Article: The British Industrial Revolution

Author: A.E. Musson

In Michael Fore's article, “The Myth of the British Industrial Revolution”, he made various
criticisms about the views of various modern economic historians. In his similar articles, he has
used multiple terms such as ‘industry’, ‘Revolution’, ‘science’ and ‘technology’ without conducting
any historical research, instead drawing on existing concepts and terminology to understand them.
Mr Fores, who himself was a train practical engineer, pushes his one of the major ideas about
practical engineers being the main force behind the industrial development in the past, throughout
and even today, no matter what any science, technology or ology says.

Mr force expresses a major dislike for all the people who are obsessed with knowledge, however, he
himself had been a great contributor to academic writing. He believes that people like him who are
hard-working have always done things, whereas the theoretical historians and scientists gave
misleading and false scientific explanations through their practical experience and achievements.

Thus, there was no industrial revolution between 1750-1850 as there were no sudden changes.
Skilled craftsmen like mill workers, engineers, etc, continue to develop new tools or artefacts just as
they used to do in the Stone Age. The skilled craftsmen weren't even inspired by any applied
science or new technologies. In fact, in Mr Fores’s view, the term applied science is misleading as
the word science is based mainly on ideas and is way far from any practical work. He also considers
the term technology as misleading, created to make something look more valid than it actually is.
He refers to it as technik in German.

The author somewhere agrees with Mr Fores’ opinion. The author's historical research is not only
concerned about famous engineers like Mansley, Roberts, firebrand, etc, but also about the mill
workers, mechanics, etc, who created the tools that helped build modern industries. He highlights
that industrialisation in Britain happened gradually over time. In his book “The Growth of British
Industry” (1978), he emphasises that the Industrial Revolution started earlier than many people
think. About half a century ago, Nef also suggested this viewpoint and other scholars also supported
it. This stresses the ‘Proto-industrialisation’ phase that happened before the main industrial
revolution. The author also points out Mr Fores’ quotes that most of the industries faced no
technical revolution before 1850. Traditional handicrafts were still common in the mid-19th century.
Apart from textiles, particularly cotton, iron production, steam-powered machines and factories
were not widely introduced or adopted.

The author remarks on how science and technology have developed over time. The author believes
that Mr Fores doesn't seem to be aware of the historical meanings of the words ‘industry’ and
‘revolution’. While it is true that people use the term industry in a narrow sense that includes sectors
like transport and other services (that are not strictly manufacturing industries). These sectors were
also going through major changes. The agricultural revolution, population explosion and rapid
urbanisation are often considered part of the industrial revolution or the process of industrialisation.
The historians have been long aware of these interconnections even when using the traditional
terms. In fact, 40 years ago, the lectures attended by the author began by explaining that the
industrial revolution was not limited to industry alone but also to other sectors like agriculture,
trade, transport, etc. The observers of the 19th century, such as Owen, Ure, Cooke Taylor, Marx and
Engels, etc., were equally aware of the big changes they were experiencing and the changes that
were on the way, and therefore, recognised as the Industrial Revolution.
The argument put forth by Mr Fores about historians focusing on aspects like urbanisation rather
than industrial changes is misinterpreted. The consequences such as population growth, agriculture,
transport and trade were central to the whole transformation and that justifies the term “Industrial
Revolution”. Historians such as T.S. Ashton's discussion of “The Industrial Revolution 1760-1830”
(1948) doubted the term but ultimately concluded that no better term exists to describe the complex
changes of this period. These changes began before 1760 and were not completed by 1830, It has
been widespread among historians that the Industrial Revolution was not restricted to a specific
timeframe, and its long-term effects must be considered.

Research indicates that more focus should be given to developments that happened after 1850.
Steam forward mechanisation saw a significant rise in total steam horsepower, for example, from
about 35,000 HP i1800 to around 3,00,000 to 4,00,000 HP by 1850, then rising to over 10 million
HP by first Census of production (1907). These figures indicate that the widespread adoption of
these steam power factories happened in the 19th century rather than the 18th century.This
challenges Mantoux’s “The Industrial Revolution of the 18th Century” (2018), although the
revolutionary changes can still be traced back to figures like Darby, Crompton, Newcomen, and
Watt. There had been too much focus on the percentage rates of industrial growth, which show a
rise from the early 1780s but dropped from the 1850s onwards, whereas the great increase after the
1850s was mostly ignored even though it was a phase when power machines changed most of
British industry.

The industrial revolution took place over two spanning centuries, as seen in the comparison of
Gregory King's statistical analysis of the 17th century to the 19th century. This period shows the
transformation of Britain from an agricultural country to an industrial one. Industrial developments
led to the various changes in the other sectors of the economy. One of the examples of transport that
Mr Fores considers non-industrial was closely influenced by the development of coal, iron and
steam technology and, therefore, regarded as a part of the Industrial Revolution.

Mr Fores disagrees with the term “Industrial Revolution” because he believes that revolution in a
normal dictionary refers to the major changes that happen within a matter of weeks or months and
sometimes a decade. The author then argues that the term ‘revolution’ doesn’t have to be limited to
a specific timeframe or politics. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Industrial Revolution took place
at a much faster rate compared to the slow progress of previous centuries. This revolution was seen
as a transformation not only in Britain but in the whole world. That's why the author and other
economic historians continued to consider the period of 1750-1850 as the “Industrial Revolution”,
whether the changes happened before or after the period.

The author suggests that it is illogical for Mr Fores to argue that the Industrial Revolution was more
of an “urban evolution”. Mr Fores even argues that industrial changes slowed down urban growth.
This can be true as we can see in the early stages of industrialisation before 1750, when
manufacturing was done in the rural areas, therefore leading to rapid urban growth. This period was
generally characterised by traditional techniques as no new techniques and machinery were adopted
as argued Mr Fores. Urbanisation accelerated when machinery and steam power were introduced,
especially in the coalfield areas. By 1850, one-half of the population lived in urban areas, and by the
19th century, 80% of the people were in urban areas. By 1911, only 8% of people were seen to be
involved in agriculture. Urbanisation grew rapidly as a result of the industrial revolution, increasing
employment not only in industries but also in other sectors like commerce and transport. Hence,
according to the author, Mr Fores is wrong to separate urban changes from industrial development.

The author disagrees with Mr Fores, who believes that excessive importance was given to the cotton
industry in the industrial revolution. The author refers to this point to when he was a student, nearly
40 years ago. He emphasises that many researchers and scholars, including himself, have also
focused on other industries like coal, iron, and engineering. The author also points out, like
Clapham did earlier, that many big industries, such as clothing, building, etc, didn't go through
many changes in the industrial revolution. Thus, Mr force is not saying anything new. Some of the
researches on capital investment and steam power and other related industries have tended to
support the idea that cotton played a major role in industrial development.

Mr Fores stresses a narrow definition of the term ‘industry’ but takes a broader approach while
discussing the excessive emphasis on cotton. He states that the rise of the cotton industry was a
‘classic example’, but a classic example doesn't have to be ‘typical’. He again quotes on the very
next page that cotton was exceptional in many ways. This makes Mr force previous claim
misleading. Mr force misled the states that textiles made up more than half of the manufacturing
output in 1811 (quoting Dean & Cole). Then he compares this with the fact that the output of cotton
never reached more than 41/2 % of the UK's national income, and employment in Cotton was at
about 7% of the labour force. The comparison done by Mr Fores here is a little misleading as he is
comparing different types of data. In the first place, he refers to manufacturing while in the second,
he talks about employment and national income. This suggests that cotton played an important role
in the industrial revolution, but as he previously stated, the cotton shouldn't be taken as typical.

The author disagrees with Mr Fores's extreme view about the term ‘applied science’ being
misleading and that it played little or no part in the industrial revolution. The author, along with Eric
Robinson in their book "Science and Technology in the Industrial Revolution" (1969), continuously
highlighted the importance of traditional craftsmen in various industries. The authors believe that
they dominated manufacturing as a whole. On the other hand, they also provided well-documented
examples from different industries showing how science and technology were becoming more
connected. In response, Mr force does not present any evidence; instead, he focuses on the historical
meanings of these terms. Mr force considers the author's evidence “doubtlessly correct “or "entirely
correct ", but at the same time, he claims that they are misconceived.

The main issue of the problem is how to define ‘science’ and what is meant by ‘pure' and ‘applied’
science. The author and Eric Robinson explore this problem in the 1969 book. The author disagrees
as Mr Fores's view describes science as only about theoretical knowledge with no practical use,
whereas the author is of the view that modern science is based on experiments, where there is an
interaction between practical observation and scientific theory. This interaction between science and
industry has been developing over the past two centuries. The author doesn't see a clear divide
between ‘pure’ sciences like physics and ‘applied’ sciences like engineering. Engineering, according
to the author, is based on observations and experiments leading to the creation of practical theories
or rules, which may be considered as ‘scientific’. According to the author, science and technology
are deeply interconnected, which is why it's a widely accepted term.

The author, along with Robinson, aims to showcase that various leaders of the industrial revolution
combined both practical and theoretical knowledge. There was hardly any divide between the two
as these leaders were literate, numerate and scientifically minded. The author argues that it's
difficult to create a differentiation between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ sciences in industrial developments.
The author opposes Mr Fores' claim that it is an invalid question to ask whether it would do
anything to apply science or whether it was achieved through the efforts of “practical thinkerers”.
The author himself and other scholars such as Landes, Mathias and Robinson have also explored
this question, showing it as a valid and important topic. In contrast, Mr Fores gave no historical
evidence. Instead, he assured that all engineers then and now are just ‘practical thinkerers’, thus
calling the question unanswerable and misconceived. The author challenges Mr. Fores to consider
historical evidence of leading industrialists from that time about their industrial achievements. The
fact that they were practical thinkerers is quite true, but this wasn't the whole thing. But what
mattered was the combination of practical experiments with scientific knowledge, gradually leading
to the modern scientific-industrial revolution.

To conclude, Fores claims that due to northern industrialisation, there was a divide between the
North and the South, harming British industry. The author believes that this claim of Mr Forea is
exaggerated. The author highlights London as a great hub of government, commerce and finance.
By the early 19th century, it became the most important engineering centre. London also had other
significant industries such as shipbuilding, chemical production, soapmaking, brewing, etc, as well
as great numbers of traditional craftsmen. London was also the largest centre of manufacturers at
that time. However, during the “Second Industrial Revolution” in modern times, which included
industries like electrical engineering and modern manufacturing, the industrial balance gradually
shifted to the Midlands and South-East during the 20th century.

The author, therefore, disagrees with the force explanation that Britain's industrial decline is due to
the South looking down on practical industry. According to the evidence provided by the “Science
Policy Research Unit at Sussex University”, the British industry does not use adequate scientifically
trained workers in comparison to other countries. Mr Fores focuses on the importance of the
‘practical man’ and recalls some industrial industries in the late 19th century that relied on
techniques such as the rule of thumb, etc. However, during that time, other countries were using
applied science to gain an advantage over Britain. Surprisingly, this notion still exists today.