Chartism or the Chartist Movement, 1830s-1850s

Chartism was a nationwide working-class movement that agitated parliamentary reforms to achieve the socio-political demands of industrial workers in Britain. The chartists aimed at gaining political rights and influence for the working classes. The movement got its name from the People’s Charter that listed the six political demands. Such political demands were universal manhood suffrage, equal electoral districts, vote by secret ballot, annually elected parliaments, and payment for members of parliament. It was the first movement to be both working class in character and national in scope. It grew out of protests against the injustices of the new industrial and political order in Britain.

The development of this movement can be summarised into three broad phases:

(a) The formative phase of Chartism, 1829-1837: This was a period when Luddites looked backwards to old customs and paternalist legislation, which could never be revived. The movement wanted the revival of pre-industrial customary life. They wanted the old technology which was under the cottage system to prevail. This was largely impossible because they were fighting against time and the reality of progress. the ground was being laid for the movements before the assumed a mass national character;

(b) The popular phase of Chartism, 1838-1842: This was a period when the movement assumed a national character and came into direct confrontation with the might of the ruling class; and

(c) The decline and disintegration of Chartism, 1843-1850: The movement lost its cohesiveness. However, there were some episodes in this period when Chartism once again resumed its mass national character. However, these were essentially insignificant.

Chartists used the Northern Star published in Britain between 1837 and 1852. It was best-known for advancing the reform issues articulated by proletarian press. O’Connor. The paper led a campaign in support of the working class which suffered economically due to the introduction of new technology and falling wages, especially for handloom weavers. In 1838, the Northern Star circulated 10,000 copies, and by summer 1839 the number had increased to 50,000 copies. This enabled Feargus O’Connor to make a personal profit of £13,000 by the end of 1839. The newspaper was the second largest circulation compared to the other British newspapers at that time. This means, more Chartists were informed about the progress and direction of the struggle.

Strategies of the Chartist Movement

The Chartist movement used various strategies to present its demands and interests to the government. The most common strategy was to submit petitions to the Parliament. The Chartists presented three petitions to the Parliament in the course of their struggle, and all of them were summarily rejected. The first petition was presented to the Parliament in June 1839 with over 1.25 million signatures. The second petition was presented in May 1842, signed by over three million people. In April 1848, a third and final petition was presented. Besides the petitions, the movement also used riots, such as the riot of 1839 in Birmingham, which pressed the government to accept the petition. Furthermore, strikes and demonstrations, national conventions, newspapers (the Northern Star), and pamphlets were used to awaken workers to demand their rights and welfare. The Land Plan project was also used to enrich the workers to become independent from the capitalist tentacles of exploitation. This project began in the mid-1840s, and failed in the 1850s.

Causes of the Chartist Movement

The Chartist movement was a product of many causes and discontents. The first cause of Chartism was the impact of the British Reform Act of 1832. In the 2-year campaign for the Reform Bill, from 1830, workers collaborated with the Whig Party, which represented the interests of the rising industrial bourgeoisie (middle class) against the Tory Party, which represented old feudal interests based onlanded gentry. The industrial bourgeoisie was still largely excluded in the Parliament and, therefore, had no political power to match their rising economic power. During the agitation, the middle class drafted the working-class crowds to frighten the old ruling class. For instance, they campaigned for the abolition of rotten boroughs (constituencies that could elect a member of parliament despite having very few voters, the election was typically in the hands of one person or family) and extension of the voting rights to all people with property. Indeed, the Reform Act of 1832 increased the political power and influence of the middle classes on decision-making bodies. However, after the Reform Act, the working class felt betrayed by the bourgeoisie because nothing changed in their part. For example, the bourgeoisie still suppressed trade unionist and the working-class press. They also refused to repeal the Newspaper Stamp Act of 1819. The newspaper had been paying stamp duty, despite O’Connor’s protests that the tax restricted free speech for the working classes. O’Connor used the paper to help propagate the essence of the movement, to achieve reform ideas of the People’s Charter. In this regard, the working class conducted their independent movement against the industrial capitalist system, which was both exploitative and oppressive. This marked the beginning of the independent working-class movement called Chartism.

The New Poor Law was another important cause of the Chartist movement. This law stemmed from the amendment of the Old Poor Law in 1834. The New Poor Law oppressed and humiliated the poor, who were mainly factory workers. This is because the Old Poor Law, passed in 1597 and 1601 during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, gave authority to parishes to charge rates to raise money for relieving the poor. Under this law, the parishes could relieve the poor according to the local circumstances. However, the amended law responded to the needs of the capitalists (middle class) who complained that the poor relied too lavishly. This extravagance, they argued, encouraged the poor to remain idle. To them, poverty (unemployment) resulted from working-class laziness. Thus, they advocated for a less generous poor law to combat working-class idleness.

Consequently, the law was amended in 1834. The New Poor Law came up with unfriendly provisions for the poor. For example, the new law repealed the mandate that parishes could provide relief to the poor. It also created a workhouse test for all able-bodied paupers. That is, outdoor relief for able-bodied paupers was abolished. They had to go into a workhouse where families were separated. The workhouses were ruled by warning men; they were nicknamed ‘prison’. Lastly, it introduced the principles of less eligibility and deterrence. The amount of relief given was to be less than the lowest wage offered in the labour market. The idea was to deter people from seeking relief before they sought work. It was based on the wrong belief that those who sought relief were lazy. The working class generally hated the law. For example, when the law was introduced in the North in 1837, the protest was intensely carried by public demonstrations, riots, petitions and anti-Poor Law literature. This was common to most British towns from the mid-1830s. These protests gave rise to the Chartist movement in Britain. When the economic depression started late in 1836, the feelings of this aggrieved working class were further aggravated. Amidst this atmosphere of discontent and alienation, the British working-class organised themselves, at both local and national levels, the organisation called Chartism.

Protectionist policies, such as the Corn Law of 1815, also triggered the rise of the Chartist movement in Britain. The government passed the Corn Law of 1815 under the Tories’ Prime Minister Lord Liverpool. It aimed at protecting the internal market to the advantage of the bourgeoisie production. The tariffs and trade policy of the time restricted the importation of cereal grains of wheat, oats and barley from outside countries, notably France.

Apart from the Corn Law of 1815, the British Parliament also passed other Corn Laws with the aim of restricting the importation of food between 1815 and 1846. The corn laws were designed to keep grain prices high in favour of the British domestic producers and thus represented British capitalism. Accordingly, the shortage of food and high prices of foodstuffs resulted in economic depression in Britain. It also increased the unemployment level, which intensified hardship for the workers and led to the Chartist movement. Due to the rising prices of food, the working class found itself in living difficulties as they failed to afford the rising prices of food.

Additionally, Chartism was caused by the coercive and oppressive nature of the state against workers in Britain. The government strongly supported industrial owners at the expense of the welfare of the working class. Thus, it suppressed all the workers’ efforts to struggle for their rights. The government enacted laws that suppressed trade unions and imprisoned all those who were leading the unions and movements. Workers became discontented with the situation.

Lastly, low wages and poor working conditions largely influenced the rise of Chartism in Britain. During the industrial revolution, workers were given low wages. The working conditions were very poor and workers worked hard for long hours. They became frustrated by the situation thus, they organised themselves and presented charters to the government to ask for the opportunity to enter into parliament and improve the workers’ remuneration rates.

The Chartist programmes for political reforms

By 1835, the establishment of workers’ organisations in London and the northern industrial districts inspired radical associations to struggle for the workers’ affairs in Britain. The leading individuals behind these associations was an Irish man, Feargus O’Connor, who was popularly called. In 1836, the London Working Men’s Association (LWMA) was formed, and William Lovett became the Secretary of the association. Most members of these associations were skilled artisans. They worked in close collaboration with the radical members of the Parliament.

In April 1837, the Birmingham Political Union (BPU) was revived. It was under the leadership of Thomas Attwood, a banker who had plans for currency freedom as a solution to the country’s economic problems. However, the two political reforms gained momentum. Both the LWMA and the BPU drew up programmes for parliamentary reforms, which were popular in a nationwide campaign. There were six programmes for political reforms:

Universal manhood suffrage: Chartism struggled for all men to have the right to vote. Thus, Chartism demanded for universal manhood suffrage that would allow all adult males above 21 years old to be voted in the national assembly (parliament).

Equal electoral districts: The Chartists campaigned for equal size of electoral districts or popularly known as borough constituencies because the workers wanted to have equal representation in the Parliament.

Vote by secret ballot: The popular voting system in Britain and Europe at large was by open ballot. This system was intimidation and limited democracy to voters. Thus, the Chartists demanded secret voting to achieve free and fair elections.

Annual Parliamentary Elections: The Chartists campaigned for annual parliamentary elections as opposed to five years’ duration. This aimed at raising accountability and responsibility to members of Parliament. To them, the five-year term encouraged unaccountability and irresponsibility.

Abolition of property qualification: Poor people, most of them industrial workers, were not allowed to vote and to be voted for. Only the capitalists had the right to vote and be voted for because they owned property as an essential qualification. Thus, the Chartists wanted the abolition of property qualification for a person to vote or be voted for. The repealed arrangement denied workers’ the right to participate in politics since many workers, if not all, did not own any property.

The payment of Members of Parliament: The Chartists campaigned for payment of the Members of Parliament because, by then, British Members of Parliament were not paid salaries. This partly, because most of them were rich, middle-class capitalists and land aristocracy who had cash and were self-sufficient workers found this as a big problem. If they were admitted to parliament, they would fail to attend the sessions for lack money. Thus, they campaigned for the payment of the Members of the Parliament.

Significance of Chartism

Chartism was indeed an expression of consciousness among the British working-class because it went beyond narrow and short-term achievements, which is a characteristic of a trade union or working-class consciousness. The Chartists had their eyes on parliament, which was the seat of bourgeois political power. The Chartists correctly pointed out that the bourgeois monopoly of political power enabled them to exploit the working class. The movement exposed that Britain was a bourgeois state promoting capitalist interests. Law (or political power) protected private property, but not labour according to the Chartists, the only way to end the exploitation of the working class was to end the bourgeois monopoly of power in the parliament.

The Chartists’ demands were important, and they were later implemented in the parliamentary reforms. By the 1850s, Members of Parliament in Britain admitted that further reforms were inevitable. Further Reform Acts such as manhood suffrage were passed in 1867 and 1884. By 1918, five of the six Chartists demands had been achieved, only the provision that parliamentary elections be held every year was never fulfilled. This was a great success for the working class. It gave them a new hope that they would have representatives in the parliament, and that their problems would be addressed. Indeed, they formed their political party (Labour Party) in the early 20th century, which later managed to have representation in the Parliament and even took state power.

Weaknesses and failure of Chartism

After more than a decade, the movement lost its cohesiveness. The Chartist popular phase lasted for not more than four years. The movement suffered several weaknesses, which caused its total decline.

Membership and organisation problems: during the Chartist period, the development level of the productive forces was mixed between the old and the new forms of industry. This mixwas reflected in the diverse nature and composition of the Chartist membership. Those in the decaying trades were more militant than those in the new factories. While old trades had long traditions of organisation, especially craftsmen, others did not. Thus, there was always a conflict of values and methods between the violent and moderate groups. In short, the movement split between militant members, on the one hand, and moderate members, on the other.

Leadership problems: one obvious problem with the Chartist leadership was the lack of unity. Thus, bitter quarrels and personality clashes were quite common. The radical and militant Chartists were led by Fergus O’Connor, while the moderate Chartists who favoured collaboration and round-table discussion were under William Lovett. This problem frequently caused hot deliberations in the national conventions, which ended up with undecided issues and frequent withdrawals of the moderates from the conventions. This split among the leadership affected the membership as well.

Unclear ideology: although the Chartists grasped the realities of political power, they did not indicate how the capture of parliament would end their exploitation. There was no reference to the abolition of the wage system to the working-class annexation of the means of production. No theory of socialism could clearly suggest a revolution led by the proletariat over the capitalist system. The sanctity of the parliament as an institution was also not questioned. The Chartists sought admission into the corridors of power to share it with the bourgeoisie. They did not seek the dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words, Chartism was a phase in quest for the completion of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, which started in the 17th century.

Poor economic base: The Chartist movement was also affected by financial constraints to facilitate its projects, campaigns, or programmes. The movement failed to successfully finance its Land Plan Project, which mainly survived by O’Connor’s fortunes. The same was experienced in preparing some publications. The movement depended on O’Connor’s newspaper, The Northern Star, which was later sold because of financial problems. The movement was running through charitable contributions from poor workers. Therefore, they could hardly contribute a large sum of money as most of them were paid low wages. This lack of funds led to the failure of various Chartist activities and programmes. For example, in 1839, when Parliament rejected the petition, the Chartists had a plan to have a month-long boycott called “Holy Month.” However, this plan was unsuccessful because they had no funds to support them during the strike.

Government manoeuvre through oppressive and repressive actions: the government purposely suppressed many Chartists’ activities. For example, in the last National Convention of April 1848 held in London, the Chartists decided to present the National Petition to Parliament once again. The plan was to start with a public meeting at Kennington Common and take the petition across the River Thames to the Parliament in a large procession. The idea was to have the whole crowd present the petition to the Parliament. The government viewed this as a threat to peace. It marshalled military forces of the strength of 170,000 to block the crossing of the Thames. The crowd assembled and militant speeches were delivered. However, owing to the presence of the military, the march was called off. Therefore, the plan failed, and O’Connor advised the crowd to disperse and personally took the petition to Parliament. The government also imprisoned Chartist leaders to threaten and weaken the Chartists’ efforts to wage struggles against the system.

Trade Unionism and the New Model Trade Unionism (1850-1876)

A trade union is an association of workers in the same profession or industry with common interests and needs. Trade unions are formed in organisations and working places to improve workers’ welfare such as wages, working conditions, housing conditions, and reducing working hours. They also aimed at reducing exploitation of workers by their employers. In the mid-1830s, especially with the collapse of the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, trade unionism gave way to political radicalism and Chartist at the national level.

However, in the 1840s, Britain witnessed the rebirth of unionism. Many national unions emerged when Chartism began to decline. National unions arose among potters, cotton spinners, printers, miners, and fit glassmakers. This tendency continued until the 1850s when a new form of trade union emerged. So, the 1850s saw the consolidation of the reactivated trade union movement, consisting of the “new model unions.” The largest in this development was the 1851, with the formation of the “Amalgamated Society of Engineers” (ASE) under the Secretary-General, William Allan. It headquarters was at Peckham in London. The ASE was a major British trade union, representing factory workers and mechanics in associated of engineers, machine operators, smiths, millwrights and steam-makers. The ASE was dissolved in 1920.

The constitution of the engineers’ union was taken as a model copied by other ‘amalgamated societies’ of skilled workmen. Between 1852 and 1857, amalgamated societies of carpenters, iron founders, tailors, and compositors were formed. The British working-class organisations were now in the form of new model trade unions. These unions were now not only in their structure but also in their modes of operation.

Characteristics of the New Model Trade Unionism

New Model Trade Unions were national craft unions that intended to be centrally controlled, unlike the earlier unions that were mainly local in scope and organisation. These unions were amalgamated in scope; for instance, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers accommodated all engineers in Britain.New Model Trade Unions achieved a permanence of membership hitherto unknown. Unlike the earlier phase of trade unionism, where members were in fluid and mostly temporary terms (e.g. some became members just when they were in crisis), this period witnessed members of the union achieving permanence of membership. Members of the new model unions joined their unions permanently.

Full-time salaried officials ran the union activities. These constituted the first generation of a long line of the professional trade union bureaucracy, contrary to the old unions, which were run and organised by people who had to work full time in the industry and attend union activities in their spare time. Some union officials were then employed to cater for daily union businesses.

The new model unions consisted of highly skilled workers, therefore, they built up large funds from large subscription fees and other contributions. They were thus able to finance expensive welfare system focusing on sickness, funerals, unemployment benefits and strike funds. This was not the case with the old unions and other poor workers’ movements because they collected small funds.

As unions of skilled workmen, they were highly restrictive in practice because they aimed at protecting their vested interests and professions. Thus, they charged high membership fees and allowed into membership only those who had served their full period of training or apprenticeship. For example, ASE was for engineers only; no mechanics could be admitted into it. High membership fee restricted the poor workers who received meagre salaries.

Calling on strikes to improve wages was generally rejected in favour of more reconciliatory methods of achieving their goals. They did not like political confrontations with their employers. Instead, they wanted economic gains out of their professions. Strikes were their worst rather an undesired fate of workers, which was very rare in Britain.

Factors for the emergence of the New Model Trade Unionism

As already said, the New Model Trade Unionism emerged in the 1850s with the formation of ASE in 1851 as the first organisation that became a model of all forthcoming unions. These labourorganisations emerged due to the following factors:

The technological revolution (the Second Industrial Revolution) based on the rise of heavy industries gave rise to a powerful “labour aristocracy” such as the engineers. The technological revolution created a class of highly skilled craftsmen in the new industries, especially in engineering.

The gap between the labour aristocracy The highly skilled labourers wanted a new form of union which could accommodate their needs and interests, which were quite different from the needs and interests of the semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Thus, the new model fitted the highly skilled workmen only.

Also, the mid-Victorian economic prosperity diverted many unions from the pursuit of social revolution. Instead, they indulged in opportunism, trying to get as much as possible from the system. The economic prosperity of the mid-1850s reduced unnecessary frictions between workers and employers because wages improved, and high cost of living was reduced. Hence, a new form of labourorganisation was needed to fit with this unprecedented economic growth.

Lastly, the failure of Chartism invalidated mass politics in Britain. By the 1850s, mass political campaigns through demonstrations and strikes yielded minimal success that culminated to the failure and collapse of Chartism. Therefore, a sober and quiet organisation that the old level was then preferred. The New Model Trade Unionism became an alternative to agitative mass political campaigns.

The significance of the New Model Trade Unionism

The New Model Trade Unionism was essential as it changed workers’ conditionsand attitudes. The workers managed to bargain with their employers on terms of the jobs, wages, working conditions and working hours. The trade unions improved the conditions of workers in Britain in the sense that workers achieved their rights through non-violent means.

The New Model Trade Unions pointed the ways towards awareness and consciousness for workers. The stable trade unions made deliberate efforts to educate workers on their rights and the proper ways of demanding such rights. The working class became confident in demanding their rights as workers’ republics could be resolved through constitutional means. Trade unionism acquired government recognition, unlike Luddism and Chartism. This helped the workers to do their activities more comfortably and freely.

Trade unions raised large funds from the entrance fee and annual subscription. The funds accumulated were properly managed, and helped members to run their activities smoothly such as providing education to their fellow workers and assistance to the sick and members who lost employment. Their financial strength helped them to become stronger and to improve the workers’ conditions and living standards.

The importance of trade unions was also vividly seen in their influence on the rise of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC), a base of workers’ political party. It planted the idea of professionalism. In this regard, workers achieved their political and economic rights. The New

Model Trade Unionism had a clear constitutional and democratic ethos of the workers. It had permanent members with strong solidarity that laid a foundation for the establishment of the British Labour Party.

Weaknesses of the New Model Trade Unionism

Their importance aside, the New Model Trade Unions had several weaknesses. For instance, they accommodated only skilled and semi-skilled labourers while isolating unskilled labourers who were the majority. Moreover, they mainly focused on the economic interests of workers and gave little consideration to other issues, especially social and political welfare. In other words, the New Model Trade Unions were opportunistic. Furthermore, their reliance on peaceful means of struggle in many instances delayed the attainment of the intended goals. However, a few incidences of violent methods, such as strikes and demonstrations, were used. Lastly, this form of labourorganisation suited mostly in the stable economic system with high economic prosperity. It could not work in other situations, such as in economic crises. For example, from 1873, New Model Trade Unions lost their relevance and power due to the economic depression, giving way to the formation of the Unskilled General Unionism.

The second phase of the industrial revolution (1840s-1870s)

The second industrial revolution, which took place between the 1840s and 1870s, marked the second phase of European industrialisation especially in Britain. During this period, European industrialisation moved from simple to complex and sophisticated industrial technologies. Thus, the second industrial revolution laid the ground for the modern industrialised world, characterised by rapid technological advancements, global economic expansion, and social change. Figure 2.2 shows an example of innovation in the second phase of industrial revolution.

Features of the second industrial revolution

The second industrial revolution, spanning from around the 1840s to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, marked a significant departure from the older phase of industrialisation with the prominent role played by “pure” science in industrial development. This period witnessed an unprecedented collaboration among scientists, entrepreneurs, and state officials, driving innovations in industries such as steel, chemicals, and electricity, as opposed to the first phase of industrial revolution, which saw textiles, iron, and coal dominating. This period shifted industrial leadership from Britain to France to other countries such as Belgium, Italy, Germany, and the USA.

Additionally, there was integration of scientific knowledge into industry, facilitated by institutions sponsored by states and universities. These institutions focused on the practical application of sciences like electricity and chemistry, leading to transformative advancements in manufacturing techniques. Technical education became widespread, enabling the breakdown of production processes through the division of labour and the development of machines that replaced enhanced human labour. Advancements in transportation featured the second industrial revolution, with railroads, steamships, canals, and turnpikes shrinking the world and facilitating global trade and communication. This period also witnessed the expansion influence of the western industrial nations, as their political powers extended across Africa and Asia.

Comparing British Industrial Revolution with Belgium, France, Germany and the USA

The first phase of the industrial revolution was primarily confined to Britain. In order to continue enjoying the benefits of the industrial revolution, Britain expected her technology by prohibiting the export of machinery, skilled workers, and production technologies. However, other British entrepreneurs saw profitable industrial opportunities overseas. At the same time, other western European nations were attracted to the British achievements and, therefore, were motivated to get the British technologies from the industrialists as well. Thus, various strategies were used to acquire British technology. The subsequent paragraphs explain how industrial revolution spread to other European countries and the USA. Figure 2.1 shows spread of the industrial revolution in Europe in the 19th century.

Studies show that British scientist, John Cockerill, brought industrial revolution into existence in Belgium. This scientist developed machine shops at Liège around the early 19th century, which became the focal point of Belgian industrialisation. Thus, Belgium became the second country after Britain to undergo industrial revolution in Europe. Like her predecessor (Britain), Belgium industrialisation was centred on iron, coal, and textiles.

In France, the industrialisation process was slower than in either Britain or Belgium. While Britain was industrialising, France was still in the political revolution and with the Napoleonic wars, which caused unfavourable conditions for industrial development. The chaotic situation in France discouraged significant investments in industrial innovation. France also had a weaker bourgeois class which could not stand alone in the revolution. Hence, they sought the assistance of peasants and other classes. This collaboration slowed the capitalist speed in industrialisation because they had to accommodate some peasants’ needs even after the revolution. This was quite different from Britain, where the class of capitalists was so strong and stood firm to industrialise the country. However, by 1848, France had become the industrial power. Despite the notable growth under the Second Empire, France remained behind Britain.

In Germany, industrial revolution came much later because the country was still divided into many smaller states until 1871. This condition hindered Germany from industrial development. Thus, despite her vast coal and iron resources, Germany did not begin industrial development until 1871 when national unification was achieved. However, a smooth transition from feudalism to capitalism contributed to a rapid industrial growth in Germany after the unification.

Unlike Britain and France, which attained industrial revolution after political revolutions, the German landed gentry, called Junkers, prepared a conducive environment for the emerging capitalists to take over by supporting them financially and politically. Thus, after the unification, German capitalists started without any uncertain political condition which was an added advantage to the German industrial development. Interestingly, after the unification, Germany’s industrial production grew so rapidly. By the 1890s, Germany had surpassed Britain in steel production and had also become the world leader in heavy chemical industries. During the same period, German companies transformed themselves into larger monopolies in the form of cartels and trusts. Thus, by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Germany had become one of the major industrial powers in the world, competing mainly with the USA.

Industrialisation in the USA also came late partly because it never experienced feudal relations, which were the basis of transformation in Western Europe. Thus, the country had no rich feudal lords who could transform themselves into capitalists, as was the case in Britain. It was not until the second half of the 19th century, especially after the American Civil War (1861-1865) when the USA began to experience rapid industrialisation. The war cancelled the first generation of American capitalists, such as John D. Rockefeller who owned Standard Oil Company (1870), J. P. Morgan and his US Steel (1901), Cornelius Vanderbilt and his American shipping and railroad company (1860s/1870s), who led the process of rapid industrialisation. Thus, although the USA was a late comer in industrialisation compared to Britain, Belgium and Germany, she underwent transformation from competitive to monopoly capitalism in the late 1890s. Western Europe had already undergone monopoly capitalism from the 1870s.

Moreover, the resources available, such as land, water, coal and iron ore plus a big territory which was a result of the union of American states (formerly the thirteen British American colonies) were added advantages for American industrialisation. The immigrants who made America their home also contributed to the America’s industrial development. For example, among the immigrants were some Europeans who were attracted to the United States by the idea of profit maximisation, especially British immigrants who formed about a half of the managers and machine-makers in the USA in the 19th century. These immigrants became instrumental in developing industries in the United States. Their presence positively changed the USA towards industrialisation. Thus, by the end of the 19th century and early 20th century, the USA had become the most powerful industrial power in some sectors, especially in labour productivity, machinery production, electrical engineering and chemical industry, even surpassing Britain.

Exercise

1. What were the distinguishing features of the New Model Trade Unionism in Britain?

2. What lessons can contemporary trade unions learn from the British New Model Trade Unionism?

3. Why did the traditional industrial system in Africa not transform into the factory system as was the case in Western Europe?

Exercise-MARKING

1. What were the distinguishing features of the New Model Trade Unionism in Britain?

(i) It was mainly composed of skilled workers.

The New Model Trade Unions were largely formed by skilled artisans such as engineers, carpenters, compositors and ironworkers. These workers possessed specialized skills and were difficult for employers to replace. Their bargaining position was therefore stronger than that of unskilled labourers.

(ii) It emphasized permanent and well-organized unions.

Unlike many earlier temporary workers’ associations, the New Model Unions established stable national organizations. They maintained permanent offices, elected officials and clear administrative structures. This enabled them to coordinate activities over a long period.

(iii) It relied on regular membership subscriptions.

Members were required to pay contributions regularly into union funds. These subscriptions gave the unions financial stability and allowed them to operate independently. The funds were also used to support members during strikes, unemployment, sickness and old age.

(iv) It provided welfare benefits to members.

The unions offered benefits such as unemployment assistance, sickness support, funeral expenses and pensions. This made membership attractive and strengthened loyalty to the organization. The welfare system also reduced workers’ dependence on employers during difficult periods.

(v) It preferred negotiation to violent confrontation.

New Model Union leaders generally favoured collective bargaining, arbitration and peaceful negotiation. Strikes were regarded as a last resort rather than the first method of struggle. This moderate approach helped the unions gain public respect and legal recognition.

(vi) It adopted strict financial discipline.

Union leaders carefully managed membership contributions and expenditure. Proper records were maintained, and funds were protected from misuse. Strong financial administration enabled the unions to survive long disputes and provide reliable services.

(vii) It employed full-time paid officials.

The unions appointed experienced officials to manage daily activities, negotiate with employers and organize members. These officials were paid from union funds and worked professionally. This improved efficiency and reduced dependence on voluntary leadership.

(viii) It promoted national organization.

Many New Model Unions expanded beyond local workshops and established branches across Britain. National structures enabled workers in different regions to act together. This increased their bargaining strength and reduced the ability of employers to divide them.

(ix) It limited membership to workers who met specific qualifications.

Because the unions mainly represented skilled trades, entry was often controlled. Members had to possess recognized occupational skills or complete apprenticeships. This helped maintain professional standards but excluded many unskilled and casual workers.

(x) It focused on practical economic demands.

The unions concentrated on wages, working hours, workplace conditions and employment security. They avoided revolutionary programmes and direct attacks on the entire capitalist system. Their objective was to improve workers’ position within the existing economic order.

(xi) It sought legal recognition and respectability.

New Model Union leaders worked to convince the government and public that trade unions were responsible institutions. They opposed disorder and promoted lawful methods of struggle. This contributed to the gradual legalization and acceptance of trade union activity in Britain.

(xii) It supported labour representation in politics.

Although initially cautious about politics, the unions increasingly supported laws protecting workers and encouraged parliamentary representation. Their activities helped lay the foundation for organized labour politics. In the long term, this contributed to the emergence of the British Labour movement.

Conclusion.

The New Model Trade Unionism was distinguished by skilled membership, strong finances, disciplined organization, welfare services and moderate methods of negotiation. Its professionalism and stability transformed British trade unionism into a more respectable and influential workers’ movement.

2. What lessons can contemporary trade unions learn from the British New Model Trade Unionism?

(i) Trade unions should build strong financial foundations.

Contemporary unions can learn the importance of collecting regular membership subscriptions and managing them responsibly. Financial independence enables unions to support members during strikes, retrenchment and emergencies. It also reduces dependence on political parties, donors or employers.

(ii) They should practise transparency and accountability.

Union leaders should keep proper financial records and report regularly to members. Transparent management strengthens trust and prevents corruption. Members are more willing to support an organization when they understand how their contributions are used.

(iii) They should employ competent professional officials.

Modern labour organizations need trained negotiators, legal officers, researchers and administrators. Professional leadership improves collective bargaining and protects workers from unfair labour practices. Officials should remain accountable to members rather than using the union for personal benefit.

(iv) They should provide welfare services.

Unions can establish funds for unemployment, sickness, accidents, funeral expenses and retirement. These services make unions relevant to the daily lives of workers. Welfare programmes also strengthen solidarity among members.

(v) They should prioritize peaceful negotiation.

Dialogue, mediation and collective bargaining can often produce better and more lasting agreements than unnecessary confrontation. Strikes should remain available when negotiations fail, but they should be carefully planned. Peaceful methods also help unions maintain public support.

(vi) They should develop strong organizational structures.

Effective unions require clear constitutions, elected leaders, functioning branches and reliable communication systems. A well-organized national structure allows workers from different workplaces to act together. It also prevents employers from isolating individual groups.

(vii) They should educate their members.

Workers need knowledge of labour laws, collective agreements, workplace safety and union rights. Regular training enables members to participate intelligently in union affairs. Educated members are also less likely to be manipulated by employers or dishonest leaders.

(viii) They should maintain unity and discipline.

A union becomes weak when members are divided by politics, ethnicity, religion or occupation. Contemporary unions should promote common interests and collective responsibility. Discipline is particularly important during negotiations and industrial action.

(ix) They should concentrate on practical workers’ needs.

Unions should give priority to wages, job security, occupational safety, working hours and social protection. Broader political issues may be important, but they should not replace the immediate concerns of members. Practical achievements increase confidence in union leadership.

(x) They should use strikes responsibly.

Industrial action should be based on clear demands, member approval and careful preparation. Unplanned strikes can expose workers to dismissal and financial hardship. Responsible action increases the chances of success and reduces unnecessary suffering.

(xi) They should expand representation beyond privileged workers.

The New Model Unions were strong but often excluded unskilled workers. Modern unions should avoid repeating this limitation by organizing casual labourers, domestic workers, migrant workers and employees in the informal sector. Inclusive trade unionism strengthens the entire labour movement.

(xii) They should participate in shaping labour legislation.

Trade unions should lobby governments for fair labour laws, minimum wages, social security and safe working conditions. Political participation should defend workers’ interests rather than serving individual leaders. Legal reform can protect workers even outside unionized workplaces.

(xiii) They should adapt to technological and economic change.

Modern unions face automation, digital employment, outsourcing and temporary contracts. They should conduct research and develop new strategies for organizing workers in changing industries. Flexibility is necessary if unions are to remain relevant.

Conclusion.

Contemporary trade unions can learn from the New Model Unions by strengthening organization, finances, professionalism, welfare provision and responsible negotiation. At the same time, modern unions should be more inclusive and responsive to the challenges of informal work, technology and globalization.

3. Why did the traditional industrial system in Africa not transform into the factory system as was the case in Western Europe?

(i) Production remained mainly small-scale.

Traditional African industries were generally organized at household, family or village level. Craftsmen produced goods mainly for local consumption rather than for large commercial markets. This limited the accumulation of capital needed to establish factories.

(ii) There was limited capital accumulation.

Most African producers lacked large financial reserves that could be invested in machinery, buildings and wage labour. Wealth was often held in livestock, land or trade goods rather than industrial capital. Without sufficient capital, large-scale mechanized production was difficult.

(iii) The domestic market was relatively limited.

Many communities produced a large proportion of what they consumed. Demand for mass-produced manufactured goods was therefore smaller than in Western Europe. Limited market demand discouraged entrepreneurs from investing in factory production.

(iv) Transport and communication systems were insufficient.

In many parts of pre-colonial Africa, roads, canals and other transport networks were not developed for large-scale industrial distribution. Moving heavy raw materials and finished goods over long distances was expensive. This restricted the growth of national and international markets.

(v) There was limited use of mechanized power.

Traditional industries relied mainly on human labour, animal power and simple tools. Western European factories expanded through water power, steam engines and later electricity. The limited adoption of such technology slowed industrial transformation in Africa.

(vi) Scientific and technological institutions were less developed.

African craftsmen possessed valuable practical knowledge, but there were few formal institutions dedicated to industrial research, engineering and mechanical invention. In Western Europe, universities, scientific societies and workshops supported technological improvement. This difference affected the pace of mechanization.

(vii) The apprenticeship system remained conservative.

Industrial skills were commonly passed from masters to a small number of apprentices. Craftsmen sometimes protected trade knowledge within families or specialized groups. This preserved quality but slowed the widespread diffusion of new techniques.

(viii) Political fragmentation limited wider industrial integration.

Africa contained many kingdoms, chiefdoms and independent communities with different systems of taxation and trade. Frequent conflicts and political boundaries sometimes disrupted commerce. Western Europe gradually developed larger centralized states that supported wider markets and industrial investment.

(ix) Agriculture remained the dominant economic activity.

The majority of Africans were engaged in farming, pastoralism and fishing. Craft production was often seasonal or supplementary rather than full-time. This limited the formation of a large permanent industrial labour force.

(x) Labour was not widely separated from ownership of production.

Traditional craftsmen usually owned their tools and controlled their work. The factory system required large numbers of workers who sold their labour to owners of machines and buildings. This capitalist relationship was not yet widespread in many African societies.

(xi) Long-distance trade often encouraged commerce rather than industrial investment.

Profits from trade were frequently invested in livestock, land, political influence or imported luxury goods. Merchants did not always direct their wealth into mechanized industries. Therefore, commercial growth did not automatically produce factory development.

(xii) The Trans-Atlantic and other slave trades disrupted development.

Slave trading removed millions of productive people from African societies. Raids and wars created insecurity and destroyed settlements. These disruptions weakened population growth, labour availability and long-term economic investment.

(xiii) European colonialism interrupted independent industrial development.

Colonial powers reorganized African economies to produce raw materials and consume European manufactured goods. Local industries were often discouraged or undermined because they competed with imported products. This prevented many traditional industries from developing into factories.

(xiv) Colonial infrastructure served extraction rather than local industrialization.

Railways and ports were mainly built to transport minerals and agricultural products to the coast. They did not usually connect African communities in ways that promoted integrated domestic industries. Infrastructure therefore strengthened export dependence rather than factory growth.

(xv) Imported European goods weakened local producers.

Machine-made textiles, metal goods and other products were often cheaper than handmade African goods. Local craftsmen could not easily compete with mass production. As a result, some traditional industries declined instead of developing into mechanized factories.

Conclusion.

The African traditional industrial system did not develop into a factory system because production remained small-scale, capital and technology were limited, markets and transport systems were underdeveloped, and most labour remained tied to agriculture. Slave trading and colonial policies later disrupted local industries and integrated Africa into the world economy mainly as a supplier of raw materials and a market for foreign manufactures.

Impact of industrial revolution

In essence, industrialisation gave birth to competitive capitalism. This is because industrialisation led to the complete decline of the agrarian-based feudal relations, which were replaced with urban-based industrial relations in the 19th century. In particular, industrial revolution facilitated a great shift from an agrarian society to industrial or urban society.

Industrial revolution in Western Europe and the USA led to a dramatic expansion of the financial sector, which helped in the rise of industrial capitalism. Banks had previously served as warehouses for valuables, clearing houses for long-distance trade, or lenders to the nobles and governments, and agents of payments. During the industrial capitalism, they served the needs of everyday commerce and the intermediation of credit for large and long-term investment projects. This changing role of banking institutions promoted the development of industrial capitalism in Western Europe and the USA in the 19th century.

With industrial revolutions in Europe and the USA, the policy of colonial expansion became more visible and gained more strength in the late 19th century. Industrial Revolution created a growing market demand for manufactured goods. Likewise, the need for cheap raw materials increased. The areas to invest surplus capital were also highly needed. This forced the European industrial powers to acquire colonies in politically and militarily weak states of Asia and Africa. These colonies provided a good opportunity for the investment of surplus capital. Besides, Asia and Africa were endowed with natural resources, and had huge potential populations to absorb industrial finished goods. The colonial policy furnished from industrial development led to the further development of capitalism into competitive capitalism.

Moreover, Industrial Revolution led to the abolition of slavery and slave trade and the introduction of ‘legitimate trade’ in Africa. That trade facilitated the exploitation of the African natural resources such as rubber, palm oil, and coconut, which were used to make oil for lubricating machines in Europe. Asia and Latin America supplied a lot of agricultural and natural resources to Europe and the USA which also led to further development of industries, giving rise to competitive capitalism in both regions.

Industrial revolution in Europe led to the emergence of new social classes. As industrialisation was gaining momentum, wealth was increasingly concentrated into the hands of a few capitalists. Thus, industrialisation created new social classes, namely the owners of industrial capital, known as the capitalists or bourgeoisie, and the producers who sold their labour-power, known as the workers or proletariats. On the one hand, the factory owners (capitalists) employed workers and paid them wages. They also controlled the sale of goods to make super-profits. On the other hand, the factory workers lived in misery due to the exploitation of their labour power. This kind of production relations was instrumental in strengthening and stabilising competitive capitalism among the western powers.

Industrial revolution transformed the work experience of factory workers, which led to social consequences. The traditional work experience was disrupted by the fast-paced nature of factory life. Machines operated quickly, and employers emphasised hard work and crucial. New factory rules enforced strict regulations, including punctuality, steady and fast work pace, and limitations on socialising. Thus, restructuring of work habits aimed at imposing an unfamiliar sense of time and coordination and management of factory workers.

Additionally, the development of factory supervision reflected the shifting shape the labour force. Initially, supervision was decentralised, with skilled workers hiring their own assistants. However, this decentralised system was gradually replaced by a more formal and efficient industrial control regime. Foremen were tasked with hiring, firing, maintaining proper work discipline, and representing management interests. This marked a significant shift as workers were subjected to daily control by supervisors, changing the traditional work autonomy.

There was a stiff competition among industrial nations in the quest to consolidate industrial production. Thus, while some profits. In the 1870s, other nations started to challenge Britain’s industrialisation which was also industrialising rapidly. These were Germany, Japan, Belgium, France, Italy, and the USA. The centre of wealth and power was transferred from the former industrial nations to newly industrialising nations. The transfer was necessitated by competition in production and demand.

Industrial revolution brought technological changes in Europe and a new system of production. These changes brought the traditional lifestyle and brought a modern industrial life whereby the largest population came to live in urban centres, depending on industries in production and wages for survival.

It also promoted free trade as a means of expanding the market and sources of raw materials overseas. Such trade permitted transportation of goods and commodities without economic barriers or tariffs.

The trade influenced the production of large quantities of goods for markets outside Europe, leading to competition. It was during this period when laissez faire economy replaced protectionism and dominated European economies. The basic principle of laissez faire was that markets should naturally be competitive. The doctrine of laissez faire became an integral part of 19th century European liberalism. Liberals championed the principles of free trade and free competition in the sphere of economics, seeing the state as merely a passive policeman, protecting private property and administering justice, but not interfering with the affairs of its citizens. Liberals also supported freedom of thought in the intellectual sphere. British industrialists and businessmen quickly associated these principles with their own economic interests.

Military revolution among the European nations was necessary to protect their industrial gains. Strong and powerful military arsenals were manufactured, leading to greater competition as other European nations also started to import the European society into wealthy industrialists who controlled the states through political revolutions of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and poor workers as. The functions of governments were to protect private property and international boundaries against threats from within or outside the respective states. It was this period the Europe witnessed the replacement of cavalry by navy, infantry and air force. There were also changes in the size of armies, administration, and management of armies, and the type of weapons that were more effective, devastating and efficient in battles. The military science was also developed. Thus, in the 19th and 20th centuries, military innovations played a major role in imperial expansion in Africa Asia, and the Far East.