Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:06:01.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Intervention in Mid-Nineteenth Century Britain: Fact or Fiction?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

P.W.J. Bartrip
P.W.J. Bartrip*
Affiliation:
Wolfson College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question of the degree of state intervention in nineteenth-century Britain has interested generations of scholars since the beginning of the present century. Did mid-nineteenth century England constitute an “age of laissez-faire” which gave way to an “age of collectivism,” or did an “age of mercantalism” merge into one of state regulation during which process, even in the early and mid-Victorian period, the state exercised considerable control over the day-to-day lives of its citizens? These are two of the questions over which there has been extended debate.

The term laissez-faire has been employed in a variety of ways by different writers, by no means all of whom have troubled to define their understanding of the expression. Recently Professor Perkin has argued that during the nineteenth century two distinct meanings were attributed to it (and seven to the related, though antithetical, concept, collectivism!). For the purposes of this paper the term is taken to mean the philosophy, policy and, above all, the practice of minimal government interference in the economy.

The most influential case for an “age of laissez-faire” was presented by Dicey in Law and Public Opinion. In this Dicey identified three overlapping legislative phases: Quiescence (1800-1830), Individualism (1825-1870), and Collectivism (1865-1900). The first consisted of an absence of legislation, the second of “constant” parliamentary activity to abolish restraints on individual freedom and the third of state intervention “for the purpose of conferring benefit upon the mass of the people” at the expense of some loss of individual freedom.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , Fall 1983 , pp. 63 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Corrigan, Philip, “State Formation and Moral Regulation in Nineteenth Century Britain. Sociological Investigations,” (Ph.D. thesis, Durham, 1977) p. 23Google Scholar; Taylor, A.J., Laissez-Faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth Century Britain (London, 1972), p. 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Perkin, Harold J., “Individualism Versus Collectivism in Nineteenth Century Britain: A False Antithesis,” Journal of British Studies, XVII (1977), 111Google Scholar.

3 Holmes, C.J., “Laissez-Faire in Theory and Practice: Britain, 1800-1875,” Journal of European Economic History, V (1976) 671Google Scholar gives the following definition: “the phrase ‘laissez-faire’ refers to the belief that an economy composed of self-seeking individuals and private business enterprises will function harmoniously so long as it is left alone by government.”

4 Dicey, A.V., Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England During the Nineteenth Century (London, 1905)Google Scholar.

5 Ibid, pp. 63-64.

6 Ibid, pp. 188-89.

7 Ibid, p. 240.

8 Ibid, p. 239.

9 Parris, H.W., “The Nineteenth Century Revolution in Government: A Reappraisal Reappraised,” Historical Journal, III (1960) 24Google Scholar.

10 Fay, C.R., Great Britain from Adam Smith to the Present Day (London, 1928), pp. 322–24Google Scholar; see Barker, Ernest, Political Thought in England, from Herbert Spencer to the Present Day (London, 1915), pp. 19–20Google Scholar; Cunningham, William, The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times, Part II: Laissez-Faire (London, 1903)Google Scholar; Knowles, L.C.A., The Industrial and Commercial Revolutions in Great Britain During the Nineteenth Century (London, 1921)Google Scholar; Lipson, Ephraim, Planned Economy or Free Enterprise: The Lessons of History (London, 1944)Google Scholar.

11 Hobsbawm, E.J., Industry and Empire (London, 1968)Google Scholar; Crouch, R.L., “Laissez-faire in Nineteenth Century Britain: Myth and Reality?” Manchester School, XXXV (1967) 199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bédarida, François, “L'Angleterre Victorienne paradigme du laissez-faire?” Revue Historique 529 (1979) 79–98Google Scholar; Taylor, Laissez-Faire; R.M. Hartwell, “The Revolution in Nineteenth Century Law and Government. Laissez-faire and state intervention in nineteenth century England” (unpublished paper in the possession of the author).

12 Brebner, J. Bartlett, “Laissez-faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth Century Britain,” Journal of Economic History, VIII (1948)Google Scholar reprinted in Wilson, E.M. Carus (ed.), Essays in Economic History, III (London, 1962) pp. 253, 260Google Scholar.

13 Holmes, , “Laissez-faire,” p. 671Google Scholar; see Lubenow, W. C., The Politics of Government Growth. Early Victorian Attitudes to State Intervention, (Newton Abbot, 1971)Google Scholar.

14 Blaug, Mark, “The Classical Economists and the Factory Acts: A Reexamination,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, LXXII (1958)Google Scholar; Crouch, “Laissez-faire”; Kittrell, E.R., “‘Laissez-faire’ in English Classical Economics,” Journal of the History of Ideas, XXVII (1966)Google Scholar; Sorenson, L.R., “Some Classical Economists, Laissez-faire and the Factory Acts,” Journal of Economic History, XII (1952)Google Scholar; Viner, Jacob, “Adam Smith and Laissez-Faire,” Journal of Political Economy, XXXV (1927)Google Scholar; Walker, K.O., “The Classical Economists and the Factory Acts,” Journal of Economic History, I (1941)Google Scholar; see Hart, J.M., “Nineteenth Century Social Reform; A Tory Interpretation of History,” Past and Present 31 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parris, “Nineteenth”; Finer, S.E., “The Transmission of Benthamite Ideas, 1820-1850,” in Sutherland, Gillian (ed.), Studies in the Growth of Nineteenth Century Government (London, 1972)Google Scholar.

15 Aydelotte, W.O., “The Conservative and Radical Interpretations of Early Victorian Social Legislation,” Victorian Studies, XI (1967)Google Scholar; Aydelotte, W.O., “The House of Commons in the 1840s,” History, 137 (1954)Google Scholar; Aydelotte, W.O., “Parties and Issues in Early Victorian England,” Journal of British Studies, V (1966)Google Scholar; Aydelotte, W.O., “Voting Patterns in the House of Commons in the 1840s,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, V (1963)Google Scholar; Lubenow, Politics, passim.

16 Brebner, , “Laissez-faire,” pp. 260–62Google Scholar; Holmes, , “Laissez-faire,” p. 685Google Scholar.

17 MacDonagh, Oliver O.G., “The Nineteenth Century Revolution in Government: A Reappraisal,” Historical Journal, I (1958), 58Google Scholar.

18 Chimney Sweepers Regulation Act, 1834, 4 and 5 Will. IV c. 35. There had been an earlier act (28 Geo. III c. 48) in 1788, a select committee investigation in 1817 and unsuccessful bills between 1817 and 1819.

19 Chimney Sweepers Regulation Act, 1840, 3 and 4 Vict. c. 85; see Hodder, Edwin, The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G., I (London, 1886), pp. 296–99Google Scholar.

20 PP 1863, XVIII, First Report of the Royal Commission on Children's Employment, p. lxxxiii.

21 Chimney Sweepers Regulation Act, 1864, 27 and 28 Vict. c. 37; see Hodder, , Life, III, pp. 151–58Google Scholar.

22 PP 1865, XVI, Fifth Report of the Royal Commission on Children's Employment, p. xxi.

23 Chimney Sweepers Act, 1875, 38 and 39 Vict. c. 70.

24 PP 1876, XXIX, Royal Commission on the Working of the Factory and Workshop Acts, Appendix D, p. 149; see SirHoldsworth, William S., A History of English Law, XV (London, 1965), 19Google Scholar; SirClapham, J.H., An Economic History of Modern Britain, I (London, 1926–1938), 577–78Google Scholar and II, 415; Hodder, , Life, III, 151–58Google Scholar.

25 Holdsworth, , History, XV, 16–17Google Scholar.

26 Clapham, , Economic, I, 577Google Scholar.

27 For discussion of this issue see Bartrip, P.W.J., “Safety at Work: the Factory Inspectorate in the Fencing Controversy, 1833-1857,” Centre for Socio-Legal Studies Working Paper no. 4 (March 1979)Google Scholar; Bartrip, P.W.J. and Fenn, P.T., “The Administration of Safety: the Enforcement Policy of the Early Factory Inspectorate, 1844-1864,” Public Administration, 58 (1980)Google Scholar; Bartrip, P.W.J. and Fenn, P.T., “The Conventionalization of Factory Crime—a Re-assessment,” International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 8 (1980Google Scholar; Bartrip, P.W.J. “British Government Inspection, 1832-1875. Some Observations,” Historical Journal, 25, 3 (1982), 605–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Holmes, , “Laissez-faire,” p. 687Google Scholar; Taylor, , “Laissez-faire,” pp. 56–57, 59–62Google Scholar.

29 Holmes, , “Laissez-faire,” p. 687Google Scholar.

30 Marx, Karl, Capital (London, 1972 edn.), p. 284Google Scholar.

31 Holmes, , “Laissez-faire,” p. 685Google Scholar.

32 See Thomas, M.W., The Early Factory Legislation. A Study in Legislative and Administrative Evolution (Leigh-on-Sea, 1948)Google Scholar; Hutchins, B.L. and Harrison, A., A History of Factory Legislation (London, 1926 edn.)Google Scholar; Henriques, U.R.Q., “The Early Factory Acts and their Enforcement,” Historical Association Pamphlet (1971)Google Scholar.

33 Thomas, , Early Factory Legislation, p. 70Google Scholar.

34 See, for example, Holmes, , “Laissez-faire,” p. 685Google Scholar; Wedderburn, K. W., The Worker and the Law (London, 1971), p. 239Google Scholar; Martin, Bernice, “Leonard Horner: A Portrait of an Inspector of Factories,” International Review of Social History, XIV (1969) 427Google Scholar; Checkland, S.G., The Rise of Industrial Society in England (London, 1964), p. 247Google Scholar.

35 On the constraints affecting inspectors see Bartrip, “Safety”, Bartrip and Fenn, “The Administration”; Bartrip and Fenn, “The Conventionalization,”; Bartrip, “British Government.”

36 Factory Acts Extension Act, 1864, 27 and 28 Vict. c. 48; Factory Acts Extension Act, 1867, 30 and 31 Vict. c. 103; Workshop Regulation Act, 1867, 30 and 31 Vict. c. 146; PP 1859 (ii), XXVII, Copy of a Memorial … Complaining of Systematic Violations of the Factories Regulations Acts … and of Certain Suggestions … made by Mr. Leonard Horner, p. 367.

37 41 Vict. c. 16; see Factory and Workshop Act, 1883, 46 and 47 Vict. c. 53; Cotton Cloth Factories Act, 1889, 52 and 53 Vict. c. 62; Factory and Workshop Act, 1891, 54 and 55 Vict. c. 75; Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, 58 and 59 Vict. c. 37.

38 Public Record Office (hereafter PRO) HO 45 9771/B1137J; Asquith, H.H., Fifty Years of Parliament, (London, 1926), I 213–14Google Scholar; Pellew, Jill, The Home Office, 1848-1914 (London, 1982), pp. 155–57Google Scholar.

39 PP 1876, XXIX, Report of the Royal Commission on the Working of the Factory and Workshop Acts, p. xciii.

40 Ibid., p. xciv.

41 PP 1889, XIV, Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Sweating System, Evidence, p. 540.

42 PP 1890, XVII, ibid., Fifth Report, p. 392.

43 Quoted by Davidson, Roger, “Llewellyn Smith, the Labour Department and Government Growth, 1886-1909,” in Sutherland, (ed.), Studies, p. 235Google Scholar.

44 PP 1876, XXIX, Report of the Royal Commission on the Working of the Factory and Workshop Acts, pp. xcii-iv.

45 PRO HO 45, 9770/B1137, Minute of Godfrey Lushington, 26 May 1892.

46 PRO HO 45, 9770/B1137, H.O. to T., 8 Aug. 1892.

47 PRO HO 45, 10553/164207, Report of the Departmental Committee on the Factory Inspectorate, 23 Dec. 1907; PRO LAB 14/182, Report of the Departmental Committee on the Factory Inspectorate, 16 Jan. 1913, pp. 6-7.

48 Mines Act, 1842, 5 and 6 Vict. c. 99; see Engels, Frederick, The Condition of the Working Class in England (London, 1969 edn.), p. 276Google Scholar; John, A. V., By the Sweat of their Brow. Women Workers at Victorian Coal Mines (London, 1980), pp. 55–60Google Scholar.

49 On the formation of the mines inspectorate, see Cassell, A.J., “Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, 1843-1862. A Study of Law Enforcement”. (M.Sc.Econ. thesis, University of Southampton, 1962)Google Scholar; MacDonagh, Oliver O.G., “Coal Mines Regulation: the First Decade, 1842-1852” in Robson, Robert (ed.), Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain (London, 1967), pp. 58–86Google Scholar; Boyd, R. Nelson, Coal Mines Inspection. Its History and Results (1879)Google Scholar.

50 PRO HO 87 (2), Waddington to Inspectors, 21 Nov. 1850, pp. 258-59; PP 1851, XLIII, Copy of Instruction to Each of the Inspectors of Coal Mines Appointed Under 13 and 14 Vict. c. 100.

51 Boyd, , Coal Mines, pp. 105–07Google Scholar.

52 27 Dec. 1850.

53 27 Jan. 1855.

54 PRO, HO 45, OS 5377, 22 July 1854.

55 Mining Journal, 27 July 1872.

56 Ibid., 12 Jan. 1867.

57 Mining Journal, 9 Feb. 1867; PRO HO 45, OS 8027.

58 PP 1866, XIV, Select Committee Appointed to Inquire into the Regulation and Inspection of Mines, Evidence, p. 22; see PRO HO 45, OS 6779, Inspector Longridge to Secretary of State, 2 Jan. 1860.

59 PP 1866, XIV, S.C. … into … Mines, Evidence, p. 97.

60 Ibid., p. 168.

61 PRO HO 45, OS 8027 date stamped 7 Feb. 1870; see Resolution of the Miners' Conference in Manchester 10-12 Jan. 1871.

62 PRO HO 45, OS 8407, Atkinson to Bruce 8 Feb. 1870.

63 PRO HO 45, OS 8027, Minute on the Manchester Conference, 10-12 Jan. 1871.

64 PP 1867, XIII, S.C into … Mines, Report, p. 7; see PP 1866, XIV, Evidence, p. 257.

65 PRO HO 45, OS 1490, Tremenheere to Sir G. Grey, 31 Dec. 1846.

66 PP 1867, XIII, S.C into … Mines, Report, p. 7.

67 Ibid., passim; see Evidence of Sir G. Grey, pp. 85-95.

68 PP 1881, XXVI, Evidence pp. 215, 286, 293, 296, 302, 453.

69 Ibid., p. 43.

70 Ibid., p. 42, see pp. 45-46, see evidence of T. Wynne, p. 59.

71 Ibid., p. 43.

72 PP 1884-5, XV, Report of Inspector Evans, pp. 418-9; PP 1886, XVI, Report of Inspector Wardell, p. 187; PP 1893-4, XX, Report of Inspector Hall, p. 367; PP 1894, XXIV, Report of Inspector Robson, p. 51; PP 1895, XXII, Report of Inspector Robson, p. 41; PP 1897, XX, Report of Inspector Robson, p. 83.

73 PP 1894, XXIV, Report of Inspector Robson, p. 51.

74 Ibid.; see PP 1896, XXII, Report of Inspector Robson, p. 47; PP 1896, XII, Report of Inspector Atkinson, p. 219.

75 PP 1895, XXII, Report of Inspector Robson, p. 41.

76 Ibid.

77 Ibid.

78 Alderman, Geoffrey, The Railway Interest (London, 1973), pp. 15 and 20Google Scholar.

79 Alkali Act, 1863, 26 and 27 Vict. c. 124; Explosives Act, 1875, 38 and 39 Vict. c. 17.

80 MacLeod, R.M., “The Alkali Acts Administration, 1863-1884: the Emergence of the Civil Scientist,” Victorian Studies, IX (1965) 85–112Google Scholar; Civil Service Estimates.

81 See Pellew, Jill, “The Home Office and the Explosives Act of 1875,” Victorian Studies, XVIII (1974) 175–194Google Scholar; Civil Service Estimates.

82 The mere existence of a statute may produce some compliance with the law even if there is no active inspection or other enforcement strategy. However, compliance is not measurable. An alternative quantifiable guide is to measure a data series in the context of regulatory change. In the case of factories, mines, railways, and explosives it is possible to consider fatal accident statistics in relation to safety legislation controlling for business conditions. However, such statistics are subject to distortion associated with reporting practice. Furthermore, it is impossible to isolate the influence of legislation as distinct from other factors which may have affected accident trends (e.g. technological advances pertaining to safety, medical advance, and changing attitudes towards the value of human life). It has been noted, for example, that female employment in mines was declining before the act of 1842. See John, , By the Sweat, pp. 23–25Google Scholar.

83 PRO 45, 9771/B1137J, Memo, of G. Lushington, 9 Nov. 1892.

84 Bruce, Maurice, The Coming of the Welfare State (London, 1961)Google Scholar; Roberts, David, Victorian Origins of the British Welfare State (London, 1960)Google Scholar; Fraser, Derek, The Evolution of the British Welfare State (London, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see the comment of Stefan Collini in his review of Taylor, , Laissez-faire, in History, 59 (1974)Google Scholar about “the prevailing tendency to find the ‘origins of the welfare state’ in the slightest twitch of the arm of Victorian government.”

85 Marx, , Capital, p. 284Google Scholar.

86 PRO HO 45, OS 1490, Tremenheere to Grey, 31 Dec. 1846.