Blackman Street, London - John Atkinson Grimshaw, c.1885
In addressing the question of why rapid population growth in early Victorian Britain didn't produce greater social upheaval, one must first address the problems such a question raises in providing a comprehensive narrative. For instance, one must first define what is meant by social upheaval, a term which generally holds connotations of violence, tension, the shift of class barriers, or the movement of a large group of people between such barriers. In such a context one can hardly ignore the fact that there was already great social upheaval during and surrounding this period, which is reflected, sometimes grimly, through such mass movements as Chartism in the mid-century; such protests as the Swing Riots of the 1830's; The Battle of Peterloo in 1819; suffragist movements of the late century, and other movements such as The Luddites, or general themes of temperance, self-governance and moral code that run throughout the period.
In addressing this question it is perhaps necessary to put forward the theory that these movements and protests could be viewed as forming part of a wider narrative of the effects of industrialisation and urbanisation that can be seen in other events, such as the rise of 'the London mob' in the 18th century, where the number of people bound by recognizance to appear at the Middlesex Quarter Sessions on charges of rioting 'increased 520 percent between the 1660s and the early 1720s'. Other protests such as the Gordon Riots in 1780, whilst 'sprinkled doubtless here and there with honest zealots', are viewed to have been used as vessels by people ostensibly protesting against the Papist Acts who wished in actuality to vent frustration at the dire economic situation and push for political reforms in abolishing the property threshold. This notably holds strong links with the political frustration and "gut reaction to hunger and to the disorganisation caused in traditional industries by the early experience of industrialisation" of the Chartist movement of the mid-nineteenth century, which sort to gain representation for an ever growing section of the population.
The reason I feel it necessary to advance this theory is to give a feeling of a wider reaching social upheaval caused by the influx of people into cities and a push from below to identify oneself as a class both culturally and through political representation. The context of the Eighteenth century serves to show that social upheaval is an ongoing process, reflected there, but also in later feminist movements, and in Socialism in the 1930s, which Orwell saw as the only way towards 'righting the conditions' he saw in the slums and destitute poverty of northern mining and industrial towns that grew in the time period we must address. The second reason for giving such a lengthy consideration of context, is to justify looking at social upheaval through the anchoring point of population growth in the first half of the Nineteenth century. For the context clarifies the focus of the question as being not so concerned with why the population growth was limited in producing social upheaval, but rather why population growth didn't act as a catalyst to vastly increase the level of already existent and ongoing social upheaval of the wider Industrial Era.
Of course, to address the effects of this population growth on social upheaval suitably, one must look also at the later-half of the century, to allow time for a population influx to have its effects, and for those effects to be gauged in an appropriate time frame.
It is also worth citing Peter Clarke, in saying that any analysis of 'British' history invariably conscripts 'all Britons into the pageant of English history'. We haven't the time in this appraisal to go into in-depth analysis of the differing situations of, for example, England and Ireland; where the Great Famine of 1845 caused mass emigration and a converse decline in population, as to examine this in antithesis to the original assumption of growth is not practically feasible.
The rapid population growth of the first half of the Nineteenth century is axiomatically linked with industrialisation and urbanisation. Between 1781 and 1851 the population of England surged from just over seven million to just under seventeen million. The population of industrial towns such as Bradford, Manchester, and Sheffield tripled, and by 1851 'slightly more than half the English lived in towns', compared with less than a third in 1801. The rise in population was met, or indeed in cases perhaps encouraged, by the expansion of Britain's economy as a whole. By 1810 the national income had more than doubled from twenty years previous. Throughout the century the 'vibrant entrepreneurial culture' of figures such as Chamberlain, Cadbury, and Salt had dramatically improved the lives of many workers within certain areas, and a surge in overseas markets due to Britain's 'colonial acquisitions and a vibrant Atlantic trade' had helped create much employment and revenue in the production of textiles, pig-iron, and coal, amongst other industries, to meet the sudden influx in population growth.
Whilst incidents such as the Lancashire Cotton Famine in the 1860s, or the Peterloo Massacre of 1819 are social upheavals due in part to dire economic conditions created in turn by the American Civil War, and the aftereffects of the Napoleonic War, it could be said that the reason population growth didn't fuel greater unrest is because of the divisions between class, counties, and north & south, which defeated a general nation wide class consciousness, and limited protests to within a region, thus making it easier for the government to suppress protests with force, as in Peterloo, and for protesters to be appeased by temporary short term acts of charity such as the distribution of blankets, or food, to affected areas. It was not until the late Victorian period that such private charity began to be 'recognized [sic] as inadequate in view of the scale of poverty', in the face of Booth's investigation and the 'discovery of poverty'. But for the Victorian in poverty, in the face of growing population and in reference to these acts of charity, I feel it is worth quoting Orwell's dictum that; 'they [the working classes] are being compensated, in part, by cheap luxuries which mitigate the surface of life', which can be translated into a Victorian context as a general observation that shows how the increased tension of population growth is counter-balanced by, for example, falling wheat prices after 1820, or the increased availability of meat to lower income families in the 1880s.
Seen in the context of the early Nineteenth century and population growth, Orwell's dictum must also be considered alongside the fear of revolution which was spreading through Europe from 1848, and the government's stringent reaction to uprisings, as symbolised in Peterloo. It is possible that the reason a surge in population did not fuel violent class protest and clashes, thus creating greater social upheaval, is because, in the context of Britain's rapid industrialisation, urbanisation, and population growth, class consciousness was undeveloped, and that in general, protests that weren't reactionary to immediate economic circumstances, where concerned not with changing class barriers or redefining social definitions, but with a crisis of self-identity and establishing the barriers in the first place.
Blake refers to 'the mind-forg'd manacles' of class in painting a picture of the lower classes as self-imposing their own imprisonment. And to an extent this was true. Whilst Blake, as a poet, though perhaps indicative of the ignorance of his time towards poverty and unemployment as blameless, may not examine the uncontrollable economic situations which may prevent a man from rising above his position, it is perhaps notable that the Chartist movements were movements split drastically over the morality and practically of using force, and were not as concerned with revolution or social upheaval as with finding a voice and representation for a class that was quickly growing as a result of the surge in population.
Just as the divisions between the industrious north and the artisan south may have prevented the development of a nationwide protest movement, so it is possible that the divisions within class, and the ambiguous boundaries between class prevent any strong form of class consciousness developing out of population growth that may have produced greater social upheaval. It is important to remember that the Victorian Era was not just marked by the growth of the working class, but also of the middle class, and in this context it is possible to suggest that social upheaval was not greater in its extent because rather than the established proletariat coming up against the arrogance of the aristocracy or monarchy, it was instead a growing working class seeking to establish itself against a middling class unsure of its allegiances. Orwell commented that 'in any revolt the leaders would tend to be the people who could pronounce their aitches', and it is true that many of the personalities and figures of Chartism were articulate, socially mobile men, just as they were in Socialism, though both movements could be said to have lacked support from the literary and artistic intelligentsia so crucial to the French Revolution.
Austin's Eyre is a beautiful work of Victorian social commentary that represents the ambiguity of class, in that Eyre is a well-educated girl, and yet still a powerless servant of little social standing; though perhaps the most telling analogy comes in Eyre's hatred of class discrimination, yet aversion to the uneducated pupils of Morton as 'of flesh and blood as good as the scions of gentlest genealogy'. In writing 'Jane Eyre', Brontë was addressing the placement of women within society, but in a wider sense she addresses a middle class society affected massively by population growth, that, instead of influencing social upheaval, seeks instead to establish a social order within which to define itself.
Charles Booth attempted throughout the 1890s to classify the growing population into strict scientific groups, whilst defining the criteria of these groups with subjective, religiously informed, moralistic language such as 'decent men… bringing up their children respectably'. This reflects a wider Victorian ambiguity to class distinction not so much based on economic standing as on social birth-right, which creates again the same sense of disunity in establishing a sense of class consciousness, or class collectiveness, on the nation-wide scale necessary to implement greater social upheaval within the context of a growing population.
The religious morality and contradictions of Victorian Britain had great effect in limiting the social upheaval of population growth within the time. The role of reforms and appeasements such as under Gladstone, Disraeli's reform act of 1867, and of institutions such as local government in 1888 did much to meet the demands of agitative social movements, such as Chartism, albeit after its collapse, and were likely influenced by the fear of revolution and the desire to appease, and yet impose a definition upon the lower classes. The early age of death of those pushed into severest poverty or hardship by unemployment and over-population possibly did much to neuter the section of society to whom more radical policies of social upheaval would have appealed. As would have the 'weak physique' of the working classes, as noted by enlisters for the Boer War. Amongst labourers the average age of death in Liverpool was as low as 15 in 1842, and the rigorous role of religion in promising 'if all do their duty, they need not fear harm', had a larger impact than is perhaps recognised in historical analysis, as opposed to social literary criticisms.
Economically, between 1870 and 1900 real wages rose by a third, and the economic boom and introduction of cheap North American wheat into the market brought commodities such as bread and meat within the price range of some working class families, helping to alleviate tensions or desire for greater social upheaval. However, during the Napoleonic wars and up until 1830 the strain on the economy and the rise in the price of bread was marked, and threatened, with a growing population, to cause mass unrest. However, there was in this period, 'just enough increase in output to avoid a social catastrophe', and whilst some historians view the situation as having been dangerously close, most agree that major crisis was averted. The role of the expanding economy, and of commodities gained by gift of our empire and navy, in assuaging a growing population from greater social unrest is perhaps best summed up by George Orwell, and though he is speaking from a different era, he is speaking of the effects of industrialism, over-population, class identity, and urbanisation on a docile and domesticated working class, and I feel his words ring just as true for the period we are concerned with here in terms of the role of economy, culture, identity, and commodities, and again suggest the wider narrative that exists outside of this question.
'It is quite likely that fish and chips, art-silk stockings, tinned salmon, cut-price chocolate, the movies, the radio, strong tea and the Football Pools have between them averted revolution.'
And whilst we must take into account the major issues of morality, social and cultural situations and identities of classes, I feel that this is a truer statement than most in raising awareness of the role of cheap luxuries and commodities, combined with disunity and a lack of class consciousness in averting greater social unrest in times of rapid population growth.
I believe most class struggle within our society is not a struggle based on revolutionary motives but is a struggle of the working classes to define themselves, and of the upper classes seeking to impose a definition upon them. The middle classes, so notoriously difficult to define, both fuel this struggle, and act as a breakwater of ambiguity to increased violence. Movements seek representation in order to establish a working class voice, and are met with reforms that seek to encourage and impose, to assuage and suppress.
Class struggle and the 'discovery of poverty' seem to have their first vocalisation in Victorian Britain, but it seems to be for each new generation to eternally struggle and discover for themselves.
