"The expansion of heavy industry from c1850 was the key point in making Britain a fully industrialized society by 1914." How far do you agree with this judgement?

Generally we can classify the industrial revolution as a dramatic change in industrial and agricultural processes through mechanisation, the use of more abundant raw materials, and ultimately the changes in population structures, by altering the way of life and society of the time.  The main areas to be considered includes heavy industry, the cotton and textile industry, agricultural and the dramatic change in the transport system.  Out of all these industries, it becomes disputable if one can be labelled the turning point of the industrial revolution.

        For many historians heavy industry was the pivotal section in society that many of these changes rested upon.  Generally, we define heavy industry as the manufacturing process of iron, steel and coal, all of which changed dramatically and could be seen as a turning point. "Centres of iron production took off in what can only be called revolutionary;" as new processes in the production of iron was developed.  With the development of the Bessemer Converter, the open-hearth furnace, the Gilchrist-Thomas method and the steam hammer, the production of iron and steel rose dramatically, from 3,070,000 in 1854 to 10,260,000 in 1913. "Scarce anything now is made without it,"was possibly one of the reasons why the iron and steel industry and why heavy industry constitutes a turning point. There was no major development in the production of coal, apart from the use of explosives to ‘open' a mine.  The mining itself still used hands, despite the fact that it was hazardous, hence the fact that the life expectancy of a coal miner was as low as 40.  Nevertheless the production of coal increased by 101.45% from its 1875 value of 131.87 million.  It was the strategic position within the economy that gave coal it's significance, for it only accounted 1-%-6%of the GDP.  "Fuel was the basic development of most process of production and the relatively slow rate of progress in coal mining set the limits to the expansion of British industry," Is a view put forward by T.S. Ashton.  Contrary to the beliefs of Phil Chapple, who believed that the development in cotton industry was of a "more remarkable aspect of industrialisation."  It does become questionable whether the development in heavy industry was before c1850, as data suggests that the increase in production of coal was more rapid in the periods before, increasing from 2.9 million in 1700 to 14,7 million in 1800.  In addition, iron increased by over 5000% from 1700 to 1854.  Empirical evidence such as above suggests that the expansion of heavy industry occurred before c1850.   It is also questionable how solid a basis these developments had as it becomes questionable upon how well the industry expanded, as inspite of all, both USA and Germany overtook Britain's production of coal, iron and steel at the end of the 19th century.  In 1906 America's production of coal was 100 million tons more, whereas it's production of iron and steel was 35% more than Britain's.  The machines and industrial process, which had earlier given Britain it's lead became outdated, due to the reluctance of the industrial society to use new inventions and/or the reluctance of the society to invest its capital into developing machinery and methods.  Nevertheless, "Sustained industrialisation … would have been inconceivable without the technical progress in the iron industry."

Industrialisation may not have been sustainable without the progress in heavy industry, but other historians argue that the turning point of industrialisation c1850 is the growth of cotton industry.  Historians, such as W.W. Rostow argue that, "Cotton was the original leading sector in the first take off of the industrial revolution." The view could be contrasted to the Phyllis Deanes'; "iron and coal have claims at least as strong as that of cotton."  The growing dominance of cotton and textiles is "one of the more remarkable aspects of the early period of industrialisation," as new processes in the production of textiles were developed.  The discovery of a new bleaching agent, roller printing, the Watt steam engine, the flying shuttle, the spinning jenny, the water frame, the spinning mule and the power loom.  The mechanisation of the cotton industry took off and made a great impact on the production.  The growth of the cotton industry was possible because of a huge increase in demand and an ability to maximise the potential of the new technologies to meet that demand. What is unique to the cotton industry and what marks it out as a potential turning point is the speed of growth and development and the effect it had on society with regards to population change and urbanisation. Population increased by over 300% during the period of 1750-1800, which was made possible by the agricultural revolution that only became possible because of the development of the iron industry that supplied the raw materials, which enabled mechanisation and thus change to occur in this field. However, it must be considered the fact that without the developments in heavy industry, in particular development of iron and steel, as most of the machinery is made of steel and operated by coal or steam. Also, it could be argued that technical change in the cotton industry only induced change in other textile industries.  It also becomes questionable whether the cotton industry is the turning point of the industrial revolution c1850, as data suggests that the golden age of the cotton and textiles industry has past, hence the fact that only 16% of Britain's labour force was employed in the textile industries in 1901, a decrease of 13% of it's value in 1851.

It is difficult to think of any aspects of life, which was not touched and changed by the coming of the railways, steam locomotion and other transportation methods, such as the opening of canals.  In particular, the development of railways became the most evocative and perhaps powerful symbol of the Victorian progress.  The first railway opened with the route of Stockton to Darlington in 1825.  What followed is what could only be called as a 'railway mania.'  Three major investment instalments occurred in 1837, 1847 and 1862, stimulated the growth of the railways, enabling it to grow from 1500 miles of track in 1840 to 13000 miles of track in 1870, most of these tracks are still in use today.  The mammoth growth of the railways did not, however, constitute as a turning point; it's the impacts of its growth.  The railway development also helped the progress of several professions.  Railway engineering and construction required specialised and skilled labours, thus resulting in the emergence of mechanical and civil engineering.  The legal profession gained profitable employment in sorting out the often-contentious area of land ownership, sale and conveyancing.  The actuarial side of railway business also helped the emergence of accountancy as a separate profession.  The development of the post office would also be impossible without railways.  Railways also helped in the development of the suburban area of Manchester, the substantial alterations to the city's appearance and the creation of new cities.  Above all, railways enabled the transportation of factory products to reach, the already developed canals, thus pushing cost of transportation down, and therefore reducing the cost of products.  It is a valid argument that the industrial revolution would not happen without the development in railways, thus concluding that railway is the turning point of industrial revolution, as T. R. Gourvish put forward, "There is no doubt that railways had a greater influence than any other single innovation before the age of oil and electricity."  Eric Evans contradicts this view, 'it is certainly not true that railway development stimulated revolutionary change in all other aspects in the economy." In many ways Evans is right.  The development of railways would not have been possible without recent development in the heavy industry, such as the development of cheap iron, for the construction of railway tracks took up to 20% of the production of pig iron in 1840, or the development in the coal industry. 

        An economist would argue that industrialisation is inevitable, that industrialisation, alongside economic booms and busts are a part of the naturally occurring trade cycle, and what happened in 1850 onwards was just an examplatory boom.  Economists will argue that each country will need to reach their full economical capacity and the industrial revolution is just a media of reaching towards the full capacity, by using the resources as efficiently as possible.  Even so, in order to reach the full capacity of an economy, investment, trade and the financial service plays a big contribution; thus this could be a turning point.  As historian WD Rubinstein remarks "Britain was never fundamentally an industrial and manufacturing economy; rather, it was always, even at the height of the industrial revolution, essentially a commercial, financial and service based economy." We must also recognise the changing nature of the British economy and the increasingly important part played by entrepreneurs, for without them, the economic advancement would probably not happen, thus the industrial revolution would not occur inspite of technological developments in heavy industry.  The Bank of England introduced new legislations in 1826 and 1844, which increased the number of banks to 99, with 600 branches in 1850, and almost double the figures in 1875.  The banks enabled the entrepreneurs to take up loans for investments, creating new innovations, or expansion of their factories, thus resulting in the growth of industries. On the other hand, the late Victorian slump at the end of the 19th century becomes a pin point of the weakness of the financial and economical system, nevertheless, we must put it into consideration the fact, that as the economy slumped, the industrial revolution entered it's end-phase, thus emphasising the importance of finance in the industrial revolution.

        In the period of 1850-1914 Britain was irrevocably set on the path to full industrialisation.  It cannot be concluded that industrial progress was inevitably associated with huge factories or massive metal works.  Neither could it be concluded  why it happened, how it happened, or what was the turning point that triggered it to happen.  Despite historian disputes throughout this writing, Phyllis Deane simply puts it, "No single industry played the role of the leading sector." A view, which is probably most accurate, as the evidence suggests that all the factors mentioned so far could not have provoked change individually, they simultaneously develop, and are too interlinked with each other to investigate which factor started first, it's just like asking the question, what came first the chicken or the egg?  However, heavy industry and financial capabilities of the time seemed to be central to the success of creating a full-industrialised society by 1914, with the other factors contributing equally.  Nevertheless, investigating the revolution is not made easy because of the inaccuracies of statistics provided the fact that most of them, prior 1850, are only estimates, and would therefore be of less reliability.  Thus, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine the history of the industrial revolution; it is even, to an extent, impossible, as Jonathan Clark claimed in 1986, 'historians have been chasing a shadow.'

---