According to the traditional view, after the establishment of the Factory Act of 1933, the child labour situation changed radically for the good. The Factory Act first started being enforced in 1935 and continued to be enforced until 1938. During this time period, the amount of children in the workforce fell from 56,000 to 33,000. Percentage wise, the number of children working in textile mills fell from 15.9% to 7.9%. It was felt by many that the reason the Act was so successful was due to the attentiveness of the factory inspectors that were charged with the task of enforcing the law. Early reports from the factory inspectors indicated that the law was followed in various factories most of the time. Statistics also show that without the Factory Act, many children would still be trapped within the confines of poor working conditions. For example, "children did not leave the silk industry as rapidly between 1835 and 1838 as they did the other textile industries." The new Factory Act also affected factory owners as they now had to create schools if there was no educational institute nearby and had to get age examinations from surgeons. Factory owners often had to hire additional staff just to fill out the paper work that was required by the new legislation.
On the other hand, there was an alternative view that opposed the traditional view regarding child labour and its new regulation. It stated that the Factory Acts did not reduce the welfare of children significantly. First of all, the education that the children now received was sub-par and it was "clear that the most important effect of the Factory Acts was not to educate the factory children." In fact, there was no significant increase in literacy rates amongst the textile districts after the implementation of the Act in 1833. Furthermore, if there was a school near by the factory and the mill owner did not provide his own school, the children still had to pay tuition. Although the law was mostly obeyed, the early inspector reports also mentioned that many factories were suspected of widespread cheating when it came to following the new legislature. Thus, the large decline of child labour that was implied might not be a true statistic. Age certificates also eventually became easier to purchase and process and also became transferrable and children could take their certificates with them when switching jobs which reduced the cost of age certificates per child. In fact, in some cases the mill owner would reach economies of scale and overcome the implicit tax (bookkeeping costs, school costs, supervision costs, age certificates...etc) by hiring even more young children to work half time and reaching economies of scale. Additionally, when the factory children left the textile industry, they did not leave to go to school. In fact those who were interested in school remained working and became half-timers (half work, half school). The majority of the factory children went to work in different areas whether it was at home or in another market. This theory isn't properly evidenced because there were no records of child labour in other industries at that point in time. However, it has been documented that many factory owners often complained that their child workers left the textile markets to work for calico-print factories (which were unregulated). Thus, it is quite possible that when the factory children found another place of work, their situation there was much direr. Moreover, the silk industry is a unique niche and cannot be used to generalize the outcome of the factory children's future if it wasn't for the Factory Acts. It was actually shown that many children left from working at the silk mills during the 1840's and 1850's even though there was no Parliamentary bill that affected the silk industry at that time. This leads us to the theory that the Factory Act did not cause the decline of child labour, but merely just helped it along.
It can be argued that the Factory Act did not in fact instigate the reduction of Child Labour but rather complimented the other factors that were already in play. When comparing the percentage of children employed by cotton and flax mills in 1835 with the percentage employed in 1816 it is seen that child labour in both industries was increasing for two decades before the Factory Act was passed.
One of these factors that helped reduce child labour was the improvement of technology during the Industrial Revolution. Around 1835, many water powered textile mills switched to being steam-powered. This marked a major turning point in the history of textile markets. Various textile factories could now be built in towns with a thriving populace. Consequently, the labour market for the industry was transformed. Textile mill owners no longer had to scramble to look for a willing adult workforce, which meant that the demand for child labour decreased. There were technological improvements in other areas as well. For example, "In 1930, Richard Roberts perfected his self-actor, which completely mechanized cotton spinning, and it was adopted rapidly in the 1830's." The new automated spinning mule meant that fewer threads were broken and as a result piecers (who were mostly children) were no longer needed and demand for child labour decreased even more. The spinning mule breakthrough was accompanied with the act of Ring-spinning which also reduced the need for piecers. Since the new technology required more adult power than child labour, it was also seen that "child labour was already declining relative to adult labour, and the Factory Act only speeded up the change." Furthermore, even as time progressed and the textile machinery became easier to manage and operate, children did not take over the jobs of adults but rather started to become their assistants and preformed simple and not hard labour inducing tasks such as running errands. Thus, it is quite possible that "child labour in Britain would vanish anyway as British prosperity rose."
However, it wasn't just the lack of demand that drove down child labour during the nineteenth century. Lack of supply also played a big part. There was "an important force shifting the supply of child labour: growing real income and its effect on parents' attitude towards their children." After a period of stagnation, real wages (wages adjusted to account for inflation) during the industrial revolution started along a steady climb. From 1819 to 1850, real wages almost doubled. In fact, the standard of living in Great Britain also increased drastically around the 1840/1850's. Productivity increased with the introduction of international trade and mercantilism. Health care and sanitation also improved which increased the average life expectancy (which meant more money earned in a life time). These developments along with the introduction of a secure banking system helped transition Britain from a mainly agricultural economy to a money economy. Previously, children only had to work in the factories because their parents were poor and needed the extra money to stay above living in poverty. Now, their parent's incomes were rising and as a result they were less willing to send their children to work, especially in such destitute conditions. The rise in income also provoked the parents to start investing in their children's health and education. Younger siblings of factory children also started working at a later age than what was required during harder times. "The well-known Victorian concern with children was in large part a reflection of rising income." Therefore, it can be seen that there were forces other than the Factory Acts of 1833 that were driving down the amount of child labour in the factory industries.
