In 1802, the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act made education compulsory for apprentices in mills; however, Greg had been educating his apprentices since 1788. He supplied teachers for the apprentices, even though he had no legal obligation to do so at the time, and even the Gregs daughters taught at the mill sometimes. School took place on a Sunday or after work, we know from sources such as Joseph Sefton and Thomas Priestly that apprentices were taught small amounts of reading and writing. Joseph Sefton told Middlesex Magistrates Court that he “wanted to learn his book” rather then work overtime, for which he would have been paid. The reliability of Joseph Sefton’s evidence is questionable, however, because there may have been a representative of the mill in the court at that point, and he may have wanted to speak highly of the mill to avoid an even more severe punishment. The girls were not taught in the same ways as the boys, and instead, they learnt needlework and how to sow so that they could make clothes for the apprentices. In 1833, Mr. and Mrs. Shawcross told the Factory Commission that all apprentices could read, and most girls could write, whereas all of the boys could do both of these.
These conditions are far greater then those of other mills around the country. Samuel Greg’s punishments were tame in comparison to some. Robert Blincoe, from Litton Mill in Derbyshire said “I have seen the time when two handle of a pound weight have been screwed to my ears…”, “Mr Needham was in the habit of knocking down apprentices with his clenched fists…” and “three or four of us have been hung on a cross beam above the machinery, hanging by our hands…”. Elizabeth Bentley told a parliamentary committee that in Leeds Mill, they were “strapped” and that the girls had “black marks on their skin”. However, it is believed that the amount of corporal punishment in mills has been exaggerated to improve conditions for children, so the reliability of these sources from Robert Blincoe and Elizabeth Bentley is debateable.
The Education in other mills was also poor in comparison to Styal’s. Even though the 1802 Health and Morals of Apprentices Act was passed, it was not fully enforced, and often ignored. One mill owner found a way around the law, by having his apprentices “educated”, by an illiterate man who stoked the boilers.
The apprentices at Styal were also very well fed. When speaking to Middlesex Magistrates Court, both Thomas Priestley and Joseph Sefton told of a good diet, consisting of dishes like lob scouse, bread, porridge and bacon. Again, it is possible to question the reliability of these two sources, because both boys would be trying to gain a lighter punishment by speaking well of the mill, and there may have been a mill representative in the room at the time.
Another way in which Styal Mill provided a better life for its apprentices then other mills was in its Doctor. Because Samuel Greg employed Doctor Holland, the mortality rate at Styal was very low, with only 7 of every 1000 apprentices dying. In Manchester, this number was 33 in every 1000, around 5 times that of Styal.
Although it is undeniable that Samuel Greg had concern for his apprentices, which can be seen in the comparisons between Styal and other mills, there is a possibility that he had ulterior motives for treating his apprentices so well. As far as we know Samuel Greg did not administer corporal punishment at Styal, but there could be other possibilities for this. Did Samuel Greg decide not to use corporal punishment because he thought it was wrong? Or could it be that he realised that if apprentices were beaten they would be unhappy, and if they are unhappy then they will not work as hard as they could. We cannot be sure of this, but it is a valid point.
We also know that Samuel Greg took his apprentices to church, supposedly for the religious benefits. It is possible to surmise that he actually did this to show how well behaved and how well he treated his apprentices to other people, as we know he walked them to St. Bartholomew’s church every Sunday, in clean clothes.
Samuel Greg fed his apprentices very well during their time at Styal, and this would seem to be another factor that shows his concern for his apprentices. He could be feeding them well because he believes that they need nourishment to grow well, but he could also be feeding them well so that they are content before starting a day’s work, and can work their hardest. Some of the dishes they ate were also very filling and very cheap to make, which points towards him feeding them well as being a sensible business move.
Greg also educated his children very well, and although it is difficult to see, he may have had an ulterior motive for this too. Literate people were seen as better then others. If he had children who could all read and write, it would make them better mannered and would give them something to fill their time with when they weren’t working, giving them less chance to cause trouble.
It seems more likely that Samuel Greg had a genuine concern for his apprentices then for his overall earnings as mill owner, despite their being several possibilities that say otherwise. Most of the negative sides to his treatment of the apprentices are supposition, and therefore can be discounted as evidence against Greg. Some sources can also be discounted as evidence supporting the statement “The Gregs had a genuine concern for the welfare of their apprentices”, due to the reliability of it. Some of the sources comparing Styal to other mills around the country could be exaggerated, and some of the testimony of Sefton and Priestley could also be discounted, but again, this is supposition. The work Greg did for the apprentices outweighs these minor factors, such as building the church and employing Doctor Holland, so despite any ulterior motives he had to treating his apprentices so well, it is proven that they did lead good lives for young mill workers.
