Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:42:36.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The State and the Steam-Boiler in Nineteenth-Century Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Peter W. J. Bartrip
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The search for the origins of government intervention in the nation's economic life has long interested historians of Victorian Britain. Indeed, in recent years it has given rise to an extended and enthusiastic controversy. This debate is so well known and has been so often summarised that it is only necessary to observe here that the core of the argument has been about whether government growth was generated more by ideology (Benthamism) or force of circumstances (Professor MacDonagh's “intolerable situation”). There is, however, consensus on several other points, namely, that the mid nineteenth century was not the “golden age” of laissez-faire that Dicey supposed and that government inspection was crucially important as the agency of state intervention.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of Social History , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , April 1980 , pp. 77 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1980

References

1 Evidence of L. E. Fletcher to the Select Committee on Steam Boiler Explosions [Parliamentary Papers, 1870, X], q. 134.Google Scholar This Committee was established in 1870, but failed to complete its work before the end of the Parliamentary session. Its evidence was published without a report. In the new session the Committee was re-appointed and a further volume of evidence with a report was published in 1871 [PP, 1871, XII].Google Scholar

2 Half-Yearly Report of Assistant Factory Inspector Walker [PP, 1877, XXIII], p. 217.Google Scholar

3 A comprehensive list of contributors to this debate would require an essay in itself. Bibliographies for material published up to 1970 are available in Cromwell, V., “Interpretations of Nineteenth-Century Administration”, in: Victorian Studies, IX (1965–1966), pp. 245–55Google Scholar, and G. Sutherland, “Recent Trends in Administrative History”, ibid., XIII (1969–70), pp. 408–11. Some of the most important studies published since are Taylor, A. J., Laissez-faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth-century Britain (London, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holmes, C. J., “Laissez-faire in Theory and Practice: Britain, 1800–1875”, in: Journal of European Economic History, V (1976), pp. 225–36Google Scholar; Lubenow, W. C., The Politics of Government Growth: Early Victorian Attitudes Towards State Intervention (Newton Abbot, 1971)Google Scholar; Studies in the Growth of Nineteenth Century Government, ed. by Sutherland, G. (London, 1972)Google Scholar; Henriques, U. R. Q., “Jeremy Bentham and the Machinery of Social Reform”, in: British Government and Administration Studies Presented to S. B. Chrimes, ed. by Hearder, H. and Loyn, H. R. (Cardiff, 1974)Google Scholar; id., Before the Welfare State: Social Administration in Early Industrial Britain (London, 1979)Google Scholar; Bédarida, F., “L'Angleterre victorienne paradigme du laissez-faire?”, in: Revue Historique, CCLXI (1979), pp. 79–98Google Scholar; Tompson, R., The Charity Commission and the Age of Reform (London, 1979).Google Scholar

4 MacDonagh, O., A Pattern of Government Growth: The Passenger Acts and their Enforcement 1800–1860 (London, 1961)Google Scholar, cf. Goldthorpe, J. H., “The Development of Social Policy in England, 1800–1914.Google ScholarNotes on a Sociological Approach to a Problem in Historical Explanation”, in: Transactions of the Fifth World Congress of Sociology (Louvain, 1962–1964), IV, pp. 41–56.Google Scholar Three valuable case-studies not cited in note 3 are Pellew, J. H., “The Home Office and the Explosives Act of 1875”, in: Victorian Studies, XVIII (1974–1975), pp. 175–94Google Scholar; Roy M. MacLeod, “The Alkali Acts Administration, 1863–84: The Emergence of the Civil Scientist”, ibid., IX, pp. 85–112; id., “Social Policy and the ‘Floating Population’. The Administration of the Canal Boats Acts 1877–1899”, in: Past & Present, No 35 (1966), pp. 101–32.Google Scholar

5 Himmelfarb, G., “The Writing of Social History: Recent Studies of 19th Century England”, in: Journal of British Studies, XI (1971), p. 153.Google Scholar

6 Tompson, The Charity Commission, op. cit., p. 31.

7 Hills, R. L., Power in the Industrial Revolution (Manchester, 1970)Google Scholar; Mantoux, P., The Industrial Revolution in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1961)Google Scholar; Thurston, R. H., A History of the Growth of the Steam Engine (London, 1889)Google Scholar; Lord, J., Capital and Steam Power (London, 1923)Google Scholar; Dickinson, H. W., A Short History of the Steam Engine (Cambridge, 1939)Google Scholar; Musson, A. E. and Robinson, E., “The Early Growth of Steam Power”, in: Economic History Review, Second Series, XI (1958–1959), pp. 418–39.Google Scholar For the recent controversy on the growth of steam power in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries see Harris, J. R., “The Employment of Steam Power in the Eighteenth Century”, in: History, LII (1967) pp. 13–48Google Scholar; Musson, A. E., “Industrial Motive Power in the United Kingdom, 1800–70”, in: Economic History Review, Second Series, XXIX (1976), pp. 415–39Google Scholar; von Tunzelmann, G. N., Steam Power and British Industrialization to 1860 (Oxford, 1978).Google Scholar

8 Half-Yearly Report of Inspector Baker [PP, 1859/1, XII], p. 211.Google Scholar

9 Statistics for the first half of the century almost certainly represent a considerable underestimate. Select Committee on Steam Boiler Explosions, 1870, q. 132.Google Scholar

10 Von Tunzelmann, Steam Power, op. cit., pp. 28–30.

11 Between the years 1863 and 1868, 390 people were killed as a result of steam-boiler explosions, whereas 244 railway passengers perished. See Memorial from Manchester Steam Users' Association to the Home Secretary, Home Office Papers 45, Old Series 7605, Public Record Office. Except where otherwise stated, all unpublished letters quoted are in this file.

12 Half-Yearly Repor of Inspector Saunders [PP, 1851, XXIII], p. 273.Google Scholar

13 Sir W. Fairbairn to Sir G. Grey, 13 April 1864.

14 Half-Yearly Report of Inspector Kincaid [PP, 1851, XXIII], p. 332.Google Scholar

15 R. Rawlinson to H. Waddington, 23 April 1866.

16 W. Fairbairn to H. A. Bruce, 4 December 1869.

17 Select Committee on Steam Boiler Explosions, 1870, q. 31.Google Scholar

18 W. Fairbairn to H. A. Bruce, 4 December 1869.

19 6 and 7 Will. IV, c. 89.

20 The Life of Sir William Fairbairn, ed. by Pole, W. (London, 1877), p. 261.Google Scholar

21 Board of Trade to Under Secretary of State at the Home Office, 11 May 1864.

22 Coroner of Oxford to Home Secretary, 29 May 1869.

23 Coroner of Portsmouth to Home Secretary, 1 April 1870, and Board of Trade to Under Secretary of State at the Home Office, 5 April.

24 Coroner of Barnstable to Home Secretary, 11 October 1870 (draft reply on rear).

25 H. Hiller to Board of Trade (copy) and Manchester Steam Users' Association Memorial, April 1869.

26 Select Committee on Explosions on Board Steamboats [PP, 1817, VI], p. 226.Google Scholar

27 The Life of Sir William Fairbairn, op. cit., p. 265.

28 Ibid., and A Sketch of the Foundation and of the Past Fifty Years' Activity of the Manchester Steam Users' Association for the Prevention of Steam Boiler Explosions and for the Attainment of Economy in the Application of Steam (Manchester, 1905) (hereafter MSUA Jubilee Book), p. 5.Google Scholar

29 Fairbairn, W., Useful Information for Engineers; Being a Series of Lectures delivered to the Working Engineers of Lancashire and Yorkshire (London, 1856), p. 46.Google Scholar

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid., Appendix IV, p. lxxiii.

32 Ibid., p. lxxiv.

33 Dickens, Charles to Wills, W. H., 29 09 1854, The Letters of Charles Dickens, ed. by Dexter, W. (Bloomsbury, 1938), II, pp. 592–93Google Scholar. See Bartrip, P. W. J., “Household Words and the Factory Accident Controversy”, in: The Dickensian, LXXV (1979), pp. 17–29Google Scholar; id., Safety at Work: The Factory Inspectorate in the Fencing Controversy, 1833–1857 [Centre for Socio-Legal Studies Working Paper, No 4] (Oxford, 1979).Google Scholar

34 Manchester Courier, 27 January 1856.

35 Select Committee on Steam Boiler Explosions, 1870, q. 73.Google Scholar

36 These offered insurance in conjunction with inspection.

37 MSUA Jubilee Book, p. 27.

38 Bradford Observer, 22 October 1879.

39 Ibid.

40 Dinsdale, W. A., History of Accident Insurance in Great Britain (London, 1954), p. 177.Google Scholar

41 Select Committee on Steam Boiler Explosions, 1870, qq. 47–121.Google Scholar

42 Bradford Observer, 22 October 1879.

43 During 1863 there were at least 48 explosions resulting in 76 deaths. See W. Fairbairn to Sir G. Grey, 13 April 1864.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid.

46 MSUA Jubilee Book, pp. 32–33.

47 W. Fairbairn to Sir G. Grey, 23 May 1864.

48 A Bill for Compensating the Families of Persons killed by Boiler Explosions, through the Neglect or Default of the Owner [PP, 1864, I], pp. 103–04.Google Scholar

49 Report by R. Rawlinson on the fall of a part of Ribbleton Lane Mill, 20 03 1866, HO 45, OS 7605.Google Scholar

50 PP, 1868–69, V, pp. 223–24.

51 Ibid., section 1.

52 H. Hiller to J. Bright, 20 July 1869 (copy).

53 Chaloner, W. H., Vulcan, . The History of One Hundred Years of Engineering and Insurance 1859–1959 (Manchester, 1959), p. 26.Google Scholar

54 Select Committee on Steam Boiler Explosions, 1870, q. 134.Google Scholar

55 Summarised by R. B. Longridge of the Boiler Insurance and Steam Power Co. in his Annual Report (Manchester, 1871).Google Scholar See Chaloner, Vulcan, op. cit., p. 27.

56 Select Committee on Steam Boiler Explosions, 1871, pp. 269–70.Google Scholar

57 PP, 1871, VI, pp. 201–03. Its promoters were Messrs Hick and Stavely-Hill (Conservative), Mr Miller (Liberal), and Sir Thomas Bazley, described by Dod in his Parliamentary Companion as “a staunch Liberal”.

58 TUC, Seventh Annual Report, Liverpool 1875, p. 27.Google Scholar

59 TUC, Eighteenth Annual Report, Southport 1885, p. 27.Google Scholar

60 Ibid.

61 Board of Trade Reports [PP, 1880, LXVII, and 1881, XXIV].Google Scholar

62 Hansard (Commons), Third Series, CCLVII, c. 1740, 31 01 1881.Google Scholar

63 Ibid., CCLXVI, c. 1351, 22 February 1882.

64 Ibid., cc. 1352–53.

65 Ibid., c. 1355. For a similar view see TUC, Fifteenth Annual Report, Manchester 1882, pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

66 TUC, Fourteenth Annual Report, London 1881, p. 11.Google Scholar

67 TUC, Fifteenth Annual Report, p. 11Google Scholar. The Act provided for investigation of non-fatal accidents with which coroners were powerless to deal.

68 Chaloner, , Vulcan, p. 31.Google Scholar

69 TUC, Sixteenth Annual Report, Nottingham 1883, p. 17.Google Scholar

70 MacDonagh, O., “The Nineteenth Century Revolution in Government”, in: The Historical Journal, I (1958), p. 61.Google Scholar

71 Select Committee on Steam Boiler Explosions, 1870, Appendix I, p. 579.Google Scholar

72 MacDonagh, “The Nineteenth Century Revolution in Government”, loc. cit., p. 58, singles out the Factory Act of 1844 as a prime example of intolerability prompting reform. Statistically, steam-boiler fatalities were, by the 1850's, exceeding those for the entire textile industry covered by the Factory Acts.

73 Dickinson, A Short History of the Steam Engine, op. cit., pp. 159–72; Thurston, A History of the Growth of the Steam Engine, op. cit., p. 343.

74 Hart, J., “Nineteenth-Century Social Reform: A Tory Interpretation of History”, in: Past & Present, No 31 (1965), pp. 48–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 Mining Journal, 24 November 1855.

76 “The Nineteenth Century Revolution in Government”, p. 59.

77 See Half-Yearly Reports of Assistant Inspector Walker [PP, 1873, XIX], pp. 236–37Google Scholar; [PP, 1874, XIII], pp. 18–19; [PP, 1875, XVI], pp. 93–94. On juries' recommendations see Report of Inspector (of Mines) Willis [PP, 1877, XXIII], pp. 506–07Google Scholar, and Returns of All Fatal Accidents from Boiler Explosions in the United Kingdom in the Years 1875 and 1876 [PP, 1877, LXVIII], pp. 374–75.Google Scholar

78 24 November 1879, HO 45/9480/87937.

79 Taine, H., Notes on England (London, 1873), p. 205.Google Scholar

80 Select Committee on Steam Boiler Explosions, 1870, qq. 723–24.Google Scholar

81 Ibid., q. 286.

82 Ibid., qq. 559–62.

83 Ibid., qq. 707–11.

84 By the nineteenth century the deodand system comprised estimation of the value of a death-causing instrument by a coroner's jury. The assessed sum might then be paid to the bereaved family regardless of the fault of any party involved in the accident. See Smith, H., “From Deodand to Dependency”, in: The American Journal of Legal History, XI (1967), pp. 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

85 Bartrip, P. W. J., “Injured at Work: The Employers' Liability”, in: New Society, XLIII (1978), pp. 595–97Google Scholar; Ingman, T., “The Origin and Development up to 1899 of the Employer's Duty at Common Law to take Reasonable Care for the Safety of his Employee” (Ph.D. thesis, Council for National Academic Awards, 1972).Google Scholar

86 Select Committee Appointed to Inquire into the Operation of the Act for the Regulation of Mills and Factories [PP, 1840, X], qq. 2808–10.Google Scholar

87 Select Committee on Steam Boiler Explosions, 1871, q. 962.

88 Ibid., 1870, q. 1442. The same point was repeatedly made by factory inspectors during the fencing controversy of the 1850's. See Bartrip, Safety at Work, op. cit., pp. 33–34.

89 Select Committee on Steam Boiler Explosions, 1871, q. 1454.Google Scholar

90 See Friedman, L. M. and Ladinsky, J., “Social Change and the Law of Industrial Accidents”, in: Columbia Law Review, LXVII (1967), p. 52.Google Scholar

91 Ingman, , “The Employer's Duty”, op. cit., p . 8.Google Scholar

92 Ibid., p. 11.

93 Ibid., pp. 13–14; Hutchins, B. L. and Harrison, A., A History of Factory Legislation (London, 1926), p. 14.Google Scholar See R. v. Jouvaux, Lancashire Gazeteer, 4 July 1801; R. v. Self (1776), I Leach 163; R. v. William Smith (1837), 8 Carrington and Payne 153; Winstone v. Linn (1827), 1 Barnewall and Cresswell 460.

94 For example, R. v. Inhabitants of Christchurch (1760), 2 Burrow 945; R. v. Wintersett (1783), 3 Douglas 298; R. v. Inhabitants of Sutton (1794), 5 Term Reports 657; Cooper v. Phillips (1831), 4 Carrington and Payne 581; Newby v. Wiltshire (1785), 4 Douglas 284; Scarman v. Castell (1795), 1 Espinasse 270; see Ingman, , “The Employer' Duty”, pp. 17–20, 35–38.Google Scholar

95 Wennall v. Adney (1807), 3 Bosanquet and Puller 247.

96 Ingman, “The Employer's Duty”, p. 27.

97 Priestley v. Fowler (1837), 3 Meeson and Welsby 1.

98 Ryder v. Mills (1850), 3 Exchequer Reports Welsby, Hurlstone and Gordon 852; E. Hodder, The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury (London, 1886), II, p. 199; Henriques, Before the Welfare State, op. cit., p. 111 ; M. W. Thomas, The Early Factory Legislation. A Study in Legislative and Administrative Evolution (Leigh-on-Sea, 1948), pp. 311–12.

99 Abel-Smith, B. and Stevens, R., Lawyers and the Courts (LondonLondon, 1970), p. 46Google Scholar; Morgan, J., “The Judiciary of the Superior Courts, 1820–1968: A Sociological Study“ (M.Ph.thesis, London, 1974)Google Scholar, esp. ch. II.

100 Ingman, “The Employer's Duty”, chs II and III; Bartrip, “Injured at Work”, loc. cit.

101 Perkin, H., The Origins of Modern English Society (London, 1969), p. 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

102 SirMaine, H. S., Ancient Law (London, 1905), pp. 140, 252–53, 259Google Scholar; Stone, J., Social Dimensions of Law and Justice (London, 1966), pp. 125–26, 137–40Google Scholar; Feaver, G., From Status to Contract. A Biography of Sir Henry Maine, 1822–1888 (London, 1969)Google Scholar, ch. V; Otto Kahn Freund, Selected Writings, ed. by M. Partington (London, 1978), see ch. 3: “A Note on Status and Contract in British Labour Law”, pp. 78–86; id., “Blackstone's Neglected Child: The Contract of Employment”, in: Law Quarterly Review, XCIII (1977), pp. 508–28; K. Foster, From Status to Contract: Legal Form and Work Relations, 1750–1850 [Warwick Law Working Papers, III] (1979).

103 Hartwell, R. M., The Industrial Revolution in England [Historical Association Pamphlet] (London, 1965), p. 3.Google Scholar

104 3 and 4 Will. IV, c. 103. See Djang, T. K., Factory Inspection in Great Britain (London, 1942), p. 33Google Scholar; Hutchins and Harrison, A History of Factory Legislation, op. cit., pp. 41–42; Henriques, Before the Welfare State, pp. 95–113; Thomas, The Early Factory Legislation, op. cit., p . 69.

105 Carson, W. G., “White Collar Crime and the Enforcement of Factory Legislation”, in: British Journal of Criminology, X (1970), pp. 383–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bartrip, P. W. J. and Fenn, P. T., “The Administration of Safety: The Enforcement Policy of the Early Factory Inspectorate”, in: Public Administration, forthcoming; Bartrip, Safety at Work, pp. 22–45.Google Scholar

106 Tompson, The Charity Commission, pp. 15–27.

107 See Goldthorpe, “The Development of Social Policy in England”, loc. cit., pp. 51–56.