Reading the Industrial Revolution
I. Before the machines: the agricultural revolution
01PLOUGH (with FALLOW, TURNEP, and INCLOSURE)
In 1771 Britain was decades into what historians call the agricultural revolution. Villages’ shared open fields and common lands were being fenced off into private farms — a process called enclosure, spelled “inclosure” here. Turnips and clover were feeding cattle through the winter, so land no longer had to lie idle. Improvers preached a “new husbandry” of seed drills and horse-drawn hoes. Now look all of that up in the first Encyclopædia Britannica. The four short entries below are complete — nothing has been trimmed. Enclosure is a hedge. Fallow is a colour. The turnip is a pointer to page 67. But the alphabet is not ignorant, it is organized differently: every stub points into a single enormous AGRICULTURE treatise, which grew from 180,000 characters in 1771 to 544,000 by 1797. Inside it, the new farming is a live argument, defended objection by objection — and by 1797 the PLOUGH article has become a 47,000-character treatise of its own, claiming the humble plough for Enlightenment science.
INCLOSURE, in husbandry, the fence or hedge made to inclose lands.
FALLOW, a pale red colour, like that of brick half burnt: such is that of a fallow-deer.
TURNEP, in botany, a species of brassica. For the culture of them, see AGRICULTURE, p. 67.
PLOUGH, in agriculture, a machine for turning up the soil, contrived to save the time, labour, and expence, that without this instrument must have been employed in digging land, to prepare it for the sowing of all kinds of grain. See AGRICULTURE, p. 54.
THE general principles of the new husbandry may be reduced to two, viz. the promoting the growth of plants by hoeing, and the saving of seed; both of which are equally profitable to the farmer. […] As, in the practice of the new husbandry, plants grow with greater vigour than by the old method, the land should be sowed thinner. It is this principle of the new husbandry that has been chiefly objected to; for, upon observing the land occupied by a small number of plants, people are apt to look upon all the vacant space as lost. But this prejudice will soon be removed, when it is considered, that, in the best land cultivated in the common method, and sown very thick, each seed produces but one or two ears; that, in the same land sown thinner, every seed produces two or three ears; and that a single seed sometimes produces eighteen or twenty ears.
THAT the antiquity of this art is beyond all others, cannot well be doubted; seeing we are informed by Scripture, that Adam was sent from the garden of Eden to till the ground; and, this being the case, he certainly must have known how to do so.
PLOUGH, in agriculture: A machine for turning the soil by the action of cattle, contrived to save the time, labour, and expence, which, without this instrument, must have been employed in digging the ground, and fitting it for receiving all sorts of seed. See AGRICULTURE, no 83-95. Amidst all the varieties which can occur in the manner of ploughing the ground, arising from difference of soil, local habits, and other causes, there is still a sameness in the task which gives a certain uniformity to the chief parts of the instrument, and should therefore furnish principles for its construction. There is not, perhaps, any invention of man that more highly merits our utmost endeavours to bring it to perfection; but it has been too much neglected by those persons who study machines, and has been considered as a rude tool, unworthy of their attention. […] But these opinions are ill founded. The difficulty is indeed great, and it is neither from the ignorant farmer nor the rude artist that we can expect improvement. It requires the serious consideration of the most accomplished mechanician; but from him we may expect improvement. […] It seems, then, a determinate problem (to use the language of mathematicians), because the operation depends on the invariable laws of mechanical nature.
To consider — The 1771 treatise already argues for the new methods, yet the everyday headwords lag decades behind. When, on this evidence, did the agricultural revolution “happen” — and is the encyclopedia recording change in the fields, or change in what Edinburgh publishers thought their readers wanted? Historians date the revolution anywhere from the seventeenth century to the nineteenth: does this source help you pick a side, or does it explain why they can’t agree?
Topic history, all editions: PLOUGH · AGRICULTURE · INCLOSURE · TURNEP · FALLOW
II. Watching it happen
02MANCHESTER
In 1771 the Britannica needed twelve words for Manchester. By 1842 it needed eleven thousand, and the article pauses, mid-tour, to explain that the self-acting spinning mule was commissioned by the master spinners for the express purpose of breaking the spinners’ power to strike. The encyclopedia is not hiding how industrial society worked; it assumes you agree.
MANCHESER, a large town of Lancashire, forty miles south-east of Lancaster.
Attention was first directed to the possibility of contriving a self-acting mule, in consequence of the frequency of "turns-out" amongst the spinners, and the intolerable domination which they were enabled to exercise, from the circumstance of a comparatively small class of workmen having it in their power at any moment to suspend the whole trade of cotton spinning. One "spinner" has three or four young hands immediately dependent upon himself; he has also four or five virtually dependent on him, inasmuch as they being occupied in preparing the raw cotton for him to spin, if he take a fit of idleness or insubordination, the preliminary processes are of course suspended. In the same way, if the spinners, as a body, become idle, the weavers, and eventually the bleachers, spinners, and printers, are brought to a stand; in fact, the whole cotton trade is locked up, and misery and privation are the immediate and wide-spread results.
To consider — Whose side is the 1842 contributor on, and what words give that away? What has to happen to a town before an encyclopedia finds it interesting?
Topic history, all editions: MANCHESTER
03COTTON → COTTON MANUFACTURE
The 1771 COTTON is a shopper’s guide to an imported luxury — where the good kinds come from, how to tell if a bale got wet. There is no machinery in it and nothing made in Britain. Seventy years later COTTON MANUFACTURE is one of the longest articles in the encyclopedia, and its history of the spinning inventions reads as a national epic — one in which Hargreaves, inventor of the jenny, dies in poverty a sentence before Arkwright’s “wonderful piece of mechanism” appears.
COTTON, in commerce, a soft downy substance found on the bombax, or cotton tree. See BOMBAX. Cotton is separated from the seeds of the plant by a mill, and then spun and prepared for all sorts of fine works, as stockings, waistcoats, quilts, tapestry, curtains, &c. With it they likewise make muslin, and sometimes it is mixed with wool, sometimes with silk, and even with gold itself. The finest sort comes from Bengal and the coast of Coromandel.
The cotton manufacture had its origin in the East, where the cotton plant is indigenous, and where the climate renders a light and absorbent fabric a suitable clothing for the people. It has in consequence been long established over every part of Asia, although it is only in India that it is carried on extensively, with a view to foreign exchange. Arrian mentions cotton cloth among the commodities which the Romans brought from India; but the quantity imported by them was inconsiderable, arising from the preference which they gave to woollen clothing. Dr Robertson remarks, that the difference between the cargoes imported from India in ancient and modern times, appears to have arisen, not from any diversity in the nature of the goods prepared for sale in that country, but from variety in the tastes or in the wants of the nations with which they have successively traded. The implements used by the Indians in the different processes of the cotton manufacture, from the cleaning of the wool to its conversion into the finest muslin, may be purchased for the value of a few shillings, and are of so rude and simple a construction as to be evidently the invention of a very early period.
Hargreaves died in great poverty a few years after his removal to Nottingham. While Hargreaves was producing the common jenny, Mr Arkwright (afterwards Sir Richard Arkwright) was employed in contriving that wonderful piece of mechanism, the spinning frame, which, when put in motion, performs of itself the whole process of spinning, leaving to the workman only the office of supplying the material, and of joining or piecing the thread when it happens to break.
To consider — In 1771, where is cotton made and by whom? In 1842? What happened to the people in between?
Topic history, all editions: COTTON · COTTONMANUFACTURE
04MACHINERY
In 1771 “machinery” meant the gods in an epic poem — the divine apparatus a poet brings on stage to resolve the plot. Thirty years later the Supplement of 1801 opens a 170,000-character treatise by stopping to sort out what the word has come to mean, because suddenly there are travelling machines, threshing machines, copying machines, electrical machines. You can watch the language being renovated to fit the new world.
MACHINERY, in epic and dramatic poetry, is when the poet introduces the use of machines, or brings some supernatural being upon the stage, in order to solve some difficulty, or to perform some exploit out of the reach of human power. See COMPOSITION.
THE denomination Machine is now vulgarly given to a great variety of subjects, which have very little analogy by which they can be classed with propriety under any one name. We say a travelling machine, a bathing machine, a copying machine, a threshing machine, an electrical machine, &c. &c. The only circumstance in which all these agree seem to be, that their construction is more complex and artificial than the utensils, tools, or instruments which offer themselves to the first thoughts of uncultivated people. They are more artificial than the common cart, the bathing tub, or the flail. In the language of ancient Athens and Rome, the term was applied to every tool by which hard labour of any kind was performed; but in the language of modern Europe, it seems restricted either to such tools or instruments as are employed for executing some philosophical purpose, or of which the construction employs the simple mechanical powers in a conspicuous manner, in which their operation and energy engage the attention. An electrical machine, a centrifugal machine, are of the first class; a threshing machine, a fire machine, are of the other class. It is nearly synonymous, in our language, with ENGINE; a term altogether modern, and in some measure honourable, being bestowed only, or chiefly, on contrivances for executing work in which ingenuity and mechanical skill are manifest.
To consider — What does it tell us that the meaning of “machinery” had to be renegotiated between 1771 and 1801? Who do you think is doing the renaming?
Topic history, all editions: MACHINERY
III. The birth of political economy
05POLITICAL ECONOMY
This headword does not exist in 1771, 1783, 1797, or 1810. It arrives in the fifth edition of 1815 — a discipline being born in alphabetical order — and the article’s first task is to explain what the new science even is, and why the ancients, who left slaves to do the work, never invented it.
POLITICAL ECONOMY MAY be defined the science which relates to the production, multiplication and distribution of Wealth. HISTORY. The acquisition of wealth must at all times have been an object of interest and attention to mankind. Yet it was not for a long time reduced into a science, but was left merely to the industry and practical observation of men engaged in the different branches of industry. We find little or nothing in the ancient writers which can be considered as belonging to this department of science. Among them agriculture appears to have been more honoured and attended to, than either trade or manufactures. The latter especially were considered as unworthy of freemen, and were abandoned entirely to slaves. Yet the ancient world had its commercial states; and perhaps had the monuments of Phœnician or Carthaginian literature come down to us, they might in some measure have supplied this blank.
To consider — The article says wealth was long left to “the industry and practical observation of men engaged in the different branches of industry.” What changed, that it now needed a science?
Topic history, all editions: POLITICALECONOMY
06USURY
In 1771 lending at interest is still discussed in the language of sin: usury is “taken in an evil sense” and forbidden “even by the law of nature.” By 1842 the same headword is a dry chronicle of statutes and rates, and the morality has vanished — the shortest possible history of how a sin became a price. Follow the cross-reference to INTEREST to see where the subject went.
USURY, in the general, denotes a gain or profit which a person makes of his money, by lending the same; or it is an increase of the principal, exacted for the loan thereof; or the price a borrower gives for the use of a sum credited to him by the lender, called also interest. The word usury is generally taken in an evil sense, viz. for an unlawful profit which a person makes of his money; in which sense it is, that usury is forbidden by the civil and ecclesiastical, and even by the law of nature. See LAW, Tit. xxxiii. 27.
USURY, an unlawful contract upon the loan of money, to receive the same again with exorbitant increase. By statute 37 Hen. VIII. c. 9, the rate of interest was fixed at ten per cent. per annum; which the statute 13 Eliz. c. 5 confirms, and ordains that all brokers shall be guilty of a præmunire who transact any contracts for more, and the securities themselves shall be void. The statute 21 Jac. I. c. 17, reduced interest to eight per cent.; and it having been lowered in 1650, during the usurpation, to six per cent., the same reduction was re-enacted after the restoration by statute 12 Car. II. c. 13; and the statute 13 Anne, st. 2, c. 16, reduced it to five per cent.
To consider — What kinds of authority does the 1771 entry appeal to, and the 1842 entry? What happened to the moral question — was it answered, or abandoned?
07POPULATION
Before 1824 POPULATION is a stub. Then the Supplement prints a 160,000-character treatise contributed by Thomas Malthus himself — the argument of the Essay on Population, rewritten for the reference shelf. This is not a book a student chose to read; it is what a literate family found when they looked something up. Ideas become common sense by this route.
The object of this article is to explain the general laws which regulate the increase or decrease of population, and the manner in which they affect the state and condition of human society. In taking a view of animated nature, we cannot fail to be struck with a prodigious power of increase in plants and animals. Their capacity in this respect is, indeed, almost infinitely various, according with the endless variety of the works of nature, and the different purposes which they seem appointed to fulfil. But whether they increase slowly or rapidly, if they increase by seed or generation, their natural tendency must be to increase in a geometrical ratio, that is, by multiplication; and at whatever rate they are increasing during any one period, if no further obstacles be opposed to them, they must proceed in a geometrical progression.
It will be found that they are all resolvable into moral restraint, vice, and misery. And if, from the laws of nature, some check to the increase of population be absolutely inevitable, and human institutions have any influence upon the extent to which each of these checks operates, a heavy responsibility will be incurred, if all that influence, whether direct or indirect, be not exerted to diminish the amount of vice and misery.
To consider — Malthus says the checks on population are “resolvable into moral restraint, vice, and misery.” Which of the era’s policies — on poverty, on emigration, on famine — make sense once you accept that sentence?
Topic history, all editions: POPULATION
08CORN LAWS AND CORN TRADE
Published in 1842, at the height of the Anti-Corn Law League’s agitation, this 200,000-character article takes a side in its very first sentence: “All governments, in every age of the world, have interfered too much with the affairs of their subjects.” The question of whether an encyclopedia describes debates or fights them has rarely had a cleaner test case.
ALL governments, in every age of the world, have interfered too much with the affairs of their subjects. A notion has very generally prevailed, that certain branches of commerce were sometimes advantageous to society, though ruinous to those who should attempt to carry them on; and that other branches, though profitable to individuals, were frequently inconsistent with the general advantage. On a first view, this opinion, though essentially erroneous, seems sufficiently plausible. Many of the pursuits of individuals apparently conduce very little, and may sometimes even seem hostile, to the interests of the whole; and hence we are naturally enough led to infer, that the public advantage would be best consulted by their prohibition. Nothing evinces more strikingly the prevalence of this notion of the propriety of restricting and directing the operations of industry and the investment of capital, than the regulations respecting the trade in corn.
To consider — Read the opening as a member of the Anti-Corn Law League, then as a protectionist landlord. Is this reference material or a pamphlet? Who buys an encyclopedia — and does that answer the question?
Topic history, all editions: CORNLAWSANDCORNTRADE
09WAGES
No edition of the Britannica has a WAGES article until the last one, begun in 1853 — after the Factory Acts, after Chartism. Its opening move is a striking piece of levelling: everyone from the prime minister down is a labourer, exchanging services for pay. Whether that flattening dignifies the mill hand or flatters the minister is the question the article never asks.
WAGES, (in Political Economy), constitute the reward or compensation paid to labourers by those who employ them, in return for their services. Taken in its widest sense, the term labourers is very comprehensive. In addition to the myriads who are engaged in agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing pursuits, it comprises all sorts of public functionaries, from the prime minister downwards, with those who crowd the ranks of what are called the learned and liberal professions. These parties, how widely soever they may differ in everything else, agree in this, that they exchange their services for valuable considerations of one sort or other. Their entire subsistence, in so far at least as they depend on their employment, is derived from wages; and they are as evidently labourers as if they handled a shuttle or a spade, or held a plough.
To consider — Why might “wages” only become encyclopedia material in the 1850s? What work does the claim that everyone is a labourer do in 1853?
Topic history, all editions: WAGES
IV. Labour, poverty, and discipline
10POOR-LAWS
Two openings, either side of the New Poor Law of 1834. In 1824 the article frames relief itself as the problem — “evils inseparable from a system of compulsory and indiscriminate relief.” In 1842, with the workhouse system installed, the same headword opens in the past tense of a danger survived: the old system had threatened “the property of the rich, and the morality of the whole people.” Welfare reform, before and after, in the reformers’ own voice.
THE laws comprehended under this title, and regulating the relief, maintenance, and employment of the poor, form so important and peculiar a feature in the polity of England, as to demand a careful notice. Especially as the administration of the system, within the last twenty-five years, has been so essentially altered, as to render any previous account, in a great measure, obsolete; and the effects of the system have been so widely extended, and so sensibly felt, as to obtain a considerable degree of public attention.
UNTIL very recently, the great interest felt in the body of laws comprehended under the above title, was derived from the consciousness of the danger with which the manner of their administration in England threatened the property of the rich, and the morality of the whole people. As the law continues fundamentally the same as it was before the adoption of an improved administration, that source of interest in these institutions remains; but the present sense of security renders possible a calmer and more dispassionate examination of their merits and demerits than could previously to the year 1834 have been made by the most candid persons acquainted with the rapid progress of the evils of the system.
To consider — In each opening, who is the poor law meant to protect? Find the poor themselves in these sentences — what role are they given?
Topic history, all editions: POORLAWS
11APPRENTICESHIP
This short article is Adam Smith’s attack on apprenticeship from the Wealth of Nations, lightly paraphrased — and it was reprinted, edition after edition, for sixty years, closing with “See Smith’s Wealth of Nations.” In 1814 Parliament repealed the Elizabethan statute that had governed apprenticeship for two centuries. Search the 1842 article for any mention of it. There is none. This reading is an exercise in using an absence as evidence.
APPRENTICESHIP, the servitude of an apprentice, or the duration of his indenture. Seven years seem anciently to have been, all over Europe, the usual term established for the duration of apprenticeships in the greater part of incorporated trades.
All those petty contrivances of corporations, therefore, though they may originate in the lowest mercantile jealousy, and though they may be exceedingly absurd, cannot materially disturb the general progress of things; and, though they may harass individuals, their effect on the industry of a great country hardly deserves notice; their bad effects being corrected by those general causes on which society depends for completing its arrangements, in spite of the obstacles arising from the mistaken policy of legislators.
To consider — Why would an encyclopedia keep reprinting a sixty-year-old polemic against a labour institution instead of reporting that institution’s abolition? What does the corpus’s silence tell you that a statement couldn’t?
Topic history, all editions: APPRENTICESHIP
12PUNISHMENT → PRISON DISCIPLINE
In 1771 the whole subject of punishment fits in one sentence. By 1860 PRISON DISCIPLINE is a 185,000-character treatise on the penitentiary, and it announces its own method: the subject has passed “from being matter of mere speculation” to “matter of practice and of induction from observed facts.” The society building factories was also building prisons, and reasoning about both in the same new way.
PUNISHMENT, in law, the penalty which a person incurs on the breach or transgression of any law.
This is a department of jurisprudence and administrative science which in later times has totally changed its character, and requires a new method of treatment. From being matter of mere speculation, it has become matter of practice and of induction from observed facts. In earlier editions of the Encyclopædia it was treated by one of those accomplished and sagacious inquirers, whose able exposure of existing defects produced the many experiments and improvements which supply the materials of this exposition. Mr Mill found no system of prison discipline acknowledged and acted on, although Howard, Beccaria, and Bentham had preceded him in endeavouring to establish such a system. Hence he thought it necessary to go back to the first principles of punishment, and realize them into rules of practice for the future guidance of mankind.
To consider — What does the 1860 author think separates his generation from Howard, Beccaria, and Bentham? What might prisons and factories have taught their designers about each other?
Topic history, all editions: PUNISHMENT · PRISONDISCIPLINE
V. Whose revolution?
13SLAVERY
The Britannica’s first SLAVERY article appears in 1797 — not when the ships sailed, but when the abolition pamphlets did — and opens with William Paley’s definition of slavery as forced, unconsented labour. The 1860 article, looking back at emancipation, records the logic of the £20 million compensation paid to slave-owners: the nation was “a thousand times guiltier than the planters.” Read this alongside COTTON MANUFACTURE, from the same shelf: the encyclopedia condemned slavery under S and celebrated its product under C, and never connected them.
SLAVERY is a word, of which though generally understood, it is not easy to give a proper definition. An excellent moral writer has defined it to be "an obligation to labour for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the servant." But may not he be properly called a slave who has given up his freedom to discharge a debt which he could not otherwise pay, or who has thrown it away at a game of hazard?
On the principle of compensation most men were agreed; there was guilt, it is true, in the very act upon which the claim was grounded, but the nation was a thousand times guiltier than the planters, and it would have ill become us to make the minor offenders the only sufferers.
To consider — The nation confesses to being a thousand times guiltier — and concludes it must pay the planters. Reconstruct that argument’s steps. Who is not compensated, and how is that made to seem natural?
Topic history, all editions: SLAVERY
14SUTHERLAND
The Highland Clearances, told three times by the same encyclopedia as the events recede. In 1824, while the removals were happening, they surface as a subordinate clause in a paragraph about fisheries — tenants “who were removed by the introduction of sheep farming,” an event with no human agent. In 1842 the ledger opens: profit to the proprietors, “much suffering to the small tenants whom it was necessary to dispossess.” By 1860 the account has become a defense, and the emptied straths are described in a word borrowed from the colonies: “the regions in the interior, from which the aborigines were removed.” Agrarian capitalism at home, two counties north of the printing house.
At Helmsdale, on the east coast, many of those small tenants who were removed by the introduction of sheep farming have also embarked in the fisheries with considerable success; and large sums have been expended within these few years by the noble proprietor of the Sutherland estate in erecting the necessary buildings.
Sutherland is eminently adapted by nature for sheep-grazing; and the plans of converting it into extensive sheep-walks, which have been for some years carrying into execution, have greatly augmented the revenue of the proprietors, and added to the commercial wealth of the nation; but they have doubtless been attended with much suffering to the small tenants whom it was necessary to dispossess. The people who had been removed from the interior in 1818 and 1819, when these great changes took place, are densely settled along the sea-coast; in some instances about thirty cottagers occupying the land formerly in the possession of twelve. They have likewise been obliged to make a violent change in their occupations and habits: instead of tending flocks, and following other rural occupations, they have been forced to encounter the hardships and dangers of the sea, and occupy themselves with the fisheries; and many families have preferred emigration from their native country, to engaging in occupations so entirely foreign to their previous habits.
The regions in the interior, from which the aborigines were removed, are occupied with sheep farms, and the grazing of sheep or cattle appears to be the only purpose to which such districts of country can be applied.
To consider — Track the grammar across the three excerpts: who acts, who is acted upon, and in what voice? Why might an Edinburgh writer in 1860 reach for the word “aborigines” for Scottish families?
Topic history, all editions: SUTHERLAND
15EMIGRATION
A brand-new headword in 1824. The article opens by declaring that human beings naturally stay put — “in whatever spot man fixes his abode, there he takes root” — which makes the question of why millions were about to move the article’s real subject. An industrial economy that celebrated its own growth also generated people it called surplus, and here is the reference shelf working out what to do with them.
THE natural propensity of mankind is to settlement and rest, and this principle is still farther strengthened by the influence of local associations over the mind. Every one is strongly attached to the place of his birth, or to the place where he has passed his earlier years, and it may be generally remarked, that, in whatever spot man fixes his abode, there he takes root.
To consider — If people naturally take root, what does the existence of this article concede? Who is imagined doing the emigrating, and who is doing the imagining?
Topic history, all editions: EMIGRATION
16WOMAN
The complete 1771 entry is thirty-five characters. Over ninety years, while COTTON MANUFACTURE grew by two hundred thousand characters, this one was touched exactly once — “the female of man” became “the female of the human species” — and the last editions dropped the headword altogether. Half the workforce of the mills, defined by reference to somebody else. The most important reading on this list is the one that isn’t there.
WOMAN, the female of man. See HOMO.
WOMAN, the female of the human species. See HOMO.
To consider — What would you need to know about who wrote, bought, and read the Britannica to explain this entry? Where in the other fifteen readings do women appear, and as what?
Topic history, all editions: WOMAN