In the history of Social and Public Policy, the 1833 Factory Act can be asserted as a critical piece of legislation because it recognised that the state could intervene by establishing frameworks to enforce parliamentary decisions for humanitarian purposes. This decisive change helped meet serious needs through enabling protections for children’s working conditions using regulatory inspectors. While laying these foundations led to further reform that built upon new ways of thinking on how to assist more people, its actual effectiveness left much to be desired, rendering it limited in terms of execution and scope.
The 1833 Factory Act was arguably a critical piece of legislation in Social and Public Policy history due to being the first time the government took responsibility for enforcing laws concerning child workers’ welfare. Prior to this, a trend of failed policies due to poor implementation, namely the 1788 Chimney Sweep Act, 1802 Health and Morals of Apprentices Act and, the 1819 Cotton Mills Act highlight why the Factory Act’s inspectorate made it significant. Accepting their role in not only in prescribing regulations but also putting them into practice to ensure rights were upheld consolidated this juncture. It can therefore be seen as an important ideological evolution that broadened capacity by moving away from a ‘laissez-faire’ …show more content…
His detailed investigations reach many logical inferences, particularly about magistrates’ leniency in differentiating between willful offenders and poor parents, which may have unintentionally undermined how they judged. He provides evidence with thorough historiography to refute claims that they impeded the Act from making a critical difference in that corruption has been exaggerated, misrepresenting a successful piece of
The 1833 Factory Act was arguably a critical piece of legislation in Social and Public Policy history due to being the first time the government took responsibility for enforcing laws concerning child workers’ welfare. Prior to this, a trend of failed policies due to poor implementation, namely the 1788 Chimney Sweep Act, 1802 Health and Morals of Apprentices Act and, the 1819 Cotton Mills Act highlight why the Factory Act’s inspectorate made it significant. Accepting their role in not only in prescribing regulations but also putting them into practice to ensure rights were upheld consolidated this juncture. It can therefore be seen as an important ideological evolution that broadened capacity by moving away from a ‘laissez-faire’ …show more content…
His detailed investigations reach many logical inferences, particularly about magistrates’ leniency in differentiating between willful offenders and poor parents, which may have unintentionally undermined how they judged. He provides evidence with thorough historiography to refute claims that they impeded the Act from making a critical difference in that corruption has been exaggerated, misrepresenting a successful piece of