How far do the sources support the conclusion that, during the period 1780-1914, the economy and society of Britain was transformed, and with remarkably little conflicts?

        A view which could support the opinion put forward in source 1, would be the statistical figures in source 4.  The proportion of people working in agriculture, fishing and forestry decreased.  The proportion of people working in manufacturing and mining increased, but decreased.  This seems to fit with the occupational trend of a country during development.  Usually as a country becomes more developed, the proportion of people working in the agriculture sector would continually decrease and the share of people employed in the manufacturing and mining section would increase and then decrease.  However, the share of people engaged in the commerce section would continually increase.  This is not supported by the data.  Although the portion increased, figures prior to 1881 shows a decline in this portion, however, this could not be a clear indicator, as the decline in the portion of people employed in commerce, trade and transport section could have fallen due to the late Victorian slump.  The reliability of these statistics is questionable. All statistical figures always contain statistical errors and thus provoke doubt, particularly, when no exact source was quoted to be the origin of this data.  Moreover, the figure incorporated for 1914 is only an estimate, therefore does not provide reliable evidence upon the figures given, it also does not accommodate any evidence of societal transformation and conflicts.  On the other hand, the figures do give a general idea upon the patterns of employment, and thus we are able to deduce the trends.

        Source 5 offers somewhat of a contradictory view to the others discussed so far.  It tries to deal with different definitions of the middle class, perhaps to emphasise the stagnancy of the social structure. Whether More uses Guy Routh's or Dudley Baxter's definition, he states that the proportion of the middle class did not alter, what had altered was the composition of the middle class, thus implying no structural change of the society.  Source 5 tried to deal with unreliability of the writer's (More's) opinion, by providing opinions of other historians to draw his conclusion.  Furthermore, the source was a passage from the book "The Industrial Age, 1750-1985" by Charles More, a historian whose views would not, therefore, likely to be biased and are likely to be well researched.  However, More is well known for his work on Chartism, and, is thus presumed to have a distorted view upon the upper class.  Nevertheless, his views become important to draw upon when looking at this time period, as he is a well known history lecturer, and thus would have carefully researched his facts prior to publishing his book.

        All the sources discussed so far have only regarded the extent of economic and social transformation.  They offer different interpretation of the extent of change, and are all useful when looking at the change in the occupational and social trends, despite their own unreliability. It becomes clear that one main weakness of the sources discussed so far is the fact that there is no standard definition on what a transformation of the economy and society are, which adds a new degree of confusion.  Furthermore, none of the sources discussed so far has incorporated the conflict factor of the transformation.

        Source 2 concludes that there is barely any conflict as a result of economic and societal transformation, at least in the mills of Turton and Egerton.  He includes descriptions of the mills, which are "lofty, spacious and well ventilated" and the fact that the workers were understanding of the imposition of a wage cut.  This implies that the workers were working in good conditions and experienced a good relationship with their employers, thus suggesting very little conflict.  However the reliability of this source is questionable.  It is a well known fact that cotton mills were far from being "lofty and spacious" and that there were many diseases, such as mill-fever that were stimulated by excessive work in a mill.  The source does not discuss the use of child labour in the mill, neither does it deal with the human rights issues of the workers, that were heavily violated during the time.  Secondly, W Cooke Taylor was an Anti-Corn Law League lecturer, and thus may have turned a blind eye upon the negative impact of the cotton mill, as he was working towards the advancement of free trade, which included the increased efficiency of workers, and ultimately pull a stop to the Corn Laws, which restricted amount of hours of work.  Giving the benefit of doubt, we could assume that what Taylor wrote is the truth that he had heard from the workers, but we could question whether the workers were honest, or whether the workplace was altered due to Taylor's visit. His visit may not have lead to an accurate representation of the conditions in all cotton mills.  All these factors increases bias, hence making it more unreliable, but it is also a primary source, and Taylor did directly surveyed the condition, and would have presumably an accurate description.

           Source 3 contradicts the view discussed above.  It implies that conflicts were present, often by portraying the "frightful conditions of the working peoples quarters" and the "Sufferings and struggles" of the working class, in contrast to "the English money mongered".  The source doesn't refer to particular conflicts, but it points out the main variance of the middle and working class.  It points more towards potential problems that could arise.  However, Engels is known to be a Marxists, and thus would, by principles advocate the advancement of the working class, hence the title of his book, of which the excerpt is used as source 3, is "The Condition of the Working Class England." Nevertheless, it becomes an important piece when examining the conflicts of transformation, as it would have been giving details upon which the working class had to deal with.

        Unlike source 5, source 6 directly implies that conflict was abundant, especially during the 1830's and 1840's during the trade depression, when socialist views, such as Engels were emerging, in fact "revolutionary conflict posed a real threat".  It could be argued that the conflicts were only a threat.  However, the emergence and growth of the Labour party, alongside with some riots were the only apparent evidence of the conflict.  Furthermore, as the source was a passage from the book "British Society, 1750-1997" by Edward Royle, a historian whose views would not, therefore, likely to be biased and are likely to be well researched, despite the fact that his accounts could be inaccurate, due to the time lag. Nevertheless, his views become important to draw upon when looking at this time period, as he is a well known history lecturer, and thus would have carefully researched his facts prior to publishing his book.

It seems as though each source has it's own opinion upon the matter of social and economical transformation in England.  We must be aware that as the nature of each source differ; their opinions and views will differ too.  Each whether agreed or disagreed with the statement to an extent, have different degrees of accuracy, as mentioned above.   The degree of accuracy depends upon the writer, when it was written, and by what means.  Furthermore, it can't be concluded whether the sources support the view or not, because there is no standard definition of transformation of economy or society, or what could have been described as a conflict, thus makes it increasingly difficult to judge upon what extent do the sources support the view.  Nevertheless, despite of all of the flaws contained in each source, each source is valuable to a historian studying the impact of industrial revolution upon the society.