Jump to content

Talk:Factory Acts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

If memory serves me correctly, this was UK legislation, but the article should specify which jurisdiction--Doc Glasgow 13:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to the initial legislation that was followed by several more Factory Acts. Hence the merge tag. Joe1011010 22:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The standard form is for Factory Acts to be an article about the overall series, with Factory Act 1833 et al. being about the detail of each Act. So, not wholly merged, but yes, these need to be revisited.
James F. (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this redirect to Factory Acts, which then links to each individual act? Or redirect all the individual acts to Factory Acts? Earlopogous 19:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

You'll have to flesh out the individual acts now. Have fun! —Nightstallion (?) 11:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Merge

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this discussion was to merge the Factories Act 1802 article into Factory Acts. Road Wizard 16:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the Factories Act 1802 page be merged into the Factory Acts article. Does anyone have any comments? Road Wizard 18:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been discussed already (see above), but it's not clear what the consensus was. I would like to see the Factories Act 1802 merged into this one, but I think this should really go through a proper AfD, as you will effectively be deleting the article in the process. Please, let me know if it does go to AFD, and I will probably support a merge. Captainj 19:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above relates to moving the article Factory Act to Factory Acts, which resulted in the decision to move. If you look at the Factory Act 1833, Factory Act 1844, Factory Act 1847, Factory Act 1850 and Factory Act 1878 pages, you will notice that they all redirect here. The only ones that don't are the Factory Act 1867 & Factory Act 1874 pages which don't exist yet and the Factories Act 1802 page I mentioned initially. Given the precedent of having all of the other pages merged into this one, I don't see any need to go to AfD, especially as I can't find any reference to AfD on the merge guidance page. However, if you think an AfD is necessary, please go ahead and nominate the article. Road Wizard 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, another host of Factory Act articles that redirect here: Factory Act of 1802, Factory act of 1833, Factory Act of 1833, English Factory Act of 1833, Factory Act of 1844, English Factory Act of 1844, Factory Act of 1850, Factory Act of 1867, Factory Act of 1874, Factory Act of 1878. If someone does want to split the articles up again, I think their first problem will be working out what to call them. :) Road Wizard 20:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (obviously). Lapaz 15:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
please merge Earlopogous 20:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, you're right, and you have followed the procedure. Merge Captainj 21:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, 5 days have passed since the merge tags were placed on the articles and we appear to have a consensus to merge. I will now go and read the guidance again on how it should be done. :) Road Wizard 15:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger

[edit]

I think more time should have been spent discussing the merger, I only just saw the 1802 act was merged. It was tagged on 27 May and 3 days it later it has been done. I for one did not have chance to participate as it was a Bank Holiday weekend. Kurando | ^_^ 08:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are always welcome to open a new discussion on reversring this, but it was fairly uncontroversial (there was a precedent since all the other factory acts were on one page) and no-one objected, so it seemed reasonable. You don't really want to separate out all the acts do you? Captainj 09:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be precise, the merge tags were added on the 24th May and the merge occurred on 30th May, a total of 6 days without objections (the guidelines say to only wait 5 days). However, having said that, the decision to merge is not set in stone. If you can argue a good case as to why the articles should have remained separate, I can't see any reason why they can't be split again. Road Wizard 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sorry I was mistaken about the timing, I see 1802 was tagged on 24 May and it was a later edit on 27 May. I'll leave it merged now as I don't have anything to add to it at the moment, but I imagine that article on the 1802 act could be expanded substantially. Kurando | ^_^ 08:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The 1891 section seems to be a direct copy of this: [1]. FlowRate (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be correct. The Internet Archive states the content was on that page from at least 25 Feb 1999, whereas it was only added here on 29 Mar 2007. It is not clear whether the text was created by the website or if it is a direct quote from the book they refer to, however either way it appears we have a copyright violation. I would suggest a rewrite of the 1891 section is in order to put the text in our own words. Road Wizard (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Factory Act 1850", "Factory Act 1856"

[edit]

These sections seem to be mostly duplicated. AnonMoos (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


academic source?

[edit]

Is there a book containing a list of all the factory acts passed in the 19th C? Can't find a single book containing all of the factory acts. I have a PDF of 'Factory System and the Factory Acts' (1894) (https://archive.org/details/factorysysteman00taygoog) as well as Hutchin and Harrison's book but both of them do not contain a list of all of the Acts, only some of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


See Hutchins and Harrison Index (also looks like wiki article is missing 1820 act which is in Hutchins index)

1802. .16 1819.. 24, 32, 92 1820. ,30 1825.. 30, 32 1831. .32, 47 1833.. 40, 57, 58,83, 100, 168 1844.. 81,85, ioo, 1 12, 1 13,168 1845.. 131, 136 1847-- 95, 97, 173 1850.. 96, 107, 168, 173 1856. .118 1860. .139 1681. .145 1862. .139 1864.. 139, 151,155,168, 182, 201, 223, 1867.. 140, 151, 168, 183, 202, 223 1870. .140 1874. .176 1878.. 171, 182, 201, 209, 234 1883.. 202 1886.. 221 1891 . .209, 219, 220, 238, 241, 244 1892. .221 1895.. 195, 220, 241, 244 1901 . .220, 242, 244, 246, 271 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'1820 act' (allowing extra hours to be worked to catch up) is refered to in the linked wikiarticle on the 1819 Act, but has not made it through to the master Factory Acts article (yet) Rjccumbria (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On checking, there was no 1820 Act; this is a trap the indexer of H&H has fallen into. The 'act passed the next session' (which is all H&H say about its date) was passed before Xmas 1819 and is therefore an 1819 Act (the Labour in Cotton Mills, etc. Act 1819) The Act seems to have been passed to oblige Robert Owen: H&H's account describes it as 'of a retrograde tendency and (hence? coincidentally?) avoids any association of Robert Owen with it. Rjccumbria (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a few mistakes and details missing. I suggest using Plener's 1873 book on the history of factory legislation which Hutchins and Harrison use as a source. Plener is much more detailed and accurate. Jeans 1891 factory act legislation is good too. So is Kydd's history of the factory movement 1857. Ditto Cooke-taylor's The factory system and the factory acts (1894) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an implicit assumption that books which are not referenced extensively have not been consulted extensively. (And possibly another one that if book B used book A as a source book A is probably of higher quality than book B?) Implicit assumptions are always the most dangerous...
None of the secondary accounts is infallible; their narratives should really be checked against contemporary Hansards and newspaper reports (although the latter are not exactly free from bias!). H&H (other than having a bit of a crush on Robert Owen) do make a fair attempt at an impartial use of their sources, which was certainly never a major consideration in (eg) 'Alfred'/Kydd's account. von Plener is obsessively detailed at some points (generally not those of much interest to a modern reader - or to this one at any rate: any encyclopedia account of necessity omits many details) and vague, not to say misleading, at others. On the whole H&H is a better guide, and certainly a safer reference.
Admittedly this is a very minor point, but it's the one that first made me wary of von P; nowhere other than in von P can I recall having seen M T Sadler called 'Tom' - Richard Oastler - a close friend for many years who had gone with him into the typhus-afflicted hovels of Leeds - spoke of him as Michael. More seriously, VP - however sound he may be on the content of the Acts - is a bit Bismarckian on how that content was arrived at (which at this distance in time is arguably the aspect of greatest interest). For example, he follows Kydd in ascribing the failure of Ashley's Bill of 1833 to Ashley having (as a concession to opponents) removed a provision for imprisonment as a penalty; there is no further detail given (it is H&H, rather than the 'much more detailed and accurate' vP, who give enough detail for it to be seen that imprisonment was to be for a third offence), nor any explanation of the postulated mechanism whereby in a Parliamentary system a Bill fails because concessions are made to opponents. Rjccumbria (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Factory Acts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1871 Act

[edit]

Despite what the 1902 Britannica says, and despite WP's belief that secondary sources will be the most accurate, the 1871 Act did not remove Crown immunity for Government factories, which lasted well into the 20th century. Lord John Manners did put down an amendment to remove Crown immunity, but withdrew it before committee stage (see Hansard for 14 August 1871: LJM announces withdrawal and 15 August 1871, committee stage of Bill) Similarly, if more obscurely, the Jewish Encyclopaedia's claim that the 1870 Act allowed Sunday working by Jews is wrong; the select committee on the Bill thought something should be done, but not by the 1870 Bill. It was left to Sir David Salomans to bring in a private member's bill the next session and see it through Parliament. I have edited accordingly. Rjccumbria (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

[edit]

What is the registration act for 1815/1816 24.244.177.126 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Factory_Acts&oldid=1207167096"