History
The Economic Development of
Britain 1820 –80
Advanced Higher
8671
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
Spring 2001
HIGHER STILL
History
The Economic Development of
Britain 1820-80: It’s Social and
Political Impact – Issues of
Historical Interpretation
Advanced Higher
Support Materials
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)


CONTENTS
Introduction
The Importance of Historical Interpretations
The Standard of Living
Poverty and Poor Law Reform
The Consequences of Urban Growth
Economic Change
Class
How The Economy Affected Women’s Lives
Protest, Politics and Government
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
INTRODUCTION
The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 – Historiographical Support
This support material package is to be used in conjunction with the Historiographical
support pack published in January 2001 (number 8545). It looks at a number of
historical interpretations that students should be aware of when studying this topic.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
1
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
2
THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS
Historians’ interpretations of the past may differ
The history books to be studied for Advanced Higher are the result of historians’
efforts to convey a view of part of the past, based on careful critical study of sources
of evidence. But in the end the historian must decide what to choose. To really come
to grips with the discipline of history, then, students must study the works of
historians critically and should, compare one historian’s view with another’s.
The historian E H Carr has emphasised the importance of this kind of study. He
wrote,
‘The facts of history never come to us ‘pure’ since they do not and cannot exist in a
pure form: they are always refracted through the mind of the recorder. It follows that
when we take up a work of history, our first concern should not be with the facts
which it contains but with the historian who wrote it.’
(E H Carr, ‘What is History?’ London Penguin1964 p22)
Advanced Higher requires the study of various historical interpretations
The requirements of this course make it clear that studying and commenting on
historians’ views are essential activities. The general requirements for the whole
course indicate that students should,
‘... address complex historical issues including consideration of alternative
interpretations.’
The assessment requirements reinforce this general statement about needing to study
the viewpoints and interpretations of the past by historians as follows:
a) Essay writing forms an essential part of the course. A successful essay, the
regulations state, is one that ‘makes use of appropriate historical evidence which
takes account of historical interpretations’.
b) Source evaluating forms a second essential part of the course. Sources must be
evaluated to take account of their contents, provenance and context and dealt with
so that ‘the evaluation, where appropriate, takes account of different historical
interpretations.’
NB: The sources provided for evaluation will consist of primary sources and
extracts from the works of historians.
c) The historical research that students have to plan and research will be developed
into a dissertation that should include, ‘consideration of alternative
interpretations’. This piece of research requires that students study several
historical works, analysing these works in terms of data relevant to the students
chosen issue, making sure that, ‘the analysis takes account of historical
interpretations’.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
3
Throughout the course, then, students should consider the books and articles used for
the course not only as a source of information but also as a focus for identifying and
reflecting on the point of view held by each historian, the kind of interpretation of the
past provided and the possible reasons for that interpretation. The activity of creating
and writing a particular work of history and of thinking about the interpretation it
offers is known as Historiography. Historiography forms a major part of the
Advanced Higher History course.
The Purpose of this Unit
The field of study ‘The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80’ contains a
number of issues that have been variously interpreted by historians. This unit
provides an introduction to several of these issues and to some historians’ views about
them.
It is, however, simply an introduction. There is no substitute for actually studying
historians’ works. It is important to follow a sensible strategy that will gather useful
material on historical interpretations and to use this material in essays, source
handling and the dissertation.
When reading any book or article by an historian:
 note the historian’s name
 note the date of final publication
 look for information about the historian
 read the introduction about the historian
 read the introduction and conclusion of any book very carefully. It is here that
you may find a convenient summary of the author’s views and, quite often, the
author’s survey of the views of other historians who have already worked on this
topic
 read chapters for similar points as well as for information about the historical
period being covered. Notice points where the author refers to other historians.
 Look at the bibliography for further guidance about what to study.
Historians do not always disagree with one another. It is worth noticing issues on
which there seems to be common agreement between them.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
4
THE STANDARD OF LIVING
The effect of the industrial revolution upon living standards has been a focus for
debate between historians for many years. It is an issue that is commonly studied over
a wider time-span than 1820-1880 i.e. the starting point is usually the mid eighteenth
century.
There is general agreement that the period saw rising living standards for the upper
and middle classes; the broad area of difference centres around the experiences of
ordinary people. Historians tend to belong to those taking an optimistic view of the
period and others whose interpretations are more pessimistic.
There are problems in obtaining full, detailed and accurate data for many aspects of
the issue, especially prior to 1850, and difficulties in generalising when the
experiences of people varied so much at different times, in different places and in
different occupations.
The topic has three main dimensions i.e.:

Personal health issues e.g. - life expectancy
 diseases of the period
 evidence of people’s physical stature

the essential means of life e.g. – diet
 clothing
 wages including the availability of work
 prices

the environment e.g. – housing including furnishing and heating
 working conditions and hours
 the wider environment’s conditions.
Marxist historians such as Edward Thompson and Eric Hobsbaum incline to the
pessimistic viewpoint. The latter stresses the upheaval involved in people shifting to
urban areas and enduring ‘a fundamental social change’.
(‘Industry & Empire’, 1968, p62)
Even after 1840-50 the problems of unemployment, of being too old or infirm to
work, of wretched housing and living conditions make it difficult for some historians
to take an optimistic view.
Eric Richards has pointed out that many parts of Britain suffered as a result of the
economic upheavals of the period. Areas that were well away from the main urban
centres (such as the Scottish Highlands) and areas that saw an old established industry
unable to compete with new industries (such as textiles in East Anglia and the West of
England) all experienced loss.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
5
He writes,
‘For some regions in Britain the results of the Industrial Revolution were at best
equivocal and at worst debilitating.’
(in ‘The Industrial Revolution & British Society’ Ed P O’Brien & R Quinault 1993
OUP p124)
Pessimists point to the evidence of people’s physical size. People born after 1830
show little, if any, gain in height implying that,
‘… even if there were substantial gains in real incomes or in real wages for the
working class in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, these were more than
outweighed by other features of the environment - urbanisation, disease, diet and
possibly work intensity.’
(R Floud, K Wachter & A Gregory, ‘Height, Health & History: Nutritional Status in
the UK 1750-1980’, 1990 OUP p304)
John Rule points out,
‘In 1901 paupers still had a lower life expectation than had the whole population of
Stuart times. ... At the time of the Crimean War in 1854, 42% of urban and 17% of
rural recruits were rejected ... careful work on working class diets ... has cast some
doubt on the assumed improvement, quantitative and qualitative, in working-class
food consumption by the late nineteenth century.’
(‘The Labouring Classes in Early Industrial England 1750-1850’ 1986, Longman
p381)
However historians who take a more optimistic view offer different sorts of
conclusions Harold Perkin asserts ‘Real national income per head quadrupled in the
nineteenth century’ and that working class incomes ‘began to rise again from the
early or middle 1840s and continue to do so down to the end of the century.’
(‘The origins of Modern English Society 1780-1880’ 1969 Routledge pp 134-5)
Theodore Hoppen observes that ‘the expectation of life at birth in Britain increased
during the nineteenth century from the mid 30s to the upper 40s, with the bulk of the
rise occurring towards the end of the period.’
(‘The Mid-Victorian Generation’ 1998 OUP pp 85-6)
This is a complex issue with many dimensions to it. Even an eminent historian like
Eric Evans feels it best to reach judgements that are cautious - ‘The pessimists have
tended to rely on arguments about the deteriorating quality of life, some of which can
be quantified, but most of which is impressionistic, the great weight of contemporary
evidence was severely critical of life in the ... cities. ... even in the 1850s and 60s
only slender improvements were made by ordinary workers.’
(‘The Forging of the Modern State’ 1983 Longman pp 162-5)
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
6
POVERTY AND POOR LAW REFORM
The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was a major piece of legislation; its impact
was felt on many aspects of nineteenth century life. Scottish practice differed sharply
from that in England and its differences are marked by a quite separate piece of
legislation (in 1845) to address the issue of how to deal with the desperately poor.
The whole topic raises a number of questions i.e.
 why did these reforms come about?
 how did treatment of the poor compare under the old and new systems?
 why did Scottish and English systems differ?
 was treatment of the poor under these systems very harsh and inhumane or did it
improve over time?
 how severely was the workhouse test applied in England?
 to what extent did a national system rather than a diversity of local systems
emerge?
Students who intend to explore this issue in depth should begin with the splendid little
booklet by David Englander (‘Poverty & Poor Law Reform in 19th Century Britain
1834-1914’ Longmans 1998).
The reasons for setting up the new systems of caring for the very poor have drawn
varying interpretations from historians. The Marxist historian EJ Hobsbaum has
argued that the New Poor Law aimed:
(a) ‘to make the Poor Law as cheap as possible
(b) to use it as an engine not of relief for ... the unemployed but for driving
unemployed labour resources onto the free labour market, and
(c) to discourage the growth of population.’
(‘Industry & Empire’ 1968 Weidenfeld & Nicolson pp 193)
John Rule maintains,
‘No single piece of legislation more clearly reveals the triumph of the middle class
ideology than the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 ... it had no underlying principle
of social welfare.’
(‘The Labouring Classes in Early Industrial England 1750-1850’ 1986 Longman
p390)
David Englander notes that,
‘Some authorities have identified social control as the dominant influence upon the
creation and implementation of the New Poor Law.’
(D Englander, op. cit. P 84)
The view that the desire to control a restless population was a crucial cause of reform
has been vigorously argued by Anthony Brundage (English Historical Review 87,
1972) but has been challenged by those who see his evidence as coming from far too
limited an area.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
7
The system has been rigorously denounced by some historians for being far too bleak
and harsh. The Marxist E P Thompson has called it,
‘the most sustained attempt to impose an ideological dogma, in defiance of the
evidence of human need, in English history.’
(‘The Making of the English Working Class’ 1963 Vintage Books, p 267)
However studies of very limited areas have tended to throw up a much more varied
picture. Martin Pugh declares,
‘In practice the system had never operated as uniformly as intended. Some guardians
gave outdoor relief to the deserving poor, either out of humanity or because this was
cheaper per head than indoor relief’
(‘State & Society’ 1994 Arnold)
It has also been suggested that the Poor Law system may well have been more
humanely implemented after 1870 and even that the severe criticisms of it voiced by
contemporaries may have been exaggerated (e.g. D Roberts ‘How cruel was the
Victorian Poor Law; in ‘The Historical Journal’ 4, 1963). Such views have been
sharply challenged by others who incline more to Eric Hobsbaum’s view that,
‘It created more embittered unhappiness than any other statute of modern British
history.’
(E J Hobsbaum op. cit. p194)
This topic provides excellent opportunities for studying the differing interpretation of
historians and the reasons for these differences. It is a topic that allows comparisons
to be made between the very different systems that were in operation in England and
Scotland. One historian has commented,
‘While the English poor law was reformed to restrict relief ... Scottish reform was
intended to increase it. Previously the Scottish poor had no legal claim to adequate
support ... the Scots were less generous with poor relief than the English.’
(M A Crowther, in ‘People & Society in Scotland’ Vol II ed. W H Fraser & R J
Morris 1990 John Donald p 267)
Such comparisons offer a further angle to this fascinating topic.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
8
THE CONSEQUENCES OF URBAN GROWTH
The period 1820-1880 was a time of very rapid growth of towns and cities. Urban
areas spilled out to occupy ever-increasing areas as Britain became a land of urban
rather than country dwellers. This development attracted a great deal of comment at
the time, some of it (like the opinions of William Cobbett and John Ruskin) was
highly critical. Others focused on the more positive side of this development.
Modern historians, too, tend to vary in where they place the emphasis on the positive
or the negative, in their treatment of urban growth.
The rapidly expanding industrial centres have attracted most attention, but it must not
be forgotten that places like York, Lincoln and Exeter remained very significant
settlements too and tended to have populations of craftsmen, small workshop
operatives and service providers.
The years 1820 to 1880 are a time of change as well as rapid growth as urban centres
responded, especially, to the health crisis posed by dreadful diseases. These are years
when elegant buildings were constructed (for example in Glasgow) when fine
municipal and commercial buildings were put up. The coming of railways and
railway stations led to massive house clearing to make way for this new transport
network. Improved provision of lighting, paving, water supply, drains and sewers can
be found in the second half of the period. Yet a large section of the urban population
continued to live in dreadful conditions that were recorded by contemporaries not
only at the time but in following years too.
Issues in this topic include:
 did urban growth cause a deterioration in living conditions for most people?
 why were so many people attracted to urban areas?
 how and why did urban areas change in the period?
 how appropriate were official policies in tackling the problems of urban areas?
 did urbanisation cause a rise in crime?
 what did urbanisation do to the relationships between different classes?
The historian Eric Hobsbaum, concerned for the welfare of working people, has
denounced the impact of urbanisation,
‘The city destroyed society ... for its poor inhabitant it was not merely a standing
reminder of their exclusion from society. It was a stony desert, which they had to
make habitable by their own efforts.’
(‘Industry & Empire’ p68)
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
9
His harsh view contrasts with that of Geoffrey Best who comments on the magnetic
attraction of urban areas,
‘Towns kept growing (because) ... they offered a variety of more or less irresistible
attractions to a super-abundant population. These attractions were not entirely
economic ... for girls ... a wider choice of marriage partners and a better chance of
marriage; for young persons of both sexes, the prospect of a more independent and
autonomous away of life; for the adventurous and restless of all ages, the legendary
lure of city lights.’
(‘Mid-Victorian Britain’ 1979 Fontana p29)
The sheer scale and speed of urban upheaval is commonly stressed by historians.
Eric Evans notes,
‘Town growth continued apace between 1850 and 1870. Few towns increased their
population by less than 35% ... Over-crowding was exacerbated by the demolition of
much city centre accommodation to make way for warehouses, banks, office
accommodation, railway lines and stations. Upwards of 20,000 people were
displaced from central Glasgow in the mid Victorian period through railway
construction alone.’
(‘The Forging of the Modern State’ 1983 Longman p309)
This upheaval led to intervention by the state and by increasingly important local
governments. Geoffrey Best observes,
‘Victorians began to decisively tackle the sanitary, administrative and cultural
problems of their cities (causing) ... a change in the shape and character of city
courses as municipal pride and commercial opulence combined to improve them.’
(op. cit. p33)
Some historians focus on the plight of poorer people. Slum clearance added to their
misery since it was not offset by an appropriate provision of new homes. Harold
Perkin observes,
‘as well as a political, moral and criminal problem, the urban slums were felt as a
physical threat to the health not only of their inhabitants but of their well-to-do fellow
townsmen.’
(‘The Origins of Modern English Society’ 1969 Routledge p169)
Transport developments by the end of the period enabled the better off to move well
away from the slums; Theodore Hoppen stresses how late this was;
‘Few streets before the appearance of one-class suburbs in the 1890s were
homogeneous in character.’
(‘The Mid-Victorian Generation’ 1998 OUP p72)
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
10
Harold Perkin argues that this separation of classes had great significance,
‘The geographical segregation of the classes and the mutual ignorance, suspicion and
misunderstanding which went with it, were a powerful factor in the rise of class
conflicts.’
(op. cit. p174)
Some historians note the impact of urbanisation on law and order. David Philips
maintains,
‘Many commentators claimed that the problem of crime and disorder was,
predominantly, a problem of the urban and industrial areas - a claim which modern
research would broadly support.’
(In P O’Brien & R Quinault (Ed) ‘The Industrial Revolution & British Society’
1993 OUP)
This topic is so huge that it is, perhaps, not surprising that different images emerge as
historians choose to emphasise different aspects.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
11
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
12
ECONOMIC CHANGE
Historians have long debated whether the changes that turned Britain into an
industrial economy happened with sufficient speed and on a large enough scale to
deserve to be called ‘a revolution’. This debate has tended to focus on the period
from the mid eighteenth century to the 1830s; the issue does not, therefore, lie at the
heart of this course but is well worth surveying as a base on which to build a study of
later economic questions. Useful outlines of it are provided in P Chapple ‘The
Industrialisation of Britain 1780-1914’, Hodder & Stoughton 1999) and P O’Brien
and R Quinault ‘The Industrial Revolution and British Society’, 1993 CUP pp1-26.
The focus of historical debate in the period 1820-1880 has been on such issues as;
 how ‘modern’ an economy developed at this time?
 is it possible to identify turning points when growth slowed and, economic
depression emerged?
 who is responsible for problems that did emerge in the later nineteenth century
economy?
Phil Chapple’s studies of the issue of whether the word ‘revolution’ is an appropriate
one to use have led him to comment,
‘Traditionally, the dominant view has been that by the 1830s the revolution was over.
... This view is not without its detractors, with some historians referring to an
industrial revolution after 1830. ... Current historical opinion places greater
emphasis on the idea of accelerating growth over decades.’
(Chapple op. cit. pp2-3)
He points out the need to avoid over-stressing technological change. In 1841, for
example, just 12% of the employed workforce were in factories and even in the 1870s
there were still very many ‘traditional’ workers.
Theodore Hoppen (‘The Mid-Victorian Generation’, p275) points out how difficult it
is to explain the continued growth of the British economy,
‘Even the most sophisticated litanies of scholarship have provided no more than
partial explanations.’
Nicolas Crofts has stressed how slow economic growth was before the mid nineteenth
century and suggests that emphasising that industrialisation is a major feature of the
economy should really start around the mid nineteenth century.
(N FR Crofts ‘British Economic Growth during the Industrial Revolution’,
1985 OUP)
The question of whether, and if so when, this growth suffered setbacks has attracted a
great deal of interest. Hoppen suggests (p278) ‘Estimates for Gross Domestic
Product and real industrial output ... suggest a rise up to the mid-nineteenth century
and then a gradual and steady decline.’ It was, he asserts, in the second quarter of the
nineteenth century that economic growth was at its fastest.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
13
The debate about this issue often deals with the kinds of data used, the time-span
selected and whether the approach is broadly national or selectively local. It was once
frequently maintained that, in the 1870s and 80s, the British economy began to suffer
set-backs to aspects of its industry and agriculture, setbacks that signalled the onset of
British decline. Corelli Barnett detects signs of trouble even earlier;
‘Britain as an industrial society failed from the 1840s onwards to adapt fast enough
or radically enough to meet the challenges of new technologies and competitions.’
(‘The Lost Victory’ 1996 Pan p12)
G E Mingay describes agriculture’s troubles in the 1870s, ‘The extraordinary
succession of extreme weather conditions which marked the 20 years after 1874
combined with the upsurge of foreign competition and the prevalence of low prices to
create a sense of unending calamity among farmers.’
(‘Rural Life in Victorian England’ 1976 Heinemann p69)
However Mingay’s later work indicates his awareness of the shifting perceptions of
historians to the existence of economic depression in the 1870s. In 1986 he wrote,
‘Some historians have denied the very existence of a ‘great Agricultural Depression’,
at least for large parts of the country. But if they were not hit to the same degree as
the arable men, the dairying and fattening specialists still saw difficult times ...
foreign competition was mounting and if they were not depressed in terms of
purchasing power, they felt as if they were depressed.’
(‘The Transformation of Britain’ 1986 Routledge p113)
The view that in fact there was no real economic depression in the 1870s and 1880s
has been vigorously argued by S B Saul. He asserts,
‘Surely the outcome of modern research has been to destroy once and for all the idea
of the existence of such a period in any unified sense ... the sooner the great
depression is banished from the literature, the better.’
(‘The Myth of the Great Depression’ 1981 Macmillan p40)
Phil Chapple summarises research that shows that agricultural incomes rose during
the ‘depression’ and attributes the image of farming as depressed to the power and
influence of landowners who dealt primarily in the one crop that did suffer heavily
from foreign competition - wheat.
However there is no disputing the relative decline of the British economy as compared
to Germany and the USA especially. Britain did not develop a leading role in ‘new’
industries like chemicals and electricity whilst her older industries, like textiles, often
seemed slow to apply new technology.
Historians’ interest has focused on why Britain did not do better. D S Lowndes (‘The
Unbound Prometheus’ 1976 CUP) argues that the British entrepreneurs of the period
lacked enterprise. They were often, he asserts, the third generation in their enterprise
and over-interested in social position.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
14
This hostile view has been vigorously developed by M J Weiner (‘English Culture
and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit’ 1981 CUP) and by Corelli Barnett (op. cit.).
They see British problems arising from a failure to develop technical education, an
over-reliance on practical skills rather than looking to science-based research, a public
school system chiefly concerned to produce Christian gentlemen who would run the
Empire. The army and the church had an arrogant attitude towards trade and industry.
Phil Chapple sees particular problems in the small size of many British firms. He
believes that their owners were ‘often reluctant to experiment in new products, invest
in new techniques or develop new markets as long as profits continued. Although
profits may have been lower, the income drawn from that profit was the key to social
standing and thus the maintenance of a lifestyle. As a result re-investment of
ploughed-back profit reduced.’
(Chapple op. cit. p98)
Eric Hobsbaum comments on British failures, ‘Britain failed to adapt to new
conditions not because she could not but because she did not wish to’.
(‘Industry & Empire’ p152)
He sees British entrepreneurs as retreating into trade, finance and overseas
investment, an economy which was ‘parasitic rather than a competitive economy’
(p161).
Theodore Hoppen however, finds many positive qualities in the economy of the time.
He questions the denunciations of British financial institutions for failing to provide
funding for industrial overhaul (e.g. by W P Kennedy in ‘Industrial Structure, Capital,
Markets and the origins of British Economic Decline’ 1987 CUP).
Instead, Hoppen suggests, ‘A more impressive case has been made by those who
believe that British Capital Markets probably responded positively to demands for
domestic industrial finance throughout the second half of the nineteenth century than
those who take a contrary view.’
(Hoppen op. cit. p301)
He points out the sustained dominance of British shipbuilders, provides examples of
technological developments and defends many businessmen from the charges levelled
against them. Hoppen does not seek to portray a wholly optimistic picture, however,
what his work does is usefully summarise the wide range of research articles which
show what a complex issue this is.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
15
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
16
CLASS
In the eighteenth century, commentators on society tended to speak of ‘the lower
orders’ and people of ‘middle rank’. During the nineteenth century the word ‘class’
began to be used. The word implies clear divisions in society and, according to Marx
(who lived in Britain for much of the period) tensions and even conflicts between one
class and another. The issue of the development of class consciousness has attracted
historians’ interest for some time and has led to interpretations that sometimes differ
from one another.
The issue has a number of aspects;
 was a sense of class identity essentially a nineteenth century development?
 what factors brought it about?
 did people at the time have a strong sense of belonging to a particular class?
 did class issues shape or affect the activities and policies of the period?
 is the nineteenth century a period of conflict between classes?
Some historians have maintained, very strongly, that the development of class identity
is very much a feature of the early nineteenth century. E P Thompson has argued that
the period 1780 to 1830 is a time when the working class was ‘made’, driven along by
being economically exploited and politically repressed and helped by an upsurge of
radical publications. He declared,
‘From 1830 onwards a more clearly defined class consciousness, in the customary
Marxist sense, was maturing.’
By the 1830s, he believed, ‘The new class consciousness of working people may be
viewed from two aspects. On the one hand there was a consciousness of the identity
of interests between working men of the most diverse occupations ... on the other hand
there was a consciousness of the identity of the working class ... as against those of
other classes.’
(‘The Making of the English Working Class’ 1963 Gollancz pp 712 & 807)
To Thompson’s arguments, Harold Perkin has added his view that working class selfconsciousness was stimulated by the abdication of social responsibility by the ruling
class. Perkin maintains, ‘the most profound and far-reaching consequence of the
Industrial Revolution was the birth of a new class society.’
He sees the process as marked by ‘a process of alienation; alienation, that is, of the
middle and lower orders from each other and from the higher.’
(‘The Origins of Modern English Society’ pp176 & 182).
More recently, John Rule has concluded from his studies of the period that there is
much more to be said for such views than its critics allow ... ‘Much conservative
historiography seems blind to what was evident to contemporaries, the fact of classstructured industrial society. ... The class conflict which characterised the early
industrial era was real enough.’
(‘The Labouring Classes in Early Industrial England’ p392)
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
17
Rule notes how the 1831-2 upheaval was crucial in separating working class people
from middle class people who used them in their pressure for electoral reform, but
then abandoned them and supported laws hostile to working people (such as the 1834
Poor Law Amendment Act).
The 1832 Reform Act which enfranchised the middle classes through the £10
householder franchise is seen by FML Thompson as especially significant, ‘this
action defined, even created, the working class by lumping together all those unable
to afford a house of at least £10 annual value, as unfit to exercise the franchise, thus
forging a common bond of resentment and frustration between otherwise diverse
social groups.’
(‘The Rise of Respectable Society’ 1988 Fontana p26)
David Cannadine is but one of a number of historians who has expressed doubts about
these views. His studies of the upper class have led him to conclude that it is this
group who developed a coherent sense of identity, ‘The years from the 1780s to the
1820s saw a consolidation of the nation’s top personnel into a new British upper class
with a heightened sense of privilege.’
(‘Aspects of Aristocracy’ 1995 Penguin p33)
Upper class wealth expanded from agriculture and involvement in financial, industrial
and transport enterprises. The aristocracy dominated politics, government and the
armed forces, making but limited concessions to other classes who failed to
effectively pressurise those above them;
‘Historians have become increasingly impressed by the resilience of the land-owning
elite, by the weaknesses and divisions of the bourgeoisie and by a working class
which never fulfilled the heroic revolutionary role that Marx had prescribed and
predicted for it.’
Geoffrey Best maintains that dividing society along class lines meant less to
Victorians than quite another factor - respectability. This word describes people who
were sober, clean, law-abiding, moral (outwardly, at least) and happy to accept the
existing social order;
‘We come to the great Victorian shibboleth and criterion - respectability. Here was
the sharpest of all lines of social division ... a sharper line by far than that between
rich and poor, employer and employee, or capitalist and proletarian.’
(‘Mid Victorian Britain’ p282)
Other historians have criticised the views of Thompson and Perkin, arguing that
society contained so many different groups that it is difficult to detect an overall sense
of class identity. Theodore Hoppen, for example, asserts, ‘It becomes difficult to
identify where one class begins and another ends, to pin down the exact difference
between semi-skilled and skilled workers or between labour aristocrats and white
collar workers.’
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
18
He does, however, finally conclude, ‘The Victorian experience does indeed stand out
as one in which people in different social and economic locations pursued different
goals and styles of living.’
(The Mid-Victorian Generation’ p370)
Eric Evans is even less convinced, stating, ‘If class identity rests on a friction of
interests which unites the diverse interests within that class, then the degree of class
antagonism which can be identified seems to have a dangerously narrow
geographical base and a short time-span ... both among the skilled and unskilled.
Status-consciousness was far better developed than class consciousness.’
(‘The Forging of the Modern State’ pp181-2)
This topic provides ample opportunity for exploring historical interpretations.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
19
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
20
HOW THE ECONOMY AFFECTED WOMEN’S LIVES
In recent years this issue has aroused increasing interest. The gathering of reliable
evidence has not been easy, not least because many women worked on a part time and
irregular basis. The issue has been taken up, too, by historians concerned that our
image of the past is over-masculine and needs to be redressed.
Historians have concerned themselves with two major aspects of this issue i.e.;
 how did the economic upheaval affect the nature of women’s work?
 what was the effect of economic change on women’s status, freedom and
opportunities?
Historians have studied the kinds of paid work carried out by women before, and as a
result of, the industrial revolution and have noted that change was not necessarily for
the better. The growth of textile factory employment has been shown to affect only a
small minority of women and should not be seen as typical. Legislation like the
Factory Acts and the Mines Act restricted women’s employment. Phil Chapple
suggests that,
‘Before, and in the early stages of industrialisation, women arguably played a more
equal role to men in both the economy and society generally. Domestic forms of
production move easily allowed the woman to combine the roles of worker and
mother.’
(Chapple op. cit. p125)
John Rule asserts that the Victorian period witnessed a decline in the employment of
married women and maintains, ‘There is little hard evidence to support the view that
the industrial revolution actually increased female participation in waged work.’
(Rule, op. cit. p14)
He makes the point that the economic upheaval caused changes in the nature of work
for some women. In agriculture the family farm became far less of a context for
work, whilst landless labourers became much more numerous. The switch to growing
cereal crops further restricted work opportunities for women who increasingly found
themselves employed just on a seasonal basis.
More recent work, then, has tended to attack Ivy Pinchbeck’s view (in ‘Women
Workers and the Industrial Revolution’ 1969 Cass) that the industrial revolution
brought increased work opportunities for women. Most recent work has, too, not
been in sympathy with Pinchbeck’s suggestion that the effect of the industrial
revolution was to improve women’s status. Those who have argued this case have
suggested that female emancipation was helped by the economic changes and have
pointed to female factory operatives (especially in textiles) working away from home
for steady wages.
A different case has been made by J W Scott and L A Tilly (in M Anderson (ed) ‘The
Sociology of the Family’ 1980 Penguin) who assert that the industrial revolution
reduced working opportunities and observe that the main increase was in the highly
dependent world of domestic service.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
21
John Rule agrees, noting of the effect of marriage on work opportunities. ‘Marriage,
for most women for most of their lives, seems to have meant a restriction to the
domestic sphere.’
(op. cit. p179)
This trend is especially evident among the upper and middle classes. FML Thompson
believes that for the latter class, women moved from playing a part in business to
being wholly excluded. He notes, ‘The rise of the perfect lady, the Victorian ideal of
the completely leisured, completely ornamental, completely helpless and dependent
middle class wife or daughter.’
(Thompson, op. cit. p197)
Theodore Hoppen (op. cit.) is not convinced by this portrait of an idle and bored
section of society, however. He sees women as occupying a subordinate role in
society but as far from subjugated.
Duncan Blythell’s conclusions describe a highly patriarchal society in which, ‘Women
formed part of the labour force only to the extent that non-husbands, fathers,
employers and even parliamentarians - allowed or required them to be.’
(in P O’Brien & R Quinault ‘The Industrial Revolution & British Society’
1993 CUP pp51-2)
He observes that, ‘Many historians now argue that the changing nature of work, ... far
from emancipating women, served only to redefine and revitalise patriarchy ...
attempts by male workers ... during the nineteenth century, to establish the ‘male
bread-winner norm’, whilst enabling them to mount a strong moral case for being
paid higher wages, simply implied the reassessment of paternal authority and male
supremacy and could only be retrograde in their effects on the continued economic
and social subordination of women.’
(op. cit. p33)
Katrina Honeyman develops this view further, arguing, ‘The process of
industrialisation and the response to it had created a gendered industrial society ...
The nature of industrial change created an opportunity for the realignment of gender
relationships ... specific notions of masculinity and femininity were constructed
during the course of industrialisation’.
(‘Women, Gender & Industrialisation in England’ 2000 Macmillan pp138-9)
She sees work being increasingly labelled as suited to men or women; wages as being
sharply differentiated - to women’s disadvantage; male workers, backed by unions,
and sometimes helped by the state and by employers, held the upper levels of a
hierarchy of employment; men were seen as more skilled and capable workers.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
22
PROTEST, POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT
The 1820-1880 period witnessed all sorts of protests about and resistance to some of
the changes that were taking place in society. It was, too, a time of demands for
reforms, of the enacting of some reforms and of the growth of the machinery of
national and local government to put reforms into operation.
Historians have investigated and debated such issues as;
 what is the importance of the Grand National Consolidated Trade Union?
 was there ever a danger of revolution?
 what motivated people to support the Chartists.
 how much did the State do to change society?
 why were the post 1840s so relatively peaceful compared to earlier decades of the
century?
There is so huge a literature on this area that it will be best to use the bibliographies in
available publications according to the aspects it has been decided to investigate in
depth. This aspect of the course overlaps very substantially with the aspect of class.
The 1820s begin in a time of tumult. The repression of trade unions by the
Combination Laws of 1799-1800 is seen by John Rule as decidedly limited. Strikes
took place before the 1825 repeal of these laws and, when carried out by skilled
artisans, might well be successful. (Rule op. cit.).
Trade union activities included the creation of the ambitious Grand National
Consolidated Trade Union. A E Musson suggests that historians have devoted too
much attention to this movement; most unions remained aloof from it and the stress
should be on the continuity of cautious union development. (‘British Trade Unions
1800-1875’ 1972 Macmillan). But E H Hunt argues that it is wrong to set aside the
GNCTU as a temporary aberration (‘British Labour History 1815-1914’. 1981
Weidenfeld & Nicolson)
The character, fluctuating fortunes and end of the Chartist movement has attracted
much debate. Should the movement be seen as essentially an economic one, driven
by popular distress, or did it really have a strongly political character? John Belchem
points up how Chartist views clashed with the free-trade ideas of better off radicals.
He sees strong links between times of economic distress and the desire for political
reforms that would protect workers’ rights. Chartists, ‘promised to protect working
class property in labour and skill against the depredations of class legislation.’
(‘Popular Radicalism in 19th Century Britain’ 1996 Macmillan)
Edward Royle (‘Chartism’ 1980 Longman) notes that left-inclined historians have
challenged the view that Chartism was primarily a hunger protest and have argued
Chartism was a genuine political movement. He notes, too that the greater power of
the state should be recognised in accounting for Chartist failure. John Savile
observes, ‘1839-40, 1842 & 1848 each evoked similar reactions and cool, ruthless
calculation.’ He maintains that state power mobilising such means as special
constables, helped crush Chartism.
(‘1848’ 1987 CUP p220)
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
23
Theodore Hoppen observes that very divergent interests gathered under the banner of
Chartism and that, ‘only discontent with the limited nature of franchise reform had
ever united Chartists.’
(Hoppen op. cit. p129)
Eric Evans believes that Chartism was driven forward by more than economic need.
He points to support for it in areas that were not depressed and asserts it, ‘should not
be judged by the threat it posed but as a critical stage in the political education of
working people. It was the culmination of a decade of impressive activity.’
(Evans, op. cit. p271)
The 1842 activities (often called ‘plug plot riots’) and the relationship between worker
activity and Chartism has stimulated debate. F C Mather (in ‘Popular Protest and
Public Order’ ed R Quinault and J Stevenson 1974, Allen and Urwin) emphasises
their extent, argues that Chartists were influential in them, and even calls them
‘semi-revolutionary’.
John Stevenson suggests this event was, ‘an example of industrial workers using
strike action, backed up by a degree of intimidation, to combat wage cuts, longer
hours and truck payments ... In spite of its capture for a time by Chartists, it remained
essentially a strike movement.’
(in O’Brien and Quinault, op. cit. p247)
After a very active period, the 1850s and 60s seemed much more peaceful and
attempting to understand this has not been easy. Some historians point to an
economic upturn, some to reforms that improved life, some argue that working class
solidarity vanished as the upper strata were bought off by such reforms as the
franchise extension of 1867. Theodore Hoppen surveys all these factors and notes
that the evidence of poverty in the late nineteenth century makes it difficult to argue
that most people were better off. Nor does he see the social reforms of the 30s and
40s as a powerful factor. They stood for, ‘Symbolic acceptance of change rather than
for the impact - often rather limp - of the measures themselves’
(Hoppen op. cit. p97)
He is unconvinced by either the scale or the funding of reforms. F B Smith (‘The
People’s Health 1830-1910’ 1979 Croom Helm) shows that urban workers really
didn’t benefit much from health, sanitation and housing reforms before the 1870s at
least.
Phil Chapple is one of a number of historians who point out the need to recognise the
positive nature of working class activities e.g. friendly societies, savings banks,
temperance movements, co-operative societies, etc. These occupied increasing
numbers. JE Foster (‘Class Struggle & the Industrial Revolution’ 1974 Miethuen) has
concluded from his study of Oldham that local activities by workers could bring them
very considerable local power.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
24
Yet John Belchem warns against making too much of working class activities that are
positive and against believing that the reforms of the Gladstone era made workers
peaceful and co-operative. He stresses the deep distrust of the state that still remained
‘the variety and persistence of radical alternatives indicate some disquiet with Liberal
values, an unease absent in the current historiographical orthodoxy which insists on
the ... appeal of Gladstonian Liberalism.’
(Belchem, op. cit. p124-5)
The whole issue of protest and the motives that lay behind it offers many
opportunities for studying on-going historical debates.
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
25
History: The Economic Development of Britain 1820-80 (AH)
26