Manchester England, From 1750-1850

The political environment created by this industrial environment is not good for the government, or those in power. “Spirit of discontent with the Government prevailed.” The people were against machinery taking over their jobs, and from what they could see government provided the machinery. These squalid cities procreate resentment towards the government. They may be of economic benefit, but they do not help establish a popular governmental image.

Some believe these cities are the future. Thomas B. Macaulay criticizes the critics of Manchester, saying that the factory may not have the same aesthetics as a cottage but the cottage isn’t what you see in fairy tales anyways. He claims that people live longer and are better fed, but there is contrary evidence in the British Medical Journal as well as Edwin Chadwick, a public health reformer’s discoveries. William Alexander Abram has evidence backing up Macaulay’s claims; he says that due to the Hours of Labor in Factories Act (quite creatively named at that) the max hours of labor were reduced to ten hours a day. This in turn helps the worker and improves their conditions from times past. One piece of evidence that the two parties seem to completely disagree on is mortality rate. Abram states that the death rate has been reduced to “an extent that is almost incredible” yet the British Medical Journal says the average age at death is far lower than other cities. In the mid to late 1800’s, the conditions did improve, but most likely not nearly as drastically as these highly optimistic men imply.

 Industrialization has its benefits, but also its losses. In Manchester, the general population was hurt by the industrialization, but the surrounding area and economy as a whole benefited. This stage is unfortunately an unavoidable step in moving towards the modern world in our current age of environmentalism and cleaner air.