The Cotton Mills and Factories Act of 1819 was one of a series of acts intended to prevent the exploitation of child laborers in Britain, largely by restricting their working hours. Debate in the House of Commons over the legislation pitted those arguing for humanitarian considerations against defenders of economic freedom. A passionate proponent of the bill was Sir Robert Peel, himself a factory owner and father of a future British prime minister.

19 February 1818

Sir Robert Peel…. About fifteen years ago he had brought in a Bill for the Regulation of Apprentices in Cotton Manufactories. At that time they were the description of persons most employed in those manufactories. He himself had a thousand of them…. Since that time, however, the business had been much extended. Manufactories were established in large towns, and the proprietors availed themselves of all the poor population of those towns. In Manchester alone 20,000 persons were employed in the cotton manufactories, and in the whole of England about three times that number…. It was notorious that children of a very tender age were dragged from their beds some hours before day light, and confined in the factories not less than fifteen hours; and it was also notoriously the opinion of the faculty, that no children of eight or nine years of age could bear that degree of hardship with impunity to their health and constitution. It had been urged by the humane, that there might be two sets of young labourers for one set of adults. He was afraid this would produce more harm than good. The better way would be to shorten the time of working for adults as well as for children; and to prevent the introduction of the latter at a very early age…. The children … were prevented from growing to their full size. In consequence, Manchester, which used to furnish numerous recruits for the army, was now wholly unproductive in that respect….

Lord Lascelles…. The individuals who were the objects of the hon. gentleman’s proposition were free labourers. This excited his jealousy; for, were the principle of interference with free labourers once admitted, it was difficult to say how far it might not be carried….

Mr. Philips strongly objected to the adoption of any measure of this description, and denied that the employment of children in the cotton factories operated, as had been described, to stint their growth, impair their comfort, or scatter disease amongst them…. Small factories were often ill ventilated, and from that circumstance the health of a person might suffer more in six hours in one of these factories, than in fifteen hours in a factory which was well ventilated and properly constructed in other respects. But how could this evil be cured by any bill? The small factories generally went to ruin, and that was the cure for the evil. From the returns made to the House, out of 31,117, the number of persons employed in these returns, 1717, or 5½ per cent, were of the age of 10 and under, 13,203 from 10 to 18, and 16,197 of the age of 18 and upwards. Out of 27,827 persons, there were 1830 only who could not read.

Source: Commons Sitting of 19 February 1818, Series 1, Vol. 37, Cotton Factories Bill, cc559-66, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1818/feb/19/cotton-factories-bill.

EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE