Debunking The Lasting Myth Of Poverty In The Early Industrial Revolution

Posted: 9/18/2019

I have had serious doubts for many years regarding the still predominant narrative about the severe poverty and worker exploitation during the early phase of the Industrial Revolution as it happened in Great Britain. Charles Dickens famous stories and Karl Marx and his sugar daddy Friedrich Engels stoked the narrative early on.

“Were there no poor people before that? (There were, obviously.) There are a number of possible answers – an increase in the concentration of poverty with growing urbanization and industrialization, which made poverty more visible; the rising standard of living, which made poverty seem less “normal”; or ... a more visible contrast between wealthy owners and poorer workers” (S1; emphasis added)

I may add:

1. Yes, perhaps the contrast between wealthy owners and poor workers became more visible. Perhaps, there were suddenly many more affluent and wealthy citizens around, while in previous centuries wealth was more invisible and highly concentrated with the nobility and upper echelons of clergy. 
2. Many of the nouveau rich were self made and came from humble beginnings
3. I would bet there were relatively fewer poor people during this time than in the centuries before if you adjust e.g. for population growth
4. Above all, poverty is such a strong relative phenomenon depending on time, location, culture and much more. E.g. a person in Western countries, who is in our time considered to be poor, would have been seen as a well off person just a few decades ago. Like beauty, poverty is to some extent more in the eye of the beholder. Greed and envy do the rest!

Sources (S):

1. Charles Dickens, poverty, and emotional arguments (Acton Institute, 9/13/19)

British Chimney Sweepers and Chimneys Regulation Acts Revisited

Investigating The Beginnings Of Big Government

In my quest to find the origins of why big government in Western countries has become ever so expansive and pervasive I came to the realization you have to go way back in history.

Neither Democracy Nor The Rule Of Law Prevent Or Even Limit Big Government

Anyone who seriously believes that is delusional and ignorant of the facts and history.

The Acts

In 1834, 1840, 1867 and 1875 Britain passed three successive Acts to prohibit boys from working as chimney sweepers. The motivation for these Acts was noble: “Many climbing boys were illegitimate who had been sold by their parents. They suffered from scorched and lacerated skin, their eyes and throats filled with soot, with the danger of suffocation and their occupational disease—cancer of the scrotum.” (Source).

However, to enforce these Acts annual licensing was required and the enforcement by police as well as government inspections. Thus, these Acts, as so many others ever since, became more and more intrusive and interventionist to achieve their goal.

One should take note that a particular industry was singled out here, one that probably did not have a good reputation or high esteem in society.

Alternatives

The proponents of these Acts saw it necessary to use the full coercive power of the state to enforce uniform public policy across entire industries. Was this really necessary or the only solution available at the time?

Why were chimneys not built in such a way that adults could clean them?

Why did government not promote research into better, e.g. more mechanical methods of cleaning chimneys?

Why were not those prosecuted who had their chimneys cleaned by child chimney sweepers?

Why was the law not limited to criminalize those businesses who hired boy sweepers or who endangered them recklessly?

Were these alternatives not practical or feasible? Why?

When these boys were sold by their parents to a master sweep, why did the government or charities etc. not buy them?

There is more to the story behind these children (see e.g. Wikipedia).

Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury

He was “one of the most effective social and industrial reformers in 19th-century England” (Encyclopedia Britannica). When the Acts were not enforced effectively beyond London, “this led to the foundation of the Climbing-Boys' Society with Ashley as its chairman.” I could not immediately find more information on this Society, but I wonder whether it could not have heightened awareness of this and ameliorate this issue without the coercive powers of government.

We also read: “After Shaftesbury discovered that a boy chimney sweep was living behind his house in Brock Street, London, he rescued the child and sent him to "the Union School at Norwood Hill, where, under God's blessing and special merciful grace, he will be trained in the knowledge and love and faith of our common Saviour".” (Source).

Why did he do this not more often? Why did not other likeminded people do it more frequently?

Further, “In February 1875 a twelve-year-old boy … was sent up … Hospital chimneys by his master …. He stuck and smothered. The entire wall had to be pulled down to get him out and although he was still alive, he died shortly afterwards. There was a Coroner’s Inquest which returned a verdict of manslaughter. [The master] was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. Lord Shaftesbury seized on the incident to press his campaign again. He wrote a series of letters to The Times and in September 1875 pushed another Bill through Parliament which finally stopped the practice of sending boys up chimneys.” (Source).

Why did he not seize on this incident to press for harsher punishment of such employers?

Far Reaching Consequences – The Spiral Of Interventions

Child labor protection by itself was certainly a sensible and overdue social reform. The means chosen are debatable. However, at about the same time also adult women were protected whether they wanted it or not. Soon after work days were uniformly limited to first 10 hours and later less for all workers and businesses. Since these reforms were widely accepted so it is being claimed and since their opponents were defeated, more and more labor protection laws were enacted in the course of history. This progressed to our days with labor laws in e.g. Germany, Italy, or France of such a kind that firing or changing working conditions is very difficult or nearly impossible. Government working conditions are even more generous.

Even worse, individual freedom and responsibility were severely subverted; property rights of business owners were trampled; and freedom of contract was violated. Such damage that ill conceived social reforms have done to our societies is very difficult to undo. The status quo has become enshrined without second thought.

Mary Poppins Movie

This movie actually features chimney sweepers on London roofs in an almost glorifying way. Just watch this subversive, highly anti Capitalist movie again.

The film “… has an extended dance sequence in which the jovial workers celebrate the end of the workday with fearless acrobatics. Their leader, "Bert", played by Dick van Dyke, sings "Chim Chim Cher-ee" which won the Oscar for "Best Song" in 1965.” (Source).

Whenever Government Becomes Bigger It Crowds Out And Weakens Civilization

Trigger

Here is a very readable, concise article about this subject regarding British society and government in the 20^th century by Alastair Paynter published on 2/13/2013 in the Freeman Magazine. It also contains some interesting links to more literature on the subject.

A Basic Definition Of Civilization

Civilization is very simply defined here as free and responsible individuals voluntarily cooperating with one another and assisting each other to their mutual benefit in a myriad of ways especially in the absence of a powerful, coercive government. The moral code governing these individuals can be as simple as a commitment to adhere to the, e.g. Ten Commandments.

Excerpts From The Article

A few quotes from this article:

1.       “When the State seeks to perform the duties that ordinarily would be carried out through people’s voluntary social bonds, it damages these bonds and weakens civilization.”

2.       “One prominent—but by no means solitary—example of this diminution of society is the replacement of private charity with the welfare state. … This unnatural intervention weakens the sense of duty, custom, and manners which animate an organic system of civil society. State intervention has not only debased the very concept of charity, but reduced individual responsibility to others …”

3.       “Proponents of the welfare state tend to ignore the plain evidence that wherever State interference hasn't cramped or enervated them, voluntary assistance and mutual aid have been the norm. Before the advent of the welfare state, this assistance came in the form of charity and mutual associations called friendly societies [Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 article about these societies]. In 1911, the year the Liberal government introduced compulsory national insurance, around 9 million people (of the 12 million covered by the scheme) were already members of such mutual aid associations. That’s 75 percent. During the nineteenth century, there had been a vast proliferation of friendly societies, which sought to provide social security and sometimes medical assistance to their members.”

4.       “It is remarkable how a once-liberal (i.e., liberty-loving) country [Great Britain] could be so steadily inculcated with social democratic ideals. What was once considered healthy and good has come to be seen as aberrant and alien. Thankfully, a persistent germ of the individualist spirit still remains in Britain.”

Big Government Suffocates The Human Spirit

One may add that once big government takes over, e.g. charity human innovation and human spirit suffer.