As the industrial workplace shifted from the home to the textile mill, cottage weavers became the first industrial saboteurs. The domestic textile worker was independent and self-sufficient, and the arrival of the factory system placed this livelihood in peril. Once it became apparent that one boy operating two steam looms could produce the three and a half pieces of cloth to a single piece by a man operating a hand loom, the resentment could not be contained. Often workers saw the factory owners living in an opulent style that was built on their backs. The Luddite movement got its name from the perhaps mythical Ned Ludd who in 1799 allegedly smashed a machine. During the Napoleonic Wars, stocking weavers began to feel the pain of the transition to machine-made stockings. The British government turned to purchasing the lesser quality but cheaper machine-made stockings, and the stocking weavers could not compete with the new market reality. In 1811, after a poor harvest pushed the price of bread to unbearable levels, the stocking weavers banded together in a secret society with the goal to destroy machines. The British government issued statutes to make the offense of machine breaking punishable by death. These laws did not deter the stocking weavers, who raced north and began to smash power looms and burn down mills. In one week during November 1813 the movement destroyed 90 stocking frames in Nottinghamshire. Although the local populace remained mute about the culprits, the British government nonetheless nabbed, tried, and hung 13 Luddites. Government troops remained in the area, and the Luddite movement died away.31
In addition to the Luddite movement, the most significant confrontation took place in Manchester in 1819. For several years radical members of the press had argued for a reform that would transform Great Britain along the political path of the new American republic. One of the most popular voices was William Cobbett, editor of the Political Register, a periodical that had a circulation of 50,000 in 1816. Cobbett’s appeals for reform resulted in his imprisonment on several occasions and a brief self-imposed exile to Long Island, New York. The discontent over the Corn Law resulted in a flash-point in August 1819 when a crowd of 30,000 marched to St. Peter’s Field in Manchester carrying banners protesting the Corn Law and advocating equal representation in Parliament. A leading reformer, Orator Hunt, addressed the throng and called for increased voting privileges and parliamentary reform. The size of the crowd worried the city leaders and factory owners and the militia was summoned. As the mounted troops approached the crowd to arrest Hunt, the people blocked their progress. Suddenly a bugle blared and the troops rode forward with sabers flailing. Within the space of 15 minutes, 11 people were dead and more than 400 lay injured. The event was soon described as the ‘‘Peterloo Massacre,’’ a pun directly aimed at the British victory over Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815. Members of the royal family who supported the repression at Waterloo found themselves booed and pelted with stones and eggs when they appeared in public in London.
The Peterloo Massacre became a watershed moment for reform, although the next major step was over a decade away. Indeed, some observers believed that a bloody confrontation between rich and poor was a potential calamity that could happen at a moment’s notice. Two British monarchs died in the space of ten years, the long-ruling but insane monarch George III in 1820 and the extravagant and immoral George IV in 1830. He was succeeded by the liberal-thinking, middle-aged William IV Parliament at this time was dominated by the aristocratic landlords and a small number of industrialists and merchants who were not paid for their political duties and could only run for office if they owned property valued at 300 pounds. Two political parties dominated Parliament: the majority conservatives or Tories who wanted to protect their own economic interests, and the minority Whigs who viewed reform as essential to keep British society stable. The Whigs proposed a reform of the British boroughs and an extension of voting privileges to bring about more equal representation. An intense political debate ensued. The Tory majority stopped the measure, and rioting occurred in several British cities. In Bristol, the town hall and bishop’s residence were burned and prisoners were freed by the mobs. The king dissolved Parliament, and the Whigs worked to gain additional support. In 1832 the Great Reform Bill passed after the king announced his support. The measure reformed local governments, stripped away certain patronage positions, and extended voting rights to additional members of the middle class. Roughly one in seven British males could now vote, although workers, women, and paupers remained ineligible to cast ballots. Other reforms followed in the 1830s as religious discrimination virtually disappeared. However, the improvement in the status of the working classes had to wait another decade.32
The status of the growing working class became a major focus of reform by the 1840s. In 1844 the German Friedrich Engels visited his father’s cotton export office in Manchester. He observed the glitz associated with the progress of industrialization in Great Britain—the impressive railway station, the fine homes of the factory owners, and the opulent opera house. He also witnessed the gloom of the working classes—dirty laborers, dark and flimsy houses, squalor and filth, disease, and crowding and stench and soot everywhere. Troubled by what he had seen, Engels published his famous work, The Conditions of the Working Class in England, a book that exposed not only for the British but also for Europeans in general the undesirable results of industrialization in Great Britain. Consequently, many citizens appealed to the government to improve the plight of the workers. Reformers published additional reports of the destitute state of many of the factory workers and their families. However, suggested remedies such as the elimination of cesspools, better drainage, and a pure drinking water system found little support in government circles.
In the 1830s the British government revised the parameters of the Poor Law. As stated previously, the Poor Law had been originally administered by the church parishes with small sums of money tied to the cost of bread paid to poor families. The revenues came from property taxes levied on local landowners. In many respects, landowners and factory owners kept wages low because they realized that the church would make up the difference. However, as the price of bread rose substantially in the first three decades of the 19th century, the taxpayers successfully pressured Parliament to pass a new law in 1834. This statute required the establishment of workhouses to house and feed the poor in return for labor service. The workhouses were very austere and uncomfortable in order to discourage laziness. Common vices such as alcohol and tobacco were forbidden, and males and females had separate domiciles. The Poor Law of 1834 was very unpopular with the lower classes but played into the prejudices of the upper and middle classes who viewed the poor as morally weak and believed harsh conditions would motivate the poor to improve their situation. As living and working conditions worsened for the working class and as the number of abandoned and orphaned children increased, the workhouse at times became the only available alternative to the ugliness of the slums.
By the late 1830s, new calls for reform came not only from liberal political and social thinkers but also from writers such as Charles Dickens. Dickens himself was engaging, generous, and humorous. He had a boundless energy, not only writing novels but also editing newspapers and magazines; penning, producing, and performing in plays; and traveling extensively. His characters reflected the realities of British industrial society in both their positive and negative aspects. Dickens’ novels captured the face of the poor, destitute, hopeless, and exploited lower classes and orphans. It is likely that no other single person influenced the middle and upper classes to stare more directly at the dark underside of British society than Charles Dickens. A number of members of Parliament read his works, and as a result many were moved to acknowledge the harsh realities of British industrial society and take political action on behalf of the lower classes.
In reality, the progress for reform had its roots in the early 19th century. A series of parliamentary inquiries and reports of civic-minded private citizens had convinced Parliament to enact measures to place restrictions on child labor in the factories. Children under nine were not permitted to work, and older children could labor only twelve hours a day. In addition, all children were to receive a rudimentary education during working hours. While these measures seemed enlightened for the time, their real impact was limited. They applied only to cotton mills, not to mining enterprises where some of the worst conditions for children existed. In addition, Parliament did not dictate any specific reporting or inspection system that would enforce compliance with the laws. In the wake of the Reform Bill of 1832 new laws appeared. The Factory Act of 1833 (see Document 15), Ten Hours Act of 1847, and Factory Act of 1850 provided for additional protections for children, incorporated women into its provisions, and appointed inspectors who had the authority to levy fines on violators. These measures established the length of the workday first at twelve hours a day, then the work week at sixty hours, and began the weekend at 2 i;m. By the middle of the 19th century the standard of living for the lower classes was visibly higher than a century earlier. Industry provided more frequent work, the prices of goods had declined, real wages had continued to rise, and productivity per worker was twice that of 1800.33
One of the most visible efforts for reform came from the Chartist Movement, the first major political ground swell of the working classes in the 19th century. As Parliament had begun the reform of factory working conditions, some reformers believed it was time to extend political rights to the lower classes. The term chartist derives from the 1838 document known as the People’s Charter. The London Working Men’s Association prepared the charter that included six demands: (1) the right of all men to vote, or universal suffrage; (2) annual elections and sessions for Parliament; (3) revision of electoral districts; (4) elimination of property qualification for voting; (5) payment for those elected to Parliament so that all classes might run for office; (6) adoption of the secret ballot. In reality the charter was a national petition with millions of signatures presented on two occasions to Parliament in 1839 and 1842. The reluctance of Parliament to act on the charter led organizers to call for a general strike, but it had little impact.
Parliament, fearful of the consequences of the provisions, rejected the charter. While the Chartist Movement did not achieve its goals in the short term, it did educate the working people, provided a sense of class cohesion, and laid the groundwork for the ultimate adoption of its provisions in subsequent reform bills in 1867 and 1884.
The impact of the reforms of the 1830s, the Chartist Movement, and the factory and working hour limitation acts of the 1840s began early in the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901), at the time when Great Britain enjoyed its era of greatest power and prosperity. She and her consort, Prince Albert, urged a new spirit of reform and public responsibility on the part of their subjects. Good works as well as healthy profits became their focus. Their popularity and the ongoing movement for change merged to create an atmosphere favorable for further reform. By the early 1840s the mining industry sought accommodation with its workers and improved working conditions. No longer did these enterprises send women and children underground into dark, damp and cramped mine shafts. In addition, reformers such as Edwin Chadwick (see Biographies) published disturbing reports related to public health and sanitation, and the result became the formation of a Board of Health. Another significant development was the repeal of the Corn Law. Manufacturers who argued for free trade saw the repeal of the tariff on grain as a means to feed the workers more cheaply and eliminate cost-of-living wage increases. Aristocratic landlords wanted to keep the tariff to maintain high profits on domestic grain. In the middle of the 1840s, economic forces beyond the control of Parliament forced the change. The Irish potato blight pushed a tidal wave of immigration into Great Britain. Furthermore, a banking crisis and recession on the continent stirred revolutionary activity. Members of Parliament, fearful that the unrest might spread to British working classes, ultimately decided to repeal the Corn Law in 1846, thus bringing together Adam Smith’s vision of free trade and Queen Victoria’s interest in good works.
World History
