How far would you say that Britain went through an Industrial Revolution between 1760 and

1820?

The industrial revolution can be defined as a fundamental change in the structure of Britain’s
economy with a rapid development in industry, and a movement away from agriculture,
accompanied by technological change which enables faster and more efficient industrial output.
Moreover there are characteristics of an industrial society which make it readily distinguishable from
an agrarian society, such as larger rates of economic growth and far more towns where a much
larger proportion of the population live. This essay explores how the British economy shifted away
from agriculture with a rapid industrial growth accompanied by technological development and
examines British society for signs of an industrial transformation. However, there are also issues over
whether the speed of industrial growth is sufficient to be attributed the term “revolution” and
concerns about whether the industrial revolution was only limited to a few industries.

Firstly, the fundamental change in the structure of the British economy between 1760 and 1820,
with a redeployment of resources away from agriculture, adds significant evidence to the claim of an
industrial revolution. For centuries agriculture, the most traditional form of economic activity, had
been the main source of income and employment in Britain. However, by 1800 more people were
employed in industry than agriculture. This structural change in Britain’s economy can best be seen
by the development of the cotton, iron and coal industries. Traditionally, the textile industry relied
upon domestic wool and linen manufacturing, most of which was carried out in people’s homes or
small workshops, for cloth production. However by 1780, with a spate of technological innovations
such as James Hargreaves’ ‘Spinning Jenny’ and Samuel Crompton’s ‘Mule’, the labour force was
reorganised to work in large factories. Cotton manufacturing was quickly established, particularly in
Lancashire with a system of canals for importing and exporting, and fast-flowing rivers allowing for
water power to be harnessed. By 1820, the cotton industry was fully mechanised and growing at a
rate of 7% per annum. Furthermore, the iron industry dramatically increased, with the output of pig
iron rising from 68,000 tons in 1788 to 250,000 tons in 1804. As a result of the iron industry being
concentrated in areas where there were supplies of both coal and iron ore, many small villages like
Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales, quickly developed into large industrial towns with growing
populations. Between 1770 and 1815, the iron industry grew at 3.2% per annum. Moreover, the
growth of both the cotton and iron industries depended upon coal which was mined in huge
quantities to provide fuel to power steam engines in factories. Coal therefore became essential to
the progress of industrialisation and so the output of coal is a reliable indicator of industrial growth.
Output rose from 7 million tons in 1780s to 14 million by 1812 providing a clear indication of
industrial growth. Overall, the shift from an economy largely dependent upon agriculture to the
growth of industry, is strong evidence that an industrial revolution did occur in Britain between 1760
and 1812.

Secondly, the acceleration in technological change with a rapid increase in the number of inventions
that brought about industrial development provide further evidence that an industrial revolution
occurred in Britain between 1760 and 1820. The technological change is best seen in both the cotton
industry and in the energy sector. The development of the ‘Spinning Jenny’ with several spindles
turning simultaneously, sped up the process of cotton spinning before Richard Arkwright improved
upon the ‘Jenny’ with his water frame. However, this only increased the spinning process, and it was
only after 1789, when Edmund Cartwright designed a power loom which was operated by steam
power that the cotton industry became fully mechanised. These inventions were both necessary for
the industrialisation of the cotton industry and demonstrate the essential relationship between
technology and industry. In fact, the historian J.Mokyr argued that the industrial revolution is
collectively known as “the acceleration of technological and economic changes that took place after
1760” and so the rapid advancements in technology shown in the cotton industry could be said to
form the skeleton of an industrial revolution. Furthermore, the most important invention of the
industrial revolution was James Watt’s steam engine. Until the late 18th century, the basic sources of
power were still man, horse, wind and water. Whilst harnessing water power to machines sped up
production, particularly in the textile industry, a manufacturer had to build his factory close to a fast-
flowing river. Therefore, water power was not transferable. It was not until the possibilities of steam
power were realised that every aspect of manufacturing and transportation were revolutionised.
Steam power allowed a massive increase in the volume of goods produced in almost every area of
manufacture. In coal mines and ironworks, the use of steam power brought cheap and plentiful iron
and coal; in the textile industry it brought cheap and plentiful clothing. The application of steam
power also provided the technology to create the means of moving those goods almost anywhere in
the country and across the world. Therefore, the rapid development of technology, particularly in
the cotton industry and with Watt’s steam engine, illustrates the industrial revolution in Britain
between 1760 and 1820 because it enabled faster and more efficient industrial output.

Lastly, it is possible to examine British society for the defining characteristics of one that has
undergone an industrial transformation; population increase and movement into towns and cities, as
well as economic growth. The population growth after 1760 can not only be explained in terms of
the industrial revolution, but can be seen as a contributing factor. Historical studies indicate that
between 1700 and 1752 the population of England stayed relatively flat, with little growth, whilst
some estimates suggest that between 1750 and 1780, the population of England doubled. This
massive growth of population occurred because of the industrial revolution’s population movement
which began the era of urban populations, where young people moved into cities in search of
opportunities. For example, the population of London doubled between 1801 and 1851 and the
population of Manchester increased from 35,000 in 1801 to 353,000 in 1841. Combined with the
growing economic prosperity of the day, people felt more comfortable starting families which led to
a steep increase in birth and marriage rates, leading to a massive exponential population growth. In
addition, this population growth was also essential to industrialisation because, not only did it
provide a potential workforce for workshops and factories, but it also led to a rising demand for
industrial goods which required mechanisation to fulfil the demand. Therefore, the population
growth after 1760 is a clear indication of the industrial revolution. Moreover, the increase in the
population of cities also led to a change in the old social order, with a new middle class, as well as an
industrial working class. Both of these classes shared a lack of political rights and as a result, new
enlightened ideas flourished, providing the scope for radicalism, popular disturbances and demands
for reform in the towns and cities. As the historian Eric J. Evans argues “there is little doubt that
what began in that period [after 1760] represented the most profound and thoroughgoing change
yet experienced by mankind in society.” Furthermore, between 1770-1815, the rate of growth of
GDP per capita was 0.33%. This is remarkable considering the population growth and the French
Revolutionary Wars. The war debt crowded civilian accumulation, inhibited growth, and contributed
to the dismal performance in the workers’ standard of living. After the wars were concluded,
between 1815-1841, GDP per capita increased at 0.86%. This more accurately shows the impact of
industrialisation on the British economy, and thus British society, by about 1820, does meet the
definition of one that has undergone an industrial transformation.

However, whilst the British economy experienced growth, and industrialisation became a more
prominent feature, the rate at which this occurred was relatively slow and so the industrial
development was less of a revolution and more of a gradual evolution. Although industrialisation
was an increasingly important attribute of the British economy, industrial production only grew
annually at 1.5% to 1.6% between 1760-1815. In fact, the rate of growth of Agriculture increased
from 0.13% to 1.18% between 1760-1831. These figures seem to show that industrialisation was a
slow process, and that the growth of other areas such as agriculture actually increased far more
substantially. Furthermore, by the standards of many industrial revolutions to follow, Britain’s
annual growth in per capita of 0.33% before 1815 is hardly impressive. As the economist Jeffrey G.
Williamson wrote “even during the uneven 1970s, the third world managed per capita income
growth rates around 3.2%, ten times the British rate before 1820s.” These statistics hardly portray
an economic revolution due to industrialisation. In addition, the standard of living showed no sign of
improvement, with adult male, working-class real wages failing to increase between 1755 and 1819.
However, between 1819 and 1851, it rose at a rate of 1.85%. Therefore, the traditional dates of the
industrial revolution, from 1760-1820 are perhaps too limited. This was the opinion taken by J.H.
Clapham who wrote “no single British industry had passed through a complete technical revolution
before 1830.” This portrays a different perspective of the industrial change, with gradual
improvements over time, amounting to a complete structural change much later than previously
thought. Through this perspective, the industrial revolution can no longer be deemed revolutionary,
but perhaps it would be better to describe it as an “industrial evolution.” Therefore, an industrial
revolution did not occur between 1760 and 1820.

Moreover, whilst there was spectacular growth in textiles, this disguised the backwardness of other
sectors, and thus the British Industrial Revolution was limited and restricted. Technical change came
slowly and patchily, with striking changes in textile production such as the “Spinning Jenny”,
however in other areas, labour was more important than mechanisation. The massive population
growth between 1780 and 1870 delayed the introduction of mechanisation in many metal and
clothing industries because with a large pool of labour to draw on there was little incentive to invest
heavily and speculatively in machinery. Industries such as construction and coal mining, in which
manual techniques ruled supreme, grew at respectable rates such as 2.5% per annum for coal
between 1770-1815. Furthermore, whilst the cotton and iron industries boomed, there was unequal
growth between different sectors. Other textile industries, apart from cotton, only grew at 1.1%
whilst most industries grew at only 1.0% per annum. Some industries that grew slowly were actually
mechanising and switching to factories, such as the production of paper, wool, and chemicals like
soap and candles. In addition, commerce played a large role in Britain’s economic growth. As Evans
notes “Britain’s economy in its “revolutionary phase” was at least as indebted to commerce and the
provision of financial services as it was to industrial production.” Therefore, because most sectors
failed to industrialise between 1760-1820, and the intensive utilization of labour was a much more
prominent feature than mechanization, it is not justified to say that the whole of Britain’s economy
experienced an industrial revolution.

To conclude, Britain did experience an industrial revolution between 1760-1820. Whilst the statistics
make the economic growth appear slow and not significantly unusual, there is a simple explanation
for this. Britain tried to both industrialise and fight expensive wars at the same time, and she simply
did not have the resources to do both. Furthermore, the cumulative changes in Britain’s economic
and social structures deserve to be called revolutionary. The fundamental shift in the structure of
Britain’s economy, as had not occurred since perhaps the Neolithic revolution, is sufficient grounds
for the conclusion that Britain did experience an industrial revolution between 1760-1820.