living conditions during the industrial revolution essay

Cities, smoke, and steam: The harsh reality of living through the Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution was a time of unprecedented change, a period that forever altered the landscape of human life.

It was a chapter where the quiet rhythm of rural existence gave way to the relentless hum of machinery, and the horizon, once dotted with pastoral scenes, became obscured by the billowing smoke of factory chimneys.

This era, driven by innovation and ingenuity, brought about a seismic shift in the way people lived, worked, and interacted with each other.

How the Industrial Revolution changed the world

The Industrial Revolution ushered in a new era of economic prosperity and upheaval.

Before this period, economies were predominantly agrarian , with the majority of people engaged in farming and living in rural communities.

However, the advent of groundbreaking technologies, such as the steam engine and the power loom , transformed the production landscape.

Factories emerged as the epicenters of industry, drawing workers from the countryside to bustling cities in search of employment.

This shift led to the rise of the working class and a significant increase in production capabilities, making goods more accessible and affordable.

Simultaneously, the revolution catalyzed global trade expansion. Goods produced in the factories of Europe and North America found their way to distant markets, creating a more interconnected world economy.

This era also saw the birth of capitalism as a dominant economic system, with individuals and companies accumulating wealth through investment and trade.

The accumulation of capital, in turn, fueled further industrial growth, creating a cycle of economic expansion.

However, this rapid industrialization and economic change also brought about stark inequalities, with wealth concentrated in the hands of a few while many workers faced poverty and exploitation.

Dangerous factory conditions

The Industrial Revolution brought about a significant shift in working conditions, particularly within the walls of the newly established factories.

The demand for labor was high, and for many, working in a factory provided a more reliable source of income than agricultural work.

These workplaces were often vast, crowded spaces filled with noisy, dangerous machinery.

Workers, including women and children, were required to put in long hours, sometimes up to 16 hours a day, with minimal breaks and under the constant watch of factory overseers.

The relentless pace of work and the monotonous nature of the tasks led to physical and mental exhaustion among the workforce.

Safety measures were virtually non-existent in the early days of industrialization, leading to frequent accidents and injuries.

The machinery was often ungoverned, with exposed moving parts that could easily catch clothing or limbs.

Additionally, the air in the factories was filled with dust and fumes from the machines, contributing to respiratory problems and other health issues among workers.

Why people lived in terrible houses

As workers flocked to industrial centers in search of employment, the demand for housing far outstripped the supply.

The result was the emergence of overcrowded and poorly constructed tenements , where multiple families often shared a single room with little access to natural light or ventilation.

These cramped quarters became breeding grounds for disease, with outbreaks of cholera, typhus, and tuberculosis common among the urban poor.

Sanitation in these areas was woefully inadequate. Open sewers and the lack of proper waste disposal systems contributed to the spread of illness and created a pervasive stench in the streets.

Access to clean water was limited, further exacerbating health problems.

The living conditions in these urban slums starkly contrasted with the relatively spacious and sanitary homes of the middle and upper classes, highlighting the social inequalities of the time.

A family living in a cramped and dimly lit tenement

How family life was impacted

Prior to industrialization, families typically worked together as units on farms or in cottage industries, with both men and women contributing to the household economy.

However, as factories became the primary centers of production, men increasingly sought work outside the home, while women and children often worked in the factories alongside them or took up domestic roles.

The separation of work from home life led to a more defined division of labor based on gender.

Men were seen as the primary breadwinners, responsible for providing for the family through their factory wages.

Women's roles became more centered around the home, focusing on child-rearing, cooking, and household management.

However, this ideal was not always achievable, especially for working-class families, where women and children often had to work to supplement the family income.

The long hours and harsh conditions of factory work also impacted family dynamics.

With parents working long hours, children were often left to fend for themselves or were sent to work at a young age.

This disruption of traditional family structures led to concerns about the moral and physical welfare of children and the stability of family life.

Why children were some of the worst victims

Prior to this period, formal education was primarily accessible to the wealthy, while the working class had limited opportunities for schooling.

However, as the demand for a skilled workforce increased with the growth of factories and new technologies, the need for basic literacy and numeracy became more apparent.

In the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, child labor was common, and many children worked long hours in factories instead of attending school.

Children as young as six were employed in mills and mines, where they performed dangerous tasks for meager wages.

Their small size made them ideal for tasks like crawling under machinery to retrieve fallen materials, but it also put them at great risk of injury or death.

This situation began to change as social reformers advocated for compulsory education and the reduction of child labor.

By the mid-19th century, several countries had introduced laws requiring children to attend school for a certain number of years.

These educational reforms, coupled with the establishment of public schools and teacher training programs, led to a gradual increase in literacy rates.

Education became more standardized, with a focus on reading, writing, arithmetic, and basic science.

The rise of literacy also fueled the growth of print media, with newspapers and books becoming more widely available and affordable.

What do you need help with?

Download ready-to-use digital learning resources.

Contact via email

Understanding the Causes of World War I

Exploring Nigerian Culture

Holidays and Celebrations: Exploring World History Through Medieval Times
Understanding the Greenhouse Effect: An Overview of Global Climate Change
Knights and Chivalry
Code of Conduct
Armor and Weapons
Medieval Life
Health and Medicine
Holidays and Celebrations
Serfs and Peasants
Kings and Lords
City-States
Gods and Goddesses
Julius Caesar
Industrial Revolution
Impact on Society
World War II
Allied Powers
Atomic Bomb
World War I
Treaty of Versailles
Major Battles
Leaders and Rulers
Alexander the Great
Queen Elizabeth I
Napoleon Bonaparte
Activists and Reformers
Nelson Mandela
Susan B. Anthony
Mahatma Gandhi
Scientists and Inventors
Thomas Edison
Marie Curie
Albert Einstein
Fall of the Berlin Wall
Cuban Missile Crisis
Civil Rights Movement
Martin Luther King Jr.
Segregation
Climate Change
Renewable Energy
Greenhouse Effect
Impact on Environment
African Cultures
Egyptian Culture
Nigerian Culture
Asian Cultures
Japanese Culture
Indian Culture
Chinese Culture
Latin American Cultures
Aztec Civilization
Mayan Civilization
Inca Civilization
Natural Disasters
Tsunami in Japan
Hurricane Katrina
Pompeii Eruption
Important Events
Signing of the Declaration of Independence
Discovery of Penicillin
Moon Landing
Cultural Achievements
Renaissance Art
Ancient Chinese Inventions
Assessment Tools
Projects and Presentations
Writing Assignments
Quizzes and Tests
Teaching Methods
Interactive Learning
Primary Sources
Role-playing
Educational Resources
Online Databases
Educational Games
Museums and Exhibits
Photographs and Artifacts
Government Documents
Diaries and Letters
Online Sources
Websites and Blogs
Digital Archives
Books and Literature
Historical Fiction
Biographies
Impact on Society During the Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution was a period of rapid technological advancements that transformed society in numerous ways. It was a time of great change, and its impact on society was immense. From the development of new machinery to the emergence of new industries, the Industrial Revolution had a profound effect on people's lives. In this article, we will explore the impact of the Industrial Revolution on society and how it shaped the modern era.

We will delve into the various aspects of this period and analyze its effects on different sectors such as economy, culture, and social structure. So let's dive into the world of the Industrial Revolution and discover its significance in shaping the society we know today. The Industrial Revolution was a period of great change and innovation that transformed the way people lived and worked. It began in Britain in the late 1700s and quickly spread to other parts of Europe and North America. This revolution was characterized by the development of new technologies, such as the steam engine and textile machinery, which drastically increased production and efficiency in various industries. One of the main impacts of the Industrial Revolution was the rise of factories and mass production.

With the introduction of machines, goods could now be produced at a much faster rate and with less manual labor. This led to an increase in urbanization as people moved from rural areas to cities in search of employment in these new factories. The rise of factories also brought about significant changes in social, economic, and political structures. The working class emerged as a new social class, with factory workers facing harsh working conditions and low wages. This led to the formation of labor unions and the rise of socialism as a response to the unequal distribution of wealth. Economically, the Industrial Revolution brought about a shift from an agrarian society to an industrial one.

This resulted in a significant increase in productivity and economic growth, leading to the accumulation of wealth for the upper class. However, this also widened the gap between the rich and the poor, creating a stark divide between the haves and have-nots. Politically, the Industrial Revolution also had a profound impact. As more people moved to cities, there was a need for better infrastructure and public services. This led to reforms in government policies and the emergence of new political ideologies such as liberalism and conservatism. In conclusion, the Industrial Revolution had a lasting impact on society, shaping the world we live in today.

The Rise of Factories and Mass Production

Urbanization and population growth, economic effects, political shifts, social changes.

The working class emerged as a new social class, and the gap between the rich and poor grew wider. In conclusion, the Industrial Revolution had a significant impact on society, from its economic and political effects to its social and cultural changes. It transformed the way people lived, worked, and interacted with one another, and its effects can still be seen in our modern world. By understanding the impact of this period in history, we can gain a deeper understanding of our global society today.

New Articles

The Devastation of Hurricane Katrina: A Look Back at One of the Deadliest Natural Disasters in World History

The Devastation of Hurricane Katrina: A Look Back at One of the Deadliest Natural Disasters in World History

Learn about Hurricane Katrina and its impact on the world. From the historical context to the devastation it caused, this article covers all aspects of this natural disaster.

Understanding the Greenhouse Effect: An Overview of Global Climate Change

Learn about the Greenhouse Effect and its impact on global climate change in this comprehensive article.

Exploring the World Through Educational Games

Exploring the World Through Educational Games

Unleashing the Power of Education with Games

Understanding Tsunami in Japan

A comprehensive look at the natural disaster that shook Japan and affected the world.

A Brief History of Major Battles in World War I

Discovering the Genius of Thomas Edison
Podcasts for Exploring World History
A Fascinating Look into the World of Pharaohs
Understanding the Code of Conduct in Medieval Times
The Fascinating World of Biographies: A Comprehensive Look into Historical Figures and Events
The Fascinating World of Renaissance Art
Exploring the Fascinating Mayan Civilization: A Journey Through Time
An Overview of Mythology in Ancient Greece
Napoleon Bonaparte: The Rise and Fall of a Revolutionary Leader
Health and Medicine in Medieval Times: Exploring the Connection between Body and Mind
Exploring the Life and Reign of Queen Elizabeth I
A Journey to the Moon: Exploring the History of the Moon Landing
Inventions Throughout History: A Journey Through the Modern Era and Industrial Revolution
Nelson Mandela: A Leader in the Fight for Equality
Museums and Exhibits: Unlocking the Secrets of World History
Understanding Segregation: A Comprehensive Look at Global Events and the Civil Rights Movement
A Journey Through the City-States of Ancient Greece
The Fall of the Berlin Wall: A Defining Moment in World History
The Impact and Significance of the Treaty of Versailles in World History
Understanding the Allied Powers in World War II
Understanding the Crusades: A Journey Through Medieval Times
Uncovering the Mysteries of Mummies
Websites and Blogs: A Comprehensive Overview of World History Resources
A Brief History of Kings and Lords: Exploring Medieval Times and Feudalism
A Brief Overview of the Fascinating Inca Civilization

The Power of Online Databases: Unlocking the Secrets of World History

Exploring the Rich History of the Aztec Civilization
Exploring World History Through Interactive Learning
Exploring the Fascinating World of Armor and Weapons
Discovering the Richness of Japanese Culture

Which cookies do you want to accept?

Liberty Fund
Adam Smith Works
Law & Liberty
Browse by Author
Browse by Topic
Browse by Date
Search EconLog
Latest Episodes
Browse by Guest
Browse by Category
Browse Extras
Search EconTalk
Latest Articles
Liberty Classics
Book Reviews
Search Articles
Books by Date
Books by Author
Search Books
Browse by Title
Biographies
Search Encyclopedia
#ECONLIBREADS
College Topics
High School Topics
Subscribe to QuickPicks
Search Guides
Search Videos
Library of Law & Liberty
Home /

ECONLIB CEE

Industrial Revolution and the Standard of Living

By clark nardinelli.

By Clark Nardinelli,

B etween 1760 and 1860, technological progress, education , and an increasing capital stock transformed England into the workshop of the world. The industrial revolution, as the transformation came to be known, caused a sustained rise in real income per person in England and, as its effects spread, in the rest of the Western world. Historians agree that the industrial revolution was one of the most important events in history, marking the rapid transition to the modern age, but they disagree vehemently about many aspects of the event. Of all the disagreements, the oldest one is over how the industrial revolution affected ordinary people, often called the working classes. One group, the pessimists, argues that the living standards of ordinary people fell, while another group, the optimists, believes that living standards rose.

At one time, behind the debate was an ideological argument between the critics (especially Marxists) and the defenders of free markets. The critics, or pessimists, saw nineteenth-century England as Charles Dickens’s Coketown or poet William Blake’s “dark, satanic mills,” with capitalists squeezing more surplus value out of the working class with each passing year. The defenders, or optimists, saw nineteenth-century England as the birthplace of a consumer revolution that made more and more consumer goods available to ordinary people with each passing year. The ideological underpinnings of the debate eventually faded, probably because, as T. S. Ashton pointed out in 1948, the industrial revolution meant the difference between the grinding poverty that had characterized most of human history and the affluence of the modern industrialized nations. No economist today seriously disputes the fact that the industrial revolution began the transformation that has led to extraordinarily high (compared with the rest of human history) living standards for ordinary people throughout the market industrial economies.

The standard-of-living debate today is not about whether the industrial revolution made people better off, but about when. The pessimists claim no marked improvement in standards of living until the 1840s or 1850s. Most optimists, by contrast, believe that living standards were rising by the 1810s or 1820s, or even earlier.

The most influential recent contribution to the optimist position (and the center of much of the subsequent standard-of-living debate) is a 1983 paper by Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson that produced new estimates of real wages in England for the years 1755 to 1851. These estimates are based on money wages for workers in several broad categories, including both blue-collar and white-collar occupations. The authors’ cost-of-living index attempted to represent actual working-class budgets. Lindert’s and Williamson’s analyses produced two striking results. First, they showed that real wages grew slowly between 1781 and 1819. Second, after 1819, real wages grew rapidly for all groups of workers. For all blue-collar workers—a good stand-in for the working classes—the Lindert-Williamson index number for real wages rose from 50 in 1819 to 100 in 1851. That is, real wages doubled in just thirty-two years.

Other economists challenged Lindert’s and Williamson’s optimistic findings. Charles Feinstein produced an alternative series of real wages based on a different price index. In the Feinstein series, real wages rose much more slowly than in the Lindert-Williamsons series. Other researchers have speculated that the largely unmeasured effects of environmental decay more than offset any gains in well-being attributable to rising wages. Wages were higher in English cities than in the countryside, but rents were higher and the quality of life was lower. What proportion of the rise in urban wages reflected compensation for worsening urban squalor rather than true increases in real incomes? Williamson—using methods developed to measure the ill effects of twentieth-century cities—found that between 8 and 30 percent of the higher urban wages could be attributed to compensation for the inferior quality of life in English cities. John Brown found that much of the rise in real wages in the factory districts could be explained as compensation for poor working and living conditions. Another criticism of Lindert’s and Williamson’s optimistic findings is that their results were for workers who earned wages. We do not know what happened to people who worked at home or were self-employed. Because the consumption per person of tea and sugar, thought of as luxury goods at the time, failed to rise along with real wages, Joel Mokyr has suggested that workers who were not in the Lindert-Williamson sample may have suffered sufficiently deteriorating real incomes to offset rising wage income; in other words, the average person was no better off. Mokyr’s explanation could also explain a lag between industrialization and the diffusion of its benefits.

What does “standard of living” mean? Economic historians would like it to mean happiness. But the impossibility of measuring happiness forces them to equate the standard of living with monetary measures such as real wages or real income. “Real income” is usually defined as money income adjusted for the cost of living, but not for effects of things such as health, longevity, unemployment , pollution, the condition of women and children, urban crowding, and the amount of leisure time. Although some new indexes attempt to capture the various dimensions of well-being, for most practical purposes real income per person remains the most telling indicator.

According to estimates by economist N. F. R. Crafts, British income per person (in 1970 U.S. dollars) rose from about $400 in 1760 to $430 in 1800, to $500 in 1830, and then jumped to $800 in 1860. (For many centuries before the industrial revolution, in contrast, periods of falling income offset periods of rising income.) Crafts’s estimates indicate slow growth lasting from 1760 to 1830 followed by higher growth beginning sometime between 1830 and 1860. For this doubling of real income per person between 1760 and 1860 not to have made the lowest-income people better off, the share of income going to the lowest 65 percent of the population would have had to fall by half for them to be worse off after all that growth. It did not. In 1760, the lowest 65 percent received about 29 percent of total income in Britain; in 1860, their share was down only four percentage points to 25 percent. So the lowest 65 percent were substantially better off, with an increase in average real income of more than 70 percent.

The estimates of real income imply that a mildly optimistic conclusion on living standards is justified for the century after 1760. But the long period of slow growth makes pessimistic conclusions about shorter periods plausible. For example, did the working class become worse off during the early years of England’s industrialization (1760–1830), when Crafts’s estimates show real income per person growing at only about 0.3 percent annually? Growth at such a slow rate made deterioration in the lot of the working classes possible. A simple numerical illustration will show why. If we take 0.3 percent per year as the annual rate of growth of real income, average real income in 1830 would have been about 16 percent higher than in 1760. The share of total income going to the lowest 65 percent of the income distribution need only have fallen to 86 percent of its 1790 level to negate the benefit of rising average income. Most economic historians agree that the distribution of income became more unequal between 1790 and 1840. Moreover, if we add the effects of unemployment, poor harvests, war, pollution, urban crowding, and other social ills, the modest rise in average income could well have been accompanied by a fall in the standard of living of the working classes.

Other evidence supports the conclusion of slow improvement in living standards during the years of the industrial revolution. Crafts and C. K. Harley have emphasized the limited spread of modernization in England throughout most of the century of the industrial revolution. Feinstein estimated consumption per person for each decade between the 1760s and 1850s, and found only a small rise in consumption between 1760 and 1820 and a rapid rise after 1820. On the other hand, according to historians E. A. Wrigley and Roger S. Schofield, between 1781 and 1851, life expectancy at birth rose from thirty-five years to forty years, a 15 percent increase. Although this increase was modest compared with what was to come, it was nevertheless substantial.

The research of economic historians, then, has altered the old standard-of-living debate. They now seek to answer not the question of what happened to the standard of living, but the question of the effect of the industrial revolution net of other historical events. For example, the positive effect of the industrial revolution may well have been offset by the negative effect of frequent wars (the American Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the War of 1812) and the high taxes that accompanied them. Some economic historians include bad harvests, misguided government policies, rapid population growth, and the costs of transforming preindustrial workers into a modern labor force as additional causes of slow growth. In a counterfactual simulation, Mokyr has shown that without the technological changes of the industrial revolution, population growth could have substantially reduced real income per person between 1760 and 1830. In other words, the net effect of the industrial revolution was strongly positive but was largely offset by the negative effects of rapid population growth.

About the Author

Clark Nardinelli is an economist at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Living and Working Conditions During The Industrial Revolution

Table of contents, introduction, living conditions for the working class, working conditions.

Engel, L. C. (2022). The Impact of the Industrial Revolution on Living Conditions for the Working Class. Journal of Economic History, 52(3), 281-299.
Thompson, E. P. (2021). The Making of the English Working Class. Vintage Books.
Baines, T. (2020). Industrialization and Urbanization: The Impact on Living Conditions and Health in Britain during the 19th Century. International Journal of Social Sciences, 30(2), 115-129.
Fraser, D. (2019). The Evolution of Working Conditions during the Industrial Revolution. Economic History Review, 42(4), 427-444.
Pinchbeck, I. (2018). Women Workers and the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850. Routledge.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

Declaration
Ancient Greece
Monroe Doctrine
Afghanistan Crisis
Pearl Harbor

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Essay Samples
College Essay
Writing Tools
Writing guide

Creative samples from the experts

↑ Return to Essay Samples

Descriptive Essay: The Industrial Revolution and its Effects

The Industrial Revolution was a time of great age throughout the world. It represented major change from 1760 to the period 1820-1840. The movement originated in Great Britain and affected everything from industrial manufacturing processes to the daily life of the average citizen. I will discuss the Industrial Revolution and the effects it had on the world as a whole.

The primary industry of the time was the textiles industry. It had the most employees, output value, and invested capital. It was the first to take on new modern production methods. The transition to machine power drastically increased productivity and efficiency. This extended to iron production and chemical production.

It started in Great Britain and soon expanded into Western Europe and to the United States. The actual effects of the revolution on different sections of society differed. They manifested themselves at different times. The ‘trickle down’ effect whereby the benefits of the revolution helped the lower classes didn’t happen until towards the 1830s and 1840s. Initially, machines like the Watt Steam Engine and the Spinning Jenny only benefited the rich industrialists.

The effects on the general population, when they did come, were major. Prior to the revolution, most cotton spinning was done with a wheel in the home. These advances allowed families to increase their productivity and output. It gave them more disposable income and enabled them to facilitate the growth of a larger consumer goods market. The lower classes were able to spend. For the first time in history, the masses had a sustained growth in living standards.

Social historians noted the change in where people lived. Industrialists wanted more workers and the new technology largely confined itself to large factories in the cities. Thousands of people who lived in the countryside migrated to the cities permanently. It led to the growth of cities across the world, including London, Manchester, and Boston. The permanent shift from rural living to city living has endured to the present day.

Trade between nations increased as they often had massive surpluses of consumer goods they couldn’t sell in the domestic market. The rate of trade increased and made nations like Great Britain and the United States richer than ever before. Naturally, this translated to military power and the ability to sustain worldwide trade networks and colonies.

On the other hand, the Industrial Revolution and migration led to the mass exploitation of workers and slums. To counter this, workers formed trade unions. They fought back against employers to win rights for themselves and their families. The formation of trade unions and the collective unity of workers across industries are still existent today. It was the first time workers could make demands of their employers. It enfranchised them and gave them rights to upset the status quo and force employers to view their workers as human beings like them.

Overall, the Industrial Revolution was one of the single biggest events in human history. It launched the modern age and drove industrial technology forward at a faster rate than ever before. Even contemporary economics experts failed to predict the extent of the revolution and its effects on world history. It shows why the Industrial Revolution played such a vital role in the building of the United States of today.

Follow Us on Social Media

Get more free essays

Send via email

Most useful resources for students:.

Free Essays Download
Writing Tools List
Proofreading Services
Universities Rating

Contributors Bio

Find more useful services for students

Free plagiarism check, professional editing, online tutoring, free grammar check.

Search Menu
Advance articles
Supplement series
Virtual issues
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access
Why Publish with Past & Present?
About Past & Present
About the Past and Present Society
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
Dispatch Dates
Terms and Conditions
Contact the Past and Present Society
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

< Previous

Diets, Hunger and Living Standards During the British Industrial Revolution *

This article has taken many years to write, and benefited from the guidance of many friends and colleagues along the way. I am especially grateful to Peter Mandler and Sarah Pearsall for their encouragement. I would also like to thank Tony Wrigley, Pat Hudson, Robert Colls and Seth Koven for their comments on earlier versions of this article, as well as audiences at the North American Conference for British Studies (Minnesota) and at seminars at the IHR and De Montfort University. Funding was provided by the AHRC through their Research Fellowship Scheme and a British Academy Mid-Career Fellowship.

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Emma Griffin, Diets, Hunger and Living Standards During the British Industrial Revolution, Past & Present , Volume 239, Issue 1, May 2018, Pages 71–111, https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtx061

Permissions Icon Permissions

Throughout the twentieth century, historians debated what happened to the living standards of ordinary men, women, and children during the British industrial revolution. But where this historical question once attracted attention from across the methodological spectrum, the past two decades have seen cultural and qualitative approaches eclipsed by statistical accounts written by economic historians. In this article, I will argue that the marginalisation of social and cultural approaches to historical living standards has been to the detriment of our understanding. Through an analysis of two discrete sources of evidence – nineteenth-century budget data and working-class autobiography – this article sheds new light on the diets and living standards of the labouring poor. It rejects the optimism/pessimism dichotomy that continues to frame quantitative analyses and presents a more nuanced account that examines how experiences varied according to region, gender and age. The article concludes that it is not only that it is possible to incorporate cultural change into our analyses of living standards, but that it is necessary to do so in order to grasp this period in all its complexity.

What happened to the living standards of ordinary men, women, and children during the British industrial revolution? For most of the twentieth century, this question formed one of the best-known and most lively historical debates of our profession. By the 1950s, the protagonists had divided themselves into ‘optimists’ and ‘pessimists’ and begun to exploit a wide array of historical material in order to develop their arguments. 1 Although an attempt to quantify what happened to real wages lay at the heart of these investigations, all understood the need to grasp the qualitative nature of this transformation. Thus quantification formed just one element of the standard of living debate: social and cultural historical approaches provided an important contribution to the unfolding debate as well.

Yet in the past two decades, this once heterogeneous methodological perspective has narrowed and today’s standard of living debate looks very different. All recent contributions have come from just one of our discipline’s subfields, economic history. Economic historians have turned to an impressively wide variety of measures — real wages, family incomes, ‘well-being’, life expectancy, child mortality, consumption of tea and coffee, calorie availability and nutrition, heights, work intensity, and child labour. 2 But while their points of entry have been numerous and varied, the methodological approach remains fundamentally the same. In each instance, scholars identify one or more variables which can be quantified, tabulated and evaluated. In the 1960s, E. P. Thompson took aim at the intellectual poverty of quantitative approaches and scoffed at the fact that the industrial revolution had earned the working-class not much more than ‘a great many articles in the Economic History Review ’. 3 But in the past two decades the joke has definitely turned on Thompson. The nebulous thing that Thompson called ‘experience’ scarcely now figures in discussions of the standard of living. 4 Social, cultural and qualitative attempts to make sense of the human experience of economic modernization have been largely eclipsed by the inexorable march of statistics.

Perhaps more concerning than this narrowing of the methodology of the living standards debate, however, is the straitening of historical argument that has simultaneously occurred. Over the past twenty years, economic history has produced a vast literature looking at various elements of living standards, yet we find much the same conclusion repeated over and again: real wages were largely stagnant, while according to all other measures life actually worsened. This wide agreement concerning a historical question that has traditionally sharply polarized scholars is something worth underscoring. After all, economic history is no more drawn towards consensus than any other field of intellectual enquiry. 5 It is therefore curious that the once fraught question of what happened to working people’s living standards no longer divides opinion, that a large and lively literature on the standard of living debate is now characterized by consensus rather than controversy.

In this article, I seek to problematize this newfound consensus. I will demonstrate that the evidence of stagnant living standards sustained across a large range of indicators is far more ambiguous than quantitative historians are prepared to admit. Furthermore, in seeking to interpret all results within a pessimistic framework, the possibility of a fundamental split between the experiences of different sections of the population — urban/rural, adult/child, male/female — has not been properly incorporated into our understanding of this historical transition. This article uses evidence on working-class diets, some of it already familiar to historians and some if it entirely new, and introduces a new measure for living standards — hunger — in order to shed new light on the human experience of industrialization.

My aim, however, is not simply to provide a new assessment of the impact of the industrial revolution on working people’s standard of living. Rather it is to illustrate the valuable, and too often neglected, interpretations offered by non-statistical historical approaches. It is surely no coincidence that the homogenization of methodology has occurred in tandem with the muting of historical argument. The marginalization of alternative perspectives from social and cultural history has helped to iron out disagreement, and been to the detriment of our understanding. I will show not only that it is possible to incorporate cultural change into our analyses, but also that it is necessary to do so in order to grasp this historical moment in all its complexity.

Since its inception, the standard of living debate has placed real wage estimates at the centre of enquiry, and for all their drawbacks they continue to provide an anchor for our interpretations. The estimates of Charles Feinstein, published in 1998, have proved enormously influential, and provided a lodestar for all subsequent scholars seeking to map this terrain. 6 His conclusions were unambiguously pessimistic: ‘For the majority of the working class the historical reality was that they had to endure almost a century of hard toil with little or no advance from a low base before they really began to share in any of the benefits of the economic transformation they had helped to create’. 7 Yet his estimates are not so stagnant as this gloomy assessment might imply. They have real wages in Britain rising by just under 40 per cent between 1780 and 1850. 8 Indeed, Feinstein’s series is just one of a number of recent real wage estimates, all of which report rising wages down to 1850. Gregory Clark has provided two sets of real-wage estimates, one for agricultural labourers and one for building craftsmen. The gains in his series are slightly greater — a 50 per cent rise in the real wages of agricultural labourers and a 70 per cent rise for building craftsmen between the 1800s and the 1850s — an improvement nearly double that reported by Feinstein and sufficient to lead Clark to conclude that the ‘Industrial Revolution was much more favorable to workers’ real earnings than other recent studies have implied’. 9 Given Clark’s more optimistic series and the fact that Feinstein’s pessimistic conclusions were only weakly supported by his own evidence, it is not self-evident why the picture of stagnant wages before 1850 has achieved almost canonical status within the field.

Where real wages once formed the bedrock of the standard of living debate, the past two decades have seen the emergence of a raft of new ways of trying to capture the changing size and structure of the British economy through national accounting techniques, such as measures of GDP per capita, and of calorie availability. 10 These measures have clear relevance for the standard of living debate, yet, as with the wage estimates, they do not result in definitive answers about the nature of the industrializing economy, nor do they provide unambiguous support for the pessimistic interpretation. In fact, the movement of GDP per capita, like real wages, was steadily upwards before, during and after the industrial revolution. Of course, it is possible to have both rising per capita GDP and stagnant living standards if most of the nation’s increasing wealth was falling into the hands of the richest few, but we know next to nothing about the distribution of wealth and so have no grounds for discounting the possibility that rising living standards accompanied the rise in per capita GDP. The evidence concerning calorie availability is yet more unclear, as the most recent estimates have reached very different conclusions about both levels and trends. 11 Despite the obvious attractions of employing large-scale statistical series to shed light on working-class living standards, the calculations that we have at present do not speak with a unanimous voice, and still less do they argue for the pessimists’ case.

Underpinning the divergences between these series is the fact that the things they seek to understand are complex and difficult to measure, and these difficulties impart a fragility to the final results. The measurement of real wages, GDP, and calorie availability requires vast amounts of historical data for such intricate things as the cost of renting a cottage, the output of the leather industry, and the size of the potato crop — data that was not, of course, collected in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Such national accounting depends therefore on interpolation or ad hoc adjustments to cover years or sectors lacking reliable estimates, and these adjustments can have a large impact on the overall result. This is why there is always disagreement between the different estimates, and why so much effort is expended on revising the small components that make up quantitative series. While revisions of real wage series and national accounts lead us stepwise towards a better understanding of the size, structure and development of the British economy, they are fraught with internal problems of their own, and cannot simply be taken from the shelf to support this or that interpretation of historical living standards.

Real wages and per capita figures for GDP and calorie availability are by their nature aggregative measures. But is aggregation the right lens through which to study the evolution of living standards? When we look at the large number of studies seeking to elucidate particular aspects of the experience of industrialization, we repeatedly find evidence of large inequalities between regions and occupations and between the sexes. These differences are obscured when findings are aggregated into one national series. Recent studies of consumption, nutrition, heights, mortality, working hours and child labour have all concluded that life was getting worse for workers during the industrial revolution. 12 On closer inspection the evidence does not appear so clear-cut. Studies of working-hours and child labour show sharply increasing work intensity in London and the industrial heartlands, but say nothing about what happened to those working in agriculture. 13 By contrast, the work on nutrition indicates stagnation in rural areas, but provides no evidence about diets in the industrial heartlands. 14 Pessimistic studies of mortality were all studies of the urban environment, and our most recent demographic study indicates that mortality followed a different trend in rural areas. 15 Likewise, research into heights has consistently demonstrated differences between rural and urban trends. 16 Evidence of regional differences is embedded in almost every analysis of living standards — indeed, one early study of heights data concluded that the divergence between urban and rural areas should ‘focus future research on uncovering the complex pattern of regional living standards’. 17 Yet this has manifestly not happened: not only has subsequent research failed to focus on regional complexities, the evidence for regional diversity has been curiously effaced from our historical narrative as quantitative results are repeatedly framed by the concept of pessimism rather than difference.

Superimposed upon these regional variations are a series of further specificities, concerning gender and age, which have likewise failed to become part of our understanding of living standards. Real wage data is primarily a measure of money income paid into the hands of adult males; female wages are either slotted into the male wage series in problematic ways, or simply left out altogether. 18 Recent studies of working hours and child labour also omit all data for women and girls. We should know enough about the operation of gender inequalities, however, to realise that the evidence of men’s rising male wages cannot be glibly equated with material gains for everybody else. Interpretations of the heights data also betray a misunderstanding of the significance of gender. Predictably enough, male heights were measured more frequently than female heights, and there has been a tendency to assume that the heights data is therefore indicative of male experiences, except in rare instances where data pertaining to women can be obtained. 19 Yet in reality all heights data embodies information about female experiences regardless of whose height was actually being measured. Consider for a moment what (beyond genetics) determines an individual’s height: nutrition during the growth years — in utero , in early infancy, and during the growth spurt of adolescence — minus the demands made on that nutrition through work and disease. Several elements of this — growth in utero , infancy, and childhood — were driven primarily by the mother’s access to resources. Foetal growth is influenced by maternal nutrition, not only during pregnancy but before conception as well. The diets of infants and young children were also heavily influenced by their mothers’ access to money and food. Indeed, grasping the gendered nature of the information contained in heights data may help us to understand why real wages improved throughout the nineteenth century, while heights either stagnated or actually declined. The stock interpretation is that real wage gains were modest and more than cancelled out by deteriorating urban living conditions. An alternative reading is that men did indeed enjoy higher wages, but this did little to improve the diets of women and children. More generally, it must be seen that an understanding of the evolution of living standards is not to be found by aggregative techniques or generalizing statements about what happened to ‘the workers’ grounded in evidence for highly specific regions and social groups. It is precisely in grasping the limits and specificity of our evidence that our understanding can be advanced. In what follows, I examine the historical evidence pertaining to working-class diets and the experience of hunger, seeking to make sense of how factors such as region, gender, and age controlled an individual’s access to that most precious and vital of resources: food.

In turning to the history of working-class diets, this article returns to a subject first mapped out by historians in the 1960s. And like so many historical questions at this time, it was addressed by both social and economic historians operating in dialogue with each other. 20 The recent literature looks very different. With the exception of James Vernon’s Hunger: A Modern History , all recent investigations into the history of diet are quantitative studies, and there is little traffic of ideas between Vernon’s cultural history of hunger and the economic historians’ attempts to measure how well the poor really ate. 21 Derek Oddy’s intemperate review of Vernon’s book on the IHR’s ‘Reviews in History’ forum, with its bizarre claim that scrutinizing the creation of nutritional knowledge in the nineteenth century is ‘not what the historian should do’ reveals the gulf between the two approaches. Our task, according to Oddy, is simply to apply ‘modern nutritional knowledge … to data from the past’. 22

And although economic historians have become increasingly pessimistic about the fate of working-class living standards during the industrial revolution, that pessimism does not extend to their ability to use modern techniques to quantify data from the past in the way that Oddy proposes. Research in this area has recently graduated to ever more ambitious estimates of calorific content and the availability of nutrients such as niacin and riboflavin — compounds that were not identified until the twentieth century and were certainly not measured before then. 23

The foundation for this research agenda is a unique and highly valuable collection of sources created by gentlemen investigators from the late eighteenth century onwards. Starting with the surveys of David Davies and Frederick Eden in the 1790s, reformers and statisticians made sporadic attempts to collect data about the income and expenditure of working families. These surveys are well known to historians and form the basis of the discussion that follows. 24 The analysis is based upon 187 budgets from the Davies and Eden collections in the 1790s; 132 produced in fifteen separate Parliamentary reports between 1833 and 1843; and sixty-seven from thirteen smaller, individual studies between 1825 and 1852. This represents surveys conducted by around a hundred individuals. Their research followed the same basic formula: information about income, the composition of the household, and the sum of money spent weekly on rent and food was gathered and tabulated. Most, though not all, researchers also collected information about weekly income, and some tried to include items such as clothes and shoes which were bought on an intermittent rather than weekly basis.

The logic of converting the information these budgets contain into measures of calories and nutrients may seem straightforward enough, but in reality the project is only convincing if we believe there to be a simple equivalence between the data that the researchers collected and the diets that were actually eaten by the poor. This problem and its implications are clearly recognized by economic historians, as it is always discussed before presenting results from the budget data. Yet it is remarkable how quickly it is also dismissed. ‘There is no indication that the accounts were fiddled. On the contrary, they reveal a numerical scrupulousness which practically excludes the possibility of deception through ideological bias’, observes one. 25 They ‘generally went to considerable lengths to obtain good estimates of the food consumed’ confirms another. 26 Indeed, the more these claims of reliability are repeated the more the problem can be willed away: ‘Historians who have used the budget records have been convinced by their thoroughness’. 27 Unfortunately, though, saying something many times over does not make it true and a fundamental difficulty in using budget records to estimate calorie consumption at the population level remains.

All of the budget data was collected early in the history of statistics, and well before the concept of statistical sampling had been developed. Although the researchers may have gathered their data ‘scrupulously’ and ‘thoroughly’, they were nonetheless unsystematic in their selection of families to survey. The gentlemen’s motivation for interviewing their poorer neighbours, the information collected, and its presentation all varied considerably from one investigator to the next. Nor should we assume that the imbalance of power between impoverished householders and the social superiors who quizzed them on their spending habits did not feed into the information they chose to divulge. Further, although more than three hundred families were questioned, these families do not amount to a representative sample of a cross-section of the working poor. They are clustered into three main occupational groups considered to be important — farm-workers, miners and factory workers — and into a relatively small number of years — the late 1780s, 1790s, 1830s and 1840s. Considerable sections of the population workforce — skilled craftsmen, unskilled labourers, handloom weavers, and single-parent households to name a few — were never systematically interviewed. These problems do not render the budget data entirely unsuitable for historical analysis, but they should encourage us to scale down our expectations. These records do not provide a snapshot of the population at large, they provide information about the specific families who were questioned about their diet — in all no more than a few hundred — and the task of switching from this particular group to the wider population is far harder than the economic historians are willing to admit.

In this article, we shall interrogate these records with a much simpler series of questions. We shall ask simply: what proportion of income did these families spend on food? And what proportion of income did they spend on bread (or flour)? According to Engel’s law, poor families spend the greater share of their income on the cheapest, most energy dense foods, and as income rises, the proportion of income spent on food starts to decline. Assessing expenditure by looking at the proportion of food spending and its allocation across food groups is a relatively simple procedure which provides a crude measure of the economic well-being of the family and permits us to compare the fortunes of different workers. Once we are able to establish what these gentlemen measured, we will return to the larger question of how their measurements might relate to the diets consumed by the population at large. 28

Although the proportion of the workforce engaged in agriculture declined steadily throughout the industrial revolution, it remained the single largest employer well into the second half of the nineteenth century. 29 It is therefore little wonder that the early researchers consistently turned their attention to the fortunes of this segment of the population. The situation that they uncovered was grim. On average, the 187 families surveyed by Davies and Eden between 1787 and 1796 were spending 75 per cent of their income on food. Nearly two-thirds of food spending (62 per cent) was devoted to bread, meaning that over half of all income (52.5 per cent) was spent on bread alone. This bread was almost always made by hand and rarely bought as a pre-baked loaf. 30

This picture changed little in the following half-century. The overall proportion of household income devoted to food and bread remained high in the budgets collected during the 1830s and 1840s; 75 per cent of family income was devoted to food and 71 per cent of that spending went on bread, with the result that 55.5 per cent of all income was spent on this one item alone. 31 The overall picture, then, is clear: the diets of agricultural workers remained largely unchanged down to 1850.

Turning to the miners and industrial workers, matters look dramatically different. Whereas farm-workers in the 1840s were spending 75 per cent of their income on food, miners were spending 58 per cent of their income on food, and only 40 per cent of their food expenditure was on bread. The total proportion of their income devoted to this staple was about 25 per cent — less than half the proportion paid by agricultural labourers. 32 Among the factory workers, 60 per cent of income was spent on food, and of this 36 per cent was spent on bread. The overall proportion of family income that was spent on bread was 23 per cent. 33

The family budgets demonstrate a clear difference between the diets of agricultural and industrial families. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to explore the possible reasons for this. Because food is a necessary good with a low price elasticity of demand, the proportion of income spent on food will decrease as income rises. However, the proportion of income spent on food is also determined by family size. Therefore we need to establish whether our findings capture differences in income or a simple difference in the number of mouths to feed.

In fact, average family size was broadly similar across the occupational groups, always oscillating around four children per household. By contrast, incomes did vary significantly. In agricultural families in the 1830s and 1840s, the weekly household income was a meagre 11s. 6d. The average family income of a mining family was nearly three times this — 29s. In the manufacturing families, it was higher again — over 33s. Factoring for family size, this provided a weekly income of 5s. 6d. per person in both mining and manufacturing families; more than double the 2s. 3d. per person of the agricultural families.

Higher family incomes in the mining and manufacturing families had two components. In the first instance, male wages were higher. The mean male wage in agriculture was 10s. a week; in mining the male wage averaged 16s. a week and in the factories 18s. 6d. 34 There was also much greater variance in male wage rates in the industrial districts. 35 In agriculture, almost all men earned something close to 10s.; in the mining districts, although the average wage was 16s., a few adult males earned over 24s., while there were others whose earnings were much closer to those of the farm-workers at 10s. a week. The rest of the difference in family incomes was owing to the contribution made by child workers. In the industrial districts, children started work as young as six or seven, and stayed at home until they married: their earnings made up around 40 per cent of family earnings. In agriculture, children started working later and left home earlier, so their contribution to the family coffers was less: they contributed between 10 and 15 per cent of the total. As with male earnings, there was much greater variance in child earnings in the industrial sectors than in the agricultural. Where children were very young, they made no contribution to the family income, but large numbers of children of working age had the potential to push family earnings considerably higher than the breadwinner’s wage — a situation that never obtained amongst the rural families. Variance in the earnings of both male breadwinners and their children in the industrial sector gave rise to a much more diverse range of experiences. Although the average manufacturing family earned 33s. a week, some earned nearly three times that amount: in each case there were seven or eight children living at home. These outlying large and high-earning families inevitably serve to push up the average family income for the sector, though the median family income — 23s. for both mining and manufacturing families — was still double the median of the agricultural families. 36

These income differentials determined food availability and choices within the families. In the 1830s and 1840s, agricultural families spent on average 18d. on food for each family member a week, about 12d. of which was spent on bread. This left just 6d. for everything else. Most families purchased some meat, though usually in very small quantities. On average, 15 per cent of the weekly food spend was on meat (usually bacon though occasionally butcher’s meat) — less than 2d. per family member a week. It is likely that most of this meat was reserved for the male breadwinner, though the family budgets do not contain evidence about the distribution of food within families. The other striking feature of these budgets is the small range of items purchased. With 77 per cent of food spending going on bread, bacon and meat, there was little to spend on all other consumables. The 23 per cent remaining of food income was spread thinly across cheese, butter, milk, tea, sugar, salt and yeast. The total spend was small: the average family had just 4d. to spend on these items per family member per week.

The composition of farm-workers’ shopping baskets scarcely changed at all between the 1790s and the 1840s. In the 1840s, bread continued to consume around two-thirds of food expenditure throughout the period, meat made up about 16 per cent of food spending, and there was very little money for other items — milk, butter, cheese, tea and sugar. Although tea and sugar were universally consumed, albeit in small amounts, other imported goods such as coffee and rice made only very occasional appearances in the dietaries. Most families bought some dairy products, but it was rare to find families purchasing a range of different items. Most bought just one, or at most two, different kinds of dairy produce.

The contrast with the diets of families living in industrial areas is readily apparent. By the 1840s, the mining families had almost double and the manufacturing families had more than double the farm-workers’ weekly food spend (35d. and 37d. per family member respectively). Significantly, however, these industrial families were spending almost exactly the same amount on bread as their rural counterparts — across all three sectors, families were spending 12d. a week on bread. Clearly, then, after the purchase of this staple, the industrial families had significantly more to spend on meat and other food items — between 23d. and 25d. for each family member, in contrast to the 6d. left over in agricultural families.

As a consequence, the industrial families were able to eat more animal protein and a more varied diet overall. The industrial families spent between 7d. and 8d. a week on meat per family member in contrast to the 2d. worth of meat purchased by agricultural families. They also spent considerably more on potatoes, cheese, butter, milk and imported items. These families spent about double the amount on tea and sugar as their rural counterparts, and coffee had become an item of regular expenditure — bought by about a third of mining families and more than three-quarters of families in the factory districts. In addition, a wider range of items to flavour food was purchased — salt, pepper, mustard, vinegar and malt. Rice, currants and raisins were bought in small quantities for puddings. Eggs were routinely purchased: they were bought by about a quarter of families in the factory districts, though in such small quantities it is likely that they were reserved for the enjoyment of just one family member. Clearly, though, higher incomes in the industrial districts enabled families to purchase a more substantial and varied basket of goods than that consumed by those living and working on the land.

It is also interesting to note that before 1850, the extra spending power in industrial households was used to purchase more raw foods for preparation within the home, rather than pre-prepared foods. Bread was still usually consumed as flour for home-baking rather than as a pre-baked loaf and there is no evidence of families purchasing meals away from home. This forms a clear contrast to dietaries collected from urban families later in the nineteenth century, in which shop-bought meals and pre-cooked foods (for example, pies, biscuits and jam) were regular items of expenditure. 37 In the 1840s, urban households did not substitute more expensive pre-prepared goods for home-cooked meals. They increased the quantity and variety of raw food stuffs, and continued to prepare them within the home as the most economical way of deriving benefit from their higher income.

The broad outlines of the budget data are therefore clear. They show a disparity in the 1840s between agricultural workers, who were spending over half of their income on bread, on the one hand, and miners and manufacturing workers, spending around half that, on the other. The situation for farm-workers was unchanged from the previous half-century. Moreover, these differences can be explained by differences in per capita income, which was a function of differences in both the male wage and the earning opportunities for other family members. Before concluding that these patterns reflect a true divergence in workers’ diets, however, there is one further possibility that we need to consider. We have assumed thus far that our nineteenth-century workers lived in a commercial economy and consumed only food that they purchased. If, however, agricultural communities had access to food outside the market — home-grown food from allotments and gardens, for example, or through the provision of meals at work — then the evidence from their budgets will understate the quality of their diets. Is it possible that agricultural workers were self-provisioning on such a scale as to bring their diets closer to the standards of those enjoyed by industrial workers and miners?

When the gentlemen investigators collected their budget data, they routinely questioned families about self-provisioning so we can attempt some answers to this question. We can quickly rule out the likelihood that working families were improving their diets through the keeping of cows. Just three of more than two hundred budgets from rural areas indicated that the family kept a cow. 38 Even allowing for some under-reporting, it is clear that cow-keeping could not have substantially improved the diets of agricultural families. In the absence of cows and commons, however, pig-keeping and gardens would have gone some way to improve the quantity and variety of agricultural diets. 39 Around 20 per cent of labouring families reported keeping a pig and around a third mentioned a garden. How much would these pigs and gardens have added to the farm-workers’ diets over a year? Across the entire rural population, the pigs (if they had been eaten rather than sold for income) would have provided less than an ounce of meat a week per person. 40 The quantity of food provided by gardens is rather more difficult to estimate, as there is little information about the size of gardens and allotments or about the use to which they were put. The most commonly planted vegetable was the potato, although several of the potato growers noted that their gardens were not large enough to keep the family in potatoes throughout the winter. Nonetheless, a store of potatoes, along with the carrots, turnips and onions that were also mentioned, would have added vitamins and variety to diets. Yet gardens were often small and they were far from universal so these benefits were limited. Clearly, the self-provisioning activity reported in the food budgets was not on a sufficient scale to close the food gap we have demonstrated between agricultural and industrial workers.

Furthermore, we should not assume that allotments and pig-keeping were the preserve of those living on the land. In fact, even the largest towns in industrializing England were still small, and physically close to agricultural land, so urban inhabitants could also tend allotments and raise poultry and pigs. The very detailed budgets collected in the 1850s by the French sociologist Frédéric Le Play for families in London, Sheffield and Derbyshire indicate that half worked a small-holding in addition to their usual employment. 41 In Sheffield, for example, a cutler was raising two pigs and about a dozen chickens, and growing cauliflowers, green beans, carrots, turnips, onions, lettuce and fruit. 42 This family consumed much of its garden produce, but also sold a surplus to the market. Most of the budgets collected for industrial families did not mention gardens or pig-keeping, but it is far from clear whether this reflected the assumptions of the survey-takers or an absence of self-provisioning amongst those surveyed. Significantly, one collection of budgets for thirty mine-workers did systematically report self-provisioning and it indicates that two-thirds were keeping a pig or a garden — a figure much higher than that obtained among the agricultural workers. 43 Nor should this surprise us. Purchasing and raising animals required money and with their higher family incomes, mining and manufacturing families were much better placed to find this money than agricultural families living on the breadline.

The information collected by our nineteenth-century researchers permits us to identify some clear and important differences between the industrial and rural regions. In agricultural areas, family incomes were low and provided for a very limited diet comprised mostly of bread, with occasional scraps of meat, butter and cheese, and very small quantities of tea and sugar. There was no discernible improvement between the 1790s and 1850, and no evidence that allotments or self-provisioning made good these deficiencies. Furthermore, male wages, children’s earnings, and household income were all very tightly clustered around the mean, with the consequence that experiences among the rural poor were remarkably homogenous. Alongside this picture of life in the rural sector, we can present new information about incomes and diets amongst workers in the industrial sector. In the 1830s and 1840s, families in mining and factory districts earned higher incomes than their rural counterparts, owing to a combination of higher male wages and higher children’s earnings. Families invested much of that extra income in food and were therefore able to consume a significantly better diet. Experiences among this sector were also much more diverse, with a few families living on a per capita income that was on a par with the agricultural workers, a few earning four or five times as much, and the rest scattered widely between these two extremes.

The broad contours of regional difference are clear, but the problems with the budget data still remain. As already indicated, the budgets were collected by numerous individuals each with their own agenda, and there are gaps in their coverage. We have little budgetary evidence for industrial workers before the 1840s, so we do not know whether their relatively good diets had been established earlier in the century, or were a more recent phenomenon. We also lack robust records for skilled workers, handloom workers or fatherless households, all important social groups that need to be considered. Furthermore, we do not know why particular surveys were conducted when they were. If investigators interrogated farm-workers during the bad years and the industrial workers during the boom times, we would expect their evidence to show that the industrial workers ate the better diet. This would be a reflection of the original data-gathering exercise rather than a social reality — and this, of course, is why the creation of a representative sample forms a cornerstone of modern statistical techniques. 44 The surveys do not contain the solutions to these problems, so if we are to interpret these results correctly, it is necessary to turn to an alternative set of records.

The budget data is well known to historians and has been widely used, but it is not the only material that sheds light on historical diets. In addition, there is a wealth of autobiographical material, and as Britain was still a poor society with high levels of hunger and want, the subject of food was one to which writers returned time and again. Working-class autobiography therefore contains a rich seam of evidence waiting to be tapped. For the analysis below, autobiographies spanning the period 1750–1850 were identified through an exhaustive survey of the bibliography compiled by John Burnett et al. in the 1980s. 45 A small number of the 364 autobiographies they listed for this timeframe either proved impossible to locate or unsuitable for this study, though others have come to light in the thirty years since the bibliography was compiled. 46 As a result, this exercise has produced a collection of 341 life-histories, which permits a near-comprehensive analysis of the available records.

Although there are more autobiographies than family budgets, not all contain usable information about food and hunger, leaving a slightly smaller dataset overall. This material does permit us, however, to broaden our analysis across time and space. Eighty of the writers were born between 1750 and 1790, and their works contain some recollections of life before 1800; the remaining 264 were born after 1791 and so refer to the following fifty years. These sources also capture a wider occupational spread than the family budgets. Agriculture, manufacturing and mining are all once again well represented: 109 of the autobiographers were living in agricultural families; a further seventy-seven were dependent upon income from factories or mines. In addition, we have evidence from the skilled trades and from cottage industry: 106 of the autobiographers worked in non-mechanized, mostly urban, trades — carpenters, builders, servants, bakers, and so forth; and fifty-two of the writers lived in families dependent upon earnings from domestic industry — usually, though not exclusively, handloom weaving. Cutting across all four groups, we also have single-parent households and young adults unable to command an adult wage. This material enables us to dig into corners of working-class experience that the family budgets cannot reach.

Despite the demographic spread of the autobiographies, these are not, of course, wholly unproblematic sources. Their drawbacks have been frequently remarked. 47 Autobiography is memory, collected and composed for the purpose of writing, and it is therefore subject not only to lapses in memory but also to prevailing literary trends and cultural norms. The altered cultural context between autobiographers’ early years and the moment when they composed their narratives means an autobiography involves the renegotiation, as much as the reporting, of lived experiences. This lack of simple transparency between what was experienced and what was later written has inevitably posed problems with which many scholars have sought to grapple in their attempts to use life-writing to probe such topics as the emotions, intra-familial relationships, and experiences of warfare. 48

These difficulties are less acute when asking questions about diets and hunger. The approach followed here has been to read the autobiographies for references to hunger — not the occasional bout of hunger brought on, for example, by a long journey, but the kind of hunger described by John Younger, after two years of bad harvests left him ‘pinched of all matters in the consistence of human food … producing a feeling none can thoroughly comprehend’, dreaming of potatoes and chewing on wood bark in an effort to allay his pangs of hunger. 49 Although the social meaning of hunger can certainly change over time, hunger is also rooted in bodily sensations that are physical rather than historical in nature. Furthermore, hunger remained a risk throughout the period from the mid eighteenth century to the writing of the last autobiography in the early twentieth century, and attitudes towards hunger did not change significantly at any time during this period: hunger was always considered exceptional and unfortunate, an event that merited some discussion. This is not to suggest that there is a simple correspondence between descriptions of hunger and the lived experience of hunger. Rather hunger provides a relatively stable reference point to a specific human experience, permitting a comparison across a wide range of writers and an analysis of the particular times and contexts in which hunger was experienced.

In order to allow for comparisons between sources, only references to hunger that an author experienced either personally or at very close hand have been included, not more general references to scarcity. It is also important to distinguish between hunger and other more general forms of poverty, as privation can take many forms, not all of them leading to hunger. In what follows, all instances in which writers provided clear evidence that poverty was sufficient to cause them (or other close family members) to lack food have been extracted.

The most salient feature of these autobiographies is the sheer extent of hunger. In all, just over a third of writers — 115 in all — recalled going hungry before 1850. Owing to the nature of these sources, however, we cannot translate this figure into the proportion of working people who actually went hungry. The difficulty lies in determining whether the remaining two-thirds of writers were silent on the issue of hunger because they had never experienced hunger or simply because they opted not to write about it. A small minority of these writers clearly indicate that the former was the case. Thomas Wallis, for instance, helpfully observed that during his childhood, he and his family had not been ‘pinched in our plain and homely food’, despite living in severe poverty. 50 But for the most part, these authors did not write about diet, nutrition, shopping for food or self-provisioning, or provide any information about how, or if, their need to eat had been met. The most we can say therefore is that at least a third of the autobiographical writers experienced hunger. Others may have done so as well, but chose not to write about it.

The value of the autobiographical evidence lies not in attempting calculations of the extent of hunger in industrializing England, but rather in permitting an analysis of the distribution and causes of hunger across time and across different occupational groups. Turning first to the agricultural and industrial families, it is evident that the autobiographical evidence provides strong confirmation for the patterns delineated by the family budgets. Among the industrial and mining families, around 18 per cent of writers recollected having experienced hunger. In the agricultural families this figure was more than twice as large — 42 per cent. To this, we can now add information about individuals working in cottage industry and the non-mechanized trades. The experience of both groups was closer to that of the farm-workers than it was to the industrial families: among the former, 46 per cent experienced hunger; among the latter, 31 per cent did. Clearly, the autobiographical material confirms a core finding of the budget data: the risk of hunger was higher within some occupational contexts than others. Our next task it to consider why this might have been so.

As autobiographical writers tended to provide a detailed and vivid account of the precise circumstances that had contributed to their lack of food, these sources cast a new light on the mechanisms of hunger and permit us to untangle a host of factors that are not visible in the family budgets. Almost all of the family budgets depict a wage earner transferring his full income to his wife who then converted money income into edible food. In the family budgets, therefore, the quantity and kind of food consumed by any given family was determined by the amount of money that a family earned. The autobiographies, however, alert us to the fact that the transfer and transformation of wages into food was a far more complex cultural process, embodying a series of gender-specific norms for the provision and sharing of income and care. Inevitably, some families lacked a breadwinner or a housewife. Less obviously, however, in some families the male breadwinner (or, far more occasionally, the female housewife) failed to make their gender-appropriate contribution to the household. As we shall see, these failings had a significant impact on the diet received by dependent family members and played a large role in determining the overall distribution of hunger across the population.

The autobiographies, like the budget data, yield more information about agricultural workers than any other single occupational group. There is also considerable agreement between both sets of records regarding food availability for this group. The budgets indicated that around 80 per cent of income was spent on food in these families, and more than 40 per cent of the agricultural autobiographical writers had first-hand experience of hunger. In addition, the autobiographies reveal that the risk of hunger varied at different points in the life cycle, being highest during early childhood, persisting throughout adolescence, and declining — though not disappearing — with adulthood. Of the forty-nine instances in which hunger was recalled, thirty came from childhood; a further eleven from adolescence; and eight from adulthood. 51 Finally, in the autobiographies (as in the family budgets), insufficiency of income emerges as the primary cause of hunger.

Family incomes could be insufficient for a variety of reasons. Low wages and low levels of employment depressed male incomes and were a cause of chronic hunger, particularly during childhood. James Nye, for example, was one of a family of eleven children raised in rural Sussex in the 1820s and recalled how the ‘the young ones’ in his family went ‘very short of food’. Despite his mother’s best efforts, he rarely had more than ‘half a bellyful’ at mealtimes, and ate scarcely anything other than bread. 52 Although James’s father was in work, his low wages and large family meant there was simply never enough to go around. In addition to the children suffering from chronic hunger, others went hungry because of short-term spikes in the cost of bread brought about by hard winters, poor harvests and war. Children were the first to feel the effects of rising bread prices, but during the worst crises adults began to suffer too. Following the harvest failures of 1816, for example, John Lincoln’s entire family was forced to undergo severe privations. His two children succumbed to disease very easily — their quick deaths from measles were likely owing in part to prior malnourishment. And both John and his wife were also deprived of food before the winter’s end: they had ‘sold and pawned all our furniture and all Sunday Clothes — for bread — some times we went the whole day with about two or three potatoes twice in that time’. 53

Together, low incomes and external economic shocks were the primary cause of hunger in the rural sector. Of the thirty children who recalled hunger, twenty-two traced their experience to these causes. 54 And this is hardly different from what we would expect. The family budgets indicate the restricted range of foods entering rural households and high proportion of food spending on bread — both indicators of food scarcity — so it is not surprising to learn that many children perpetually went without. Further, with 80 per cent of all income being spent on food, it took only a small reduction in income or increase in expense to knock a family that was just scraping by into one that was going hungry. Although children were at the greatest risk of hunger, even the most privileged section of the rural workforce — adult males — had no real layer of protection against unanticipated adverse economic shocks.

In order to understand the hunger experienced by the remaining eight children we need to turn to those who were not routinely included in the nineteenth-century investigations: single-parent households. Part of the limitation of the budgets is that they only surveyed households with a male breadwinner, yet we know that this was an era of high mortality and fractured families. The autobiographers, by contrast, spent their childhoods in all manner of different family units, including those missing one (or both) parents. Of course, given the struggle of two-parent households to procure sufficient food, it is hardly surprising to discover that parental loss increased the risk of hunger: six of the rural children who suffered from hunger did so for this reason. 55 However, the autobiographies also reveal that there was more at stake here than the simple loss of family income. As we might predict, the death of a father removed the breadwinner and thereby reduced the wherewithal to buy bread. Joseph Bell, for instance, went hungry as a child because his father had died and his mother’s and sisters’ lacemaking earnings were insufficient to keep themselves and Joseph in food. 56 Less obviously, the loss of mothers removed a vital link in the transformation of wages into nutrition and was also a trigger for hunger in rural families. Lone fathers’ attempts to provide both income and care frequently proved unsuccessful as the substitute housekeepers they found (elder daughters and paid nurses) usually failed to replicate the labour of mothers effectively. 57 Inevitably, orphaned children were doubly disadvantaged and had an elevated risk of going hungry. 58

It is also important to note that when we add the six children who had lost a parent to the twenty-two that suffered hunger owing to insufficient household income, almost all of the thirty instances of hungry children are accounted for. Just two sat outside this pattern. In these two cases, it was not a failure of income per se that caused hunger, but rather a failure in the process of transforming income into food. William Milne’s father had refused to marry his mother; and John Gibbs’ father spent his earnings in the alehouse rather than at the market. 59 In both instances, the father’s actions left his children short of food. Yet this accounts for no more than a very small proportion of the overall instances of hunger in rural society. As a result, the assumptions made by the Victorian investigators hold up extremely well in the rural context. These researchers assumed that diet was determined primarily by family income, and among the rural autobiographers it clearly was. In the great majority of the rural households described in the autobiographical sources money income was transformed seamlessly into food. The problem — as both sets of sources make plain — was that in many households, family income was simply to low too ensure that all family members ate well.

One final point to consider is self-provisioning. To recap, the budgets indicated that about 20 per cent of rural families kept a pig, and about 30 per cent had an allotment or garden. Among the autobiographers, 25 per cent mentioned some form of self-provisioning. Of course, the true figure may well be higher: not writing about an allotment is not the same thing as not having one; indeed, it would be reasonable to assume that some pigs and allotments simply failed to get a mention in a narrative constructed with other things in mind. Yet the prevalence of hunger within the rural households suggests that no matter what the true rate of self-provisioning, it was not sufficient to prevent many dependent upon the land from going without. The autobiographers with access to sufficient land to make a material contribution to their diets came from the wealthier families, not the poorest and neediest. They used their garden to extend the range and variety of their diet, and, sometimes, to raise extra income, rather than to stave off hunger. 60 Poorer families, even when they did have access to land, did not have sufficient to prevent them going hungry. As the wife of one agricultural labourer explained, ‘our garden was very small just enough to grow a few early potatoes and a few beans’, and when they ‘were done we could not get any vegatibles except to ask the master to give us a turnip now and then’. 61 This household also did not keep a pig: pork only entered the house when the master gifted them some at Christmas.

The agreement between the two sets of sources — the investigations and the autobiographies — is comforting. And at first sight, the evidence from the industrial sector fits neatly too. Overall, the level of hunger was lower — 18 as against 42 per cent recalled going hungry, rather as one might expect given the higher incomes they had to spend on food. But if we look more closely at the causes of hunger within industrial families, this neat fit starts to unravel. First, the profile of hunger looks different. In rural households, hunger, though concentrated in childhood, nonetheless affected adult men as well. In the industrial districts just one male writer recalled going hungry as an adult and none during adolescence; in other words, hunger has been almost entirely relocated as a childhood experience. 62 Furthermore, whereas most of the hunger in agricultural families was owing to insufficient income or parental loss, neither factor appears significant in the industrial households. Two of the fifteen cases of hunger here were consequent on low family incomes — both of these were prompted when a male breadwinner was temporarily unemployed — and just one on the death of a parent. 63 Neither low incomes, unemployment, nor bereavement played a role in any of the thirteen remaining cases.

It is worth emphasizing this finding. Industrial cities are often depicted as places of precarious employment, yet according to the autobiographies it was not sufficiently precarious to plunge families into the cycle of hunger and deprivation that was endemic in rural areas. Nor is this because our sample of industrial autobiographers somehow miraculously escaped unemployment, strikes, business failures, downturns in trade and harvest failures. Our autobiographers did confront these difficulties; however, these events rarely reduced their circumstances to the point of lacking food. Read in conjunction with the family budgets it is possible to explain this finding. The budgets, we have seen, revealed a relatively wide range of food stuffs entering the household besides bread. These families were not, in ordinary times, existing on a subsistence diet. During times of hardship, they simply pared back on all these items and reverted to the kind of bread-based diet that was predominant in rural areas. Thomas Burt’s father was a miner in the North East of England, and although the family had its share of hard times, young Thomas noted that the consequence was a more limited diet, not hunger. As Burt explained, ‘the butter sometimes ran short [and] … cheese, alas! was not more plentiful than butter’. Nonetheless, he ‘was fortunate enough never to lack bread’. 64 Higher wages and the fact that households typically comprised several adolescent and child workers in addition to the male breadwinner also helped to carry families through the difficult times.

Still a puzzle remains. Given that insufficient income was not a significant cause of hunger among industrial workers, why did so much hunger persist? The answer is that a new cause had emerged, and its origin lay not in the level of income reaching the family, but in its use and distribution within it. These individuals went hungry not because their fathers were unable to earn enough, but rather owing to a breakdown in the process of transforming male earnings into family meals. A colourful array of problems arises: two fathers had deserted their family, one was in prison for assault, another was failing to provide owing to a series of poor business decisions, and in the fifth case a mother and stepfather were simply failing to provide meals for the children. 65 The single greatest cause of hunger, however, was drunkenness: seven autobiographers reported that their own or their father’s drinking had left them (or their families) without food to eat. 66 Had these twelve adults made regular provision for their families, the overall proportion of writers from the industrial districts experiencing hunger would drop to just 4 per cent — a vivid illustration both of the remarkable power of the new industrial sector to raise family incomes and lift families out of poverty, and of the hopeless inadequacy of the breadwinner model as a mechanism for achieving these aims.

More generally, the autobiographies alert us to processes that are simply not visible from the family budgets. These human documents depict the industrial revolution as both an economic and a cultural event. Wages formed the bedrock of well-being within families, but a complex series of social and cultural norms were needed in order to turn those wages into well-being. Industrialization raised male incomes, but at the same time it changed patterns of behaviour that had historically helped to ensure that children received the food they needed. Had the culture of a father’s responsibility to provide for his children carried into the industrial districts, the much brighter employment opportunities would have made a very significant inroad into the elimination of hunger. In the event, however, high wages went hand in hand with the erosion of age-old social pressures upon men to provide for their families, resulting in the divergence between male wages and family living standards.

The evidence from the rural and industrial autobiographies forces us to rethink elements of the relationship between income and diets. How does the evidence from those working in proto-industry and skilled labour fit with these patterns? Let us look first at proto-industry. Although often conceived as a form of industry, the evidence from autobiographies suggests that proto-industrial workers in fact had far more in common with farm-workers than with their industrial counterparts. The overall level of hunger was high in both groups — 46 per cent of the proto-industrial writers had a recollection of hunger, just higher than the 41 per cent of agricultural workers. The profile of hunger was also broadly similar. In both, the risk of hunger was concentrated in childhood, but individuals remained at risk throughout the life cycle. Twenty-eight different instances of hunger were recorded within this group: thirteen among children; four among adolescents; and eleven among adults. Finally, the causes of hunger were also similar between the two groups, with all having their origin either in the loss of a breadwinner or in low family incomes. 67 Conformity to the expectation that adults would provide for their family was very high. Indeed, there are no cases of parents in proto-industrial households squandering family resources to the detriment of their children.

In certain respects, of course, the causes of low incomes among the cottage workers were distinct, as this sector faced a unique set of external pressures: mechanization. As has frequently been observed, the mechanization of the weaving industry caused widespread distress amongst the handloom weavers and this shows up very clearly in the autobiographical literature. No fewer than eleven of the families in this sector struggling to ward off hunger did so as a result of mechanization, and this pressure helps to explain why this sector experienced the highest levels of hunger. 68

Equally, however, the autobiographies reveal that a number of underlying structural problems in the proto-industrial sector had left its workers at risk of hunger even prior to the advent of new technology. The autobiographies indicate that eleven families were unable to earn sufficient to ward off hunger, either because of low earnings or a rise in bread prices caused by poor harvests, in addition to the eleven who placed the source of their difficulties on mechanization. 69 And these, of course, were just the same problems as affected the agricultural workers. So while mechanization certainly increased the pressures on families engaged in proto-industrial work, this provides no more than a partial explanation for the poverty from which many suffered. Seen through the prism of diets, proto-industry looks very much like an extension of the agricultural sector. Families functioned along traditional lines, but proto-industry had always lacked the power to significantly uplift family incomes or insure individuals against the risk of hunger.

Finally there are those who depended upon the skilled and non-mechanized trades for their income to consider. The level of hunger here sat between that of the agricultural and industrial families; the overall proportion experiencing hunger was 31 per cent. Here, as in the industrial districts, adult men were relatively well protected from the risk of hunger — just one recalled going hungry as an adult, and that stemmed from his decision to give up his trade and travel as an actor. 70 Instead, hunger affected children (eighteen) and adolescents (eight). The causes of hunger combined elements of the rural and industrial experiences. Certainly, low incomes and the loss of either parent each played a role. Low wages, high grain prices or unemployment were given as a trigger for hunger in seven different instances. 71 Five of those children who experienced hunger did so when they lost one of their parents. 72

But in contrast to the agricultural sector, children here were also vulnerable to failings in the process of transforming male wages into food. Indeed, this almost rivals low incomes as an explanatory force, accounting for six of the instances where children went without. Desertion and abandonment, drunkenness, and (in one case) a breadwinner who couldn’t hold down a job, were all implicated as a cause of hunger. 73 In this regard, there is a clear similarity between the behaviour of industrial workers and of skilled non-industrial workers. In both instances, men were able to command a relatively good wage, one that placed them at some remove from the risk of going hungry. Yet these high wages were not translated into better childhood nutrition in a straightforward fashion. Men who could command high wages were also at greater risk of reneging on their responsibility to provide with the consequence that children’s living standards always lagged behind the male wage.

We have thus far considered the hunger experienced by children and by men, as these groups dominate the autobiographical sources. There are two other groups that we should also include in our analysis: adolescents and women. For many individuals, the experience of adolescence was distinct from that of childhood as they left the family home and were therefore no longer dependent on their parents for food. The autobiographies suggest, however, that leaving the family home was no guarantee of a better diet. Of the twenty-three writers who reported hunger during their adolescence, nineteen were boarding with non-family members. 74 Another was residing with a ‘terrible termagant for a stepmother’ who (he claimed) kept him and his brother in a ‘miserable condition’. 75 Just three were living with their biological family and in each of these instances the individuals were suffering as a part of a broader pattern of hardship endured by the whole family. 76 The experiences of adolescents illustrate the complex relationship between incomes and diets. Boarders, like children, depended upon others to provide their food and most of those who suffered at this stage of life believed their employers lacked the will rather than the resources to feed them properly. We are thus reminded, once again, of the complexity of the process by which earnings were transformed into edible food and the role played by culture in this process.

The final group that we need to consider is women. 77 Unfortunately, however, very few autobiographies were written by women — just seventeen in all — and they cannot sustain close analysis. A number of important questions remain unanswered. For example, while wage earners evidently had greater claims over food than did dependent children, it is not clear how adult women performing the unwaged work of the house fitted into this hierarchy. Two writers had believed as children that their mothers stinted their own food so that their children might eat, but two adult female writers indicated that during hard times it was their children rather than themselves who suffered from a want of food. 78 In all, five of the seventeen female writers — nearly a third — recalled going hungry during adulthood, a higher proportion than men (the figure for men was 6 per cent). 79 Clearly, most women spent much of their adult life dependent on a male wage. Their role in buying, preparing and serving food offered them some agency in the distribution of resources within the family, but did not enable women to attain the level of food security that men in certain occupations were able to acquire. And, to repeat once more, as higher male wages also increased the risk of men failing to share their wage with their dependents at all, it is likely that some women experienced deteriorating nutrition that is not evident from the male wage.

Since the writing of Engels in the 1840s, commentators and historians have sought an answer to the apparently simple question: what was the impact of the industrial revolution on ordinary men, women and children? But whereas this question once engaged scholars from across the historical discipline, the past twenty-five years have witnessed a closing down of both methodological perspectives and interpretations, and quantitative approaches have come to dominate the debate. Furthermore, despite the complex picture painted by what now amounts to an extensive literature, the overwhelming majority of recent quantitative studies have been slotted into a pessimistic interpretation that concludes as follows: working people saw little to no gains in their incomes and experienced losses in terms of their working patterns, health and welfare. The evidence from working-class diets disputes these claims and suggests that a new perspective on the industrial revolution and its impact on working people is necessary.

While there can be no denying that economic history has served to illuminate many different corners of the human experience of industrialization, it is yet worth taking stock of what it has missed. Two decades of quantitative research has identified the fundamental divergence that opened between rural and industrial districts, but it has never accorded this observation the significance it deserves. We have seen here that early industrial Britain was an economy of (at least) two halves: a dynamic urban/industrial sector set against a stagnant rural one. There can be no understanding living standards without understanding that it is a story with two parts. In towns and industrial districts, men enjoyed higher wages and steady employment. In addition to working longer hours themselves, they also enjoyed the more dubious privilege of being able to send large numbers of their household, including young children, to work as well. Industrial districts offered the prospect of higher family incomes, and as we have seen here, many families chose to invest their extra income in a better diet. In rural England, by contrast, wages and family incomes hardly moved in the first half of the century and agricultural workers and their families consumed a very plain diet, one that must have been insufficient for all the household’s needs. But the agricultural sector of the economy remained large right down to 1850, so when urban and rural experiences are pooled the overall appearance is one of little change. Statistics certainly have the power to shed light on certain aspects of historical living standards, but if read out of context they can obscure as much as they reveal.

Quantification has not only served to underplay the dynamism of the industrial regions, it has also helped to preserve a dichotomous interpretation of living standards — optimism versus pessimism — that is long past its sell-by date. The lines on graphs go up or go down, so optimism and pessimism provide a natural framework for the interpretation of results. Yet no less important than the directions in which graph-lines move are a raft of questions about exactly who and what is really being measured by these seemingly objective graph-lines. The answers to these questions are invariably non-binary in nature. We have seen here that underlying average experiences were a series of more complex stories. Rural society was largely unchanging and remarkably equal, but only because the great majority of workers had so miserably little in the first place. The incomes of industrial families were, on average, higher, but they were also much more divergent. Furthermore, when we look at the autobiographies we see another layer of complexity superimposed. As male incomes rose, their breadwinning became more unreliable, which created new forms of inequality within families as well as between them. Attempting to label these complex developments as good or bad is a futile exercise, and it is futile precisely because so many competing and conflicting forces were at play. The evidence is clear: industrialization ushered in a far more complex, and unequal, society than that which it replaced. It is time to abandon the optimist/pessimist framework and to develop suitably plural, historical approaches and perspectives.

Not only have quantitative approaches tended to flatten out the true complexity of change during the period of industrialization, they have also replicated the world view of those who compiled the records upon which their computations depend. The budgets collected by our gentlemen investigators in the nineteenth century provide a rich seam of evidence about working-class life, but we must never forget that these records are fragmentary and incomplete, and were compiled for purposes other than our own. The investigators may have been (as the statisticians who exploit them are so fond of pointing out) careful and conscientious. But they still brought a complex web of assumptions about how their world operated to bear on everything they did, and these assumptions were refracted in what they asked and what they found. Nineteenth-century data collectors assumed that individuals lived in two-parent families in which all available earned income and unpaid labour were pooled for the common good, and though this assumption worked well for the majority of families in the rural context, it was ceasing to capture the experience of those more closely bound up in the process of industrialization.

It is not immediately obvious how we should reconcile the economic historians’ data-mining agenda with the observation that the historical documents they depend on are themselves an act of cultural production, but it is certain that the preference of economic, social and cultural historians to work in their own silos does little to enhance our understanding of complex historical problems. Scholars outside the sphere of economic history can, and should, play a role in scrutinizing quantitative methods, assumptions and conclusions. Dialogue between different intellectual traditions and the sharing of insights across our self-imposed disciplinary boundaries can only sharpen our analyses.

But my claim is not simply that outside scrutiny can sharpen the analytical focus of quantitative approaches. It is rather that socially- and culturally-oriented approaches deserve a place at the centre rather than the periphery of our attempts to understand living standards. The reason for this is simple: it is because the industrial revolution was a social and cultural event, not all elements of which can be captured or interpreted in a statistical series. Industrialization did not just raise wages, lengthen working hours, depress heights, and so on. It wrought fundamental changes in patterns of family life, human existence, and social relations. So long as male wages had provided for no more than the meanest subsistence, all members of the family were tightly bound in a nexus of needs and responsibilities; but when men were able to earn something better than a subsistence wage they — and they alone — were freed from that nexus. And although changes within the family dynamic might at first blush appear a topic for social historians, these developments are also significant for those with an interest in hard economic questions. The boundary between economics and culture was porous and there is no proper understanding of the one without other. This, then, is why the industrial revolution needs its social historians: cultural change lay at the heart of Britain’s industrial transition, and contains the key to understanding the social distribution of the nation’s newfound wealth.

A flavour of the interchange between Ashton, Engerman, Gilboy, Hartwell, Hobsbawm and Thompson can be found in Arthur J. Taylor (ed.), The Standard of Living in Britain in the Industrial Revolution (London, 1975).

Full references for this large literature are given in nn. 6−12 below.

E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (London, 1963), 351.

See, though, Emma Griffin, Liberty’s Dawn: A People’s History of the Industrial Revolution (New Haven, 2013).

To give one example, the Economic History Review published no fewer than seven angry interventions in the space of a few years over one relatively small historical problem: whether or not smallpox caused stunting. See Hans-Joachim Voth and Timothy Leunig, ‘Did Smallpox Reduce Height? Stature and the Standard of Living in London, 1770−1873’, Economic History Review , xlix (1996), and the responses in Economic History Review , li (1998); liv (2001); lix (2006).

Charles H. Feinstein, ‘Pessimism Perpetuated: Real Wages and the Standard of Living in Britain During and After the Industrial Revolution’, Journal of Economic History , lviii (1998). See also further discussion of this article in n. 36 below. For recent citations see, for example, R. C. Allen and J. L. Weisdorf, ‘Was there an “Industrious Revolution” Before the Industrial Revolution? An Empirical Exercise for England, c. 1300–1830’, Economic History Review , lxiv (2011), 722; Joyce Burnette, ‘Child Day-Labourers in Agriculture: Evidence from Farm Accounts, 1740–1850’, Economic History Review , lxv (2012), 1096; Jacob F. Field, ‘Domestic Service, Gender, and Wages in Rural England, c .1700–1860’, Economic History Review , lxvi (2013), 260; Jane Humphries, ‘Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution’, Economic History Review , lxvi (2013), 400; Ian Gazeley and Sara Horrell, ‘Nutrition in the English Agricultural Labourer’s Household over the Course of the Long Nineteenth Century’, Economic History Review , lxvi (2013), 781–2; Robert C. Allen, ‘The High Wage Economy and the Industrial Revolution: A Restatement’, Economic History Review , lxviii (2015); Sara Horrell, Jane Humphries and Ken Sneath, ‘Consumption Conundrums Unravelled’, Economic History Review , lxviii (2015), 831, 842; Jane Humphries, ‘The Lure of Aggregates and the Pitfalls of the Patriarchal Perspective: A Critique of the High Wage Economy Interpretation of the British Industrial Revolution’, Economic History Review , lxvi (2013); Henry French, ‘An Irrevocable Shift: Detailing the Dynamics of Rural Poverty in Southern England, 1762–1834: A Case Study’, Economic History Review , lxviii (2015).

Feinstein, ‘Pessimism Perpetuated’, 652.

Ibid ., 648 (table 5). I have not included his adjustments for unemployment as the assumptions underlying these are questionable.

Gregory Clark, ‘Farm Wages and Living Standards in the Industrial Revolution: England, 1670–1869’, Economic History Review , liv (2001), 496 (table 9); Gregory Clark, ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1209–2004’, Journal of Political Economy , cxiii, no. 6 (2005), 1308, and see also 1325 (table A2). See also Robert C. Allen’s attempt to adjudicate between the two: Robert C. Allen, ‘Pessimism Preserved: Real Wages in the British Industrial Revolution’, Oxford University Department of Economics working paper, 314 (2007), available at < https://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/department-of-economics-discussion-paper-series/pessimism-preserved-real-wages-in-the-british-industrial-revolution >.

On GDP per capita, see Gregory Clark, ‘The Macroeconomic Aggregates for England, 1209–2008’, Research in Economic History , xxvii (2010); Stephen Broadberry et al. , British Economic Growth, 1270–1870 (Cambridge, 2015). On calorie availability, see Craig Muldrew, Food, Energy and the Creation of Industriousness: Work and Material Culture in Agrarian England, 1550–1780 (Cambridge, 2011); Roderick Floud et al. , The Changing Body: Health, Nutrition, and Human Development in the Western World since 1700 (Cambridge, 2011); Morgan Kelly and Cormac Ó Gráda, ‘Numerare est Errare: Agricultural Output and Food Supply in England Before and During the Industrial Revolution’, Journal of Economic History , lxxiii (2013).

In addition to the references for calorie availability given in the previous footnote, see the following attempts to interpret the divergent results: David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Food and Fodder: Feeding England, 1700–1900’, Past and Present , no. 222 (Feb. 2014); Bernard Harris, Roderick Floud and Sok Chul Hong, ‘How Many Calories? Food Availability in England and Wales in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries’, Research in Economic History, xxxi (2015), 114.

On consumption, see Joel Mokyr, ‘Is There Still Life in the Pessimist Case? Consumption During the Industrial Revolution, 1790–1850’, Journal of Economic History , xlviii (1988), 90. On nutrition, see Gazeley and Horrell, ‘Nutrition in the English Agricultural Labourer’s Household’, 25. On heights, see Roderick Floud, Kenneth Wachter and Annabel Gregory, Height, Health and History: Nutritional Status in the United Kingdom, 1750–1980 (Cambridge, 1990); Stephen Nicholas and Richard H. Steckel, ‘Heights and Living Standards of English Workers During the Early Years of Industrialization, 1770–1815’, Journal of Economic History , li (1991), 944; Paul Johnson and Stephen Nicholas, ‘Male and Female Living Standards in England and Wales, 1812–1857: Evidence from Criminal Height Records’, Economic History Review , xlviii (1995); Stephen Nicholas and Deborah Oxley, ‘Living Standards of Women in England and Wales, 1785–1815: New Evidence from Newgate Prison Records’, Economic History Review , xlix (1996); F. Cinnirella, ‘Optimists or Pessimists? A Reconsideration of Nutritional Status in Britain, 1740–1865’, European Review of Economic History , xii (2008); Floud et al. , The Changing Body . On mortality, see Paul Huck, ‘Infant Mortality and the Living Standards of English Workers during the Industrial Revolution’, Journal of Economic History , lv (1995); Simon Szreter and Graham Mooney, ‘Urbanization, Mortality, and the Standard of Living Debate: New Estimates of the Expectation of Life at Birth in Nineteenth-Century British Cities’, Economic History Review , li (1998), 104 (table 6). On working hours, see Hans-Joachim Voth, ‘The Longest Years: New Estimates of Labor Input in England, 1760–1830’, Journal of Economic History , lxi (2001). On child labour, see Jane Humphries, Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution (Cambridge, 2010).

Voth, ‘Longest Years’, 1076 (table 7). His data included almost no agricultural workers; just sixty-nine of almost a thousand observations, or 7 per cent, were of farm-workers. The rest came from London and Lancashire. See also Humphries, Childhood and Child Labour , 182 (fig. 7.2).

Gazeley and Horrell, ‘Nutrition in the English Agricultural Labourer’s Household’.

Robert Woods, The Demography of Victorian England and Wales (Cambridge, 2000), 365 (table 9.3).

Regional differences have been repeatedly noted in the literature. See, for example, Floud, Wachter and Gregory, Height, Health and History ; Nicholas and Steckel, ‘Heights and Living Standards of English Workers’; Stephen Nicholas and Deborah Oxley, ‘The Living Standards of Women during the Industrial Revolution, 1795–1820’, Economic History Review , xlvi (1993); Nicholas and Oxley, ‘Living Standards of Women in England and Wales’; Cinnirella, ‘Optimists or Pessimists?’. Interestingly, however, they are not mentioned in Floud et al. ’s recent summary of research into heights: Changing Body , 138.

Nicholas and Oxley, ‘Living Standards of Women in England and Wales’, 599.

Feinstein, ‘Pessimism Perpetuated’; Clark, ‘Farm Wages and Living Standards in the Industrial Revolution’; Clark, ‘Condition of the Working Class’.

This has meant working with female convict and prison populations, though this of course raises questions about the degree to which those caught up in the criminal justice system are typical of the female population as a whole. See Johnson and Nicholas, ‘Male and Female Living Standards’; Nicholas and Oxley, ‘Living Standards of Women during the Industrial Revolution’; Nicholas and Oxley, ‘Living Standards of Women in England and Wales’.

Derek J. Oddy, ‘Working-Class Diets in Late Nineteenth-Century Britain’, Economic History Review , xxiii (1970); John Stevenson, ‘Food Riots in England, 1792–1818’, in Roland E. Quinault and John Stevenson (eds.), Popular Protest and Public Order: Six Studies in British History, 1790–1920 (London, 1974); Dale Edward Williams, ‘Were “Hunger” Rioters Really Hungry? Some Demographic Evidence’, Past and Present , no. 71 (May 1976); Alan Booth, ‘Food Riots in the North-West of England, 1790–1801’, Past and Present , no. 77 (Nov. 1977).

James Vernon, Hunger: A Modern History (Cambridge, Mass., 2007). For the pre-industrial revolution period, however, see Muldrew, Food, Energy and the Creation of Industriousness .

Derek Oddy, ‘Hunger: A Modern History’, Reviews in History , available online at < http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/695 >.

In addition to the references in nn. 25–28, see Sara Horrell and Jane Humphries, ‘Old Questions, New Data and Alternative Perspectives: Families’ Living Standards in the Industrial Revolution’, Journal of Economic History , lii (1992).

Thomas Sokoll, ‘Early Attempts at Accounting the Unaccountable: Davies’ and Eden’s Budgets of Agricultural Labouring Families in Late Eighteenth-Century England’, in Toni Pierenkemper (ed.), Zur Okonomik des privaten Haushalts: Haushaltsrechnungen als Quellen historischer Wirtschafts- und Sozialforschung (Frankfurt, 1991), 37.

Gazeley and Horrell, ‘Nutrition in the English Agricultural Labourer’s Household’, 759.

Ian Gazeley and Nicola Verdon, ‘The First Poverty-Line? Davies’ and Eden’s Investigation of Rural Poverty in Late 18th-Century England’, Explorations in Economic History , li (2014), 98–9.

For a similar methodological approach, see also Carole Shammas, ‘Food Expenditures and Economic Well-Being in Early Modern England’, Journal of Economic History , xliii (1983).

E. A. Wrigley, The Path to Sustained Growth: England’s Transition from an Organic Economy to an Industrial Revolution (Cambridge, 2016).

David Davies, The Case of the Labourers in Husbandry Stated and Considered (London, 1795); Frederick Morton Eden, The State of the Poor: A History of the Labouring Classes in England, with Parochial Reports , ed. A. G. L. Rogers (London, 1928).

First Report from Select Committee on the Poor Law Amendment Act, with the Minutes of Evidence , Parliamentary Papers (hereafter P.P.), 1837 (131), xvii, 1–136; Third Report from Select Committee on the Poor Law Amendment Act, with the Minutes of Evidence , P.P., 1837 (225), xvii, 1–154; Twelfth Report from Select Committee on the Poor Law Amendment Act, with the Minutes of Evidence, P.P., 1837 (350), xvii, 1–30; Poor Law Amendment Act: Returns Showing the Weekly Diet of Several Independent Labourers in the Counties of Leicester, Lincoln and Cambridge , P.P., 1837/8 (694), xxxviii, 1–5; Report from the Commissioners on the Poor Law, Reports of Assistant Commissioners, Appendix A , P.P., 1834 (44), xxviii, 1–469 Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords appointed to Examine into the Several Cases Alluded to in Certain Papers Respecting the Operation of the Poor Law Amendment Act. Part I , P.P., 1838 (719), xi, 1–1353; Children’s Employment Commission (Mines), Appendix to the First Report of Commissioners , P.P., 1842 (381–2), xvi−xvii; Reports of Special Assistant of Poor Law Commissioners on the Employment of Women and Children in Agriculture , P.P., 1843 (510), xii, 1–394; letter, Bedfordshire and Luton Archives Service, Bedford, R3/3574; W. H. Charlton, ‘A Statistical Report from the Parish of Bellingham in the County of Northumberland’, Journal of the Statistical Society of London, i, no. 7 (1838); William Charles Copperthwaite, ‘Statistics of Old and New Malton’, Journal of the Statistical Society of London , viii, no. 1 (1845); L. Hindmarsh, ‘On the State of Agriculture and Condition of the Agricultural Labourers of the Northern Division of Northumberland’, Journal of the Statistical Society of London , i, no. 7 (1838); Frederick Purdy, ‘On the Earnings of Agricultural Labourers in England and Wales, 1860’, Journal of the Statistical Society of London , xxiv, no. 3 (1861); James Caird, English Agriculture in 1850–1 (London, 1852).

A Voice from the Coal Mines (London, 1825); Children’s Employment Commission (Mines) , 16–17; First Report of the Midland Mining Commission , P.P., 1843 (508), xiii, 1–301.

Ellic Howe (ed.), The London Compositor: Documents relating to Wages, Working Conditions and Customs of the London Printing Trade, 1785–1900 (London, 1947); Mrs Rundell, A System of Practical Domestic Economy (London, 1824); W. Neild, ‘Comparative Statement of the Income and Expenditure of Certain Families of the Working Classes in Manchester and Dukinfield, in the Years 1836 and 1841’, Journal of the Statistical Society of London , iv, no. 4 (1842); Factories Inquiry Commission. First report of the Central Board of His Majesty's Commissioners Appointed to Collect Information in the Manufacturing Districts, as to the Employment of Children in Factories , P.P., 1833 (450), xxi, 1–1127; H. Ashworth, ‘Statistics of the Present Depression of Trade at Bolton; Showing the Mode in which it Affects the Different Classes of a Manufacturing Population’, Journal of the Statistical Society of London , v, no. 1 (1842); Samuel Richard Bosanquet, The Rights of the Poor and Christian Alms Giving Vindicated (London, 1841); Factories Inquiry Commission. Supplementary Report of the Central Board of His Majesty’s Commissioners Appointed to Collect Information in the Manufacturing Districts. Part I. Budgets , P.P., 1834 (167), xix−xx, 1–1436; Children’s Employment Commission (Mines) ; Children’s Employment Commission (Trades and Manufactures), Appendix to the Second Report of Commissioners , P.P., 1843 (431), xiv.

Mean wage in agriculture, 10.1s.; median wage in agriculture, 10s. Mean wage in mining, 16s.; median wage in mining, 15s.

The standard deviation for male wages was 2.47 in agriculture; in mining it was 18.

These observations also point to a serious error in the assumptions made by Feinstein concerning the inclusion of women and children in his real wage series. For the cotton industry Feinstein provided a weighted average wage rate for men, women (who earned about one third the male rate) and children (who earned about one fifth the male rate). The result of including the much lower female and child wages was of course to lower the ‘average’ wage in the sector, from the 24s. earned a week by men to 11.4s., a weekly wage that was much closer to an agricultural labourer’s wage than that of a factory worker. As we have seen, female and child labour in the factory district did not reduce average wages in this way as their work was additional to that of the male breadwinner, so despite their lower wage levels, when added to the male wage they helped to produce much higher family incomes. By setting wages in the cotton industry at the same level as those in agriculture, Feinstein’s series fails to capture this high-wage sector accurately. Charles H. Feinstein, ‘Wage-earnings in Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution’, in Iain Begg and S. G. B. Henry (eds.,) Applied Economics and Public Policy (Cambridge, 1998), 190 (table 8.2); 194 (table 8.3).

See, for instance, Charles Booth, Life and Labour of the People , i, East London (London, 1889); Miss E. Collet and Miss Robertson, Family Budgets, Being the Incomes and Expenses of Twenty-Eight British Households , for the Economic Club (London, 1896); D. Noel Paton, J. Craufurd Dunlop and Elsie Inglis, A S tudy of the Diet of the Labouring Classes of the City of Edinburgh: Carried Out under the Auspices of the Town Council of the City of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1901); B. Seebohm Rowntree, Poverty: A Study of Town Life (London, 1901).

See, also, Leigh Shaw-Taylor, ‘Parliamentary Enclosure and the Emergence of an English Agricultural Proletariat’, Journal of Economic History , lxi (2001), 658; Leigh Shaw-Taylor, ‘Labourers, Cows, Common Rights and Parliamentary Enclosure: The Evidence of Contemporary Comment, c .1760–1810’, Past and Present , no. 171 (May 2001), 114 (table 3).

For allotments, see D. C. Barnett, ‘Allotments and the Problem of Rural Poverty, 1780–1840’, in E. L. Jones and G. E. Mingay (eds.), Land, Labour and Population in the Industrial Revolution: Essays Presented to J. D. Chambers (London, 1967); Boaz Moselle, ‘Allotments, Enclosure, and Proletarianization in Early Nineteenth-Century Southern England’, Economic History Review , xlviii (1995); John E. Archer, ‘The Nineteenth-Century Allotment: Half an Acre and a Row’, Economic History Review , l (1997); Jeremy Burchardt, The Allotment Movement in England, 1793–1873 (Woodbridge, 2002).

Assuming the families were raising 13-stone pigs, and that each pig yielded about one half of its live weight in meat, one pig would have provided its owner with the equivalent of 1.75lb of meat each week, or about 4 ounces of meat per person.

Frédéric Le Play, Les Ouvriers Européens , iii (Paris, 1877), 420–1.

Ibid ., 342–5.

Children’s Employment Commission (Mines) .

In fact, it is known that most of the budgets were taken in response to crises, both agricultural and industrial. See Shammas, ‘Food Expenditures and Economic Well-Being’, 92.

John Burnett, David Vincent and David Mayall (eds.), The Autobiography of the Working Class: An Annotated, Critical Bibliography , i, 1790–1900 (Brighton, 1984).

The bibliography has been extended through Humphries, Childhood and Child Labour , and Griffin, Liberty’s Dawn .

Regenia Gagnier, Subjectivities: A History of Self-Representation in Britain, 1832–1920 (Oxford, 1991); Carolyn Steedman, Past Tenses: Essays on Writing, Autobiography and History (London, 1992); Trev Lynn Broughton, Men of Letters, Writing Lives: Masculinity and Literary Auto/biography in the Late Victorian Period (London, 1999); Tess Cosslett, Celia Lury and Penny Summerfield (eds.), Feminism and Autobiography: Texts, Theories, Methods (London, 2000); David Amigoni (ed.), Life Writing and Victorian Culture (Aldershot, 2006); Kelly J. Mays, ‘Domestic Spaces, Readerly Acts: Reading, Gender, and Class in Working‐Class Autobiography’, Nineteenth-Century Contexts , xxx (2008).

Emma Griffin, ‘The Emotions of Motherhood: Love, Culture and Poverty in Victorian England’, American Historical Review , cxxiii, no. 1 (2018); Julie-Marie Strange, Fatherhood and the British Working Class, 1865–1914 (Cambridge, 2015); Michael Roper, ‘Re-Remembering the Soldier-Hero: The Psychic and Social Construction of Memory in Personal Narratives of the Great War’, History Workshop Journal , no. 50 (2000).

John Younger, Autobiography of John Younger (Kelso, 1881), 128–31.

Thomas Wilkinson Wallis, Autobiography of Thomas Wilkinson Wallis, Sculptor in Wood, and Extracts from his Sixty Years’ Journal (Louth, 1899), 10. See also Robert Collyer, Some Memories (Boston, 1908), 6.

Hunger in childhood and adolescence is discussed below. Those who described hunger in adulthood were: James Bowd, ‘The Life of a Farm Worker’, The Countryman , li (1955); John Lincoln, ‘Memoirs of John Lincoln’, Norfolk Record Office, Norwich, MC 2669/29, 991X9; Joseph Mayett, The Autobiography of Joseph Mayett of Quainton, 1783–1839 , ed. Ann Kussmaul (Buckinghamshire Record Society, xxiii, Aylesbury, 1986); George Mockford, Wilderness Journeyings and Gracious Deliverances: The Autobiography of George Mockford (Oxford, 1901); Elizabeth Oakley, ‘The Autobiography of Elizabeth Oakley, 1831–1900’, Norfolk Record Society , lvi (1993); John Harris, My Autobiography (London, 1882); Roger Langdon, The Life of Roger Langdon, Told by Himself (London, 1909); Mrs Burrows, ‘A Childhood in the Fens, about 1850–1860’ in Margaret Llewelyn Davis (ed.), Life as We Have Known It, by Co-Operative Working Women (1931). Langdon and Burrows described hunger in their mothers rather than themselves.

James Nye, A Small Account of My Travels Through the Wilderness , ed. Vic Gammon (Brighton, [1982?]), 11.

Lincoln, ‘Memoirs of John Lincoln’, 37.

‘A Norfolk Labourer’s Wife’, Eastern Counties Magazine , i−ii (1901–2), repr. in E. A. Goodwyn and J. C. Baxter (eds.), East Anglian Reminiscences (Ipswich, 1976); Isaac Anderson, The Life History of Isaac Anderson: A Member of the Peculiar People (n.p., 1896); Joseph Arch, Joseph Arch: The Story of his Life, Told by Himself , ed. Frances Evelyn Greville (London, 1966); Eli Ashdown, Gleanings by a Watchman on a Dark Corner of Zion’s Walls: Being the Autobiography of Eli Ashdown (London, 1904); John Bennett, ‘Manuscript Autobiography of John Bennett of Bristol’, Bristol Record Office, 36907; Robert Crane, ‘An Old Man’s Memories’, Cambridge Record Office, 231/Z65; George Edwards, From Crow-Scaring to Westminster: An Autobiography (London, 1922; repr. Dereham, 2008); William Fairburn, The Life of Sir William Fairburn (London, 1877); [H. Bill], ‘Autobiography of a Navvy’, Macmillan’s Magazine , v (1861–2), extracts repr. in John Burnett (ed.), Useful Toil: Autobiographies of Working People from the 1820s to the 1920s (London, 1974); John Harris, My Autobiography (London, 1882); James Hogg, Memoir of the Author’s Life; and, Familiar Anecdotes of Sir Walter Scott , ed. Douglas S. Mack (Edinburgh, 1972); William Johnston, The Life and Times of William Johnston (Peterhead, 1859); [W. Leask], Struggles for Life: or, The Autobiography of a Dissenting Minister (London, 1864); Robert Maybee, Sixty-Eight Years’ Experience on the Scilly Islands (Penzance, 1884); Alexander Murison, ‘Recollections’, in Memoirs of 88 Years (1847–1934): Being the Autobiography of Alexander Falconer Murison (Aberdeen, 1935); Benjamin North, Autobiography of Benjamin North (Aylesbury, 1882); Nye, Small Account of My Travels through the Wilderness ; Thomas Oliver, Autobiography of a Cornish Miner (Camborne, 1914); Robert Roberts, The Life and Opinions of Robert Roberts, a Wandering Scholar as Told by Himself , ed. J. H. Davies (Cardiff, 1923); Jesse Shervington, ‘Autobiography of an Agricultural Labourer’, Worcestershire Record Office, Worcester, BA 5518 Ref: 970.5: 645 Parcel 1; Stir(r)up, ‘The Autobiography of a Journeyman Shoemaker’, The Commonwealth , 22 Nov. 1856 and 29 Nov. 1856; Emma Thompson, ‘The Good Old Times’, The Bedfordshire Farm Worker in the Nineteenth Century (Bedfordshire History Record Society, lx, 1981).

This was rather higher than the rate of parental loss among the population at large, though precision here is difficult owing to uncertainty about the rate of parental loss. Different estimates have put the figure at somewhere between 20 and 30 per cent losing one or both parents before the age of sixteen. Among the autobiographers, 23 per cent of the children who experienced hunger had lost one or both parents, but almost all of these children had done so during infancy, which is considerably higher than the demographic average.

Joseph Bell, ‘The Story of 12 Years in the Life of an Orphan, 1846–1858, Told by Himself: Chapters from the Autobiography of a Village Lad’, 2 vols., Bedfordshire and Luton Archives Service, Z1288/1/1–2.

See Lincoln, ‘Memoirs of John Lincoln’; John Buckley, A Village Politician: The Life-Story of John Buckley, ed. J. C. Buckmaster (London, 1897); Joseph Jewell, ‘Autobiographical Memoir of Joseph Jewell, 1763–1846’, ed. Arthur Walter Slater, Camden Miscellany , xxii (1964).

John Shipp, The Path of Glory: Being the Memoirs of the Extraordinary Military Career of John Shipp, Written by Himself , ed. C. J. Stranks (London, 1969); John Stradley, ‘Memoirs of John Stradley, 1757–1825’, Greenwich Heritage Centre, Woolwich, London, 920 Strad.

John Gibbs, The Life and Experience of the Author and some Traces of the Lord’s Gracious Dealings towards the Author (Lewes, 1827); William J. Milne, Reminiscences of an Old Boy: Being Autobiographic Sketches of Scottish Rural Life from 1832 to 1856 (Forfar, 1901).

For example, Joseph Robinson, ‘Joseph Robinson’s Reminiscences (1820–1917)’, West Sussex Record Office, Chichester, MP 2216.

Oakley, ‘Autobiography of Elizabeth Oakley’, 145.

This was ‘Life of a Cotton Spinner, Written by Himself’, The Commonwealth , 27 Dec. 1856.

For low incomes through unemployment, see ‘Life of a Cotton Spinner, Written by Himself’; Charles Shaw, When I was a Child, by ‘An Old Potter’ (London, 1903; facs. repr. Wakefield, 1969), 90–2. For parental loss, see George Marsh, ‘A Sketch of the Life of George Marsh, a Yorkshire Collier, 1834–1921’, Barnsley Archives and Local Studies, B920 MAR.

Thomas Burt, Thomas Burt, Pitman and Privy Councillor: An Autobiography (London, 1924), 30.

John Hemmingway, ‘The Character or Worldly Experience of the Writer from 1791 to 1865’, Norfolk Record Office, MC 766/1, 795X5; Edward Allen Rymer, ‘The Martyrdom of the Mine’, ed. Robert G. Neville, History Workshop Journal , no. 1 and no. 2 (1976); Thomas Whittaker, Life’s Battles in Temperance Armour (London, 1884; repr. 2009); ‘A. Miner’ (pseud.), ‘A Trade Union Solitary: Memoir of a Mid-Nineteenth-Century Miner’, History Workshop Journal , no. 25 (1988); Joseph Hodgson, Memoir of Joseph Hodgson, Glazier, a Native of Whitehaven, Cumberland (Whitehaven, 1850).

George Allen, The Machine Breaker; Or, The Heart-Rending Confession of George Allen … Written by Himself (London, [1831?]); Charles Bent, Autobiography of Charles Bent, a Reclaimed Drunkard (Sheffield, 1866); Edward G. Davis, Some Passages from My Life (Birmingham, 1898); James Dunn, From Coal Mine Upwards, or Seventy Years of an Eventful Life (London, [1910]); An Exposition of the Nefarious System of Making and Passing Spurious Coin … Being the Confessions of a Coiner (Preston, n.d.); David Love, The Life, Adventures, and Experience, of David Love, Written by Himself , 4th edn (Nottingham, 1824); George Mitchell, ‘Autobiography and Reminiscences of George Mitchell: “One from the Plough” ’, in Stephen Price (ed.), The Skeleton at the Plough, or the Poor Farm Labourers of the West: With the Autobiography and Reminiscences of George Mitchell (London, [1875?]).

Seven of those dependent upon earnings from domestic industry went hungry as a result of the loss of a breadwinner. These were: John Castle, ‘The Diary of John Castle’, Essex Record Office, Chelmsford, B/CAS; Thomas Cooper, The Life of Thomas Cooper, Written by Himself (London, 1872; facs. repr., Leicester, 1971); Joseph Gutteridge, ‘Autobiography of Joseph Gutteridge’, in Master and Artisan in Victorian England; The Diary of William Andrews and the Autobiography of Joseph Gutteridge , ed. Valerie E. Chancellor (London, 1969); William Heaton, ‘A Sketch of the Author’s Life’, in The Old Soldier; The Wandering Lover; and other Poems (London, 1857); James Inches Hillocks, Hard Battles for Life and Usefulness: An Autobiographic Record; also a Review of the Roots and Remedies of London Miseries (London, 1884) — Hillocks describes two separate instances, in infancy and adolescence; Jonathan Saville, ‘Autobiography’, in Francis A. West, Memoirs of Jonathan Saville, of Halifax: Including his Autobiography , 3rd edn (London, 1848).

Castle, ‘Diary of John Castle’; George Cooper, The Story of George Cooper, Stockport’s Last Town Crier, 1824–1895: Presented by Anne Swift [Stockport, 1974]; Abraham Deacon, Memoir of Abraham Deacon, about Sixty Years Minister of the Gospel (London, 1912); William Farish, The Autobiography of William Farish: The Struggles of a Handloom Weaver, With Some of his Writings (London, 1996); Joseph Greenwood, ‘Reminiscences of Sixty Years Ago’, Co-Partnership , new series, xv, no. 177 (1909); Gutteridge, ‘Autobiography of Joseph Gutteridge’; William Hammond, Recollections of William Hammond, a Glasgow Handloom Weaver , (Glasgow, [1904]); Moses Heap, ‘My Life and Times’, Rawtenstall Library, TS, LG3 HEAP; Robert Spurr, ‘The Autobiography of Robert Spurr’, ed. Roger J. Owen, Baptist Quarterly , xxvi (1976); William Thom, Rhymes and Recollections of a Hand-Loom Weaver (London, 1844); Thomas Wood, ‘Autobiography by Thomas Wood, 1822–1880’, Bradford Central Library, 920 Woo.

Joseph Barker, Life of Joseph Barker, Written by Himself , ed. John Thomas Barker (London, 1880); Joseph Burdett, ‘Memoirs of Joseph Burdett, Stockinger and Sometime Apprentice to Mr Kirk of Lambley, Nottinghamshire, 1813–1917’, Nottinghamshire Archives, Nottingham, DD1177/1; [Robert Butler], Narrative of the Life and Travels of Sergeant B—. Written by Himself (Edinburgh, 1823); Hemmingway, ‘Character or Worldly Experience of the Writer’; A Short Account of the Life and Hardships of a Glasgow Weaver … Written by Himself (Glasgow, 1834); Gutteridge, ‘Autobiography of Joseph Gutteridge’; John Harland, ‘Diary, 1810–1815, 1831’, Bradford Central Library, 920 Har; ‘Jacques’ (pseud.), ‘Glimpses of a Chequered Life’, The Commonwealth , 1 Nov. 1856, 18 Nov. 1856 and 15 Nov. 1856; Johan Sankoffsky, ‘Diary’, Cumbria Record Office, Carlisle, ex-DX 644/1–2; Obadiah Short, ‘Recollections, 1861’, Norwich Castle Museum, NWHCM: 1964.590.2.

Christopher Thomson, The Autobiography of an Artisan (London, 1847).

Josiah Basset, Life of a Vagrant: Or, The Testimony of an Outcast to the Value and Truth of the Gospel (London, 1850); Thomas Carter, Memoirs of a Working Man (London, 1845); James Hawker, ‘The Life of a Poacher’, in A Victorian Poacher: James Hawker’s Journal , ed. Garth Christian (Oxford, 1978); Jacob Holkinson, ‘The Life of Jacob Holkinson, Tailor and Poet, Written by Himself’, The Commonwealth , 24 Jan. 1857 and 31 Jan. 1857; Eric Horne, What the Butler Winked At: Being the Life and Adventures of Eric Horne (London, 1923); Tommy Mitchell, ‘Tommy’s Book’, Bristol Record Office, TS, B29411 — Pr.2 pb Biog. M−P; George Smith, The Autobiography of George Smith, 1800–1868: An Autobiography of One of the People (London, 1923).

James Davis, Passages in the Life of James Davis, Wandering Musician, Twenty Years on the Road (Bristol, 1865); The Life of a Chimney Boy, Written by Himself , ed. J. Arthur Turner (London, 1901); John Munday, ‘Early Victorian Recollections: John Munday’s Memories’, in Reginald Blunt (ed.), Red Anchor Pieces (London, 1928); John Shinn, ‘A Sketch of My Life and Times’, in Destiny Obscure: Autobiographies of Childhood, Education and Family from the 1820s to the 1920s , ed. John Burnett (London, 1982); Joseph Terry, ‘Recollections of My Life’, Brunel University Library, Uxbridge, 1:693. In the cases of Shinn and Terry it was ill health, rather than death, that deprived them for a period of their parent.

For desertion, see Thomas Preston, The Life and Opinions of Thomas Preston, Patriot and Shoemaker (London, 1817); Henry Edward Price, ‘My Diary’, Finsbury Library, London, 1032 S/HE. For drunkenness, see John James Bezer, ‘The Autobiography of One of the Chartist Rebels of 1848’, in David Vincent (ed.), Testaments of Radicalism: Memoirs of Working-Class Politicians, 1790–1885 (London, 1977); ‘Colin’ (pseud.), The Wanderer Brought Home: The Life and Adventures of Colin, An Autobiography, ed. B. Richings (London, 1864); J. H. Powell, Life Incidents and Poetic Pictures (London, 1865). For unreliable breadwinning see Henry Coward, Reminiscences of Henry Coward (London, 1919).

Anderson, Life History of Isaac Anderson ; Robert Anderson, ‘Memoir of the Author, Written by Himself’, in The Poetical Works of Robert Anderson (Carlisle, 1820); John Brown, Sixty Years’ Gleanings from Life’s Harvest: A Genuine Autobiography (Cambridge, 1858); Burdett, ‘Memoirs of Joseph Burdett’; [Butler], Narrative of the Life and Travels of Sergeant B—. ; Archibald Campbell, The Restless Voyage, Being an Account by Archibald Campbell, Seaman, of his Wanderings in Five Oceans from 1806 to 1812, Written and Published in Edinburgh in 1816 and Supplemented and Re-Edited in 1948 (London, 1949); James Corben, A Langton Quarryman’s Apprentice, 1826–1837: James Corben’s Autobiography, ed. R. J. Saville (Langton Matravers Local History and Preservation Society, Langton, 1996); James Croll, ‘Autobiographical Sketch’, in James Campbell Iron, Autobiographical Sketch of James Croll, with Memoir of his Life and Work (London, 1896); Robert Crowe, ‘Reminiscences of Robert Crowe, the Octogenarian Tailor’, in Chartist Biographies and Autobiographies , ed. Dorothy Thompson (London, 1986); Gibbs, Life and Experience of the Author ; Holkinson, ‘The Life of Jacob Holkinson’; Jewell, ‘Autobiographical Memoir of Joseph Jewell’; William Lawrence, The Autobiography of Sergeant William Lawrence (London, 1886; repr. Teddington, 2009); ‘Life of an Irish Tailor, Written by Himself,’ The Commonwealth , 18 Apr. 1857; Milne, Reminiscences of an Old Boy ; Mitchell, ‘Autobiography and Reminiscences of George Mitchell’; Hasslewood Taylor, untitled autobiography, East Riding Archives and Local Studies, Beverley, DDX1077/11; Wallis, Autobiography of Thomas Wilkinson Wallis ; Charles Whetstone, Truths, no. 1, or, The Memoirs of Charles Whetstone (n.p., 1807).

Gutteridge, ‘Autobiography of Joseph Gutteridge’, 103.

William Lovett, Life and Struggles of William Lovett, in his Pursuit of Bread, Knowledge and Freedom: With some Short Account of the Different Associations he Belonged to and of the Opinions he Entertained (London, 1876; repr. London, 1967); Hillocks, Hard Battles for Life and Usefulness ; Younger, Autobiography of John Younger .

See also Sara Horrell and Deborah Oxley, ‘Bringing Home the Bacon? Regional Nutrition, Stature, and Gender in the Industrial Revolution’, Economic History Review , lxv (2012).

Burrows, ‘Childhood in the Fens’; Langdon, Life of Roger Langdon ; ‘Norfolk Labourer’s Wife’; Thompson, ‘Good Old Times’.

Mary Ann Ashford, Life of a Licensed Victualler’s Daughter (London, 1844); Janet Bathgate, Aunt Janet’s Legacy to her Nieces: Recollections of Humble Life in Yarrow in the Beginning of the Century (Selkirk, 1894); Oakley, ‘Autobiography of Elizabeth Oakley’; Mary Smith, The Autobiography of Mary Smith, Schoolmistress and Nonconformist (Carlisle, 1892).

Author notes

Email alerts, citing articles via.

About Past & Present
Past and Present Blog
Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1477-464X
Print ISSN 0031-2746
Copyright © 2024 Past and Present Society
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

History Classics
Your Profile
Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
This Day In History
History Podcasts
History Vault

Industrial Revolution

By: History.com Editors

Updated: March 27, 2023 | Original: October 29, 2009

The Iron Rolling Mill (Modern Cyclopes), 1873-1875. Artist: Menzel, Adolph Friedrich, von (1815-1905) Berlin.

The Industrial Revolution was a period of scientific and technological development in the 18th century that transformed largely rural, agrarian societies—especially in Europe and North America—into industrialized, urban ones. Goods that had once been painstakingly crafted by hand started to be produced in mass quantities by machines in factories, thanks to the introduction of new machines and techniques in textiles, iron making and other industries.

When Was the Industrial Revolution?

Though a few innovations were developed as early as the 1700s, the Industrial Revolution began in earnest by the 1830s and 1840s in Britain, and soon spread to the rest of the world, including the United States.

Modern historians often refer to this period as the First Industrial Revolution, to set it apart from a second period of industrialization that took place from the late 19th to early 20th centuries and saw rapid advances in the steel, electric and automobile industries.

Spinning Jenny

Thanks in part to its damp climate, ideal for raising sheep, Britain had a long history of producing textiles like wool, linen and cotton. But prior to the Industrial Revolution, the British textile business was a true “cottage industry,” with the work performed in small workshops or even homes by individual spinners, weavers and dyers.

Starting in the mid-18th century, innovations like the spinning jenny (a wooden frame with multiple spindles), the flying shuttle, the water frame and the power loom made weaving cloth and spinning yarn and thread much easier. Producing cloth became faster and required less time and far less human labor.

More efficient, mechanized production meant Britain’s new textile factories could meet the growing demand for cloth both at home and abroad, where the British Empire’s many overseas colonies provided a captive market for its goods. In addition to textiles, the British iron industry also adopted new innovations.

Chief among the new techniques was the smelting of iron ore with coke (a material made by heating coal) instead of the traditional charcoal. This method was both cheaper and produced higher-quality material, enabling Britain’s iron and steel production to expand in response to demand created by the Napoleonic Wars (1803-15) and the later growth of the railroad industry.

Impact of Steam Power

An icon of the Industrial Revolution broke onto the scene in the early 1700s, when Thomas Newcomen designed the prototype for the first modern steam engine . Called the “atmospheric steam engine,” Newcomen’s invention was originally applied to power the machines used to pump water out of mine shafts.

In the 1760s, Scottish engineer James Watt began tinkering with one of Newcomen’s models, adding a separate water condenser that made it far more efficient. Watt later collaborated with Matthew Boulton to invent a steam engine with a rotary motion, a key innovation that would allow steam power to spread across British industries, including flour, paper, and cotton mills, iron works, distilleries, waterworks and canals.

Just as steam engines needed coal, steam power allowed miners to go deeper and extract more of this relatively cheap energy source. The demand for coal skyrocketed throughout the Industrial Revolution and beyond, as it would be needed to run not only the factories used to produce manufactured goods, but also the railroads and steamships used for transporting them.

Transportation During the Industrial Revolution

Britain’s road network, which had been relatively primitive prior to industrialization, soon saw substantial improvements, and more than 2,000 miles of canals were in use across Britain by 1815.

In the early 1800s, Richard Trevithick debuted a steam-powered locomotive, and in 1830 similar locomotives started transporting freight (and passengers) between the industrial hubs of Manchester and Liverpool. By that time, steam-powered boats and ships were already in wide use, carrying goods along Britain’s rivers and canals as well as across the Atlantic.

Banking and Communication in the Industrial Revolution

In 1776, Scottish social philosopher Adam Smith , who is regarded as the founder of modern economics, published The Wealth of Nations . In it, Smith promoted an economic system based on free enterprise, the private ownership of means of production, and lack of government interference.

Banks and industrial financiers soon rose to new prominence during this period, as well as a factory system dependent on owners and managers. A stock exchange was established in London in the 1770s; the New York Stock Exchange was founded in the early 1790s.

The latter part of the Industrial Revolution also saw key advances in communication methods, as people increasingly saw the need to communicate efficiently over long distances. In 1837, British inventors William Cooke and Charles Wheatstone patented the first commercial telegraphy system, even as Samuel Morse and other inventors worked on their own versions in the United States.

Cooke and Wheatstone’s system would be used for railroad signaling, as the speed of the new steam-powered trains created a need for more sophisticated means of communication.

Labor Movement

Though many people in Britain had begun moving to the cities from rural areas before the Industrial Revolution, this process accelerated dramatically with industrialization, as the rise of large factories turned smaller towns into major cities over the span of decades. This rapid urbanization brought significant challenges, as overcrowded cities suffered from pollution, inadequate sanitation, miserable housing conditions and a lack of safe drinking water.

Meanwhile, even as industrialization increased economic output overall and improved the standard of living for the middle and upper classes, poor and working class people continued to struggle. The mechanization of labor created by technological innovation had made working in factories increasingly tedious (and sometimes dangerous), and many workers—including children—were forced to work long hours for pitifully low wages.

Such dramatic changes and abuses fueled opposition to industrialization worldwide, including the “ Luddites ,” known for their violent resistance to changes in Britain’s textile industry.

Did you know? The word "luddite" refers to a person who is opposed to technological change. The term is derived from a group of early 19th century English workers who attacked factories and destroyed machinery as a means of protest. They were supposedly led by a man named Ned Ludd, though he may have been an apocryphal figure.

In the decades to come, outrage over substandard working and living conditions would fuel the formation of labor unions , as well as the passage of new child labor laws and public health regulations in both Britain and the United States, all aimed at improving life for working class and poor citizens who had been negatively impacted by industrialization.

The Industrial Revolution in the United States

The beginning of industrialization in the United States is usually pegged to the opening of a textile mill in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, in 1793 by the recent English immigrant Samuel Slater. Slater had worked at one of the mills opened by Richard Arkwright (inventor of the water frame) mills, and despite laws prohibiting the emigration of textile workers, he brought Arkwright’s designs across the Atlantic. He later built several other cotton mills in New England, and became known as the “Father of the American Industrial Revolution.”

The United States followed its own path to industrialization, spurred by innovations “borrowed” from Britain as well as by homegrown inventors like Eli Whitney . Whitney’s 1793 invention of the cotton gin (short for “engine”) revolutionized the nation’s cotton industry (and strengthened the hold of slavery over the cotton-producing South).

By the end of the 19th century, with the so-called Second Industrial Revolution underway, the United States would also transition from a largely agrarian society to an increasingly urbanized one, with all the attendant problems.

By the mid-19th century, industrialization was well-established throughout the western part of Europe and America’s northeastern region. By the early 20th century, the U.S. had become the world’s leading industrial nation.

Effects of the Industrial Revolution

Historians continue to debate many aspects of industrialization, including its exact timeline, why it began in Britain as opposed to other parts of the world and the idea that it was actually more of a gradual evolution than a revolution. The positives and negatives of the Industrial Revolution are complex.

On one hand, unsafe working conditions were rife and environmental pollution from coal and gas are legacies we still struggle with today. On the other, the move to cities and ingenious inventions that made clothing, communication and transportation more affordable and accessible to the masses changed the course of world history.

Regardless of these questions, the Industrial Revolution had a transformative economic, social and cultural impact, and played an integral role in laying the foundations for modern society.

Photo Galleries

Robert C. Allen, The Industrial Revolution: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 Claire Hopley, “A History of the British Cotton Industry.” British Heritage Travel , July 29, 2006 William Rosen, The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam, Industry, and Invention . New York: Random House, 2010 Gavin Weightman, The Industrial Revolutionaries: The Making of the Modern World, 1776-1914 . New York: Grove Press, 2007 Matthew White, “Georgian Britain: The Industrial Revolution.” British Library , October 14, 2009

HISTORY Vault: 101 Inventions That Changed the World

Take a closer look at the inventions that have transformed our lives far beyond our homes (the steam engine), our planet (the telescope) and our wildest dreams (the internet).

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Industrial Revolution and Technology

Whether it was mechanical inventions or new ways of doing old things, innovations powered the Industrial Revolution.

Social Studies, World History

Steam Engine Queens Mill

The use of steam-powered machines in cotton production pushed Britain’s economic development from 1750 to 1850. Built more than 100 years ago, this steam engine still powers the Queens Mill textile factory in Burnley, England, United Kingdom.

Photograph by Ashley Cooper

It has been said that the Industrial Revolution was the most profound revolution in human history, because of its sweeping impact on people’s daily lives. The term “industrial revolution” is a succinct catchphrase to describe a historical period, starting in 18th-century Great Britain, where the pace of change appeared to speed up. This acceleration in the processes of technical innovation brought about an array of new tools and machines. It also involved more subtle practical improvements in various fields affecting labor, production, and resource use. The word “technology” (which derives from the Greek word techne , meaning art or craft) encompasses both of these dimensions of innovation. The technological revolution, and that sense of ever-quickening change, began much earlier than the 18th century and has continued all the way to the present day. Perhaps what was most unique about the Industrial Revolution was its merger of technology with industry. Key inventions and innovations served to shape virtually every existing sector of human activity along industrial lines, while also creating many new industries. The following are some key examples of the forces driving change. Agriculture Western European farming methods had been improving gradually over the centuries. Several factors came together in 18th-century Britain to bring about a substantial increase in agricultural productivity. These included new types of equipment, such as the seed drill developed by Jethro Tull around 1701. Progress was also made in crop rotation and land use, soil health, development of new crop varieties, and animal husbandry . The result was a sustained increase in yields, capable of feeding a rapidly growing population with improved nutrition. The combination of factors also brought about a shift toward large-scale commercial farming, a trend that continued into the 19th century and later. Poorer peasants had a harder time making ends meet through traditional subsistence farming. The enclosure movement, which converted common-use pasture land into private property, contributed to this trend toward market-oriented agriculture. A great many rural workers and families were forced by circumstance to migrate to the cities to become industrial laborers. Energy Deforestation in England had led to a shortage of wood for lumber and fuel starting in the 16th century. The country’s transition to coal as a principal energy source was more or less complete by the end of the 17th century. The mining and distribution of coal set in motion some of the dynamics that led to Britain’s industrialization. The coal-fired steam engine was in many respects the decisive technology of the Industrial Revolution. Steam power was first applied to pump water out of coal mines. For centuries, windmills had been employed in the Netherlands for the roughly similar operation of draining low-lying flood plains. Wind was, and is, a readily available and renewable energy source, but its irregularity was considered a drawback. Water power was a more popular energy source for grinding grain and other types of mill work in most of preindustrial Europe. By the last quarter of the 18th century, however, thanks to the work of the Scottish engineer James Watt and his business partner Matthew Boulton, steam engines achieved a high level of efficiency and versatility in their design. They swiftly became the standard power supply for British, and, later, European industry. The steam engine turned the wheels of mechanized factory production. Its emergence freed manufacturers from the need to locate their factories on or near sources of water power. Large enterprises began to concentrate in rapidly growing industrial cities. Metallurgy In this time-honored craft, Britain’s wood shortage necessitated a switch from wood charcoal to coke, a coal product, in the smelting process. The substitute fuel eventually proved highly beneficial for iron production. Experimentation led to some other advances in metallurgical methods during the 18th century. For example, a certain type of furnace that separated the coal and kept it from contaminating the metal, and a process of “puddling” or stirring the molten iron, both made it possible to produce larger amounts of wrought iron. Wrought iron is more malleable than cast iron and therefore more suitable for fabricating machinery and other heavy industrial applications. Textiles The production of fabrics, especially cotton, was fundamental to Britain’s economic development between 1750 and 1850. Those are the years historians commonly use to bracket the Industrial Revolution. In this period, the organization of cotton production shifted from a small-scale cottage industry, in which rural families performed spinning and weaving tasks in their homes, to a large, mechanized, factory-based industry. The boom in productivity began with a few technical devices, including the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and power loom. First human, then water, and finally steam power were applied to operate power looms, carding machines, and other specialized equipment. Another well-known innovation was the cotton gin, invented in the United States in 1793. This device spurred an increase in cotton cultivation and export from U.S. slave states, a key British supplier. Chemicals This industry arose partly in response to the demand for improved bleaching solutions for cotton and other manufactured textiles. Other chemical research was motivated by the quest for artificial dyes, explosives, solvents , fertilizers, and medicines, including pharmaceuticals. In the second half of the 19th century, Germany became the world’s leader in industrial chemistry. Transportation Concurrent with the increased output of agricultural produce and manufactured goods arose the need for more efficient means of delivering these products to market. The first efforts toward this end in Europe involved constructing improved overland roads. Canals were dug in both Europe and North America to create maritime corridors between existing waterways. Steam engines were recognized as useful in locomotion, resulting in the emergence of the steamboat in the early 19th century. High-pressure steam engines also powered railroad locomotives, which operated in Britain after 1825. Railways spread rapidly across Europe and North America, extending to Asia in the latter half of the 19th century. Railroads became one of the world’s leading industries as they expanded the frontiers of industrial society.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Home — Essay Samples — History — History of the United States — Industrial Revolution

Essays on Industrial Revolution

Industrial revolution essay topics and outline examples, essay title 1: the industrial revolution: catalyst for economic transformation and social change.

Thesis Statement: This essay explores the Industrial Revolution as a pivotal period in history, analyzing its role as a catalyst for economic transformation, technological innovation, and significant societal changes in labor, urbanization, and living conditions.

Introduction
The Emergence of Industrialization: Transition from Agrarian to Industrial Society
Technological Advancements: Inventions and Their Impact on Production
Factory System and Labor: The Changing Nature of Work
Urbanization and Its Consequences: The Growth of Industrial Cities
Social Reforms and Challenges: Responses to Inequities and Labor Conditions
Legacy of the Industrial Revolution: Long-Term Effects on Modern Society

Essay Title 2: The Dark Side of Progress: Environmental Consequences and Labor Exploitation during the Industrial Revolution

Thesis Statement: This essay critically examines the Industrial Revolution, shedding light on its environmental consequences, the exploitation of laborers, and the ethical dilemmas that arose as a result of rapid industrialization.

Environmental Impact: Pollution, Deforestation, and Resource Depletion
Factory Conditions and Child Labor: The Human Cost of Industrialization
Ethical Considerations: Debates on Economic Gain vs. Social Welfare
Worker Movements and Labor Reforms: Struggles for Workers' Rights
The Industrial Revolution and Globalization: Impact Beyond Borders
Reevaluating Progress: Lessons for Sustainable Development

Essay Title 3: The Industrial Revolution and Its Influence on Modern Economic Systems and Technological Advancements

Thesis Statement: This essay analyzes the profound influence of the Industrial Revolution on contemporary economic systems, technological innovations, and the enduring legacy of industrialization in shaping our modern world.

Capitalism and Industrialization: The Birth of Modern Economic Systems
Technological Breakthroughs: The Impact of the Steam Engine, Textile Industry, and More
The Role of Industrial Giants: Key Figures and Their Contributions
Globalization and Trade Networks: Connecting Continents and Markets
Innovation and the Information Age: Tracing Technological Progress
Contemporary Challenges and Opportunities: Navigating the Post-Industrial World

Prompt Examples for Industrial Revolution Essays

The impact of industrialization on society.

Examine the social consequences of the Industrial Revolution. How did the shift from agrarian economies to industrialized societies affect the lives of individuals, families, and communities? Discuss changes in work, living conditions, and social structures.

The Role of Technological Advancements

Analyze the technological innovations that drove the Industrial Revolution. Explore the inventions and advancements in industry, transportation, and communication that transformed economies and societies. Discuss their significance and long-term effects.

Economic Transformation and Capitalism

Discuss the economic aspects of the Industrial Revolution. How did the rise of industrial capitalism reshape economic systems and create new opportunities and challenges for businesses and workers? Analyze the growth of factories, trade, and global markets.

Labor Movements and Workers' Rights

Examine the emergence of labor movements and workers' rights during the Industrial Revolution. Discuss the conditions and struggles faced by laborers and the efforts to improve working conditions, wages, and labor laws. Explore the role of unions and collective action.

Urbanization and the Growth of Cities

Explore the process of urbanization and the rapid growth of cities during the Industrial Revolution. Discuss the challenges and opportunities presented by urban life, including issues of overcrowding, sanitation, and social inequality.

Environmental Impacts and Sustainability

Analyze the environmental impacts of industrialization. How did the Industrial Revolution contribute to pollution, resource depletion, and environmental degradation? Discuss the early awareness of these issues and the emergence of sustainability concerns.

Explain The Five Modes of Adaptation

Imperialism in the industrial revolution, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

How Did Industrialization Change American Society

The industrial revolution in the uk , europe and north america, the worldwide impact of the industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries, an overview of the changes during the industrial revolution, let us write you an essay from scratch.

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Industrial Revolution in Great Britain

Rough draft for the industrial revolution, the most important factors that contributed to america’s industrial revolution, advancements in agriculture as factors in the emergence of industrial revolution, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Industrial Revolution & The Industrial Design Industry

Various impacts of the industrial revolution of the xviii century, the influence of industrial revolution on children and families, development of industrial revolution of europe, nanotechnology the industrial revolution of the 21st century, the industrial revolutions: important part of our history, the influence of industrial revolution on the modern day textile industry, child labor was crucial for the industrial revolution, industrial revolution influence on the criminal justice system, important role of inventors shape society, economics and culture, impact of andrew carnegie’s ideology on the united states, the article on the fourth industrial revolution, industrial revolutions & the development of democracy worldwide, impact of the fourth industrial revolution on my future, analysis of industrial revolutions throughout history, the role of scientific revolution, the enlightenment, the french revolution, and the industrial revolution in the history of europe, the effects of the market revolution from 1800 through 1860, craftsmanship and influence of industrial revolution, a study of the captains of industrial revolution carnegie, rockefeller and others, different stages of maturity compared to digital masters.

1733 - 1913

The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain in the mid-18th century. The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. The beginning of industrialization in the United States is started with the opening of a textile mill in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, in 1793 by Samuel Slater.

There was a few reasons of the beginning of Industrial Revolution: shortage of wood and the abundance of convenient coal deposits; high literacy rates; cheap cotton produced by slaves in North America; system of free enterprise.

Samuel Slater is most associated with starting up the textiles industry in the U.S. An early English-American industrialist known as the "Father of the American Industrial Revolution" and the "Father of the American Factory System". He opened a textile mill in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, in 1793.

There were many improvements in technology and manufacturing fundamentals that improved overall production and economic growth in the United States. Several great American inventions affected manufacturing, communications, transportation, and commercial agriculture.

The Industrial Revolution resulted in greater wealth and a larger population in Europe as well as in the United States. From 1700 to 1900, there was huge migration of people living in villages to moving into towns and cities for work. The Industrial Revolution marked a major turning point in history. During the Industrial Revolution, environmental pollution increased.

Relevant topics

Civil Rights Movement
Great Depression
Pearl Harbor
Westward Expansion
Manifest Destiny
American Revolution
Frederick Douglass
Imperialism

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Second Industrial Revolution: an Era of Technological and Economic Transformation

This essay about the Second Industrial Renaissance discusses the transformative period from approximately 1870 to 1914, marked by significant technological advancements, energy innovation, and industrial growth. It explores key developments such as the widespread adoption of electricity and petroleum, the revolution in transportation with the internal combustion engine, and advancements in metallurgy and chemical synthesis. Additionally, it highlights the rise of expansive corporate enterprises, urbanization, labor advocacy, and the geopolitical tensions that characterized this era. Despite the progress made, the essay also acknowledges the novel challenges that emerged alongside these advancements, shaping the economic and sociocultural landscape of the 20th century.

How it works

The Second Industrial Revolution, also termed the Technological Reawakening, transpired roughly amid the twilight of the 19th century and the dawn of the 20th century. Often chronologically anchored from circa 1870 to 1914, this epoch witnessed extraordinary strides in technology, industry, and economic efficacy that reconfigured societies on a global scale. Evolving from the inaugural surge of industrialization inaugurated in Britain during the belated 18th century, the Second Industrial Renaissance precipitated unparalleled transformations in manufacturing methodologies, infrastructural paradigms, and quotidian existence, establishing the framework for the contemporary industrial milieu.

A quintessential hallmark of the Second Industrial Revolution was the ubiquitous embrace of emergent energy reservoirs, prominently exemplified by electricity and petroleum. The pioneering exploits of Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla in electric power generation and dissemination facilitated the transcendence from steam and gas illumination to electric potential across factories, domiciles, and municipalities. This metamorphosis engendered heightened efficacy in manufacturing endeavors and engendered novel modalities of amusement, interaction, and transit.

The advent of the internal combustion engine, galvanized by petroleum, revolutionized transit by engendering the mass fabrication of vehicular conveyances and catalyzing the ascendancy of the petroleum industry. The proliferation of automobiles, trucks, and aircraft instigated nascent markets and fundamentally redefined the logistical conveyance of goods and individuals, affording augmented mobility and precipitating the expeditious globalization of economies. Henry Ford’s innovation of the assembly line in automotive fabrication attenuated production overheads and democratized vehicular ownership, further democratizing personal transit accessibility.

Strides in metallurgy and chemical synthesis also underscored this epoch. The conception of the Bessemer process and the open-hearth furnace profoundly ameliorated steel production, facilitating the erection of towering edifices, spans, and railway conduits. This epochal transformation not only transfigured the urban architectural vista but also expedited the proliferation of railway infrastructures transversely over continents. The railroad nexus, in reciprocity, facilitated the amalgamation of rural and metropolitan enclaves, catalyzing commerce and fomenting migratory fluxes.

The chemical sector experienced a commensurate crescendo, furnishing novel substances such as synthetic pigments, fertilizers, and munitions. Teutonic conglomerates like BASF and Bayer ascended as global vanguards in chemical synthesis, contributing to Europe’s consolidation as a seminal industrial epicenter. These innovations augured enhanced agricultural efficiency and laid the groundwork for subsequent pharmaceutical and polymer evolutions in the 20th century.

Another distinguishing attribute of the Second Industrial Renaissance was the ascendency of expansive corporate enterprises and fiscal institutions. Entities like Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, and General Electric burgeoned into formidable multinational conglomerates that wielded dominion over their respective domains. The escalating scale of these entities necessitated novel administrative and monetary constructs, engendering the emergence of modern corporate architectures and methodologies. The institution of bourses, investment consortiums, and regulatory frameworks facilitated the efficacious dissemination of capital and nurtured the proliferation of emergent industries.

However, the meteoric industrialization also instigated consequential sociocultural vicissitudes and quandaries. Urbanization was precipitously catalyzed as masses gravitated toward urban epicenters in quest of vocational opportunities, culminating in congested habitation conditions and underprovisioned communal amenities. Labor advocacy burgeoned in retort to squalid working environments, protracted labor hours, and meager remuneration, precipitating the inception of labor syndicates and pleas for laborer prerogatives. Governments incrementally responded by instituting labor statutes and communal welfare programs.

Moreover, the Second Industrial Renaissance intensified the crucible of global economic rivalries and imperial expansions, as industrialized nations vied for raw materials and nascent markets. The scramble for territorial dominions and geopolitical spheres compounded international frictions and was contributory to the eruption of World War I, emblematic of the epoch’s denouement.

In synthesis, the Second Industrial Revolution, spanning approximately from 1870 to 1914, transfigured the global economic landscape through pioneering technological exploits, energy diversification, and industrial reorganization. The metamorphoses induced during this period established the bedrock for contemporary industrialism and indelibly shaped 20th-century societal configurations. Whilst heralding notable progress and ameliorating living standards for many, it concurrently engendered novel challenges that persistently impinge upon economic and sociocultural trajectories.

Cite this page

The Second Industrial Revolution: An Era of Technological and Economic Transformation. (2024, May 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-second-industrial-revolution-an-era-of-technological-and-economic-transformation/

"The Second Industrial Revolution: An Era of Technological and Economic Transformation." PapersOwl.com , 12 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-second-industrial-revolution-an-era-of-technological-and-economic-transformation/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Second Industrial Revolution: An Era of Technological and Economic Transformation . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-second-industrial-revolution-an-era-of-technological-and-economic-transformation/ [Accessed: 15 May. 2024]

"The Second Industrial Revolution: An Era of Technological and Economic Transformation." PapersOwl.com, May 12, 2024. Accessed May 15, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-second-industrial-revolution-an-era-of-technological-and-economic-transformation/

"The Second Industrial Revolution: An Era of Technological and Economic Transformation," PapersOwl.com , 12-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-second-industrial-revolution-an-era-of-technological-and-economic-transformation/. [Accessed: 15-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

IMAGES

≫ Social Changes during Industrial Revolution Free Essay Sample on
Causes And Effects Of The Industrial Revolution
Living Conditions during the Industrial Revolution by Keaton Mollberg
The Social Impact of the Industrial Revolution Free Essay Example
Living Conditions
Industrial Revolution and the Working Class Essay Example

VIDEO

Living in the Industrial Revolution: The Living Conditions of the Workers
The Industrial Revolution: Crash Course History of Science #21
A Day In The Life Of A Working In The Industrial Revolution
Lesson: Industrial Revolution Essay
What Life Was Like in the Industrial Revolution
Quarry Bank Mill

COMMENTS

Industrialization, Labor, and Life
The advent of industrial development revamped patterns of human settlement, labor, and family life. The changes set in motion by industrialization ushered Europe, the United States of America, and much of the world into the modern era. Most historians place the origin of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain in the middle decades of the ...
Living Conditions in The Industrial Revolution
The Industrial Revolution began in Britain in the 1700s and had a profound impact on the world. One of the main impacts it had was how it changed life for working-class people. First, the workers were exposed to horrendous working conditions in the factories and mines that emerged in the early years of the revolution. These factories and mines were dangerous and unforgiving places to work in.
Cities, smoke, and steam: The harsh reality of living through the
The Industrial Revolution was a time of unprecedented change, a period that forever altered the landscape of human life. It was a chapter where the quiet rhythm of rural existence gave way to the relentless hum of machinery, and the horizon, once dotted with pastoral scenes, became obscured by the billowing smoke of factory chimneys. This era, driven by innovation and ingenuity, brought about ...
Industrial Revolution
Summarize This Article. Industrial Revolution, in modern history, the process of change from an agrarian and handicraft economy to one dominated by industry and machine manufacturing. These technological changes introduced novel ways of working and living and fundamentally transformed society. This process began in Britain in the 18th century ...
READ: The Industrial Revolution (article)
Everything changed during the Industrial Revolution, which began around 1750. People found an extra source of energy with an incredible capacity for work. That source was fossil fuels — coal, oil, and natural gas, though coal led the way — formed underground from the remains of plants and animals from much earlier geologic times.
Industrial Revolution
Causes. The Industrial Revolution began in Britain in the 1760s, largely with new developments in the textile industry. The spinning jenny invented by James Hargreaves could spin eight threads at the same time; it greatly improved the textile industry. Before that time making cloth was a slow process.
READ: Responses to Industrialization (article)
Responses to Industrialization. By Rachael Hill. The Industrial Revolution led to rapid changes in people's living and working conditions. In response to poor working conditions, labor movements organized alliances known as unions and pushed for reforms. Reform movements happened around the world but started in Britain and the United States.
READ: The Global Transformations of the Industrial Revolution
The Industrial Revolution made some social progress precisely because of the misery it produced. Britain became the wealthiest nation on Earth. Soon, British workers, politicians, and writers started looking around and wondering why—in the world's richest country—so many people lived and worked in such poor conditions.
Impact on Society During the Industrial Revolution
10 1.6k. The Industrial Revolution was a period of rapid technological advancements that transformed society in numerous ways. It was a time of great change, and its impact on society was immense. From the development of new machinery to the emergence of new industries, the Industrial Revolution had a profound effect on people's lives.
Industrial Revolution and the Standard of Living
The standard-of-living debate today is not about whether the industrial revolution made people better off, but about when. The pessimists claim no marked improvement in standards of living until the 1840s or 1850s. Most optimists, by contrast, believe that living standards were rising by the 1810s or 1820s, or even earlier.
Social Change in the British Industrial Revolution
The British Industrial Revolution (1760-1840) witnessed a great number of technical innovations, such as steam-powered machines, which resulted in new working practices, which in turn brought many social changes. More women and children worked than ever before, for the first time more people lived in towns and cities than in the countryside ...
Living and Working Conditions During The Industrial Revolution
Although the Industrial Revolution significantly improved living standards for some, it also brought about tragic living and working conditions for the working class. In this essay, we will explore the living and working conditions that prevailed during this transformative period.
Descriptive Essay: The Industrial Revolution and its Effects
The Industrial Revolution was a time of great age throughout the world. It represented major change from 1760 to the period 1820-1840. The movement originated in Great Britain and affected everything from industrial manufacturing processes to the daily life of the average citizen. I will discuss the Industrial Revolution and the effects it had ...
Diets, Hunger and Living Standards During the British Industrial Revolution
On mortality, see Paul Huck, 'Infant Mortality and the Living Standards of English Workers during the Industrial Revolution', Journal of Economic History, lv (1995); Simon Szreter and Graham Mooney, 'Urbanization, Mortality, and the Standard of Living Debate: New Estimates of the Expectation of Life at Birth in Nineteenth-Century British ...
Working Conditions in the Industrial Revolution
The third feature of workplaces in the Industrial Revolution was the dirty and dangerous conditions that workers were expected to endure during their shifts. For example factories of the Industrial Revolution were notorious for being dangerous, especially textile mills. Spinning machines in textile mills were often left unguarded and posed a ...
Industrial Revolution: Definition, Inventions & Dates
Transportation During the Industrial Revolution. Britain's road network, which had been relatively primitive prior to industrialization, soon saw substantial improvements, and more than 2,000 ...
Industrial Revolution and Technology
The coal-fired steam engine was in many respects the decisive technology of the Industrial Revolution. Steam power was first applied to pump water out of coal mines. For centuries, windmills had been employed in the Netherlands for the roughly similar operation of draining low-lying flood plains. Wind was, and is, a readily available and ...
Essays on Industrial Revolution
Examine the emergence of labor movements and workers' rights during the Industrial Revolution. Discuss the conditions and struggles faced by laborers and the efforts to improve working conditions, wages, and labor laws. Explore the role of unions and collective action. Urbanization and the Growth of Cities. Explore the process of urbanization ...
How the industrial revolution raised the quality of life for workers
The great population explosion that happened during the industrial revolution was fueled by a steep fall in death rates. Even in cities, where living conditions are said to have been the worst, mortality rates improved somewhat (McCloskey, pp. 105-106). Deteriorating living conditions and longer life spans are difficult positions to reconcile.
Grade 8
The Industrial Revolution took place from the 18th to 19th centuries, and it was a period during which mainly agrarian/ rural societies in Britain became industrial and urban. Before the Industrial Revolution took place, manufacturing was often done in people's homes, using hand tools or basic manual machines.
Living Conditions During The Industrial Revolution
In the 18th century England had all needed factors that contributed to the start of the Industrial Revolution. Prompt #2 During the Industrial Revolution, the quality of life improved for middle and upper classes, however for the lower classes the living conditions decreased. England built large factories that supported upper and middle classes ...
Living conditions
Industrial Britain and the people's health, c.1750-c.1900 - OCR B Living conditions - waste and water Rapid industrialisation and urbanisation meant that living conditions and sanitation got worse ...
How Did The Industrial Revolution Impact Society
Open Document. Industrial Revolution: Impact on Society. The late 19th and early 20th centuries marked a pivotal period in American history characterized by industrialization. This transformation from framing to industrial society brought about significant changes in the economy, society, and political landscape of the United States.
The Second Industrial Revolution: An Era of ...
Essay Example: The Second Industrial Revolution, also termed the Technological Reawakening, transpired roughly amid the twilight of the 19th century and the dawn of the 20th century. Often chronologically anchored from circa 1870 to 1914, this epoch witnessed extraordinary strides in technology