Attributable to a certain combination of conditions – such as harbors for trade, innovation and an abundant supply of laborers – the Industrial Revolution stemmed from Great Britain and was mainly prompted by the rapid growth and development of technology. New ideas and inventions were introduced and implemented throughout the country and ultimately spread to the rest of the world. To stay with the times, many small-scale landowners recognized the success of the industrialisation and attempted to bring it to their communities.
This unorganized, swift growth of the industrialisation led to substantial changes such as converting rural communities into overflowing, pollution ridden cities and disconsolate living and working conditions for the new middle class. From 1750 to 1850, this occured in Manchester. What was once a rural town, the rapid growth from the Industrial Revolution turned Manchester into an industrialized city that changed the lifestyle entirely. These changes brought forth many differing opinions from a variety of people such as social activists, reformers and historians about living and working conditions of citizens and the irrelevance of these complaints.
The lives of the residents of Manchester spurred interest in many journalists and dramatists. Work was published that addressed the living and working conditions of the citizens. Focusing mainly on the austerity of Manchester, these descriptions, although at times dramatized or over exaggerated, appear to be credible due the fact that many other accounts discussed similar situations. Robert Southey, an English poet visiting Manchester, describes the buildings “as large as convents, without their antiquity, without their beauty…” (Document 2).
This elegant and graceful writing is expected from a poet. Southey also uses strong connotative words such as “blackened”, “everlasting”, and “wretches” (Document 2) which helps to highlight his point of view of anguished sentiment. Although there are are many similar renditions of the conditions of Manchester it is important to take into account Southeys’ occupation while analyzing this text. Actress and poet, Frances Anne Kemble, had a similar reaction in an account of witnessing the living conditions of the working class, she said, “High above the grim and grimy crowd of scowling faces a loom had been erected, at which sat a tattered, starved-looking weaver, evidently set there as a representative man, to protest against the triumphs of machinery and the gain and glory which wealthy Liverpool and Manchester men were likely to derive from it.” (Document 4).
This quote, portrays scorn directed at the bourgeoisie which helps support the proletariat in the protested outlined. It is critical to note that since Kemble is doubtful to be working class, she is reporting these complaints as a respectable actress, poet and dramatist, which may assist change in future years. Assisting in the change in the upcoming years, Friedrick Engels, a radical journalist in the 1800s, and Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto in 1844. In an entry, he stated, “the houses dirty, old and tumble-down, and the construction of the side streets utterly horrible.” The deliverance of painfully honest information to the general public and the upper class/bourgeoisie aided greatly to start of the change that was to come.
In addition to the complaints of journalists and dramatists, negative issues were discussed by many proletariats, the working class. Experiencing first hand the dangerous and horrendous working conditions in the factories and the resulting health problems, they were able to give insight to many public health professionals and medical journals. These sources reactions greatly supported the proletariats’ grievances. In an excerpt from Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Laboring Population of Great Britain, published in 1842, by Edwin Chadwick, a public health reformer, he stated that “The annual loss of life from filth and bad ventilation is greater than the loss from death or wounds in modern wars.” (Document 6).
Based on the fact that Chadwick was bourgeois – he was noted for his leadership in reforming the Poor Laws in England and instituting major reforms in urban sanitation and public health (The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick) – an inference can be made that bad conditions like these were being observed and noted by upper class citizens also. Furthermore, recorded facts exemplified the horrendous results of the working conditions and assisted in proving the validity of of the workers complaints.
Published in 1843 by a British medical journal is a data table of the average ages of death between different districts and classes (Document 8). There is an obvious connection between age of death and the profession that someone has. The life expectancy of laborers in Manchester are as low as 17, and even the Gentry only are expected to live up to 38. 17 is an abnormally low life expectancy and this helps to demonstrate the problems the proletariats raised.
In comparison to the other data from the chart, the life expectancy ages are considerably lower than the rural districts. It is also worthy to note that Thomas Wakely may have modified this journal according to his own motives but there is enough similar reports to be able to trust the credibility of this source.
While many dramatized this change and some others took pleasure of it, the upper class considered the changes necessary. These capitalist business owners generally cared more about the profits being produced than the safety and working conditions of their workers. Wheelan and Company wrote to a business directory in 1852, saying “Perhaps no part of England, not even London, presents such remarkable and attractive features as Manchester, the Workshop of the World.” (Document 9).
This document fails to recognize the issues being raised and the workers who make Manchester so “remarkable” and “attractive”. The theme of negligence is common throughout the documents by the upper class/bourgeois. Thomas B. Macaulay, a Member of Parliament, said in response to Southey’s statement, “ People live longer when they are fed, better lodged, better clothed…” (Document 3). This statement does seems very biased due to the fact that Macauley was a Member of Parliament, who was in support of a forward-moving economy, but it is fair to say that living conditions eventually got better.
The date of this source was in the 1830’s when industrialisation was helping the upper class people get more clothes, more servants, and more food options. In Macauleys’ point of view, at this time, the Industrial Revolution was helping people even if some people were getting the butt end of the deal.
The effect of the issues of working and living conditions spurred an array of different opinions and reactions from people of all classes. In the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, favorable progression was being made for the business owners. Towards the end of it the working conditions improved by the addition of laws such as the 10 hours act, stating that women and children could not work for more than ten hours a day, and the factory act, which made it illegal for children under the age of nine to work in factories. Although much was done to change the horrendous conditions of the proletariats lives, the issues produced by industrialization and the swift change still show today. The working conditions would have most likely stayed the same or worse for much longer if it were not for the negative reactions two hundreds years ago. Our world today would not be the same today if not.
