Factory reform was very controversial; there was a variety of views on the subject which made it particularly difficult to decide whether it was or wasn’t in the best interests of the population. Many families were in desperate need of money and to some factory reform appeared to economically starve them further while others views were more associated from the well-being of the workers. In this essay I will compare two sources from politicians in the House of Commons that opposed factory reform.
The sources do provide, to varying extents, evidence of opposition to factory reform; both sources A and B agree that the passing of the act will result in wages falling for all workers, not just the children. In Source A John Charles Spencer says that the effect of the measure proposed must ‘necessarily be a fall in the rate of wages” which shares the same notion as Henry Thomas Hope’s quote in source B; ‘the manufacturers must either raise the price of the manufactured article or diminish the wages of their workmen.’ Essentially, they have derived these points from the idea of lowering the hours of child labour coincides with the lowering of production, thus the factories make less money to distribute. This was one of the key elements of the controversy; in this period of history working class people barely made any money so it was probable that the deduction of even more money would cause a wide-spread refute amongst them. Although the nature and usefulness of the sources are very alike they differ in somewhat; both Source A and B oppose the suggested measure of factory reform however, the justification of their objection is what differs them; Spencer (Source A) builds his argument around the effect it will have on the workers, he believes that if the measure proposed goes through then children will cease to be employed resulting in a loss of income for many upon many