Success or Failure? The Prosecution of the Early Factory Acts
the Lancashire and West Riding magistracy from the accusations of contemporaries and historians that they played an obstructive role in the enforcement of the early Factory Acts.1 He argues that, far from nullifying the intentions of the legislation by refusing to convict, magistrates were remarkably co-operative in their dealings with inspectors, a fact which is underscored by the high proportion of cases resulting in conviction and by the imposition of relatively high fines. Such a conclusion allegedly turns "received historical opinion" upon its head. Whether these findings do overturn conventional views is debatable. Arguably, the popular idea of the Factory Acts is that the Act of i833 was the first "successful" one. Although it is often conceded that there were early difficulties of implementation, only comparatively recently have questions been raised about the long-term problems of securing compliance.2 However, ideas about what constitutes "received opinion" no doubt vary; in this Comment I wish to concentrate upon Peacock's use of the factory prosecution statistics, to question his criticism of the value of inspectors' reports as historical evidence, and to touch upon the broader issue of the enforcement of regulatory law in general.