- William Cobbett, being a journalist, would have been likely to be one extreme or the other. He would have wanted to make an impact on the people around him, to get people to notice him and his views, and to affect peoples’ views. He would have been writing to inform people in England about the conditions in the factories, and, being against them, he would have been able to make them seem much worse than they were, as some people would have no other source of information about them other than his article. Also, at the time he wrote, England was strongly against slavery and trying to get rid of it, so describing the system as producing slavery would have caught peoples’ attention, and made them feel ashamed that, while they were trying to wipe out slavery in other countries, there was slavery happening in there own country. Also, as his audience were likely to hold quite high positions, as only educated people could read, and the educated were often the rich or people who had some authority, so if he managed to affect their views, something might be done about it. This source may also be biased, as the language he uses strongly suggests it. It may have been he or his family had been affected by the conditions in factories, or perhaps he just felt very strongly about them, but this source certainly presents a very extreme opinion, and (the tone in which he writes it suggests) it might be biased. This source could also be unreliable as it could be that Cobbett has never actually been into or visited a factory, which would mean he wouldn’t actually know what he was talking about, and so would either have to guess or base his evidence on things other people have told him.
- As Robert Owen was a factory owner, who would have wanted to give a good impression of himself and the conditions in his factory, this source might not be reliable. He would have wanted to make his factory sound excellent, and make himself sound even better, so he may have biased the source so it presented such an image. His audience would also have been educated people, so he would have wanted to give a good impression so that he was thought highly of.
However, Owen would have been alive at the time, meaning he would have known what the conditions were like. He would be the one controlling the conditions in his factory and the treatment of his workforce, so he would know all the rules, wages, shifts and procedures inside his factory very well. Also, it is very likely Owen would have actually been inside his factory, meaning he would have also seen the conditions for himself. He also tells us that, when the cotton supplies failed for four months, he “paid full wages for only keeping the machinery in full and working condition”. He would have known whether this had actually happened, as he controlled the wages and conditions, so his evidence would be first hand, rather than hearing it from someone else.
As this is an autobiography, however, and not some document giving evidence to authorities, Owen would not have had that large a reason to bias his source. But, as his book could be bought by a large number of people, he would want to appeal to all of them, and for those who bought the book to approve of him. This could have been a reason for changing the source in his favour.
- When collecting evidence from children, there are many points that could show them to be reliable/ unreliable.
For instance, the children would have actually been there at the time, and would have been working in the conditions themselves. This means the children would have known what it was like to be subjected to those conditions, and know what the conditions were and how they affected them. Also, children might not think to bias their source unless they were older- but their memory may also be a bit inaccurate, meaning they make up parts they couldn’t remember, and meaning only parts of the source are true. Also, if they are asked things about the factory they didn’t know, they could either make it up, or they may base their evidence on what their parents have told them, which could have been exaggerated, perhaps to scare the children.
However, some children (probably the older ones) may have biased their sources. However, not all of them may have biased theirs in the same way. Some may have biased their evidence so it made the conditions sound worse than they were, because they wanted something to be done about their treatment and the conditions they worked in. Others may have biased their evidence so the conditions sounded much better than they were, as they knew that if their working hours were cut, their wages would be too. This means they would hardly be able to make a living. Therefore, they may have biased their source so that the MPs didn’t decide to cut their working hours.
Some children could have been threatened by their parents or others in the factory not to tell the truth, and to bias it towards the factories, as they might have not wanted their wages cut, and the parents may also have not wanted their children’s wages cut, as they were the ones who got to spend them.
The language children used wouldn’t have been that elaborate, so the authorities might be able to tell if a child had been told what to say by the language they were using. Also, some children’s views on the conditions may not have been that strong, as it have been the only conditions they had ever known, and therefore appear fairly normal to them. The tone that a child spoke in wouldn’t necessarily give many clues about whether their source was bias or not, although if they had been told what to say, the tone they speak in may not quite match up with what they are saying. This could also tell us that the source is bias.
With evidence where there could be bias, it is difficult to reach a final conclusion, as the evidence could be telling us the wrong things, or things that have been altered. This means the conclusion we come to may be inaccurate. However, sources from the time are more likely to be accurate than sources written today, as modern historians wouldn’t have been there to see what happened, and their information could also be based on sources from the time.
Overall, there are many arguments about how sources from children could be unreliable, but it could be difficult to tell which are and which aren’t. Unreliable evidence can also draw us to a misled and inaccurate conclusion.
