed here. Now what must be the concomitant order of things? It would argue, in the first place, that the prizemen who were so treated were an abject and servile class. It would argue that the trader who could condescend to be treated so would himself be little better than a slave. And if you needed such stimulants as these to make you carry on your business as you ought to do, where do you think you would be found in the race of industry as compared with other classes? Where would you be if you were so childish as to be fondled and dandled by a body of Members of Parliament? Why, there would not be a country on the face of the world that you could compete with - that is evident. You would like them, be going to these same Parliamentary men, begging them to be your dry nurses, in order that they might pass an Act of Parliament to protect you in your trade.
Cobden, Speeches.
The Corn Law is the keystone of all the monopolies that afflict this country, and when once it shall have been knocked down, it will need no help from you or from us to bring down the whole structure.
Cobden, Speeches
http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/cornlaws/aclargue.htm
Document 8
The following pamphlet reflects the pro-laissez-faire point of view.againts the campaign for a ten-hour day.
THERE are few subjects upon which more erroneous sentiments prevail, than as to the proper objects and limits of legislation. The "trop governer, " is no less common, than mischievous. The propriety of legislation, as the cure of an evil, is, by most people, considered as a mere corollary of the proof of its existence, and they are surprised when you demur at applying, what they conceive to be, the easy and natural remedy.
It is said that, "Experience is a dear school, but that fools learn in no other," and we fear that, until education be sounder and more universal, until the lower classes are taught something more than reading and writing, and the higher classes, something more than the dead languages and mathematics, the school of experience is the only one in which we must continue to learn. By experience is, of course, meant, that of the individual, for a knowledge of the experience of others, and of other times and actions is wisdom: that wisdom, in which, alas! we are so deficient.
In legislation, upon some subjects at least, it seems as if we stumbled upon the highroad of truth, only after having travelled, in vain, every byeway of error, and until we have been driven, by some impassable barrier, to retrace our steps.
Thus, in our attempts to improve, by legislation, the condition of the poor, we have not only multiplied the number, but reduced them to a state of degradation before unknown. By our poor laws and our charities, we have pauperised, and almost ruined the country.
In our commerce and manufactures also, the effects of legislation have been equally mischievous. By our well meant, but injudicious attempt to foster and protect, we have constantly been driving capital from productive into unproductive channels, encourag-
ing the smuggler, checking our commerce, and stunting our manufactures; and our efforts to procure to the operatives a fair remuneration for their labour, has always ended in a reduction of their wages, or in depriving them altogether of employment.
Thus, after repeated failures, we have been, in some degree, schooled into knowledge, and have purchased our experience at the usual price. Modern legislation is indeed improving, though the improvement is rather of a negative nature, and consists not so much in passing better laws, as in repealing bad ones. It may be confidently predicted that all further improvement will be of the same kind, and thus, in matters of commerce and manufactures at least, we shall approach continually to a condition of complete and unrestricted freedom.
With such experience in the past to guide us, and such a course obvious for the future, it would indeed be unpardonable, if, instead of proceeding to retrace one false step after another, as the opportunity presents itself, we should be guilty of committing additional errors of the very same nature.
We have been led to these reflections, by perceiving the efforts making, in various quarters, to prepare the public mind for a measure, proposed to Parliament by Lord Ashley in 1833, and of which notice of motion has already been given by his Lordship, for the 6th of April; namely all Act of Parliament for restricting the hours of labour, to ten daily, in all the cotton, woollen, worsted, flax, and silk factories of the United Kingdom.
The parties who are endeavouring to carry this measure, are the same, now, as at the former period. In the first place, a certain number of the operatives themselves, who have been persuaded that they would continue to receive the same wages, when working only ten hours a-day, as they now receive, for working twelve. The "Short Time Committee" at Manchester, represents itself, we know not how truly, as their organ in the business.
In the second place, the public at large, whose humai feelings have been much excited by the tales of hardship, which have been industriously circulated respecting the children employed in the factories. And, thirdly, the Tories, as a party, for the question has now assumed entirely a political aspect, and who seem to think that they can strengthen themselves and weaken ministers, by adopting, what they consider, the popular side.
This conclusion seems justified by the fact, of the whole Tory press, including the Quarterly Review, having taken the field, and by raking up every old story, and adding some new ones, it is endeavouring to excite the feelings of the public, and of the members of the Legislature, against the mills and the mill-owners. Thus, by blinding their judgment, their support is sought for a measure, uncalled for, to say the least; mischievous to those whom it is pretended to serve, and hazardous to the interests of the kingdom at large.
It is our intention to examine the question of the "Factory System, " as it is now called, in all its bearings, to weigh with care the evils which have been alleged against it, to explain the nature of the present law, which the advocates of the "Ten Hours Bill" seek to repeal, and to inquire into the objects and consequences of the measure, which they seek to substitute.
The Factory Question has been so long before the public that we shall not enter minutely into the history of the legislation upon the subject.
The bill of Sir Robert Peel, in 1802, was, we believe, the first instance of legislation as to labour in Factories, and its operation was limited to apprentices.
We confess that we entertain some doubt of the propriety of proceeding farther than this first step in the interference with labour. A parent is the natural and only efficient guardian of a child. "If parents are inhuman enough to over work their children, Parliament cannot remedy the evil by setting itself up as the universal guardian of the offspring of the poor. The cause obviously lies in the bad moral character of the parents, and on raising that character, which Factory Bills more effectually debase, depends the only chance of cure."
When there is no natural guardian, or, from circumstances, he is prevented from exercising his guardianship, and the law transfers to a master the privileges of a parent amongst which is a command over the services of the child it most properly imposes upon him also the duties of a parent the providing the food, clothing and education of the child and, as far as it can enforce the same, it ought to impose the duty of humanity and kind treatment.
Sir Robert Peel's Bill of 1802 was therefore defective, in limiting its humane provisions to apprentices employed in cotton mills, instead of extending them to all apprentices whatsoever.
Reasonable doubts may, however, be entertained of the propriety of interference with children resident at home under the protection of their parents, except so far as securing to them aneducation, which will fit them for the performance of their duties, as members of the social body, and after a mature consideration of the Reports of the Factory Inspectors, and much conversation with intelligent mill-owners, we are satisfied that no protection of an effectual nature can be secured to children, except by some general system of education, duly enforced. Such a system would apply, not merely to the few children employed in factories but to all children. The necessity of attending schools a certain portion of every day, would secure, from being overworked, all children, not merely those employed in factories; and it would secure also the proper employment of their time when not at work, or before they were old enough to enter the factories.
But to resume our subject. In 1816 a bill was passed, making the regulations of that of 1802 applicable to all children under 16 years of age. Like its predecessor, its operation was confined to cotton mills. Respecting this bill, the Quarterly Review remarks, "The generous nature of their Lordships, assigned 11 hours, but the Commons amended the period to 12 of actual labour." We cannot speak to this, but may observe, in reply, that Sir John Hobliouse's Bill of 1825 was one for working 66 hours per week, but that "the generous nature of their Lordships, amended the period of actual labou?' to 69 hours.
In 1831, Sir John Hobliouse brought in another bill, extending the application of his former one from cotton, to all other factories, in which woollen, worsted, flax, and silk goods were manufactured, and in which the moving power was steam or water. "It was somewhat amended," says the Quarterly Review (p. 409), "by the prohibition of night working for all under 21, and by the advance of the ages, entitled to protection, from 16 to 18 years. He deserves (Sir John Hobliouse), and shall receive our warmest thanks for his amiable exertions."
It is only fair to observe, that for these improvements, Sir John Hobliouse's Bill was indebted to the committee of the mill-owners, then in London; and that the same provisions in the existing law were also introduced by the mill-owners, in opposition to the wishes of those who framed it.
It is only an act of justice to state those facts, when the masters are so constantly represented, as"sacrificing thousands and tens of thousands, on the altars of Mammon and Moloch. "
Scarcely had the second bill of Sir J. Hobliouse been in operation twelve months, when the late Mr. Sadler, emerging as if from a long entombment, with all the political and religious prejudices of the olden times, comes forward with a new proposition for limiting the labour, not of children only, but of adults, employed in factories, to ten hours daily.
Nothing surely could be more reasonable, before passing such a measure, involving such a principle, with such momentous interests at stake, than to call for evidence to prove its necessity, particularly as a new law upon the subject has but just passed the Legislature. Yet such a reasonable determination encountered the greatest opposition, and was denounced as cruel, it being represented "that thousands of lives would be sacrificed by the delay. "
It was agreed with Mr. Sadler, in committee, that he should take his witnesses first, and close his case, and that then the other side should take theirs. This was merely an arrangement for mutual convenience, and to save expense.
The close of the Session, and of Mr. Sadler's case were however, contemporaneous, and in defiance of justice, and we should think, of strict parliamentary usage, Mr. Sadler immediately published the evidence, and gave to the world such a mass of exparte statements, and of gross falsehoods and calum-
nies, as they are now generally admitted to be, as probably never found their way before into any public document.
The natural consequence of this partial proceeding, was to inflame the public mind to such a degree, that, in the ensuing Session of Parliament, the millowners, finding that they would not be allowed to call evidence on their side, which justice and the previous arrangements with Mr. Sadler's Committee entitled them to do, demanded, and with difficulty obtained, that a Parliamentary Commission should proceed immediately to the manufacturing districts, armed with full powers to examine every body and to scrutinise every thing relating to the subject.
To the Report of this Commission, and the facts collected by it, all verified upon oath, we shall frequently have occasion to appeal, and will only remark here, that they form an official and authenticated mass of evidence to which all must bow, and that every statement which has been made on either side, must be considered as of little value, except in so far as it is confirmed, or otherwise, by this document....
Source:
reprinted in "Battle for the 10-Hour day continues: 4 parnphets, 1837-1843," (N.Y.: AMS Press, 1972), pp. 1-8.
Document 9
An Act for the Amendment and better Administration of the Laws relating to the Poor in England and Wales. [ 4 & 5 Will. IV cap. 76]It shall be lawful for His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, to appoint Three fit Persons to be Commissioners to carry this Act into execution.…
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/plaatext.html
Document 10
The parliamentary debate on the 1842 Chartist Petition Thomas Slingsby Duncombe presented the petition on 2 May 1842 and the debate took place on 5 May. Duncombe believed that the Chartists should be heard. He said that there were precedents in the Eighteenth Century, and hearing them would probably prevent violence. He said, "These Chartists, in fact, are only the Radicals of former days", which was partly true. Duncombe said that parliament could only expect people to appear at Westminster to try to redress their grievances, since parliament had done nothing to help them except talk.
Never were the people as determined as at the present moment by every constitutional means to obtain the franchise ... When they see their interests disregarded, and their feelings insulted, and when they have no hope of better times or better treatment, unless they work out their own redress - when you offer them more words, and endeavour to stop their cravings by the delusive promises of a Queen's speech - when you tell them that 'you feel extremely for the distress of the manufacturing districts, which they have borne with exemplary patience and fortitude' but offer them no remedy beyond your compassion - what can you expect but that they should make their way to this house, and, as you will do nothing for them, endeavour to do something for themselves? ...Fielden, the factory owner of Todmorden, sympathised with the Chartists. He said
By the bad legislation in that House, all the people had been made politicians, and they had got an impression on their minds that nothing but a Radical change in the constitution of that House would ever give the people what they had a right to.Sir John Easthope said that
... The petition came from those who were suffering distress, and who displayed that discontent which was the natural concomitant of distress ... His sincere conviction was, that if they sought to aggravate the grievous distress which now existed, they could not be more successful than they would be if they obtained a grant of all the prayers in their petition.Thomas Babington Macaulay objected to hearing the Chartists.
Dr. Bowring demonstrated a changing attitude in parliament towards public opinion - the start of modern England. He thought that pressure groups should be recognised because internal laissez-faire was breaking down.
A government founded on a wide representation was, after all, nothing but the recognition that government represented public opinion, and the most enduring government must be that which had the greatest mass of public opinion to support it Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary, accepted the principles of the petition and agreed that distress was a real problem. He did not think that Chartism was the answer. To hear the petitioners would raise false hopes. He felt that the solution rested in sound economic policies (i.e. free trade), not in constitutional reforms.
It was not a question of fact to be investigated, it was a question of policy to be adopted.Lord John Russell, the Whig leader, thought that hearing the petition was undesirable and not in the national interest. He expressed his 'abhorrence of the doctrine set forth in the petition'. He believed that if the present working class was enfranchised then violent Chartists would be elected and the threat to property 'was obvious'. He also saw a potential threat to the stability of government if the moderates lost control of parliament.
Sir Robert Peel, the Conservative Prime Minister, was against the Charter and opposed hearing the Chartists, for reasons similar to Graham's. Peel based his attack on the belief in further socio-economic reform as the solution to the problem of distress.
The debate took less than an hour.
Voting: 49 for; 287 against. It was defeated by a majority of 238.
Document 11
Introduction of the Reform Bill to Parliament: 12 December 1831Hansard vol 9 cc156-206.
Mr. Hunt observed, that the noble Lord, when introducing the former Bill, had spoken of the Representation of the people, but upon this occasion the noble Lord had omitted that phrase altogether, and now spoke of the Representation of the property and intelligence of the country. He was happy the noble Lord had so fairly taken this distinction, for he had no hesitation in saying, though he would admit, that the alterations which had been made in the Bill were great improvements in it, that this Bill would exclude nine-tenths of the male population of this country from any share in the Representation. He had no hesitation in saying, that if this Bill should be passed into a law, and he had no doubt that it would be passed, seeing the disposition with which it had been received on [186] that (the Opposition) side of the House, that it would not be found satisfactory to the great majority of the people of this country. He had been accused of speaking favourably of the late Bill in that House, and unfavourably out of it. Nothing could be more incorrect than such a charge against him. He had opposed the late Bill on many occasions, and he had been charged as its greatest enemy in that House long before it went out of it. With regard to schedule A, he did not care one farthing whether certain boroughs were taken out or left in it; but he was glad that his Majesty's Ministers had redeemed their character for impartiality, by taking the notorious borough of Calne out of the list of boroughs with two Members, and putting it in schedule B. There was one change in the Bill which he thought would be satisfactory to the country, and that was, the new arrangements which would simplify the rights of voting. He did not see why a man living in a �10 house should be compelled to pay up his rent in order to entitle him to vote. That was a provision in the former Bill of which he had always loudly complained. He had then said, that they might as well compel a man to pay his butcher or his baker, as to pay his rent, in order to qualify him for an elector. It appeared to him that all those who supported the former Bill had no reason to disapprove of this, except through sinister motives. It could not be denied, however, that the cuckoo cry of "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," was now blown into air, and he hoped they should hear no more of it; for the present Bill, without altering the principle, was a complete alteration of the measure. He did not think that the aristocracy had anything to fear from the Bill, for it had been shown lately by the public Press that it would not operate against them. They had heard a great deal of the labours of the Parliamentary Commissioners through the country, which labours, he believed, consisted principally of eating and drinking. At all events, he knew, that in the town of Bolton the Commissioners did nothing beyond stopping at the best inn, living on the best fare, and sending to the collectors for a return of the assessed houses. In that town, with a population of 42,000, of which 14,000 were adult males, there were only 680 assessed houses. He would do the best in his power to simplify and amend the Bill. He knew it would pass, and he hoped it would give more satisfaction than the other; at the same time, in spite of the hon. member for Kirkcudbright [Robert Cutlar Fergusson], he would [187] speak his opinions on the subject both in and out of the House.
Mr. Leader begged to say, that he would support the Reform Bill for England, even were no Reform to be extended to Ireland. He, however, deeply lamented the declaration of the noble Lord with respect to Ireland, and the limitation of the number of Members for that country, which he could not but feel to be unjust. Ireland dealt with this country to the amount of £20,000,000 a-year, and its population were active, enlightened, and energetic. He would, however, suspend any further observations for the present, again expressing his regret that the number of Irish Representatives was not to be increased. But he must, however, be permitted to remark, that he agreed with the noble Marquis (the Marquis of Chandos) that the city of London, which drew towards it constantly the wealth of the empire, should not have such a number of Representatives as would preclude other and more distant portions of the empire from their fair share of the Representation. The proportion now fixed for Ireland and Scotland would, he feared, lead to great dissatisfaction.
Sir Charles Forbes thought the changes proposed were of very little consequence. The principle of the Bill remained the same. When he saw such a mushroom place as Brighton was to have two Members, while Aberdeen and Dundee were only to have one each, as well as the county of Inverness, though all were of so much importance, he knew his countrymen would be dissatisfied with it. He had hoped, that the Lord Advocate would have done what was expected of him in Scotland, and would have protected the interests of his country. He would say loudly, considering the wealth of that portion of the empire, and the high character of the people, that justice had not been done to them. An adequate number of Representatives had not been granted to that country. In every other respect he disapproved of this Bill as much as he did of the former one, which was a monster that ought never to have been allowed to shew its face in that House. They ought to have come down and opposed it at first, and if they had done so there was very little doubt as to what would have been the result. He should continue to oppose the Bill, and no intimidation should weigh a feather in the scale against his determined opinion. He stood there to do his duty according to his conscience, and do it he would, and oppose this monster with a new face upon all [188] occasions, let who would gainsay his motives.
http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/refact/12dec31.htm
Document 12
Reform Act of 1867
This question is designed to test your ability to work with and understand historical documents. Write and essay that:
- Has a relevant thesis and supports that thesis with evidence from the documents.
- Uses a majority of the documents.
- Analyzes the documents by grouping them in as many appropriate ways as possible. Do not simple summarize the documents individually.
- Takes into account both the sources of the documents and the author's point of view.
You may refer to relevant historical information not mentioned in the documents.
1. Identify why Great Britain achieved reforms during the revolutions of the 19th century in a peaceful manner and analyze how they were able to modernize their country without bloody revolutions.
Historical Background: Whilst reform in many European states was only achieved with the aid of bloody revolution, British parliamentary democracy meant that Great Britain could reform and modernize relatively peacefully. The most notable instance of this is the Reform Act of 1832, which reallocated seats in the House of Commons to address the new industrial cities of Britain, and increased suffrage from 500,000 men to 800,000 men. This was to be followed thirty years later by the Reform Act of 1867 granted suffrage to 1/3 of British men. By 1884, 2 to 4.5 million men had suffrage in Britain, including urban workers. Britain saw other reforms, such as the 1833 Factory Act, which outlawed the employment of children under the age of 9 and limited the workdays of all children. The Mines Act of 1842 was a similar piece of reformist legislation, formally prohibiting women and children from working underground.
Document 1
"Whereas it is expedient to take effectual measures for correcting divers abuses that have long prevailed in the choice of members to serve in the commons' house of parliament to deprive many inconsiderable places of the right of returning members to grant such privilege to large populous and wealthy towns to increase the number of knights of the shire to extend the elective franchise to many of his majesty's subjects who have not heretofore enjoyed the same and to diminish the expense of elections Be it therefore enacted by the king's most excellent majesty by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and commons in this present parliament assembled and by the authority of the same That each of the boroughs enumerated in the schedule marked (A) to this act annexed ˆ shall from and after the end of this present parliament cease to return any member or members to serve in parliament in And be it enacted that each of the boroughs enumerated in the schedule marked (B) to this act annexed shall from and after the [.....]"
Taken from: Reform Act, 1832
Date: 1832
Copyright: Copyright © Parliamentary Archives. Used by permission.
Shelfmark: Parliamentary Archives HL/ PO/ PU/ 1/ 1832/ 2&3W4n147
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/struggle/chartists1/historicalsources/source2/reformact.html
Document 2
A girl pulls a tub of coal (1842)
Mines Act of 1842
Document 3
Extract from a Factory Inspectors report – British Parliamentary Papers (1836) No 353
"My Lord, in the case of Taylor, Ibbotson & Co. I took the evidence from the mouths of the boys themselves. They stated to me that they commenced working on Friday morning, the 27th of May last, at six A.M., and that, with the exception of meal hours and one hour at midnight extra, they did not cease working till four o’clock on Saturday evening, having been two days and a night thus engaged. Believing the case scarcely possible, I asked every boy the same questions, and from each received the same answers. I then went into the house to look at the time book, and in the presence of one of the masters, referred to the cruelty of the case, and stated that I should certainly punish it with all the severity in my power. Mr Rayner, the certificating surgeon of Bastile, was with me at the time."
1833 Factory Act
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/1833-factory-act/source-1/
Document 4
In 1844, Friedrich Engels wrote about conditions in the mines.
Here, by three ponderous folios, we have disclosed to us - in our own land, and within our own ken - modes of existence, thoughts, feelings, actions, sufferings, virtues, and vices, which are as strange and as new as the wildest dreams of fiction. The earth seems now for the first time to have heaved from its entrails another race, to astonish and to move us to reflection and to sympathy.
Here we find tens of thousands of our countrymen living apart from the rest of the world - intermarrying - having habits, manners, and almost a language, peculiar to themselves - the circumstances surrounding their existence stamping and moulding mind and body with gigantic power. The common accidents of daily life are literally multiplied to this race of men a hundredfold; while they are subject to others which have no parallel on earth. It is not, then, a matter for wonder that their minds should borrow from the rocks and caverns they inhabit something of the hardness of the one and something of the awful 'power of darkness' of the other; and that their hearts and emotions should exhibit the fierceness of the elements amidst which they dwell.
It is mainly to Lord Ashley, who has headed this great movement for the moral improvement of the working classes, that we are indebted for these volumes, issued apparently for the purpose of letting the public know the true condition of the mining population, and so forcing, by the weight of opinion and individual co-operation, society at large to attempt an amelioration.
The legislature of past years has undoubtedly been to blamed in taking no cognizance of such a state of things as is now exhibited. But are they blameless who employ these men, and reap the benefit of labours which have induced a premature old age in their service? Have they, which so much in their power, fulfilled their duties - have they considered how to strengthen the connection of the master and the hireling by other ties than those of gain? Has our Church, clerical and lay, been diligent in civilizing these rough natures? Have proprietors, enriched by the development of minerals enabled the Church to increase her functionaries in proportion to the growth of new populations? These are questions which must be asked, and answered, before the burden of change is laid on a few, which should be borne by many. We feel that this benefit must be conferred by all; and the power of the state must be propped by the self-denial of the owner - and the mild, untiring energies of the Church must be aided by the kindly influences of neighbourhood - before it can be hoped that such a race as the miners can be brought to abandon their rooted prejudices and brutal indulgences. Living in the midst of dangers - and on that account supplied with higher wages, and with much leisure to spend them - they unite in their characters all that could flow from sources which render man at once reckless and self-indulgent - a hideous combination, when unleavened by religion and the daily influences of society - little likely to be removed by Acts of Parliament alone, and never if Acts of Parliament find none but official hands to aid in enforcing them. ...
If there was anything which could tinge with a deeper hue these scenes and deeds, it would be the possibility that all such evils might be inflicted on women; and so they are in the following districts, which we purposely name:
- West Riding of Yorkshire, southern part
- Bradford and Leeds
- Halifax
- Lancashire
- South Wales
- East of Scotland
'Until the last eight months,' says William Hunter, overman in a colliery at Arniston, ' women and lassies were wrought below in these works, when Mr Alexander Moxton, our manager, issued an order to exclude them from going below, having some months prior given intimation of the same. Women always did the lifting, or heavy part of the work, and neither they nor the children were treated like human beings; nor are they where they are employed, Females submit to work in places where no man nor even lad could be got to labour in: they work in bad roads up to their knees in water, in a posture nearly double: they are below till the last hour of pregnancy: they have swelled ankles and haunches, and are prematurely brought to the grave, or, what is worse, a lingering existence. Many of the daughters of miners are now at respectable service. I have two who are in families at Leith, and who are much delighted with the change.'
The Duke of Buccleuch's manager, Mr James Wright, says: -
'I feel confident that the exclusion of females will advantage the collier in a physical point of view, and that it will force the alteration of the economy of the mines. Owners will be compelled to alter their system. They will ventilate better, make better roads, and so change the system as to enable men who now work only three or four days a week to discover their own interest in regularly employing themselves. Since young children and females have been excluded from his Grace's mines, we have never had occasion to increase the price of coal.'
Quarterly Review, LXX (1842), 158 et seq.
Document 5
This document, written in 1838 mainly by William Lovett of the London Working Men’s Association, stated the ideological basis of the Chartist movement. The People's Charter detailed the six key points that the Chartists believed were necessary to reform the electoral system and thus alleviate the suffering of the working classes – these were:
Universal suffrage (the right to vote)
When the Charter was written in 1838, only 18 per cent of the adult-male population of Britain could vote (before 1832 just 10 per cent could vote). The Charter proposed that the vote be extended to all adult males over the age of 21, apart from those convicted of a felony or declared insane.
No property qualification
When this document was written, potential members of Parliament needed to own property of a particular value. This prevented the vast majority of the population from standing for election. By removing the requirement of a property qualification, candidates for elections would no longer have to be selected from the upper classes.
Annual parliaments
A government could retain power as long as there was a majority of support. This made it very difficult to replace of a bad or unpopular government.
Equal representation
The 1832 Reform Act had abolished the worst excesses of 'pocket boroughs'. A pocket borough was a parliamentary constituency owned by a single patron who controlled voting rights and could nominate the two members who were to represent the borough in Parliament. In some of these constituencies as few as six people could elect two members of Parliament. There were still great differences between constituencies, particularly in the industrial north where there were relatively few MPs compared to rural areas.
The Chartists proposed the division of the United Kingdom into 300 electoral districts, each containing an equal number of inhabitants, with no more than one representative from each district to sit in Parliament.
Payment of members
MPs were not paid for the job they did. As the vast majority of people required income from their jobs to be able to live, this meant that only people with considerable personal wealth could afford to become MPs. The Charter proposed that MPs were paid an annual salary of £500.
Vote by secret ballot
Voting at the time was done in public using a 'show of hands' at the 'hustings' (a temporary, public platform from which candidates for parliament were nominated). Landlords or employers could therefore see how their tenants or employees were voting and could intimidate them and influence their decisions. Voting was not made secret until 1871.
The Charter was launched in Glasgow in May 1838, at a meeting attended by an estimated 150,000 people. Presented as a popular-style Magna Carta, it rapidly gained support across the country and its supporters became known as the Chartists. A petition, populated at Chartist meetings across Britain, was brought to London in May 1839, for Thomas Attwood to present to Parliament. It boasted 1,280,958 signatures, yet Parliament voted not to consider it. However, the Chartists continued to campaign for the six points of the Charter for many years to come, and produced two more petitions to Parliament.
Taken from: The People’s Charter
Author / Creator: London Working Men's Association
Date: 1938
Copyright: By permission of the British Library Board
Shelfmark: C.194.a.938 [8138.bb.87], tp.
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/struggle/chartists1/historicalsources/source4/peoplescharter.html
Document 6
The People's CharterTaken from Norman Gash, The Age of Peel (London, Edward Arnold, 1973), with the kind permission of Professor Gash. Copyright of this document, of course, remains with him.
This document was the first Charter produced in 1839 by the Chartists. They made a variety of demands for further reform of parliament. It was presented to the House of Commons by Thomas Attwood and was reprinted in the Chartist Circular. Benjamin Disraeli supported the hearing of the Charter in parliament.
Being an Outline of an Act to provide for the just Representation of the People of Great Britain and Ireland in the Commons' House of Parliament: embracing the Principles of Universal Suffrage, no Property Qualification, Annual Parliaments, Equal Representation, Payment of Members, and Vote by Ballot.
Prepared by a Committee of twelve persons, six members of Parliament and six members of the London Working Men's Association, and addressed to the People of the United Kingdom.
An Act to provide for the just Representation of the People of Great Britain and Ireland, in the Commons' House of Parliament.
Whereas to insure, in as far as it is best possible by human forethought and wisdom, the just government of the people, it is necessary to subject those who have the power of making the laws, to a wholesome and strict responsibility to those whose duty it is to obey them when made:
And, whereas, this responsibility is best enforced through the instrumentality of a body which emanates directly from, and is itself immediately subject to, the whole people, and which completely represents their feelings and their interests:
And, whereas, as the Common's House of Parliament now exercises in the name and on the supposed behalf of the people, the power of making the laws, it ought, in order to fulfil with wisdom and with honesty the great duties imposed in it, to be made the faithful and accurate representation of the people's wishes, feelings and interests.
Be it therefore Enacted,
- That from and after the passing of this Act, every male inhabitant of these realms be entitled to vote for the election of a Member of Parliament, subject however to the following conditions.
- That he be a native of these realms, or a foreigner who has lived in this country upwards of two years, and been naturalised.
- That he be twenty-one years of age.
- That he be not proved insane when the list of voters are revised.
- That he be not convicted of felony within six months from and after the passing of this Act.
- That his electoral rights be not suspended for bribery at elections, or for personation, or for forgery of election certificates, according to the penalties of this Act...
- Be it enacted, that for the purpose of obtaining an equal representation of the people in the Commons' House of Parliament, the United Kingdom be divided into 300 electoral districts.
- That each such district contain, as nearly as may be, an equal number of inhabitants.
- That the number of inhabitants be taken from the last census, and as soon as possible after the next ensuing decennial census shall have been taken, the electoral districts be made to conform thereto.
- That each electoral district be named after the principal city or borough within its limits.
- That each electoral district return one representative to sit in the Commons' House of Parliament, and no more. ...
Arrangement for Nominations
- Be it enacted, that for the purpose of guarding against too great a number of candidates, who might otherwise be heedlessly proposed, as well as for giving time for the electors to enquire into the merits of the persons who may be nominated for Members of Parliament, as well as for returning officers, that all nominations be taken as herinafter directed.
- That for all general elections of Members of Parliament, a requisition of the following form, signed by at least one hundred qualified electors of the district, be delivered to the returning officer of the district between the 1st and 10th day of May in each year; and that such requisition constitute the nomination of such person as a candidate for the district. ...
- that no other qualification shall be required for members to serve in the Commons' House of Parliament, than the choice of the electors. ...
Duration of Parliament
- Be it enacted, that Members of the House of Commons chosen as aforesaid, shall meet on the first Monday in June in each year, and continue their sittings from time to time as they may deem it convenient, till the first Monday in June the following, when the next new Parliament is to be chosen: they shall be eligible to be re-elected.
- That during an adjournment, they be liable to be called together by the executive, in cases of emergency.
- That a register be kept of the daily attendance of each member, which at the close of the session shall be printed as a sessional paper, showing how the members have attended. ...
- Be it enacted, that every Member of the House of Commons by entitles, at the close of the session, to a writ of expenses on the Treasury, for his legislative duties in the public service, and shall be paid £500 per annum.
Document 7
Now, what is the mode in which these gentlemen go to work to benefit the agricultural labourers? They call them together for a ploughing match, then they bring them into the room and give them a glass of wine, and they give a reward of thirty shillings to one man who has ploughed best! Then they inquire who has served for twenty-five years in the same place, and, perhaps, they condescend to give him thirty shillings as a reward for good conduct. Then the farmers - the farmers who sit at the table - have their names read over, and prizes are awarded: to one for successfully cultivating turnips, to another for having produced a good fat ox, and to another for having accumulated the greatest quantity of lard a pig. And this is the way in which agriculture is to be improved! What should you think if a similar plan was adopted to assist you in your business? Let us suppose that a number of monopolists came down once a year, and then it is only about two hours and a half long - that they held a meeting, in which they would have a spinning match and weaving match. And after they had been into some prize mill to see this spinning and weaving match, they sat down to dinner; and Job Hargreaves or Frank Smith is brought in, stroking his head down all the while as he comes before the squirearchy, and making his very best bow, to receive from the chairman thirty shillings as a reward for having been the best spinner and the best weaver! And, this being disposed of, imagine such a manufacturer getting a prize of five pounds for the best piece of fustian! And another 'ditto', 'ditto', for the best yard-wide calico! Then imagine a shopkeeper rising from his seat to the table while the chairman puts on a grave face, and addressing him in complimentary terms, presents him with five pounds for having kept during the past year his shop-floor and his counters in the cleanest state! Then they call up a manufacturer, and he has an award of five pounds, because the inspectors had found his mill to be in the best working condition. Then the merchant rises up, and gets his reward of five pounds for having been found by the inspectors to have kept his books in the best order by double entry.
You laugh at all this, and well you may; you cannot help it. Where is the difference between the absurdity, the mockery of bringing up men in round frocks to a dinner-table and giving them thirty shilling, because they had ploughed well, or hoed well, or harrowed well - bringing up farmers to give them prizes for having the cleanest field of Swedish turnips, or for having managed their farm in the best way? Where is the difference, I ask, between offering these rewards and giving out here of such rewards as I have just now alluded to? Let us suppose, if you can keep your countenances, that such a state of things existed here. Now what must be the concomitant order of things? It would argue, in the first place, that the prizemen who were so treated were an abject and servile class. It would argue that the trader who could condescend to be treated so would himself be little better than a slave. And if you needed such stimulants as these to make you carry on your business as you ought to do, where do you think you would be found in the race of industry as compared with other classes? Where would you be if you were so childish as to be fondled and dandled by a body of Members of Parliament? Why, there would not be a country on the face of the world that you could compete with - that is evident. You would like them, be going to these same Parliamentary men, begging them to be your dry nurses, in order that they might pass an Act of Parliament to protect you in your trade.
Cobden, Speeches.
The Corn Law is the keystone of all the monopolies that afflict this country, and when once it shall have been knocked down, it will need no help from you or from us to bring down the whole structure.
Cobden, Speeches
http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/cornlaws/aclargue.htm
Document 8
The following pamphlet reflects the pro-laissez-faire point of view.againts the campaign for a ten-hour day.
THERE are few subjects upon which more erroneous sentiments prevail, than as to the proper objects and limits of legislation. The "trop governer, " is no less common, than mischievous. The propriety of legislation, as the cure of an evil, is, by most people, considered as a mere corollary of the proof of its existence, and they are surprised when you demur at applying, what they conceive to be, the easy and natural remedy.
It is said that, "Experience is a dear school, but that fools learn in no other," and we fear that, until education be sounder and more universal, until the lower classes are taught something more than reading and writing, and the higher classes, something more than the dead languages and mathematics, the school of experience is the only one in which we must continue to learn. By experience is, of course, meant, that of the individual, for a knowledge of the experience of others, and of other times and actions is wisdom: that wisdom, in which, alas! we are so deficient.
In legislation, upon some subjects at least, it seems as if we stumbled upon the highroad of truth, only after having travelled, in vain, every byeway of error, and until we have been driven, by some impassable barrier, to retrace our steps.
Thus, in our attempts to improve, by legislation, the condition of the poor, we have not only multiplied the number, but reduced them to a state of degradation before unknown. By our poor laws and our charities, we have pauperised, and almost ruined the country.
In our commerce and manufactures also, the effects of legislation have been equally mischievous. By our well meant, but injudicious attempt to foster and protect, we have constantly been driving capital from productive into unproductive channels, encourag-
ing the smuggler, checking our commerce, and stunting our manufactures; and our efforts to procure to the operatives a fair remuneration for their labour, has always ended in a reduction of their wages, or in depriving them altogether of employment.
Thus, after repeated failures, we have been, in some degree, schooled into knowledge, and have purchased our experience at the usual price. Modern legislation is indeed improving, though the improvement is rather of a negative nature, and consists not so much in passing better laws, as in repealing bad ones. It may be confidently predicted that all further improvement will be of the same kind, and thus, in matters of commerce and manufactures at least, we shall approach continually to a condition of complete and unrestricted freedom.
With such experience in the past to guide us, and such a course obvious for the future, it would indeed be unpardonable, if, instead of proceeding to retrace one false step after another, as the opportunity presents itself, we should be guilty of committing additional errors of the very same nature.
We have been led to these reflections, by perceiving the efforts making, in various quarters, to prepare the public mind for a measure, proposed to Parliament by Lord Ashley in 1833, and of which notice of motion has already been given by his Lordship, for the 6th of April; namely all Act of Parliament for restricting the hours of labour, to ten daily, in all the cotton, woollen, worsted, flax, and silk factories of the United Kingdom.
The parties who are endeavouring to carry this measure, are the same, now, as at the former period. In the first place, a certain number of the operatives themselves, who have been persuaded that they would continue to receive the same wages, when working only ten hours a-day, as they now receive, for working twelve. The "Short Time Committee" at Manchester, represents itself, we know not how truly, as their organ in the business.
In the second place, the public at large, whose humai feelings have been much excited by the tales of hardship, which have been industriously circulated respecting the children employed in the factories. And, thirdly, the Tories, as a party, for the question has now assumed entirely a political aspect, and who seem to think that they can strengthen themselves and weaken ministers, by adopting, what they consider, the popular side.
This conclusion seems justified by the fact, of the whole Tory press, including the Quarterly Review, having taken the field, and by raking up every old story, and adding some new ones, it is endeavouring to excite the feelings of the public, and of the members of the Legislature, against the mills and the mill-owners. Thus, by blinding their judgment, their support is sought for a measure, uncalled for, to say the least; mischievous to those whom it is pretended to serve, and hazardous to the interests of the kingdom at large.
It is our intention to examine the question of the "Factory System, " as it is now called, in all its bearings, to weigh with care the evils which have been alleged against it, to explain the nature of the present law, which the advocates of the "Ten Hours Bill" seek to repeal, and to inquire into the objects and consequences of the measure, which they seek to substitute.
The Factory Question has been so long before the public that we shall not enter minutely into the history of the legislation upon the subject.
The bill of Sir Robert Peel, in 1802, was, we believe, the first instance of legislation as to labour in Factories, and its operation was limited to apprentices.
We confess that we entertain some doubt of the propriety of proceeding farther than this first step in the interference with labour. A parent is the natural and only efficient guardian of a child. "If parents are inhuman enough to over work their children, Parliament cannot remedy the evil by setting itself up as the universal guardian of the offspring of the poor. The cause obviously lies in the bad moral character of the parents, and on raising that character, which Factory Bills more effectually debase, depends the only chance of cure."
When there is no natural guardian, or, from circumstances, he is prevented from exercising his guardianship, and the law transfers to a master the privileges of a parent amongst which is a command over the services of the child it most properly imposes upon him also the duties of a parent the providing the food, clothing and education of the child and, as far as it can enforce the same, it ought to impose the duty of humanity and kind treatment.
Sir Robert Peel's Bill of 1802 was therefore defective, in limiting its humane provisions to apprentices employed in cotton mills, instead of extending them to all apprentices whatsoever.
Reasonable doubts may, however, be entertained of the propriety of interference with children resident at home under the protection of their parents, except so far as securing to them aneducation, which will fit them for the performance of their duties, as members of the social body, and after a mature consideration of the Reports of the Factory Inspectors, and much conversation with intelligent mill-owners, we are satisfied that no protection of an effectual nature can be secured to children, except by some general system of education, duly enforced. Such a system would apply, not merely to the few children employed in factories but to all children. The necessity of attending schools a certain portion of every day, would secure, from being overworked, all children, not merely those employed in factories; and it would secure also the proper employment of their time when not at work, or before they were old enough to enter the factories.
But to resume our subject. In 1816 a bill was passed, making the regulations of that of 1802 applicable to all children under 16 years of age. Like its predecessor, its operation was confined to cotton mills. Respecting this bill, the Quarterly Review remarks, "The generous nature of their Lordships, assigned 11 hours, but the Commons amended the period to 12 of actual labour." We cannot speak to this, but may observe, in reply, that Sir John Hobliouse's Bill of 1825 was one for working 66 hours per week, but that "the generous nature of their Lordships, amended the period of actual labou?' to 69 hours.
In 1831, Sir John Hobliouse brought in another bill, extending the application of his former one from cotton, to all other factories, in which woollen, worsted, flax, and silk goods were manufactured, and in which the moving power was steam or water. "It was somewhat amended," says the Quarterly Review (p. 409), "by the prohibition of night working for all under 21, and by the advance of the ages, entitled to protection, from 16 to 18 years. He deserves (Sir John Hobliouse), and shall receive our warmest thanks for his amiable exertions."
It is only fair to observe, that for these improvements, Sir John Hobliouse's Bill was indebted to the committee of the mill-owners, then in London; and that the same provisions in the existing law were also introduced by the mill-owners, in opposition to the wishes of those who framed it.
It is only an act of justice to state those facts, when the masters are so constantly represented, as"sacrificing thousands and tens of thousands, on the altars of Mammon and Moloch. "
Scarcely had the second bill of Sir J. Hobliouse been in operation twelve months, when the late Mr. Sadler, emerging as if from a long entombment, with all the political and religious prejudices of the olden times, comes forward with a new proposition for limiting the labour, not of children only, but of adults, employed in factories, to ten hours daily.
Nothing surely could be more reasonable, before passing such a measure, involving such a principle, with such momentous interests at stake, than to call for evidence to prove its necessity, particularly as a new law upon the subject has but just passed the Legislature. Yet such a reasonable determination encountered the greatest opposition, and was denounced as cruel, it being represented "that thousands of lives would be sacrificed by the delay. "
It was agreed with Mr. Sadler, in committee, that he should take his witnesses first, and close his case, and that then the other side should take theirs. This was merely an arrangement for mutual convenience, and to save expense.
The close of the Session, and of Mr. Sadler's case were however, contemporaneous, and in defiance of justice, and we should think, of strict parliamentary usage, Mr. Sadler immediately published the evidence, and gave to the world such a mass of exparte statements, and of gross falsehoods and calum-
nies, as they are now generally admitted to be, as probably never found their way before into any public document.
The natural consequence of this partial proceeding, was to inflame the public mind to such a degree, that, in the ensuing Session of Parliament, the millowners, finding that they would not be allowed to call evidence on their side, which justice and the previous arrangements with Mr. Sadler's Committee entitled them to do, demanded, and with difficulty obtained, that a Parliamentary Commission should proceed immediately to the manufacturing districts, armed with full powers to examine every body and to scrutinise every thing relating to the subject.
To the Report of this Commission, and the facts collected by it, all verified upon oath, we shall frequently have occasion to appeal, and will only remark here, that they form an official and authenticated mass of evidence to which all must bow, and that every statement which has been made on either side, must be considered as of little value, except in so far as it is confirmed, or otherwise, by this document....
Source:
reprinted in "Battle for the 10-Hour day continues: 4 parnphets, 1837-1843," (N.Y.: AMS Press, 1972), pp. 1-8.
Document 9
An Act for the Amendment and better Administration of the Laws relating to the Poor in England and Wales. [ 4 & 5 Will. IV cap. 76]It shall be lawful for His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, to appoint Three fit Persons to be Commissioners to carry this Act into execution.…
- … the said Commissioners shall be styled 'The Poor Law Commissioners for England and Wales'; and the said Commissioners, or any Two of them, may sit, from Time to Time as they deem expedient, as a Board of Commissioners for carrying this Act into execution.…
- … the said Commissioners shall once in every Year, submit to One of the Principal Secretaries of State a general Report of their Proceedings; and every such general Report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.…
- … from and after the passing of this Act the Administration of Relief to the Poor throughout England and Wales, according to the existing Laws, or such Laws as shall be in force at the Time being, shall be subject to the Direction and Control of the said Commissioners; and for executing the Powers given to them by this Act the said Commissioners shall and are hereby authorized and required, from Time to Time as they shall see Occasion, to make and issue all such Rules, Orders, and Regulations for the Management of the Poor, for the Government of Workhouses and the Education of the Children therein, and for the Management of Parish Poor Children.…
- … no General Rule of the said Commissioners shall operate or take effect until the Expiration of Forty Days after the same, or a Copy thereof, shall have been sent, signed and sealed by the said Commissioners, to One of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State; and if... His Majesty, with the Advice of His Privy Council, shall disallow the same or any Part thereof, such General Rule, or the Part thereof so disallowed, shall not come into operation.…
- … it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners… by and with the Consent in Writing of a Majority of the Guardians of any Union, or with the Consent of a Majority of the Rate-payers and Owners of Property… to order and direct the Overseers or Guardians of any Parish or Union not having a Workhouse or Workhouses to build a Workhouse or Workhouses…
- … it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners, by Order under their Hands and seal, to declare so many Parishes as they may think fit to be united for the Administration of the Laws for the Relief of the Poor, and such Parishes shall thereupon be deemed a Union for such Purpose, and thereupon the Workhouse or Workhouses of such Parishes shall be for their common Use.…
- …where any Parishes shall be united by Order or with the Concurrence of the said Commissioners… a Board of Guardians of the Poor for such Union shall be constituted and chosen, and the Workhouse or Workhouses of such Union shall be governed, and the Relief of the Poor in such Union shall be administered, by such Board of Guardians; and the said Guardians shall be elected by the Rate-payers, and by such Owners of Property in the Parishes forming such Union as shall in manner herein-after mentioned require to have their Names entered as entitled to vote as Owners in the Books of such Parishes respectively; and the said Commissioners shall determine the Number and prescribe the Duties of the Guardians to be elected in each Union, and also fix a Qualification without which no Person shall be eligible as such Guardian.…
- … if the said Commissioners shall, by any Order under their Hands and Seal, direct that the Administration of the Laws for the Relief of the Poor of any single Parish should be governed and administered by a Board of Guardians, then such Board shall be elected and constituted, and authorized and entitled to act, for such single Parish, in like Manner.…
- … the said Commissioners may and are hereby authorized, by Writing under their Hands and seal, to make Rules, Orders, and Regulations, to be observed and enforced at every Workhouse already established.…
- … it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners… to direct the Overseers or Guardians of any Parish or Union… to appoint such paid Officers with such Qualifications as the said Commissioners shall think necessary for superintending or assisting in the Administration of the Relief and Employment of the Poor.…
- …the said Commissioners may… as and when they shall think proper, by Order under their Hands and Seal, either upon or without any Suggestion or Complaint in that Behalf from the Overseers or Guardians of any Parish or Union, … remove any Master of any Workhouse, or Assistant Overseer, or other paid Officer of any Parish or Union whom they shall deem unfit… or incompetent.…
- And whereas a Practice has obtained of giving Relief to Persons or their Families who, at the Time of applying for or receiving such Relief, were wholly or partially in the Employment of Individuals, and the Relief of the able-bodied and their Families is in many Places administered in Modes productive of Evil in other respects: And whereas Difficulty may arise in case any immediate and universal Remedy is attempted to be applied in the Matters aforesaid; be it further enacted, That from and after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners, by such Rules, Orders, or Regulations as they may think fit, to declare to what Extent and for what Period the Relief to be given to able-bodied Persons or to their Families in any particular Parish or Union may be administered out of the Workhouse of such Parish or Union, by Payments in Money, or with Food or Clothing in Kind, or partly in Kind and partly in Money, and in what Proportions, to what Persons or Class of Persons, at what Times and Places, on what Conditions, and in what Manner such Outdoor Relief may be afforded....
- … in case any Person shall wilfully neglect or disobey any of the Rules, Orders, or Regulations of the said Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners, or be guilty of any Contempt of the said Commissioners sitting as a Board, such Person shall, upon Conviction before any Two justices, forfeit and pay for the First Offence any Sum not exceeding Five Pounds, for the Second Offence any Sum not exceeding Twenty Pounds nor less than Five Pounds, and in the event of such Person being convicted a Third Time, such Third and every subsequent Offence shall be deemed a Misdemeanour, and such Offender shall be liable to be indicted for the same Offence, and shall on Conviction pay such Fine, not being less than Twenty Pounds, and suffer such Imprisonment, with or without hard Labour, as may be awarded against him by the Court by or before which he shall be tried and convicted.
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/plaatext.html
Document 10
The parliamentary debate on the 1842 Chartist Petition Thomas Slingsby Duncombe presented the petition on 2 May 1842 and the debate took place on 5 May. Duncombe believed that the Chartists should be heard. He said that there were precedents in the Eighteenth Century, and hearing them would probably prevent violence. He said, "These Chartists, in fact, are only the Radicals of former days", which was partly true. Duncombe said that parliament could only expect people to appear at Westminster to try to redress their grievances, since parliament had done nothing to help them except talk.
Never were the people as determined as at the present moment by every constitutional means to obtain the franchise ... When they see their interests disregarded, and their feelings insulted, and when they have no hope of better times or better treatment, unless they work out their own redress - when you offer them more words, and endeavour to stop their cravings by the delusive promises of a Queen's speech - when you tell them that 'you feel extremely for the distress of the manufacturing districts, which they have borne with exemplary patience and fortitude' but offer them no remedy beyond your compassion - what can you expect but that they should make their way to this house, and, as you will do nothing for them, endeavour to do something for themselves? ...Fielden, the factory owner of Todmorden, sympathised with the Chartists. He said
By the bad legislation in that House, all the people had been made politicians, and they had got an impression on their minds that nothing but a Radical change in the constitution of that House would ever give the people what they had a right to.Sir John Easthope said that
... The petition came from those who were suffering distress, and who displayed that discontent which was the natural concomitant of distress ... His sincere conviction was, that if they sought to aggravate the grievous distress which now existed, they could not be more successful than they would be if they obtained a grant of all the prayers in their petition.Thomas Babington Macaulay objected to hearing the Chartists.
Dr. Bowring demonstrated a changing attitude in parliament towards public opinion - the start of modern England. He thought that pressure groups should be recognised because internal laissez-faire was breaking down.
A government founded on a wide representation was, after all, nothing but the recognition that government represented public opinion, and the most enduring government must be that which had the greatest mass of public opinion to support it Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary, accepted the principles of the petition and agreed that distress was a real problem. He did not think that Chartism was the answer. To hear the petitioners would raise false hopes. He felt that the solution rested in sound economic policies (i.e. free trade), not in constitutional reforms.
It was not a question of fact to be investigated, it was a question of policy to be adopted.Lord John Russell, the Whig leader, thought that hearing the petition was undesirable and not in the national interest. He expressed his 'abhorrence of the doctrine set forth in the petition'. He believed that if the present working class was enfranchised then violent Chartists would be elected and the threat to property 'was obvious'. He also saw a potential threat to the stability of government if the moderates lost control of parliament.
Sir Robert Peel, the Conservative Prime Minister, was against the Charter and opposed hearing the Chartists, for reasons similar to Graham's. Peel based his attack on the belief in further socio-economic reform as the solution to the problem of distress.
The debate took less than an hour.
Voting: 49 for; 287 against. It was defeated by a majority of 238.
Document 11
Introduction of the Reform Bill to Parliament: 12 December 1831Hansard vol 9 cc156-206.
Mr. Hunt observed, that the noble Lord, when introducing the former Bill, had spoken of the Representation of the people, but upon this occasion the noble Lord had omitted that phrase altogether, and now spoke of the Representation of the property and intelligence of the country. He was happy the noble Lord had so fairly taken this distinction, for he had no hesitation in saying, though he would admit, that the alterations which had been made in the Bill were great improvements in it, that this Bill would exclude nine-tenths of the male population of this country from any share in the Representation. He had no hesitation in saying, that if this Bill should be passed into a law, and he had no doubt that it would be passed, seeing the disposition with which it had been received on [186] that (the Opposition) side of the House, that it would not be found satisfactory to the great majority of the people of this country. He had been accused of speaking favourably of the late Bill in that House, and unfavourably out of it. Nothing could be more incorrect than such a charge against him. He had opposed the late Bill on many occasions, and he had been charged as its greatest enemy in that House long before it went out of it. With regard to schedule A, he did not care one farthing whether certain boroughs were taken out or left in it; but he was glad that his Majesty's Ministers had redeemed their character for impartiality, by taking the notorious borough of Calne out of the list of boroughs with two Members, and putting it in schedule B. There was one change in the Bill which he thought would be satisfactory to the country, and that was, the new arrangements which would simplify the rights of voting. He did not see why a man living in a �10 house should be compelled to pay up his rent in order to entitle him to vote. That was a provision in the former Bill of which he had always loudly complained. He had then said, that they might as well compel a man to pay his butcher or his baker, as to pay his rent, in order to qualify him for an elector. It appeared to him that all those who supported the former Bill had no reason to disapprove of this, except through sinister motives. It could not be denied, however, that the cuckoo cry of "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," was now blown into air, and he hoped they should hear no more of it; for the present Bill, without altering the principle, was a complete alteration of the measure. He did not think that the aristocracy had anything to fear from the Bill, for it had been shown lately by the public Press that it would not operate against them. They had heard a great deal of the labours of the Parliamentary Commissioners through the country, which labours, he believed, consisted principally of eating and drinking. At all events, he knew, that in the town of Bolton the Commissioners did nothing beyond stopping at the best inn, living on the best fare, and sending to the collectors for a return of the assessed houses. In that town, with a population of 42,000, of which 14,000 were adult males, there were only 680 assessed houses. He would do the best in his power to simplify and amend the Bill. He knew it would pass, and he hoped it would give more satisfaction than the other; at the same time, in spite of the hon. member for Kirkcudbright [Robert Cutlar Fergusson], he would [187] speak his opinions on the subject both in and out of the House.
Mr. Leader begged to say, that he would support the Reform Bill for England, even were no Reform to be extended to Ireland. He, however, deeply lamented the declaration of the noble Lord with respect to Ireland, and the limitation of the number of Members for that country, which he could not but feel to be unjust. Ireland dealt with this country to the amount of £20,000,000 a-year, and its population were active, enlightened, and energetic. He would, however, suspend any further observations for the present, again expressing his regret that the number of Irish Representatives was not to be increased. But he must, however, be permitted to remark, that he agreed with the noble Marquis (the Marquis of Chandos) that the city of London, which drew towards it constantly the wealth of the empire, should not have such a number of Representatives as would preclude other and more distant portions of the empire from their fair share of the Representation. The proportion now fixed for Ireland and Scotland would, he feared, lead to great dissatisfaction.
Sir Charles Forbes thought the changes proposed were of very little consequence. The principle of the Bill remained the same. When he saw such a mushroom place as Brighton was to have two Members, while Aberdeen and Dundee were only to have one each, as well as the county of Inverness, though all were of so much importance, he knew his countrymen would be dissatisfied with it. He had hoped, that the Lord Advocate would have done what was expected of him in Scotland, and would have protected the interests of his country. He would say loudly, considering the wealth of that portion of the empire, and the high character of the people, that justice had not been done to them. An adequate number of Representatives had not been granted to that country. In every other respect he disapproved of this Bill as much as he did of the former one, which was a monster that ought never to have been allowed to shew its face in that House. They ought to have come down and opposed it at first, and if they had done so there was very little doubt as to what would have been the result. He should continue to oppose the Bill, and no intimidation should weigh a feather in the scale against his determined opinion. He stood there to do his duty according to his conscience, and do it he would, and oppose this monster with a new face upon all [188] occasions, let who would gainsay his motives.
http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/refact/12dec31.htm
Document 12
Reform Act of 1867