The Living Standards of the British Working Class During the Industrial Revolution:

An Abstract of Hobsbawm and Hartwell’s Articles

Dr. Norman Ingram

The standard of living for the nineteenth century working class of Industrial Britain is a

contentious issue amongst historians studying the subject. These historians include R.M. Hartwell

and E.J. Hobsbawm, who have polar perspectives. By reviewing the major arguments featured in

Hobsbawm’s article “The Standard of Living during the Industrial Revolution: A Discussion” and

Hartwell’s “The Standard of Living”, this abstract seeks to evaluate each historian’s point of view

in the hope of having a diverse perspective on the issue of living standards during the First

Industrial Revolution, all the while uncovering faults and strengths in each historian’s view on the

topic at hand.

In his article, Hobsbawm argues that the standard of living for the British working class

declined during the Industrial Revolution. Hobsbawm argues that laborers’ wages were quite low1,

countering Hartwell’s claim that wages went up during the nineteenth century 2 . Hobsbawm

mentions that the health of the English working class declined with the rise of industrialization 3.

The rise of an urban population in the nineteenth century, Hobsbawm alleges, would not allow for

longer life spans for the working class 4. Hobsbawm states that job security was very lacking due

to there being cyclical unemployment throughout the industrial period 5. Alongside unemployment

in existing industries, many domestic industries such as handloom weaving would be quashed,

leading to yet more unemployment 6 . Hobsbawm discusses the quality of life for nineteenth

1
E.J. Hobsbawm, “The Standard of Living During The Industrial Revolution: A Discussion”, The Economic History
Review 16.1 (1963): 119-134. Hobsbawm notes that the wages were particularly low in the 1830s and 1840s
2
R.M. Hartwell, “The Standard of Living”, The Economic History Review 16.1 (1963) :135-146.
3
Hobsbawm, The Standard of Living: A Discussion, 128. According to Hobsbawm, in 1842, more than a third of
Sheffield’s razor grinders contracted grinder’s disease.
4
Ibid.,127. Hobsbawm refers to claims made by sanitation reformers of the 1840s and 1850s. These reformers
claimed that people (most likely the working class) living in rural areas such as Wiltshire lived twice as long as
individuals living in urban centres like Liverpool and Manchester.
5
Ibid., 121. Hobsbawm notes that the 1840s were marked by mass unemployment. The data that Hobsbawm
presents shows that between the years 1839 to 1841, there were hundreds of employees that were fired in fifty
different stores in Salford, England which, according to Hobsbawm, was a common trend in that time.
6
Ibid., 127-128. Hobsbawm mentions how half a million handloom weavers were rendered unemployed after 1830.
 Habib 2

century working class British people, stating that they experienced a decline in both literacy 7 and

leisure8 during the first phase of industrialization.

Hartwell, in response to Hobsbawm, states that the standards of living for the British working

class actually improved during the First Industrial Revolution, albeit gradually. Hartwell points

out that the British working class could afford many necessities, thereby indicating that some of

their needs were met. According to Hartwell, the price of goods dropped below the wages that

workers made on average, thus allowing them to afford said goods 9. Hartwell states that there is

not an absence of reliable quantitative data pertaining to the nineteenth-century working class.

According to Hartwell, there have been countless documents recording price indices and wage

rates during the nineteenth century 10. Hartwell mentions how the working class were actually

capable of living within their financial means 11. He also proports that after 1815, the domestic

consumption of goods outweighed that of the international market 12, implying that the English

working class were able to consume market goods alongside the wealthier classes.

Both Hartwell and Hobsbawm wrote informative articles, providing insight on the lives of the

British wage workers in the First Industrial revolution, be it their financial capabilities or the
13
sanitation of their environment . A weakness found in the articles was the lack of nuance

exhibited by both authors. Hartwell focuses on the economic aspects of the working class in

7
Ibid., 130. Hobsbawm cites a survey conducted in 1842, where it was found that most of the manufacturers
arrested in cities such as Lancashire and Staffordshire were illiterate.
8
Ibid., 129. Hobsbawm references a community of farmers in Suffolk that played soccer games on a plot of land,
stating that after 1810, they ceased to have rights to play on the land due to it being cultivated for industrialized
agriculture.
9
Hartwell, “The Standard of Living”, 137.
10
Ibid., 137.
11
Ibid., 140. Hartwell alleges that working-class families were able to save about £1 of their annual disposable
income due to a beer duty being revoked in 1830.
12
Ibid., 141.
13
Hobsbawm, “The Standard of Living: A Discussion”, 126.
 Habib 3

nineteenth-century Britain, making presumptions on the lives of the working based on little direct

qualitative evidence. Hobsbawm writes of the same subject in a sociological context, depending

mostly on statements made by individuals such as reformers. Another issue found within the

articles, especially in Hobsbawm’s, was political bias 14

perspectives of these two historians help create a diverse discussion of a controversial topic as the

standard of living.

14
Ibid., 129. While writing disparagingly of Hartwell’s stance towards industrialization, Hobsbawm would also
make occasional comments promoting Friedrich Engels, as exemplified in his comment pertaining to Hartwell’s
knowledge of sociology.
 Habib 4

Bibliography

Hartwell, R.M. “The Standard of Living”. The Economic History Review 16.1 (1963) :135-146.

Hobsbawm, E.J. “The Standard of Living During The Industrial Revolution: A Discussion”. The

Economic History Review 16.1 (1963): 119-134.