The information given by Joseph Sefton on hygiene and conditions in the Apprentice house, gives us the impression that the Apprentice's were well looked after at Styal.
Source C portrays health at Styal in a positive manner. George and Elizabeth Shawcross exhibit that there is very little sickness at Styal, as Greg pays a doctor each year for all the medicine and visits they receive. Consequently, this substantiates that the children were well looked after and cared for. George and Elizabeth Shawcross also state that when the children first arrive, they do not look as healthy as they do when they have been there for some time. This comment definitely supports Styal Mill, and it seems that Elizabeth and George believe that children are much better looked after at Styal, than where they have previously come from.
Sources B and C both contribute and support the evidence found in Source D. Firstly, it is clear from studying Source D, that the Apprentice House itself looks rather clean and tidy. This links in well with Joseph Sefton's evidence in Source B. There is evidence of the Apprentice House workers cleaning the house in this picture, which also portrays a good image. We can also acknowledge that their beds are provided for the children in the house, which again links in well with the evidence that Joseph Sefton gave. However, there is little information found regarding illness at Styal Mill. There does not seem to be a doctor present in the Apprentice House, but it is possible that the children would visit the doctor outside of the apprentice house. The children themselves pictured in the house do not look ill, meaning they are likely to have been looked after very well.
Joseph implies that the food provided at Styal was of a good standard. Moreover, Joseph only mentions the food, which was given on a Sunday. No other day of the week has been mentioned, which could suggest that, generally, the meals were poor, except for Sundays, when the meals were of a much better standard.
There is little information given in Source C regarding food and diet. This Source does mention that the children were given an hour at noon for dinner and half an hour at 8 for breakfast. Although the children finish work at 7, the Source does not provide any more information on other meals, suggesting that the children only received 2 meals per day. However, the children do finish work at 7, as this Source implies. Therefore, it is also possible that the children were given a meal after work.
Both sources help to support Source D, as straight away it is clear that a dining room is present on the bottom floor where a group of children are sitting down eating. There is also a kitchen on the bottom floor, where one or two Apprentice workers are present. In general, the Source does substantiate that meals were given to the children; Sources B and C therefore support it.
Overall, it is clear that the majority of the evidence in Sources B and C, does support the evidence shown in Source D for some things, such as gender separation, meals outside the mills etc. However, not everything stated in Sources B and C can support what is being shown in Source D.
- Study Sources A, B, C, F and G. Using the evidence of these sources and your own knowledge explain why people had different attitudes to the employment of children at mills such as Styal.
In relation to Styal Mill, there were many different interpretations and opinions held on child labour. In addition, whilst studying Sources A, B, C, F and G, it’s clear that they provide us with five different sources of evidence, each portraying different opinions and attitudes towards Styal Mill and significantly, child labour.
Firstly, Source A issues us with a positive encounter towards children working. The Source, which has been obtained from a modern history book, has supplied us with numerous factual reasons of why children were most suitable for working at Styal Mill. It is highly recognisable that the person who wrote this was in favour of child labour, possibly being a mill worker or a mill owner, such as Samuel Greg himself. We instantly think this as all of the advantages of using children, which are mentioned in Source A, are of some benefit to factory workers and owners. The attitude, therefore, has been explained using economic reason, as it was in the factories own economic self-interest to employ children.
From my own knowledge, I've discovered that the employment of children wasn't disregarded by many and was accepted by the majority, especially those who were dependant on child labour to carry out their work.
Moreover, we also obtain some positive factors from Source B, an account given by Joseph Sefton, who was employed at Styal Mill; therefore, this source has been given from a child's perspective. When analysing the source, the statement given tells me that Joseph Sefton was for child labour. Joseph states that he worked every morning and that he enjoyed his employment very much. However, it does later mention that he was unhappily made to work overtime each night, which he didn't enjoy as he would much rather prefer to study for school. This evidence is negative in Joseph's perspective; he didn't like to work overtime, yet he was forced. Following on, Joseph's overall opinions on Styal are of a positive manner, as he implies there were clean rooms, good beds, new clothes provided, plenty of food provided etc.
However, as Source A previously mentioned, a lot of the children employed at Styal had previously come from parishes. Therefore, children like Joseph Sefton may see Styal Mill as a much better environment for them, in comparison to the parishes. In addition, they may agree with child labour, as they would prefer to stay at Styal, rather than return to the parishes.
Joseph did attempt to escape from Styal Mill in 1806. In response, this could not reflect a truly positive attitude, as Joseph may have escaped from Styal due to the bad conditions. However, on the other hand, as we know from our own knowledge, a small minority of children did escape from Styal to be reunited with their families. Considering the evidence Joseph gave he portrayed Styal Mill in a good light. We could have good reason to believe that his escape was not connected to how he was treated in Styal. In summary, the source is pointed more to a positive review on Styal and child labour.
Source C, an account given by George and Elizabeth Shawcross, who were in charge of the apprentice house at Styal, highly supports child labour. When asked 'how long do the children work in the mills?' They tell us that children work 12 hours a day, with an hour for lunch and half an hour for breakfast in the morning. They show no sentiment towards the children with regard to these long hours, which could therefore imply that they were indifferent towards long hours, suggesting that a 12-hour working day for a child was acceptable during that time.
This Source definitely gives a positive view towards Styal. The Shawcrosses state that when children first appear at Styal, they do not look as healthy as they do when they have been there for some time. We instantly think that the children are well looked after and cared for, with a doctor being provided and education provided and the fact that deformities were rare, telling us that accidents rarely occurred. Although the evidence is given from a primary source, it cannot corroborate that conditions at the mill were this good, as George and Elizabeth relied on child labour for employment purposes. Additionally, we automatically expect their responses to be biased, making Source C an unreliable source.
In contrast to Sources A, B and C, Source F portrays child labour in a much more harsh and severe manner. Source F is a secondary account describing the incident involving Lucy Garner and Esther Price, both being employed at Styal, and later escaping. However, the individual who dedicated the account to Lord Ashley in 1837 remained anonymous. But, the fact that it was dedicated to Lord Ashley, who was in favour of factory reform, helps us to understand why the writer was against child labour. The content throughout the source sheds light on why the writer was against child labour. Details given on Esther's punishment, substantiates that it was cruel and discipline was very harsh and taken extremely seriously.
Source F provides us with evidence about Esther Price, and how she was left isolated in a room in the Apprentice House, which had been boarded up, preventing her from escaping and from communicating with others. It also implies that she was forced to sleep on the floor, and given milk, bread and porridge every morning and evening.
Overall, Source F is exhibiting that the treatment of these two girls was appalling and unnecessary. In addition, people reading the article immediately see child labour as unacceptable and unfair on children, which is, most likely, the main aim of whoever wrote this.
Despite this, a child running away from Styal Mill also gives negative interpretations, as running away could relate to unhappiness. Considering Lord Ashley was a huge campaigner against child labour, and the fact that this article was dedicated to him, makes us assume that whoever constructed Source F was a humanitarian campaigner. Being against child labour could have resulted in events being exaggerated and blown out of proportion, to make them sound much worse than they really were. The writer is probably aiming to influence readers in being against child labour, by using a piece of propaganda and only issuing dissenting information, which immediately puts people against child labour.
Source G again follows Source F, and provides us with a negative view on child labour. Source F is a drawing showing poor apprentices feeding at a pig’s trough, taken from 'The Life Of Robert Blincoe', in 1833. People who seen this picture, have probably turned against child labour, as the apprentices in this picture look desperate and badly treated. People may instantly think that all apprentices are treated in a cruel manner, however this was not the case, as different mills varied. The person, who produced this drawing, was obviously highly against child labour, as they believed that the apprentices were treated in a cruel and horrifying way, as this drawing implies. The drawer’s aims are probably to influence people, and to make people turn against child labour, which may have been why this drawing was produced in the first place. However, some apprentices were treated well, and this picture if correct, may only represent one of the many mills in the country, therefore it's not as reliable as people think.
Overall, from studying all of the sources, it has become clear that many different views of child labour were held. It seems that the people who accepted and supported child labour, were the people who were dependent on it, such as Elizabeth and George Shawcross and other mill workers and owners. As child labour provided them with a job, they were bound to see the positive factors of it. Moreover, workers who had previously come from parishes, would have most likely of wanted to stay, as the conditions at the mill were more than likely to be much better than the conditions at a parish. On the other hand, many people were against child labour, such as the person who submitted the article about Esther Price. Articles like this highly influenced people’s opinions on child labour, as people probably believed them and believed that all apprentices were treated like this. It's highly unsurprising that people were against child labour, with articles like this being produced, and with drawings such as the one in Source G being produced. Some events were blown out of proportion, to make people rebel against child labour. From studying all of these sources, it is clear that many different views were portrayed on the issue of child labour.
4. Study Sources B, C and G. How useful are these sources in helping you understand working conditions at mills such as Styal in the period before 1840? Explain your answer by reference to all three sources.
After studying Source B, it is clear that the information provided is very useful to us. From this source, we can obtain a lot of important information, regarding working conditions at Styal Mill. It is also useful to us, as it is a first-hand experience, from a child’s perspective. Joseph Sefton presented this information to a Magistrates Court, after he attempted to escape from Styal, during 1806.
The source tells us that Joseph was previously in a workhouse, before he agreed to be bound apprentice to Samuel Greg. As we already know, many children were obtained from Parishes and employed at Styal Mill. Joseph then implies that each morning he had to doff bobbins and oil the machinery, and although he liked his employment very much, he was forced to work overtime each night, which he did not like, as he preferred to study his books and go more often to school. We first get the impression that the work seems rather easy, especially since Joseph enjoyed his employment. If the work at Styal was hard and tiring, Joseph would have most likely have held a completely different reaction to his views on his employment. The source also tells us that he was forced to work overtime each night, which he was not fond of, as he'd rather go to school more often. Although this source may be useful, as it substantiates that the children were given an education, it also tells us that the education provided may have been limited and instead of school lessons, some children may have been forced to work overtime instead.
Joseph then states that he lodged in the apprentice house, with the boys sleeping at one side of the house and the girls on the other. This information is again useful to us, as we know that there was a strict separation by gender at Styal Mill. Joseph seems rather happy with the conditions at Styal, as he exhibits that the rooms were very clean, with the floors frequently washed and the rooms aired every day. From this, we can see that Styal Mill was a good, clean environment for the children. We get the impression that the child must have been well cared for and looked after well. He also states that the food was of a good standard, and that they always had as much as they could to eat. Although this is useful, as it shows us that they were provided with a good standard of healthy food, and that they were able to eat as much as they possibly could, it could also be viewed in another way. As Joseph only mentions the food provided on a Sunday, it could possibly be suggesting that the food was good on a Sunday, but for the other days, it was poor.
This source does appear very useful to us, with the information that it provides. However, we must remember that Joseph Sefton was making this statement to a Magistrates Court, after he had attempted to run away from Styal. Therefore, this could not represent a truly positive attitude towards Styal. Although some children did attempt to escape so they could be reunited with their families, some children may have escaped due to the terrible conditions at Styal. In addition, his escape could possibly imply negativity and unhappiness. Also, Joseph may have not wanted to say anything derogated or critical about Styal, as he knew he'd have to return there to work afterwards, as a result, he may have been fearful of reprisals. Even if conditions were bad at Styal, conditions in the workhouses were probably even worse, so if Joseph told the truth about Styal, he may have been forced to return to the workhouse.
Overall, we can see that the source is useful, but it does also have its disadvantages, and it could be seen as biased. However, it's important to remember that even if this source is true, it only represents one person; therefore, it is not totally representative on every child working in mills at the time.
Following on, Source C again has its usefulness, but it could also be seen as unreliable for many reasons. From this source, we can obtain a lot of factual information on conditions at Styal Mill in 1833. The source was evidence given to a Royal Commission on Factories by George and Elizabeth Shawcross, who were in charge of the apprentice house at Styal.
When asked about the working hours, the Shawcrosses state that the children work twelve hours each day, from six in the morning to seven at night, with an hour at noon for lunch and half an hour at eight for breakfast. They also state that all of the meals are eaten outside of the mill. This source is useful as it does not give us opinions, but instead basic facts, it tells us how long the children work for and provides us with information on eating arrangements. However, they do not show any concern or pity towards the children, when they mention that the children work twelve hours each day. This could perhaps suggest that a twelve-hour working day for a child was accepted during them days, and maybe in comparison with other mills, twelve hours a day was fairly good.
George and Elizabeth also imply that there is very little sickness at the mill, as Samuel Greg pays the doctor every year for all of the medicine and visits, which the children receive. They also state that the children don't look so healthy when they come here, as they do when they have been there for some time. From this, we instantly gain a positive attitude towards Styal. The children seemed to be cared for, and the conditions must have been exceedingly good, as not many children got sick, and the children look much healthier after they've been at Styal for some time, in comparison to when they first arrived. This tells us that the conditions at Styal for children were much better than were they had previously come from, and that Styal was a much better environment for them.
Although this source does provide us with a lot of information, it could also be seen as unreliable when considering who answered the questions. As George and Elizabeth's jobs are dependant on child labour, they are most likely to support it, and see the advantages of it, such as providing them with a job, rather than the disadvantages. Without child labour, they would be unemployed, so they are bound to accept it, therefore, we automatically expect positive responses to these questions. It could also be possible that if anything negative was mentioned, they could risk unemployment; in addition, they were probably extremely careful about what they said. They may have also just included the positive points and missed out the drawbacks, only portraying one side of child labour.
However, even if the conditions at Styal were as good as the Shawcrosses exhibit, it is important to remember that conditions varied from mill to mill, so conditions at Styal may have been good, but this source does not represent the conditions for all working apprentices during this time. Overall, the source is useful in many ways and it does provide us with a lot of useful information, but it is necessary to remember the drawbacks first.
Alternatively, from studying Source G, we can instantly see that whoever produced this drawing, was definitely against child labour. Although the drawing may be useful to us in some ways, it definitely has many disadvantages as well. The drawing shows poor apprentices feeding at a pig’s trough, obtained from 'The Life Of Robert Blincoe' in 1833.
The source could be seen as useful as it could be showing us how bad conditions were for some apprentices, and how horrific some apprentices were treated during this time. Although it does not represent every apprentice, only 'poor apprentices' it could still be demonstrating to us how bad conditions were for some people during this time. From the drawing, it is clear that the children were not very well looked after and that the living conditions were appalling for them.
Although the source could provide us with information on how apprentices were treated, on the other hand it does hold many disadvantages. A drawing such as this could easily be exaggerated to make people rebel against child labour. Certain groups of individuals, who were against child labour, may have deliberately produced this drawing to influence people’s views on child labour. A drawing like this would have probably received a lot of attention and people would have probably changed their views and protested against child labour.
Even if this drawing was correct and does provide us with accurate and reliable information, it likely only represents one mill out of many in the country at the time. Therefore, the conditions at one mill could not represent every mill in the country, as it's likely that the majority were of a much better condition than this one. Overall, this source is useful as it does provide us with some information on the horrific conditions which may have been present at some mills, however it is does not represent the overall conditions for apprentices at mills, so it could be seen as unreliable.
In summary, it is clear that none of the sources are invaluable to us, as they all provide us with some facts or opinions, and help us to understand the different views on child labour and working conditions at mills during the time. However, like all sources, they all hold drawbacks as well, and none of them are completely consistent to us.
