‘Mickey Mouse’

Here lays an exact model of the gas mask provided by the British Home Office in 1938. This specific respirator was produced to protect children from the age of eighteen months to four years. The mask was commonly known as the ‘Mickey Mouse’ gas mask, taken from the American version interestingly designed by Walt Disney. Disney’s aim was to make it more user-friendly for children, it was also his idea to go to the extent of having the ‘Mickey Mouse’ face printed on the American version. Its function was analogous to the way a cigarette filter reduces the amount of toxins a person inhales when smoking- see more here. Approximately forty million gas masks were produced for the British population; John Welshman states that the provision of these gas masks in 1938 was also more than adequate (Welshman, 2010, p. 31).
The British Home Office refused to take the risk regarding the potential for chemical warfare. Titmuss wrote in 1950 that during the 5 years preceding the war it was believed the Home Office was ahead of other European countries, in expectation of, and in preparation against gas warfare (Tittmuss, 1950, p. 6). The significance of this point comes from the fact that almost every child in Britain would have been allocated a gas mask- and every single one of them would of had their own individual views towards it. Before trying to determine how this affected each child it is important to remember that young children are politically less informed than adults, as a result they do not understand or comprehend the ‘enemy’ concept the way their parents do (Venken, Roger, 2015, p.204). Because of this, the new device could have brought a sense of bewilderment for children, sheer trepidation for others and for some the new device will have even brought excitement. However, for Derek Dawes, a young boy from Plymouth the memories of the gas mask were far from pleasant.

Here is his account from the BBC oral histories of what he remembers from school “I remember we had gas practice at school one day, we were thrown into a lorry that contained tear gas. I remember the part of the mask you looked out of steamed up and you could not talk- I hated it” This would have undoubtedly been a daunting prospect for a young child, furthermore this example shows how children were not wrapped in cotton wool when it came to the unforgiving requirements of war. It could be argued that Dawes’ recollection of an event in 1939 told in 2003 may have inaccuracies. This is an obstacle that many historians often encounter when trying to gauge what childhood was like during the war. Moreover, retrospective accounts make it harder to accurately measure how objects such as the gas mask influenced the psychological state of children. Additionally, negative firsthand accounts of the war are not extensively accessible to the modern historian, this further limits our perspective on social matters. Waugh argues that this is because much historical evidence available is biased due to the fact the government didn’t want to affect the morale of the country. Nevertheless, what the gas mask opens up is the discussion of evacuee children and the more general topic regarding life as a child in Britain during the war.

In 1940 Bowlby stated that the majority of children would suffer from some sort of anxiety during the war (Waugh et al, 2007, p.169). This may seem like an overly sweeping statement to an obvious period of distress, however this claim was made before vast evidence was collated regarding the level of social damage sustained by children during the war. An example given by Bob Holman describes the story of a woman who revealed that as a five year old, she had been stripped and abused a number of times by the two teenage sons of her foster parents. Others were touched by her foster father (Holman 1995, p.94). Children were often subjected to neglect, something that could cause psychological harm when detached from their parents. In some cases labour was put in place of education when schools could not provide class space. For a child, life was changing rapidly in what Parsons and Starns called the ‘greatest social upheaval in modern Britain’ (Waugh et al, 2007, p.169). These are all factors that explain why in Waugh’s survey that 57% of evacuees she interviewed suffered some sort of abuse (Waugh et al, 2007, p.172).

Reports of poor care for evacuees became frequent, this was undoubtedly down to the fact that no systematic screening took place to ensure these people were suitable foster parents (Waugh et al, 2007, p.169). One statistic that is frequently mentioned throughout the historiography of this topic is enuresis. Welshman states that in a survey it was found that children who were neglected or were subject to physical, sexual or psychological harm commonly wet the bed (Welshman, 2010, p.178). Holman acknowledges this factor and goes into further detail, stating that estimates of this problem have ranged from 4% to 33% of evacuees, Waugh also addresses this topic in similar fashion (Holman 1995, p.107. Waugh et al, 2007, p.166).

In sum, the gas mask works for the historian as a reflection of what it was like to be a child during WWII. In amongst a rapidly changing social climate children had to deal with foreign objects like these, only adding to their sense of disorientation. Psychological damage is unfortunately the dominating topic surrounding children of this era. Does this really surprise you?

Bibliography:
Holman, Bob. The Evacuation: A Very British Revolution. Oxford, England: Lion, 1995.

Tittmuss, R. M. Problems of Social Policy: History of 2nd World War. London: Longmans, 1950.

Venken, Machteld, and Maren Röger. “Growing up in the Shadow of the Second World War: European Perspectives.” European Review of History: Revue Européenne D’histoire 22 (2015): 199-220.

Waugh, Melinda J, Ian Robbins, Stephen Davies, and Janet Feigenbaum. “The Long-term Impact of War Experiences and Evacuation on People Who Were Children during World War Two.” Aging & Mental Health 11 (2007): 168-74.

Welshman, John. Churchill’s Children: The Evacuee Experience in Wartime Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/GyXWnFaXQcKPYdV0cL5kyQ (date accessed: 10/11/2016)

Online resource:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/53/a2050453.shtml (date accessed: 13/11/2016)

The Forster Act: catastrophic or a watershed moment in the history of education?

The Elementary Education Act of 1870 pushed for a vast increase in the provision of schools in England and Wales. The formation of school boards allowed this to occur, through the building of schools in areas of deficiency; and state subsidies of school fees for families that could not afford such payments. As well as provision, the Act also altered the curriculum so that religious teaching was non-denominational.

[Bill to provide for Public Elementary Education in England and Wales; as amended in Committee, and on Re-commitment, 19^th Century House of Commons Sessional Papers, 218 (1870):1-48.]

“school is a house of discipline and instruction”[1]

The Elementary Education Act of 1870, also known as The Forster Act, marks a major stepping stone in the education of children in England and Wales. It was the first of many pieces of legislation that placed foundations for the provision of schools on a national scale, and made possible the schooling that is received in the present day; free and compulsory education.[2]The Act was largely proposed by the vice-president of the council; William Edward Forster, who had shown interest in the education system for many years before the appointment in 1868.[3] The key issues that Forster engaged with in his proposal were the provision of schools, religious teaching and attendance of children. The formation of school boards within local authorities was established to examine and act upon such issues. This included the building and maintenance of schools, as well as subsidising the fees of families who could not afford to send their children to school.

 

 

William Edward Forster, by Henry Tanworth Wells

During the debates surrounding this education bill, conflicts regarding the requests for non-denominational religious teaching and the compulsion of schooling were particularly common. Anne Digby and Peter Searby suggested that many members of the Cabinet sympathised with parents who needed their children’s earnings and employers who required their labour, and thus opposed to compulsory schooling.[4]Differing views about the education system can be seen by comparing the attitudes of Lord Lyttelton; Conservative politician and Edward Thring; Headmaster of Uppingham School, as discussed by Peter Stansky. Lyttelton believed that religious teaching should be non-denominational, state action and support is necessary and scholarships should be provided to give individuals the opportunity to excel in their talents. In opposition Thring believed that education should be primarily moral, and should emphasize the development of character rather than talent; education should not be free and religion should be a dominant factor in schools.[5] This highlights that individuals from alternative backgrounds view the purpose of education in a different light, and therefore a consensus regarding education legislation was proven difficult to occur. This is also evident when reviewing the opinions that communities had, particularly in rural districts, about the expectations of children themselves; “I contend that if a boy can read at the age of 9, that is the age at which he should go to field labour.”[6] This suggests that legislation was required to ensure children attended school as child labour was prioritised over an education in many areas.

Harold Silver provides an interesting analysis on the historiography of education throughout the years. He emphasises that historians have focused on Victorian schooling in a sense that would suit our present purpose rather than establishing contemporary’s patterns of social and cultural relevance.[7] He suggests that attention should be placed upon the difficulties that arose regarding compulsory education, and in particular the quality of education as opposed to entirely focusing on the quantity of children in education.[8] E.G. West also offers an alternative assumption about the education system; he stated that it was unnecessary for the state to be involved in educational legislation and that such action brought educational stagnation, as opposed to the popular hypothesis that the industrial revolution was responsible for a lack of progress in the educational system,[9] and thus, his interpretation for this source would be largely negative.

The major drawbacks to using a parliamentary bill as a source for reflecting upon the education system are that they do not reveal the success of such regulations enacting in the bill, or represent the views of the entire population about the purpose and necessity of schooling. However, it does reveal the intentions of government, and how they perceived the conditions and relevance of the education system in a contemporary society. Also, due to the fact that this source is a government document it is likely that the content has not been contaminated and thus an accurate representation of contemporary politics.

The Elementary Education Act of 1870 is particularly important due to the fact that the limitations that it entailed, particularly compulsion, resulted in further assessments and debates. A growing awareness by educationists for the need of compulsory schooling led to action against Parliament, and henceforth amendments to the bill followed.[10] In 1880, compulsion powers were forced to be assumed in all local authorities, but this proved to be unsuccessful due to school fees, and thus in 1891 an extra grant was provided to cover more fees across the country to allow a larger proportion of children in poverty to attend school.[11] In industrial and mining areas educational opportunities improved when the half-time system was introduced, as this meant that children could still provide an income for their families as well as receive an education that could be adapted in to their labour. This was especially necessary during the growth of technological advancements within industries that required a ‘more scientific and skilled workforce.’[12]

It is important to reflect upon the impact that compulsory schooling has on the views of children, as it will help us to understand the relevance of the Education Acts in a history of childhood. As Harry Hendrick states ‘children began to be seen as valuable in relation to investment, in numerous forms (economic, occupational, military, demographic and emotional) for the future,’ and education as a whole assisted to the portrayal of children as distinctly separate from the adult world of work.[13] This segregation is interesting as it could suggest the reasoning behind the reduction of children in employment:

	1871	1901
Boys	32.1%	21.9%
Girls	20.4%	12%

[Census Papers, England and Wales, PP, 1913, Vol. LXXVIII, pp. 461-9]

As a result of dishonesty and a lack of recordings for casual employment,[14] these figures are most likely to be an underestimate but despite this they still represent a decline in a child labour force. Therefore the association of schooling with withdrawing children from the labour force is plausible, especially as the data above reflects the period where education legislation was at the forefront of debate. Thus, overall the legislation of 1870 should be labelled as a watershed moment in the history of education.

[1] S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (3^rd edn, 1827).

[2] Harry Hendrick, Child Welfare: England 1872-1989 (London: Routledge, 1994): 29.

[3] Allen Warren, ‘Forster, William Edward (1818–1886)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008) [http://www.oxforddnb.com.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/view/article/9926, accessed 12 Nov 2016]

[4] Anne Digby and Peter Searby, Children, School and Society in Nineteenth-Century England (London: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1981): 10.

[5] Peter Stansky, “Lyttelton and Thring: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Education,” Victorian Studies, Vol.5, No.3 (1962): 221.

[6] Bell’s Weekly Messenger, 18 November 1867 (reprinted from the Norfolk Chronicle): 3.

[7] Harold Silver, Education as history: interpreting nineteenth- and twentieth- century education (London: Metheun, 1983): 90.

[8] Silver, Education as history, 85-90.

[9] Ibid, 82.

[10] Digby and Searby, Children, School and Society in Nineteenth-Century, 10.

[11] ibid

[12] Ibid, 30.

[13] Hendrick, Child Welfare, 31.

[14] Hendrick, Child Welfare, 30.

word count: 999

Bibliography

Bell’s Weekly Messenger (18 November 1867): 3 (reprinted from the Norfolk Chronicle)

Census Papers. England and Wales, PP, 1913, Vol. LXXVIII.: 461-9.

Digby, Anne and Peter Searby. Children, School and Society in Nineteenth-Century England. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1981.

Hendrick, Harry. Child Welfare: England 1872-1989. London: Routledge, 1994.

Hurt, J.S. “Professor West on Early Nineteenth-Century Education.” History Review, New Series, Vol.24, No.4 (1971): 624-632.

Johnson, S. A Dictionary of the English Language. Third edition. 1827.

Silver, Harold. Education as history: interpreting nineteenth- and twentieth- century education. London: Metheun, 1983.

Stansky, Peter. “Lyttelton and Thring: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Education.” Victorian Studies, Vol.5, No.3 (1962): 205-223.

Electronic Resources

Bill to provide for Public Elementary Education in England and Wales; as amended in Committee, and on Re-commitment, 19^th Century House of Commons Sessional Papers, 218 (1870):1-48.
[http://parlipapers.proquest.com.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/parlipapers/result/pqpdocumentview?accountid=13041&groupid=99497&pgId=20f834e2-e32a-47c6-b0c6-305a1464f863&rsId=157B3710F12, accessed: 11/11/2016]

Warren, Allen. “Forster, William Edward (1818–1886).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008. [http://www.oxforddnb.com.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/view/article/9926, accessed 12 Nov 2016]

William Edward Forster, by Henry Tanworth Wells [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Edward_Forster_by_Henry_Tanworth_Wells.jpg, accessed: 14/11/2016]

Children in Mines: Ignored or Unknown?

The source featured is an engraving depicting children working in the mines in England in 1838. [1] Their clothing, torn and ragged, provides us with possible explanations regarding this abhorrent use of children employed in mines. One would think, most likely a last resort for financially struggling parents, as surely no parent would want such work to form his or her offspring’s childhood. The child in the forefront being the best example, this likely justification is only further reinforced when observing that the child is barefooted, carrying a heavy amount of clay above their head. This immediate inference we make when viewing the engraving was likely the intention of the source’s creator, so is this what prompted legislation focused on underground child labour throughout the century? Unlikely, but it may be indicative of a change in mentality towards childhood. Legislation focused on mines was much slower than factory legislation and the reasons for this will be speculated. The source is valuable in unlocking these discussions on childhood, but the issues faced when interpreting it at face value will also be considered.

Various Legislation was passed throughout the nineteenth century that sought to reduce the use of child labour, and I would like to draw comparisons between the early acts passed regarding children working in factories with those in mines, with the aim of contemplating why the state or public reaction to mines appears delayed when such work was far more arduous and dangerous for children. The first factory act passed in 1833 prohibited the employment of children less than nine years of age, limited their working hours whilst four factory inspectors were appointed to enforce the terms. A traditional historiographical view has claimed that these acts radically improved the situation of children. [2] Is it possible that children in mines were being ignored in the 1830’s? Possibly, but more likely is that their sorry state underground was relatively unknown. The engraving from 1838 would suggest just that, its purpose undoubtedly to illustrate the misery of the children that most were unaware of and a few were ignoring. The nature of the tunnel network underground meant in simple terms that children were physically best suited for many of the arduous and important jobs. [3] In contrast, division of labour and mechanisation in the textile industry meant children could be increasingly productive without such dangerous work. [4] In sum, there would have been reluctance to stop employing children in all industrial sectors, certainly from the employer’s point of view, and legislation reluctantly followed public pressure.

The first mining act was hurried through parliament in 1842, nine years after the factory act, after a report caused widespread public dismay. One might assume that children working in mines should have been an equally, if not more pressing matter than those in factories, again suggesting that the work children did in mines was relatively unknown and there was little in the way of an alternative to keeping them there. The latter is certainly reflected when Peter Kirby notes that inspection of mines was carried out on a much smaller scale than factories due to a shortage of funds, with only one inspector for the entire country who was instructed to focus on accidents that had already occurred. [5] The shortage of funds could be read as justification for the unenthusiastic response, but in the same sense could be interpreted as evidence that this act went through reluctantly, to satisfy this dismayed public. In that case, the source can be read as contributing to this dismay. Historiographical agreement is unanimous in the work I have consulted from Humphries, Kirby, Cunningham and E.P. Thompson that child labour was essential to the speed of industrialisation from 1750 onwards, explaining the difficulty, or reluctance, when limiting it in the nineteenth century.

To further discuss the historiography I must briefly digress from the source – disagreement arises when trying to determine what prompted a decline in child labour – was the sanctity of childhood becoming more important? Contributed to in part by the incited sympathy from engravings and pictures like the one in this post, or were fewer parents in need of the additional income? Nardinelli’s work in 1980 argued that technological advances in industry reduced the demand for child labour. [6] Humphries successfully challenged such assertions in 2013 when arguing that the division of labour from trade mechanisation meant children had more productive roles, attributing the decline to families no longer needing the money. [7] Whereas, Cunningham claimed in 2000 that the increased value and sanctification of childhood reduced child labour. [8]

With these debates in mind we can view the source again. It is clear it served to highlight the miserable existence of the children that worked in the mines, and more importantly to expose it as wrong, most obviously indicated in the uniformly glum expressions on the children’s faces. In which case, it would be fair to claim that the source would be valuable when arguing that the increased value of childhood as we see it today reduced the use of child labour. Although, there are problems with making such use of the source here, specifically the fact that we can’t be sure it could have influenced public perception because the identity of the engraver is unknown to us, or whether the source was an accurate depiction of children in mines. In sum, we must be mindful of how we interpret a source that in theory could be an entirely fabricated scene, hence why I have sought to focus on the engraver’s thoughts and intentions in order to read this as indicative of a change in mentality to childhood that many others were undoubtedly experiencing in the first half of the nineteenth century.

 

 

 

 

Endnotes

[1] https://www-bridgemaneducation-com.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/en/asset/1748698/summary?context=%7B”route”%3A”assets_search”,”routeParameters”%3A%7B”_format”%3A”html”,”_locale”%3A”en”,”filter_text”%3A”children+mining”%7D%7D (Accessed: 16/11/16).

[2] Clark Nardinelli, “Child Labour and the Factory Acts,” The Journal of Economic History 40 (1980): 741-2.

[3] Edward P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (London: Penguin Books, 1963) 366.

[4] Jane Humphries, “Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution,” Economic History Review 66 (2013): 409.

[5] Peter Kirby, Child Labour in Britain 1750-1870 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003) 14.

[6] Nardinelli, “Child Labour,” 745.

[7] Humphries, “Childhood and Child Labour,” 408-410.

[8] Hugh Cunningham, “The Decline of Child Labour: Labour Markets and Family Economies in Europe and North America Since 1830,” Economic History Review 53 (2000): 424.

 

 

 

Bibliography

Cunningham, Hugh. “The Decline of Child Labour: Labour Markets and Economies in Europe and North America Since 1830.” The Economic History Review 53(2000): 409-428.

Humphries, Jane. “Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution.” Economic History Review 66 (2013): 395-418.

Kirby, Peter. Child Labour in Britain 1750-1870. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

 Nardinelli, Clark. “Child Labour and the Factory Acts.” The Journal of Economic History 40 (1980): 739-755.

Thompson, E.P. The Making of the English Working Class. London: Penguin Books, 1963.

Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup – Chris Hancock

The above picture is an advert for medicine known as Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup. Invented in 1849 in Maine, USA, this Syrup was heavily marketed towards mothers whose babies had trouble sleeping or just being calm in general. Despite being a product of American origin, this medicine was heavily marketed and widely available in both America and the UK, becoming a best-selling item in these similar markets, for decades one of the most popular children’s medicines available. This was until finally it was banned from stores in the year 1930 by the relatively new federal organisation the FDA. This product was specifically marketed as a way of soothing children whose teeth were developing, showing an interest and developing knowledge of the various cycles of development in a child’s life. It also shows a worrying trend of attempting to rectify or treat symptoms that were unavoidable parts of childhood, simply because these symptoms adversely affect their parents.[1]

The marketing and advertising campaign behind this product were quite unique as Soothing Syrup became quite ubiquitous throughout the USA and the UK. It was only made possible by the recent technological advancements of the Victorian Era and the new global market, making it a clear product of the modern age.[2] The idea of Mrs. Winslow the idealized matriarch was used throughout their advertising and succeeded in creating an image that led to long-term popularity. Marketed as the secret family recipe of Charlotte Winslow and despite implications it was her invention, it was actually produced by male apothecary owners.[3] It was extremely successfully marketed through a variety of different medias, including newspapers, calendars and even recipe books. Through these methods this medicine was effectively marketed to many thousands of young mothers, all around the world.

Their attractive, colourful and eye-catching adverts would always feature a mother and her children or child. This idealized and idyllic domestic scenes were clearly meant to be aspirational, part of the idealized view of motherhood that most women were expected to adhere to. Child-rearing books that were popular at the time also helped create this image that any woman who didn’t known how to raise their child ‘the correct way’ were deficient in some way.[4] The rather extreme difficulties of raising a child were dismissed as part of a woman’s duty and something she should be happy to do under any circumstances. The women presented as the ideal types of mother in these adverts were clearly wealthy and privileged, whilst most of the market for these products were of average means. This helped contribute to overall feeling of condemnation of young mothers who failed to adhere to an unrealistic and often unattainable image of themselves prescribed by social and cultural pressures. This leads into the main point of what makes this Syrup unique enough to warrant a blog post: its main ingredients were powerful opiate derivatives like morphine that didn’t so much sooth the child as knock it out, ultimately at great risk to the child’s health.

Given medicine’s history of remedies and nostrums being sold by quacks, it should come as no surprise that various dangerous drugs were sold as medicine throughout history. However, this case is unique as it was happening in the modern era and went on for decades despite the known negative effects of opium. It was known in certain circles as ‘the Baby Killer’, but was continued to allowed to be manufactured and sold.[5] More disturbingly, it seems that after a while, many mothers themselves knew the potential risks and consequences and decided to give this syrup to their children anyways. This speaks to two main problems affecting the lives of young mothers during this time period.

One was that their view of children was so involved with how they wanted them to be in the future. The prevalent attitude of ‘children must be seen and not heard’ clearly influenced many young mothers’ parenting techniques, making them more intolerant of needs they could not understand in their children. Children were often seen as recreations of their parents especially in the more formalized upper classes, and were encouraged to absorb and recreate their parents’ expectations of them quietly and with minimal interaction. There are many examples of deeply impersonal ‘nanny culture’ being used to raise children of the wealthy, whom the lower orders in turned tried to emulate. Uncontrollable passions, even in a child, were to be met with heavy-handed responses such as corporal punishment or drugging the child unconscious.[6] This speaks to some of the contradictions deeply embedded into Victorian society’s attitude towards children. Even in positive economic situations, Victorian era values prescribed that every facet of a child’s life should be governed by their parents. In many cases, children were seen as being little more than extensions of their parents’ property. Despite progress, Victorian parents had complete authority in deciding how to treat their child and often abused it for misguided reasons. Drugging to avoid intolerable but unavoidable aspects of childhood was acceptable to many, despite the power of the narcotics involved, as it helped their child conform more to standards set by wider society. It also goes to show problems with the treatment of mothers within Victorian society. Throughout society there was overwhelming pressure and unrealistic expectations put upon new mothers. Adverts, male-written self-help books and an atmosphere of condemnation all combined to help create a situation where women could not speak openly and honestly about their experiences of motherhood. Instead, a perfect image was presented to the world, and many problems festered as a result. Speculating on the mental state of many women of this time, I feel that the product’s enduring popularity was connected to this. Conditions such as postpartum depression were not diagnosed at this time, nor were abortion or birth control a possibility[7]. Many women were under so much pressure and had no place to turn to for help they felt it necessary to risk the well-being of their child in exchange for a good night’s sleep.

[1] Young, J.H. American Health Quackery Princeton: Princeton University Press, 150.

[2] Hoolihan, C. An Annotated Catalogue of the Edward C. Atwater Collection of American Popular Medicine and Health Reform: Volume III Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 179.

[3] The Composition of Certain Secret Remedies. Soothing Syrups for Infants. The British Medical Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2673 (Mar. 23, 1912), pp. 683-684.

[4] Pray, W.S, Worthen, D.B. A History of Nonprescription Product Regulation Boca Raton: CRC Publishing, 79.

[5] Rakow, L.F., Kramarae, C. The Revolution in Words: Righting Women, 1868-1871, Volume 4 Abingdon-On-Thames: Routledge, 196.

[6] Patent Medicine The British Medicine Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1247 (Nov. 22, 1884), p 1025.

[7] Fox, S. The Mirror Makers: A History of American Advertisors and Its Creators Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 65.

Origins of Opinions Regarding Child Play and Education

{1}

 ‘Our teachers are our hands, eyes and feet’ {2}

 

This source is a painting known as ‘Children Playing Doctor’ that was painted in 1863 by Frederick Daniel Hardy, a British oil painter. Hardy created the Cranbrook Colony {3}, this was a group of artists who settled in Kent from the mid nineteenth century, their art was influenced by Flemish and Dutch artists of the seventeenth century. Hardy became famous during the late nineteenth century as an artist. The group were well-known for painting genre scenes which were nostalgic moments that depicted features of everyday Victorian country and domestic life, often involving children at play. His genre scenes which are often romanticised as he was influenced by the Age of Romanticism depict children in various acts of play with each other or with their parents. The above painting shows six children playing doctor whilst their mother and grandmother are out of the room. The game, however, was taken a step further by one child who acting as a doctor tried to feed their sibling a ‘potion’ that would have led to sickness. It is unclear whether or not the child who is seen as the patient is in fact ill or taking on the role of a sick patient in the game. This is an important source as it helps to show the arguments on child play and education in Europe that were influenced by the changing eighteenth century ideas. These ideas and theories were very influential during this time and one of them was known as the method of self-discovery or more commonly known as the heuristic method.

{4}

 

A child should be allowed to move freely and learn from nature and the world around him

 

 

The heuristic method was the ideology of one the most influential writers during the Age of Enlightenment, the man painted above, Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau was against the strict and harsh teachings of those who practiced them and instead believed that young children’s natural tendencies must be accentuated and that they should not be constricted by the traditional way of thinking. {5} Rousseau’s opinions on education and child development were so popular that they followed into the nineteenth century as the main ideology of instruction on how a child could grow-up and be educated. His theories were later reformed in the twentieth century by other educators such as Montessori. Rousseau, the Father of modern education, was a naturalist who believed that children should be allowed to be one with nature and learn their morals through their own experiences to be able to grow and become well rounded individuals. It was during the eighteenth century that new ideas on children and the stage of childhood were introduced. Children were previously seen as miniature adults who were expected to help the family economically by adopting adult roles but Rousseau was instrumental in changing this view and seeing them as more childlike and that it was important that they received proper morals through education and play {6}. He advocated the belief that the best way for children to learn was to put a problem in front of them and allow them to solve it themselves. {7}

 

‘Work or play are all one to him, his games are his work and he knows no difference.’ {8}

 

Rousseau’s ideas on child development involved four main concepts those being: growth, freedom, activity and interest, a child had to have full access to all four to have any hope in developing into a well-rounded individual. {9} The source links into the above quote by Rousseau as it showed that he understood that hands on learning and play were connected. The child will learn their experiences in the world and the rules that they learn they will later implement into the games they play. Historians Rogers and Evans make note that these two actions were linked and during the Enlightenment it became appealing to those studying child development to use play as a means for study and learning. {10} Rousseau advocated the importance of play for the education of the young child through his theory of the play way method,  he argued that children should have access to play and not be expected to learn from books. {11} The source by Hardy depicts the children playing and learning which shows Rousseau’s naturalistic philosophy of learning by doing. The children are learning rules and lessons by playing, they will probably be punished for the possible consequences of their actions but it shows how they will learn, from hands-on experience.

 

‘It is the child who makes the man, and no man exists who was not made by the child he once was’ {12}  

 

The above quote is by an Italian physician and educator Marie Montessori (1870-1952) who developed an educational system during the twentieth century for young children. Her approach took reference from Rousseau and advocated that it was important for children to learn naturally. The source as I have already mentioned was painted in 1863 after the time of Rousseau but even at the end of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century his ideas were still at the forefront. This shows how his beliefs were implemented into family life and education systems almost half a century later. Montessori like Rousseau stressed the importance of childhood as a bases for adulthood and how children need an environment of free will for them to learn {13}.

 

I found that this was an important source for historians to utilize as it shows the opinions that were present in the late nineteenth century regarding child play and how these opinions formulated the education system that we know today and how they were adopted by other educators as mentioned above. By further observation the source shows the opinions that were prevalent in the some of the Victorian families who resided in Kent and how they accepted Rousseau’s opinions during the nineteenth century especially in regards to the importance of children learning through experience and play.

 

words: 998

Footnotes:

 

{1} http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O17368/children-playing-at-doctors-oil-painting-hardy-frederick-daniel/ (accessed 18/10/2016)

 

{2} Bob Stremba and Christian A Bisson, Teaching Adventure Education Theory: Best Practices (Illinois: Human Kinetics 2009) 112

 

{3} http://www.kentlive.news/romantic-depictions-rural-idyll-slipping-away/story-28715495-detail/story.html (accessed 12/11/16)

 

 

{4} https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-Jacques_Rousseau_(painted_portrait).jpg

(Accessed 12/11/16)

 

 

{5} Sarah Matthew and Munnazza Afreen Ansari, An Introduction to Education (Bloomington: Author House 2012) 42

 

 

{6} Carol Siegalmen and Elizabeth Rider, Life Span of Human Development’ (Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning 2009) 8

 

{7} S Samuel Ravi, Philosophical and Sociological Bases of Education (New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited 2015) 172

 

{8} S Samuel Ravi, A Comprehensive Study of Education (New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited 2011) 310

 

{9} V R Taneja, Educational Thought and Practice (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Private Limited 2008) 120

 

{10} Sarah Matthew and Munnazza Afreen Ansari, An Introduction to Education, 41

 

{11} Sue Rogers and Julie Evans, Inside Role Playing in Early Childhood Education: Researching Young Children’s Perspectives, (London and New York: Routledge 2008) 15

 

{12} http://www.dailymontessori.com/maria-montessori-quotes/ (accessed 12/11/16)

 

{13} Paula Polk Lillard, Montessori: A Modern Approach, (New York: Schocken Books 1972) 29

 

Bibliography:

 

Matthew Sarah and Munnazza Afreen Ansari. An Introduction to Education. Bloomington: Author House 2012

 

Polk Lillard Paula. Montessori: A Modern Approach. New York: Schocken Books 1972

 

Ravi S Samuel. A Comprehensive Study of Education. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited 2011

 

Ravi S Samuel. Philosophical and Sociological Bases of Education. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited 2015

 

Rogers Sue and Julie Evans. Inside Role Playing in Early Childhood Education: Researching Young Children’s Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge 2008

 

Siegalman Carol and Elizabeth Rider. Life Span of Human Development. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning 2009

 

Stremba Bob and Christian A Bisson. Teaching Adventure Educational Theory: Best Practices. Illinois: Human Kinetics 2009

 

Taneja VR. Educational Thought and Practice. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Limited 2008

 

Electronic Sources:

 

http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O17368/children-playing-at-doctors-oil-painting-hardy-frederick-daniel/ (accessed 18/10/2016)

 

http://www.kentlive.news/romantic-depictions-rural-idyll-slipping-away/story-28715495-detail/story.html (accessed 12/11/16)

 

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-Jacques_Rousseau_(painted_portrait).jpg

(Accessed 12/11/16)

 

http://www.dailymontessori.com/maria-montessori-quotes/ (accessed 12/11/16)

 

 

 

 

 

The boy who cried ‘reflection!’

Images from the past have the tendency to provoke reaction. To the modern eye, the image below is one to be criticised. It is almost an instant reaction for a modern day reader to believe the mother/adult figure is neglecting her duty; the children are not being looked after correctly, hinting at an abusive relationship. However, this is far from the truth, the picture was made for Flowers of Instruction, literature that was used to encourage children to reflect on their actions. The main character of children’s books would often have its place on the moral spectrum. [1] Though this makes it less controversial to the modern eye, it does not stray from the unfamiliarity of the picture or ideas conveyed in the book as they differ immensely to what would be considered childlike today.

‘Passions Angry Storm’ frontispiece to Flowers of Instruction, Illustrator Unknown, estimated 1820. Available via Collection Items on the British Library website.

Children’s Literature

The end of the 18^th century is said to have marked the beginning of children’s literature. [2] Before this, books were rare and an expensive item to buy which resulted to children re-reading the books they already had. The production of cheap books and a newly found appreciation for children, meant that people were more willing to spend money on their children in order to keep them entertained. [3] There was also a big change in the content of children’s literature, books were used to covey a religious message and make children more interested in Christianity and more aware of God. [4] The emphasis of religion in children’s books illustrates the view society had of children; they were not seen as innocent and society believed they had to be corrected in a stern manner, early in their life (childhood). Heins claims that “The 18^th century doctrine of original sin turned into the 19^th century cut of original virtue” this suggests that in the 19^th century children were seen as innocent, which would influence the way they were treated. [5]

Illustration became increasingly popular with the mass production of books. [6] The frontispiece of Flowers of Instruction successfully illustrates the purpose of the book, whilst also providing an accurate image of how children were viewed at the time. The picture shows both the children as innocent. The child on the floor is shown as innocent quite evidently as he/she is presented as vulnerable and quite scared. The artist shows us that the older child is also seen as innocent through his/her mother. The mother’s reaction to the incident being simply to hold a mirror next to the child would suggest she is not angry but she understands that her child is too young to control itself. Therefore, it is her duty as the mother to teach the child how to reflect in a loving way, rather than to simply punish him/her.

Gendered Literature

The 1880s to 1890s showed a growing consciousness of gender and strict classifications in children’s literature. [7] The author of this particular book Mary Elliott née Belson, wrote many instruction books such as Tales for Boys and Tales for Girls. Moral and sentimental themes took a big role in children’s poetry, this suggests that morality was different depending on gender.[8] Her books were so popular that they had to be re-printed in order to keep with demand and some were even translated into French. [9] Though Flowers of Instruction was published earlier than the 1880s, when looking at the poems inside the book, there are clear ideas of gender norms presented instantly.

Image of Mary Elliott, Passions Angry Storm ( London: William Darton, 1820) p10 available via Collection Items on the British Library website. 

This particular poem looks as though it could be aimed at girls rather than boys, but the moral is based on love. Even if this specific tale was written with the intent to provide a moral lesson for both sexes, the gender roles children would have been exposed to clearly suggest how they should act. ‘ Young Sarah, seated at her knee, Nursing her doll in highest glee’ already shows the reader that nursing a doll is what is seen to be accepted behaviour for a young girl of the time.

The titles of the poems also appear to be quite different to what the modern reader would associate with a child. Passion, Pleasure and Disappointment are not words commonly associated to children or childlike emotions. A lot of the literature wanted to teach children about compassion and courage, gentleness and strength. [10] Showing us how different literature would be for children in the 19^th century compared to the modern day.

What can this tell us about childhood?

Children’s literature can be used as a way of identifying how children were treated during different times and what was considered acceptable for them to do. The transformation of the purpose of books moving from being a way of teaching children about sin, to being a commodity shows a change in the way the society thought about its youth. [11] Books became a successful market and children’s books were bought more around Christmas time. [12] This also shows us that children were treated to a gift, around Christmas time, relating more to what the modern reader would see as a familiar practice. From this we can see that children had become more important in daily life.

However, one of the biggest weaknesses in looking at children’s literature is that it is very difficult to know if the literature was actually read by children and whether or not it had an impact. [13] Grenby states that when looking at children’s books in archives there are signs of wear and tear such as dog-eared pages, damaged parts of the books that were carefully mended or doodles. However, it is unreliable to assume that due to this the source is completely valid. There are several diary entries made by children that show they were reading particular books at different times however, diaries were also used in order to boast to teachers or parents and so this does not act as a concrete piece of evidence. [14] It is often believed that children’s books were read by adults too and many authors including Mary Elliott would have tried and made the book more entertaining for adults as well as children. [15]

Overall children’s literature provides us with an unusual insight into the life and treatment of children.

Footnotes

[1] Anna Darin,“Waif Stories in Late Nineteenth Century England”, History Workshop Journal 52 (2001) p78

[2] Claudia Nelson, “Sex and the Single Boy: Ideas of Manliness and Sexuality in Victorian Literature for Boys” Victorian Studies 32 (1989) p525

[3] Mary Lang, “Childhood Champions: Mid-Victorian Children’s Periodicals and the Critics” Victorian Periodical Review 13 (1980) p19

[4] Ethel Heins, “ ‘Go, and Catch a Falling Star’ what is a Good Children’s Book?” Theory into Practice 21 (1982) p248

[5] Heins, “Go, and catch a falling star”, p249

[6] Anne Lundin, “Victorian Horizons: The Reception of Children’s Books in England and America, 1880-1900” The Library Quartely: Information, Community, Policy 64 (1994) p53

[7] Lundin, “Victorian Horizons” p42

[8] Barbara Galitz, “Christina Roseitti’s Sing Song and 19^th Century Children’s Poetry” PMLA 70 (1955) p539

[9] https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/flowers-of-instruction

[10] Nelson, “Sex and the Single Boy” p530

[11] Lundin, “Victorian Horizons” p30

[12] Lundin, “Victorian Horizons” p35

[13] Matthew Grenby, “Delightful Instruction? Assessing Childrens Use of Educational Books in the Long 18^th Century” in Educating the Child in Enlightenment Britain: Beleifs, Cultures, Practices, ed. Mary Hilton and Jill Shefrin (Farnham, Ashgate Publishing, 2009) p181

[13] Grenby, “Delightful Instruction?” p183

[14] Grenby, “Delightful Instruction?” p183

[15] https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/flowers-of-instruction

Bibliography  

Darin, Anna“Waif Stories in Late Nineteenth Century England”, History Workshop Journal 52 (2001) p78

Galitz, Barbara. “Christina Roseitti’s Sing Song and 19^th Century Children’s Poetry” PMLA 70 (1955) p539

Grenby, Matthew. “Delightful Instruction? Assessing Childrens Use of Educational Books in the Long 18^th Century” in Educating the Child in Enlightenment Britain: Beleifs, Cultures, Practices, ed. Mary Hilton and Jill Shefrin Farnham, Ashgate Publishing, 2009.

Heins,Ethel. “ ‘Go, and Catch a Falling Star’ what is a Good Children’s Book?” Theory into Practice 21 (1982) p248

Lang, Mary. “Childhood Champions: Mid-Victorian Children’s Periodicals and the Critics” Victorian Periodical Review 13 (1980) p19

Lundin, Anne. “Victorian Horizons: The Reception of Children’s Books in England and America, 1880-1900” The Library Quartely: Information, Community, Policy 64 (1994) p53

Nelson, Claudia. “Sex and the Single Boy: Ideas of Manliness and Sexuality in Victorian Literature for Boys” Victorian Studies 32 (1989) p525

Peter Pan and the ‘Golden Age’ of Children’s Fiction

The fantasy story tells of a magical boy named Peter Pan who invites three siblings; Wendy, John and Michael to fly to his enchanted home, Never Neverland. In Neverland the children experience adventures with fairies, mermaids, Native Americans, pirates and live alongside the lost boys. Wendy and her brother’s return home to the real world whilst Peter, unwilling to grow up, remains in Neverland. [1]

Peter Pan was written in 1911 by J.M. Barrie during the ‘golden age’ of children’s fiction. Peter Pan was originally written as a play in 1904 which was then later adapted into a novel. [2] Peter Pan was a success from first production and is now known to be based on many of Barrie’s own experiences. [3]

J. M. Barrie

These include the devastating loss of his older brother and three brothers, two of whom tragically died in their early adulthood. [4] These experiences can be said to have impacted Peter Pan as the novel demonstrates the importance and temporary nature of childhood. Therefore, we can use Peter Pan to learn about ideas of childhood during the late Victorian period.

“I suppose it’s like the ticking crocodile, isn’t it? Time is chasing after all of us.” [5]

 

Peter Pan Book Cover 1915

Why was and is Peter Pan important?

The publication of Peter Pan was significant because it was part of the ‘golden age’, 1860-1930, of children’s literature. This period saw the production of outstanding children’s books from many writers including; Kenneth Graham, Beatrice Potter and A. A. Milne. [6] These authors were important because they rejected or had doubts about religious thinking in children’s literature which had dominated children’s books for the last one-hundred years. Peter Pan and other fictional fantasy literature during this period was also significant because it celebrated imagination and the marvels of childhood for the first time in children’s literature. [7] Fantasy stories also had a strong emphasis on spiritual and moral growth as well as tackling issues such as child poverty and labour which importantly informed readers about the working classes. [8]

“Would you like an adventure now, or would like to have your tea first?” [9]

Peter Pan is important to us as historians because the novel contributes to our understanding of the growth in fantasy fiction during the late Victorian period. During the last quarter of the nineteenth century the prosperity of the 1850s and 1860s gave way to depression and scepticism, causing writers to look away from current affairs to happier, simpler times, including their childhood. The economic climate resulted in the growth of fantasy fiction writers who searched for an arcadia, a good place or a secret garden in their novels to escape from ordinary life. [10] This is shown in Peter Pan as the Darling siblings escape from their real world to a magical land of simplicity and adventure. The magical ore of Never Neverland stops children growing up which also allows the children to avoid the realities of adult life. Another reason that explains the growth in fantasy literature is the increased popularity of smaller family sizes which allowed parents to increasingly lavish their few children through buying books as rewards or gifts. [11] Historians also regard Peter Pan as important to the growth of fantasy fiction because it allows us to understand the impact of compulsory education. The 1870s and 1880s saw a rise in compulsory education for children which resulted in increased literacy rates. The wider literacy levels then increased demand for children’s books. [12]

“All children, except one, grow up.” [13]

Peter Pan alongside other popular fantasy fiction novels also gives historians an insight into the ideals of childhood and their impact during the late Victorian period. The 1880s and 1890s were an age of Romanticism, escapism and the ‘Age of Children’. A time when children should preserve the innocent world adults have lost and enjoy it before they enter adulthood. [14] The new desires of childhood resulted in fantasy fiction literature growing in popularity and expectation as well as children and childhood becoming critical elements of literacy imagination. [15] Thus we see the impact of changing ideas in society on the ideals of childhood which resulted in impacting literature.

“it will go on, so long as children are gay and innocent and heartless.” [16]

What is beneficial about using Peter Pan as a source?

As with all primary sources there are advantages and drawbacks. One of the key benefits of using Peter Pan is what the novel informs us about childhood and how the ideals of childhood have changed. [17] Peter Pan also shows how the ideals of childhood impacts material objects, such as books and how society created demand for said objects. However, the most significant disadvantage of using children’s books as primary sources is that it is very difficult to understand children’s opinions of novels. Knowledge is difficult to gain because the books were written, bought and given by adults, therefore the popularity of books are strongly dictated by adults. [18]

Humphrey Carpenter argues that by the mid nineteenth century the view that children were miniature adults had receded which bought about suggestions that children might be allowed to be themselves. This recognition therefore increased literature which specifically targeted children. [19] Alysa Levene and Jean Webb argue that personal morality and spiritual growth continued to be an important factor in children’s literature, including fictional fantasy books throughout the nineteenth century. [20] Hence suggesting that moral and spiritual development continued to be a desired personal trait in children. Furthermore, Anne Lundin states that the 1880s and 1890s were an age of Romanticism which created an atmosphere for fictional fantasy and shows how the changing socio-economic factors which dominated society changed the ideals of childhood. [21] Therefore, through the study of fictional fantasy literature we can access information concerning the ideals of childhood during the late Victorian period.

“She also said she would give him a kiss if he liked, but Peter did not know what she meant, and he held out his hand expectantly.” [22]

Great Ormond Street Hospital

J. M. Barrie’s legacy and the contribution of his work to children and society live on through his donations at Great Ormond Street hospital. In 1929 Barrie gave the rights to Peter Pan to Great Ormond Street hospital. This resulted in the hospital receiving all the royalties from Peter Pan every time a production was played and a book is sold as well as many other products. In memory of Barrie the hospital has many memorials including a statue of Peter Pan and Tinkerbell outside the hospital entrance. [23]

 

[1] https://www.enotes.com/topics/peter-pan (Accessed 14/11/2016)

[2] Humphrey Carpenter, Secret Gardens the Golden Age of Children’s Literature (London: George and Unwin Publishers Ltd, 1985) 13.

[3] Ibid, 170-182.

[4] Ibid, 176, 182.

[5] https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1358908-peter-and-wendy?page=1 (Accessed 15/11/2016) Quotation from J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan.

[6] Ibid, 13. Kenneth Graham is best known for The Wind in the Willows. Beatrix Potter, her animal tales including The Tale of Peter Rabbit. A. A. Milne, Winnie the Pooh.

[7] Ibid. 2, 13. Book sellers for children began to grow during the mid-seventeenth century; the greatest numbers of children’s books were being produced from the 1740s to the 1820s. However, these books focused on moral stories and religious teaching.

[8] Alysa Levene and Jean Webb, “Depictions of the “ideal child” in Nineteenth-Century British Literature and Legislature,” Unpublished Paper.

[9] https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1358908-peter-and-wendy?page=1

[10] Carpenter, Secret Gardens, 14.

[11] Ibid, 17. Anne Lundin, “Victorian Horizons: The Reception of Children’s Books in England and America, 1880-1900,” The Library Quarterly (1992): 30-59. 33.

[12] Jacqueline Susan Bratton, The Impact of Victorian Children’s Fiction, (London: Croom Helm, 1981) 191.

[13] https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1358908-peter-and-wendy?page=1

[14] Lundin, “Victorian Horizons,” 49-52.

[15] Ibid, 52.

[16] https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1358908-peter-and-wendy?page=1

[17] Ibid, 49-52.

[18] Julia Briggs et al., (eds), “Popular Children’s Literature in Britain,” Library Review (2009): 467-469.

[19] Carpenter, Secret Gardens, 8.

[20] Levene and Webb, “Depictions of the “ideal Child”” 13.

[21] Lundin, “Victorian Horizons,” 49-52.

[22] https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1358908-peter-and-wendy?page=1

[23] http://www.gosh.org/about-us/peter-pan/history (Accessed 15/11/2016)

 

Bibliography

Bratton, Jacqueline Susan, The Impact of Victorian Children’s Fiction. London: Croom Helm, 1981.

Briggs, Julia, Denis Butts and M. O. Grenby, eds. “Popular Children’s Literature in Britain,” Library Review (2009): 467-469.

Carpenter, Humphrey. Secret Gardens the Golden Age of Children’s Literature. London: George and Unwin Publishers Ltd, 1985.

Levene, Alysa and Jean Webb, “Depictions of the “ideal child” in Nineteenth-Century British Literature and Legislature,” Unpublished Paper.

Lundin, Anne. “Victorian Horizons: The Reception of Children’s Books in England and America, 1880-1900,” The Library Quarterly (1992): 30-59.

Electronic Sources

Accessed 15/11/2016. https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1358908-peter-and-wendy?page=1

Accessed 15/11/2016. http://www.gosh.org/about-us/peter-pan/history

 

 

Dickens and Warren’s Blacking Factory

 Bottles from Warren’s Blacking Factory where Charles Dickens worked in 1924. Held at the Charles Dickens Museum, London.

Charles Dickens and the Blacking Factory

Above are two bottles from Warren’s Blacking Factory where Charles Dickens worked in 1924, aged twelve, after his parents fell into debt. Charles’ job at the factory was to cover the bottles of paste-blacking and to make the bottle look smart with paper and labels so that they could be sold in apothecaries. For this he earned six shillings a week in wages and worked six days a week from 8am to 8pm. [1] This experience of working and independence was a significant period in Charles life, and later dwelt on this time with horror and indignation. During Charles Dickens childhood, his family got progressively poorer and by 1922 his father could no longer afford to send him to school despite already showing high levels of creativity and intelligence. After years of financial struggles, John Dickens was arrested for debt in 1924 where he was first held at a sponging house before being taken to the Marshalsea debtor’s prison in Southwark. At twelve years old, Charles became the man of the family and was sent to pawn the family’s possessions and furniture which lead to the family having to camp out in two bare rooms during cold weather. These experiences of debt, prison, pawnbrokers and living in cold rooms on what could be borrowed or begged deeply affected Dickens and were used in his novels. [2]

Charles was against being put to work at the blacking factory and resented his parents indifference to this; later reflecting in his life that, “my mother and father were quite satisfied. They could hardly have been more so, if I had been twenty years of age, distinguished at a grammar school, and going to Cambridge.”  Charles’ job at Warren’s was incredibly light in comparison to other jobs they were in the factory as he could sit down to cover and label the pots. He was also given lessons during his lunch hour to keep up his education and made a friend called Bob Fagin, whose name he later used for one of his most famous villains. However, due to the hours he worked, Charles could not live with his family at the Marshalsea and had to board in a house in Camden. It is perhaps this separation from his family that affected Charles more than the factory work itself. Having to walk from Camden to the factory at Hungerford, next to the Thames, Charles witnessed a great many things in London and it is these that inspired moments and characters in his novels. Often at the centre of his novels is the figure of a lost, helpless or persecuted child; such as Oliver Twist, Little Nell, David, Paul Dombey and Pip. [3]

Little Dorrit tells the story of Amy (known as ‘Little Dorrit’) who grows up in the Marshalsea prison due to her father debts. (Copyright: V&A Images)

Victorian Children at Work: A Loss of Childhood?

Both Charles Dickens personal experience of working life and characterisation of working children in his novels and stories can be used by historians studying child labour in post-industrialised London and the family situations that lead children to go into work later in their childhood. Family relationships and structure was significant in the conditioning of children going to work. Jane Humphries has suggested three areas of research into family relationships; economic circumstances of the families, altruism (love of the parents) and the authority figure in the family who made decisions on children going to work. [4] Peter Kirby argues in Child Labour in Britain that the stimulus for child labour was family poverty, and that child labour only declined when poverty eased in the middle of the nineteenth century. [5] In general, historians now recognise that fathers and mothers were caring but the relationships between children and parents were powerfully gendered. This implicated both family life and family economy. But how did work at a young age affect a child in later life and their reflections on their own childhood?

Some local studies have found that working children found their contribution to the family economy vital and empowering. However, this was not felt by Dickens who remained deeply scarred by his experiences throughout his life. But perhaps this is because Dickens had to live independently at age twelve as he could not live with the rest of his family at the Marshalsea prison. He had to depend on himself to get to and from work across London and make all his meals. It is also said that Charles could not walk the route from Camden to the river in his adult life as it would often reduce him to tears. Furthermore, George Lander’s analysis the ‘dark side’ of Dicken’s work illuminates his resentment of his parents and how he found his work experience shaming and traumatic as he felt he lost his right to an education. But Dicken’s experience did allow him to write realistic stories of lost and helpless children.  The prevention and restriction of child work would impact many families income but would protect the period of childhood.

Children became more visible during and after the Industrial Revolution and often worked as they could make a significant contribution to their family’s economy. Just like in Charles Dickens case, most children probably worked when they needed to if there was no father or if their parent’s wages were low. It is hard to judge how this affected children’s experience of childhood as some studies have found a pride in children who contributed to their family’s income, whereas others have found that children, such as Charles Dickens, found the experience traumatic and damaging. This does not mean to say that children who went into work didn’t have a childhood, it just means that the period they would recognise as childhood ended at an earlier age than if they had not gone into work.

Footnotes

[1] John Forster, The Life of Charles Dickens, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1872-1874) 24.

[2] Claire Tomalin, Charles Dickens: A Life, (London: Penguin Group, 2011) 22-23.

[3] victorianweb.org (accessed: 7/11/2016)

[4] Jane Humphries, Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) 125.

[5] Peter Kirby, Child Labour in Britain, 1750-1870, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003)

Further Reading

Bennett, Alan. A Working Life: Child Labour Through the Nineteenth Century. Poole: Waterfront, 1991.

Hopkins, Eric. Childhood Transformed: Working Class Children in Nineteenth Century England. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994.

Horseman, Alan. “Introduction” in Dombey and Son. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974.

Lavalette, Michael. A Thing of The Past? Child Labour in Britain in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999.

Slater, Michael. Dickens and Women. Bungay: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1983.

Electronic Resources

http://www.emmajolly.co.uk/blog/tag/charles-dickens-2/

https://lisawallerrogers.com/tag/warrens-blacking-factory/

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/dickensbio3.html

Child Factory Workers: Exploited or Necessary?

[Child Sweeps Machine (1835) Thomas Allom in Baines: Cotton Manufacture, taken from Mary Evans Picture Library]

When people think about the child labourers in the big industrial textile factories of the 19^th century, they usually focus on the harsh treatments, the gory incidents and the perceived cruelty that came with making a child under ten works in such conditions. Child labour was the main thing studied when looking at the socio-economic effects of industrialisation[1]. This image created in 1835 shows a child sweeping a machine, while it’s moving, in a cotton factory in Lancashire. This was just one of the jobs the children had; others included mending broken threads and collecting cotton. This is an important picture as it really portrays the differences between the kinds of work the adults had to do compared to the children. Your eye draws attention to the child as they are noticeably in a lot more danger than the adults, dirtier and a lot more uncomfortable; as they did the jobs the adults didn’t want to do or couldn’t do.

Automatically one assumes that the child was exploited and forced to work for a factory owner’s gain however there is more to it than this. It’s important for historians studying this topic to understand that exploitation during this time has a different meaning than it does to us in present day, and is overall a social construct. There are many argument’s to suggest why child labour shown in this picture was important at the time and overall necessary for a child to be put to work, a notion that wasn’t alien at the time.

The industrial revolution was a huge watershed in the structure and visibility of children’s work. By 1851 15.4% of boys aged 10-14 worked in factories and 24% of girls were in industrial work at cotton and silk mills. Overall children made 35% of the labour force. Revisionist historians such as Humphries and Griffin discuss how the children were working as an ‘answer to the miserable poverty’ in which many families lived.[2] It was absolutely necessary for children to bring money into the family economy as a means to survive and seen as a step in the career ladder for them as school wasn’t easily accessible.[3] B.L Hutchins and A. Harrison also demonstrated that children were exposed to no worse conditions in factories than at home[4] This is a vital thing for historians of childhood to consider as it shows how the definition of childhood and what makes a good childhood changes over time as many historians have found that their contribution to the family income could be vital and empowering. To elaborate on what Humphries states, Child labour in these mills was a major contributing factor in Britain’s industrialization.[5] One drawback therefore in the picture above is that this is not exemplified there.

On the other hand it is important not to forget that while this helped children and their families in the long run, harsh treatment was still there. Here you can look into more detail of the treatments and kind of wages the children were earning during this time. Cruel punishments were put into place for children who were late to shifts and there was concern for the extent of hours the children were doing and the conditions of the factory that were making them ill.

Historians such as Nardinelli have used pictures like the above to support their ideas of children being, in what we would perceive as, exploited. During this time, factories were described as ‘hellish institutions for the destruction of childhood.[6]’ Strong language like this suggests that their definition of childhood during the 19^th century was one full of pain and sadness. They discuss the traditional view of studying child labour in being how the mistreatment of children on this scale and intensity was one of the most shameful events in our history[7]. Richard Oastler in the 19^th century even exclaimed ‘Poor infants! Ye are indeed sacrificed at the shrine of avarice.’ Revolutionary machines like the Spinning Jenny created in 1764 and James Nasmyth’s Steam hammer in 1842 could cause a lot of damage to young children at the time. Some fast-turning machines made children’s heads hurt and affected their brains and its reasons like this why people didn’t want them working in factories. These views seem to reach the conclusion that the factory runners seemed to gain profits upon a young child’s misery but I find this to be extreme.

Additionally, while historians can use pictures like these to portray the difficult jobs the children had to do and how much danger they could be put in, another point that the picture above won’t tell you is about the reforms put in place to regulate child labour in these factories. Child labour was very much still needed in these factories as the industrial economy depended on it; however there were acts that were put up in place. The first factory act of 1833 prohibited the employment of children less than 9 years of age in all mills and shortened their hours to just 48 a week. The second act of 1844 proposed that children in textile mills worked for half a day and attended school for half a day.[8] This then led to the ideas of children needing school rather than work and the technological advances in industry then created a reduced demand for child labour.

Overall, the picture above gives us an insight into how child labourers were regarded in textile mills and factories and it’s therefore very easy to assume, given how we define childhood today, that work was bad for their health and ruined their childhood. However upon research, I have discovered it was indeed necessary for that time and while it can be argued that they weren’t treated the best, they were the backbone for industrial British economy.

 

 

[1] Humphries, J. Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, Economic History Review, 66, pp. 395-418 (2013)

[2] Griffin, E. Liberty’s Dawn: A People’s History of the Industrial Revolution, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

[3] Humphries, J. Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, Economic History Review, 66, pp. 395-418 (2013)

[4] Nardinelli, C. Child Labour and the Factory Acts, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 40, No. 4 pp. 739-755 (1980)

[5] Humphries, J. Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, Economic History Review, 66, pp. 395-418 (2013)

[6] Nardinelli, C. Child Labour and the Factory Acts, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 40, No. 4 pp. 739-755 (1980)

[7] Nardinelli, C. Child Labour and the Factory Acts, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 40, No. 4 pp. 739-755 (1980)

[8] Nardinelli, C. Child Labour and the Factory Acts, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 40, No. 4 pp. 739-755 (1980)

 

References

Humphries, J. Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, Economic History Review, 66, pp. 395-418 (2013)

Nardinelli, C. Child Labour and the Factory Acts, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 40, No. 4 pp. 739-755 (1980)

Griffin, E. Liberty’s Dawn: A People’s History of the Industrial Revolution, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Child Labour in Factories: A new workforce in the industrial revolution (2002) Available at:

http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/nhs/cur/Baker_00/2002_p7/ak_p7/childlabor.html#intro

[Accessed on 10^th November 2016]

 

All Alone in the Dark; Children and the South Wales Mining Industry.

“Sometime I sing when I’ve light, but not in the dark; I dare not sing then. I don’t like being in the pit.”  – Sarah Gooder aged eight years old. [1]

“My abiding memory of that day is blackness and dark. I was buried by this horrible slurry and I am afraid of the dark to this day.” – Pupil, Pantglas Junior School. [2]

The two children discuss their connection to the Welsh coal mining industry. The first statement is from the 1842 report on the “Condition and Treatment of The Children employed in the Mines and Collieries.” The second describes the traumatic experience of being involved in the Aberfan disaster of 1966; in which a coal waste pile collapsed on Pantglas junior school killing 116 children.

These statements were made roughly 124 years apart, but they show us how children’s daily lives have changed, especially their relationship with work and schooling. It highlights that in just over a century, children from the same village were no longer forced to work in the pit as young as four years old, but attended full time education. In relation to the history of childhood, the comparison of these events also reveals how society’s view of childhood has developed. The 1842 report signifies the beginning of a public outcry in response to the exploitation of children in the mining industry. The 1966 tragedy emphasises the immense mourning over the loss of innocent children.

Life below Ground

In the present day it would seem unfathomable to leave a young child alone and frightened in the dark. However in the period 1800 – 1850, children compromised around 20-50% of the workforce in most mines. [3] The youngest children were usually employed as ‘trappers’, a role which consisted of opening and closing doors for the passage of workers and material; a lonely and tantalisingly tedious job.

“Their whole time is spent sitting in the dark for twelve hours; and were it not for the passing and repassing of the wagons, it would be equal to solitary confinement of the worst order.” [4]

One of the many illustrations of children’s grueling work included in the 1842 report on child labour. British Library Museum

Older children were forced to crawl on all fours through three foot high tunnels, dragging or pushing large wagons of coal weighing an average of 350 pounds. A chain and harness connected to the wagon would be attached to the child’s waist. The 1842 report compares the children to abused horses, and children were abused; adult workers were more than willing to whip children not moving fast enough. They spent their childhood exhausted, malnourished, and filthy. They were just slaves to the industrial revolution.

Public outcry and The Coal Mines Act of 1842

British Library Museum

Public attention was first drawn towards child labour within mines in 1838, when a stream flooded a ventilation tunnel and twenty six children perished in Huskar colliery. This led to a three year inquiry by the Children’s Employment Commission on the working conditions of children. The report shocked Victorian Society, fuelled sensational press, and inspired protest literature; such as Elizabeth Barret Browning’s poem ‘The Cry of the Children’;

         “They look up, with their pale and sunken faces,

          “How long,” they say, “how long, O cruel nation” [5]

Historian Oliver Macdonagh has argued that this stimulated the creation of the Coal Mines Act 1842. [6] The Act prohibited any child below the age of ten from working in the mines. However, evasion of the Act was extremely common, with only one inspector covering the whole of Britain, children continued to work illegally. Though the 1842 Act was not effective, it is a significant stepping stone towards important welfare legislation introduced decades later. It led to a turning point in child welfare; the introduction of the Education Act of 1880. The Act introduced compulsory schooling for children under ten years old. Legislation was beginning to define a period of childhood. This was a substantial step towards the full-time education system we are familiar with today.

Aberfan Disaster; “Buried Alive by the National Coal Board.” [7]

On Friday the 21^st of October 1966, Aberfan, a coalmining community in South Wales, “experienced the greatest imaginable tragedy related to its children.” [8]

In the supposed safety of school, the children were completely unaware of the wave of coal waste plummeting down the hillside towards them. As the teachers took morning registry at 9.15am, disaster struck. After 11.30am no child was found alive in the debris. 116 children took their last breath that morning. Negligence by the mining industry killed a generation.

Aberfan memorial cemetery

Welsh writer Gwyn Thomas called Aberfan “the last word in our long litany of lethal misfortunes” referring to the tragic amount of death and injury that the coalmining community had grown accustom to. [9] However, the Aberfan disaster was different. The children were not miners who were aware of the risks their job entailed, they were merely attending school. Outrage towards the National Coal Board ensued; bereaved parents blamed the dangerous depositing of coal waste for the death of their children. A century earlier, parents from the same village were sending their young children to work in the hazardous mines.

Perceptions of Childhood

The 1842 Report and the Aberfan Disaster of 1966 symbolize the changing perception of childhood. One could suggest that coal mining communities in the mid-nineteenth century merely viewed children as cheap labour; compliant and naive ‘mini’ adults. Many children were severely injured or killed, were their lives disposable? Historian Hugh Cunningham has suggested that Victorians began to view child workers as “children without childhood.” [10] Thus the 1842 report and the legislation that followed, mark the beginning of society attempting to make childhood a time for freedom and education. The Aberfan disaster shows us that by the mid-twentieth century, children were treasured members of society and their death generated immense mourning. It is argued that the definition of childhood is constructed by conceptual thought and social action. [11] Thus these two events/periods in history are imperative in showing us how the experience of childhood has changed in relation to its perception in society.

Endnotes

[1] The Condition and Treatment of the Children employed in the Mines and Colliers of the United Kingdom (London, 1842), 41. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/report-on-child-labour-1842 (Accessed 11/11/2016).

[2] http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/aberfan/chap1.htm (Accessed 11/11/2016)

[3] Jane Humphries, Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 30.

[4] The Condition and Treatment of Children employed in the mines, 41.

[5] Janice Carlisle and James R. Simmons, Jr (eds), Factory Lives: Four Nineteenth-Century Working-Class Autobiographies (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2007), 433.

[6] Alan Heeson, “The Coal Mines Act of 1842, Social Reform, and Social Control,” The Historical Journal (1981), 71.

[7]  https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/aberfan/chap1.htm (Accessed 11/11/2016)

[8] Richard A. Couto, “Economics, Experts, and Risk: Lessons from the Catastrophe at Aberfan,” Political Psychology (1989), 310.

[9] Couto, “Economics, Expert, and Risk,” 310.

[10] http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/re-inventing-childhood (Accessed 12/11/2016)

[11] Harry Hendrick, “Construction and reconstruction of British childhood: an interpretive survey, 1800 to present,” in Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood; Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood, eds. Allison James and Alan Prout (London and New York: Routledge, 2015), 30.

Bibliography

Carlisle, Janice, and James R. Simmons, Jr, eds. Factory Lives: Four Nineteenth-Century Working-Class Autobiographies. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2007.

Couto, Richard A. “Economics, Experts, and Risk: Lessons from the Catastrophe at Aberfan.” Political Psychology (1989): 309-324.

Hendrick, Harry. “Construction and reconstruction of British childhood: an interpretive survey, 1800 to present.” In Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood; Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood, eds. Allison James and Alan Prout, 29-54. London and New York: Routledge, 2015.

Heeson, Alan. “The Coal Mines Act of 1842, Social Reform, and Social Control,” The Historical Journal (1981): 69-88.

Humphries, Jane. Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Electronic Sources

http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/aberfan/chap1.htm Accessed 11/11/2016.

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/re-inventing-childhood Accessed 12/11/2016.

Primary sources

The Condition and Treatment of the Children employed in the Mines and Colliers of the United Kingdom. London, 1842. Accessed 11/11/2016. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/report-on-child-labour-1842

Word count: 1,000