An Analysis of Childhood and Child Labour in Charles Dickens’ Works
David Copperfield and Oliver Twist
©2014
Academic Paper
54 Pages
Summary
The Industrial Revolution was a time of enormous change for the British society. Science and technology developed rapidly and brought wealth and improvement into many sectors of life; inventions like the steam engine, power looms, the spinning jenny or the expansion of the road and rail network made life easier. But on the other hand it was also the time of great misery, exploitation and tremendous class differences between a very thin and very wealthy upper-class, a rising middle-class and a very broad and to a great extent extremely impoverished working-class. But how was it like being a working-class child in Victorian England? To answer this question this work will take a close look at two of the most famous contemporary novels dealing with the depiction of children: Charles Dickens’ ‘David Copperfield’ and ‘Oliver Twist’.
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
8
After this general overview of childhoods, an analysis of Dickens' novels in regard to his
depictions of these aspects as well as the descriptions of establishments which dealt with
orphaned or impoverished children like the workhouse will follow. The results of this analysis
will be related to secondary literature as well as to Dickens' own childhood experiences by
taking a short look at his biography. Hence, the foremost important question emerges: what
did Dickens want to achieve by making thieves, prostitutes and impoverished working-class
boys his main characters and what were his aims in writing about such topics at all?
Following this analysis, the second part of the term paper will deal with the health and safety
concerns which arose from the occupation of young adults and children in heavy manual
labour and the poor living conditions of many working-class children in the areas of industrial
concentration. What were the dangers the children were exposed to and how were the working
conditions affecting their general health and life expectancy? Keeping these questions on
safety at work in mind there will be a short look at countermeasures taken to prevent young
children from working long hours in hazardous environments. As an example of political
intervention on the topic the last part of this work will take a closer look at `The Factories
Act' of 1844 in order to decide whether the actions taken by the British government were
sufficient and effective. This example also illustrates the contemporary perception of working
children by the Victorian society. What were Dickens' contemporaries thinking about child
labour? Did they share his views and criticism?
Aside from the primary sources provided in form of Charles Dickens' novels `David
Copperfield' and `Oliver Twist', this term paper will rely to great lengths on the secondary
literature `Children and Industry' by Marjorie Cruickshank, `Victorian Childhoods' by Ginger
Frost, `Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution' by Jane Humphries
and `Child Labour in Britain, 1750-1870' by Peter Kirby.
9
The Industrial Revolution was a time of enormous change for the British society. Science and
technology developed rapidly and brought wealth and improvement into many sectors of life;
inventions like the steam engine, power looms, the spinning jenny or the expansion of the
road and rail network made life easier. But on the other hand it was also the time of great
misery, exploitation and tremendous class differences between a very thin and very wealthy
upper-class, a rising middle-class and a very broad and to a great extent extremely
impoverished working-class.
4
Despite the fact that from the 1820's onwards the British
economy expanded to become the richest in the world
5
, which meant that Britain as a country
became richer and richer, many working-class families did not benefit from these
improvements at all.
6
During the early part of the Victorian Age only two percent of the population formed the
upper-class, which consisted of aristocrats and landed gentry whose most distinctive feature
was the fact that its members didn't have to work for a living but relied on rental revenues and
the income of investments made instead. The middle-class formed roughly 15 % of the
population and consisted of those who ran their own businesses, like factory owners or were
professionals like teachers, surgeons or lawyers. The remaining majority of 73 % of the
population was considered as the working-class, whose members were working for wages and
were paid weekly or monthly.
7
It is important to mention that there was an internal distinction
between skilled and unskilled workers within this social class. Skilled workers had learned a
trade and therefore made better wages than the vast group of unskilled workers who had
nothing but their physical strength to put into the balance.
8
Whilst the middle-class earned the
most from the developments of the time (from approximately 15 % of the population in 1815
it grew to 25 % by the turn of the century) the working-class fell by the wayside. Due to rapid
urbanization, cities became large, densely populated and hopelessly overcrowded in a short
period of time. The results were that whole districts of greater cities deteriorated and became
slums like the East End of London which Dickens impressively describes in his novel `Oliver
Twist'.
4
Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.1.
5
Steinbach, Susie: Understanding the Victorians, p.77.
6
Cf. Steinbach, Susie: Understanding the Victorians, p.84.
7
Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.2.
8
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.3.
10
The Victorian Age was a very ambiguous time with great prosperity and terrible poverty
going side by side. This ambiguity also becomes apparent in the perception of children and
childhood. On the one hand children were estimated as immensely important and childhood
was a heavily idealized and romanticized time children were seen as sweet, little angels who
were entirely good and innocent since they weren't corrupted by the cruel world yet. Herbert
Tucker even calls it an `obsession' when he says that `never before had childhood became an
obsession within the culture at large yet in this case `obsession' is not too strong a word.'
9
But on the other hand, despite this obsession with children, the child mortality rate, especially
in poorer districts of great cities, was appallingly high
10
and child labour was a regular
occurrence `in a society in which child labor provided an opportunity for additional income
for hard-pressed families and capital advantage for eager employers.'
11
Although children had
already been working before the rise of the Industrial Revolution, during `the early part of the
nineteenth century, child labour became to be used on a scale it had never been used on
before'
12
, mainly for the simple reason that steam power and new machinery allowed children
to take over work that had previously required the strength of grown men. `The Industrial
Revolution heralded in a change of form of child labour'
13
because it opened new ways to
employ children in sectors which formerly had been virtually out of limits for a child's work
capacity.
Taking all these facts into account it is an interesting observation that the children of the
middle and upper-classes were adored and idolized while their poor fellows were exploited
and neglected by the same society that claimed to love children above all else. It is a fact that
`
the quality of daily life in Victorian England rested upon the underlying structure determined
by social class.
'
14
Class differences were a substantial factor of the Victorian society and
unsurprisingly the grave differences between the classes led to different and distinctive views
on ethics, work, domesticity and children in general. How much these views and perceptions
differed will be pointed out in the following two sections.
9
Tucker, Herbert: A Companion to Victorian Literature and Culture, p.70.
10
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.165.
11
Kaplan, Fred: Dickens A Biography, p.38.
12
Kirby, Peter: Child Labour in Britain, 1750-1870, p.1.
13
Kirby, Peter: Child Labour in Britain, 1750-1870, p.36.
14
Mitchell, Sally: Daily Life in Victorian England, p.13.
11
Speaking about the perception of children and childhood during the Victorian Era one usually
refers to the ideas and ideals of the upper classes. It fact it was the Victorian middle-class that
laid the foundation to the modern attitude towards childhood and which is closely intertwined
with the perception of the ideal-typical and archetypical Victorian childhood as we imagine it
today. It is not for nothing that `family life [...] was the most idealized part of childhood in
the Victorian period'
15
. Especially the Romantic Movement's view on children as inherently
innocent beings highly influenced Victorian middle-class parents' attitude towards their
children and childhood in general
16
. The predominating image of the time in regard to
children was definitely shaped by romanticized sentimentality: `Children share certain
important characteristics: they are depicted as infantile, with large heads or rosebud mouths or
lips, and thus as innocent; as vulnerable, in need of adult protection; as trusting, perceiving
only the good in the world.'
17
But there was more to the middle-class view on children other that they were something
immensely precious and worth protecting. As already mentioned above, class differences
were a substantial part of society during the Victorian period and therefore shaped the views
and opinions of those who were born into the different classes decisively. The foremost
important aspect of the Victorian middle-class view on family life and childhood was the
concept of domesticity: `Domesticity was an idealization of the home. Home was a refuge
from the cruelty and rapaciousness of the workplace and the marketplace.'
18
As a matter of
fact, for the Victorian middle-class family the home had become especially important since it
was seen as a tranquil haven within the vast and turbulent ocean of the hectic outside world.
They tried to build their own little paradise of peace and serenity which stood in stark contrast
to the public sphere. The Victorian middle-class tended to idealize the family and family life
as a heavenly sanctuary with the luxury of leisure time, where loving mothers could play with
their well-behaved children and fathers would relax after a long day of hard work. It is this
`new emphasis on the importance of the home [that] is a key element in Victorian Culture.'
19
A direct connection to the concept of domesticity was the distribution of strict roles for all
family members which was called the `doctrine of separate spheres'
20
. Women were seen as
15
Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.6.
16
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.143.
17
Tucker, Herbert: A Companion to Victorian Literature and Culture, p.80.
18
Steinbach, Susie: Understanding the Victorians, p.134.
19
O'Gorman, Francis: The Cambridge Companion to Victorian Culture, p.220.
20
Steinbach, Susie: Understanding the Victorians, p.134.
12
private creatures, the `angels in the house' whose most important task was to care for the
well-being of their children and husbands, even if that meant enormous personal sacrifices.
They were expected to support their men in every way they could and while men made `their
living and their reputation in the world'
21
, women were expected to be grateful towards their
men, stay at home and `tend the hearth and raise the children.'
22
Men on the other hand were
public creatures and had to protect their beloved as well as to provide them with everything
they needed. But not only the parents were bound to strict roles which they were ought to
fulfill. They had precise expectations towards their children as well. Upper and middle-class
children were supposed to be obedient, dutiful and grateful towards their parent's efforts and
first and foremost should become respectable and honest adults in the future.
23
Education was
an important factor in order to raise their children to become good adults. But since gender
differences were especially strong within the upper and middle-classes, the different treatment
of boys and girls concerning education started right from the beginning. Schooling was highly
gendered in order to prepare the children for their respective gender roles for which they were
destined as adults. Boys generally received more education, went to private or boarding
schools and later on to universities whilst the girls stayed at their parent's house until they
were decently married.
24
Oftentimes girls received less formal education, went to day schools
or were educated by their mothers or a governess at home. In short, middle-class children
usually grew up in a steady and protected environment and stayed `children of the house'
25
until they could establish their own household for girls this usually meant marriage while
boys had to finish their schoolings and find a job first.
After looking at middle-class families and their attitude towards children and domesticity it
becomes quite clear that only affluent people could afford such a lifestyle. Members of the
wealthier classes `had both the income and the leisure to pursue family lives as they
pleased.'
26
The attitude of working-class parents towards their children and their overall
living and working conditions showed a different and darker picture.
21
Tosh, John: A Man's Place Masculinity and the Middle-Class Home in Victorian England, p.1.
22
Tosh, John: A Man's Place Masculinity and the Middle-Class Home in Victorian England, p.1.
23
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.11.
24
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.28.
25
Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.31.
26
Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.21.
13
In 1845 Politician Benjamin Disreale wrote about the different classes in England that the
country was divided into two nations, the richer and the poor `between whom there is no
intercourse [...] as if they were dwellers in different zones.'
27
This contemporary citation
shows the tremendous differences between the social classes in Victorian England. Due to the
different circumstances of living which had almost nothing in common at all, the middle-class
ideal of domesticity, the angel-like mother who cares for her demure, well-behaved children
with a lot of leisure time and time to study simply couldn't be applied to working-class
families. Stressed-out and drained working-class mothers were not uncommonly working full-
time and on top of that had to handle the daily chores and make ends with the very little
money the family had at its disposal. They simply had no time to play with their children or to
educate them properly. Because of the parents' very restricted time and financial resources,
working-class childhoods were decisively shorter than upper or middle-class ones. It was the
need to start working at young ages that sharply divided the working-class from the middle-
class.
28
Working-class children had to contribute to their family's financial situation as early
as possible, mostly because of the father's low wages or for the many hungry mouths to feed.
A children's `non-work' and its long attendance at school or extensive leisure time were a
luxury good a working-class family just couldn't afford.
29
The whole living environment of
these children differed from that of their richer fellows: urban working-class families lived in
unsanitary, overcrowded, cramped flats or row houses which were often notorious breeding
grounds for diseases.
30
`The cold, gray force of poverty'
31
and `the narrowness of
circumstances'
32
were the main reasons why children were sent to work as soon as possible.
Whilst the middle-class home was a haven of peace and tranquility, the lodgings of the
working-class remained places of work which provided little space and even less comfort.
33
Because of these reasons the distinctions in the length of childhood between the different
classes were enormous. Although the legal age of majority in Britain at the time was twenty-
one
34
, a large number of working-class children went to work as young as seven, in some
cases even younger.
35
As Jane Humphries puts it: `Their most carefree years were those
27
Steinbach, Susie: Understanding the Victorians, p.20.
28
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.74.
29
Humphries, Jane: Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, p.26.
30
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.13.
31
Humphries, Jane: Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, p.179.
32
Humphries, Jane: Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, p.179.
33
Cf. Steinbach, Susie: Understanding the Victorians, p.21.
34
Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.4.
35
Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.4.
14
between the ages of two and three, from which they could walk and play, and about six, at
which point they were expected to do chores and to care for younger siblings.'
36
Because
poorer children had to support their family's financial position, they received decisively less
education than their middle and upper-class peers and had to take more responsibilities at
tender ages. Since schooling wasn't compulsory until 1870, the vast majority stopped
schooling if they ever had any at all as soon as they could go to work. Schooling was
expensive and most working-class parents couldn't raise the fees. Therefore, if they wanted
their children to go to school, they had little choice about what type of school they could send
their children to. Basically there were only two options left: many children went to Sunday
Schools, which were free of charge and because classes were only on sundays, it didn't
interfere with the child's work during the week. The second option formed the so-called
Dame Schools, `low-cost, ubiquitous institutions that took small, manageable groups of very
young children and provided them with the basics.'
37
Dame Schools generally were less a
place of education but rather a daycare for very young children while their parents were both
out at work. The span of time a child could go to school and receive education crucially
depended upon its parents' economic situation. This estimation becomes impressively
apparent while looking at the 1851 census which stated that from the five million children
between the age of three and fifteen living in Britain, only two million were actually attending
some sort of school.
38
Gender differences also applied to the working-class. Girls received
even less education than boys, they did more domestic chores than their brothers, worked for
longer hours and less money.
39
Because most of the girls helped their mothers at home and/or
cared for younger siblings, `the attendance of girls at schools was consistently worse than that
of boys.'
40
Another aspect which has to be taken into account while looking at the length of
childhoods is the birth order of children. The oldest sibling usually had the shortest childhood
because he had to take care of his younger siblings and went to work the earliest. Younger
siblings often benefitted from their older siblings' earnings, meaning they could attend school
for a longer time than their already working brothers and sisters. Children were often sent off
to work in rank order.
41
After taking a closer look at the perceptions of children and childhoods within the different
social classes it can be said, that the children of the upper and middle-classes had decisively
36
Humphries, Jane: Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, p.143.
37
Humphries, Jane: Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, p. 371.
38
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.25.
39
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.31.
40
Kirby, Peter: Child Labour in Britain, 1750-1870, p.118.
41
Humphries, Jane: Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, p.191.
15
longer childhoods than their peers form the working-classes, especially if one considers a
children's own sentiment that its childhood ends as soon as it enters the world of employment
and allegedly adulthood.
42
Most children saw the end of their childhood with the beginning of
regular work outside the house.
43
It is a fact that `even when child labour was wide spread, the
children of the elite did not work'
44
just for the simple reason that economic considerations
didn't force them to do so. For that reason alone the duration of childhood between the single
classes was worlds apart. While working-class children went to work as early as possible to
support their families with their income at the beginning of Victoria's reign sometimes as
early as only five years old their affluent counterparts didn't go to work during their
childhoods at all. Boys finished their schooling and academic training before they left home
and started to work and girls were supposed to marry, not to work
45
. Working-class girls on
the other hand were working as early and as much as their brothers, oftentimes even more.
But upper and middle-class children hadn't had not only longer childhoods, they also stayed
minors longer and were way more dependent on their parents' financial support than their
working-class fellows. This resulted in the long lasting reliance of the affluent children on
their parents, even though if they were already of legal age.
46
In addition to their longer
childhoods it can also be said that better off children had fewer responsibilities, more and
better education and therefore, better prospects in life. They had more hours of leisure but less
freedom than their poorer peers who weren't always under the strict supervision of their
parents.
47
Although working-class parents surely loved their children, they neither had the
financial means nor the time to care for their children to that extend as upper and middle-class
parents could.
They simply couldn't afford to offer their children an extended childhood. Poverty was the
main reason why parents send their children to work at `ages when their richer peers were
deemed incapable of supporting themselves or of contributing to their family exchequer.'
48
In
sum this means that a child's expectations largely depended `on the economic status of the
family and the child's sex, for both of these helped determine his or her future prospects.'
49
42
Cf. Kirby, Peter: Child Labour in Britain 1750-1870, p.33.
43
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.74.
44
Humphries, Jane: Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, p.31.
45
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.31.
46
Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.31.
47
Cf. Humphries, Jane: Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, p.143.
48
Tucker, Herbert: A Companion to Victorian Literature and Culture, p.72.
49
Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.11.
16
`Oliver Twist or the Parish Boy's Progress' is Charles Dickens' second novel and was first
published in monthly instalments between February 1837 and April 1839 by the magazine
`Bentley's Miscellany'.
50
It is one of Dickens' best known and most influential works, having
been adapted to several movie versions and theatre plays throughout the years and which
hasn't forfeited any of its original charm until today. `Oliver Twist' follows the life of the
eponymous pauper orphan Oliver Twist who grows up in a workhouse where he and his
companions are almost starving to death because of the stingy wardens. For a short time he
gets apprenticed to an Undertaker but soon decides to run away from him because of ill-
treatment. After wandering the streets of London he meets a boy nick-named the Artful
Dodger, a young thief working for the devious Fagin who is the head of a whole gang
consisting of child and teenage pick-pockets. Fagin and the boys show Oliver how to steal
handkerchiefs and other valuable objects from pedestrians. Being caught in error by the
police, Oliver almost gets arrested for stealing but luckily gets rescued by the generous and
friendly Mr. Brownlow who takes him under his wings. After being abducted by Fagin's
henchmen, the burglar Sikes and the prostitute Nancy, Oliver is forced to participate in a
burglary and gets shot in the process but is nursed back to health by the friendly Mrs. and
Miss Maylie who after many trials and tribulations help Oliver to find out more about his
parents and where he actually comes from. After Fagin gets hanged because of his deeds
Oliver can start a peaceful life in the countryside with his new friends.
What is extraordinary about `Oliver Twist' is the very sarcastic narrator who oftentimes
exposes the doings of single characters with the heavy use of irony and dark humour to
ridicule. He mocks the hypocrisy of those who think they are doing beneficial things,
although they are simply selfish and greedy egoists. Furthermore, Dickens delivers a very
realistic portrayal of contemporary social injustices and cruelty against children as well as he
gives very precise descriptions of the lives of society's outcasts like thieves and prostitutes.
`Oliver Twist' can very well be interpreted as a social satire which brought contemporary
grievances like the waifs and strays of London, the terrible conditions of pauper children
inside workhouses and the overall failures of the social system into the public eye. The
following paragraphs will take a closer look at the depictions of the life of orphaned children
50
Cf. Paroissien, David: The Companion to Charles Dickens, p.309.
17
inside workhouses, the custom of apprenticeship and child labour as well as the portrayal of
the so called `criminal-class' within Dickens' novel in order to understand his points of
criticism.
Some of the probably most gloomy and depressive chapters of `Oliver Twist' are those
dealing with young Oliver's experiences inside the workhouse. Although, while reading these
chapters they almost appear like an exaggerated caricature of actual events, Dickens does
depict the sad truth of early Victorian England's attitude towards paupers in these chapters.
The life of children inside workhouses under the New Poor Law of 1834 was especially harsh
and unnecessary cruel. Workhouses were grim places to live in, especially since neither the
Old, nor the New Poor Law was soft on children of the working-class and paupers.
51
In
general it can be said that impoverished families on the verge of starvation saw workhouses as
the dreaded `last resort' they could go to, having only one choice left, as Charles Dickens
accurately puts is: `all poor should have the alternative [...] of being starved by a gradual
process in the house, or by a quick one out of it.'
52
This inhuman `choice' exemplifies the
great crux of the workhouses: Victorians tended to stigmatize poverty, paupers and everyone
who had been in the workhouse since `Victorian authorities feared that lessening the shame of
pauperism or crime would result in increased laziness and violence.'
53
Many people of
Dickens' time seriously believed that poverty was a direct result of moral degeneracy and that
those who were poor deserved to suffer. In their eyes it was the paupers' own fault that they
were poor because it was due to their `inherent deficiencies'
54
. Therefore, the conditions
inside the workhouse were kept bad and degrading on purpose because the life inside the
workhouse should be even less appealing than the lowest paid job possible would be. It was
thought that this would discourage `lazy paupers' to come to the workhouse and rely on
parish support simply because they were idle and work-shy.
55
Children who moved into the
workhouse with their parents were rigidly separated from them and kept away from adults in
general so they would not `learn pauperism' from them and become adult paupers
themselves.
56
The prevalent perception that living inside a workhouse should be humiliating
and purposefully poor is mirrored in `Oliver Twist' by The Board's completely distorted
estimation on the living conditions inside a workhouse under the `way too generous' Old Poor
51
Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.45.
52
Dickens, Charles, Oliver Twist, p.13.
53
Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.9.
54
Kirby, Peter: Child Labour in Britain 1750-1870, p.95.
55
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.122.
56
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.123.
18
Law: `the poor liked it! It was a regular place of public entertainment for the poorer classes; a
tavern where there was nothing to pay; a public breakfast, dinner, tea and supper all the year
round; a brick and mortar Elysium, there it was all play and not work.'
57
Reality didn't look that bright. Especially for children, workhouses were particularly hard and
an orphaned child without family or kin had the most disadvantages in life and the littlest
prospects except from livelong stigmas.
58
How bad orphaned children fared is described in the
following passage of `Oliver Twist': Oliver was nothing but `a parish child the orphan of a
workhouse, the humble, half-starved drudge to be cuffed and buffeted through the world,
despised by all, pitied by none.'
59
Although the children were kept on the edge of starvation
on purpose, they should feel grateful for the charity they received, even if this charity barely
prevented them from what would await them while living in the streets. That living inside the
workhouse or in the streets didn't make that much a difference in regard to provision of food
shows the following scene taken from Dickens' novel. The probably most famous scene of
the entire book, the `Please Sir, I want some more'-scene, where Oliver after he `and his
companions [had] suffered the tortures of slow starvation for three months'
60
- dares to ask for
a little more gruel and thereby starts an enormous uproar, illustrates the horrid conditions
inside workhouses. And even though Dickens' surely does rely on artistic exaggerations when
he makes the cook chase Oliver through the entire room and shows Mr. Bumble's and The
Board's flabbergast reactions afterwards, the real life provisions of food inside workhouses
were indeed minimal and unhealthy. One workhouse in Manchester for example had been
reported to have fed its children entirely on a monotonous diet of nothing but oatmeal.
61
The
poor food supply resulted directly in the usually poor health of the children raised inside
workhouses. Oliver, who is described as `a pale, thin child, somewhat diminutive in statue,
and decidedly small in circumference'
62
is no exception.
57
Dickens, Charles: Oliver Twist, p.13.
58
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.121.
59
Dickens, Charles: Oliver Twist, p.4.
60
Dickens, Charles: Oliver Twist, p.15.
61
Cruickshank, Marjorie: Children and Industry - Child health and welfare in North-West textile towns during the
nineteenth century, p.37.
62
Dickens, Charles: Oliver Twist, p.6.
19
Although these aspects are only mentioned on the sidelines of `Oliver Twist', apprenticeships
and child labour both occur throughout the novel and without question the scene were Oliver
just barely escapes the fate of being employed by the brutal master sweep Mr. Gamfield is
one of the first really frightening and thrilling moments of the novel.
Apprenticeships have always been common in English history, way before the rise of the
Industrial Revolution actually the importance of apprenticeships was slowly but surely on
decline during the Victorian Age
63
. Nonetheless, there was the `wide spread belief in its
value'
64
which leads to the estimation that apprenticeship still was an important factor that
determined the further lives and future prospects of children decisively during the time when
Charles Dickens wrote `Oliver Twist'. An apprenticeship was a formal agreement between a
child and a master who was supposed to introduce his apprentice to his trade. Masters usually
paid a premium (ranging from 2 to 10 pounds) to secure the service of a child.
65
Many parents
voluntarily sent their children to masters who would teach them a respectable trade in order to
enable them a better future with regular earnings. In this context it was also reported that
parents paid fees to the masters.
66
Generally spoken, an apprenticeship was a formal contract
between the master and the parents of the children he was supposed to train. Therefore, the
masters were obliged to several duties: they `provided him [the apprentice] with board and
lodging, introduced him to the modus operandi of his trade and safeguarded his moral
welfare'
67
as well as they showed the children the `mysteries' of the trade. The reverse of the
medal formed those children who were without such a formal agreement between their
parents and a master, which was usually the case with orphans and pauper children. First of
all, there was a distinct difference between the types of trades to which pauper children and
private apprentices were bound to since pauper children had little to no choice in regard to
their futures
68
. As Ginger Frost puts it: `the state chose where they lived, where they went to
school and when and where they were employed'.
69
Many pauper children were sent to work
as early as seven and suffered under cruel or drunken masters who were simply in search of
cheap labour.
70
63
Humphries, Jane: Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, p.258.
64
Cf. Humphries, Jane: Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, p.263.
65
Cf. Paroissien, David: The Companion to Oliver Twist, p.79.
66
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.59.
67
Humphries, Jane: Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, p.263.
68
Cf. Kirby, Peter: Child Labour in Britain 1750-1870, p.38.
69
Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.140.
70
Cf. Frost, Ginger: Victorian Childhoods, p.58.
Details
- Pages
- Type of Edition
- Erstauflage
- Year
- 2014
- ISBN (eBook)
- 9783954897223
- ISBN (Softcover)
- 9783954892228
- File size
- 313 KB
- Language
- English
- Publication date
- 2014 (July)
