Investigating The Beginnings Of Big
Government
In my quest to find the origins
of why big government in Western countries has become ever so expansive and
pervasive I came to the realization you have to go way back in history.
Previously, I have posted a
blog post about British
Chimney Sweeper Acts.
The Acts
During the 19th
century Great Britain passed about 10 such Acts to protect children,
later women and to limit the number of work hours per day. The other component
of the early Acts was healthier work conditions.
Between the first such Act in
1802 until the Act of 1844, these Acts provided child labor protection.
Beginning with the Act of 1844 similar protections were extended to women.
The Act of 1802 mandated that (Source):
·
“mills and factories provide proper ventilation
and required a minimum standard of cleanliness.
… All apprentices were to be educated in reading, writing and arithmetic
for the first four years of their apprenticeship. The Act specified that this
should be done every working day within usual working hours but did not state
how much time should be set aside for it.”
·
“Each apprentice was to be given two sets of
clothing, suitable linen, stockings, hats, and shoes, and a new set each year
thereafter.”
Why does government coerce specific
private businesses to pay and provide for education?
Why did government make such
specific prescriptions as what clothing is to be provided to an apprentice?
This is a form of partial expropriation or a form of taxation applied to
certain businesses. Did other apprentices in non regulated businesses enjoy
such benefits?
The Act of 1844 mandated among
other things more government control over businesses by:
·
“Ages must be verified by surgeons.
·
Accidental death must be reported to a surgeon
and investigated.
·
Thorough records must be kept regarding the
provisions of the act.
·
Machinery was to be fenced in.” (Wikipedia)
Each work week contained 63
hours effective 1847 and was reduced to 58 hours effective 1848. In 1850, no
longer could employers decide the hours of work. The workday was changed to
correspond with the maximum number of hours that women and children could work.
Children and Women could only work from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. in the summer and 7
a.m. to 7 p.m. in the winter. All work would end on Saturday at 2 p.m.. The
work week was extended from 58 hours to 60 hours.
The Acts first covered only
the textile industry, soon after other industries, later all industries.
Alternatives
Why were specific employers not
prosecuted when working conditions were shown to lead to outbreaks of diseases?
As happened in one of Sir
Robert Peel’s factories.
Why were specific employers
not prosecuted if neglect led to serious accidents in factories?
Was it really necessary to
limit the workday to 10 hours uniformly? Would not have a maximum work hours
per day for adults have sufficed? Why were work hours for adult women limited
to certain times of the day?
Was it necessary to make very
specific prescriptions as to how to enhance work place safety? Would not have
best practices developed over time etc. and prosecution of offenders affected
about the same result?
How many factory owners were
actually ruthless to justify such sweeping legislation?
And so on …
Herbert Spencer On The Coming Slavery
To quote from the same name
chapter of his book titled “The
Man Versus State” (Emphasis added):
“Neither did those who in 1834 passed an Act regulating the labour of
women and children in certain factories, imagine that the system they were
beginning would end in the restriction and inspection of labour in all kinds of
producing establishments where more than fifty people are employed; nor did
they conceive that the inspection provided would grow to the extent of
requiring that before a "young person" is employed in a factory,
authority must be given by a certifying surgeon, who, by personal examination
(to which no limit is placed) has satisfied himself that there is no
incapacitating disease or bodily infirmity … The blank form of an inquiry daily
made is-"We have already done this;
why should we not do that " And
the regard for precedent suggested by it, is ever pushing on regulative legislation.
Having had brought within their sphere of operation more and more numerous businesses, the Acts restricting hours of
employment and dictating the treatment of workers are now to be made applicable to shops. From inspecting lodging-houses to
limit the numbers of occupants and enforce sanitary conditions, we have
passed to inspecting all houses below a certain rent in which there are members
of more than one falnily, and are nowT passing to a kindred inspection of all
small houses.* The buying and working of
telegraphs by the State is made a reason for urging that the State should buy
and work the railways. Supplying children with food for their minds by
public agency is being followed ill some cases by supplying food for their
bodies; and after the practice has been made gradually more general, we may anticipate
that the supply,now proposed to be made gratis in the one case, will·
eventually be proposed to be made gratis in the other: the argument that good
bodies as well as good minds are needful to luake good citizens, being
logically urged as a reason for the extension. … Failure does not destroy faith in the agencies employed, but merely
suggests more stringent use of such agencies or wider ramifications of them.”
Acts To Eliminate Competition
Is it just pure coincidence that
some of the most prominent advocates of these laws ran big businesses of the
kind to be regulated? Follow the money trail.
Mr. “John Fielden (17 January
1784 – 29 May 1849), also known as Honest John Fielden, was a British social
reformer and benefactor. … With his brothers, he expanded the family cotton
business at Todmorden to become a wealthy businessman. … The Fieldens owned
many mills … They spent £34,000 on the latest cotton-spinning equipment, and it
created thousands of jobs. The mill consumed more raw cotton than any other
firm in the country at the time.” (Wikipedia).
“On his father's death in 1811,
Fielden and his brothers inherited the family cotton-spinning business at
Todmorden, which became one of the greatest manufacturing concerns in Great
Britain. Unlike most mill owners, Fielden soon became a supporter of
legislation to protect factory labour.” (Encyclopedia Britannica).
The famous “Sir Robert Peel,
who employed more children than any other cotton master in Great Britain,
promoted the bill in response to his concerns regarding the children working in
his mills. Peel felt that there was "gross mismanagement" in his
factories, and as he could not find time to remedy this himself he proposed an
Act of Parliament to address these concerns.” (Wikipedia).
Because the famous Sir Peel did not have enough time to remedy mismanagement in
his own mills? Give me a break!
In modern parlance this is
called leveling the playing field.
No comments:
Post a Comment