The Industrial Revolution In England Essay Research

The Industrial Revolution In England Essay, Research Paper

The Industrial Revolution in England

The Industrial Revolution brought about a major alteration in the lives of

about all of the people of England. The people of the on the job category

benefitted from the Industrial Revolution. In other words, I am an

optimist. I think that the criterion of life of the people increased.

However, I besides believe that many people of the working category lost their

independency as a consequence of the revolution. Greed did non increase over

this clip period because there was merely every bit much greed before the

Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution was a measure frontward for

adult females because they wanted to be at place with their kids. The working

category in England had a higher criterion of life during the Industrial

Revolution than before it started.

Life Standards

The life criterions of the working category of England improved during the

Industrial Revolution. At the start of the revolution, from 1790 to 1815,

monetary values and rewards grew steeply. At this point, the monetary values were a small

higher than the rewards. This was due to the war against France from 1793

to 1815. Be it merely a happenstance that the monetary values were higher merely

during the clip that the war was traveling on? I do non believe that this was

the instance. Monetary values tend to travel up during wars. After the war with France

ended, the monetary values went back down really aggressively. Wagess did non diminish as

much. They went down marginally, but non near to the crisp diminution in

monetary values. For the majority of the revolution, rewards were higher than the

monetary values. After the people of England had bought their necessities to populate

on, they still had money left over because of the lessening in monetary values.

This constituted higher life criterions because the people had more money

to pass on things other than the necessities. !

Pessimists argue that the chart from which this information was taken is

incorrect because it merely shows mill workers. However, the mills

were where most of the people of England were working. People knew that

they would do more money in the mills, and accordingly, the people

of England flocked to the mills. Pessimists besides claim that it is

unjust to disclaim duty for the Industrial Revolution during the

war clip old ages with France. But why should optimists be responsible for

the old ages of hapless life criterions when it was non the revolution & # 8217 ; s mistake?

It was the war & # 8217 ; s mistake, non the revolution & # 8217 ; s mistake. It is obvious that

over the class of the Industrial Revolution, decease rates in England

decreased. There was besides a big population addition because of the

decreased mortality rates. & # 8220 ; 20 % of the population growing came from

increased birth rates, while the remainder came from worsening mortality

rates. & # 8221 ; ( Bin. p. 103 ) From 1700-1750, the decease rates i!

n England were 32 out of every thousand people per twelvemonth. By the

1810 & # 8217 ; s, decease rates were down to 21 out of every thousand people. At the

terminal of the revolution, in the 1840 & # 8217 ; s, the decease rates were at 22 out of

every thousand people per twelvemonth. & # 8220 ; There were no important medical

progresss until after 1850 & # 8230 ; , so improved lodging, vesture, existent rewards,

and diets reduced the mortality rates. & # 8221 ; ( Bin. p.103 ) The pessimists point

out that about all of the diminution in decease rates occurred before 1800.

This is right. However, the decease rates still went down. They besides

point out that when the effects of industrialisation took clasp, the

national decease rates rose from 21/1000 to 23/1000. But, even though they

rose by two more people per 1000, this is undistinguished compared with

how much the decease rates had already decreased. While from the 1810 & # 8217 ; s to

the 1830 & # 8217 ; s, the rates went up by two people per 1000, in the 1840 & # 8217 ; s,

the decease rates went back down to 22/1000. The get downing point used by the

pessimists of 1820 is unjust because it fails!

to include the part of history during which the decease rates fell the

most. & # 8220 ; The pessimists below the belt choice 1820 as their starting point, which

is to their advantage in the argument, but the technological alterations in

cotton and Fe, which brought about industrialisation all occurred in the

1770 & # 8217 ; s and 1780 & # 8217 ; s. & # 8221 ; ( Bin. p.104 ) The pessimists besides say that the decease

rates increased in the metropoliss. In fact, throughout the whole revolution,

they did non. In Manchester, the decease rates fell from 40/1000 in 1770 to

33/1000 in the 1840 & # 8217 ; s. The decease rates did travel up from the 1830 & # 8217 ; s to the

1840 & # 8217 ; s, but that does non outweigh the lessening in the rates before so.

These reduced mortality rates point to an addition in the life

criterions in the general population of England.


During the Industrial Revolution, the people of England lost their

independency. Before the alterations were made which brought about the

Industrial Revolution, the people of England worked for themselves.

During and after the revolution, the people no longer worked for

themselves, but for big companies in mills. They now worked for a

pay alternatively of being paid by the sum of work that they completed. The

people of England lost their right to find how much they would work.

Now they had to work a certain figure of hours that their employers in the

mills wanted them to work. This is precisely what happened to the

handloom weavers. They were forced out of their concern and into

mills. From 1795 to 1810, the sum of

handloom weavers increased.

But from 1810 to 1845, the sum of handloom weavers decreased

dramatically. This was because the first power loom mill opened in

1806. After 1806, the figure of power loom mills increased

dramatically. !

Handloom weavers were forced out of concern because they could non maintain

up with the efficiency in the mills. Two people working power looms

could bring forth as much cotton as seven handloom weavers. The handloom

weavers merely could non maintain up and either were forced out of concern or

had to travel work in a mill. But they lost their right to take what

they wanted to make, and could no longer be handloom weavers. It was merely

impossible for them. Another ground that people lost their independency

during the Industrial Revolution was that Enclosure came approximately. Enclosure

made the little land proprietors give up their land and happen a new occupation. Merely

the big land proprietors could afford to pay for all of the new demands

that Enclosure called for. With Enclosure, all land proprietors had to pay a

level revenue enhancement on their land. It was besides required to hold your land fenced and

surveyed. Peoples that did non have a big sum of land could non afford

to hold these things done. Peoples that!

could non afford to pay the revenue enhancement on their land had their land take

n off. About 25 % of the families could non afford to pay their revenue enhancements

on their land. Consequently, all of the little land proprietors were forced out

of concern. They could non work their ain land any longer. They had to

discovery work either on person else & # 8217 ; s land or in a different line of

concern. Enclosure took away the population & # 8217 ; s right to take what they

wanted to make. It did non let them to farm for themselves.


Greed did non increase during the Industrial Revolution. There was merely

as much greed before the revolution as there was during it. The hapless

intervention of kids did non acquire any worse. It merely became more

noticeable because it was all in the same topographic point. Peoples started detecting

the hapless intervention of kids because it was all in the mills alternatively

of being widespread as it was before the revolution. There are many

illustrations of the hapless intervention of kids before the revolution of all time

started. Robert Owen was 10 old ages old when he was an learner, and

said the followers: & # 8220 ; Frequently at two o & # 8217 ; clock in the forenoon, after

working all twenty-four hours from 8 AM, I had been hardly able, with the assistance of the

Bannisters, to travel upstairs to bed. & # 8221 ; ( Bin. p.101 ) Another illustration of the

mistreatment of kids is shown by the undermentioned quotation mark: & # 8220 ; He employed 17

apprentice misss, and had so cruelly ill- treated and starved them that 5

had died. The misss normally worked at embellishment on Muslim!

from 4 or 5 in the forenoon until 10 or 11 at dark. Their nutrient was

normally bread and H2O & # 8230 ; The 17 slept in an Attic in 3 beds. & # 8221 ; ( Bin.

p.101 ) This sort of hapless intervention of kids before the revolution

started was common all throughout England. There was an betterment in

kid labour Torahs towards the terminal of the revolution. The Factory Act of

1833 forbade the employment of kids under 9 in fabric Millss, limited

kids aged 9-13 to working 9 hours per twenty-four hours and 48 hours per hebdomad, and

limited kids aged 13-18 to working 12 hours per twenty-four hours and 69 hours per

hebdomad. & # 8220 ; The Mines Act of 1842 banned male childs under 10 and all females from

working resistance. The Ten Hours Act of 1847 limited work for kids

under 18 and all females to 10 hours a day. & # 8221 ; ( Bin. p.102 ) Towards the terminal

of the revolution, the authorities passed these Torahs to restrict kid labour

and demo that they were non avaricious. Pessimists point to handloom weavers

being driven out of concern as an illustration of the gre!

erectile dysfunction in the revolution. But, that was non greed. If there was a B

etter manner to bring forth a merchandise, so why would person non desire to utilize the

better method? & # 8220 ; They had 20 old ages to switch to a new business. Their

refusal to make so was the consequence of stubbornness. & # 8221 ; ( Bin. p.97 ) Pessimists

point out that kids were widely mistreated in mills. However, the

hapless intervention was merely noticed because it was in the same topographic point alternatively

of being spread out all over the state as it was before the revolution

started. Laslett argued, & # 8220 ; The coming of industry did non convey economic

subjugation. Nor did it make a state of affairs where workers were exploited.

These things were already there. & # 8221 ; ( B p.97 )


The Industrial Revolution brought about a measure frontward for adult females. Many

people today would state that the revolution was a measure rearward for adult females,

but we are non sing what people think about this issue today. We

are analysing whether or non it was good for the adult females of the early 19th

century. & # 8220 ; In pre-industrial Europe most people by and large worked as household

units. & # 8221 ; ( WS p.796 ) At the start of the revolution, households worked

together in the mills as good. Later, attitudes changed and kid

labour was restricted. Work force were expected to gain the money for the

family and adult females were supposed to remain at place and attention for the

kids. & # 8220 ; The adult male emerged as the household & # 8217 ; s primary pay earner, and the

adult female found merely limited occupation opportunities. & # 8221 ; ( WS p.796 ) A definite tendency

formed with the work forces working and the adult females remaining at place. The adult females of

this clip period appreciated the new reforms because now they could run

their places and watch their kids turn up. Before so T!

hey could make

A limited
time offer!
Save Time On Research and Writing. Hire a Professional to Get Your 100% Plagiarism Free Paper