Introduction

The Industrial Revolution led to a population increase. Industrial workers were better paid than those in agriculture. With more money, women ate better, had healthier babies, who were themselves better fed. Death rates declined, and the number of young people within the population increased. There was limited opportunity for education, and children were expected to work. Employers also liked that, since they could pay a child less than an adult.

Politicians and governments tried to limit child labour by law, but factory owners resisted; some felt that they were aiding the poor by employing their children because  with the money they could  buy food and  avoid starvation; others simply welcomed cheap labour. In 1833, the first law against child labour, the Factory Act of 1833, was passed in England: Children younger than nine were not allowed to work, children were not permitted to work at night, and the work day of youth under the age of 18 was limited to twelve hours. Factory inspectors supervised the execution of the law. About ten years later, the employment of children and women in mining was forbidden. These laws decreased the number of child labourers; however, child labour remained in Europe up to the 20th century.

à What were arguments “pro” and “con” child labour in the late 19^th century?

We’ve studied different sources dealing for child labour in Victorian England and we’ve built a chart to show pro and con arguments. Let’s quickly go back into those arguments.

1. Arguments “pro”

-         Some adverts were put in newspaper to find young workers. It said that labour taught children trade and it enabled them to maintain a family (kids worked in the industry as weaver, as carpenter, or joiners, framework, knitter...)

-         Some employers explained how their company controlled young workers by using rewards, and the more they worked, the more money they get paid: money was a means to stimulate them.

-         The Leader of the factory reform movement in the House of Commons in the late 19^th century in England  explained that kids should work, but if they were under 10, no longer than 8 or 10 hours a day. Otherwise, it would have been too hard for them, and they couldn’t have  preserved their health.

-         An industry owner explained his point of view saying that that being given a job, kids could earn money to get out from poverty. He wanted to help kids by building schools for example. They could get education while working (exception: at that time, what was common was to exploit kids and make money out of them). It showed that in some cases kids could work just if conditions were adapted to them, and just if there were means to give them education

-         We’ve also read an account from a young woman who had been working in a factory for 7 years (she started when she was 6 years old). Even if working conditions were extremely bad (punishments were too harsh, “it made me weak”) she was grateful for the money: the money she needed to survive.

-         There was a survey which aimed at showing in a factory 363 out of 401 employees were in good health (they were checked by a doctor to the doctor). However, the survey was made in factories which were choosen by the proprietors. These one had, surely, choosen factories where kids were in good health. We can conclude that statistics were not reliable in those days.

Arguments “con”

-         We’ve studied a testimony by John Reed, who worked in a factory when he was younger. He said that they were low paid. Working conditions were very bad, as the health. They worked 72h a week (that’s why average life expectancy for a labourer was 17 years old). Workers were exploited and they weren’t rewarded enough. Indeed, employers exploited their workers.

-         Some criticised working hours. Kids had very long  working days. Besides, young workers were “beaten up”, and “they grew up crippled”. They worked more they can endure.

-         France Trollop, who was a popular writer in Victorian England, was involved in the campaign against the employment of children in factories. She clearly stood up against child labour. Kids’ work was very risky and dangerous “machines weren’t switched off”. They could die or be dangerously injured. Moreover, they could go toilets only three times a day, and some of them died because they suppress their urine. Children weren’t allowed to talk and if they did they were beaten up and kicked out.

We hope you've found it interesting . We  also hope you've understood how hard children worked in the industry in Victorain England. May be it'll lead you into more research...

The story told in « The wind that shakes the barley » by the English film director Ken Loach, is set in 1920 and deals with two Irish brothers who fight against British rule embodied by brutal “ Black and Tans” during the 1919-1921 Anglo-Irish war.

In those days, the whole of Ireland was under British authority and the Irish patriots claimed the independence of their country.

Damien and Teddy are rebels (volunteers in the IRA), they fight side by side to obtain Ireland’s independence. When the treaty is signed, ratifying the partition of the country, the two brothers disagree and soon start drifting apart. Little by little, they become sworn enemies until it all ends up tragically.

The film is very emotional and true. Indeed it shows the horror of the “Black and Tans” revolting behaviour toward the people of Ireland; it also depicts the even more dreadful effects of the civil war triggered by the partition.

What is remarkable is that this topic is tackled by an English man denouncing the ruthless part played by the English.

Last but not least, ken Loach’s film was awarded the 2006 golden palm in Cannes.

No wonder we enjoyed it so much!

Just one more thing: go and see this masterpiece as soon as you get the opportunity. Make sure you don’t miss it!