2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
PIONEERING CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: MICHAEL THOMAS
SADLER AND FACTORY REFORM.
Prof. Dr. Garry James Clayton
Bank Rakyat School of Business & Entrepreneurship
UniversitiTunAbdul Razak
JalanTangsi, 50480 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Email: gclayton@unirazak.edu.my
Phone: +603 2730 7174
(corresponding author)
Assoc Prof Dr. Zulkifflee Mohamed
Bank Rakyat School of Business & Entrepreneurship
UniversitiTunAbdul Razak
JalanTangsi, 50480 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Email: zulkifflee@unirazak.edu.com
ABSTRACT
The Industrial Revolution in Great Britain saw the dramatic rise in production, generation of
wealth for a new capitalist class and the inherent dangers of an unfettered free market. Without
control or regulation the owner-managers of the new mills often exploited the child labour purely
to maximise profit. Though without political power the exploited working class were not without
voice. In tandem with the development of the Factory System was the demand for its regulation
and reform.
Demands for Factory Reform in the early decades of the nineteenth century in the United
Kingdom have long been seen as part of the British philanthropic tradition that stretched back to
the earlier anti-slave trade movement. Promoted by seemingly well meaning philanthropists
determined to protect the weakest members of society the establishing of a tradition seeking
“Corporate Social Responsibility” is often overlooked.
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
1
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
One of the most important leaders in the campaign for Factory Reform was Michael Thomas
Sadler who highlighted clearly the duality of the integration of philanthropic views with demand
for “Corporate Social Responsibility”.
INTRODUCTION
The “Occupy Wall Street” movement has dramatically raised awareness of the importance of
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) with two thirds of American companies now seeing it as
critical for their reputation (Simon, 2012). At its essence Corporate Social Responsibility is a
conscious continuing commitment of business to behave ethically and contribute to economic
development while improving the quality of life for workers and their families, as well as local
communities and society as a whole (WBCSD ,1998; Habisch and Jonker 2005)
As a concept Corporate Social Responsibility is not new. It can be argued that demands for
business’s to act in a socially responsible manner is as old as economic endeavor itself, King
Hammurabiof Mesopotamia,for example, decreed a code of business behavior in 1700 BC
(BRASS Centre, 2007), most researches mistakenly argue that its modern recognizable form
dates from the United States of the 1920’s. (Asongu, 2007)Such a view is somewhat myopic as it
ignores totally the major nineteenth century debate in Great Britain centred on the need to
regulate the new industrial economy.
In the early decades of the nineteenth century Britain’s political, social and economic landscape
was dramatically altered by a seemingly never ending series of reform campaigns. Slavery was
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
2
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
abolished, Catholic’s Emancipated and Parliament Reformed. One of the major campaigns of the
period, Factory Reform – the fore runner of Corporate Social Responsibility, saw three major
parliamentary investigations and thirteen separate acts where passed between 1802 and 1878
centred on stamping out the evils of what has become popularly known as the “dark satanic
mills”.
Two names intimately associated with the Parliamentarycampaign in the United Kingdom to
improve the conditions of the exploited industrial labourers are Hobhouse and Lord Ashley (later
Shaftesbury). Yet one who was equally as important but generally ignored was the astute Ultra
Tory parliamentary protégé of the Duke of Newcastle, Michael Thomas Sadler (Fisher, 2009).
POLITICAL PHILANTHROPIST
Sadler’s reputation is one of an Evangelical Parliamentarian devoted to the cause of Factory
Reform. Yet Sadler’s reputation has been somewhat distorted by his being an early champion of
Corporate Social Responsibility. It has led to the claim that he was less a politician than a
philanthropist, (Fraser, 1969; Seeley and Burnside, 1842)and even has him condemned as a poor
canvasser (Preston, 1978) easily perturbed.(Bradfield, 1965). Such claims prove incorrect when
it is realised the very clever political use Sadler made of all the causes he championed. The most
striking being his championing of Factory Reform both in the House and on the Hustings.
There have long been two diametrically opposed views as to why Sadler championedthe cause of
the Factory Operatives in the early 1830's. Oneheld by his supporters, and subsequently by most
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
3
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
historians,suggests that Sadler devoted himself to their cause in preferenceto party politics
(Seeley and Burnside, 1842).(Marking him out as a political pioneer of Corporate Social
Responsibility).The other, put by Sadler's politicalopponents, suggested that he used Factory
Reform solely forpolitical ends, primarily to ensure his own re-election toparliament(Royle,
1832; Hansard, 1832b),and destroy the zeal for the Parliamentary Reform Billby endeavoring to
divideits supporters(Royle, 1832). Though the twoviews are opposed each in fact holds elements
of the truth contained within. Sadler's opponents were correct in believing he had
politicalmotives in championing factory reform; however, unlike hissupporters, they failed to
realise that he was prompted by deeplyheld Christian and humanitarian beliefs.
Genesis of a Campaigner
Sadler’s had from 1806 an active interest in the plight of child labourers when as
superintendentof the 'New Sunday School' in Leeds. He observed that children employed in
factories were unable to make adequate use of these very limited educational opportunities as a
direct consequence of the extremely long hours they were working (Ward, 1972; Gill, 1963).
The general public got to hear of Sadler's concern in 1822when Alaric Watts, the editor of the
LeedsIntelligencernewspaper, published an early article on the need for Corporate Social
Responsibility which he condemned theinhumanity of the current mill-owner business practices
(Gibb, and Beckwith, 1954). Watts wrote the article after avisit to the Leeds Infirmary with
Sadler. It appears thatWatts sought the opinions andadvice of Sadler, who was an expert on
conditions created by unfettered economic markets.
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
4
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Sadler’sexpertise was not limited to the conditions in Yorkshire, when in 1829 he
published“Ireland: its evils and their remedies” Sadler was able to show the infamy of a national
system that employed children like slaves in a cruel, wasteful and demoralizing manner (Seeley
and Burnside, 1842). Not only did this work bring Sadler to the attention of the general public it
resulted in his being offered the seat of Newark in the House of Commons by the borough’s
“owner” the Ultra Tory Duke of Newcastle.
HOBHOUSE’S PARLIAMENTARY LEADERSHIP
In parliament Sadler quickly became an ardent supporter of Hobhouse (Hodder, 1887) who,
spurred by Richard Oastler's publication of a series of controversial letters entitled 'Slavery in
Yorkshire', introduced a comprehensive Factory Regulation bill in 1831 (Kydd,1857; Seeley and
Burnside, 1842).Throughout the parliamentary struggle Oastler and Sadler kept inclose touch,
Oastler sending Sadler data, arguments and advice,while in return Sadler sent reports of the
struggle in the House (Driver, 1946).Personally Sadler believed that Hobhouse's bill did not go
farenough in limiting the duration of work, though this did notprevent him from taking a leading
role in the struggle for itspassage. Indeed Sadler appears to have been the effective leaderin the
House countering hostile moves and petitions (Driver, 1946).
In late September Hobhouse accepted all amendments to his bill leaving an Act only applicable
to the cotton industry, with no machineryfor its enforcement. To supporters of factory
reformHobhouse's billhad been emasculated. Determined to get a better reform measurepassed
they joined together with Oastler under the famous 'FixbyCompact, and accredited Sadler as
their parliamentary representative ((Kydd, 1857; Driver, 1946).
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
5
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Hobhouse replaced
Hobhouse was stunned when Sadler agreed to introduce anotherfactory regulations bill, limiting
the hours of work for childrento ten per day. Writing initially to Oastler, and subsequentlyto the
Leeds press, Hobhouse went so far as to question Sadler'sjudgement:
“..should Mr. Sadler make the effort which he seems to, contemplate of limiting the
hoursof labour to ten,you may depend upon it he will not be allowed toproceed a single
stage with such an enactment, and sofar from producing any beneficial effect he will
onlythrow an air of ridicule and extravagance over the wholeof this kind of legislation. I
trust that on maturereflexion that very respectable Gentleman will adopt a more useful
course of conduct.”
(Zegger, 1973).
Apparently Hobhouse was attempting to prevent factory reformbecoming an issue in parliament,
for two reasons. Thefirst was that Hobhouse was annoyed that anyone should question his
politicalability in achieving the best possible measure. The second wasthat Hobhouse wanted the
factory regulations matter settledquickly to allow undivided attention to be centred on
parliamentaryreform (Zegger, 1973). For both reasons Sadler was determined to press aheadwith
his proposed measure. Believing that Hobhouse simply ‘conceded his billviews and judgement’
(Driver, 1946), Sadler was determined to pass a betterbill. Further it appears that Sadler was
usingfactory reformto slow down parliamentary reform by dividing attention. Sadlerwas one of a
group of Ultra Tories who realising the extent ofthe Parliamentary Reform Bill were doing
everything they could tosave the existing constitutional arrangements.
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
6
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
SADLER’S CAMPAIGN
Having accepted the parliamentary leadership of the Ten Hoursmovement Sadler moved quickly
and methodically,introducing a bill to regulate the 'Labour of Children in Millsand Factories' on
15 December 1831 (Cowherd, 1956; Hansard, 1832a),, This move totallyrefuted Hobhouse's
prophecy since Sadler did not bring an 'air ofridicule' to the legislation and was able to proceed
more than a'single stage'. Sadler was able to contradict Hobhouse by usinghis political ability to
best advantage. He consulted theWhig Reform Ministry and convinced them not to oppose his
bill on thefirst reading, but to wait until he outlined the details in thesecond before deciding what
stance to take on the issue (Hansard, 1832a).
The second reading of the bill had originally been plannedfor January 1832. However, further
consultations with theministry led Sadler todefer the reading until 16 March (Hansard, 1832a). In
the intervening monthsshort-time committees throughout the north were extremelybusy holding
meetings, publishing broadsheets and organisinga massive petition campaign aimed at arousing
national interestin the issue. This activity helped spread the agitation through-out the north, and
south to London (Cowherd, 1956).
By the time Sadler rose to present his bill for its secondreading parliament had been inundated
with petitions. Buildingon the propaganda campaign Sadler gave his finest speechin parliament
(Kydd, 1857; Ward, 1972), a speech praised as a classic pieceof nineteenth-century British
oratory (Driver, 1946). Though Sadler used nonew arguments in the speech he spoke in such a
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
7
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
dramatic waythat he impressed all who listened including the offended Hobhouse (Zegger,
1973).During the speech Sadler made some very subtle yet telling pointsaimed directly at the
procrastinating Whig ministers and Sir RobertPeel who had joined the parliamentary opposition
to FactoryReform. The address, dramatic and at times cutting, was alsovery detailed and
methodical in typical Sadler style.
The speech skilfully blended idealism with political commonsense. At onelevel the speech was a
classic statement of nineteenth century Corporate Social Responsibility which integrated Ultra
Tory paternalismwith Evangelical social concern (Ward, 1972). However, Sadler was awarethat
the Ultra Tories had been virtually destroyed by the 1831 election,and that if the measure was to
be passed he would have to broadenits appeal. He therefore did his best to make the issue nonpartisan,stressing that it was popular in the country andsupported by all who were humane and
wise (Hansard, 1832b).It is a tribute to Sadler's political skill that as a member of aminority
faction on the edge of extinction, speaking on acontentious issue, he managed to sway the House
and arousepublic interest to the extent that he did.
His success was all the more striking because it was easilyalleged against him that he was not a
manufacturer and thereforecould not possibly know what he was talking about (Royle, 1832;
Birley, 1832). At theoutset, and throughout his speech, he had to establish hiscredentials to speak
on the issue. This he did by demonstratingthe breadth of his knowledge - using arguments from
Holy Writ,books written by Britain's most eminent Physicians, parliamentaryspeeches of both Sir
Robert Peels, and a pamphlet writtenespecially for him by the leading manufacturer supporter of
theBill, John Wood (Hansard, 1832b; Driver, 1946).
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
8
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
More importantly Sadler’s speech moved tocounter foreseeable objections to factory legislation
by hisopponents. To the claim that there was no real problem sincefactory work was light and
produced no ill-effects, he answeredthat it was the duration and not the nature of the work which
wasevil. To those who argued that while there were isolated abuses,these were extreme examples
and not to be taken too seriously,he replied that Parliament legislated against atrocious
crimes,which were also extreme examples. To those who objected thatit was wrong and counterproductive to pass legislation thatwould interfere with the economic free market, he
demonstratedthat employer and employee did not meet on equal terms, and thatit was absurd to
see the employee as a free agent. Finally he tackled a major objection ofdoctrinaire liberals - that
whatever the problemlegislative interference was in itself an evil. In answer to this he restated a
characteristic Ultra Tory position - that voluntaryaction was best, but that the lesser evil of
legislative interference was appropriate where the alternative was the survival ofa greater evil
through inaction (Hansard, 1832b).
In addition to countering potential objections, Sadler'sspeech stated positively the case for
factory reform. Sadler showed thatinterference with economic forces had a large body of
precedentranging from divine injunction of the Sabbath to parliamentaryaction as recently as the
last session of Parliament when theanti-Truck bill was passed. He added weight to the
precedentargument by noting that felons and slaves were far better protected than the child
operatives of Britain. In the most dramatic part of his speechSadler likened factory masters to
slave owners of the worst ilk. After building up the attention of the members, by noting
thevarious methods used to force children to work excessive hours,Sadler produced a set of
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
9
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
heavy black leatherthongs used to beatchildren into working in exactly the same way cart whips
were usedon West Indian slaves (Hansard, 1832b). Sadler's use of the slave analogy seems to
have been a jibe aimed atthe Whig ministers, who he believed were hypocrites whose zeal forthe
abolition of slavery was not matched by any enthusiasm forfactory reform (Southgate, 1962).
Another important feature of Sadler's speech was hisridiculing of opponents' evidence. He noted
that certaindivines and physicians would be found who would attest to thefact that the factory
system produced no ill effect on the moraleor welfare of child operatives. In some cases, indeed,
theywould go so far as to suggest the system was a method of protectingmorals. Such evidence
to Sadler was ludicrous, since it wasin direct opposition to the findings of Britain's eminent
physicians (Hansard, 1832b).
Hidden amongst the rhetoric Sadler outlined the principlefeatures of his bill, which appears to
have been only the firstphase of a well thought out factory regulations policy. The
mainprovisions of the bill were that no child under nine was to beemployed, youths nine to
eighteen were to work a Ten Hour dayexclusive of refreshment breaks with an abatement of two
hourson Saturdays, and all night work was to be prohibited for thoseunder twenty-one. Sadler
made it quite clear that he regardedthese proposals as only the commencement of a series of
measures,several of which he outlined in his speech. Included in theproposals for the future were
provision for time off for educationfor nine to fourteen-year-olds, a system of fines for millownersor occupiers whose negligence caused accidents, and a total ban onnight work
(Hansard,1832b). The way in which Sadler outlined the measureindicates once more his political
ability. Attempting to getthe widest support possible Sadler made his measure
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
10
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
purposelymoderate, to have the principle of regulation accepted, whileat the same time pacifying
the more radical reformers by notingits interim nature.Sadler's speech was a triumph, and he was
able to get thebill read a second time but was then forced to accede to the demand for an inquiry
(Cowherd, 1956).
Sadler’s parliamentary investigation
The committee chaired by Sadler originallyconsisted of thirty members to whom seven more
were afterwards added. Because he was chairman Sadler was able to stagemanagethe whole
inquiry. Sadler made sure that witnesses were carefullyselected so that their testimony
substantiated the factoryreformers' claims (Engels, 1971). Also witnesses were groomed prior
totheir appearance before the committee, being told to give testimonyonly on matters of which
they had personal experience.Complete control of the committee was guaranteed by
Sadler'spersonal supervision of the correction of shorthand reports andthe formulation of the
committee's findings (Driver, 1946; Ward, 1972). This control ofwitnesses, evidence and
findings did not go completely unchallenged.Several witnesses were dismissed by their
employers for givingevidence and Sadler was unable to gain protection or compensationfor them
from parliament. After this Sadler refused to call anymore operatives for fear of similar reprisals
(Kydd, 1857).
To ensure interest in factory reform did not diminish by theestablishment of a committee of
enquiry the Ten Hours leadersdecided to renew their efforts to awaken the nation. Less thana
fortnight after the committee held its first meeting a hugecounty meeting was held at York on 24
April 1832. The meeting carefully planned and organised, showed the strength of themovement
in favour of factory reform. Thousands of operativesmoving to York turned the meeting into a
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
11
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
pilgrimage that fewcould ignore. Sadler took an active part in the proceedings,speaking to the
operatives at York and then later in Leeds ontheir way home. The York pilgrimage had the effect
wished forby the Ten Hours leaders. Propaganda efforts throughoutthe country were increased
and a renewed petition campaign wasundertaken with a huge petition from York being presented
toParliament on 27 June by Lord Morpeth (Kydd, 1857; Driver, 1946; Ward, 1972).
In August the committee of inquiry's report was completed.Consisting of 982 folio pages the
report's description of sordidwretchedness exceeded anything Oastler had written in his
YorkshireSlavery letters (Driver, 1946). When published in January 1833 the reportaroused new
interest and sympathy for factory legislation throughoutthe country. Newspapers lacking political
news were able to print extensiveexcerpts from the report and run editorials on it while at
thesame time quarterlies were able to follow this up with criticalarticles on the issues raised
(Driver, 1946).
IMPACT OF PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
While Sadler was still busy working on the Committee ofInquiry, the Parliamentary Reform Act
became law. His covertattempts to slow down the measure by dividing its supporters had failed.
However, thepolitical usefulness of Corporate Social Responsibilityand of factoryreform in
particular, was not at an end. In the general electionof 1832 Sadler used it to his advantage. He
was forced tofind another seat since his Aldborough seat had disappeared. Twoschemes were
begun to have him returned. Lord Lonsdale, aprominent Ultra Tory, wished to see him stand for
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
12
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
West Cumberland, butthis proposal had to be abandoned when Wordsworth, his agent,outlined
the extreme difficulty of getting a stranger elected.
Though Lonsdale's proposal came to nothing it indicates clearlythat Sadler was still considered
to be a party man and not simplya philanthropist (Beale, D.E.D, 1967). Sadler's other
electioneering prospect washis home town, Leeds. By late 1831 preliminary arrangementshad
already been undertaken to put Sadler forward as a candidate (Kydd, 1857).This developed in
1832 and Sadler was brought forward by the'Leeds True Blue Constitutional Association' as its
candidate (Fraser, 1972).
His emerging as the True Blue candidate once more demonstratedSadler's status as a party man.
The True Blues were an acknowledgedTory association supported by the staunch Tory
corporation (Wilson, 1971).However, Sadler was politician enough to realise the disadvantageof
being labelled an anti-Parliamentary reform Tory. With this in mind heapproached the election
not as an anti-reformer but as the championof social issues especially Factory Reform. This
approachresulted in the 'Leeds Radical Political Union' pledging itssupport for Sadler with a
consequent Tory-Radical alliance for electioneering purposes (Hill, 1919; Fraser, 1972).
Opposing Sadler the Whigs put up John Marshall and ThomasBabington Macaulay. Marshall,
the second son of a wealthy andwell-connected father, was almost guaranteed success, and it
wasacknowledged that the real contest would be for the second seat.Though both sides began
their canvassing early the campaign didnot start in earnest until just before parliament was
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
13
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
proroguedin August 1832. From then until December both sides busilyengaged themselves in
political manoeuvrings for votes(Driver, 1946; Fraser, 1972).
Sadler's campaign was largely organised by Oastler whom hevisited immediately after
parliament was prorogued. While the election committees were busy at Leeds, Oastler
arrangedfor Sadler to address three large regional meetings of operatives (Seeley, and Burnside,
1842; Driver, 1946). After the final meetingat Bradford Sadler made his public entry into Leeds,
an eventturned into a pageant with Sadler being feted by a committeeof non-electing operatives
(Driver, 1946; Fraser, 1972). This renewal of activity in theNorth stimulated operative meetings
throughout the country from which public addresses were sent to Leeds begging for his return
(Seeley, and Burnside, 1842; Driver, 1946; Ward, 1972).
On the fourth of September, the day after Sadler's publicentry into Leeds, all three candidates
gathered for an open-canvass.Sadler was escorted by Oastler, his electioneering committee anda
representative from every Short Time Committee in the WestRiding. Sadler showed himself to
be a politician of note.At a distinct disadvantage at a meeting organised and conductedby the
Whigs he still contrived to set the tone for the rest ofthe campaign. Criticised for standing asa
candidate in a newly enfranchised borough after opposingParliamentary Reform, Sadler
answered well. Noting that he didnot oppose parliamentary reform he stated his belief that
theWhigs had passed an unjust disfranchising bill. Sadler thenwent on to speak on his efforts as a
social reformer especiallyin regard to factory reform. The rest of the campaign wasfought over
the issue of factory reform rather than, as the Whigswould have preferred, Parliamentary Reform
(Leeds Intelligencer, 6 September 1832).
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
14
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
By setting the tone and the main issue for the electionSadler both strengthened and weakened his
election chances. Hehelped strengthen them by enabling the radicals to join in supportof his
campaign to forward social improvement among the workingclasses (Fraser, 1972). Such a union
coupled with Sadler's addressingpublic meetings night after night gave his campaign
theappearance of a popular crusade (Driver, 1946; Fraser, 1972). However, the allianceof Tory
with Radical also weakened his electioneering chances.Sadler's forces were divided while his
opponents had one coherentset of slogans with the unifying symbol of the single orangeflag of
reform. Further, Sadler weakened his chances byalienating Tory mill-owners by attacks on the
Factory System (Driver, 1946).
When the Leeds poll opened on 12 December 1832 the town hadfor three continuous months
been subjected to mass meetings,processions, placarding and pamphleteering. The result
wentagainst Sadler with Marshall polling 2011 votes, Macaulay 1983and Sadler 1587. It has
been suggested that Sadler was defeatedby a combination of mill-owners, dissenters and Roman
Catholics.However it would appear that the result was due to Tory millownersand their
dependents not voting, together with the fact thatthe 'people' who were in favour of Sadler did
not live inten-pound houses (Seeley and Burnside1842; Cowherd, 1956; Fraser, 1972).
Lord Ashley’s Leadership:
The defeat was a blow to the Factory Reform movement: it had lost its parliamentary leader
whenhe was needed most. The select committee's report was to betabled in three weeks and there
would be no one in the houseto press home the findings. At this juncture Lord Ashley wroteto
Sadler offering his help in the House (Driver, 1946). Although Ashleyreceived no reply from
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
15
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Sadler he did receive a letter from Southeywhich is interesting when read in the light of
subsequent events.
Southey wrote:
I am more sorry to perceive what good men are thrownout of Parliament than what
scamps and miscreants havegot in. Sadler is a loss, he might not be popular inthe House,
or in London Society, but his speeches didmuch good in the country and he is a
singularly ableright minded and religious man. Who is there that willtakeupthe question
of our white slave trade with equal feeling (Zegger, 1973)
Written at the time when the short-time committee leaderswere deliberating what actions were to
be undertaken whenParliament met, Southey's letter suggests another of Sadler'spolitical
manoeuvres. Rumours abounded that the mill-ownerswere to make a determined effort to end
agitation for factoryreform by promoting an eleven-hour bill. To forestall this theshort-time
committee leaders decided to send G.S.Bull to Londonto find a successor for Sadler. On 2 or 3
February Bull wasintroduced to Ashley by Sir Andrew Agnew, an ardent Sabbatarian (Seeley
and Burnside1842; Kydd, 1857; Ward, 1972).
Ashley moved quickly to forward the Ten Hours Bill informingthe House of his intention to
renew Sadler's bill on 5 February (Cowherd, 1956).Ashley's renewal of Sadler's efforts did not
come too soon.Morpeth in the same sitting announced his intention to introducea factory
regulations bill, apparently the eleven-hour billsponsored by the mill-owners, though in the end
this bill wasabandoned (Kydd, 1857). Nationwide knowledge of Ashley's acceptance ofthe
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
16
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
parliamentary leadership of the movement quickly followed.The Times published an account on
7 February of Ashley's actions (The Times, 7 February 1833).This was followed by a highly
publicised meeting in London whichwas a semi- official inauguration of Ashley as leader.
Thatmeeting was held on 23 February at Bishopsgate Street in London.For three and a half hours
the public were inundated with Ten-Hourpropaganda, the best of which seems to have been
Sadler's speechcalling for a new spirit of social purposefulness to replace thepolicy of letting
things alone. Apart from inaugurating Ashleyas leader the London meeting shows, yet again, that
Sadler wasstill a party man. On the platform with Sadler sat W.Duncombeand Sir E.Knatchbull,
two of his Ultra Tory colleagues, whoobviously still considered Sadler as part and parcel of
theparty (Kydd, 1857).
Replacement of Sadler in the House along with the publication ofthe select committee's report
was still not enough to pass a TenHours Bill. Opponents of factory reform criticised the
selectcommittee for misrepresenting the mill-owners and demanded aRoyal Commission. Wilson
Patten in the House put forward themotion to set up a Commission on 3 April 1833 and had it
carriedby one vote, 74 to 73. To the leaders of Factory Reform theproposal seemed to be yet
another delaying device. To make clearoperative resentment to further investigation large
meetings wereheld throughout the north to protest. Throughout the periodSadler kept his name to
the fore by addressing the operativemeetings and embroiling himself in a nationally reported
pamphletcontroversy with the Yorkshire commissioners over their procedure (Sadler, 1833;
Drinkwater and Power, 1833).
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
17
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Assailed and obstructed by Sadler and his colleagues, theRoyal Commission surprised them with
a report which corroborated Sadler’s early findings (Kydd, 1857; Cowherd, 1956). The result of
the Report was not,however, the passage of Sadler's bill but a new bill introducedfor the ministry
by Althorp. This 1833 Act provided for aneight-hour day for nine-to thirteen-year-olds and a
twelve hourday for those fourteen to eighteen. Also included wereprovisions for inspectors and
schools. The Act unfortunatelydid not satisfy anyone. The opponents of factory reformbelieved it
went too far, while Sadler and the Ten Hours leadersdid not believe it went far enough. Though
Fielden wouldconduct a Ten Hour bill through the house in 1847 Sadler wasnot to see it, having
died in 1835 (Seeley and Burnside, 1842).
CONCLUSION
Though Sadler's work in championing the cause of Corporate Social Responsibility was in
considerable measure idealistically motivated, it wasnot devoid of a strong element of political
calculation and partyinterest. Throughout his campaign for factory reform Sadlerhad the support
of his Ultra Tory colleagues who sought to make political gain fromsocial issues. Factory reform
was an issue to attack the supporters of parliamentary reform and divert attention from it.
Primarily it showed how the reforming Whigs who clamoured for an end to the electoral
suffering caused by “rotten boroughs”, were insensitive to the real personal sufferings of
workingmen, women and most especially children. That Sadler was unsuccessful in his use
tactical use ofthe issue factory reform, to block parliamentary reformand retain his legislative
seat, in no way diminishes the fact thathe sought to make political capital out of Corporate Social
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
18
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Responsibility. He wasnot motivated primarily by political calculation, but there canbe no doubt
it was an important added incentive in his campaignto regulate the unfettered market.
REFERENCES
Asongu, J.J.(2007) “The History of Corporate Social Responsibility” in Journal of Business and
Public Policy, Vol 1 No2 pp. 1-18 Retrieved on 02/24/10 from:
http://www.jbpponline.com/article/viewFile/1104/842
Beale,D.E.D (1967) 'Parliamentary Parties and the "Independent" Member, 1810-1860' in
Robson, R. (ed), Ideas and Institutions of Victorian
Birley, J. (1832) Sadler’s Bill Cotton Branch (Manchester)
Bradfield, B.T (1965). 'Sir Richard Vyvyan and Tory Politics with Special Reference to the
period 1825-1846' (Ph.D. thesis, University of London)
BRASS Centre (2007).“History of corporate social responsibility and sustainability.”
Retrieved on 02/24/10 from: http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/History_L3.pdf
Cowherd, R.G. (1956) The Humanitarians and the Ten Hour Movement in England (Boston,
Massachusetts)
Drinkwater, J.E. & Power, A. (1833) Replies to Mr.M.T.Sadler's Protest against the Factory
Commission (Leeds).
Driver, C. (1946) Tory Radical: The Life of Richard Oastler (Oxford University Press)
Engels, F (1971) The Conditions of the Working Class is England, translated by .O. Henderson
and W.H.Chaloner, 2nd ed. (Oxford)
Fisher, D.R. ed(2009) The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1820-1832Cambridge
University Press
Fraser, D. (1969) 'Politics in Leeds 1830-1852' (D.Phil. Thesis, University of Leeds)
Fraser, D. (1972) 'The Fruits of Reform: Leeds Politics in the Eighteen Thirties'. Northern
History, vol. 7.
Gibb, M.A. & Beckwith, F. (1954) The Yorkshire Post: two centuries (The Yorkshire
Conservative Newspaper Co.Ltd)
Gill, J.C. (1963) Parson Bull of Byerley (London)
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
19
2015 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Habisch, A., &Jonker, J., (2005). CSR A subject with substance? In A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M.
Wegner, & R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility across Europe, 1-9, Berlin:
Springer
Hansard, 3rd series Volume 9(1832a)
Hansard, 3rd series Volume 11 (1832b)
Hill, R.L. (1919) Toryism and the People, 1832-1846 (London)
Hodder, E. (1887) The Life and Work of the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury K.G. (London)
Kydd, S.H.G (1857), The History of the Factory Movement: From the Year 1802, to the
Enactment of the Ten Hours’ Bill in 1847, 2 Vols. (Simpkin, Marshall, and Co.)
Leeds Intelligencer, 6 September 1832
Preston, R.A. (1978)The Structure of Government and Politics in Nottinghamshire, 1824-1835.
(D.Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford)
Royle, V. (1832) Mr. Sadler M.P., His Factory Time Bill, and his Party, examined (London)
Sadler, M.T. (1833) Protest against the Secret proceedings of the Factory Commission in Leeds
(Leeds)
Seeley, R& Burnside, W. (1842) W. Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Michael Thomas
Sadler (London).
Simon, D. S (2012) The Growing Importance of Corporate Social Responsibility for Reputation
Management; The Occupy Wall Street Survey. Retrieved on 07/29/12 from:
http://www.client.dssimon.com/demo/OWSsurvey13.pdf
Southgate, D. (1962) The Passing of the Whigs 1832-1886 (London)
The Times, 7 February 1833
Ward, W.R. (1972) Religion and Society in England 1790-1850 (London)
WBCSD (1998) {World Business Council for Sustainable Development}.Corporate Social
Responsibility. Geneva: WBCSD Publications
Wilson, R.G. (1971) Gentlemen Merchants; The Merchant Community in Leeds 1700-1830
(Manchester University Press)
Zegger, R.E. (1973) John Cam Hobhouse: A political life, 1819-1852 (Columbia)
July 1-2, 2015
Cambridge, UK
20