Reading David Copperfield, it seems natural to wonder about child labor laws in 19th-century England. David is 10 when he goes to work at the counting-house. I have a 10-year-old, or will in a few weeks. She's in the fourth grade and learning her "math facts" (I call them "multiplication tables"). That someone her age should go off by himself to work for wages seems incredible. But it wouldn't have to the people who first read David Copperfield, which was published serially over the period May 1849 to November 1850. When you type into Google "child labor laws England" and click on the first thing that looks promising, you soon read:
The campaign against child labour culminated in two important pieces of legislation—the Factory Act (1833) and the Mines Act (1842). The Factory Act prohibited the employment of children younger than nine years of age and limited the hours that children between nine and 13 could work. The Mines Act raised the starting age of colliery workers to 10.
A colliery is a coal mine. Just want to call attention to the verb in that first sentence, culminated, as if outlawing the employment of 9-year-olds in factories was the crown jewel of progressive legislation. Imagine the "moderates" during the debate in the House of Commons: "Well, I can live with the prohibition against 9-year-olds, but, once you're 10, big government should not be telling you or your employer how many hours you can work."
The hateful Mr Murdstone wasn't breaking any laws by sending David away to the counting-house.
Between the passage of the Mines Act and the first installment of David Copperfield, Marx's literary partner Friedrich Engels had published The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845). Of course we all know his criticisms went too far. Quite an unfavorable portrait of the capitalists! Not really sure why Marx and Engels are blackguards and Dickens is loved.
Comments