Society and Social Changes 1851-86; (complete) Flashcards
What was the class system during the mid-nineteenth century like in GB?
- Was a prevalent feature in society
- Categorised people in relation to their status in society & degree of economic influence
- 3 main classes: upper, middle and lower & varied groups within each class.
- Limited social mobility between classes - this was changing but many accepted their spot in society.
- Criteria upon which social class was based were a matter of debate, most definitions refer to occupation,
Capital / inherited wealth values, experiences.
What did class division look like in mid-19th century Britain?
- The aristocracy (land-owning elite) & ↓ ranked landowning gentry = upper class
- middle class comprised of range of occupations & interests: merchants, shop keepers, clerks, and less prosperous small holders.
-lower class: increasingly called working class = those who labaned with their hands to make
A living, like craftsmen and miners.
How did Henry Mayhew’s study of social divisions classify society and what did it fail to take into account?
In terms of people’s relationship with work. Mayhew placed all those who worked for a living in same social class, whether employer or employee as work was a necessity for both - industrialists first saw their profits as earned income, comparable to a wage. Saw a “common band of interest” by industrious classes against leisured landed classes (inherited wealth). Also saw ↑ desire of industrious classes to challenge their position beyond 1832 reform act.
Failed to take into account that by 1850s, there was a big number of industrialists so wealthy they could buy land, already buried dividing lines between social classes
How did the upper classes maintain power?
Relied on inherited wealth, from possession of land. Incomes derived from land rents: up until mid 19th cent maintained economic superiority allowed land-based political system that they could control
They made up only fraction of population but their influence was immense - dominated every aspect of social, political and economic life of country.
Industrialisation → opportunity for more wealth creation from mineral (coal, etc) exploitation capitalisation.
How did industrialisation bring significant change to existing social structure?
- Gave opportunities for upper classes to create more wealth by capitalising off of mineral deposits ilike coal) lying under their land
- successful industrialists, merchants, etc accumulated wealth on large scale, could challenge superiority of
Upper classes + imitate their cultures. Some regarded as upper middle class/ even aristocracy.
Who were the middle class made up of and what was the spectrum?
1/5 and 1/4 of the population. Broad spectrum of occupations & incomes. Example -
A lawyer earning £700 a year, with 4 servants large detached home and sending his kids to public school would be considered middle class along with a clerk earning £100 a year with none of the other advantages.
Broader definition = those who could after to keep a domestic servant. In 1871, there were 1.4 million domestic servants.
Who were the working classes and why were there divides?
1850 - 4/5 of population earned living though manual labour.
-There was a lack of homogeneity within the working class; rural = mainly poor agricultural workers, urban = greater diversity of occupation, status, wage - level. E.g - skilled craftsman as well as semi and unskilled.
-Divisions in individual workplaces
-Those who were regularly in work & maintained themselves, may have seen themselves as distinct from poor; those without work (or occasional)
Why were there regional divisions?
England was confident in its national identity; Ireland, Wales & Scotland had to work hard to maintain theirs, England was the dominant social, economic & political centre of the UK.
National identity & preservation of old traditions & language were important to Scotland, Ireland & Scotland but by about 1870 their languages were under threat- attempt to anglicise Gaelic in 1872 Education Act & Welsh and Irish speakers
There were divisions within the industrial north & largely agricultural south.
Why were there divisions within Scotland?
Railway network failed to connect Highland region in north of Scotland to rest of Britain. So, Gaelic-speaking crofting families were left behind during golden age of farming in the 1850s/60s, largely ignorant of new farming methods and machinery & financially unable to make improvements.
Rents = disproportionately high during depression hitting farming in the 1870s, in 1882 led to outbreak of civil disobedience: the Crofters’ War. It underlined economic imbalance between N Scotland & prosperous S. Farm workers in SE Scotland = better off than their crofting counterparts in N, but their wage was on average ^ than farm workers in most other GB regions. Came about largely bc system of long leases there encouraged tenant farmers to make improvements, which —> good profits & enabled them to pay higher wages.
What were divisions like in Ireland & Wales?
Benefits weren’t shared by rest of Ireland, as poor rural economy was too weak to stimulate demand for industrial goods.
In Wales, a division between the N & S was emphasised by industrial development around coal fields of Glamorganshire in S but single national identity emerged more strongly in Wales than Scotland/Ireland. There were not cultural/language divisions that existing between the Lowland & Highland Scots, nor economic gap, as in Ireland, between prosperous minority in Ulster & impoverished majority in rest of country. In Wales —> religion provided new source of national identity. 1850= Wales becomes strongly Nonconformist
& religious census,1851 indicates possibly 3/4 population = regular chapel/church-goers. Sunday services were conducted in Welsh, whether rural North Wales or/ industrial towns of Glamorgan.
Were there any divisions for the landing class, explain?
In all regions, the landed classes were NOT constrained by cultural & economic divisions. Their wealth enabled them to pursue a more cosmopolitan life, w/ a mansion house in London - so they could engage in political, intellectual life of the capital city & keep abreast of fashionable world, or travel abroad - returning to their country residence when Parliament was in recess/social/sporting occasions demanded it.
What was the north/south divide like in the mid to late 19th century GB?
Coal & iron ore deposits allowed industry to develop in N, while S counties lacked natural resources, Wales had serious depopulation. Local economies stagnated & farm workers wages lowered further. Attraction of higher wages in towns & easier access due to development of railways- more exodus. More mechanisation & other developments in farm industry often reduced labour need, urban industry increased demand for labour.
When depression hit farming (1870s) agricultural workers—> towns. Reduction in farm workers= higher wages for the rest, although N workers were always paid better as farmers competed w/ wage levels.
Counties around London & those w/ industrial towns enjoyed an economic boom.
How was Disraeli’s novel ‘Sybil’ (1845) significant in the rest of the 19th century?
Had the concept of Britain being 2 nations and exposed the appalling living standard conditions of the working classes- valid for much of rest of 19th century.
Identifiable gulf between minority middle and upper classes, who could rely on decent income with a comfortable living, and the poor/working classes , whose living standards were balanced between sufficient and destitution
What did most historians acknowledge about living standards after 1850?
There was a rise
Disagree as to the extent & degree of poverty that continued + effectiveness of its treatment
Why was there a period of prosperity in GB during the mid-nineteenth century?
Entrepreneurial spirit—> some profits of industry & trade go to overseas development, those meet with success & much of capital came back to GB. Mostly middle-class manufacturers & merchants benefit. Owners form part of growing, prosperous middle-class and build substantial home; affording best quality furniture, servants, horses, etc. Limited family size through birth control + educated their children privately, afford best medication.
Benefits of econ growth permeated much of respectable Victorian society—> regarded rising living standards as reward for hard work.
Did wages of the classes fluctuate?
Working class- yes
Middle class- no
What was an indication of overall rising prosperity?
Increase in workers wages in both town & country but rural wages generally well below of industrial workers
Why was there a rise in real wages & increased spending power? (Statistic)
Wages of industrial workers rose approx. 50% from 1850-1875
Prices rose on average 20%- 30% rise in real wages= increased spending power
Why was life for the working classes in cities less harsh?
-Rising wages, falling prices
-Commodities like soap, matches now easily available + affordable.
-Fresh food quickly bought in from surrounding countryside by train, food cheaper.
-Diets more varied- plenty supplies of milk, meat, veggies.
-Factories making cheaper goods targeted at better of working classes w/ spare cash.
-More leisure; half day on Saturday (1850 factory act), bank holidays
What did the mid-Victorian boom not solve?
-Poverty + associated issues
-Misery of those at bottom of economic ladder
-Unemployment - small children in small workshops
-No state system of education, poorer children couldn’t write
-State of housing in slum districts in towns/cities; health hazards of overcrowding, living conditions.
How were social improvements introduced?
Through limited government intervention in public health & factory legislation, and introduction of state education system; all benefitting the poor.
Why was the spectre of poverty never far away in spite of higher living standards?
Little security when workers, skilled/unskilled lost their jobs, possibly by being “laid off”, ill health or old age.
Skilled; money set aside in Post Office Savings Bank Gladstone introduced (1861) or friendly society or ‘self help’ from family/neighbours or charity
^None of these was a solution to their predicament.
Why did numbers of the poor decline?
The introduction of the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act + people take a share in material progress of nation
