I. Introduction

In the Mid-Victorian period in English history there were distinct class

differences in its society. There were three classes in England.

These were the Aristocracy, the Middle-Class (or Factory owners) and

the working class. Each class had specific characteristics that defined

its behavior. These characteristics were best seen in four areas of

British society.

During the time-period known by most historians as the

Industrial Revolution, a great change overtook British culture. Aside

from the political and economic change which occurred, a profound social

alteration transpired. The populace seeking to better their lives,

sought employment in newly-formed industries. Many of the workers which

included women and children, labored through 12 hour work shifts, with

poor nutrition, poor living conditions and completing tedious tasks1.

These factors, accompanied by various ideological precepts by Britain's

intellectual community, and those concepts imported from France, provoke

a crucial social evolution. Though no government was overthrown, a

distinct transformation took place causing rebellious behavior to erupt

among the working class. This essay will address the questions of how

and why this behavior was expressed by the lower order of British

society. It will also discuss methods the ruling class used in

suppressing and controlling the rebellious behavior exhibited by the

working class.

The middle class held to two basic ideologies that served in

the exploitation of the lower order of the British society. Richard

Atlick identified them as Utilitarianism (or Benthamism) and

Evangelicalism. Both served the self-interested inclinations of the

middle class. Utilitarianism created the need to fulfill a principle of

pleasure while minimalization pain. In the context of the "industrial

revolution" this meant that the pleasure extracted from life would be at

the working classes' expense. This provided a perfect justification for

the middle class to capitalize on. The working class of Britain,

throughout the industrial revolution and through the Victorian age,

acted in a defiant manner toward both the aristocracy and middle class.

This behavior extended from the everyday activities of the workers to

radical anarchist movements that categorized the underground.

The middle class seemed to be just as familiar with the inverse

of Benthamism as they were with its normal application. The pleasure

principle was measured in terms of minimalization of pain. If the sum

of pain, in a given situation, is less than the sum of pleasure, than it

should be deemed pleasurable. The inverse principle applied to the

working class was how pain (work) can be inflicted, with the absolute

minimum distribution of pleasure (wages), without creating an uprising.

This was seen in Andrew Ure's article. He eloquently defended

the industrial system and dismissed the infractions as conjecture.

However, the argument made by Ure clearly pointed to the existence of

disciplinary actions being performed by the industrialist and how these

were allowed by the government. His argument stated that no employer

wished to beat their young employees and, if it occurred, then it was

on a small level. The argument did not condemn the use of physical

discipline. It did not directly acknowledge its occurrence, but neatly

circumvented the issue by saying it was not the "wishes" of the

employer. This was an example of the beliefs of the middle class to

take disciplinary and suppressive actions taken against the working

class.

The second, Evangelicalism, was considered to be selfish because

of its inflexibility toward actions outside of its moral realm. The

Church at that time would help the poor only to pacify its conscience.

Andrew Mearns, in his article " The Bitter Cry of Outcast London",

investigated the misery of the working class and exhorted the church for

inactivity on the working classes behalf. He stated that "whilst we

have been building our churches and solacing ourselves with our religion

. . . the poor have been growing poorer, the wretched more miserable,

and the immoral more corrupt." He continued, listing detailed accounts

of how the lower class survived and suffered. It was written to evoke a

reaction from the church attending middle class.

Isolated by these ideologies and rigid social class

distinctions, the lower class began to resent the industrialists that

employed them. There were basically two types of radicals that followed

a more active part in expressing their disdain for the system that

imprisoned them; as discussed in the book Radical Underworld. The first

group of radicals engaged in carousing, pamphleteering and the

proliferation of pornography. This printing and distribution of

resistant and even seditious material toward the system was frowned upon

by the government. The carousing and debauched behavior was a

rebellious social statement emphasizing the lower classes' rejection of

the hypocritical social restraint the middle class attained to. A

second group of radicals pursued their anarchist agendas to the point of

destroying machinery in an unbeseeming manner. These extremists

performed any act that would disrupt the system and discredit the

government by making it appear inept at stopping the social unrest.

This was a direct reaction to the isolation caused by the difference in

social class.

The behavior of the working class was termed rebellious by the

middle class and aristocracy of British society. The expression

"rebellious" characterized their deviation from the conservative norms

established by the middle-class. James Phillips Kay argued that the

environment industrialization created in Britain was responsible for the

cultivation of this immoral behavior. He continued by pointing out the

"ceaseless drudgery" of the work that the person must perform; "in

squalid wretchedness, on meagre food and expends his superfluous gains

on debauchery." This allowed the working class to justify their

departure from the illusionary "traditional" values the middle class

promoted and their adoption of a system fitting to their social

environment.

Adam Smith justified the oppressive environment that the working

class was subjected to was in his work "Wealth of Nations". He

introduced the concept of "Laisser - faire" to government and its role

in the economy. By adopting the "hands off " policy, the British

government created an environment which was conducive to a pure state of

capitalism. In this mode, the industries were given a blank check for

the exploitation of the working class. The result was large-scale

urbanization and industrialization that produced hideous living and

working conditions.

Various ideologies arose from intellectuals and radicals of

England, Ireland and the ensuing French revolution. These ideas of

liberty, rights, equality and revolution were introduced to the masses

and prompted the motivation for change. However, revolution never

occurred as the government allowed the working class opportunities to

vent its social frustrations. These "opportunities" were found in the

lower classes leisure time. Spending time in pubs, theaters, music

halls and sporting activities created an outlet for the miserable and

unhappy.

Thus, the rebellious behavior exhibited by the working class of

the British society was demonstrated in everyday life and justified by

both the living and working conditions of workers. The issue of the

disciplinary and suppressive actions initiated by the middle and ruling

class was deliberate and calculated. This discipline was used in

culling the behavior of the working class and maximizing its

productivity. Industrialization and urbanization took a toll on the

British lower social order, but, consequently, did not push it into a

revolution. This is to the credit of a society that had the ability to

express itself in coping with social inconsistencies and change.