The history of ancient England is embedded in numerous political, cultural, economic and social movements that were common occurrences. One such auspicious incidence was the movement that agitated for reduced working period to maximum of ten hours without any lowering of wages. The Ten Hour Act of 1947 has had significant historical implication bearing in mind that its benefits have left indelible footprints in present day labor laws worldwide.
However, it is imperative to note that the journey towards its success was not pleasant since it raised mixed reactions from different quarters. For instance, it encountered serious opposition from personalities like Sir Richard Peel while others like Lord Macaulay gave it support. It is against this backdrop that this bill was introduced, withdrawn and later reintroduced into the House of Commons several times before it could pass.
In addition to opposition from Sir Robert Peel, the laissez faire doctrine was also another hurdle. This was being practiced in England and was the greatest setback towards the passage of Ten Hour Bill, as most opponents like Sir Robert Peel considered state intervention in social reforms as capable of inhibiting and discouraging free trade and reforms that were desperately needed at that time.
The Ten Hour Act, as it is commonly known, was initiated by John Fielden who fought tirelessly until the bill was finally passed as Factory Act in 1847(Mathias 180). Although Fielden’s proposal was regarded as impractical by opponents, it was crucial at that time due to the fact that children and women were being subjected to long working hours.
Moreover, they were working under intolerable conditions following the emergence of industrial revolution (Mathias 181). Therefore, the reform sought to reduce working hours for children and female workers to a maximum of ten hours. There was also an educational clause which called for children to continue attending classes besides working. Implementing the clause would have been quite impossible especially if they continued to working for long hours (Mathias 181).
In offering his support for the Act, Lord Macaulay strongly argued that there was no correlation between free trade concept and the Ten Hour Act. His argument could be directly linked to the doctrine of laissez faire which had emerged in the 18th century as an attempt to promote competitiveness among factories (More 69). During that time, the government had adopted a hands-off attitude towards state intervention on private property rights.
As aforementioned, laissez faire was the greatest setback at that time towards factory reform as traders believed that the proposed reduction of working hours was likely to ruin productivity (More 72). On the same note, the fact that the Corn Laws debate was also in progress during that time hindered success of Ten Hour Act as most traders argued for a repeal of Corn Laws before the Ten Hour Act could be discussed (Mathias, 185).
From his speech, it is without doubt that Lord Macaulay was a key supporter of free-trade doctrine though with great reservations. He argued that in spite of non-intervention principle that was deemed necessary as part and parcel of promoting economic prosperity, some sort of restrictions from the government was inevitable (Mathias 184). As a matter of fact, the issue of maximum hours of labor touched on the very realm of public health and public morality which the government had no alternative but to intervene (Mathias 186).
Furthermore, he argued that the issue of children working for long hours was to be addressed from the moral perspective rather than from a political or radical view. As such, he called for his colleagues to consider the twelve-hour day for kids below thirteen years as harmful to their health. He pointed out that the problem of working hours deserved government intervention and restrictions (Mathias 186).
At this point, it is imperative to note that during that time in England there was a common philosophy about morality and human actions (More 79).
Moreover, there was an established perception that the actions of man should not by any chance be harmful to others or self. From this perspective, Lord Macaulay argued that even though the young people in the society were willing to work for long hours to increase their household income, the end-result would be detrimental to their health. Therefore, he felt that it there was need for it to be restricted on morality grounds (Mathias 189).
Needless to say, he upheld education as the ultimate strategy for achieving virtue and happiness in a human life, and that acquiring education was of moral importance. On the contrary, Sir Robert Peel refuted Lord Macaulay moral reasoning by arguing that economic benefits overrode any moral principle (More 82). Nevertheless, Sir Robert Peel was not against social reform. Rather, he was particularly opposed to government intervention in solving social problems (More 86).
As exemplified above, the issue of free markets was deeply rooted in government ideologies and since Peel was the Prime Minister, he argued that his opposition to Ten Hour Act was in the best interest of the majority of workers who were going through difficult times.
In response to Lord Macaulay’s argument, Peel admitted that although the government was not supposed to abandon all forms of social responsibility, it was expected to come in handy especially as the last resort. In addition, any form of intervention was supposed to be thought carefully in terms of cost effectiveness (More, 75).
From his speech, it is obvious that Sir Robert Peel was not willing to loose his grip on free-market’s ideology. As such, his resilience persisted to the very end even when the bill was unanimously passed in 1847 (Mathias 185).
To revisit Lord Macaulay’s speech, it is imperative to note that he demonstrated his support to the debate by calling on his colleagues to consider the move to abolish long working hours as the noblest role of any civilized society. He also argued that, in any civilized society, the state was responsible for upholding the rights of the underage against any form of oppression (Mathias 186).
On the same breath, he explained that the same way the state intervened to prevent children from well to do families from disposing off their assets before they are of age, it should adapt the same principle to prevent unfortunate children from signing employment contracts that were likely to affect their health negatively (Mathias 186). In addition, he argued that though the government ought not to interfere with liberal interaction between two people, there was exception when one individual was underage.
He cited the fact that children’s judgment was likely to be impaired and that they were not in vantage position to assess looming consequences arising from long working hours. Needless to say, by failing to act as a good guardian, the state would have failed in its duties of protecting and promoting matters of public health and public morality (Mathias 185).
At this point, it is imperative to note that the economic atmosphere during laissez faire period was tense and any bill seeking to limit working hours for an adult was doomed to fail (More 82). Therefore, the proponents of the Ten Hour Bill hoped that restrictions on hours that children between the ages of 10-13 worked would somehow have spill-over effects to adjust working hours for adults (More 81).
One of the most important things to note is that the bill was not purely against child labor but it also sought to limit the number of hours that they worked (More 74). On the contrary, Lord Macaulay admitted that the bill was likely to regulate working hours for adults. However, this would have happened indirectly. The fact that this could not be established led him to urge his fellow house members to support the bill (Mathias 182).
In a nutshell, it is imperative to underscore the fact that the emergence of industrial revolution generated a myriad of economic benefits. Besides, it brought about considerable suffering among laborers. Children were the worst hit group in the entire labor force. As already mentioned, this prompted debate on reduction of working hours particularly among women and children.
Following several withdrawals and repeals of the Ten Hour Act by the House of Commons, the bill was finally endorsed in 1847. Subsequently, it later paved way for various similar bills. The generated effects are still exceedingly evident in contemporary labor laws.
Works Cited
Mathias, Peter. The First Industrial Nation: an Economic History of Britain 1700-1914. London: Methuen. 1983.
More, Charles. Understanding the Industrial Revolution. London: Routledge. 2001.