Unit 2 - Industrialisation - Government and a changing society

The working class standard of living

Industrialisation was having a bigger social impact by the first quarter of the nineteenth century than it had at an earlier period. A substantial minority in the labouring classes now feared mechanisation. There were instances of machine-breaking in 1816-17, notably among the hosiers and lace-makers of Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. Seven rioters were executed in 1817. Agricultural machinery was also a target of East Anglian rioters in 1816, although the main impetus there was less industrialisation than general poverty and hunger in what were essentially food riots. Concern about the impact of mechanised threshing machines on jobs contributed to the Swing Riots of 1830. The plight of the hand-loom weavers, the supposed 'aristocrats' of the labouring classes, is often taken up as indicative of the impact of industrial growth. Weavers suffered along with many others in the immediate post-war years, but that was a consequence of other factors as well as, or even more than, changes to the factory system. Some historians strongly challenge the picture of the hand-loom weaver as a victim of industrial change, arguing that most weavers, far from being labour's 'aristocrats', had led a precarious existence even before power looms came into use. Historian Duncan Bythell has written: 'the power loom was a blessing and not a curse to the handloom weavers. ... The extension of factory employment which the power loom, the self-acting mule, and other machines made possible from the early 1820s provided the first escape route from this hopeless dead-end job [of weaving]'. (Bythell, 2008). Many weavers were actually able to take advantage of new, more reliable employment opportunities offered in factories by an expanding economy. From about 1820 there is more solid evidence to support the argument that many in the labouring classes did have a greater measure of economic security. Historian E. L. Woodward writes that 'from about 1820 wage-earners in employment [were] likely to have lived in most years as well as, or better than, their fathers or grandfathers' (Woodward, 1988). Woodward's point is that factories generally brought a better life and created more wealth, some of which gradually trickled down to the labouring classes. More 'pessimistic' historians would be sceptical, pointing to the two phenomena mentioned earlier (cyclical depression and structural unemployment) as well as often shocking working conditions to challenge this view. They would not concede that any general improvement could be observed until after the last catastrophic slump of 1841-42, which did so much to re-ignite the Chartist movement. The point is well made that it was only a minority of the labouring classes who had been directly affected by the Industrial Revolution by 1832. For those affected, however, consequences were often dramatic. Those who found employment in the new factories might be better off at times - and some found their work bearable or even rewarding (especially those with skills) compared with alternative employment or unemployment - but they were uncertain of continuous employment and the conditions that many, including young children, found themselves working in were often dreadful. Arguably other factors, either long-term or structural, or temporary factors, had a greater impact on living standards and quality of life for the labouring classes up to the 1830s. These factors, referred to by some historians as 'accidental accompaniments', contributed as much to post-war problems as industrial developments. Indeed, in the longer-term some, such as population growth and enclosures were inextricably linked with social distress. These factors can be conveniently listed as follows: - the impact of the French wars - the post-war slump - population growth - high bread prices - agricultural changes All these factors played an important part, alongside industrialisation, in determining quality of life, conditions of work and the build-up of popular pressure and protest.

Key Chronology in the passing of the Reform Act

- March 1831 Reform Bill: introduced and defeated in the Commons Parliament dissolved - June 1831: Whigs return after General Election victory Reform Bill introduced - October 1831: Reform Bill rejected by the Lords Rioting breaks out across the country - May 1832: Government defeated over latest Reform Bill in the Lords and resigns; Wellington fails to form a new government; Grey returns to power with the promise that the King will create sufficient new peers to pass the Bill in the House of Lords - June 1832: Parliamentary Reform Bill becomes law

Summary of the need for reform

- The electoral system was out of date - The population in manufacturing areas was expanding rapidly - Political power was in the hands of the landowning aristocracy - Very few people had the vote, and large segments of the population had no representation in Parliament - Property ownership was an essential qualification for political participation - The working and middle classes who produced the wealth of the nation had no political power or influence

Summary of the effects of the 1832 Reform Act

- The size of the electorate increased from approximately 435,000 before 1832 to 635,000 after 1832 - A Register of Electors was introduced after 1832 but excluded many eligible electors because they either did not bother to check the register or they were unwilling to pay the registration fees - Bribery and corruption continued through the absence of a secret ballot - Polling Day was reduced from a maximum of 15 days to 2 days - There was a significant redistribution of seats to the unrepresented industrial North and Midlands but these areas were still under-represented - The rural South was still over-represented - The Reform Act signalled the end of the aristocracy's monopoly of political power - The urban middle classes now succeeded to a share of political power - Working class men and women were excluded from voting

Lord Liverpool's Government

A wide raft of legislation was passed by the Liverpool governments, traditionally characterised as divided between repressive before 1823 and reformist between 1823 and 1827. Income Tax was abolished in 1824 on the basis that it was a wartime measure which should not be levied in peacetime. Again, this was a measure which benefitted the landed interest. To offset the loss in revenue, the government increased indirect taxes on many goods. Other legislation was more progressive, with Relief Acts for Dissenters and a Toleration Act for Utilitarians, with the aim of promoting greater religious freedom. The Poor Employment Act made public funds available for public works to alleviate economic distress, and a Truck Act attempted to curtail the customary practice which many unscrupulous employers had adopted of paying their workers in kind instead of in cash. In 1819 a Factory Act was passed which intervened in conditions of employment, outlawing the employment of children under nine in cotton factories and restricting working hours to twelve hours a day for young people. It was an important step towards more state intervention, but was met by stiff resistance from employers. In the realm of criminal justice, Robert Peel as Home Secretary from 1822 proved innovative and progressive. Peel simplified and codified the existing legal code, removing many minor offences such as pick-pocketing, which carried the death penalty. Gaol Acts attempted to regularise and standardise prison conditions throughout the country. Classification and separation of prisoners was introduced, with female prisoners to be looked after by female guards. Not only was the system intended to be more humane and efficient, but punishments were more proportionate, with sentences approximating more closely to the seriousness of the crime. Juries had been reluctant to return guilty verdicts when they knew the sentence was death and justice was therefore not only not served but subverted. The result of Peel's reforms was to secure more convictions for lesser crimes. These initiatives were enacted by a sense of responsibility and fair-mindedness to improve areas where there were obvious difficulties and anomalies, rather than a passion for social reform. The Liverpool Government had no social programme of reform but rather a deep-rooted pragmatism actuating their policies. More draconian in nature, the government tightened up the laws on poaching with a new Game Law in 1817. In response to a worrying attack on the Prince Regent's coach and a fear of spreading disorder amid economic distress in the country, Habeas Corpus was temporarily suspended, and in 1819, a further raft of repressive measures known as the Six Acts were passed. It is in this area of maintaining public order that the Liverpool Ministry has left such an indelible mark on the historical record.

Recount the nature of the Whigs' support for parliamentary reform and the extra-parliamentary pressure for reform?

Answers should allude to the Whigs setting the pace for reform, their commitment to the necessity for reform, the moderation of the measure, their ability to adjudge and balanced the different interests within the country, and ultimately, maintaining the legislative authority of Parliament against the threat of continuing agitation and disorder. The extra-parliamentary agitation aimed at pressuring Parliament by a widespread provincial protest which incorporated the middle and working classes and which though mostly peaceful, contained the implicit threat of violence and promoted feats of revolution if reform was not undertaken. Reform agitation also took place in print, with the need for reform also promoted by intellectuals in the periodicals and newspapers.

What factors might be taken into considering when determining the standard of living for workers after 1815? What evidence is there for this claim?

Answers should allude to: size of family, wage rates, food and accommodation prices, the availability of employment, the type of economic sector (rural v urban and industrial v agricultural), regional variation, level of skill, standard of housing and local amenities, kinship and family networks.

Why would Parliament potentially be more responsive to reforming measures after 1832?

As more MPs and electors from commercial, financial and industrial backgrounds entered the Commons, there was potentially more inclination for these types of interests to raise issues and to legislate on a broader basis than had been the case with a predominantly landed Parliament. The presence of more radical middle-class men in the House of Commons meant that the nature of legislation slowly changed, and Parliament would reflect these new interests. In party political terms, it was also the case that the Tory divisions over Catholic Emancipation and the Reform Act appeared to indicate that the Whigs, elected on a reforming agenda, would be in power for a reasonable length of time, thus fuelling expectations of further reform measures.

Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts

At the start of his administration it looked as though Wellington might have repaired the rifts that had appeared in the Tory Cabinets during 1827-28. Coalition Whigs were discarded and the Cabinet included a reasonable range of Tory opinion, with only extreme high Tories such as Eldon excluded. This fragile reunification was not to last. As events turned out, the end of the Tory domination of government in 1830 was determined by religious reforms. The Duke was not so adept at holding the various Tory factions together. Peel was appointed Home Secretary and agreed to lead the Commons as long as the Canningites were included, as they were popular with the people. Wellington excluded Eldon and quarrelled with the Ultra Tories. At times the Duke was resolute and steadfast but at other times he was conciliatory; he also appeared to show a lack of political judgment. By accepting Huskisson's resignation over the transfer of representation of two corrupt boroughs, Wellington lost an outstanding Minister whose resignation, which brought other resignations in its wake, was a great personal and political loss over a relatively trivial issue, and Wellington's resulting Cabinet reshuffle of 1828 brought the issue of Catholic Emancipation to a head. Two measures that widened the emergent splits in the party were the 1828 repeal of the 1661 Corporation Act and the 1673 Test Act and the passage of the Catholic Relief Act in 1829. Under the Test and Corporation Acts, a person wishing to hold municipal, civil or military office had to take the sacrament of Holy Communion in an Anglican church. Roman Catholics, the prime targets, and Nonconformists were therefore equally excluded from public office, although many Nonconformists had got round it by attending Communion once a year or by taking advantage of so-called Indemnity Acts, introduced successively after 1727, to give them immunity if they failed to take Communion. Early in 1828 the liberal Whig, Lord John Russell, introduced a bill to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts. The end result proposed would remove all barriers to Nonconformists taking positions, but not Catholics, who would still be required to deny transubstantiation and swear an Oath of Supremacy. The concern of many Tories and high Anglicans, usually the same thing, was that repeal would open the door for Catholics too - as indeed events proved. Certainly many who voted for the Test and Corporation Act repeal did so in the hope and expectation that it would ultimately lift restrictions on Catholics. In the event, Russell's motion was carried by 44 votes. Conversely, some Ultra Tories held the view that once freed from the constraints of the Test and Corporation Acts, Protestant Dissenters would turn against Roman Catholics, and dissuade the Government from taking up the cause of Catholic Emancipation. This turned out to be a forlorn hope as the movement for Catholic Emancipation gained a substantial boost from the 1828 changes.

The state of Britain politically, economically and socially by 1832

By 1832, Britain was very different from what it had been in 1783. The great social, economic, and political changes on the early nineteenth century, fuelled by industrial development and population growth, were ongoing and raised many new problems in the life of the country. The new technology which was forcing a change in the productive capacity of many industries was also altering the lives of those who worked in them. The pattern and fabric of life for very many people changed radically as a result. The widespread application of new technology was making older occupations obsolete, driving forward new methods of production, and influencing new forms of social organisation. While there was greater material wealth, there was also greater social division and the disparities of wealth remained. Those who worked long hours in factories saw little return and in many ways saw their quality of life decline, with less leisure time and greater degradation of their urban environments. There was an increase in the quality and abundance of food, ironically largely as a result of enclosure and greater agricultural efficiency. This process had thrown many rural workers out of work and into the new industrial towns. The domestic occupations of the countryside suffered a great decline in the face of urbanisation, technological innovation and industrial development. These social and economic changes brought changes in class structure and altered the dynamics of the class system in British society. The emerging manufacturing class increasingly challenged the aristocratic political system, in seeking political power commensurate with their enhanced economic power. Parliamentary reform was a great achievement but it represented only the first small step in the broader challenge of a more assertive radical middle class against aristocratic control of the State and its institutions. Yet the breach had been made and after 1832, political life was never the same again. The middle class now had the opportunity to imbue British politics with expansive humanitarian, progressive, and philanthropic ideals, under the inspirational motifs of improvement and respectability. They also wanted to mould policy toward what they perceived to be in the interests of their class and the nation, for they held the belief that the future of Britain lay in manufacturing prosperity and not in agriculture. This notion was bound to create a conflict with landowners, and much of the following period of 1832-1846 was dominated by this battle between the radical forces of 'progressive' reform and the conservative forces defending established institutions. It is debatable how much fear of revolution played in the Whigs' commitment to reform but the role of public support and public demonstrations was clearly vital in the process of influencing them to make what might be tactfully called a 'timely concession'. It remained to be seen whether they would continue to pursue a reform agenda once extra-parliamentary pressure and agitation was withdrawn. For the working classes, the Reform Act was a major disappointment and a divergence of interests opened up in its aftermath—while the middle classes looked to build on their success in 1832, the working classes increasingly looked towards social and economic cooperation amongst themselves as a means of influencing society and government.

Coal

Coal was the main source of energy and in many ways the 'heartbeat' of the economy. Production increased significantly over the period, and its importance in other industries can be illustrated by the fact that approximately half of the coal produced was used in the iron industry.

The Metropolitan police force - Peel and the criminal justice system

Despite the high political drama of parliamentary reform and Catholic Emancipation, Wellington's Ministry introduced important domestic policy reforms, which were not only important at the time but which proved to be of long duration. As Home Secretary, Peel oversaw reforms in the Criminal Code and prison administration (as discussed earlier), and the important Metropolitan Police Act of 1829. Peel's reforms represented an important strand of modern Toryism, based on a conscientious concern with effective government and efficient administration rather than with a 'great cause' — Toryism of strong leadership, sound administration, law and order, cautious reform, and recognition of people's rights and duties. As a complement to reforms in the criminal justice code, Peel created the basis of modern policing with the establishment of the Metropolitan Police Force in London. The Force created in 1829 bore little resemblance to its eighteenth-century predecessors, instead it was organised on new principles. When Peel became Home Secretary in 1822, some Tories had contemplated some kind of police reform to deal with the growing fear of disorder arising from radical protests and economic distress. Peel saw an efficient police force as an essential accompaniment of a more liberal criminal justice system but there were also financial elements involved in the evolution and development of the justice system. Peel's Criminal Justice Law Act of 1826 swept away old statutes of 1751, 1754, 1774, and 1818 which increased discretionary payments to every prosecution of actual expenses incurred, and its inflationary impact on crime rates was significant. The Act was the cause of many persons being brought to trial who would otherwise have been discharged by Magistrates. Peel's Act greatly increased the number of commitments to trial. Larceny (robbery) prosecutions increased from 10,087 before the Act to 12,014 in 1827. The historian Vic Gattrell has argued that Peel subsequently took advantage of the figures for political ends: 'Peel was the first politician of note to shape and exploit a rich vein of anxiety about the decay of moral values to which increases in 'crime' supposedly testify. He was also the first to plead the case to this effect from the criminal statistics, those perilous data which have been harnessed to justify the state's expanding disciplinary powers ever since'. (V.A.C. Gattrell, The Hanging Tree: execution and the English people, 1770-1868 (1996)) In February 1828 Peel justified his request for a parliamentary Select Committee by reference to the alarming increase in crime in London. He skilfully ensured that a number of sympathetic politicians were placed on the Committee, and the Committee reported in favour of a restructuring of the police forces in London to establish a single Metropolitan Police Force, with jurisdiction over the entire area within a 10-mile radius of Central London. Peel expressed the hope that the new force would combat the hardened criminal class, and more widely, argued that the country had outgrown its police institutions. Devising a new form of policing and police organisation was therefore a necessity. In steering the measure through Parliament, Peel had prepared his way well. He had astutely omitted the City of London from the Bill, and had presented the Bill as a conservative measure, by stipulating that there would be no radical transformation of the system for apprehending, trying and punishing criminals. Making the policing system more efficient, something conservatives could support, was his aim. Thus, though a contentious measure, the Metropolitan Police Improvement Bill enjoyed a fairly smooth passage through Parliament, with Peel convincing his party that the rising crime rates required a bold remedy Accordingly, in April 1829, Peel introduced the Metropolitan Police Improvement Bill which noted a large increase in population over two periods (1811-18 and 1821-28) (19% in London & Middlesex) but showed a still greater 55% increase in committed crimes. In the debate, Peel attributed the high increase in crime to the 'increased mechanical ingenuity of the age, by which the perpetuation of crime was aided'. There was a new emphasis on crime prevention as the top priority of criminal justice. While the Met's beat patrols followed what parochial watchmen had been doing for a century or more, the new force's standardised uniform, discipline, and organisation, suggested that Peel had imported into London many of the policing practices developed in Ireland, during his period as Chief Secretary between 1812 and 1818, to deal with civil disorder. Peel's new force was ten times larger than the earlier Bow Street system and had a much more rigid and hierarchical structure. Recognising British antipathy to a standing army quartered at home, efforts were made to ensure that the new police did not look like soldiers. Accordingly, they wore top hats, blue uniforms, and swallow-tail coats with the minimum of decoration. Weaponry was limited to a wooden truncheon though cutlasses were available for emergencies; inspectors and those ranked above them could carry pocket pistols. Despite these efforts, much of the criticism of the new force focused on its perceived military character and its supposed similarities to the invasive police forces established on the European continent. Finance was also controversial for overall costs were much greater. Also, Local authorities in London had to pay for the force out of the rates but they had simultaneously ceded control over policing, which now belonged to the Metropolitan Police Commissioners at Scotland Yard, who reported to the Home Secretary.

Challenges to authority

Economic distress among the lower classes in society was a prime catalyst of the revival of popular protest after 1815. Post-war deflation, the unemployment caused by an end to government war contracts, and the flooding of the already congested labour market by the discharge of over 300,000 men from the armed forces, were all major causes of dislocation. On top of this came economic problems both in agriculture and in the infant textile industry. Bad weather and poor harvests reduced yields in a number of the post-war years. This led to higher bread prices, which made 1817-18 years of near-famine in many parts of the country. As you saw earlier, the 1815 Corn Law, by keeping the price of wheat high by limiting foreign imports, aggravated the problem. Reductions in foreign markets in South America and the United States, with whom a war in 1812 was accompanied by a trade war that lasted into the post-war period, meant that a general trade depression set in, leading to great distress among the labouring classes. A number of radical activists, exploited and encouraged protest at this distress. In the immediate post-war years, in the light of rural and urban suffering and with both political and socio-economic factors at play, there were a number of serious and violent challenges to authority. The Spa Fields Riots of 1816, the Blanketeers' March and Pentridge Rising of 1817, and the Peterloo Massacre in 1819 were the most noteworthy. Then, in 1820, came the Cato Street Conspiracy, a failed attempt to assassinate the Cabinet. The most famous, or infamous, of these events was the so-called Peterloo Massacre. Named as a word play on Waterloo, this event took place in St Peter's Fields in Manchester in August 1819 when a crowd, gathered to hear 'Orator' Hunt speak on parliamentary reform, was charged by local yeomanry. Eleven people were killed and some 400 injured. Peterloo came to symbolise the horror, disgust and fury of the ordinary people and radicals for the ruling classes, and the political elites' heartlessness in response.

Rural poverty

From the 1780s to the middle of the nineteenth century job opportunities and wages for many rural labourers and their families declined or stagnated. This pushed many labourers and their families into seeking work in the towns and cities where there were more opportunities for better paid work, if not necessarily always better living conditions. The deterioration became particularly marked during the French wars (1793-1815) and in the decade immediately afterwards. There were various reasons for this deterioration. One was the rapid growth in population. This growth was most pronounced in the urban and industrial North and Midlands but it was just as evident in the 15 counties of the South and East least affected by industrialisation, where a total population about 1.8 million in the 1780s had grown to 2.9 million by the time of the 1831 census. Because of farming changes that made land more productive (e.g. crop rotation and enclosure), the contribution of the agricultural sector towards feeding the growing population was made with a declining share of the total labour force. Although in absolute numbers, agricultural workers increased up to 1851, in relative terms an agricultural revolution did release labour to industry, not dramatically but crucially. Census returns reveal that in the 20 years between 1811 and 1831, when employment opportunities in the South and East were contracting so severely, the population still increased by 31 per cent. This would have been higher if many tens of thousands hadn't packed up and moved to the industrial centres. However, exodus to the industrial centres was never easy or straightforward, and with much of the rural population remaining static the numbers were always too high for the employment opportunities available. With a swollen rural population, the impact on wages was inevitably downwards, with too many people looking for limited jobs. A surplus labour force consequent on a rising population encouraged employers to reduce wages. This inevitably pushed many agricultural labourers to seek poor relief in order to top up their wages. A further downwards pressure was exerted after 1815 in the form of lower prices for arable farmers who then cut back even more on jobs, where they could, and on wages pretty well everywhere. For many labourers, their best hope was seasonal or short-term employment, with most work available at harvest time and with much of the rest of the year offering, at best, less than living wages. Agricultural specialisation and the introduction of threshing machinery were further factors in reducing available work. Enclosures and changed farming methods also contributed to pushing labourers out of work and so forced more to seek relief. Average agricultural wages fell by about a third between 1814 and 1822 and this inevitably meant that southern labourers in particular came to depend on charity and Poor Law relief in order to survive - quite literally. The burden on the local parish overseers obliged to support those who couldn't support themselves became massive: Poor Rates quadrupled in the 40 years or so following c.1785 with expenditure on relief peaking in 1818. Many parishes were forced to review payment of relief in the light of these developments. As poverty among the able-bodied was increasingly being experienced by those on low or inadequate wages as well as by the unemployed, pauperism was becoming endemic in many parishes.

Catholic Emancipation and the British State

George Canning supported civil equality for Roman Catholics but Peel had refused to join his Cabinet because of this stance. Yet after the short Goderich Ministry, as new Prime Minister, Wellington and his closest colleague Peel were forced to a decision by O'Connell's victory at County Clare. Both had shared the view that emancipation should be avoided unless absolutely necessary and Peel in particular was a 'Protestant' favourite of the older High Tories. But in 1829 they shocked the political world by arguing that its time had now come. What persuaded them of this was the conviction that civil order in Ireland could not be guaranteed without emancipation. The final straw was O'Connell's victory, even though he wasn't allowed to take up his seat, over the 'government' candidate in a by-election in County Clare in 1828. Against such a background Wellington and Peel came to feel that emancipation had to be conceded. Given this central support for Catholic relief, opposition in the Lords faltered and the passage of the Catholic Emancipation Act was assured in 1829. The Act made Roman Catholics eligible or all offices of State, except Regent, Lord Chancellor and Lord Lieutenant General. Nevertheless, while the extension of civil rights was achieved, Catholic Emancipation was accompanied by raising the property franchise from 40s to £10. Opposition to emancipation in Tory ranks had been very strong, and the measure was only passed with Whig votes, with 142 Tories voting against, and the splits in Tory ranks became much clearer from this point. The consequences were that the Tories were split between Ultras, Liberal Tories, and Wellington's followers. Peel resigned from his seat amidst taunts of cowardice and betrayal from party colleagues. Without Catholic emancipation, and the splits it engendered, reform could not have happened as it did over the next couple of years. The historian Norman Gash has quoted one of Wellington's junior ministers, the barrister and writer Horace Twiss, who summed up what happened succinctly. 'The Catholic Emancipation', he wrote 'had riven the Conservative body asunder and through the chasm the Reform Bill forced its way'. (Gash, 1990) We look more at the Reform Bill in Topic 5, but here was the linkage between the issues which re-defined British State institutions. The passing of Catholic Emancipation divided the Tories further and effectively allowed the Whigs back into power. The accession of William IV in 1830, after the death of George IV, prompted a General Election which favoured the Whigs and Canningites, but left Wellington in office. With Huskisson's death in September 1830 at the opening of the Liverpool to Manchester railway, the Duke was robbed of a prodigiously talented politician. The unsettled nature of the country was typified by riots which broke out amidst the bleak harvest and economic recession. Sensing the deep unrest, the Whigs pushed for parliamentary reform as a means of quelling the disturbances in the country. Wellington's speech unreservedly praising the existing electoral system hastened his exit from office. The Duke stated on 2 November 1830: "He was fully convinced that the country possessed at the present moment a Legislature which answered all the good purposes of legislation, and this to a greater degree than any Legislature ever had answered in any country whatever. He would go further and say, that the Legislature and the system of representation possessed the full and entire confidence of the country—deservedly possessed that confidence—and the discussions in the Legislature had a very great influence over the opinions of the country. He would go still further and say, that if at the present moment he had imposed upon him the duty of forming a Legislature for any country, and particularly for a country like this, in possession of great property of various descriptions, he did not mean to assert that he could form such a Legislature as they possessed now, for the nature of man was incapable of reaching such excellence at once; but his great endeavour would be, to form some description of legislature which would produce the same results. The representation of the people at present contained a large body of the property of the country, and in which the landed interests had a preponderating influence. Under these circumstances, he was not prepared to bring forward any measure of the description alluded to by the noble Lord. He was not only not prepared to bring forward any measure of this nature, but he would at once declare that as far as he was concerned, as long as he held any station in the government of the country, he should always feel it his duty to resist such measures when proposed by others". (Hansard. 1803-2005) The Duke's supporters believed that he should have attempted to pass a moderate reform measure to placate and potentially undermine a more radical measure. All was in vain, and the Whigs returned to power for the first time in fifty years.

Intellectual pressures for reform

On the intellectual front, radicalism continued to be strongly influenced by the utilitarian ideas of Jeremy Bentham. Middle-class reform groups, with Dissenters prominent, were increasingly visible in most important towns and cities. In 1824 they were given their own national periodical, the Westminster Review, a Benthamite publication, to challenge the Tory Quarterly Review and the Whig Edinburgh Review, both founded earlier in the century. The middle class view was that a Parliament based on land and aristocracy could not represent the industrial classes. In the 1820s the Benthamite attacks on Whigs and Tories grew, and over time, the Whigs were reminded of their pledge to commit to reform once the people demanded it. Other newspapers to take up the utilitarian radical approach were the Morning Chronicle and London Review. As well as Bentham himself, who lived on to 1832, leading proponents of what came to be called philosophical radicalism included James Mill, whose Essay on Government, written in 1820, argued that representative government, rather than government founded on monarchy and aristocracy, offered the best hope of happiness for the whole community. Among the objectives of this group of reformers were the extension of the franchise, the introduction of a secret ballot and the reform of the prevalent system of parliamentary government dominated by the aristocracy. While the line between radicals and liberal Whigs was often blurred, it is possible to identify distinct Whig intellectuals who argued for parliamentary reform, although markedly short of the radical objectives outlined above. They also championed such causes as the abolition of slavery and law reform. The ideology that emerged can be defined as philosophic Whiggism. Among the Whigs who adopted this ideology, strongly influenced as it was by contact with important figures in the Scottish Enlightenment, were Henry Brougham, Lord John Russell and the future historians, Thomas Carlyle and Thomas Babington Macaulay. The Edinburgh Review, established in 1802, was the mouthpiece of this group of liberal Whigs, its name making clear the link to Scottish influences.

Repeal of the Combination Acts

One area where an alliance of extra-parliamentary reform pressure and parliamentary radicals was successful in the mid-1820s was in persuading Parliament to concede the right of workers to combine in trade unions. In the general alarm of wartime, this right had been made illegal under the Combination Act of 1800. Outside pressure was largely coordinated by the working-class radical, Francis Place, 'the radical tailor of Charing Cross'. Place had been associated with the Corresponding Societies of a generation earlier. By the 1820s he was a leading member of a loose radical grouping, both outside and inside Parliament, advocating a wide range of reforms, including religious and parliamentary reform, and strongly influenced by the ideas of Jeremy Bentham. Within Parliament, Place's most important ally was Joseph Hume, the radical MP for Aberdeen. Hume had been instrumental in the setting up of a parliamentary select committee to look at the legal prohibitions on workers' combinations. Hume and Place played a major role in bringing workers before the committee and coaching them in what to say, as a means of persuading parliamentarians of the justice of a change in the law. With the support of Joseph Hume, Place managed to get a Select Committee appointed in 1824 to look into the Combination Laws. Place and Hume were not, in fact, enthusiastic supporters of combinations. Arguing more from a belief that the 1799-1800 laws aggravated ill-feeling and made for secretive authoritarian unions, they believed repeal would reduce violence and even lead to a reduction in the numbers and strength of unions. The Select Committee of the House of Commons supported their views, stating that 'the laws have not only not been efficient to prevent combinations, but on the contrary have had a tendency to produce mutual irritation and distrust, and to give a violent character to the combinations'. Later that year the Combination Laws were repealed. Unions could now exist legally, although they remained vulnerable to prosecution for breach of contract or restraint of trade if they took strike action. Place's hopes and expectations were confounded. Trade unions developed all over the country in a variety of industries and many workers, enjoying their taste of freedom, went on strike in such diverse industries as shoemaking, textiles and mining. 'Violence to the person or property' and 'threats of intimidation' had remained punishable by summary justice under the 1824 Act (as under that of 1800), but the Commons now felt that this was not sufficient. A new Select Committee recommended more stringent provisions against violence and intimidation. Accordingly, in 1825, strike action through picketing was made more difficult as 'molesting' and 'obstructing' became offences alongside 'violence' and 'threats or intimidation'. Union concerns were defined more narrowly as questions of wages and hours of work. Despite these restrictions, combinations could still exist openly and this was a major breakthrough for the labouring classes.

Describe the main social, economic and political changes in Britain between 1812 and 1832.

Some of the main changes in Britain in the period between 1812 and 1832 related to the pace and nature of industrialisation and urbanisation which changed the shape and pattern of working practices, ways of living, and which literally changed the face and landscape of the country though this was on ongoing process. Great social divisions had opened up as a result of industrialisation, heightened by the rigours of the industrial system and urbanisation, and class formation and class division based on identities of interest, appeared to be growing rapidly. The dynamics of the class system had changed, with a more assertive middle class challenging the political authority of the aristocracy, and making an important breach in aristocratic dominance in 1832. Britain appeared in one sense to be charting a new course yet in other respects, the aristocracy remained tenaciously entrenched with governmental institutions. Radicals knew this and for them, if not for the Whig government, reform in 1832 was a beginning not an end to the reform process.

The Corn Laws and the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts - Revision of the Corn Laws

The Ultra Tories were suspicious of Canning, and they were also strong supporters of the Corn Laws. In 1828 Huskisson sought to replace the fixed duty with the sliding-scale to address the issues of poor harvests and rising wheat prices. The sliding-scale would allow the tax on imported wheat to be cut gradually according to the price of home-grown corn, so as the price of home-grown corn increased the duties on foreign corn fell. To Huskisson, the sliding-scale seemed an obvious solution to maintaining a steady market and income for farmers, and to achieve a lowering of bread prices to satisfy the working man. Before he could introduce his sliding-scale Huskisson argued with Wellington over parliamentary reform and resigned, but Peel introduced the measure later in the year. It was the first breach in the 1815 Corn Law but it was not to be the last.

Attitudes to reform and repression Renewed pressure for reform

The end of the French Wars meant that a host of problems, old and new, faced Lord Liverpool's Tory government, and the period 1815-20 saw a growth of radical agitation, protest movements and conspiracies. The extent to which these threatened the authorities has become a matter of historical controversy but what we can be sure of is that the government was genuinely concerned that this agitation had to be firmly resisted in order to avert possible revolution. Of the problems faced by the government, a number inevitably had their roots in the French wars. Twenty-two years of almost continuous fighting had left a legacy of high taxation. Demobilisation at the end of the war contributed to unemployment, as did the end of government war contracts. Other problems were rooted deeper in the past. We can find many causes of distress in the industrial and agricultural changes which had taken place over the previous century. The social and economic consequences of enclosures in the countryside and the arrival of factories in the towns were serious and lay at the root of much of the social discontent and economic upheaval in 1815. The 1815 Corn Law, which kept the price of wheat high by limiting foreign imports, aggravated these problems. This may have helped landowners' profits but it didn't help those in the lower classes who had to find the money for expensive bread. Middle-class opponents, too, disliked the Corn Law out of a belief in free trade - and in some cases, less nobly, out of a realisation that lower bread prices might justify them in paying lower wages. Catholics, Nonconformists and trade unionists also had grievances hanging over from earlier years. Not surprisingly, along with the general unrest came a renewal of demands for parliamentary reform, as both working-class and middle-class radicals found common ground in criticising the continuation of an archaic parliamentary system. The radicals were persistent critics of the government and the political system. They were particularly scathing about the existing system of taxation and corruption and privilege ('the Thing' in Cobbett's words). The radicals did have much to criticise in these years of high unemployment, growing industrial unrest and agricultural depression. Popular protest and riot were rife throughout the period. Luddite machine-breaking was revived between 1815 and 1817 as a protest against the machines of industrialisation, unemployment and wage reductions, especially in Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Midlands. In the countryside, 1816 was a particularly violent year, with waves of rioting and threshing machine destruction. Popular discontent and radical criticism helped to produce a number of other serious challenges to authority: the Spa Fields Riots (1816), the Blanketeers' March (1817), the Pentridge Rising (1817), the Peterloo Massacre (1819) and, in 1820, the Cato Street conspiracy to assassinate the Cabinet.

Radical agitation - The meaning of radicalism

The first problem to note is the difficulty in defining radicalism. The term meant different things at different times to different people. We only need to consider the radical of 1760 against the radical of 1830 to see how the definition of radicalism changed. Yet while specific issues and the social base of radicalism may have changed significantly during this period, there was a degree of continuity in radical ideas. Indeed, when presenting Chartist petitions to the House of Commons in 1842, Thomas Duncombe stated that 'those who were originally called radicals and afterwards reformers, are called Chartists.' The literal meaning of radicalism, to go back to the root of things, or return to first principles, continued to inform radical thought in many ways, most notably in appeals to a semi-mythical past golden age of a pure pre-capitalist society and Constitution. Arguably such views remained important until at least the mid-nineteenth century, and were present even in Chartist agitation. Against this degree of continuity, it is perhaps the fluidity of radicalism that is its most notable feature. The coherence of radicalism is a much debated issue, and historians' perception of the nature of radicalism has had an important influence on their interpretations of the relationship between radicalism and the State. For example, Jonathon Clark sees radicalism as a coherent ideology, with a solid core of Dissenters as supporters, aiming at the dismantling of the Anglican State. Clark's narrow definition, though, overlooks the varied positions that radicals adopted (both geographically and over time) and the contemporary issues that animated them; in other words such a stark dichotomy (between Dissenters and the established church) represents rival groups as having extreme and somewhat unrepresentative positions. Most importantly, Clark's conception of Radicalism, focused primarily on religion, underestimates the impact of working class Radicalism on the State in the period between 1812 and 1832. Clark did succeed in putting religion back into eighteenth century history, and his work should perhaps be viewed as an attempt to construct an analytical framework for studying radicalism. For historians have attempted to impose order out of the chaos of widely different definitions, conceptions and components surrounding radicalism. Recent research has if anything added to the complexity, for example, scholarly work indicating the piecemeal nature of industrialization has damaged 'class' interpretations, for working class consciousness was not easily formed when working class experiences differed so much and limited class formation (that is, the self-identification of individuals as belonging to working-class with common features and interests). While radicalism is clearly a complex phenomenon, and difficult to make generalizations about, one thing seems clear: by 1832 radical ideas had grown in importance, and the temporary, sporadic nature of eighteenth century radicalism had been replaced a widespread radical movement albeit spread throughout many different organizations. Radicalism retained something of the mentality of single issue politics but a higher degree of politicization and the growth of middle and working class political organizations ensured radical ideas were heard and supported by a wider audience.

Why was the Old Poor Law unable to tackle the new problems of industrial society in the United Kingdom?

The rapid rise in population and declining employment and wages in the countryside and irregular employment in towns meant that many parishes were finding it very difficult to deal with the number of people seeking relief. The end of the French wars led to a very congested labour market, and the Corn Law deepened the misery by raising prices further. Parishes were too small and the Settlement Laws too inflexible to keep pace with the social and economic changes of a more fluid, labour-mobile industrial economy.

O'Connell and Catholic Emancipation - Catholic relief and Daniel O'Connell

The renewal of often heated debate over the extent to which penal laws against Catholics should be repealed - so-called 'Catholic relief' - proved a crucial development in the 1820s. 'Catholic emancipation' later became the favoured term in an echo of the ongoing campaign to free, or 'emancipate' slaves. There had been some modification of the penal laws against Catholics throughout Great Britain since the 1770s; indeed, one important relief act had sparked off the Gordon Riots in 1780. Further relief came in 1791 but many civil disabilities, notably the barring of Catholics from Parliament, had remained. While popular protest against penal laws against Catholics had been gathering force throughout the United Kingdom in the course of the 1820s, it was especially marked in Ireland, which had lost its own Parliament and become part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1800. It was there, in 1823, that the barrister Daniel O'Connell had founded the Catholic Association, whose aim was to further the cause of Irish Catholicism and Irish nationalism by persuading or forcing the government to repeal both the remaining penal laws against Catholics and the 1800 Act of Union. O'Connell promoted non-violent political methods, using the influence of public opinion rather than the threat of violence to achieve his aims. O'Connell was not known as the 'Liberator' for nothing—his commitment to civil rights was absolute and universal, and he believed in unshackling the fetters of inequalities and tyrannies of every kind. His radicalism emphasised human rights and religious freedom but in private he extolled the Catholic cause. O'Connell was completely easy in his own sense of nationality. His Gaelic upbringing meant that his conception of Irish national identity was applied to all inhabitants, Catholics, Protestants and Dissenters, of the island. The decline of Gaelic did not worry O'Connell. For him, the Irish nation simply meant all the inhabitants of Ireland as an aggregate. He said 'Ireland is no less a nation without its own language'. Political equality for Irish Catholics within the United Kingdom was his particular manifestation of a general and absolute principle. His advocacy of Repeal of the Act of Union was a non-revolutionary discourse, which eased British fears but appealed to Irish nationalists. It is doubtful if O'Connell ever embraced the idea of total separation from Great Britain. He believed in a form of devolution in Great Britain possessing separate legislatures, alongside an imperial parliament. Parity between the nations in the kingdom was the key to his thinking and underpinned his support for Repeal, Catholic Emancipation, and civil rights. O'Connell's work made it impossible for the government to sweep the emancipation issue under the carpet. O'Connell apart, events in Ireland were in the 1820s worsening with anti-British secret societies flourishing and violence increasing. The Catholic Association had a small membership but by O'Connell's astute management, membership was extended to all who paid a small levy of a penny a month. This became known as the 'Catholic Rent' and was collected by local priests. It opened membership to the Irish peasantry. Even after the Catholic Association was outlawed, O'Connell set up a new association named the Order of Liberation. O'Connell managed to unite the priesthood, middle class, and peasantry to press for Catholic Emancipation. At the 1826 General Election, Irish Catholic voters were persuaded and coerced into voting for liberal, pro-Emancipation candidates, albeit Protestant ones, in order to give Emancipation prominence. Standing for and winning the County Clare by-election in 1828, called for the purpose of electing Vesey Fitzgerald, a Protestant landowner, to a government office, O'Connell's victory, supported by the resources and support of the Catholic Association, altered the political landscape and made Catholic Emancipation all but inevitable. The small farmers, the 40 shilling freeholders, had the right to vote and their votes for O'Connell threw the Wellington Government into disarray, for it was clearly not going to be possible to deny O'Connell his seat without triggering a violent reaction.

The terms of the Reform Act

The terms of the Act were somewhat complicated but can be divided into two areas of redistribution of seats, and changes in the terms of enfranchisement. In terms of redistribution of seats, in the boroughs, those with less than 2,000 inhabitants lost all separate representation, and boroughs with a population between 2,000 and 4,000 lost one of their two seats. These measures resulted in the disfranchisement of fifty-six boroughs with thirty boroughs reduced to single member constituencies. Many boroughs had their boundaries widened. Twenty-two new boroughs were established, meaning that important new industrial areas like Birmingham were enfranchised, and twenty new smaller boroughs returning one member each were established. No borough possessed more than two members, regardless of the number of inhabitants—this rule indicated it was not the representation of numbers that the system sought to represent. In the counties there were sixty-five additional seats in the redistribution, with twenty-five counties seeing their representation double. Areas North of the River Trent gained 110 additional seats, but in terms of population and wealth, the South was still over-represented. In terms of voter qualification, the borough franchise was made uniform by giving the vote to all male householders who held a rental value of £10. The county franchise, the old 40s. freehold franchise was retained and was extended to include £10 copyholders and £50 tenants-at-will. The overall electorate eligible to vote increased from approximately 435,000 to 652,000, and a register of electors was introduced though its use was undermined by the fees that were payable and the lack of monitoring by eligible electors. The main Reform Act for England and Wales was accompanied by separate Acts for Scotland and Ireland. The separate historical identities of England, Scotland and Ireland were perpetuated in their electoral arrangements. The impact on Ireland was to restore many leaseholders to the electoral franchise, since Catholic Emancipation had been accompanied by the disenfranchisement of the Irish 40s freeholders, which was approximately 80% of the Irish electorate. The Act enfranchised £10 householders in the boroughs and added five seats. The reform in Scotland was much more important. Before 1832, the Scottish electorate was little more than 5,000 people. The Reform Act raised this number to 65,000, with extensive redistribution and new franchises. Edinburgh and Glasgow became two member burghs, and Dundee, Aberdeen, Perth, Paisley and Greenock became single member burghs. Smaller towns were grouped into districts with single members. Many anomalies remained connected with the method of voting as no reform was made regarding the secret ballot, and open voting, bribery, patronage and corruption continued after 1832. As Gash has pointed out, there was scarcely a feature of the old unreformed system that could not be found in existence after 1832. Pocket boroughs, the preserves of particularly families survived, as did corrupt boroughs. Fundamentally, this arose from there being no legal limit for election expenditure. (Gash, Politics in the Age of Peel) In some ways, the extension of the county representation and the continued under-representation of industrial areas entrenched some of these practices—though to regard the counties as areas in which the crude economic pressure of the landlord class was the only factor of weight would be a gross over-simplification. There was however no payment of members which almost guaranteed continued Parliamentary domination by landed Members. The class composition of the Commons did not in the immediate aftermath alter significantly with most members coming from the landed class and its patrons.

The 'new look' or 'liberal' Tories, 1821-23

The traditions of Toryism embodied in Liverpool's government owed much to Pitt: unflinching support for the war against France, and defence of the established constitution in Church and State, as opposed to Whig rhetoric of peace, reform, and progress. Boyd Hilton has argued that Lord Liverpool's administration is often divided into two periods. The first consisted of the prolonged Cabinet reshuffle of 1821-3, which coincided with a period of great disorder in the country, and the second between 1823 and 1827 which is sometimes termed a great period of enlightened liberal reforms, including reform of the criminal justice system, commercial rationalisation and reform, and a liberal turn in foreign affairs. This artificial periodisation is deemed by Hilton to be no longer acceptable for many of the policy reforms and the general thrust of liberal reform was already apparent in earlier years. The ministers promoted in 1821-3 had held influential positions before they took office, and two of the Ministers most associated with the earlier period (Sidmouth and Vansittart) continued to serve in Cabinet following their demotion. There was, therefore, a great deal more continuity than previously considered. The latter period of Liverpool's Ministry was termed by the historian W. R. Brock the 'Liberal Tory' period. It is a term that must be used with care for it is difficult to be precise when talking of political ideas in a particular historical context. The early 1820s have often been seen as a key period when the Tory party turned from reactionary towards more 'liberal' policies, giving rise to the phrase 'liberal Tories'. The Liverpool Government had survived the post-war slump and deep social unrest and in some cases, disorder. So, how far did 1822 mark a decisive change in Liverpool's government? The simplistic interpretation is to see repression up to about 1822 and then the emergence of a more liberal brand of Toryism, heralding a period of reform. According to this view, the Tory party ultimately lost its way when liberals and reactionaries fell out at the end of the 1820s and so allowed the opposition Whigs to take advantage and force them out of office. Like many simplistic views, this does have elements of truth in it. The emergence into high office of Canning, Peel, Robinson and Huskisson certainly gave the government a new image, which we can call 'liberal'. However, probably more important than changes in personnel in giving the administration a more 'liberal' outlook was the improvement in the economy and the success of the administration's fiscal policies. The years 1822-25 saw an economic boom, making possible reductions in indirect taxes. Most historians of the period now agree that a 'new look' did not necessarily imply a transition from reactionary to liberal rule. Virtually all the new appointees had served the administration before 1822 and their supposedly reactionary predecessors had actually given thought to many of the reforms linked with the new men. Historian Asa Briggs has written: 'The bright new look of the Liverpool government was not an illusion, but neither was it the first move in a political conjuring act' (Briggs, 1979). Norman Gash speaks of Lord Liverpool re-organising 'his crew for a voyage that had already started' (Gash, 1990). The big change of 1822 was little other than the alteration of the personal balance within the government. This certainly helped to give greater impact to policy initiatives, notably the work of Peel and Huskisson, which took the Tories along a less reactionary road - eventually culminating in the Tamworth Manifesto of 1834 which accepted moderate parliamentary reform and the anticipated free-trade measures of 1841-46. However, none of this represented anything approaching an ideological conversion in Liverpool's government. The changes in personnel did eventually led to greater divisions within the administration, with Canningite and anti-Canningite groupings emerging after 1827. As Hilton has argued, continuity in personnel did not elude the possibility of 'ideological divisions between the ministers' and as subsequent events were to show, this was clearly the case.

Tory and Whig divisions

Tories were stronger in sentiment than in organization. The old traditions of Church and King were enshrined within new administrative efficiency, in the memory of Pitt. There was a strong Tory dislike of the Whigs, and great suspicion of their actions. Tory support came from the Church and smaller landed proprietors, but they also gained a considerable following among the commercial classes in the larger towns. Notably, the Tory aristocracy did not lead their party as the Whig aristocracy led the Whig party. Liverpool's ability to hold together the discordant elements of the Tory party had been personal. With his withdrawal from political life, divisions began to appear, factions which had existed for many years but which had been managed by Liverpool. There were four major elements in the Tory party: - A pro-Corn Law faction which sought to maintain the landed interest at all costs - Followers of William Huskisson who recognised the importance of industrial and commercial expansion through free trade measures - Traditional Tories who would consider supporting administrative reforms but not alterations in Church and State - Ultra-Tories who were rigidly opposed to reform The most important 'fault line', eventually so wide that the Whigs were able to drive through it with a parliamentary reform agenda, was that dividing 'liberal' Tories or Canningites from 'high' or Ultra Tories as they grew increasingly disenchanted with government policies. By 1830, Wellington's administration faced hostility on the one side from the liberal Canningite wing (although Canning himself had died by this time) and on the other from the hard-line Protestants of the Ultra wing. The Whigs had their own problems of disunity and hardly seemed like the government-in-waiting expected of 'His Majesty's Opposition' (a term just coming into use). In 1826, one of their leaders, George Tierney, had admitted to a colleague that as a force Whigs were virtually 'extinct'. While the Tories enjoyed the fruits of office in the 1820s, the great divisions within the party ultimately proved to be the crucial element in the party's evolution. There was great suspicion of Canning within the Tory party, for although his talents and ambition were recognized, and complemented by honour and loyalty, his lack of landed property was a serious handicap. The Duke of Rutland described Canning's supporters as 'political theorists without a foot of land of their own in the country'. (Brock) Canning divided opinion in an already fairly divided Tory party. The High Tories, led by Wellington, Eldon, and Sidmouth frequently had the support of George IV and always had the support of the Duke of York. Earlier, with the death of Castlereagh, and against the opposition of George IV, Canning was appointed Foreign Secretary but this only occurred because an important letter passed from Wellington praising Canning and reassuring the King that he was 'safe'. With this recommendation, Canning succeeded to the posts of Foreign Secretary and leader of the House of Commons. George IV had given his opinion of Canning to Madame Lieven: 'I recognize his talent, and I believe we need him in the House of Commons; but he is no more capable of conducting foreign affairs than your baby'.

The Great Reform Act and its impact - The Whig proposals

Until 1832, most Britons had no say in who they were governed by. The Great Reform act changed that by reforming the representative system of the country. The reform proposals of the Whigs were not hastily planned but Whigs such as Grey and Russell had been committed to Parliamentary Reform for many years. In fact, Grey had accepted the responsibility of government conditional upon the King's acceptance of a Reform Bill. A Committee of Whig aristocratic reformers consisting of Lord John Russell, Lord Durham, Lord Althorp, and Lord Brougham, framed the Bill with the remit to produce a practical measure to meet objections to the existing system, and secure the State against any revolutionary change. It was a difficult balance to achieve, to try and placate property-owners while satisfying radical and working class opinion. The reform measure proposed a reduction in the number of pocket and rotten boroughs, and extended representation to the growing industrial and manufacturing towns. By redistributing seats and extending and consolidating the various franchises, the proposed Bill was to some too far-reaching, while to others it did not go far enough. The Bill was introduced into the Commons on 1 March 1831 and provoked a major political crisis. The Second Reading passed in a febrile political atmosphere by 302 to 301 votes but the defeat of the Government at the Committee stage indicated that the Opposition intended to mutilate the Bill. The Cabinet decided on resignation and another General Election on the basis of their reform proposals. The 1831 General Election was therefore clear cut, being fought on Reform proposals. The Tories were routed at the Election which returned the Whigs with a comfortable majority. In the event, the (urban) large boroughs returned Reformers, but more surprisingly, so did the (rural) counties. In June 1831, a slightly amended version of the Bill was carried by a majority of 136, but on 8 October the House of Lords rejected it by 199 to 158 votes. Rejection provoked riots in Bristol, Derby and Nottingham, mob attacks on the houses of anti-reformers, and widespread demonstrations. Even the law-abiding middle-classes were roused to furious outrage at the intransigence of the Lords, and the number of Reform and Political Unions multiplied in the aftermath. There was a dangerous aspect to much of the agitation, and not all of it was politically-motivated. Reform disorder contained many other elements, including a variety of local grievances and industrial disputes. The country had reached a dangerous impasse and the Whigs had to find a way to break the deadlock. After months of continued unrest and disorder, another revised Bill was introduced, only to be rejected by the Lords again. Grey asked the King to introduce fifty new peers so that the Bill could pass the intractable House of Lords. The King refused and fatally chose to accept Grey's resignation, and attempted to install a Tory Government to carry a more moderate Reform Bill. It appeared that Britain might be on the verge of revolution as mass demonstrations continued and gained in intensity in the large manufacturing towns. The Commons resolved that they would not accept any Reform Bill less extensive than that of the Whigs' proposals, and Wellington abandoned the attempt to carry a moderate Bill. The Whigs were reinstated with the promise of new peerage creations if necessary. No one wanted this, especially the peers, since it would have degraded the peerage by making it a political instrument of the monarch. Under extreme pressure, enough Tory peers yielded for the Bill to pass the Second Reading in the Lords by 184 to 175 votes on 13 April 1832. The Tory opposition had finally crumbled, and the Reform Act received Royal Assent on 7 June 1832 leading to great celebrations throughout the country.

What did the Reform Act change and what did it not change in the electoral system?

While the Reform Act changed the electoral shape of Britain by enfranchising more people, though it was only a small increase, and by creating more representative constituencies and correcting regional imbalances between urban and rural areas and between North and South, there remained many areas of the electoral system untouched by the reform process. The franchise remained on a propertied basis, there was no secret ballot, and pocket boroughs remained vibrant if not so extensive as in the past. Women remained completely excluded from the electoral system. There was also no payment of MPs, so Parliament remained dominated by men of wealth, predominantly from the landed interest, with some industrial and commercial wealth increasingly apparent. Most features of the unreformed system were still in existence after 1832 albeit in some cases in an attenuated form.

The impact of the Reform Act

While the Reform Act was far from what could be considered democratic, to contemporaries, and in the context of the representative system then existing, it appeared far reaching. Yet there was no revolutionary change in the distribution of power. Nowhere near universal suffrage, for women were specifically excluded, and a complex variety of franchise qualifications remained. The aristocracy remained dominant within the political system, and the power, authority and prestige of the landed classes was not seriously challenged. The survival of proprietary boroughs had guaranteed an early entry into politics for young men of talent, especially for those with ability but lacking either wealth or popularity. Notable examples included Pitt the elder, Pitt the younger, Edmund Burke, and George Canning. Despite clear indications of a decline in aristocratic influence in many constituencies, pocket boroughs survived the Reform Act, and it can scarcely be maintained that aristocratic influence exerted through proprietary boroughs was negligible after 1832. Even after 1832, nearly fifty boroughs and well over sixty members depended on the great influence of peers and landowners in England and Wales alone. Yet the great age of borough proprietors had passed, and nobody now could return six, five, or even four members to the Commons. While the Reform Act did not result in a huge, representative electorate, the symbolic importance of the Act was immense, and the consequences of it as a landmark on the way to a democratic state were important. The Act paved the way for a substantial change in party organization which over time would shape the political system of Victorian Britain. One of the more significant aspects of the entire Reform episode related to the constitutional implications. The Commons, backed and propelled by public opinion, had forced the King and the House of Lords to accept a measure they opposed. The supremacy of the House of Commons over the upper chamber was demonstrated, although not finally confirmed until the twentieth century. For historians such as Jonathan Clark, the Reform Act amounted to a revolution in State institutions. Others such as E. P. Thompson saw the Reform Act in terms of divide and rule tactics by the aristocracy, incorporating the middle classes within the political system while excluding the working class and marginalising the radicals. Perhaps a more balanced view is to see the Act as underpinned by the Whigs aim to create a compromise piece of legislation that recognized the legitimacy of new interests alongside preservation of the best features of the old system. This the Whigs achieved, reinforcing aristocracy and defeating democracy. The leading Whig Charles Wood famously and perhaps accurately viewed the Reform Act as 'an efficient, substantial, anti-democratic and pro-property measure'. While the number of members from the commercial, financial and banking sectors were no more in 1832 than they had been before, over time, inroads were made and more middle-class men, including industrialists and manufacturers, entered Parliament. A new generation of commercial and industrial members did in time emerge, and their status and influence increased in following decades. The Commons was reasonably flexible in its social composition, facilitating the rise of the middle classes, and more responsive to public opinion through pressure groups. The change in personnel in some respects filtered through to the issues which Parliament considered, and more legislation of the 1830s and 1840s concerned regulation of industry, whether in mines, factories and mills, and social and public health reform.

What were the main features of agricultural change between 1812 and 1832? In what ways did agriculture become more efficient?

Enclosure of land led to higher yields, greater efficiency and less wastage. More mixed farming was practised, and there was a greater use of new agriculture techniques though technological innovation was limited in scope. Population increase was significant in rural areas, but was offset by the migration of a significant portion of the rural population to the industrial towns. With a plentiful labour supply outstripping demand, there was general reduction of wages among agricultural labourers.

Why were the humanitarian and religious arguments for the abolition of the slave trade?

Evangelicals saw slavery as sinful, and it was saving souls of slaves rather than their material well-being that mattered most, for it was necessary for men to be able to achieve salvation. Although humanitarianism was often informed by religious sentiment it was largely based on Enlightenment thought and abhorrence at the nature of the trade. Intrinsic to progressive thought particularly to those who stressed natural rights but also contained Benthamite arguments of Utilitarian expediency and justification.

The Old Poor Law to 1834

In the last decades of the eighteenth century, the Old Poor Law was coming under increasingly severe pressure. The steady deterioration of life for rural labourers and the accelerating growth of the industrial centres in the North and Midlands were two factors which created serious problems for local parishes. War-time inflation exacerbated the problem, as did occasional poor harvests, and by the end of the war in 1815 the Old Poor Law was under even greater pressure. Factors previously looked at that contributed to popular unrest and protest, such as the return of demobilised soldiers, the introduction of the Corn Laws, and ongoing industrialisation, made it progressively harder for the existing system to cope. Very much at the heart of the problem was the rapid rise in population, which in England climbed from 8.3 million in 1801 to 13 million in 1831. Declining employment and wages in the countryside and often irregular employment in the towns meant that many parishes were finding it very hard to deal with the numbers of people seeking relief. Critics, on the one hand, argued for a more humanitarian approach and, on the other, as Poor Rates increased, called for a more efficient and cost-effective approach. The ending of the French wars in 1815 made living conditions worse for the unemployed and low-waged. As a quarter of a million servicemen returned to civilian life many found employment impossible to find, especially in the rural South, and so were often forced to live 'off the parish'. There was also a post-war trade depression that hit the industrial North and Midlands particularly hard. This was the time that many handloom weavers began to suffer from industrial competition and so added their numbers to those forced to seek parish relief. In addition, the Corn Law of 1815 kept bread prices higher than they probably would have been without such a protectionist measure. Prices were considerably higher during and immediately after the wars than they had been in the mid-eighteenth century. The rises then can be partially explained by inflation but there is no doubt that the Corn Law played a significant part in making prices higher than market rate, and thus it became a symbol of post-war repression. Politicians and public intellectuals, such as the Reverend Thomas Malthus, had been questioning the ability of the Elizabethan Poor Law to cope since the last quarter of the eighteenth century, but with the post-war problems making the situation so much worse, they started to look with much more urgency. Parliamentary Select Committees were set up in 1817 and 1824 to look into poverty and labourers' wages. There were four immediate difficulties: - The parish was too small and ineffective as an administrative unit and most couldn't afford the option of establishing and maintaining a workhouse. - Under the Settlement Law of 1662 birth or residence was a prerequisite for parish relief but this was often impossible to enforce and ran counter to a need for freedom of movement as a more industrial economy developed. - Parishes in London and the large urban areas found it increasingly difficult to cope with a flooding mass of poor, many of whom got lost in an anonymous underclass hidden from public view. - Social strains in overpopulated traditional villages were ever-increasing. Reform of the system was long overdue, as a means of keeping pace with the rapid social and economic changes which had come in the wake of industrialisation. It was not long before the Whigs tackled the issue but their solution raised as many problems as it solved.

Religious influences

Nonconformist groups in Britain and America played a central role in the late eighteenth-century anti-slavery crusade. They would be joined by Christian Evangelicals from the Anglican faith and its late-century offshoot, Methodism. Although some Quakers actually owned or had financial interests in slave-trading ships and a few in the American colonies had actually owned slaves, they were at the forefront of the anti-slavery crusade both in Britain and in the American colonies. In 1727 the London Meeting of the Society of Friends (the official name of the Quakers) passed a resolution condemning the ownership of slaves and the slave trade. By the 1750s the Quakers of Philadelphia (still a British colony) had joined in the attack and it was they, through close correspondence with fellow Quakers and Dissenters in London, who did most to bring some coordination and organisation to the anti-slavery movement on both sides of the Atlantic. In 1783 the British Quakers organised the first petition to Parliament calling for the total abolition of the slave trade. Christian Evangelicals took up the debate against the slave trade started by the Quakers. They were a group within the Church of England, but they were less concerned about the Anglican Church as an institution than about the saving of souls in the afterlife. Their religious piety was often expressed in the humanitarian activities that you looked at earlier but the terms Evangelicalism and humanitarianism are not interchangeable. Evangelicals essentially saw slavery as sinful. It was saving the souls of the downtrodden slaves (and their masters) rather than their material well-being that mattered most. Without freedom, slaves could not be certain of salvation. Abolition was therefore necessary for all participants if they were to live good lives and, most importantly, ultimately reach heaven. Among early Evangelical activists were Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson. Most activists were laymen and women rather than members of the clergy. A prominent group was the Clapham Sect, made up of friends and families who attended the Holy Trinity Church on Clapham Common, London. William Wilberforce and Granville Sharp were of their number. Known to outsiders at the time as 'the Saints', they were given their name of the Clapham Sect retrospectively in the 1840s. Among those linked to the Evangelicals but not strictly one of them was John Wesley, the English founder of Methodism, whose 1774 tract, Thoughts on Slavery, securely tied the increasingly influential Methodists to the anti-slavery cause. Evangelicals were ready to cooperate with Dissenters and humanitarians without religious commitments - for example, free-thinking radicals and utilitarians.

The Reform movement outside Parliament

One debate that has exercised historians concerns the extent to which the middle and working classes worked together in the resurgence of the reform movement at the end of the 1820s. However, it is important to point out here that there was neither a uniform middle class nor a uniform working class. Within the middle classes there were many different ends envisaged for a reformed Parliament. While dissatisfaction with the existing political structure was mainly based on the belief that a more industry-friendly government approach to the economy would produce more dependable profits, this didn't mean that all in the middle classes favoured the same solutions. Popular radicals such as Cobbett, ostensibly representing as they did the generality of the population, found allies in some of these more cautious middle-class reformers. However, it would be wrong to say that the middle and lower-class radicals were necessarily always at one in their calls for parliamentary reform. Middle-class manufacturing leaders' calls for reform were often not democratic or in tune with popular radicalism. Indeed, in many areas where there were calls for parliamentary reform from both middle and working classes, there was mutual mistrust and even hostility between, for example, masters and operatives in the mills. The result was that there was often no cooperation between them. One region, though, where there was close harmony between the middle and lower classes was Birmingham and the Midlands. It was in Birmingham in December 1829 that Thomas Attwood set up the Birmingham Political Union of the Lower and Middle Classes of the People, usually abbreviated to the Birmingham Political Union (BPU). Attwood was a wealthy banker with a family background in the Midlands iron trade. Like many other parliamentary reformers, he saw reform as a means to an end. However, where Cobbett and others saw this end as bettering the situation of the people through universal manhood suffrage, Attwood's main objective was actually currency reform to allow more flexible credit and wider use of paper money. He saw this as achievable only with a reformed parliamentary system that allowed the middle classes full participation in the parliamentary process. Despite his limited commitment to change, Attwood won considerable working-class backing in Birmingham where there was a high level of cooperation between the middle and working classes. While he proclaimed himself a Tory, this didn't stop Attwood from seeking 'to bring all to unite in one common bond of union together' with the aim of parliamentary reform. As he said: 'The interests of masters and men are, in fact, one. If the masters flourish, the men flourish with them'. In the Midlands then, the slump of the late 1820s forged what historian Eric Evans has called 'a potent alliance between one section of the middle class, supporting Attwood's call for economic reform, and much the most articulate and literate section of the working people - the artisans - to secure a political remedy for economic grievances' (Evans, 2001). On the national stage, Attwood secured the support of Cobbett and Burdett among others to present a broad-based approach to pressing for reform. By June 1830 there were another 10 political unions across Great Britain. However, while Attwood (against a background of the small workshop structures - rather than large-scale factories - of Birmingham where masters and men worked closely together) could represent the BPU as 'a general political union between the lower and middle classes of the people', this couldn't necessarily be done elsewhere. In the cotton towns of the north, for example, social and economic divisions between employers and workers were sharper, and political unions and political agitation tended to be much more class-based. Even Attwood, despite claiming common cause with the workers, still saw middle-class leadership of the BPU as essential. 'Who would ever think of sending even a disciplined army into the field without officers?' he argued. The point has been well made that as much as anything it was the fear generated by the prospect of a class alliance that provided impetus for reform. The coming together of diverse critics of the unreformed system was something of which the Tories were very fearful. Eric Evans writes that the: 'belief that continued resistance to reform would provoke violence persuaded many MPs to support parliamentary reform, though more out of fear than conviction' (Evans, 2001).

Why did radicals make the connection between economic distress and parliamentary reform? Explain your answer.

Radicals pointed to the 1815 Corn Law which kept the price of bread high, and the post-war economic depression which was met by the government with indifference. Repressive legislation and a harsh stance towards protests and demonstrations highlighted the need for a more representative Parliament to respond to the needs of the population and to represent all interests, not just the landowners and nosiness elites. It was the connection between economic distress and political negligence which informed Chartism in the late 1830s.

Positive effects of industrialisation

You are looking at the process of change and its impact. Few would deny that industrialisation was in many ways a force for bad, bringing misery and hardship in its wake and leading to much in the way of protest and violence. However, this must not lead us to see it in a totally negative light, and it is well to emphasise the positive features of change as a corrective. There were several important advantages of industrialisation. Greater wealth could be created by the improvement in production processes and yields. The middle class of entrepreneurs, industrialists, merchants and manufacturers, who were intimately involved in the production, distribution and exchange of industrial products all prospered. While the lot of the working man could be grinding poverty and hardship, it has been convincingly argued that over time industrialisation brought about an increase in the standard of living. To sustain such a view is difficult given the regional and skill variation throughout the industrial sectors, and indeed the debate as to the working-class standard of living centres on the applicability of higher living standards for the entire working class or only portions of it. Industrialisation also brought about the growth of trade unions, for with men working closely together, there was a clearer identification of class interests which facilitated cooperation over pay and working conditions, and allowed them to act as one body.

What was the connection between 'Old Corruption' and parliamentary reform?

'Old Corruption' was a term used to describe the insatiable appetite for power and money of a privileged group, consisting of a self-serving elite and their clients who dispensed the favours, jobs, and funds which the political system provided in the form of patronage, to their friends and political allies. As these activities did not represent the will of the people nor were they in the interest of the vast majority of the population, for the radicals these type of activities exemplified the close connection between the unreformed political system and corruption and patronage.

Summary of Topic 3 - Social developments

- Continuing industrialisation brought rapid economic growth but also social turmoil and widespread unemployment - Some rural communities were merged into new industrial landscapes - The growth in population and movement towards the industrial North created large urban centres - Rapid urbanisation resulted in poor, overcrowded conditions for the labouring classes, which the Government failed to tackle - There was no duty of care for the workforce and working conditions were often very bad and dangerous - There was no social security system for the low paid and unemployed and the locally-based system of poor relief was unable to cope - There were several positive effects of industrialisation such as greater opportunities for wealth creation, the ability to sustain a larger population, and it is generally accepted that in broad terms the standard of living for most workers increased though a large underclass of the labouring poor was created - There were many aspects of agricultural and industrial change that caused discontent among the working classes which led to protests which sometimes turned violent - Unrest decreased as the economy improved in the 1820s

Summary of Topic 4 - Pressure for Change

- Luddism was a reaction to mechanisation - Machine-breaking occurred mainly between 1811 and 1816, in mills and factories across the East Midlands, South Lancashire and West Yorkshire. - The 'Swing Riots' in Kent, Norfolk and Hampshire were a reaction to rural unemployment and the introduction of new machinery - Radical agitation with popular orators moved towards mass meetings - The abolition of slavery and the slave trade was achieved only after a long campaign - Methodism was a force for stability in bringing religion to some working class areas - Trade unionism was in its early stages of development and there limits to what could be achieved and all attempts at a 'General Union' of workers failed - Robert Owen was an early pioneer of socialism in Britain - Owen aimed at improving the moral and social position of the working class

Summary of Topic 2 - Economic developments

- The British economy continued to flourish in the early years of the nineteenth century, in spite of the long and costly wars with France. The growth can be measured by looking at the production figures for cotton, iron and coal. There was an overall increase in production that was largely due to the increasing use of steam power. - Industrialisation spread to parts of the country previously untouched by the process and more industries were mechanised. - By 1812, agriculture had been transformed into an industry and was vibrant in the years toward the end of the French wars but encountered difficulties in the post-war period. - The process of enclosure, longer leases, the legacy of the eighteenth-century agricultural improvers and the invention of gifted farm employees contributed to changes in farming and foreshadowed agricultural advances later in the nineteenth century. - The Tory Government of Lord Liverpool pursued economic policies which were characterised by free trade principles though there were limits to this process.

Summary of Topic 1 - Government, 1812-1830

- There was no obvious or clear successor to Lord Liverpool as Prime Minister - Canning's appointment as Prime Minister split the Tories as he was regarded as too liberal and lacking landed credentials - Goderich was too weak to form a viable or long-lasting administration - The Duke of Wellington was too authoritarian and anti-reform to be able to hold together the different Tory factions - Peel wanted to include Huskisson and the Canningites as their ideas were in tune with popular feeling - The repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts was a highly-divisive issues for the Tories - As Home Secretary, Peel was responsible for the establishment of the Metropolitan Police Force - The issue of Catholic Emancipation was highly-contentious - Daniel O'Connell and the Catholic Association raised the problems of Irish Catholics, and the County Clare election forced the issue of Catholic Emancipation on to the political agenda - The passing of Catholic Emancipation destroyed the unity of the Tory Party - A renewed interest in parliamentary reform was apparent in the country, supported by the Whigs, who feared deepening unrest if the question were ignored - Wellington resigned and the Whigs returned to power under Earl Grey but the Wellington administration had introduced several long-lasting reforms

In what ways were Robert Owen's views a reaction against the industrial system and an attempt to improve working conditions?

Answers should allude to Owen's idealism and compassion for humanity but also his practical experience and success as a businessman and industrialist. The communal way of life was perhaps visionary and unrealizable in the nineteenth century but Owen achieved a considerable amount and his intellectual legacy was great in promoting ideas of cooperation, self-help, and thrift, and some of his ideas assumed institutional form in subsequent decades with the emergence of the cooperative movement. Clearly, Owenism was a reaction to the worst features of the industrial revolution and the industrial system, and while certainly attempting to improve working conditions, Owen also saw his views as possibly providing a new basis for organizing society on a new basis, and in these terms was one of the pioneers of socialism in Britain.

Methodism, early socialism and the ideas of Robert Owen - John Wesley and the origins of Methodism

As an alternative to the established Anglican Church, Methodism took root in England and Wales in the earlier part of the eighteenth century. The Evangelical features of emotionalism, highly moralistic preaching and an intensely-held personal faith were on full display among Methodists. Evangelicalism emerged and reinvigorated a segment of the church of England, and spurred on a dynamic new denomination in the form of Methodism. Founded by John Wesley (1703-1791), Methodism was initially a movement within the Anglican Church for those who were soul-searching and who were seeking salvation from sin through the Church as a means of achieving spiritual re-birth. On breaking with the Anglican Church, Methodism increasingly developed into a social force for philanthropic works due to its instruction to its followers to lead active, selfless lives. Born in rural Lincolnshire, Wesley's father was an Anglican clergyman. Attending Oxford, Wesley along with others formed a 'hold club' dedicated to regular prayer, study, fasting and charitable work. The regular habits of this group earned them the nickname 'Methodists'. Experiencing a crisis of faith in his thirties, Wesley, on a visit to Georgia, was impressed by the Moravians he encountered and their calm and simple religiosity. This attribute and the Moravian emphasis on personal salvation set the tone for him for the rest of his life. Suitably enthused on his return, Wesley travelled the country as an itinerant preacher exhorting people to find their own will and sense of purpose in life. He was said to have delivered 40,000 sermons, frequently facing hostile mobs; he, his brother Charles, and the great orator George Whitefield were very effective in converting people. His was a message of self-empowerment with an emphasis on respectability, thrift, discipline, a strong work ethic, and a belief in social equality. By the 1780s there were over 80,000 Wesleyan Methodists in Britain. In the 1790s Methodism took off and numbers grew rapidly to approximately 350,000 by 1812, though in reality active membership was probably about half that number. Methodism tended to grow in areas where industrial development intersected with Dissent from the Established Church in areas like the textile towns and villages of Yorkshire and mid-Wales and the coal-fields of South East Wales. Wesley left behind him in different localities 'classes', that is, small societies of people who would provide moral exhortation and support for the local community. In this way, his itinerant preaching left a permanent mark on communities. Methodism was an intensely personal theology, with an emphasis on the direct relationship between the individual and God. The rather austere theology, which frowned upon popular cultural activities like gambling, drinking, and dancing, as well as inhumane 'sports' like bull-baiting and cock-fighting, led its followers towards philanthropy and good works, but Methodists were also accused of being humourless and censorious. Socially, Methodism appeared to appeal to all classes, except the highest and lowest. From the gentry to industrial workers, Methodism made converts. During the French Revolution, Wesley's ideas were looked on by the governing classes more favourably as a buttress to the social order. In expounding values of duty, work and thrift, Methodism promoted what would become orthodox Victorian values but which were important to commercial and industrial life in the eighteenth century. Some early Methodists who applied the principles of Wesleyan preaching very literally became wealthy industrialists and manufacturers, like Sir Josiah Guest, MP for Merthyr Tydfil in 1832. Industrialists and manufacturers saw that Methodism helped tame the rough habits and mind-sets of the pre-industrial labouring poor, helping to transform them into an orderly and regular workforce. Wesleyan Sunday Schools taught children the importance of regular, sober, and industrious habits. For the poor, the attractions of Methodism were complex. Wesley remained a Tory throughout his life and, believing in the ordained nature of social hierarchy, he thought people should bear their suffering in this world and concentrate on the rewards in the next world. Offering solace in hard times, and community involvement and engagement, were especially important at a time of rapid social and economic change which was eroding the traditional supports of communal life. Methodism also promoted a spirit of equality and independence. Wesley preached to all of the people, and above all taught the equality of men in the eyes of God. To members of the Anglican church, Methodists were regarded as dangerous in having radical tendencies, though the Methodists put a lot of effort into trying to convince the establishment that they were loyal subjects. After Wesley's death, the movement splintered, with a more radical element, the Primitive Methodists, focussed on a radical, working class congregation, emerging in response to the increasing conservatism of the orthodox Methodists. In 1811, Lord Sidmouth as Home Secretary attempted to introduce a Bill requiring Dissenters, including Methodist, preachers, to be licensed only if their respectability could be vouched for. The subsequent uproar led to the proposed Bill being withdrawn. Overall, Methodism appears to have been a force for stability in channelling working class discontent into non-violent areas. The French historian Halevy, perhaps overstating the case, argued that Methodism was a factor preventing revolution in Britain. It is perhaps more accurate to see Methodism as helping to divert the revolutionary threat by channelling some of the energy of popular discontent into safe outlets. In the long-term, Methodism helped the British working class organise itself, and by promoting ideas of equality and independence, had a profound long-term impact on British working class politics.

The nature of the 'Industrial Revolution'

As several historians have pointed out, industrialisation was a continuing process, not a sudden one, continuing for the best part of a century from at least 1780 if not earlier. Sir John Clapham, in his Economic History of Modern Britain attacked the idea that the cotton industry was totally dominant in the process of industrialisation and that the Industrial Revolution had happened at a breakneck speed. Clapham illustrated the localized and gradual nature of economic change, stressing the diversity of national economic life, and noting that there was little change in the economic structure of the country by mid-century. Characteristically, he stated that cotton operatives were not the representative working men of the reign of George IV (1820-1830). Many recent historians have supported Clapham's assertions, noting that the size of cotton firms was modest, and the impact of steam power was limited in that sector because the diffusion of steam-driven mechanization in the first half of the nineteenth century was not actually as fast as originally historians thought. Certainly, broad generalisations about the economy and economic change can always be challenged, and the limited, localised changes noted by historians should induce caution as to the concept of a sudden shift to industry. There was clearly a longer process of structural change in employment from agrarian to non-agrarian occupations, which in fact started in the seventeenth century. While contemporaries recognized some radical change in the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century, their observations related often to the textile industries. Still, in many industries, it was often the case that no clear division existed between traditional and modern economic practices. Still, in many industries, it was often the case that, at least for a short time, no clear division existed between traditional and modern economic practices, with for example, cotton manufacturers combining steam-powered spinning with domestic handloom weaving. The historian Maxine Berg has argued that manufacturing growth was steadier and more widespread than earlier accounts suggest—hence less dependent on spectacular technological progress and the factory system. Hers is an attempt to illustrate that the manufacturing economy was much more diverse and important to aggregate growth and output than so-called leading sectors such as cotton and iron. While a fundamental redeployment of resources had occurred by the 1840s, much industrial activity remained small scale, little affected by the use of steam power and characterised neither by high productivity or comparative advantage . Nevertheless, the spectacular increases in productivity in the main industries cannot be ignored and while we may raise legitimate concerns over the details of national economic growth, and point to the pattern of regional variation across Britain, it remains true that the concept of an Industrial Revolution does have some merit. In Britain there was an unprecedented shift in employment away from agriculture, a marked shrinking of the value of agricultural output relative to manufacturing, an increase in urbanisation, and the ability to increase output ahead of Europe's most rapidly increasing population. In the forefront of that process were key industries, whose productive capacity and growth changed the face of much of the country.

Enlightenment influences

As the world opened up to Europeans, for some enlightened thinkers the concept of non-Europeans as 'children of nature' gained ground. Innocent of Old World corruption, they were seen as virtuous and noble - the birth of the cult of the 'noble savage' -and it was the conquering white man who was seen as the true barbarian. The philosopher John Locke had argued that in a state of nature all were free. With slavery in mind, the argument went that, as nobody was born a slave, servitude must be a consequence of violence and injustice. The humanity and achievements of Africans living in Britain seemed irrefutable proof that there was no distinction between black and white apart from the colour of their skin. Some historians have emphasised the importance of Enlightenment figures in the abolition of the slave trade. Roy Porter, for example, has written: 'If it was the Evangelical lobby which in the event secured in Parliament the abolition of the trade, the groundswell of criticism owed much to enlightened liberalism' (Porter, 2000). Particularly severe Enlightenment critics of the slave trade in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were the members of the Lunar Society of Birmingham, an informal learned society of prominent intellectuals, industrialists and scientists. Among their number at different times were such men as Joseph Priestley, James Watt, Matthew Boulton, Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood. As you will see, Wedgwood would be a prominent advocate of abolition. Priestley, the chemist credited with the discovery of oxygen and a prominent radical, deplored the reduction of slaves to 'mere brutes ... deprived of every advantage of their rational nature'. Adam Smith and other representatives of the Scottish Enlightenment spoke out against the trade while Jeremy Bentham and the Utilitarians also weighed in with their criticisms. Bentham accepted that coffee and sugar certainly brought happiness to their consumers but 'if they are only to be obtained by keeping three hundred thousand men in a state in which they cannot be kept but by the terror of executions: are there any considerations of luxury or enjoyment that can counterbalance such evils' (quoted in Porter, 2000).

Pressure for parliamentary reform - Mass agitation

As we have seen previously there had been a steady demand for parliamentary reform in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The demands were often as various as the groups advocating reform. The popular radicals Hunt and Cobbett had shifted the debate to a mass audience, and made the connection between government, corruption, patronage, and the distress of the general populace. By 1830 that pressure had to find a release and the defeat of Wellington's government was seen by many as a signal that reform would now be enacted. While most Tories were still generally opposed to reform, the Whigs thought that managing reform at the parliamentary level would undercut and remove the terrible prospect of violent revolutionary change. For radicals, reform would remove the rotten parts of the Constitution, by getting rid of the rotten boroughs and providing representation for the growing industrial towns, the political system would be more representative and governments would then govern in the interests of the people and not of the few. However simplistic this may appear to us; it was a powerful critique with much popular appeal. When the Tory House of Lords rejected the reform bill of October 1831, the prospect of a small privileged aristocratic elite preventing the forces of progress and reform was unacceptable to reformers in and out of Parliament.

Economic policies The post-war return to cash payments

As you saw earlier, Lord Liverpool's government had faced a growth of radical agitation, protest movements and conspiracies in the troubled post-war years. A deep post-war depression had set in after a brief boom at the end of the war, which damaged some industries and slowed expansion and wage rates. The slow improvement of the British economy appeared to coincide with calls for reform. The government made a crucial decision in 1819 with a resumption of cash payments in gold coins (that is, currency notes could be redeemed in gold). In 1797 the Bank of England had suspended these payments because of heavy government borrowing and cash withdrawals by nervous private investors. The policy resulted in an increasing amount of paper money in circulation, which led to inflation. After the war, there were doubts about a return to gold but government was satisfied by the arguments made by economists like David Ricardo that it was safe to do so. The result was that the value of the currency rose and the amount of gold reserves increased. The depression was curtailed with an increasing export trade, a run of good harvests, stable wheat prices, and an increase in the demand of other commodities.

The Whigs and Reform

At the 1830 General Election, the Whigs came to power with a working majority sufficient to form a government. The Whigs had plenty of experience of opposition but not of government. Government would ultimately test how committed the Whigs were to reform. They had certainly moved positively towards support for limited reform. This didn't make them radical politicians or democrats though, supporting calls for comprehensive change to the way in which Britain was governed. Coming from the same social class as the Tories (many of whom had called themselves Whigs in the decades just gone) and living in an age in which party politics meant less than it does today, they were hardly going to support any change that threatened their class dominance. They were, however, ready to concede a sharing of this dominance - in what was expected to be a junior role - with the respectable middle classes. This was especially so given that most of them had spent a generation in the political wilderness. The July Revolution of 1830 in France deposed the Bourbon monarchy in favour of Louis Phillipe, a progressive French aristocrat. Although revolution was in the air in France, reformers in Britain did not seek to overturn the social and political order. They wanted to reform the system not destroy it.

Topic 3 - Social developments

Building on earlier trends, the acceleration of urbanisation and population growth between 1812 and 1832 continued to change the shape and pattern of the lives of the British population. While these processes had positive effects in terms of wealth creation for many manufacturers and merchants, a significant portion of the labouring classes suffered grievously the privations and distress associated with the results of rapid economic expansion and change. Working and living conditions in urban Britain were a particular concern but rural areas also suffered from a high degree of sustained poverty and distress. The level of suffering and its increasing visibility provoked attempts by middle-class philanthropic and humanitarian reformers to advocate adjustments which would ameliorate conditions.

Agricultural change - The rural economy

By 1812, agriculture was in the process of transformation into a sector that was more 'industrial' in its processes, with large tenant farms set up as businesses and well-organised tenant farmers hiring agricultural labourers for seasonal work, and producing goods for commercial markets. Enclosure of land was the main facilitating factor, for rent could be charged at a higher rate, because enclosed land was more valuable on account of the higher yields made possible by enclosed fields. There was also less wastage, more control over fertilisation and protection by hedging. All of these factors were part of the process of agricultural improvement which, as we saw in the last unit, had been ongoing since the eighteenth century. The crop rotation system was improved, and more mixed farming gave farmers greater security (i.e. they no longer relied on a single type of crop). Landowners could possess confidence to invest in the latest techniques and experiments. Wheat prices rose during the war and the disruption of war and a rising population kept demand for wheat high. When the war ended, demand and wheat prices fell, and the cultivation of so much land made less economic sense. Wartime restrictions ended, allowing cheap foreign corn to enter the British market. Tenant farmers on long leases saw their profits fall. They responded by cutting wages and the jobs of hired hands. The Corn Laws did not wholly protect against price fluctuations even in the years after the war. Landowners who borrowed large amounts of money to improve their land during the war found themselves in lots of debt. There were many farming bankruptcies in the 1820s but the plight of landless agricultural labourers was potentially much worse. However, political elite fears of rural depopulation were misplaced, and like the expansive industries, on account of the rising population, there was no shortage of labour, no matter how low the wage. Yet there were limits to change and the keynote of agriculture was variation and lack of uniformity. Despite the invention of the threshing machine in 1778, it was not until the 1820s that it came into general use in Britain. Where they appeared, they were often attacked by labourers fearful for their jobs. Crop rotation systems of the late eighteenth century also took time to filter through to the general agricultural populace. By the 1820s crop rotation was applied in many forms, the most popular being that of the Norfolk system of Thomas Coke of Holkham Hall.

What was the significance of the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts? Did it make Catholic Emancipation more or less likely? Explain your answer, and make references to different political groupings.

By removing religious disabilities affecting Nonconformists, the government conceded a major reform meaning there was no inbuilt bias against non-Anglicans. The reform was important in informing a more socially-tolerant and politically-diverse nation. By conceding the principle of removal of religious barriers, the reform, if not making Catholic Emancipation inevitable, made it appear highly likely at some point in the near future.

Explain why coal was such an important raw material and why it had such an impact on industrial development.

Coal was the main source of energy providing fuel for new steam-driven machinery. Plentiful supplies of coal were therefore a pre-requisite towards steam power, which played a key part in industrial development and the shift towards high-volume production across many industrial sectors, especially in the other main staples of iron and steel, and the textiles industries.

Workplace conditions

Conditions in the workplace in the factories in towns were often detrimental to health, with men, women, and children enclosed in ill-ventilated factories for up to sixteen hours a day, six days a week for very low pay. There was a great absence of health and safety regulations which meant there were many accidents. Women and children were often shamefully exploited though child labour was not a product of the factory system, for it had been used for centuries. Humanitarian sentiment was drawn to the sight of so many waif-like children working in terrible conditions in factories and a long campaign began to improve conditions. One of the most compelling arguments for factory reform related to education. While lack of education disadvantaged the working classes generally, there was no government provision for children. It was thought by many middle and upper class people that educating the masses could be dangerous as it might encourage the spread of revolutionary ideas among them. Others, more enlightened and perhaps seeing the benefit of a more literate workforce, thought an elementary education would be appropriate, to teach the children about the Bible but to also teach compliance, the importance of obeying authority, and of knowing one's place. Educational provision was not completely absent but was disparate and lacking uniformity. There were many different kinds of school. The so-called 'Ragged Schools' provided free education for children too poor to receive it elsewhere. They were schools developed by John Pounds, a Portsmouth shoemaker, from 1818. Thomas Guthrie extended the idea in Scotland especially in Edinburgh. By the time of the 1870 Education Act, there were 350 Ragged Schools, and they were gradually absorbed into the Board school system in the following years. The British & Foreign Schools established by the Quaker Joseph Lancaster, devised a method of teaching by which one schoolmaster was responsible for 300 or more boys. These schools began as early as 1798, and they were designed to provide a cheap basic education with limited resources and a small number of teachers. Dame schools were private elementary schools established in poverty-stricken areas, with often inadequate facilities and teaching methods. Academic standards were often well below what was required, and were extremely varied in quality. The first State-run schools were known as Board Schools, established by local school boards who raised funds from local rates. These schools were built and run in a non-denominational way, and established where voluntary provision was inadequate. The Boards would subsidise Church schools where appropriate or pay the fees of the poorest children. These schools did not impose religious education other than simple Bible reading, and they were intended to make education available for all children, while perhaps imposing some degree of standardisation. Conversely, National Schools, founded and run by the Church of England society, the National Society for Promoting Religious Education, were designed with the idea that national religion must be the foundation of national education. Schools were most often funded by local vicars and church members. Education was therefore sporadic and highly-variable. Teaching was mainly by rote, with the main emphasis on learning to read and write. Sunday schools, consisting of religious instruction and Bible reading, mostly took place in the afternoon after the main act of worship in the morning. For those unable to work through sickness, disability or old age, there was the prospect of unremitting poverty. Poor relief under the old system proved to be inadequate in coping with urbanisation and the unemployment and underemployment of large numbers of agricultural labourers. Many parishes who dispensed relief were swallowed up in the expanding cities and could not cope. As a result of these deficiencies there was a great rise in begging on the streets and criminal activity.

Cotton

Cotton witnessed a huge increase in production over the period 1812-32. Imports of raw cotton increased by a factor of between two and three, and exports of manufactured cotton goods also multiplied. The true nature of the cotton boom was as an export boom. By 1800, British manufactured cotton was a major presence in world markets. By the 1830s, the cotton industry had developed to the point that an estimated 30% of the industrial workforce were involved in its manufacture. Raw cotton accounted for almost one-third of Britain's imports, and the export of cotton goods assumed great importance in British manufacturing exports, consistently accounting for between 40 and 50% of total British exports between 1800 and 1860. (Sven Beckert, Empire of Cotton: a global history (2015)) The Liberal journalist and politician Edward Baines, wrote in his history of cotton manufacturing in 1835 that cotton exports were 'three times as large as the woollen exports, having in so short a period outstripped and distanced a manufacture which has flourished for centuries in England and which for that length of time all writers on trade had justly considered as the grand source of commercial wealth to the country'. These sentiments were a telling commentary on the growth of cotton manufacturing, and its potential to create wealth and prosperity. Cotton manufacture had grown from a very low base and in the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century its contribution to exports was much greater than its share of manufacturing output. Yet while there was a shift towards cotton and iron in the late eighteenth century, this should not overshadow widely-based growth across a range of industries that were less dramatically transformed and less export-oriented.

The social fabric of working class discontent

Despite the existence of a range of radical ideas arising from the French Revolution, working class discontent arose predominantly from social conditions. The effects of the revolution in agriculture and industry had created a class of demoralised landless labourers in the countryside often forced to seek poor relief to stay alive. In the towns, the new industrial system imposed a harsh discipline on the working population, of confinement and repetitive pattern of work under often tyrannical overseers and managers. The higher wages were often not sufficient compensation for the gruelling and demeaning working and living conditions. The social segregation in the towns, not only reflected in living arrangements but also in the growth of exclusively middle-class social institutions, had obliterated the close relations of squire and farm workers which many had enjoyed in the countryside. This class separation in the manufacturing areas, while it may have been comforting to the middle classes, was socially dangerous, for the deference to authority which some historians have detected as operating for centuries in the countryside was rapidly dissolving in the towns. Once the social foundations of class relations had been changed in this way, there was more potential for working class independence, agitation, and possibly disorder and revolt. Working class discontent was closely linked to the state of the economy, and the business cycles prompted the likelihood of certain forms of activity. During a slump, businesses cut production and either cut the hours of workers or dismissed them. Periodic bad harvests, still at this date the barometer of the entire economy, made the situation worse. Hunger and unemployment were inextricably linked. The existing system of poor relief was inefficient and unable to cope with urbanisation and population growth. In some towns it had broken down completely, and in the countryside, farmers simply reduced wages to the level at which labourers would qualify for top-up poor relief.

Working-class discontent - Popular unrest and pressure

Discontent had been a constant feature of society throughout the eighteenth century but as industrial change brought massive problems and pressures in its wake - not only in industrial areas but in the countryside too - more extreme measures were taken by workers who felt their livelihoods were under threat. The wars with France meant that the country also had to deal with the damaging legacy of over twenty years of almost continuous fighting. The end of war did not usher in a period of peace and contentment, and the government resorted to many repressive measures used during the war in order to cope with the pressures.

Other developments

Economic growth was also signalled by reference to the growth in shipbuilding. The tonnage of ships built and registered in Britain in 1820 was 66,700 tons. By 1830, the total had risen to 75,500 tons. Technologically, the continuing application of steam power to industry increased productive capacity. Factory processes were often now capable of being powered by steam and there was an increasing variety of products available for home markets and for exports to foreign markets. Pottery and china were in great demand from the new middle classes living in new suburban homes. It was the beginning of a more consumerist age, albeit limited by affordability and therefore seen more clearly in some classes than in others. By 1832, many new industries, services, and technologies, often associated with the early development of railways, were beginning to emerge. More advanced machinery, machine tools, and other heavy industrial plant, had developed. Across the country there was an increase in productivity. This increase was only made possible by an abundance of available labour. Britain's population increased from 12 million in 1811 to 14 million in 1821 to 16.3 million in 1831. The rate of growth was higher in industrial than in rural areas—the result of migration to industrial towns for work, and a higher incidence of earlier marriages and births in crowded industrial areas.

Early Railways

Eventually, the steam engine's efficiency was improved and applied successfully to a new transport system: the railways. They developed out of the need for a better means to move coal from the pithead to foundries, factories and other markets. Experiments in steam traction led to experiments in steam locomotion. By 1812, William Hedley's Puffing Billy was operating in a Tyneside colliery. It was the engineer George Stephenson who conceived and developed the modern railway system. His Stockton to Darlington line opened in 1825 and Stephenson was engineer for the first passenger railway using steam locomotives, from Liverpool to Manchester, in 1830. This represented the beginning of large-scale public railways, and sparked the railway mania which saw the construction of railway lines across the country. Railways were a key element of the industrial age, transporting goods and people at speed and at low cost. Some of the benefits of railway transport took time to fully develop but there were immediate benefits to the economy in terms of the large number of employees required and the boost given to the transportation of goods from pre-existing industries, like iron and coal, where transportation of bulky goods impacted on prices. Ultimately, the railways lowered costs for heavy goods and promoted greater access to resources and products across the country. Railways provided greater integration for a national economy to emerge, and their importance is difficult to over-state. Scientific and technological innovation allied to economic development made the railways a fascinating, progressive, and imaginative addition to British life.

The Radical lineage

Following Tom Paine during the French Revolution, the main emphasis was upon political reform, for this was the source of economic inequality, political corruption, high taxation, and economic distress. The term 'Old Corruption', signifying a political elite possessing an insatiable appetite for power and money at the expense of the people, entered the Radical vocabulary. Sinecures, pensions, and church preferments were given to political lackeys of the Government or to buy support in Parliament. Such a system, radicals believed, was not representative of the will of the people. The cure for this state of affairs was deemed to be Parliamentary Reform, and from the 1790s until 1832 the problem and the cure remained the same. The crucial link made by all radicals was the connection between the unreformed Constitution, privilege, and corruption. Particularly important in this respect was the National Debt as a poisonous source of political and financial corruption. By the end of the war, the rhetoric of popular radicalism was not class exclusive, but incorporated middle class reformers, aristocratic Whigs, and crucially, in the post-war years, had spread to the working class. Instrumental in this process were William Cobbett and Henry Hunt, the main purveyors of patriotic Radicalism. In print, Cobbett termed the system of political corruption and financial plunder 'The Thing', while Hunt, a gentleman farmer turned Radical orator and populist, used methods of the mass platform of public speaking to promote a brand of inclusive democratic radicalism. While previous manifestations of radicalism predominantly concerned political and constitutional issues, there was now a clear recognition that Parliamentary Reform was the first step towards economic amelioration. The historian E.P. Thompson saw the formation of working class consciousness and political and industrial organization as the outstanding features of the period 1790-1830, particularly apparent after 1815. The machine breaking of the Luddites, described as a 'crucial episode in wartime politicization' was particularly important in this respect in indicating an acceleration of working class political activity after 1815. Severe economic dislocation marked the return of peace, exacerbated by the 1815 Corn Law, a piece of supposed class legislation that fuelled class antagonism. Working class radicalism emerged with a social and economic critique. In London and industrial centres, radical groups were composed of craftsmen and artisans in trades suffering from low wages and periodic unemployment or underemployment. This was a new development, both in terms of issues and personnel. Revolutionary elements constituted only a small minority of the radical working class movement. The risings at Pentrich and Huddersfield, and the Cato Street Conspiracy, the latter a plot to assassinate the entire British Cabinet, were a disastrous failure, and unrepresentative of the wider movement. Despite serious mistakes, including the infamous 'Peterloo' massacre in 1819, when the Manchester Yeomanry charged through a radical demonstration, killing eleven people and injuring hundreds more, the Government clampdown on radical societies and the radical Press had the intended effect of suppressing the movement. The Six Acts of 1819 regulated the holding of public meetings, encouraged magistrates to search for arms, increased the stamp duty on newspapers and tightened the law against seditious publications. The threat of revolution appears to have existed mainly in the minds of the governing classes, for the mainstream reformers, such as Hunt, Cobbett and Cartwright did not advocate political violence. Although the Radical challenge in the post-war period was unprecedented, its failure owed much to divisions between the traditional moderate radicalism of Burdett with its appeal to small shopkeepers and tradesmen and the new radicalism of Hunt and Cobbett that was attractive to labourers. Physical and geographic differences and divergent regional and provincial loyalties played a part, with communications still difficult in the pre-railway age. After a quiescent period, when economic recovery caused a decline in political activity, violence again erupted in the late 1820s, with the Swing Riots and machine-breaking in rural areas where threshing machines were introduced. Middle class and working class reformers shared the view of ending aristocratic domination of the parliamentary system, but the means to this end divided them. Middle-class radicals were fearful of too close an association with incendiary working-class radicals, preferring to use reason and argument, rather than violence or the threat of violence to achieve their aims. As we shall see later, some of these intellectual and journalistic reformers were influential in turning the Whigs towards a reform agenda in the 1820s and 1830s.

Rural protest: the Swing Riots

For centuries popular protest in the countryside had been a regular if sporadic occurrence. Its most common expression, in times of bad harvests and hardship, had been the food riot - but these were usually resolved locally and relatively peacefully. This form of riot became common during the war years when prices were high. These riots rarely meant that people were literally starving and were usually aimed at reducing the price of basic foodstuffs and other necessities by targeting men such as millers and dealers who controlled the provision and sale of these commodities. By the turn of the century though, riots in the countryside were becoming more overtly political and were even merging with the protests of those parts of the country (particularly the North West) where the signs of industrial change and growth were emerging. These protests were still concerned with economic problems but increasingly reflected anti-war feelings and radical opposition to the government of the day too. The last great crisis to be strictly about food was arguably in 1812, but food riots went on in the Scottish Highlands and Cornwall until the 1840s. Poverty, whatever the cause, pushed rural labourers into activities such as poaching, where the penalties for being caught were often draconian, with fines, imprisonment and transportation being the norm. Those agricultural labourers who felt particularly hard done by might resort to rick-burning, cattle-maiming and destruction of farm buildings. East Anglia witnessed particular disturbances in 1816-17 and 1822. Another feature of rural unrest was concern in some parts of the country at the consequence of the accelerating movement to enclose land through parliamentary enclosure acts. These new enclosures were not necessarily a bad thing at the outset as they usually brought with them additional employment opportunities such as hedging, ditching, fencing and road-making. However, as time went by, employment tended to become more uncertain and seasonal and brought what can be called structural underemployment to many parts of the country. Some labourers were able to 'escape' into employment in industrial concerns in local towns, especially in the North and Midlands. Those who couldn't were increasingly forced to turn to charity and the Old Poor Law. The Swing Riots (or Last Labourers' Revolt) of 1830 was a series of events that proved terrifying for landed society as a whole and very unsettling to the ruling classes. The riots took their name from an imaginary figure, Captain Swing. Although there was a political tinge to these events, occurring as they did at the time of well-publicised revolutions in France and Belgium, most historians see them as having mainly socio-economic causes. The riots took place over a period of time in South East England, starting in Kent and spreading north to Norfolk and west to Hampshire. It is probably no coincidence that these were areas where the increasingly casual labourers of the countryside could not find employment in the growing industries of nearby towns, as happened in other parts of the country. The riots involved the burning of ricks and farm buildings but a particular target was the threshing machine, symbol of the introduction of industrial methods into the agriculture of southern England by bourgeois farmers. There had been earlier bouts of machine-breaking, notably in 1816, but by now strength of feeling about the threat they represented was much more widespread. Threshing machines reduced the amount of winter employment, when work was much harder to come by, and added to the other pressures and burdens felt by rural communities.

New Lanark and utopian socialism

For the leaders of the emerging working class political movement, the 1820s was a period of much introspection and theorising. A theoretical school of British socialist economics emerged, with Thomas Hodgskin, using Ricardo's theory of labour as a measure of value, arguing that labour was the sole creator of value. Anti-capitalist economics were focused on inequalities in distribution and exchange rather than the relations of production, which came later with Marx, although Marx acknowledged the contribution of thinkers such as Hodgskin. Millenarian socialism emerged with Robert Owen's utopian view of a new society. Owen was a self-made Welshman who started out as a cotton mill manager. In 1800 he was given a share in his father-in-law's mills at New Lanark, on the Clyde in Scotland. Soon the dominant partner, Owen established a model factory, with an associated village and schools. He early came to believe that cooperation rather than competition should be the basis of the industrial system. His case for a more humane approach in factories and working-class life generally was set out in his work A New View of Society (1813-16). Thousands visited his mills and he became something of a celebrity. Owen saw no need for class or political struggle. For him, class co-operation could be the economic foundation of a new moral world of communitarian socialism. Owen's ideas were rooted in what he saw as the disastrous effects of the manufacturing system upon human nature and human relationships, but his theories encompassed the entire range of social relationships. For Owen, the market, private property, religion and marriage all promoted selfishness in human beings. Again, the root of the problem, from economic inequality and exploitation to the funding system, lay with political power. Owenism, the blanket term for Robert Owen's beliefs, was a radical departure in seeking ways to create communities of equals where all labour was shared and no property of any significance was held solely in private hands. New Lanark was the model on which Owenist beliefs and practices were built. Owen's initiatives at New Lanark were based on his experiences as manager of a Manchester cotton factory at the age of 20, when he had 500 workers under him. He had been struck by the discrepancy between 'the great attention given to the dead machinery, and the neglect and disregard of the living machinery'. He wrote that 'white slavery in the manufactories of England was ... far worse than the house slaves whom I afterwards saw in the West Indies and the United States. ... Under this [current factory system] there can be no true civilisation. ... It is a low, vulgar, ignorant mode of conducting the affairs of society' (quoted in Wilson 1960). (Note the analogy between slavery and working conditions in industry, as made by Richard Oastler in his famous open letter 'Yorkshire slavery' in the Leeds Mercury newspaper in 1830.) With his New Lanark venture Owen saw himself pioneering a new communal way of living with all people (including managers and employers) working in harmony. At New Lanark Owen instituted a 10-hour day and set a target of 8 hours. His slogan was: 'Eight hours labour, Eight hours recreation, Eight hours rest.' The conditions were idyllic (for that time) for the workers and their families. New Lanark became a place of pilgrimage for social reformers, statesmen, and royals, including Tsar Nicholas I of Russia. Friction with not-so-utopian partners eventually caused Owen to sever connections with New Lanark in 1828. In the 1820s Owen had also become involved in setting up a number of communities in America, starting with New Harmony in Indiana in 1824. Back in the British Isles after New Harmony collapsed in 1828, he established farming villages based on communal land ownership, notably Harmony Hall in Hampshire. His advocacy of equal education, collectivised family life, legalised divorce and birth control attracted many women to his movement, as they saw realistic scope for women to participate actively in political and social protest for almost the first time.

To what extent had Britain adopted free trade policies before and after 1825

Huskisson simplified a chaotic tariff schedule. He aimed at stimulating a higher volume of trade by reducing duties and stifling smuggling. Corn Laws remained on the Statute book, although it was moderated by the introduction of the sliding-scale of duties which aimed at providing protection and simultaneously keeping bread prices at a reasonable level. Huskisson promoted reciprocity in foreign commercial relations by reducing duties on imports of raw materials and exports of manufactured goods. By these measures he hoped that a higher volume of commercial activity would take place between Great Britain and foreign nations.

Commercial expansion

Huskisson's reforms aimed at promoting greater commercial expansion, especially for manufacturing industries. Customs duties levied on raw materials used in the textile and metal industries were reduced, prohibitions abolished, and protective duties reduced on many products. The silk industry was one of the most contentious, with strong foreign competition threatening the fragile domestic industry. In reforming the Navigation Laws, Huskisson aimed at stimulating trade through cheaper transit for a higher volume of exports. As a whole, the reforms took Britain in the direction of 'freer' trade if not free trade. Reciprocal tariff reductions, the result of negotiations with foreign countries, alongside the extension of imperial preference, that is, levying higher duties on imports from outside the British colonial empire characterised the Liberal Tory approach to commercial policy. Some historians have argued that Liberal Tories were influenced by Evangelicalism, and were moving towards free trade, while others have denied this, proclaiming Liberal Tories as protectionists, and viewing their reforms as a rebalancing of interests and more interested in administrative tidying-up and codification along the lines which Peel enacted relative to the criminal justice system. While the historian Boyd Hilton argues that Huskisson was not the forerunner of the larger application of free trade principles but rather the simplifier of a chaotic tariff schedule, historians like Anthony Howe, see Huskisson as the architect of a more rational application of commercial principles which reflected the philosophy of Adam Smith. It is also significant that while liberal in commercial matters, Liberal Tories were generally opposed to constitutional reform in Church and State, in particular Parliamentary Reform and, until the late 1820s, Catholic Emancipation.

Pressure on Parliament

In 1787 there was the foundation of the most important pressure group, the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, and the start of a concerted effort by abolitionists to have abolition debated in Parliament. The Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded by Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson. While they were Evangelicals, initially most of their colleagues on the society's organising committee were Quakers. One who joined the committee was the famous potter, Josiah Wedgwood, and it was he who had one of his craftsmen design what came to be the defining image of the abolitionist movement - what we would now call a logo: a kneeling African in chains with the words 'Am I not a man and a brother?' In the same year, Thomas Clarkson published a pamphlet to launch a publicity campaign on behalf of the Society, entitled A Summary View of the Slave Trade and of the Probable Consequences of its Abolition. Not all anti-slavery campaigners were men - and many were Africans. In the end, it was what happened in Parliament and government that decided the fate of the slave trade. As historian James Walvin has written: 'It was the precise chronology of parliamentary debate, ministerial wrangles and governmental decisions which was crucial in the exact progress - or delay - in securing abolition' (Walvin, 1982). May 1789 was a turning point in determining the ultimate conversion of parliament to abolition. This was when the most famous abolitionist, William Wilberforce made his first speech on the subject in the House of Commons. Describing the effects of the trade on Africa and the appalling conditions of the middle passage, he rested his case largely on grounds of morality and justice. Later that year, a House of Commons Select Committee was set up to look into the slave trade. In 1791, the Commons threw out Wilberforce's first bill to outlaw the slave trade by a majority of 163 to 88. The following year, though, MPs decided by 230 to 85 that abolition should be brought about gradually, with 1796 as a target date. A combination of stalling tactics in the House of Lords, anti-African reactions caused by fears of slave revolts, intensive lobbying by commercial interests from especially Liverpool and Bristol, and the spectre of Jacobinism raised by revolutionary developments in France, delayed implementation. Wilberforce introduced abolition bills regularly throughout the rest of the 1790s but the war with France prevented any further serious consideration of the issue, as politicians concentrated on the national crisis and the threat of invasion. Renewed pressure for abolition of the slave trade started to build in 1804. As a precursor to total abolition and to aid the war effort against France and its allies, the supply of slaves to foreigners was abolished in 1806. By 1807 the abolitionist groups had enough supporters in the House of Commons to secure an overwhelming majority of 283 to 16 for a motion to abolish Britain's Atlantic slave trade. Lord Grenville, Pitt's successor as Prime Minister, was a staunch supporter and it was he who led the fight to pass the Bill in the House of Lords. Abolition formally ended the trade in slaves but did nothing to help those already enslaved in the British colonies of the West Indies. The legislation only abolished the slave trade in British ships: not slavery itself. Between 1807 and 1833, slavery became a major political issue. After the end of the French wars, Britain insisted that if she were to hand back to France African and Caribbean colonial gains from wartime then she would need an assurance that the slave trade would not resume. Wilberforce led the campaign for British enforcement against the trade, and agreement in principle was reached, with British naval squadrons patrolling coastlines. While the effectiveness of this measure remains difficult to judge, the issue of slavery within British colonial territories was again raised. In 1823, Wilberforce, and Thomas Buxton MP founded the Anti-Slavery Society, with Buxton taking over the parliamentary campaign from the aging Wilberforce. Canning's government was wary of offending the West Indian interest in Parliament, which was significant among MPs, and failed to support Buxton's motion to allow children born to slaves to be free. The plantation owners pleaded they would be overwhelmed by competition from rival slave owners in the Southern States of America, and that if they started giving freedom to slaves it would cause serious unrest. They also argued that slaves had been conditioned by their slavery and that they would be unable to deal with the freedom bestowed on them. With influential financial and political interests at stake, it was not until the Whigs returned to power in 1830 that the anti-slavery campaign was able to gain significant traction. In 1833, the Whigs passed the Abolition of Slavery Act, giving slaves within British territories their freedom.

The Corn Laws The 1815 Corn Law

In 1815 Parliament passed a Corn Law that stipulated that no foreign corn could be imported until the home price reached 80 shillings a quarter. Grain was prohibited from entering the country when the price was below 80s, but imported free when the price was above that level. The landed classes dominated Parliament and land was their main source of income; the measure was viewed as one that allowed this class a particular privilege by protecting the domestic market for their (agricultural) produce. Landowners and farmers had done well out of the war, with high demand, but a bumper harvest of 1813 severely reduced prices, and in 1814, a poor harvest led to the same result. The political connotations of the question were many but the central issue was that cheap foreign corn flooded the domestic market at the end of the war and the landed interest wanted protection from foreign competition so they could rely on their grain crop at all times. Historians have generally accepted that the Government while clearly acting in the interest of the landed class were also aware of the dangers of relying on foreign supply for a staple food. As William Huskisson wrote even before the war ended, 'even in peace, the habitual dependence on foreign supply is dangerous', (A Letter on the Corn Laws, by the Right hon. W. Huskisson, to One of His Constituents, in 1814, London: James Ridgway, 1827) Huskisson had proposed a 'sliding-scale' of prices at which import duties would be altered upwards or downwards but this had been rejected, and it was Robinson's 80s ceiling which was deemed to be most acceptable by the Commons. The government was also acting on the basis of falling prices which it was hoped would be temporary—in the meantime the Corn Law would act in such as a way as to maintain prices. Despite popular protests that the law would make bread too expensive, the Government pressed ahead and was not open to compromise. Liverpool himself saw the Corn Laws as a measure embracing all interests in the country, but especially the poor, and he was backed by Huskisson, because if corn was admitted free then the small farmer would be ruined and inferior lands and farming improvements given up. He believed that the balance of economic interests within the national economy and the community must be preserved, and in order to achieve this moderate protection was justifiable. The Corn Laws pushed up the price of bread but not to wartime levels. However, as bread was the staple food of the labouring poor, the policy was soon described as a 'class measure'. The public outcry encompassed the middle and working classes at the unjust nature of the measure. Middle class industrialists complained that the Corn Laws would mean they would have to raise wages and curb investment in new markets. Petitions were presented to Parliament, and rioting erupted in several cities, inaugurating a period of unparalleled civil unrest to which the Government responded in a harsh manner. To its critics, the potential operation of the 1815 Corn Law was very unsatisfactory. With less land under cultivation in peacetime, there would be more rural unemployment and under-employment which was unlikely to be off-set by the protection given under the Corn Law. In the event, with the additional complication of bad harvests, prices fluctuated considerably but the 80 shillings ceiling was never reached before the law was revised in 1822. British farmers therefore enjoyed a monopoly of the British market, which meant that prices were kept artificially high, as no foreign corn entered the country to lower prices. The law was revised in 1822, with a 70 shillings ceiling, and above that level, a graduated scale of import duties was imposed

Topic 5 - Constitutional Reform and Greater Democracy

In 1832, the Great Reform Act was passed by the Whig government. It was an Act which changed the electoral system of Britain in a modest but crucial way by showing that the representative system had to be and could be reformed commensurate with wider social and economic changes. New towns and elements of the emerging middle class were partially represented by the Act, which went some way towards equating representation with population and property though the shortcomings of the Act might appear to modern observers to be more prevalent than the changes made. Agitation for reform had received a boost in the 1820s and built on an increasing commitment among younger Whigs to consider parliamentary reform as not only desirable but necessary. The Act eliminated public agitation for a time, restored public order which had been threatened by tumultuous scenes in parts of the country, and raised hopes for further reforms in Church and State in the not-too-distant future.

The workhouse

In a minority of parishes, starting with Bristol in 1697, relief became conditional on going into a parish workhouse - 'a mill to grind rogues honest and idle men industrious', in the words of the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Some workhouses were run by the parish; others were contracted out to private administrators. These were usually seen as - literally - places of work rather than correction and usually intended both to help inmates recover self-esteem and get back on the road to normality and also contribute to the local economy. Knatchbull's Act of 1723 marked the first appearance of the 'workhouse test' whereby those applying for relief would have no choice but to enter the workhouse and be obliged to undertake set work there. The principle, to be made complusory and developed under the Poor Law Amendment Act was that entering the workhouse should be a deterrent to casual and irresponsible claims on the Poor Rates. By 1776, about 2,000 such workhouses existed, each normally housing between 20 and 50 inmates. Conditions in workhouses varied considerably. However, despite the availability of legal sanctions under Knatchbull's Act, they were rarely triggered and outdoor relief overwhelmingly remained the norm. Increased social pressure for more sympathetic treatment of the impotent poor led to the passage of Gilbert's Act in 1782. This was permissive legislation, allowing parishes to combine as Unions for the purpose of running common workhouses as places of refuge for the old, the sick and orphans rather than places of correction for the able-bodied and undeserving poor whose relief was seen as largely continuing outside workhouses in the majority of parishes. However, take-up was low and by 1834 there were only 67 of these 'Gilbert workhouses' over 924 parishes, under 10% of the total. Neither these workhouses nor those set up for the able-bodied under Knatchbull's Act made great inroads in tackling poverty because they were expensive to run.

Developments in key industries - Cotton, Iron, and Coal

In the cotton industry, despite the advent of the power-loom by Richard Roberts in 1822, handloom weaving did not show a marked decline until the late 1830s. Yet, the number of power-looms in factories was increasing in some areas, notably South Lancashire, in the early 1830s. Handloom weaving remained in demand, and the displacement of the handloom weavers took some time. Eventually it did revolutionise textile production, with the number of power-looms increasing from 2,400 in 1803 to approximately 100,000 in 1833. Roberts' invention of the self-acting spinning mule was arguably of more immediate importance in the mechanisation of factory labour in cotton production. Equally, in the iron industry, the development of the hot-air blast furnace in 1828 was very important. By heating the blast of air between the steam engine and the furnace to a specific temperature, better quality iron could be obtained and raw coal could be used instead of coke, making it cheaper and more efficient. Despite the huge increase in coal output, there were only a few innovations in coal-mining technology that had a material effect on that industry's growth. Instead, rising demand was satisfied more by increased labour inputs and infrastructure improvements (initially canals; later, railways). Coal-mining was an old industry but because of the sheer bulk of coal, the industry was limited either to locations near water transport or to production for local markets. Geographically, pits were located where there were coal deposits scattered throughout the West Midlands (Shropshire and Staffordshire), Derbyshire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, South Wales, and Lowland Scotland. In the eighteenth century, coal pits could not be cut very deeply because of drainage problems and of the difficulty lifting (winding) the coal up from coalface to the pithead. Once James Watt and Matthew Boulton invented the steam-engine, the problems surrounding pumping and winding were solved, which allowed more deep cast mines to be established. Coal was cut from seams by manual labour using pick-axes, and mines were small, cramped and hot, and were dangerous places to be. The presence of methane gas in the mine was the biggest killer. Safety received a boost with the safety lamp invented by Sir Humphrey Davy in 1813, which inserted gauze around the naked flame, but little was done to improve general safety of miners and it remainder a dangerous and very uncomfortable though vital job. As in the cotton and iron industries, despite the expansion of the industry and the increasing demand for coal, there was always sufficient labour available to perform the work, because of the growth in population.

The Met and British society

In the decade after its formation, the Met was increasingly perceived by London's property owners as an effective protective force and in enforcing law and order. Outside London the new force became an element in the debates on policing as people read or heard reports of the experiments. During the 1830s many Metropolitan policemen began to appear in the provinces at the request of local authorities, sometimes to supervise race meetings but with larger numbers deployed as riot squads and were used to suppress first Anti-Poor Law disturbances and later Chartist demonstrations. As the new force gained plaudits, and the fear of mob violence and disorder increased, the London model of policing slowly fanned out into the provinces though this was a process rather than an event and it took many years before a modern national police force was in place. Peel's model did however lay the foundations for such a force.

The growth of industrial towns and cities

Industrial developments brought with them massive changes to the countryside. Outwardly, the United Kingdom was transformed and some historians have used the phrase the 'Great Transformation' to describe the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. The development of coalfields in South Wales, the Midlands, Lancashire and the Clyde Valley in Scotland supplemented those of North East England. In Lancashire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire, the textile industry became increasingly factory-based and employed ever-increasing numbers of workers. The Midlands became the engineering centre for the country. Meanwhile, the South and South-West remained predominantly agricultural. Three of the industrial giants, Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow, relied on different economic sectors for their growth. Manchester's expansion was primarily concentrated on the growth of the textile industry, Liverpool on commercial traffic through its docks, but also on colonial products such as sugar, while Glasgow also had important colonial connections, but also had significant textile, shipbuilding and engineering as industrial sectors. An important element in this growth of major towns was the influx of jobless unskilled agricultural labourers from surrounding rural areas as well as from Ireland. Migrants from Cheshire to Manchester, Lancashire to Liverpool and the Scottish Highlands to Glasgow were therefore supplemented by poverty-stricken Irish migrants. The arrival of the latter and their congregation in communities left an indelible mark on those cities which persists to the present day. We can see here the early acceleration of a process that has led to what is often called the North-South divide in Great Britain. The North, incorporating northern England, Scotland and Wales, became the industrial part of the country, while the South, with the important exception of London, continued to be predominantly rural. A look at population changes in the first half of the eighteenth century shows a population moving from the countryside to the industrial towns of the North and Midlands. The figures illustrate the shift towards towns and cities, which eventually resulted in the 1851 census showing that the urban population overtook the rural population for the first time. The extraordinarily rapid growth of towns was down to a combination of natural increase and immigration from the countryside. By the 1851 census, nearly half the inhabitants of London and the 70 largest towns with populations exceeding 20,000 had been born elsewhere. Where Irish immigration was high, with people escaping the famines of the 1840s, as in Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow, the proportion was over half. With most immigrants young, the birth rate in the growing towns was very much higher than the average and this led to accelerated rates of expansion. London remained the giant, with its population growing from one million in 1811 to 2.3 million in 1851. While not seen as part of industrial Britain in quite the same way as Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham and the growing centres of the North and Midlands, London did have its full share of small industries to go with its other trades and professions and its position as a world centre of finance and the greatest port in the country. There were many problems in this process of extensive urbanisation, from the lack of good-quality housing to low wages, to the cultural dissonance of migration, that is, the feeling of discord and disharmony witnessed by those located in a new cultural environment. All of these factors were potential elements of instability.

Assessment of the standard of living debate

It is possible to acknowledge the problems and issues in the debate, while allowing that there is no simple 'balance sheet' summary from which we can read off the social and economic benefits accrued and the costs incurred by the labouring classes. Historical scholarship on this issue has often reflected the contemporary concerns of particular historians. In the early twentieth century the type of historical scholarship was highly influenced by the social impact of the industrial revolution. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Arnold Toynbee, and J. L. and Barbara Hammond, represented a school of historical enquiry that asserted that the poor contemporary social conditions were attributable to and had their origins in the Industrial Revolution. These works provided historical support for the view that free enterprise must be controlled, the State must become more interventionist, and trade unions strengthened and protected. These historians established the dominant interpretation of the Industrial Revolution as the cause of the social problems which existed in their own time. They did this by emphasising that the industrial revolution was a rapid and terrible cataclysm, and because there was a lack of humane government intervention. This last aspect, an attack on laissez-faire as the 'industrial doctrine of political economy' imposed and endorsed by the ruling classes in Parliament was particularly prominent in the work of these social reformers. The contemporary message was obvious: that the State should intervene more to protect the interests of workers. This interpretation of the industrial revolution as a huge break with the past was attacked by subsequent historians like Sir John Clapham who illustrated the localized and gradual nature of industrial change. Lipson argued that the Toynbee school emphasised change too much and that large undertakings in the extractive, textile and metal trades were also a feature of the old industrial system. Moreover, small scale production was still common after the period commonly assigned as that of the industrial revolution. In his work The Industrial Revolution (1760-1830), T.S. Ashton compared Britain to nineteenth-century Ireland or the contemporary economies of under-developed countries, and concluded that only the economic growth stimulated by the industrial revolution had held out the prospect of raising the standard of living for an increasing population. In historical circles, Ashton's work became a revered text once the economies of Britain and Western Europe began to recover from the Second World War.

Political difficulties

Liverpool needed all his skills as a mediator to bring together the strongly different views held by his Ministers, and to counter the Whig opposition in Parliament. The historian W. R. Brock saw him as the keystone of his ministry, providing stability among divergent interests and elements. Nevertheless, there was a lack of talent in his Ministry, especially in the House of Commons where Whig orators consistently out-performed Liverpool's Ministers. Luckily, the Whig opposition in its entirety lacked cohesion and leadership, and the Liverpool Ministry, despite being caught in a period when patronage was declining and party machinery had not yet developed, survived. Liverpool himself had followed Pitt in his administrative reforms by reducing sinecure offices, which had the effect of reducing royal influence in politics and stimulating the development of party politics. Some of Liverpool's difficulties were not of his making but were the result of mishandling and misjudgement of sensitive issues. A notable example of this process was the Queen Caroline Affair of 1820. The Whigs tried to use the low popularity of the monarchy, on account of the profligate and immoral behaviour of the Prince Regent, who on the death of his father, George III, became George IV. The scandalous and ill-judged attempt to divorce his wife, Caroline of Brunswick, involved the government in royal politics and relationships, and Liverpool was forced to deal with an attempt to exclude Caroline from the throne. Popular demonstrations in favour of Caroline were indicative of the monarchy's unpopularity and tarnished Liverpool's and his government's reputation.

The poor and outdoor relief

Local relief for paupers in England and Wales had been in operation in a variety of forms since the sixteenth century. As defined by an Act of 1601, relief was provided to the needy by the parish, the smallest unit of local government - of which there were about 15,000 in all. Annually appointed parochial officials, or overseers, administered relief subject to monitoring by county magistrates or justices of the peace (JPs). The central principle of the Old Poor Law was that paupers had a right to relief in their own parish. At the heart of the Elizabethan system was a belief that an able-bodied pauper should work hard, but if an individual's lack of work was no fault of their own then it was accepted that the parish should provide relief. Distinctions were made between different categories of paupers entitled to relief: the able-bodied, the impotent poor, that is, the old and the sick, and orphans. The system was usually based on helping all categories of paupers in their own homes through outdoor relief. To fund this relief, overseers collected a parish Poor Rate from those local residents who could afford it, that is, homeowners, land occupiers and the like. In a rural, pre-industrial society with a fairly stable population it made sense to have poor relief on a local footing. By the late eighteenth century, though, this picture was changing and problems evolved as a rapidly rising and more mobile population, the growth of industrial centres, changing farming methods and enclosures brought significant changes to types and incidence of poverty.

Why was Lord Liverpool so successful in managing the Tory government between 1812 and 1827?

Lord Liverpool did not belong to any of the different factions within the Tory party which allowed him to balance the different factions within the party. Even in his policy proposals, Liverpool was even-handed in his presentation and managed to incorporate social and economic reforms while maintaining political and constitutional inertia in Church and State as the necessary basis for Tory government, and in retaining the support of George III and George which remained highly important.

Lord Liverpool's administration The Liverpool era

Lord Liverpool formed a Tory Government after the assassination of Spencer Perceval in 1812. In power until 1827, he was destined to become the longest serving Prime Minister of the past 200 years. He was not the first choice of the Prince Regent but after the Whigs failed to form an administration, Liverpool assumed office. As an uninspiring administrator, the 'arch-mediocrity' according to Disraeli in his novel Coningsby, Liverpool was adjudged to be a safe choice, a man who would not be tempted to bend to radical demands at home, and who would provide the resources for victory against Napoleon. Liverpool was opposed to Parliamentary Reform and Catholic Emancipation, and sought to defend the aristocratic Territorial Constitution and the Established Church but on commercial policy he was more 'liberal' than Pitt, and believed in freer trade. Ten of the thirteen men in Liverpool's Cabinet in 1812 had served either in Pitt's second administration or in Perceval's. Yet, in office, he relied on a small inner circle including Lord Sidmouth, formerly Prime Minister as Henry Addington, Lord Eldon, a fiercely reactionary Tory, Nicholas Vansittart as Chancellor of the Exchequer and J.F. Robinson at the Board of Trade. George Canning, the flamboyant and brilliant Tory politician and former journalist, would and perhaps should have also held office but he refused to work alongside his arch-enemy, Viscount Castlereagh, who held the posts of Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons.

Briefly explain the emergence and impact of Luddism in 1811-12

Luddism was essentially a protest against the implementation of machines in factories, and a response to the threat posed to the livelihood of men employed in the textile industries. It was thus most prevalent in Lancashire, the East Midlands and West Yorkshire but it was also a response to higher prices and acted as something of an alternative mode of protest and organisation given that trade-union activity had been banned by the Combination Acts.

Describe the main advantages of the mechanisation of industrial processes

Mechanisation operated in a way that increased industrial output and profits. Increased industrial capacity meant there was potential for greater market share for a firm able to exploit it. Mechanisation also meant that goods could be produced in higher volumes and more cheaply, thus facilitating greater quality of product and maximising the opportunities to expand export markets. As with all innovative technologies, the opportunity to develop and spread the expertise to others, most notably foreign countries, a process which was especially evident in the development of railways.

Standards of living - The Industrial Revolution and British society

Most historians agree that until approximately the mid-nineteenth century, while some industrial workers' standards of living did improve dramatically, many more saw no overall improvement in real wages, while those of agricultural labourers declined. As we have seen the 'optimistic' and 'pessimistic' arguments about working class living standards is a complex one, involving many variables and many different types of evidence from statistical analysis and evaluation to anecdotal evidence. It seems to be the case that historians can agree that while wage rates may have risen after 1815, 'living standards' takes into account non-wage factors in assessing people's lives. The other factors, both individual, such as size of family, and those applicable to the entire population, such as the cost of rentals and essential goods, varied enormously from region to region. Historians have identified regional variation was the most salient aspect of wage rates in Britain before 1830, and arguably for long afterwards. For employers, the level of skill, the extent of labour supply, and the demand for manufactured goods largely determined wage rates. Yet urbanisation went hand-in-hand with industrialisation and even with the growth of steam-powered factories, employers found that they could not just set up anywhere. Once industrial clusters or networks surrounding factories were established, in the form of transport, resources, and local amenities, it was not easy to re-locate. While wages were lower in the agricultural South than in the industrial North, and had been since around 1800, few attempts were made, and those that were proved to be unsuccessful, to re-locate there to exploit the cheaper labour. Some Lancashire cotton firms had to pay higher 'efficiency wages' as a means of obtaining a reliable workforce between 1800 and 1830. The circumstances of any individual depended on a wide array of factors, and in certain occupations, there was a greater chance of an increase in wages which improved the chances of improving living standards and material welfare. The wages of those working in clerical, non-manual occupations rose more quickly than those employed in unskilled manual or agricultural occupations. Some of the latter actually declined, with many occupations being de-skilled and/or overtaken by machinery. The overall inference to draw is that middle class living standards were generally rising at a higher rate than those of workers. Class distinctions were becoming more complicated, with gradations within the working class, for example, between unskilled and skilled labour, but also more pronounced in some areas between the middle and working classes. Additionally, there was a large underclass element of the labouring poor who were unable to escape from poverty, and whose resentment at their status was potentially dangerous.

The limits of reform

Most obviously, reform did not extend to two areas where the institutions of the State underpinned the political system, that is, parliamentary reform and Catholic Emancipation. The High Tories (or Ultras) emerged in the 1820s as a strong opposition to parliamentary reform and Catholic Emancipation. The reforms of the mid-to-late 1820s were not motivated by greater government trust in the masses or moves towards a more representative parliamentary system. A bill to redistribute 100 seats belonging to small boroughs (many 'rotten') to counties and industrial towns and cities, was introduced in 1822 by the Whig leader, Lord John Russell. It received no government support and was defeated. However, it received more support than any measure since Pitt's attempt of 1785. Arguably, this indicated that perhaps the tide was beginning to turn, with only the dead weight of Tory reactionaries holding it at bay. Similarly, with Catholic Emancipation, Liverpool sensed a change in attitude towards the question though an Emancipation Bill was defeated in the House of Lords in 1825, and much of the Tory party remained hostile to the measure. The enfranchisement of the Irish masses, and the threat of separation from the UK, was the basis of Liverpool's opposition to Catholic Emancipation. He was not himself intolerant, for he had supported Bills to enfranchise English Roman Catholics and to allow Roman Catholics to act as magistrates. Nevertheless, referring to Burdett's Emancipation Bill, Liverpool stated in the Lords: He said, that the Catholics were not entitled to equal rights in a Protestant country, and that opinion he would sustain. Upon some points he had been favourable to the Catholics; he did not know but there were others upon which he might still be so: but, upon that broad principle—that they were entitled to equal rights with their Protestant fellow-subjects—he and their friends were at direct issue. He admitted—no man could dream of denying it—that ill subjects in a free state were entitled to the enjoyment of equal rights upon equal conditions; but, then the qualification of that principle in the case of the Catholics was clear—the Catholics, who demanded these equal rights, did not afford equal conditions. The difference was this—it was stated in a moment—the Protestant gave an entire allegiance to his sovereign; the Catholic a divided one. (Lord Liverpool speaking on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, 17 May 1825) There was also the powerful and hard-line opposition of George IV to Catholic Emancipation. Behind the King's protest was the Duke of York, heir, and fulcrum of the High Tory circle. On these two issues, of parliamentary reform and Catholic Emancipation, there was little headway, and the inertia, while to some degree understandable given the nature of party politics and public opinion, make any claim for Liverpool administration to be the first of the 'great reforming ministries of the nineteenth century' arguably rather hollow.

Luddism - Industrial protest: Luddism and beyond

Out of all the generalised war-time and post-war distress there gradually emerged a specific industrial unrest, quite distinct from 'old-fashioned' riot and disorder. In 1792 the first factory to use a power loom for weaving cloth was attacked and burnt down by hand-loom weavers. Over the following decades such incidents became more common. The most serious of these outbreaks of violence were those most often carried out by so-called Luddites. The Luddites were machine-breakers, named after their mythical leader, Ned Ludd or General Ludd. They were active intermittently during the period 1811-16, smashing machinery in mills and factories across the East Midlands, South Lancashire and West Yorkshire. Their targets included power looms, then being introduced in greater numbers in Lancashire mills, and knitting frames, mainly in the East Midlands. Again, the Luddites were not just responding to industrialisation. They were also expressing economic grievances against employers at a time of higher prices and when trade union activity was banned. Their leaders also included a few would-be revolutionaries. Frame-breaking became a capital offence and seventeen Luddite leaders were executed in 1813.

The effects of industrialisation - Population growth and urban development

Population growth and urbanisation are two of the classic features of the transition of countries towards becoming industrial states. The growth of towns and cities, and the changing balance of the country between rural and urban interests had many different ramifications for Britain, in social, economic and political terms. Both factors were fundamental in forging a new national consciousness. Growth rates and the extent of urbanisation was however uneven and varied enormously across the country region by region. Yet the growth of large cities and towns linked to industrialisation was a central factor in the transformation of Britain. While many areas of Britain remained primarily rural, and agriculture remained important to the overall national economy, the growth of industry and cities like Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham were solid indicators of the profound social and economic effects of industrialisation. While industrial development brought great economic growth, it also brought problems in the form of social turmoil and disturbance and widespread unemployment. The growth of the industrial population in the northern industrial towns uprooted traditional social habits and customs in small rural communities. Some rural areas were transformed into industrial landscape with huge smoking chimneys, the noise of heavy machinery, and the bustle of the industrial workforce. Towns developed into sprawling urban areas, with a large number of often makeshift housing built for workers close to factories. These dwellings were destined to become the slum dwelling of the future.

Topic 4 - Pressure for Change

Resurgence of radical agitation after 1812 was heightened by the post-war depression, combined with the passing of the Corn Laws, which was widely viewed as a legislative act protecting the privileges of the aristocracy. The earlier Luddite agitation continued, and with the advance of mechanisation in industry, continued to have a contemporary resonance. The linkage between all these issues and inadequate parliamentary representation was the stock-in-trade complaint of the radicals. Yet more widely, there was an enhanced role for pressure-group activity and advanced political organisation, as demonstrated by the anti-slavery movement. Working class organisation, through trade unions, was also a notable if still limited feature in the economic life of the nation. The popularity of Methodism is testimony to people's spirituality, which had not been suppressed by urbanisation, the industrial system and industrial society. Many of the protest and reform movements were fluid in membership and many of the leading figures shared the same concerns with, for example, humanitarian and religious influences touching areas such as factory reform as well as the anti-slavery movement.

Emigration as a response to economic forces

Rising population and the difficulties of finding employment stimulated emigration from Britain to overseas destinations where there were arguably better prospects. The depression at the end of the Napoleonic wars proved to be a spur to action but the momentum was maintained, though with some relaxation in the early to mid-1820s, through the period 1812-1832. The arrival of peace in 1815 brought further problems. Demobilisation, reduced demand for the products of a war economy, higher indirect taxation and increasing unemployment in town and country all added up to hard times. Almost 20% of Birmingham's population was receiving Poor Law relief, on and off, at the end of the wars. Hard times were the lot of many working in industry and agriculture. As the Lancashire radical, Samuel Bamford, said: 'Whilst the laurels were yet cool on the brows of our victorious soldiers, the elements of convulsion were at work amongst the masses of our labouring population.' Unemployment was arguably the greatest spur to the activities of these years, and in this context, escape in the form of emigration was one option—and it became increasingly popular in the succeeding decades. It would not be correct to attribute all emigrants as having economic motives for emigrating. Many left Britain for family, personal, or religions reasons. Others were gripped by a spirit of adventure as well as a hope for a better life. With a rise in population, there was a greater number of younger people looking for an improvement in their circumstances. Territories of the British Empire proved to be popular destinations, especially Canada, and there seems little doubt that although it was not the only motive, economic motives were the majority considerations among migrants. Economic depression and unemployment and under-employment in the rural southern counties of England was a particular problem, and led to innovative solutions. In the 1830s, the Petworth Emigration Scheme was one such solution, involving multiple agencies, including the church, local philanthropists, and government officials. The scheme promoted the emigration of approximately 1,800 working class people from the rural southern counties to Upper Canada (Southern Ontario). The emigrants mainly comprised single men and families' dependent on a sole income. In employment terms, most were seasonally employed rural labourers but there were also skilled rural craftsmen and artisans who were similarly adversely affected by seasonal unemployment and under-employment. The Petworth scheme was one of many schemes which aimed at promoting emigration, alleviating distress, and lowering the poor rates. Emigration was therefore often not just a personal decision but was State-sponsored, with government not solely concerned and motivated by the economic prospects of the migrants

Urban living conditions

Social segregation was an important consequence of urban growth and population increase. Urbanisation brought new political pressures from the middle and working classes while also driving a wedge between them in relation to economic status and function. The middle classes and superior artisans gradually moved out from the centre of towns to create characteristic suburban zones of neatly terraced houses. Over the course of the nineteenth century, the town elites moved to palatial villas and country houses. There they escaped the stench of town centres and the often slum housing occupied by the labouring classes. As E.P. Thompson has noted: 'working people were segregated in their stinking enclaves, and the middle classes demonstrated their real opinions of the industrial towns by getting as far out of them as equestrian transport made convenient' (Thompson [1963] 2013). The development of the railway network over time made moving even further out of town centres feasible by the middle of the century. Despite the fact that many workers in industry were better off financially, provided they were in reasonably full employment, there was a considerable social cost. Industrialisation created a growing demand for labour in the industrial towns and cities of the North and Midlands; as workers and their families were sucked in from the surrounding countryside or further afield there was a pressing need to house them. What followed was the creation of slums and the myriad urban health and social problems that arose from this. Successive governments failed to address these problems wrought by industrialisation and economic growth, partly because they underestimated how quickly they would mushroom and partly due to a reluctance to intervene in local prerogatives. The towns were in some cases growing so quickly that problems of creating infrastructure were very difficult. Poor living conditions created health problems and allowed disease to spread easily. The local government structures had not evolved at the same pace of industrial development and there were problems of governance. Many old corporations had become corrupt or defunct and only provided a minimum of what we might call 'social services', with a rudimentary police watch, lighting, sanitation and transport. There was no centralised town planning to direct and plan the nature and direction of industrial growth and development.

Trade union developments to 1834

Some of the unions in existence by 1825 were quite elaborate organisations. The London tailors, for example, had many thousands of members. More typical, though, were small and local trade clubs with only tenuous links to fellow tradesmen outside their own locality. Clubs might give as much, or more, emphasis to their 'friendly society' aspects as to their commitment to higher wages and shorter hours, legalised under the Acts of 1824 and 1825. Strike funds and friendly-society benefits were rarely distinguished and they were made available from the often high contributions made by members (and kept perhaps by the landlord of the public house that acted as their meeting place). These unions were invariably of skilled tradesmen. The unskilled or semi-skilled, for example the miners and textile factory workers of the North, were not as well organised - lacking the income and education to form effective combinations.

Canning and the Whigs

Suspicion of Canning was not assuaged when, forming his ministry to succeed Liverpool in 1827, he was faced with the fact that half his Cabinet colleagues refused to serve under him. Peel indicated that he could not serve under him because of Canning's support for Catholic Emancipation, and for his liberal and Populist conduct of foreign affairs. For others, social prejudices played a part, for Canning's mother had been a struggling actress of humble origins. Canning persuaded a number of Whigs, including Tierney, to serve in his Cabinet, which was therefore halfway to being a coalition. These Whigs saw Canning as a natural ally but their association with Canning had infuriated Grey, Russell and other more liberal Whigs and so precipitated something of a split. However, this didn't mean that Grey and Russell were strongly advocating parliamentary reform at this stage. In 1827, there was little talk of serious reform and, for all his earlier (and later) support, Grey had grown cool about it. Unlikely as it seemed in 1827, though, Grey and the Whigs, committed to a measure of reform, would replace Wellington's Tory government at the end of 1830. What prepared the way was the issue of religious reform and, in particular, the end to civil restrictions on Roman Catholics. Canning was frustrated in his attempts to achieve reform. He died in August 1827, but the divisions within the Tory party did not die with him—the ideological battles continued. His successor Viscount Goderich, former Chancellor F. J. Robinson, was appointed Prime Minister. It was not a successful tenure, for Goderich resigned without even meeting Parliament. Thrust into a position which he had not sought and which held no appeal for him, amidst deep Tory divisions, Goderich resigned after four months in office. The Duke of Wellington assumed office in January 1828 as Prime Minister, under pressure from the reformers and radicals on one side and his own Ultra Tories who looked to him to defend the Protestant Constitution in Church and State, but the Duke's government was hopelessly divided on religious, political and constitutional matters.

Continuing industrialisation - Industrialisation c1800-1832

Sustained economic growth continued through the late eighteenth century, even during wartime, and into the nineteenth century - though some historians have detected a slow-down in activity between 1780 and 1800. It is important to bear in mind that as a process industrialisation occurred over a long span of time, and variation was not only dictated by time but by space. There was great regional variation in industrial development, and each industry was subject to great variation in technological development.The mainsprings of economic and industrial development consisted of three main industries: coal, iron and cotton. An analysis of these industries illustrates how far industrial development resulted from growth in particular sectors, for growth in these industries were to some extent the gauge of the economy, and an indication of how far economic development had progressed.

Why was defence of the Corn Laws so important to the Tory party? Explain with reference to Britain's economic structure and to the composition of the parlimentary Tory party and the support it had throughout the country.

The Corn Laws were passed in order to maintain the economic livelihoods and interests of the landowning aristocracy. As land was their main source of income, the Corn Laws was considered a political privilege not only as an economic measure of self-sufficiency and independence but as an indicator of the importance of the 'Territorial Constitution' with land and politics inextricably connected, and conveying the political authority of the landed classes.

Why do you think the abolition of slavery was so long delayed?

The Tory government was wary of offending the West India interest as many politicians on both sides of the party divide had a financial interest in the West Indies. There were strong economic interest groups, especially with links to the cotton and sugar industries, with a presence in Parliament. It would not be easy for Parliament to pass legislation as that would effectively be expropriating private property, and one of the fundamental taboos of the economic system was that private property should be secure from legislative interference. Fear of slave revolts, public order issues, and the boost given to radical agitation were also important in delaying the enactment of abolition.

Why did the Whigs believe parliamentary reform was necessary? Why did the Tories oppose reform?

The Whigs saw parliamentary reform as necessary as a re-balancing of interests within the State, and they might also derive a political advantage from disfranchising Tory constituencies. While many Whigs had long been committed to reform, many feared that by 1830 failure to introduce reform would create a dangerous alliance between the middle and working classes which might lead to a more violent political change. Whigs believed it was necessary to make the political system more responsive to the demands of emergent new classes, most notably, the urban middle class, as a means of promoting stability and in strengthening the political stability of the Constitution. Tories opposed reform because they feared that while the Whigs would derive political advantage from any reform which incorporated the middle class within the electoral system, that any reform would fuel further demands and would ultimately destroy the Anglican Church and State which ultimately depended on restricting the franchise and ensuring the Church of England retained privileges against Dissenters and Roman Catholics.

The humanitarian campaign for abolition

The classic early interpretation explaining the abolition of the slave trade, still accepted by many historians as the best, was that bringing the trade to an end was largely down to campaigns conducted by humanitarians - most of them with strong religious convictions, concerned at the inhumanity of slavery and the slave trade. This view has been challenged but it remains the 'default position' for starting to look for explanations for the end of the slave trade in 1807. This can be explained in part, perhaps, as a way of easing the guilt at what our ancestors did on slave plantations; it makes us feel a little better about ourselves to think that the national conscience did, if belatedly, come good and condemn the slave trade and, eventually, slavery itself. A large part of the strength of the argument for the primacy of humanitarianism in the abolition of the slave trade lies in its prevalence throughout Europe. As in the rest of Western Europe, there was ample evidence in the 1760s and 1770s of growing qualms about, and revulsion against, the practice of slavery and the trade associated with it. Notable national figures such as Samuel Johnson, John Wesley and Adam Smith had all spoken out or written against the practice.

Economic policies and free trade - William Huskisson and Reciprocity

The effects of industrialisation went beyond technical innovation and economic outputs but had a direct effect on trading and commerce policy in the international arena. Trade was boosted by William Huskisson's Reciprocity Treaties of the 1820s. By the 1820s a shift towards 'freer trade' had occurred which appeared to represent more than administrative efficiency or institutional rationalization. The nature of the measures indicates they were underpinned by a vision of Britain's future as a manufacturing economy dependent on international trade expansion. Commercial policy reform in the 1820s owed much to the leading Liberal Tory William Huskisson. As President of the Board of Trade, Huskisson instigated reform in a cautious but convincing manner. The policy areas with which Huskisson is most often associated indicate the persistence of protectionism within the British body politic. In reforming the Navigation Acts, Huskisson revealed that reciprocity and the threat of retaliation were central to his commercial policy strategy. The Reciprocity of Duties Act (1823) granted equality of duties on goods and shipping to any country agreeing to grant the same to Britain, although reserving the right of retaliation against those retaining discriminatory duties. The policy resulted in twenty-seven reciprocity treaties by 1844. The 1824 Budget had been the first to contain proposals of avowed free trade. Huskisson also consolidated customs duties, with three hundred ancient and obsolete statutes repealed. The Navigation Laws were also modified, with Canadian wheat admitted at a fixed duty of 5s, and all protective duties restricted to 30%. Lord Liverpool had been a cautious free trader, and despite receiving and agreeing with the sentiments and principles of the free trade 'Merchants Petition' of 1820 he was unable to promise any great or immediate alteration. Partly that was because in many respects, Liverpool's government worked on the principles of laissez-faire, believing that it was not the primary role of government to regulate wages or prices, and that direct government intervention in the economy should be as minimal as possible. This was the philosophy of the great political economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo, though the extent to which the complexities of their theories had filtered through to the governing elite was as yet limited. Government regulation of trade however was a complex business for there were areas where government clearly did intervene. For example, there were good reasons for levying duties on foreign goods. Not only did customs duties protect and favour home manufacturers and agriculturalists, they also provided revenue for government.

What was the significance of the establishment of the Metropolitan Police force? What did its establishment say about the modernization of British society, and the role of Robert Peel in reforming the criminal justice system?

The establishment of the Metropolitan Police complemented Peel's earlier work in the criminal justice system. In the face of rising crime rates, Peel aimed at prevention and deterrence. By changing the face of British society, the effects of rapid urbanisation and industrialisation demanded a response from the government to maintain public order in a more complex society where living spaces were being transformed. The police were also used to suppress political disturbances (such as those of Chartism) which were partly a consequence of working class frustration at some of the effects of urbanisation and a growing population, like the Poor Laws, the deficiencies in political representation and the continuation of economic distress.

Dealing with unrest

The first thing the Whigs needed to deal with was rural unrest sparked by an economic downturn in the late 1820s which led to outbreaks of machine-breaking and unrest, most notoriously in the 'Swing Riots'. The ferocity of these outbreaks unsettled the government and arguably stiffened their resolve to push for reform measures. However, first they had to quell the disorder, and to this effect special commissions were established to deal with rioters who were dealt with severely, punished by death or transportation. This firm stance in re-establishing order was deemed necessary by politicians, and the harsh government response indicates that Grey's government was just as capable of adopting repressive measures as the Tory governments of Pitt, Perceval and Liverpool. Grey could now turn his attention to reform.

What problems did population growth and urban development create?

The many problems concerned insufficient infrastructure in the expanding industrial towns. Overcrowding, unhealthy, insanitary conditions at work and at home, and inadequate street lighting and amenities were a problem in many areas. Local governments were unable to cope with the demands placed on them, and their inability to manage these areas led to the formation of many social reform and philanthropic movements. Factories were to some extent unregulated leading to often dangerous and insanitary conditions. The concentration of the population led to calls for ameliorative measures, whether short-term measures such as poor relief or long-term solutions like educational provision and better sanitary practices and facilities.

The Whig Government

The new Whig Government which came to power in November 1830 was led by Charles Grey, a long-time supporter of reform and one of the most experienced Whig politicians. The removal of the Tories cleared the way for a reform measure but the Whigs still faced the difficulty of preparing legislation. The Whig attitude to reform can be summarised as follows: - Their big fear, given their landed background, was that failure to introduce reform would consolidate the emerging alliance of middle and working classes. A limited concession to the middle classes would win them over into a broad, property-owning defence of the constitution and split them off from the working classes with their democratic and even revolutionary demands. - They believed that moderate reform would calm down an excitable political atmosphere in the country and provide what they hoped would be a permanent solution to the constitutional problem. - The Whigs thought limited reform would reduce the number of rotten boroughs currently held by the Tories and make the new middle-class electorate in old and new constituencies grateful to the Whigs. The keynote of the Whig approach was moderation, seeing reform as a necessary re-balancing of interests within the State, yet the Whig Cabinet was drawn almost exclusively from the House of Lords, a reflection both of the aristocratic nature of the Whig party, and an indication of the moderate nature and extent of reform measure that was to come. Grey's Cabinet included several Canningites, as these men were necessary for the Whig majority in the House of Commons. Viscount Palmerston was the most notable of this group and Grey made him Foreign Secretary. The intricate, interlinking nature of the great Whig families was apparent in some other appointments, such as Grey's son-in-law Lord Durham and the radical Henry Brougham. Lord Melbourne was appointed Home Secretary, a role in which he dealt ruthlessly with rural and urban disorder and unrest.

Topic 2 - Economic Trends

The period 1812 to 1832 witnessed a rapid advance in the key industries in the British economy, not least from the application of steam power to many sectors, which promoted higher productivity. In agriculture, enclosure and the more intelligent use of new farming techniques and technologies produced higher crop yields. Economic growth was also promoted by government policies which were informed by the views of Adam Smith and other political economists who advocated freer trade as a means of wealth creation. Economic policies aimed at advancing international trade by removing prohibitions and reducing customs duties and tariffs, while making commercial agreements with foreign nations. The main sectors of the Victorian economy, consisting of coal, iron, and textiles (especially cotton), were further developed during this period, and early efforts to construct a railway network were seen. These would be more fully developed in the years after 1832.

The Ministries of Canning, Goderich and Wellington Reform and reaction, 1827-30

The period 1827-30 saw disunity and division in both major party groupings and this, in conjunction with other factors such as the Catholic Relief Act, created conditions more auspicious for reform. Historian Boyd Hilton has made the point that, while it has been argued that the Tory party collapsed in 1830 amid country-wide demands for parliamentary reform, in reality no petitions calling exclusively for reform were presented between 1825 and 1829. Indeed, the issue appeared dead. Hilton writes that 'its eventual revival was more a consequence than a cause of Wellington's fall, which was due to discontent within his party rather than in the country at large' (Hilton, 2006). There is certainly good evidence that when Lord Liverpool resigned in 1827 the prospect of even moderate parliamentary reform seemed a distant one. As you have seen, a motion introduced by the liberal Whig Lord John Russell in 1822 had been roundly defeated by 269 to 164. Although Liverpool had recognised a need to placate the growing middle-class interest, he believed this could best be done in ways that did not involve parliamentary reform. The evidence of the 1826 election, when reform hardly featured at all, even suggested that the voting public (in the one-third of constituencies where there was actually a contest) was not greatly interested in change. The story of the splits and confusion of the years between 1827 and 1830 (and beyond) is not at all straightforward. Three Tory administrations followed in quick succession. These were led in turn by George Canning, Viscount Goderich and the Duke of Wellington. Each administration was marked by personality clashes and policy differences between the men who had earlier served together under Liverpool.

Topic 1 - Government, 1812-1830

The period from 1812 to 1832 was a momentous one in British political history. It was a period which began with the assassination of a Prime Minister, and ended with Britain potentially on the verge of a revolutionary change in its constitution and electoral system, having only a short time earlier, passed a major reform removing obstacles to the participation of Catholics in British public life. It was a period dominated by Tory governments, but one which witnessed the gradual erosion of Tory party unity which had been a central feature of the Ministries of Lord Liverpool between 1812 and 1827. The later 1820s saw a revival of the Whig party which, revitalised by an alliance with the Canningite liberal wing of the Tory party, pushed for parliamentary reform and a more liberal approach in domestic and foreign affairs.

Distress and banking regulation

The reforms of Huskisson's Budgets of 1824-25 were developed during a period of commercial vibrancy but when this period of prosperity ended in 1826 there was widespread criticism of Huskisson's policies. Bank failures, businesses bankruptcies, and distress for the labouring classes were prominent features of the downturn which affected all classes. Liverpool blamed over-speculation during the boom, for when asset values declined, heavy losses were incurred on previous investments. The Government responded with much-needed legislation on banking, with the 1826 Banking Act allowing other banks to operate as joint-stock banks, which could issue notes and which would be more robust and sustainable than the small private banks many of which had failed during the crisis. The Act terminated the Bank of England's exclusive privilege to engage in joint-stock banking without limit on number of shareholders and with the right of note issue, and also protected the Bank's pre-eminent London position against encroachment by provincial banks. As the Act gave the Bank exclusive privilege of opening up branches anywhere in the country, the Bank opened branches outside London, and joint-stock banks were established in the provinces and other major provincial cities. The Banking Act provided greater regulation of existing banks while encouraging the growth of more robust ones, which would be able to survive in difficult times. In a sense, the reform was symptomatic of Liverpool's reforming instincts of administrative reform, business, efficiency and economic growth. It was a Government which engaged in pursuing practical solutions to contemporary business problems in a non-doctrinaire way. How long this approach was viable, given increasing demands for political and social reform, remained to be seen but in its own way, the Liverpool government had proved to be modernising at least in an administrative sense.

The election of the Whigs - Conservative split

The repercussions of Catholic emancipation in 1828 for the Tory Party - and, at one remove, for the prospect of parliamentary reform - were considerable. The unfolding Emancipation question had severely damaged the unity of Wellington's government and the Tories. At one extreme, by initially opposing concessions to Catholics, Wellington and Peel had early on lost the support of the Canningite wing of the party. At the other, their belated conversion to emancipation was interpreted as a betrayal by the more reactionary wing of the party, the Ultras. This three-way split in the Tory ranks had allowed a coalition of interest to develop between Whigs and Canningites. Against a background of severe economic depression, with a depleted Cabinet, and with calls for parliamentary reform in the air, the government tottered into the summer of 1830. Under the election protocols of the time, the death of George IV and succession of William IV in 1830 necessitated a General Election. Although slightly fewer seats were contested than in the previous election of 1826, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that support for reform in the existing electorate was significant. Moreover, against a background of another revolution in France in 1830, those not entitled to vote were often more ready than ever to make their feelings known at election time and even to intimidate candidates into declaring their support for some measure of reform. In open constituencies, with limited landlord influence, government candidates suffered. They won only three out of the 28 most popular urban seats and 28 out of 82 contested county seats in England and Wales. Committed government supporters probably still outnumbered committed opposition supporters but some 200 independent MPs would play a key role as events unfolded from 1830 onwards. Wellington continued in office but his tactical decision to seek reconciliation with the Ultras and come out against reform in November 1830 consolidated the Whig-Canningite alliance and brought about defeat for his administration and a call from William IV to Grey and the Whigs to form a government.

Government repression

The response of Lord Liverpool's government to the protest and disorder outlined earlier was to legislate for a number of measures conditioned by a fear of insurrection but not requiring over-much central action. The absence of an efficient police force and the limited numbers of troops at the disposal of the government meant that it saw its first line of defence in boosting the powers of the main representatives of law and order, the local magistrates. The Home Office kept in close correspondence with magistrates and encouraged them to use agents and spies to find out what was going on in the radical underground in their areas. In the wake of the 1816 Spa Fields riots, the Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, systematised the use of agent provocateurs. Then in 1817 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended and a Seditious Meetings Act forbade meetings of more than 50 people if a magistrate hadn't approved them. In 1819, after Peterloo, the so-called Six Acts were passed. What these acts did was to: - ban public meetings called to draft protests and petitions - empower magistrates to confiscate arms - authorise magistrates to confiscate seditious literature - increase the stamp duty on newspapers and pamphlets to make radical writings prohibitively expensive - give greater powers in treason trials to the prosecution - prohibit the training of private armies. There has been much debate, then and since, as to whether government responses rested on terror and intimidation or whether they were simply maintaining law and order with minimal force.

List the areas where historians disagree on the concept of the Industrial Revolution

The scale and nature of industrial change are debated with some historians noting the persistence of small-scale workshop production and the continuing importance of agriculture as a sector to the national economy. Factory production was increasing in importance but was still limited by sector and location as part of the overall economy. Manufacturing was much more diverse than large-scale production, and manufacturing growth was steadier and less dependent on major advances in the core industries. Nevertheless, the advances of the main industries cannot be ignored and were more important as portents of future industrial developments.

The anti-slavery movement - The background to abolition

The shipping of black slaves from the African continent in English vessels to the American colonies and the West Indies, where they were sold to work on sugar and later cotton and tobacco plantations, had a long history and was a lucrative business for many shippers and merchants. Yet despite the prevalence of British shipping in the slave trade, the legal situation of slavery had long been ambivalent. However, since the 1772 Mansfield judgement and its assertion that 'the claim of slavery never can be supported', the freedom of any slave held on English soil had effectively been guaranteed. This judgement had followed a legal case to determine whether James Somerset, an escaped slave brought by his owner to England from Jamaica, should be returned to his owner or allowed to remain free. Somerset's case had been taken up by an early abolitionist, Granville Sharp. Mansfield's judgement did not strictly mean the end of slavery in England but it did assert that a slave became free the moment he set foot on English territory. It was a very significant background to the campaign to abolish slavery, less for its legal weight than for the impression it gave of a move away from support for slavery.

The growth of a radical press

These years also saw the emergence of a much more self-confident radical press. Lord Liverpool spoke of the press as 'the real source of the evil [of sedition and violence]'. Although many newspapers aimed at a middle-class readership proved a thorn in the side of government, it was working-class newspapers that came to be seen as especially threatening and dangerous. Cobbett's Political Register, Wooler's Black Dwarf, Hone's Reformist Register and Carlile's The Republican were particularly singled out for condemnation by the political classes. Cobbett's journal had been founded in 1802 but the other three were new post-war publications. The Political Register achieved a renewed significance because Cobbett began publishing it in 1816 in the form of a much cheaper, unstamped two-penny pamphlet that reached a far wider public. His conversion to the more democratic demands of reformers like Cartwright for manhood suffrage made his impact even more worrying for the government.

General unionism

Trade union development can be represented as a series of false starts and frustrated hopes. 'High hopes and small beginnings' is how the historian of trade unionism, Henry Pelling, put it in a chapter heading in his A History of British Trade Unionism (1971). A lot of energy and ambition went into trying to create national associations from the mainly local and regional societies existing in the skilled trades. Often utopian, that is, idealistic, as opposed to practical, these attempts to form general unions to help workers in a wide range of industries would prove ephemeral. They included: - The 1829 Grand General Union of the United Kingdom, which was set up for all spinning societies but never got beyond a loose association of Lancashire groups. - John Doherty's 1830 National Association for the Protection of Labour (NAPL), which attempted to embrace other trades as well as textiles. - Robert Owen's famous Grand National Consolidated Trade Union (GNCTU) of 1834. Historian Peter Mathias has written that 'These extended visionary schemes are to be considered more as forerunners of Chartism, which focused so much working-class ambition in the 1830s and 1840s' than the permanent successful organisations to be developed only under the 'new model' craft unions that you will look at later. (Mathias, 2001).

The middle classes

Urban mercantile and manufacturing groups were in no way suffering the social and economic distress of the rest of the population. For them it was the growth of trade, the search for overseas markets and the increase in the complexity of economic issues that led them to seek direct representation in Parliament. Middle-class pressure was growing in strength year on year. Businessmen had often had a 'bumpy' ride in the previous decades and they increasingly looked to having a stronger direct say in what economic policies the government should implement. Most historians agree that the key challenge to authority came from the middle classes. The vast majority of middle-class supporters of political change were not committed to full democracy and the furtherance of the political rights of all, including the working classes. Their protests were largely concerned with furthering their own interests. What they sought was moderate change, allowing their representatives to have a more direct say in the selection of MPs and in the running of the country. Broader representation of business and industrial interests would, for example, lead to Parliament legislating more effectively for free trade and other measures of particular importance to them. This position logically led to the idea that stranglehold that the aristocracy and landed interests held over Parliament had to be relaxed.

Outline the main features of industrial and urban growth in different parts of the United Kingdom. Why would the changing balance of population between town and country cause difficulties?

Urbanisation was most notable in the growth of great industrial cities drawing migrants from surrounding areas and from Ireland, and was most marked in areas where there was plentiful work in factories, such as Manchester, Glasgow, and Liverpool. The industrial map of Britain was taking shape and this would last for the next 150 years, with coalfields in South Wales, Midlands, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, and textile factories in Lancashire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire. With the exception of the sprawling urban conurbation of London, and its extensive commercial, financial, and colonial industries, the South continued to be predominantly rural.

What did the passing of Catholic Emancipation say about the divisions within political parties? In what ways do you think its passing would change the nature of British politics?

While the immediate impact of Catholic Emancipation was limited somewhat by the raising of the value of the property franchise but an important point of political principle had been conceded, and the effects would be profound and long-lasting. Catholic Emancipation had a major impact on the Conservative party, dividing it between Ultras, Liberal Tories, and moderate Conservatives. By doing so, and with a high degree of Whig unity, made the prospect of Whig government and a measure of parliamentary reform more likely.

Distress and reform

While the relative prosperity of the mid-1820s had led to a quietening down of agitation, it could be expected to emerge again if economic fortunes declined. This is exactly what happened at the end of the decade, when a trade depression, poor harvests and consequently high food prices helped make the voice of reform heard again. A commitment to bettering the social and economic conditions of the people and relieving them of distress was at the heart of popular radicalism, which had very vocal support in both working and middle classes. A very important middle-class mover for reform, Thomas Attwood (whom you will come back to shortly) saw distress as the key: 'It was at least the distress of the country which primarily led to the agitation for reform' he told the Birmingham Political Union in 1830. 'Distress was the cause - reform the effect.' In Parliament there was a recognition that popular discontent was inevitable. The Whig leader, Earl Grey, spoke of 'a state of general distress such as never before pressed upon any country'. Both middle and lower classes increasingly saw parliamentary reform as the panacea. It was during 1829-30 that trade depressions, harvest failures and higher food prices added further fuel to the reform fire. Harvest failures combined with other factors, such as agricultural mechanisation (which depressed rural wages), to create widespread unrest over much of southern England in 1830. This led to rioting, known as the 'Swing Riots' in many places. William Cobbett made the point that people with empty stomachs were more receptive to radical political arguments - and certainly economic hardship was a help to those calling for reform.

What was new about Liberal Toryism and which policy areas were influenced by it?

While there was much of Toryism which was not new, Liberal Toryism consisted of a more rational, even scientific application of political principles which aimed at securing social and economic objectives. Liberal Toryism was particularly apparent in areas of commercial and business reform, where William Huskisson implemented freer trade measures and rationalisation of the tariff schedule as a means of promoting trade. Peel's reforms of the criminal justice system can also be viably considered as Liberal Tory measures. Liberal Toryism can be characterised as a flexible response to rapid social and economic change and a willingness to deal with these new questions in different areas.

Agricultural protection

While there were moves towards freer trade in the eighteenth century, by the early nineteenth century the protective system was still largely in place, and even extended in 1815 with the imposition of the protectionist Corn Law of 1815, protecting the price of domestic corn, and shutting out foreign corn. This was widely condemned by radicals as a class measure, passed by a Parliament of landowners for the benefit of landowners. On agricultural protection and the Corn Laws Liverpool had stated: 'Some suppose that we have risen because of that system. Others, of whom I am one, believe that we have risen in spite of that system'. (Brock, Lord Liverpool and Liberal Toryism 1820-1827) In Parliament, Liverpool indicated that British commercial interests should not be sacrificed to agriculture (and vice versa) and expounded on the desirability of the theory of 'comparative advantage' of trade between nations, although he considered that other nations had not yet arrived at recognition of the wisdom of this system. There was no prospect of any repeal of the Corn Laws at this date, for both the majority of the Conservative and Whig parties supported agricultural protection. Modification was the most that could be expected, and eventually there was a revision in 1828 which reduced the level of protection, via a sliding-scale not a fixed price, enjoyed by the agricultural interest. Not until the 1840s would the Conservatives again face this divisive issue.