However this lifestyle did not last as the enclosure system changed the lifestyle and landscape of Britain and between 1750 and 1850, 2500 enclosure acts were passed, giving land owners the right to fence in their fields. This meant almost all land even common land was fenced of and privatized. The move to enclose was made by larger land owners, who wanted to move away from strip farming as it limited production and was not as efficient as other methods of farming. However although the Enclosure system was beneficial in that it was a more efficient and productive method of farming it left many peasants with no land or food as the Enclosure acts passed by parliament forced peasants to give up their strips of land in exchange for a few pounds or land that was less fertile. The enclose system only benefited large land owners and made the poor poorer and the rich richer. It destroyed the unity and tradition of rural society and forced many to large cities to seek jobs as they could no longer survive from the domestic system if they had no land.
The enclosure acts along with the rapid growth of Britain’s population led to the demise of the Domestic system and fueled the Industrial Revolution. After 1750 Britain grew rapidly and so to did its demand for clothing, food and other products. The already failing domestic system could not cope with such demand and this led to several inventions such as the Spinning Jenny and steam engine and various other new ideas which saw the end of the traditional Domestic System and the birth of the Factory system. Previously only 10% of Britain’s population lived in cities or large towns but with the demise of the Domestic system many peasants moved into neighboring cities to work in factories and soon the majority of Britain resided in cities. The factory system is responsible for the shift in population density from the countryside to the cities.
This picture is thought to be a secondary source that is believed to have been drawn around 1840 when in was first published in a novel. There were only a handful of copies of this novel and its title and author are unknown and seem to have been lost. It can be assumed that the author was possibly the illustrator as well and since most factory workers were illiterate it is unlikely to have been drawn by a factory worker and is more likely to have been drawn by a rich man who could afford to publish a book and had the literary skills to write such a novel. Although that is all assumed but this picture was again published in “ In Search of History 1714-1900” written by JF Aylett and published by Edward Arnold in 1985,Since then publication it has been used in countless history text books as it is considered by many historians to be a valuable source. This source was drawn to portray the factory system from the workers point of view and shows only the negative social consequences of the industrial revolution which means that it isn’t entirely accurate but this view of the industrial revolution is widely supported and backed by evidence so therefore it is a valuable source. This source intends to convince the audience of the intensity and brutality of factory life and paints a very confronting and forceful image. Any responder would instantly take a negative view to the industrial revolution and perhaps be morally outraged at the treatment of the factory workers.
The factory system was fuelled by the need for faster and more efficient production using machinery rather than handcrafters. This meant that employees needed no skills and as they were unskilled it costs little for a factory owner to employ them. This artwork was a scene from an 1840’s novel that told the story of the factory worker. The artist clearly sympathized with the lower classes as the artworks aim is so encourage the responder to connect with the workers and empathies with them. In the background of this artwork the artist has portrays the factory owners as extremely rich, posh and ‘stuck up’ and portrayed them in such a way that suggests that they care little about the welfare of their workers and are only interested in maximum production even if it costs lives. It is a valid source as it shows the misery that the workers so often endured within factories and although it only shows the factory system from one perspective and is bias, this view of the factory system is widely supported by present historians as there are many other primary sources like this one from the Georgian period that portray the factory system in such a negative way. This picture, in comparison to that of the domestic system is significantly darker and portrays the vast difference in lifestyle between the domestic system and factory system and shows the class division between the rich factory owners and poor workers. The source infers that the industrial revolution and the factory system benefited the rich but neglected the poor; Only making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
From this source it is possible to tell the standard of living for many people and social and economical implications of the Industrial Revolution. Although it only deals with factory life and not the entire industrial revolution, the source portrays that factory life was extremely hard. An unknown factory worker not unlike one that is depicted in the source said this about factory workers and owners, “stunted, diseased, deformed, degraded, each with the tale of his wronged life, they pass across the stage, a living picture of man’s cruelty to man, a pitiless indictment of those rulers who in their days of unabated power had abandoned the weak to the rapacity of the strong”. When people came from the countryside to the cities seeking work they found that conditions were vastly different from those they had worked and lived in, in their villages and cottages. The old freedom they had enjoyed was no more. The streets were filthy, unlit and sewage systems were primitive. Housing for factory workers like those in the source was cramped and often unhygienic. Such poor living conditions along with poor working conditions is thought to have had devastating effects on workers health as shown by the sickly looking workers depicted in the source.
The source shows how factory conditions for men, women and children were horrific. Up until the factory acts children worked up to 19 hour days and were often cheated out off meals and breaks. As shown in the source the workers were poor, with rags for clothing and look unclean and factories were usually poorly lit, filthy, poorly ventilated and filled with large, heavy and dangerous machinery. The factory shown in the source being a cotton mill (since in the Industrial revolution the main industry had changed from wool to cotton) or factory would have been kept moist and humid to stop the threat from breaking but such conditions would have made working uncomfortable and these conditions were perfect for the spread of disease and illness which suggests why the workers within the source look so sickly. On the other hand the factory owners depicted in the source look very healthy.
It was not uncommon for injures to occur and even for workers to be killed from the machinery. Workers were over-worked, malnourished and often beaten and neglected by factory owners who ‘lust for gold’ drove them to commit acts of cruelty to their workers and to factory owners accepting that death and sufferance of workers was a reasonable price for efficient production. But no aspect of factory life has aroused stronger emotions than the employment of young children as shown in the source with a boy crawling under the machinery. Child labor was nothing new but during the industrial revolution the factory system saw a dramatic increase in the intensity of the exploitation of child-labor, which became the sine qua non of industrial life. Child labor became so popular in cotton mills that children made up 25% of the workforce in some cotton mills as their fingers were small ad nimble and they were able to fit under and behind machinery as shown in the source. Children were preferred by factory owners as they rarely argued and they could justify paying children little as they were ‘only’ children. Factory masters and owners would beat children, verbally abuse them, and take no consideration for their safety. Both boys and girls who worked in factories were subject to beatings and other harsh forms of pain infliction. One common punishment for being late or not working up to quota would be to be "weighted." An overseer would tie a heavy weight to worker's neck, and have them walk up and down the factory aisles so the other children could see them and "take example." This could last up to an hour. Weighting could lead to serious injuries in the back and/or neck. Punishments such as this would often be dispensed under stringent rules. Boys were sometimes dragged naked from their beds and sent to the factories only holding their clothes, to be put on there. This was to make sure the boys would not be late, even by a few minutes. Orphans received slave-like treatment as factory owners could basically treat them how they wanted with out having to answer to any one and factory owner felt that they were doing orphans a favor by taking them in and in return orphans were to work hard and ask for nothing in return to repay their masters, the factory owners or managers. But in addition to the physical suffering from the hard work and abuse the source suggests that the workers were deeply, deeply unhappy if not depressed. The workers have little to live for and children especially knew only suffering and were rarely shown kindness. The tasks undertaken were monotonous and such conditions and suffering must have caused workers to be mentally and emotionally unsettled.
Such bad conditions with sick and disgruntled workers, as shown in the source, led to trade-unionism, Chartism and even the formation of radical groups such as Luddites. Trade unions really came to the foreground during the industrial revolution and like modern trade unions worked in the best interest f the workers and attempted to help exploited workers. Chartism was the idealology that called for political reform within the country. It gained support among the poorer classes whom were upset with the conditions and the new ‘Poor Law amendment’ during the industrial revolution. The poor law amendment was put in place by the government and from the governments perspective was a way to keep the majority of the population productive and economically beneficial. It was passed in 1834 with little debate, and introduced sweeping changes to the previous Poor Law, which had given the poor aid. The Poor Law amendment discouraged workers from receiving government aid through the implementation of workhouse in which the conditions were to be made worse than the lowest paying job and aid was not to given out unless the people worked in these workhouses. Luddites were mainly composed of handcrafters who had lost there jobs and been replaced by machinery which had led to much financial difficulty. These disgruntled and unemployed people known as Luddites were known for violent demonstration and often destroyed factories and the machines that had threatened their livelihood.
Until the publication of the Sadler Report in 1833, the poor social conditions in Britain went largely ignored by the ruling classes. The government ran by policy of laissez-faire and up until this point was reluctant to step in and create reforms and instead just let things be. In 1833 a commission was arranged and the Sadler committee undertook a great investigation into the various aspects of life for the working classes, hearing testimony from members of the working class. The Sadler Report eventually found evidence of human rights abuse and terrible working conditions, suggesting that reform had to be implemented to avoid general social unrest. This led to the factory acts that helped to improve life for factory workers. But this factory in the source doesn’t seem to show any presents of improvements due to the Factory acts which suggests it was drawn before the acts came into account or is an example of a factory where the owners blatantly ignored the new laws.
The factory acts gave workers rights and restored some human rights. Some acts included:
- no child under the age of 9 years should be employed
- children aged 9-13 may only work 9 hour days
- children aged 13-16 may only work 12 hour days
- no one under age of 18 to work at night
- every child must have 2 hours of educational teaching a day
- all employees must have a decent education, be provided with clothing and adequate accommodation
- all mills will be inspected by at least 4 inspectors
- two 8 hour shift per day of children is accepted
But there were no real penalties for factory owners that broke the acts and ignored them. In most cases factory owners had to pay small fines if caught ignoring acts and often factory owners felt that they were above such laws. In many cases children had no birth certificates so factory owners could dodge around age restriction acts and inspectors rarely visited factories to make sure the acts were being obeyed. So although the factory acts may have helped they did not solve the problems of the factory system and the industrial revolution.
But surprisingly factories were not the worse place to work. As factories increased in size and produced more the demand for coal to power the steam engines grew rapidly. This led to mining becoming a huge and important industry. But mining was a dangerous profession and had a high death rate, with small children and even heavily pregnant women being forced to work down dark, cold and scary mines for up to 16 hours a day. Mine shaft collapses, methane explosions and various other accidents happened on a regular basis in these mines and like the factory owners, mine owners cared little about the workers welfare and many felt that the death of workers was an acceptable cost for efficient production.
However although this source paints a rather morbid picture of the industrial revolution, this wasn’t entirely the case. This source is a very powerful and informing source that would be considered extremely valuable but not entirely accurate as although factory workers did have an extremely rough and hard lifestyle, as shown in this source , the source doesn’t show how the industrial revolution helped many. The industrial revolution saw a triumph and emergence of the middle class and ordinary working people had an increased opportunity to seek employment in the booming factory, mining and mill industrials. Also upon comparing both sources it is clear that they have several faults that don’t match statistics or cold facts. In the first source the health of the workers is portrayed to be fine and they workers seem happy, yet in the factory system source the workers look terribly sick. But statistics suggests that during the industrial revolution the death rate fall from 74.8% in 1730 to 31.8% in 1810 which is due to the economic boom of the revolution which saw medical treatments and techniques improve. However at the same time statistic suggests that the life expectancy of a factory worker compared to a countryside farmer during the industrial revolution was around 15 years shorter, which also suggests that working in a factory was bad for your health which supports the source.
But regardless of both sources various faults they have proven themselves to be helpful and reliable. If so many historians and authors have used these sources then they are obviously considered by many to be valuable and accurate accounts of the social effects of the industrial revolution.
