88 SITUATING HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Creighton 1979: 19–26; Gunningham 1984: ch. 4; Henriques 1979: chs. 4
and 5; Hutchins and Harrison 1926; Johnstone 2004a: 34–7; Thomas 1948.)
Instead, it is sufficient to note that early measures such as the Regulation
of Chimney Sweepers Act 1788 and the Health and Morals of Apprentices
Act 1802 were adopted in response to concerns about the working and living
conditions of ‘pauper apprentices’—that is, children and young people who
were in the care of the public authorities, and who, like Dickens’Oliver Twist,
were apprenticed to private sector operators who often neglected their physical
and moral well-being. In other words, these early measures can properly be
seen as an extension of the Poor Law, rather than legislation that was directed
to the regulation of the employment relationship as such. Nevertheless, they
can also be seen as the forerunners of nineteenth century factory legislation,
and, at a further remove, of modern occupational health and safety legislation.
As the nineteenth century progressed, there was a growing acceptance that
it was appropriate for the legislature to intervene to regulate the working
conditions not just of those workers (such as pauper apprentices or children)
in relation to whom the public could be seen to have special responsibility,
but also other categories of employees who appeared to be in need of pro-
tection from the operation of market forces. For example, Victorian middle-
class sensibilities were particularly offended by the publication in 1842 of a
report from a Committee on the Employment of Women and Children in
Mines and Collieries which showed (with appropriately salacious lithographic
prints) that scantily clad women and children were required to work for long
hours in dark, hot, and humid conditions in underground coal mines (Parl
Papers 1842: vols. XV, XVI, and XXXV). This led to the legislative prohibition
of all underground working for women and children, and to the imposition of
severe restrictions on the employment of juveniles (Creighton 1979: 20–1).
Less noble motives also played a part. For example, some of the larger
manufacturers saw legislative regulation of hours and conditions of work
of children, juveniles, and women who performed critical ancillary tasks in
cotton and woollen mills, as a way of blunting the competitive edge of smaller
operators who utilized cheap sources of power and highly exploitative labour
practices as compared to their more established and reputable competitors.
Meanwhile, Carson (1974) has suggested that certain members of the tradi-
tional landed interest saw support for factory legislation as a way of striking
back at the nouveaux riches of the emerging manufacturing class.
Whatever the motives of those who supported the adoption of the early fac-
tory legislation, the fact is that by the middle of the 1840s, the principle of leg-
islative intervention to regulate the working conditions of workers in British
textile factories had become firmly entrenched. From 1844 onwards there
was an increasing emphasis upon the prevention of work-related injury—
especially through the guarding of machinery. There was also an increasing
acceptance that the principle of legislative protection should apply to all