The Historical Background of The Communist Manifesto: George R. Boyer

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 12, Number 4—Fall 1998—Pages 151–174
The Historical Background of the

Communist Manifesto
George R. Boyer
T
he Manifesto of the Communist Party, published 150 years ago in London in
February 1848, is one of the most influential and widely-read documents
of the past two centuries. The historian A. J. P. Taylor (1967, p. 7) has
called it a ‘‘holy book,’’ and contends that because of it, ‘‘everyone thinks differ-
ently about politics and society.’’ And yet, despite its enormous influence in the
20th century, the Manifesto is very much a period piece, a document of what was
called the ‘‘hungry’’ 1840s. It is hard to imagine it being written in any other decade
of the 19th century. The critique of capitalism offered by Marx and Engels in the
Manifesto is understandable in the context of economic conditions in Britain from
1837 to 1848, and it is not that different, in places, from the conclusions reached
by other social critics during the 1840s.
This paper attempts to place the Manifesto’s analysis of capitalist economic
development in historical perspective. I begin by summarizing the economic ar-
guments of Marx and Engels. While the Manifesto was written by Marx, its economic
analysis was strongly influenced by Engels’s ‘‘practical experience of capitalism’’ in
his family’s cotton firm in Manchester, England, in 1842–44. Upon his return to
Germany, Engels published in 1845 a scathing indictment of early industrial capi-
talism, The Condition of the Working Class in England. Much of Engels’s critique of
British capitalism reappears in greatly condensed form in Section I of the Manifesto.
The second part of the paper examines the economic, social, and political condi-
tions in Manchester and the surrounding south Lancashire cotton towns in the
1830s and 1840s, drawing largely on the views of contemporary observers. I then
! George R. Boyer is Associate Professor of Labor Economics, New York State School of In-
dustrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. His e-mail address is
»[email protected]….
/ 300e se07 Mp 151 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

152 Journal of Economic Perspectives
look at recent research on the standard of living of the working class from 1820 to
1851, focusing on conditions in the Lancashire cotton industry during the ‘‘hungry
’40s.’’ Finally, I examine economic conditions in England in the two or three de-
cades after the Manifesto was published, and briefly discuss why Marx and Engels’s
predictions for the imminent collapse of capitalism were so wide of the mark.
The Economic Arguments in the Communist Manifesto and their

Sources
When the Communist Manifesto was written, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
were both in their late 20s. Marx, the son of a prosperous German lawyer, was living
in Brussels, having emigrated from Prussia to Paris in 1843 after the government
had suppressed the newspaper which he edited, and having been expelled from
Paris in 1845. Engels, whose father owned a cotton spinning business with branches
in Barmen, Germany, and Manchester, England, was living in Paris. The two had
first met in 1842, and had begun to work together after their second meeting in
Paris in 1844. They had written two books together, The Holy Family (1845) and The
German Ideology (1846), before writing the Communist Manifesto.1
In Brussels, Marx established a Communist Correspondence Committee to
maintain contact with German, French and English socialists. The committee cre-
ated ties with a group of German communists in London, the League of the Just,
and in January 1847 the League invited Marx and Engels to become members. In
November 1847, Marx and Engels attended a congress of the renamed Communist
League held in London, and Marx appears to have dominated the proceedings. At
the end of the conference they were invited to write a manifesto stating the League’s
doctrines. Marx wrote the Manifesto in December 1847 and January 1848. The Man-
ifesto was published in London in February, just as the 1848 revolutions were begin-
ning across Europe, but it appears to have had little if any influence on the
revolutions.2
In Section 1 of the Manifesto, entitled ‘‘Bourgeois and Proletarians,’’ Marx and
Engels present a description of the development of industrial capitalism, and predic-
1
The early careers of Marx and Engels are discussed in McLellan (1973, chapters 1–3) and Henderson
(1976, chapters 1–3). The Holy Family, published in February 1845, largely was an attack on the philos-
opher Bruno Bauer, a member of the Young Hegelians. The German Ideology, which McLellan (1973,
p. 151) considers one of Marx and Engels’s most important works because of its detailed discussion of
the ‘‘materialist conception of history,’’ was rejected by at least seven publishers in 1846–47 and was not
in fact published until the 20th century. Not long after the publication of the Manifesto, Marx was expelled
from Belgium, and moved to Cologne to assume the editorship of a radical newspaper. When the news-
paper was suppressed by the Prussian authorities in the spring of 1849, he moved to London, where he
lived until his death in 1883. Engels moved to Britain in 1850, and worked for his family’s cotton firm
in Manchester until 1869, when he retired and moved to London. He died in 1895.
2
For a detailed discussion of the formation of the Communist League and the background of the Man-
ifesto, see McLellan (1973, pp. 167–88). Other useful commentaries on the Manifesto can be found in
Taylor (1967) and Struik (1971).

George R. Boyer 153
tions for its future. They begin by declaring that ‘‘the history of all hitherto existing
society is the history of class struggles’’ (1848 [1992], p. 3). In the modern historical
epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, the class struggle had been simplified—there
were now only ‘‘two great classes,’’ the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Since the in-
dustrial revolution, the bourgeoisie had captured political control; ‘‘the executive of
the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole
bourgeoisie.’’ Once in control, the bourgeoisie ‘‘pitilessly’’ put an end to all feudal
and patriarchal relationships between employers and workers, and ‘‘left remaining no
other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash pay-
ment’. . . . for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted
naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation’’ (p. 5).
The bourgeoisie brought about the industrial revolution. It revolutionized the
instruments of production by improving machinery, and by destroying old indus-
tries and creating new ones. It created enormous cities, replaced existing relations
of property with free competition, centralized the means of production, and created
a world market for its products. While condemning the bourgeoisie for its ‘‘brutal
exploitation’’ of labor, Marx and Engels (1848 [1992], pp. 5–8) praise it for showing
‘‘what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing
Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals. . . . The bourgeoisie,
during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more
colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.’’
Business cycles were another creation of the modern epoch. These recurring
crises of overproduction put on trial, ‘‘each time more threateningly, the existence
of the entire bourgeois society.’’ The bourgeoisie surmount these crises by finding
new markets to exploit and by increasing their exploitation of existing markets.
However, their actions pave the way ‘‘for more extensive and more destructive
crises, and . . . [diminish] the means whereby crises are prevented’’ (Marx and
Engels, 1848 [1992], pp. 8–9).
The epoch of the bourgeoisie also brought about the development of the
proletariat—the modern industrial working class. Under modern capitalism, the
workers were forced to ‘‘sell themselves piecemeal’’ to the bourgeoisie; they ‘‘live
only so long as they find work, and . . . find work only so long as their labour
increases capital. . . . [They] are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of
competition, to all the fluctuations of the market’’ (Marx and Engels, 1848 [1992],
p. 9). As a result of mechanization, the laborer had become a mere ‘‘appendage
of the machine.’’ The increased use of machinery and the division of labor re-
duced ‘‘the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour,’’ which en-
abled the bourgeoisie to replace the labor of adult males with that of women and
children. Finally, ‘‘modern industry has converted the little workshop of the pa-
triarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of la-
bourers, crowded in the factory, are organized like soldiers’’ (p. 10). Ironically,
the condition of the proletariat deteriorated as capitalism progressed: ‘‘the mod-
ern labourer . . . becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than
population and wealth’’ (p. 15).

From its conception, the proletariat had struggled with the bourgeoisie. At
first their resistance took the form of isolated acts of machine breaking and arson.
However, the advance of industry, and in particular the concentration of the pro-
letariat in large factories, led workers to form trade unions and friendly societies.
Eventually the proletarians formed their own political party, which ‘‘compels leg-
islative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of
the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself’’ (Marx and Engels, 1848 [1992],
pp. 11–12). As the condition of the working class continues to deteriorate, at some
point it will become clear that the bourgeoisie is not fit to rule society, and then
the ‘‘veiled civil war, raging within existing society . . . breaks out into open
revolution.’’ The proletariat will overthrow the bourgeoisie, and destroy private
property. This process is inevitable: ‘‘The development of modern industry . . .
cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces
and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all,
is its own grave-diggers’’ (pp. 15–16).
The remaining three sections of the Manifesto ‘‘belong to the historian of po-
litical thought rather than to the historian of economic analysis,’’ as Schumpeter
(1949, p. 201) wrote, and can be quickly summarized. Section 2 states that the aims
of the communists ‘‘may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private
property’’ (Marx and Engels, 1848 [1992], p. 18). It concludes with a list of ten
reforms that the communists would undertake, including the expropriation of all
land rent, institution of a ‘‘heavy progressive’’ tax, abolition of the right of inheri-
tance, centralization of credit and transport in the hands of the state, and free
public education for all children (pp. 25–26). Section 3 is a critique of other forms
of socialism: reactionary, conservative or bourgeois, and utopian. Finally, Section
4, which is only two pages long and apparently unfinished—Marx was under pres-
sure from the Communist League to finish the Manifesto—states the position of the
communists with regards to existing opposition parties in Europe. The communists
support revolutionary movements to overthrow forcibly existing social orders
throughout Europe. The Manifesto concludes with the famous words: ‘‘The prole-
tarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working
men of all countries, unite!’’ (p. 39).
In writing the economic and historical analysis contained in Section 1 of the
Manifesto, Marx borrowed heavily from a catechism of 25 questions and answers
written by Engels in October 1847 and entitled ‘‘Principles of Communism.’’3 In
particular, Marx’s discussion of the process of industrialization, the development
of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and the causes and consequences of business
cycles in the Manifesto is largely drawn from the answers to questions 4, 11, 12, and
13 of Engels’s ‘‘Principles.’’ The discussion of these issues contained in the ‘‘Prin-
ciples,’’ in turn, was a summary of material from Engels’s 1845 book, The Condition
of the Working Class in England. David McLellan, Marx’s biographer, maintains that
3
Engels’s ‘‘Principles of Communism’’ are included in Struik (1971, pp. 169–89).

The Historical Background of the Communist Manifesto 155
Engels’s book provided ‘‘an empirical basis for several of Marx’s later theories. It
was the foundation document of what was to become the Marxian socialist tradi-
tion’’ (1993, pp. xix–xx). It is therefore useful to briefly summarize the analysis of
capitalist development put forward by Engels.4
According to Engels (1845 [1987], pp. 116, 159), the introduction of machin-
ery and the division of labor that occurred as a result of the industrial revolution
greatly increased productivity, but ‘‘every improvement in machinery throws work-
ers out of employment, and the greater the advance, the more numerous the un-
employed.’’ The class of workers ‘‘most ill-used’’ by the introduction of machinery
was the handloom cotton weavers, thousands of whom had become poverty-stricken
as a result of the adoption of the power loom. The increased use of machinery also
enabled the bourgeoisie to replace adult male workers with women and children,
who were employed at far lower wages. As a result, ‘‘wages in general have been
reduced by the improvement of machinery’’ (pp. 161–64).
The ‘‘centralizing tendency of competition,’’ Engels argued, brought about
the rise of business cycles; every five years or so a crisis occurred. During each crisis
many small manufacturers failed, while large manufacturers closed their mills or
went to short time. Despite sharp increases in charity and poor relief expenditures
in response to increasing unemployment, ‘‘want becomes universal among the
workers.’’ After a year or two of depression, prosperity returned, and the demand
for labor increased. As a result of the sharp fluctuations in labor demand, ‘‘English
manufacture must have, at all times save the brief periods of highest prosperity, an
unemployed reserve army of workers, in order to be able to produce the masses of
goods required by the market in the liveliest months.’’ When they were not em-
ployed in the factories, the members of the reserve army lived by huckstering, ped-
dling, performing occasional odd jobs, begging or stealing (Engels, 1845 [1987],
pp. 117–19).
The development of capitalism led to the creation of great manufacturing
towns, to which huge numbers of agricultural laborers and Irishmen migrated in
search of employment. The living conditions in these cities were horrible. The
working class was crowded into slums, in which the housing was poorly constructed,
badly ventilated, and in a bad state of repair. Most of these slums did not have an
adequate water supply and were completely lacking in drainage facilities (Engels,
1845 [1987], pp. 100–2). It is no surprise, therefore, that death rates were extremely
high in the industrial cities. In Manchester, one out of every 30.8 persons died per
year, compared to one in 45 for England and Wales (pp. 135–37). The working
conditions in the cotton factories, in particular the long hours standing at work in
damp, warm, and badly ventilated rooms, also were greatly injurious to the health
of workers, especially women and children (pp. 171–75). The ‘‘hateful greed of
the manufacturers’’ resulted in ‘‘women made unfit for childbearing, children de-
4
Two useful commentaries on Engels’s book, written from greatly different perspectives, are Henderson
and Chaloner (1958) and Marcus (1974).

formed, men enfeebled, limbs crushed, whole generations wrecked, afflicted with
disease and infirmity’’ (pp. 183–84). Engels maintained that, because the bour-
geoisie did nothing to ameliorate the living and working conditions of the working
class, it was guilty of ‘‘social murder’’ (p. 138).
The bourgeoisie achieved political dominance with the passage of the Re-
form Act of 1832, which enfranchised middle-class property holders and in-
creased the representation of the industrial districts in Parliament. Engels (1845
[1987], p. 275) declared the bourgeoisie as a class to be ‘‘incurably debased by
selfishness.’’ The adoption of the New Poor Law in 1834, which forced able-
bodied paupers and their families into workhouses, was an ‘‘open declaration
of war’’ against the proletariat (pp. 281–85). The revolt of the proletariat against
the bourgeoisie began early in the industrial revolution, and by 1844 had passed
through several stages, from crime, to machine-breaking and arson, to trade
unionism. Unions represented ‘‘the first attempt of the workers to abolish com-
petition.’’ They greatly nourished the workers’ hatred of the bourgeoisie, and
the bourgeoisie in turn constantly tried to destroy the unions (pp. 224–31).
Unionism was especially powerful in those branches of industry in which the
factory system predominated. Thus, ‘‘Lancashire, and especially Manchester, is
the seat of the most powerful unions’’ (p. 245).
Lancashire also was the center of Chartism, the working-class movement for
political reform which began in the spring of 1838 with the publication of the
People’s Charter, a petition to Parliament demanding, among other things, uni-
versal manhood suffrage, equal electoral constituencies, the payment of members
of Parliament, and the abolition of the requirement that members of Parliament
be property owners. Engels maintained that the Chartists’ demands were ‘‘sufficient
to overthrow the whole English Constitution’’ (1845 [1987], p. 236). The spread
of Chartism was greatly accelerated by the New Poor Law, which intensified the
proletariat’s hatred of the property-holders. At the conclusion of the book, Engels
predicted that the next crisis, in 1846 or 1847, would lead to the adoption of the
Chartist proposals, and that the following crisis, in 1852 or 1853, would lead to a
revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie (pp. 290–91). The collapse of
capitalism in the near future was ‘‘as certain as a mathematical or mechanical dem-
onstration’’ (p. 63).
The fact that so much of the economic and historical analysis in the Manifesto
can be traced back to Engels’s earlier book suggests that economic developments
in England provided the model on which Marx’s analysis was based. In the preface
to the first German edition of The Condition of the Working Class, Engels (1845 [1987],
p. 29) asserted that ‘‘proletarian conditions exist in their classical form, in their
perfection, only in the British Isles, particularly in England proper.’’ Other coun-
tries had begun to industrialize, but their economic development lagged far behind
that of Britain. In 1840 47.3 percent of Britain’s adult male labor force was em-
ployed in industry; no other western European country employed that large a share
in industry before 1900 (Crafts, 1985, pp. 57–59).
The ‘‘classical’’ proletarian conditions noted by Engels existed for only a mi-

George R. Boyer 157
nority of English workers. McCloskey (1981, p. 109) contends that as late as 1861
only 30 percent of the labor force ‘‘was employed in activities that had been radi-
cally transformed in technique since 1780 . . . Britain was not in 1861 a cotton
mill.’’ Large-scale factory production was limited to a small number of sectors of
the economy, one of which was cotton textiles. The cotton industry was located
mainly in south Lancashire, and centered on the city of Manchester.
The fact that Engels’s family happened to own a cotton mill in Manchester
is one of the interesting accidents of history. The historian Asa Briggs (1963,
p. 113) stressed that Manchester, with its large factories and ‘‘alarming social
relationships,’’ was not a typical British industrial city. It is useful to compare
Manchester with Birmingham, the second largest industrial city in England in
the 1840s. Alexis de Tocqueville visited both cities in 1835. He wrote that Man-
chester contained ‘‘a few great capitalists, thousands of poor workmen and little
middle class,’’ while Birmingham contained ‘‘few large industries, many small
industrialists.’’ In Manchester, ‘‘workmen are counted by the thousand, two or
three thousand in the factories. At Birmingham the workers work in their own
houses or in little workshops in company with the master himself.’’ He con-
cluded that ‘‘the working people of Birmingham seem more healthy, better off,
more orderly and more moral than those of Manchester’’ (1835 [1958],
pp. 104–5). Briggs (1963, p. 113) speculated that, ‘‘if Engels had lived not in
Manchester but in Birmingham, his conception of ‘class’ and his theories of the
role of class in history might have been very different. In this case Marx might
have been not a communist but a currency reformer.’’ Similarly, McLellan
(1993, p. xviii) wrote that if Engels ‘‘had spent more time in London, where
manufacture was still dominated by artisans, he would have got a different pic-
ture’’ of the development of capitalism.
Engels himself noted many years later (as quoted in McLellan, 1993, p. xii)
the importance his time in Manchester in 1842–44 had for his intellectual
development:
[In Manchester] it was forcibly brought to my notice that economic factors,

hitherto ignored or at least underestimated by historians, play a decisive role
in the development of the modern world. I learnt that economic factors were
the basic cause of the clash between different classes in society. And I realized
that in a highly industrialized country like England the clash of social classes
lay at the very root of the rivalry between parties and was of fundamental
significance in tracing the course of modern history.
In sum, the economic and historical analysis contained in the Communist Manifesto
largely is derived from Engels’s description of the development of the cotton textile
industry in south Lancashire in the first half of the nineteenth century, and of social
and political conditions in Manchester in the 1840s. To place the arguments of the
Manifesto in historical perspective, it therefore is necessary to examine the economic,
social, and political conditions in south Lancashire during the ‘‘hungry ’40s.’’

Contemporary Views of Conditions in Manchester in the 1830s and

1840s
Much was written about Manchester in the 1830s and 1840s, and much of what
was written was unfavorable. Tocqueville wrote that, at Manchester, ‘‘humanity at-
tains its most complete development and its most brutish; here civilisation works
its miracles, and civilised man is turned back almost into a savage’’ (1835 [1958],
p. 108). Charles Dickens visited Manchester in 1838, and wrote that ‘‘what I have
seen has disgusted and astonished me beyond all measure;’’ a year later, Sir Charles
Napier referred to Manchester as ‘‘the chimney of the world . . . the entrance to
hell realized’’ (both quoted in Marcus, 1974, pp. 30, 46). Asa Briggs (1963, p. 85)
wrote that when Engels arrived in Manchester in the fall of 1842, the city ‘‘was
already associated . . . with industry, with newness, with squalor, and, above all else,
with unfamiliar and, on occasion, alarming social relationships.’’ According to
Briggs (1963, pp. 51, 93), ‘‘every age has its shock city.’’ Just as Chicago, with its
slums and ethnic problems, was the shock city of the 1890s, Manchester was ‘‘the
shock city of the 1840s, attracting visitors from all countries, forcing to the surface
what seemed to be intractable problems of society and government, . . . of ‘class’,
of the relations between rich and poor.’’
Manchester was the center of the cotton industry. Engels (1845 [1987], p. 82)
referred to Manchester as ‘‘that classic soil on which English manufacture has
achieved its masterwork’’ and wrote that, ‘‘in the cotton industry of south Lanca-
shire, the application of the forces of Nature, the superseding of hand-labour by
machinery . . . and the division of labour, are seen at the highest point.’’ By the
standards of the day, cotton factories were quite large. An 1841 survey of 128 cotton
firms in Manchester found that 32 percent of the cotton work force were employed
in firms with 500 or more workers (Lloyd-Jones and Le Roux, 1980, pp. 75–76).
The concentration of workers in large firms was even more pronounced in other
south Lancashire cities in 1841: in Ashton-under-Lyne and Preston, 56 percent and
48 percent of cotton workers were employed in mills with 500 or more workers
(Howe, 1984, p. 47; Huberman, 1996, p. 56). While the typical cotton firm em-
ployed between 150 and 500 workers, two-thirds of the engineering firms in Britain
in 1851 employed ten or fewer workers, and the Birmingham metal trades and
Sheffield cutlery trades also were ‘‘workshop industries’’ (Crouzet, 1985, p. 35;
Berg, 1994, pp. 136–39). In the Manifesto, when Marx and Engels (1848 [1992],
p. 10) speak of ‘‘the great factory of the industrial capitalist [in which] masses of
labourers . . . are organized like soldiers,’’ they are referring to a cotton mill.
The city’s squalor was publicized in James Kay’s classic 1832 book, The Moral and
Physical Condition of the Working Classes employed in the Cotton Manufacture in Manchester,
and in Joseph Adshead’s Distress in Manchester, published in 1842. Kay (1832, p. 27)
wrote that the streets in working class districts typically were ‘‘untraversed by common
sewers;’’ the houses of the laboring population were often damp, ‘‘ill ventilated, un-
provided with privies, and, in consequence, the streets which are narrow, unpaved,

and worn into deep ruts, become the common receptacles of mud, refuse, and dis-
gusting ordure.’’ These living conditions encouraged a ‘‘predisposition to contagious
disease’’ such as cholera. Writing a decade later, Adshead (1842, pp. 46, 50) concluded
that ‘‘destitution in its most rigorous form prevails to an appalling extent in Manches-
ter,’’ and he cited a local doctor who wrote that ‘‘no inconsiderable portion of our
fellow-creatures is living on food and in dwellings scarcely fit for brutes.’’
The high death rates that resulted from the destitution of Manchester’s labor-
ing population were documented in Edwin Chadwick’s (1842 [1965]) influential
Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain. Chadwick
presented evidence that the average age of death of ‘‘mechanics, labourers, and
their families’’ in Manchester was 17, as compared to 38 in rural Rutlandshire; this
despite the fact that laborers’ wages were at least twice as high in Manchester as in
Rutland. The major cause of the low life expectancy was Manchester’s appallingly
high child mortality rates; 57 percent of children born in Manchester to working
class parents died before their fifth birthday (pp. 222–23). These studies were well
known to Marx and Engels. Engels’s description of the Manchester slums largely
was drawn from Kay’s book, and he used data reported by Chadwick to demonstrate
the effects of poor living conditions in industrial cities on death rates.
Economic conditions in south Lancashire also clearly revealed to Marx and
Engels the potentially devastating effects of cyclical downturns. When Engels arrived
in Manchester in the late fall of 1842, Britain was just beginning to recover from
the deep depression of 1841–42. The downturn was particularly severe in the cotton
industry; the consumption of raw cotton declined in both years, the only time it
fell for two consecutive years between the end of the Napoleonic wars and the
cotton famine of 1861–65. A large number of cotton firms went bankrupt, throwing
thousands of factory operatives out of work. Lancashire factory inspectors estimated
that 15 percent of cotton factory operatives were unemployed in the last quarter of
1841 (Matthews, 1954, pp. 141–43). Conditions in south Lancashire continued to
deteriorate in the spring and summer of 1842. In November, when Engels arrived
in Manchester, ‘‘there were crowds of unemployed working men at every street
corner, and many mills were still standing idle’’ (Engels, 1845 [1987], pp. 121–22).
Another serious downturn hit Britain in 1847–48, and once again thousands of
Lancashire cotton operatives lost their jobs. The Economist reported that in the first
six months of 1848, 18.6 percent of the workforce in Manchester’s cotton mills was
unemployed, and another 9.5 percent was on short time (Boyer, 1990, p. 235).
During the downturns of 1841–42 and 1847–48, many unemployed factory
operatives were forced to turn to the poor law and private charity for assistance. In
response to the ‘‘extreme destitution’’ faced by thousands of Manchester families
in 1842, poor relief expenditures increased sharply, and voluntary subscriptions for
bedding, clothing, and soup kitchens were undertaken. Adshead (1842, pp. 40–41)
estimated that up to 3,000 persons per day were supplied with soup during the
summer of 1842, and concluded that ‘‘but for this very timely relief many might
have been reduced to absolute starvation.’’ On July 9, 1842, the Manchester Times
(quoted in Read, 1959, p. 53) wrote that ‘‘any man passing through the district and

observing the condition of the people, will at once perceive the deep and ravaging
distress that prevails . . . The picture which the manufacturing districts now present
is absolutely frightful.’’ In the second week of July 1847, about 10 percent of Man-
chester’s population was being granted poor relief (Boot, 1990, p. 220).
Lancashire also provided Marx and Engels with the classic example of the
technological unemployment associated with industrialization, the decline of hand-
loom weaving. In the late 18th century technological improvements in spinning
had led to a sharp increase in the demand for handloom weavers. By the early 1820s
there were approximately 200,000 handloom weavers living in Lancashire and
Cheshire, equal to about 25 percent of the adult male labor force in these counties
(Lyons, 1989, pp. 48–49). Although piece rates began to decline in the 1790s,
handloom weaving had continued to provide a reasonable livelihood during the
first 15–20 years of the 19th century. However, the widespread adoption of the
power loom caused the wages of handloom weavers to decline by 60 percent or
more from 1820 to 1840. By the 1830s weavers had become ‘‘among the most
poverty-stricken workers’’ in northern England (Brown, 1990, p. 610; Lyons, 1989,
pp. 52, 62). There were still about 100,000 weavers in Lancashire in 1841, the year
before Engels arrived in Manchester. The poverty of these remaining weavers was
so great that many Lancashire poor law unions continued to pay them allowances-in-
aid-of-wages long after this form of relief had been outlawed by the Poor Law
Amendment Act of 1834 (Bythell, 1969, ch. 10; Rose, 1966). The handloom weavers’
economic plight ‘‘cast a pall over the entire period and over all the working classes’’
(Himmelfarb, 1984, p. 137).
For many commentators the most disturbing thing about south Lancashire was
its class relations, and in particular the ‘‘rioting propensities’’ of its working class.
The cotton industry experienced major strikes in 1808, 1810, 1818, and 1829–30,
and rashes of machine breaking in 1811–12 and 1826 (Hammond and Hammond,
1919, pp. 72–135; Charlesworth et al., 1996, pp. 42–50). In March 1817 a large
number of Manchester workers, the so-called Blanketeers, determined to march to
London to demand Parliamentary reform, and some of their number plotted to
start an insurrection by burning Manchester.
The event which contemporaries most associated with Manchester, however,
was the infamous ‘‘Peterloo Massacre’’ of August 16, 1819. On that date several
thousand workers from Manchester and the surrounding cotton towns assembled
in St. Peter’s Field at a mass meeting for Parliamentary reform. Local magistrates,
fearing a riot, employed the yeomanry and the cavalry to break up the meeting,
and in the struggle that followed eleven workers were killed and about 400 injured.
Parliament’s adoption of the Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834 greatly in-
creased class antagonism in the industrial cities of northern England. Many workers
viewed the New Poor Law, which stated that able-bodied paupers and their families
should be relieved only in well-regulated workhouses, as a betrayal of an unwritten
‘‘social contract’’ and an attempt to ‘‘punish poverty.’’ In 1837, when the Poor Law
Commission attempted to set up poor law unions in the industrial north, it was met
by strong opposition. Public meetings denouncing the law were held throughout

George R. Boyer 161
the textile district, the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner and local officials were
threatened and harassed in several cities, and local elections for Boards of Guard-
ians were boycotted or disrupted. The South Lancashire Anti-Poor Law Association,
formed in November 1837, collected nearly 123,000 signatures to a petition calling
for the repeal of the New Poor Law (Edsall, 1971; Knott, 1986). When Parliament
rejected a motion for repeal, many of the leaders of the anti-poor law movement
turned their attention to parliamentary reform and, in particular, to Chartism. Still,
workers’ hatred of the New Poor Law and of the workhouse ‘‘bastilles’’ remained
strong when Engels arrived in Manchester in 1842.
The early centers of Chartism were London and Birmingham, but the move-
ment soon spread to the northern industrial cities. Two associations founded in
Manchester in 1838, the Manchester Universal Suffrage Association and the Man-
chester Political Union, sponsored a series of large-scale demonstrations in favor
of the Charter in the summer of 1838, one of which was attended by nearly 50,000
people, making it the largest demonstration since Peterloo. The movement de-
clined for a time following Parliament’s overwhelming rejection of the Charter in
1839, but it revived in south Lancashire in the summer of 1840, and progressed
rapidly during the depression of 1841–42. Over 300,000 Lancashire individuals
signed the national petition presented to Parliament in 1842; just under 100,000
signatures came from Manchester (Read, 1959, pp. 43–44, 50–52). Parliament re-
jected the second National Petition for the Charter in April 1842. Partly as a result
of this, and partly because of the deepening economic distress, the workers of south
Lancashire turned to direct industrial action in the summer of 1842. In response
to a few employers’ threats to cut wage rates, on August 7 a mass meeting of up to
10,000 operatives near Stalybridge called for a general strike to achieve ‘‘a fair day’s
wage for a fair day’s work’’ and the passage of the Charter. The strike spread first
to Manchester and then all over south Lancashire, with crowds of roving strikers
‘‘using as much force as was necessary to bring factories to a standstill’’ (Mather,
1974, p. 118). The marching strikers often pulled the plugs from factory boilers to
stop work, and the strike therefore became known as the Plug Plot disturbances or
riots.
The strike took a more political turn beginning on August 12, when represen-
tatives from all trades in the vicinity of Manchester met and resolved to go on strike
until the People’s Charter was adopted. Three days later, delegates from all over
northern England met in Manchester, and 58 of the 85 trades represented voted
to strike for the Charter. The government then quickly intervened, sending troops
to Lancashire and arresting several of the movement’s leaders. Many strikers re-
turned to work after about a week, although some cotton operatives remained on
strike until late September (Mather, 1974; Clark, 1953; Charlesworth et al., 1996).
It is understandable that Engels, arriving in Manchester three months after the
general strike had begun, saw in it the beginnings of a proletarian revolt. However,
most historians now agree that Chartism in Lancashire was largely an economic
movement, and that the general strike was ‘‘a sudden economic explosion, not the
beginning of a planned political revolution.’’ The majority of strikers were more

interested in ‘‘a fair day’s wages’’ than in the adoption of the Charter (Read, 1959,
p. 54). Chartism was strongest during the depression years 1838–39, 1841–42, and
1847–48; when economic conditions revived in 1843 and especially after 1848, sup-
port for Chartism quickly declined.
Chartism was given ‘‘a final lease of life’’ by the depression of 1847–48, but
the Lancashire Chartism of 1848 was much less powerful than in earlier years. When
riots occurred in Manchester in March they were repudiated by the Chartist leaders,
and when the third petition for the Charter was rejected by Parliament in April,
very few disturbances occurred. Ironically, Chartism largely disappeared within a
few months of the publication of the Communist Manifesto.
The economic and political situation in the northern industrial cities in the
1840s, and Manchester in particular, elicited concern and alarm from many social
critics besides Marx and Engels, and like them, many of the critics ‘‘saw catastrophe
ahead, not adaptation’’ (Briggs, 1963, p. 108). In his book Chartism, the essayist and
historian Thomas Carlyle wrote that ‘‘revolt, sullen revengeful humour of revolt
against the upper classes . . . is more and more the universal spirit of the lower
classes’’ (1840, p. 41). Three years later, in Past and Present, he added: ‘‘with the
millions no longer able to live, . . . it is too clear the Nation itself is on the way to
suicidal death’’ (1843 [1977], p. 26).5
John Stuart Mill (1848 [1909], p. 751), writing at the same time as Marx and
Engels, concluded that ‘‘hitherto it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions
yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being. They have enabled a
greater population to live the same life of drudgery and imprisonment, and an
increased number of manufacturers and others to make fortunes.’’ Mill sounded
distinctly like Engels when in 1845 he described Chartism as ‘‘the revolt of nearly
all the active talent, and a great part of the physical force, of the working classes,
against their whole relation to society.’’ Along with the anti-Poor Law movement,
Chartism revealed to the middle class ‘‘the poverty and wretchedness of great
masses of people.’’ Mill (1845 [1967], pp. 369–71) concluded that ‘‘it was no longer
disputable that something must be done to render the multitude more content with
the existing state of things.’’
The ‘‘condition of England’’ question also inspired several novels, such as Dis-
raeli’s Sybil: or, the Two Nations (1845), and Elizabeth Gaskell’s Mary Barton: A Tale of
Manchester Life (1848). The reviewer in Fraser’s Magazine (1849, p. 430) wrote that Gas-
kell’s novel gave ‘‘a detailed insight into the whole ‘science of starving,’ ’’ and stated
that if people wanted to know ‘‘why working men turn Chartists and Communists . . .
Then let them read Mary Barton. Do they want to know why poor men . . . learn to
5
Carlyle blamed many of England’s social problems, such as Chartism and ‘‘trades-strikes,’’ on laissez-
faire, and concluded: ‘‘Supply-and-demand is not the one Law of Nature; Cash-payment is not the sole
nexus of man with man’’ (1843 [1977], p. 187). Engels wrote very favorably about Past and Present, and
in the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels paraphrase Carlyle when they write that the bourgeoisie
‘‘has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than . . . callous ‘cash payment’’’ (1848
[1992], p. 5).

hate law and order, Queen, Lords and Commons, . . . to hate the rich, in short? Then
let them read Mary Barton. Do they want to know what can madden brave, honest,
industrious North-country hearts, into self-imposed suicidal strikes, into conspiracy,
vitriol-throwing, and midnight murder? Then let them read Mary Barton.’’
Marx and Engels, therefore, were not alone in asserting that the standard of
living of large numbers of workers was quite poor, and perhaps declining in abso-
lute terms, during the ‘‘hungry ’40s.’’ Nor were they alone in predicting that such
living conditions would lead to a revolution by the working class, although they do
appear to be the only commentators who believed that revolution was inevitable.
The expected revolution, of course, did not occur.6 Instead, the threat of revolt
greatly diminished after 1848. The decline in tension largely was a result of the
improving economic environment and the adoption of various social policies by
Parliament, as I will briefly discuss below. It is also possible, however, that the work-
ers that Marx, Engels, and other contemporaries focused their attention on were
not representative of the working class as a whole. To get a broader picture of the
trend in the economic condition of English workers during the 1830s and 1840s,
it is necessary to examine the recent research by economic historians on the stan-
dard of living of the working class.
The Standard of Living of the Working Class, 1820–1850
The debate over what happened to the standard of living of British workers
during the industrial revolution is perhaps the longest-running controversy in
economic history. Engels’s (1845) Condition of the Working Class in England was
one of the opening salvos in the debate, the first great ‘‘pessimist’’ study. How-
ever, most of the debate has taken place in the 20th century, and a great spurt
of research on living standards has been published in the past 15 years, begin-
ning with Lindert and Williamson’s (1983) important ‘‘optimist’’ paper. The
recent debate has been well-surveyed by Mokyr (1993, pp. 118–30), Lindert
(1994), and Engerman (1994). While the ongoing debate examines the long-
term trend in living standards from 1750 (or sometimes 1780) to 1851, I want
to focus attention only on the period from the end of the post-Napoleonic war
slump, around 1820, to 1851.
Economic historians have measured movements in living standards in various
ways, by examining trends in real wages, per capita income, consumption of partic-
6
E.P. Thompson (1964, pp. 671, 817) contends that there also was a serious threat of revolution in the
first half of the nineteenth century, especially in 1831–32. The revolution did not occur, according to
Thompson (1964, pp. 177, 817, 381), because of the counter-revolution of the ruling classes, the passage
of the 1832 Reform Bill, and the rapid growth of Methodism, which was a ‘‘component of the psychic
process of counter-revolution.’’ On the other hand, Hartwell (1984, p. 68) concludes that ‘‘except for a
small minority, the workers of England were too sensible to wish for revolution . . . It is their lack of
desire for violence which is so obvious to the objective observer.’’

ular commodities, life expectancy, infant mortality, and height by age. The current
state of the standard of living debate can be quickly summarized. The ‘‘economic’’
measures—real wages and per capita income—indicate that living standards in-
creased sharply from 1820 to 1850. The ‘‘biological’’ measures, however, tell a
different story. Life expectancy at birth remained roughly constant during this pe-
riod, infant mortality might have increased slightly, and army recruits born around
1850 were shorter than those born around 1820. While the proponents of the bio-
logical indicators contend there are important aspects of the standard of living that
are not measured by wage data, Engerman (1997) and others caution that there
are several problems associated with using height data as a measure of living stan-
dards. Recently Crafts (1997) has constructed two new indices which combine eco-
nomic, biological, and other components of living standards—including literacy
rates and civil rights—in an attempt to provide a more comprehensive measure of
movements in the ‘‘quality of life.’’ Both indices show that living standards im-
proved from 1820 to 1850, but Crafts (p. 627) admits that ‘‘any judgement on 1830
compared with 1850 turns out to be very sensitive to the relative weights given to
. . . the demographic indicators.’’
Table 1 presents seven real wage series for the period 1819–51, three for En-
gland and Wales as a whole and four for segments of the cotton industry.7 The wage
series are each indexed so that the most recent data point, around 1850 (although
it differs by series), is set at 100. The series in the first three columns all show that
real wages/earnings of manual workers and their families increased significantly
from around 1820 to 1851, although the series reported by Lindert and Williamson
(1983) and Horrell and Humphries (1992) are more ‘‘optimistic’’ than the series
reported by Feinstein (1995). The series in columns 4 and 5 show that over this
period cotton factory operatives, and the subgroup of adult male cotton spinners,
also experienced real wage increases, of 30 percent and 22 percent, respectively.
On the other hand, real weekly earnings of handloom weavers declined by 34 per-
cent from 1818–20 to 1849–50. In column 7, Brown (1990) estimates that real wages
of cotton workers as a whole—factory workers and handloom weavers combined—
increased by 20 percent from 1818–20 to 1849–50.
If one focuses on the period from 1830 to 1839–41, however, a different picture
emerges. Feinstein (1995) and Horrell and Humphries (1992) both find that real
wages of manual workers increased substantially in the first half of the 1830s, but
then fell back in the second half, so that wages around 1840 were nearly identical
to those in 1830, as shown in the second and third columns of Table 1. The period
1839–41 looks even ‘‘hungrier,’’ relatively speaking, in the cotton industry. Real
wages of cotton factory operatives declined by 14 percent from 1833 to 1839–41
(column 4), while real wages of adult male cotton spinners declined by 12 percent
7
The cost of living deflators differ across the series. In columns 1, 3, 4, and 5, nominal wages are deflated
using Lindert and Williamson’s (1985, pp. 148–9) revised cost of living series. In column 3, nominal
wages are deflated using Feinstein’s (1995, p. 31) cost of living series. In columns 6 and 7, nominal wages
are deflated using a cost of living series for northwestern England constructed by Brown (1990, p. 608).

George R. Boyer 165
Table 1
Real Wages of Manual Workers and Lancashire Cotton Workers, 1818–1851
All Manual Workers Factory Cotton Handloom All Cotton

Operatives Spinners Weavers Workers
Lindert and Horrell and
Year Williamson Feinstein Humphries Wood Wood Brown Brown
1816–20 58.3
1818–20 76.8 151.7 83.1
1819 62.0
1820 74.6 81.8
1830 77.1 86.8
1833 86.9
1832–33 106.9 75.3
1831–35 84.0
1835 78.0 88.9
1836 86.5 92.1 113.8 78.7
1836–40 95.0
1840 77.4
1839–41 74.6 70.7 64.0
1841 76.3
1841–45 84.8
1845 90.4 95.3
1845–46 94.3
1846–50 100.0
1849–50 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1851 100.0 100.0
Sources: For column 1, nominal wage data are from Lindert and Williamson (1983, p. 7). Cost of living
estimates are from Lindert and Williamson (1985, pp. 148–9). For column 2, real wage data are from
Feinstein (1995, p. 31). For column 3, real wage data are from Horrell and Humphries (1992, p. 870).
For columns 4 and 5, nominal wage data are from Wood (1910, pp. 119–20, 28). Cost of living data are
from Lindert and Williamson (1985, pp. 148–9). For columns 6 and 7, real wage data are from Brown
(1990, p. 610).
from 1830 to 1841, and by 17 percent from 1836 to 1841 (column 5). Real wages
for cotton workers as a whole declined by 15 percent from 1832–33 to 1839–41
(column 7). The decline, however, was short-lived. Real wages increased sharply in
the 1840s, so that in 1850–51 wages for all workers except handloom weavers were
higher than they had been in 1830 or 1835–36.
The standard of living of manual workers from 1837 to 1848 looks even worse
when unemployment is taken into account. After the boom of 1835–36, the British
economy slumped badly in 1837, largely as a result of a decline in exports to the
United States caused by the sharp downturn in the American economy. There was
a weak recovery in 1838–39, followed by the severe depression of 1841–42 (Mat-
thews, 1954, pp. 134–43, 206–20). The severity of the downturn was caused by
several factors, including: the deficient grain harvests of 1838–41 and the resulting
high grain prices, increased grain imports, and balance of payments deficits; the

severity of the depression in the United States; the sharp fall in profits, a ‘‘conse-
quence of earlier decisions . . . to expand capacity;’’ and the decline in railway
building after 1840 (Matthews, 1954, pp. 215–17). The recovery that began in 1843
culminated in the prosperous years 1845–46, but another serious downturn fol-
lowed in 1847–48. The 1847–48 downturn was caused by a sharp increase in grain
prices and imports in 1847, which resulted in an outflow of bullion and a sharp
increase in interest rates, and by monetary problems caused by the actions of the
Bank of England (Boot, 1984).
Unemployment data for this period exist only for a few cities at scattered points
in time, and much of the available data are unreliable. As a result, economic his-
torians disagree about the extent of unemployment during the hungry ’40s. Hobs-
bawm (1964, p. 74) claims that the depression of 1841–42 was ‘‘almost certainly
the worst of the century.’’ Lindert and Williamson (1983, p. 16) disagree, and
contend that ‘‘non-agricultural unemployment was not exceptionally high in . . .
the 1840s.’’ They estimate that in 1842–43, the worst years of depression, the na-
tional unemployment rate was equal to 9.4 percent (1983, p. 15). Assuming this
estimate is correct, it is still the case that unemployment was higher in the early
1840s than at any point in the 1820s or 1830s. If the real wages/earnings of employed
manual workers were about the same in 1830 and 1840, as the estimates of Feinstein
and Horrell and Humphries suggest, then their annual income must have declined,
on average, during this period.
The depressions of 1841–42 and 1847–48 were particularly severe in the cotton
industry. Profit rates were low from 1837 to 1840, largely because of overinvestment
in plant and equipment. When demand declined in 1841–42, firms had few reserves
and many went bankrupt and completely stopped production (Matthews, 1954,
pp. 137–43). In 1847 the cotton industry experienced a shortage and high price of
raw cotton as a result of the poor harvests in the United States in 1845 and 1846.
At the same time, domestic demand for cotton goods declined, possibly as a result
of declining real wages caused by rising food prices (Boot, 1984, pp. 34–35).
Reasonably reliable unemployment data exist for the cotton industry in Man-
chester and surrounding towns during both depressions. These data, collected by
factory inspectors and The Economist, indicate that unemployment among mill work-
ers was as high as 15–20 percent at the peak of the downturns, and that a significant
share of the employed operatives were working short time.8 Both factory operatives
and handloom weavers experienced a decline in wages and a significant increase
in unemployment during the hungry ’40s.
The ‘‘biological’’ indicators of the standard of living also suggest that economic
conditions deteriorated during the late 1830s and early 1840s. Life expectancy at
birth for England as a whole increased from 37.9 years in 1814–18 to 40.8 in
1829–33, then declined to 40.3 in 1839–43 and 39.5 in 1849–53, before increasing
8
The important role played by short time in the Lancashire cotton industry in the 1840s is discussed in
Huberman (1996, Chapter 7). See also Boyer (1990, pp. 240–1).

to 41.2 in 1859–63 (Wrigley and Schofield, 1981, p. 230). The roughly constant life
expectancy for England from 1830 to 1860 could be consistent with a decline in
average life expectancy for the working class if, as Hollingsworth’s (1977) study of
the nobility suggests, life chances for the upper classes improved significantly (Lin-
dert, 1994, p. 363). On the other hand, Woods (1985, pp. 649–51) argues that the
high level of migration from relatively healthy rural areas to unhealthy cities masked
an improvement in life chances in both rural and urban areas; he estimates that in
cities with populations over 100,000, life expectancy at birth increased by three
years from 1831 to 1851.
The results obtained from studies analyzing height data are less ambiguous
about economic conditions in the 1840s. Floud et al. (1990) found that, when
smoothing techniques were applied to height data for military recruits, the average
heights of ‘‘successive birth cohorts of British males’’ increased from the mid-18th
century until 1840, declined during the 1840s, and then rose again after 1850
(Floud and Harris, 1997, p. 101). Johnson and Nicholas (1995) found that males
born between 1840 and 1857, and females born between 1845 and 1857, were
significantly shorter than those born between 1812 and 1825, even when occupation
and location are controlled for. They conclude that ‘‘the decline in nutritional
status in . . . [the 1840s and 1850s] was quite general’’ (p. 480).
In sum, while living standards improved over the long run, they declined some-
what during the late 1830s and the 1840s. Lindert and Williamson’s (1983, p. 13)
conclusion that workers in the 1840s had higher living standards than their grand-
fathers is certainly correct, but a large share of these same workers had somewhat
lower living standards than they had had a decade earlier.
To return to an earlier question: was the trend in living standards during the
1830s and 1840s for cotton workers in south Lancashire, the workers focused on by
Marx and Engels, representative of the trend in living standards for British workers
as a whole? The answer appears to be a qualified ‘‘no.’’ The data reported in Table
1 indicate that manual workers as a whole suffered a decline in real wages from the
mid-1830s to the early 1840s, although their wages in 1840 were about equal to what
they had been in 1830. Cotton factory operatives’ real wages followed a similar pat-
tern, with one significant difference: in the early 1840s cotton workers’ real wages
were below what they had been a decade earlier.9 Moreover, the depressions of 1841–
42 and 1847–48 were especially severe in the cotton districts, and unemployment
there was quite high, so that the real wage data understates the relative decline in
cotton workers’ annual earnings during this period. Finally, south Lancashire was
the home of the great losers from technological change: the handloom weavers. In
1841, there were still about 100,000 handloom weavers in Lancashire, representing
nearly a third of the labor force in cotton textiles (Brown, 1990, p. 610). The hand-
loom weavers almost certainly were the most poverty stricken group of non-
9
From 1835 to 1851 wages of cotton spinners declined relative to wages of both skilled manual workers
and blue collar workers as a whole (Williamson, 1985, pp. 12, 14). Most, if not all, of this decline must
have occurred between 1835 and 1842.

agricultural workers in England in the 1830s and 1840s, and they were poorer than
most agricultural laborers. The combination of falling real wages, high cyclical un-
employment, and technological underemployment readily explains the heightened
discontent among south Lancashire cotton workers in the 1840s.
Marx and Engels focused their attention on Manchester and the cotton in-
dustry because they saw them as representative of the future of England and of the
industrialized world, and in this view they were not alone. Many contemporaries
viewed Manchester as ‘‘the living embodiment of what was happening in and to
the modern world’’ and as the paradigm of what the Industrial Revolution ‘‘was
portending both for good and bad’’ (Marcus, 1974, p. 3). In Disraeli’s (1844
[1911]) novel Coningsby, when the main character states his desire to visit Athens,
his companion replies (p. 95): ‘‘The age of ruins is past. Have you seen Manches-
ter?’’ Manchester was the recognized heart of the Industrial Revolution, and it is
not surprising that Marx and Engels, and others, chose to concentrate on the living
conditions and ‘‘rioting propensities’’ of workers there.
Why were Marx and Engels’s Predictions Wrong?
The Communist Manifesto was published on the eve of the European revolutions
of 1848, which began in Paris on February 22 and soon spread to Austria, Germany
and Italy. The revolutions on the continent were caused by a cyclical downturn
coinciding with an agricultural crisis and rising political discontent. Revolution did
not spread to Britain, which must have surprised not only Marx and Engels but
many other contemporary observers as well.
Indeed, after 1848 the chances of a proletarian revolution occurring in Britain
greatly diminished, largely as a result of the ‘‘Victorian boom’’ of the 1850s and
1860s. From 1856 to 1873, Britain’s gross domestic product per man-hour grew at
an annual rate of 1.3 percent, a rate which was not exceeded until the postwar
boom of 1951–73 (Matthews et al., 1982, p. 22). Marx and Engels’s assertion in the
Manifesto that wages declined as capitalism progressed was proved wrong; living
standards increased sharply as a result of the boom. Feinstein (1995, p. 31) estimates
that real wages of manual workers increased by 26 percent from 1851 to 1873, and
by 38 percent from 1851 to 1881. Nor did the recurring cyclical downturns continue
to become more severe, as Marx and Engels had predicted. Unemployment during
the downturns of 1858 and 1868 was lower than during either downturn of the
1840s. The only years from 1850 to 1914 that might have rivaled 1841–42 in terms
of unemployment were 1879 and 1885–86.10
There was no revival of Chartism after 1848. During the Victorian boom skilled
10
Estimates of annual unemployment rates from 1855 to 1914 are available in Feinstein (1972, Table
57). The estimates were calculated from trade union records and might not be representative of
the rate of unemployment for the labor force as a whole, especially before 1892. See Feinstein
(pp. 225–6).

George R. Boyer 169
workers turned their attention instead to the formation of large national craft
unions. The first ‘‘New Model’’ union was the Amalgamated Society of Engineers,
founded in 1851. Workers in several other fields soon organized along similar lines.
The New Model unions were less politically ambitious than most earlier unions,
and more cautious in the use of strikes, which their leaders viewed as ‘‘double-
edged weapon[s]’’ (Pelling, 1987, p. 53). The Webbs (1920, p. 179) concluded that
the New Model unions substituted, ‘‘wherever possible, . . . Industrial Diplomacy
for the ruder methods of the Class War.’’ Besides striving to increase wages and
improve working conditions, many unions also provided their members with various
insurance benefits, which reduced or even eliminated the need for members to
ever apply for poor relief (Boyer, 1988).
The increasing prosperity of the working class and the decline in worker mil-
itancy both went against the predictions in the Communist Manifesto. Marx and En-
gels reached overly pessimistic conclusions about the economic plight of the work-
ing class and overestimated the potential for a proletarian revolution largely be-
cause they were writing during the hungry ‘40s and because they focused their
attention on the cotton industry in south Lancashire. They concentrated on the
cotton industry because they viewed it as the apogee of industrial capitalism, the
place where ‘‘the effects of modern manufacture upon the working class’’ were
‘‘most freely and perfectly’’ developed (Engels, 1845 [1987], pp. 82–3).
They interpreted the downturn of 1837–42 and the political discontent that it
spawned in industrial cities as evidence that cyclical downturns became ‘‘more vi-
olent, more terrible’’ over time, and therefore that British capitalism could not
long survive. The fact that the cotton industry was particularly hard hit by the down-
turns of 1841–42 and 1847–48, and that Chartism and other forms of political
agitation were centered in the northern industrial cities, provided further evidence
for Marx and Engels that a revolt of the proletariat was soon to occur.
However, their pessimistic predictions were not simply a result of their obser-
vations of the British economy in the 1840s but were also due to their analysis of
the British political system. Marx and Engels (1848 [1992], pp. 5, 27) argued that
the adoption of the Reform Act of 1832, which enfranchised middle class property
holders and redistributed the seats in Parliament, caused the aristocracy to succumb
to the ‘‘hateful upstart’’ bourgeoisie, who thereby achieved ‘‘exclusive political
sway.’’ As evidence of the bourgeoisie’s control of Parliament, Engels (1845 [1987])
cited the adoption of the New Poor Law in 1834 and, more importantly, the repeal
of the Corn Laws in 1846. This depiction of British politics in the second quarter
of the 19th century is largely incorrect. While the Reform Act significantly increased
the representation of the northern industrial cities in the House of Commons,
Parliament continued to be dominated by the aristocracy and gentry for several
decades after 1832. In the 1840s ‘‘between 70 and 80 per cent of the Commons
. . . came from the landed interest’’ (Evans, 1983, p. 216). These landowners sup-
ported the New Poor Law, and were instrumental in its passage (Brundage, 1978,
chapter 3; Boyer, 1990, pp. 194–204).
The repeal of the Corn Laws eliminated the tariff on imported grain, and was

indeed a triumph for the bourgeoisie and its Manchester-based pressure group, the
Anti-Corn Law League. Yet the Corn Laws were repealed by a Parliament in which
landowners still held a majority of seats. Eric Evans (1983, p. 269) concluded that
by 1846 ‘‘a substantial proportion of the landed interest no longer set great store
by protection’’ and, in any case, the demand for bread by ‘‘Britain’s swollen pop-
ulation’’ made protection no longer tenable.
Moreover, Parliament during the same period adopted a variety of acts regu-
lating the employment of children and women, many of which were opposed by
manufacturers, who waged an ‘‘aggressive rearguard action against factory legisla-
tion’’ in the 1830s and 1840s (Howe, 1984, pp. 178–89). The Factory Act of 1833
eliminated the employment of children under age 9 in cotton and woolen mills,
and set maximum hours of work for children and youths aged 9–17. The Ten Hours
Act of 1847 restricted the employment of women and young persons in factories
initially to eleven hours per day and after a year to ten hours. The 1842 Mines Act
and the Factory Acts of 1844, 1850, 1853, 1867, 1874, and 1878 further restricted
the employment of children and young persons and regulated the employment of
adult women. The 1874 Act effectively established a ten-hour work day for adult
males. The problems of urban squalor were addressed by the Public Health Act of
1848 and similar acts in 1859, 1866, and 1872, and by the Artisans’ and Labourers’
Dwellings Acts of 1868 and 1875. Unions were given legal recognition by the Trade
Union Act of 1871, and an act of 1875 legalized peaceful picketing. Perhaps most
significant, the 1867 Reform Act more than doubled the urban electorate by ex-
tending the franchise to the better-paid members of the working class.
As the increasingly interventionist stance of the government from the 1840s on-
wards makes clear, Marx and Engels’s analysis of British politics and society was greatly
oversimplified. There was not, even during the hungry ’40s, a ‘‘veiled civil war’’ raging
between the capitalists and the workers. Nor was there either a unified middle class or
a unified working class, as Marx and Engels asserted. There were significant differences
in income and outlook between the capitalist middle class, the lower middle class of
shopkeepers, clerks, and others, and the professional middle class of doctors, clergy-
men, lawyers, and public officials. The debate within urban town councils over the
adoption of sanitary improvements offers an example of the political differences be-
tween the capitalist and the professional middle class, on one hand, and the lower
middle class, on the other (Hennock, 1963; Wohl, 1983, ch. 7).
Similarly, the working class must be divided into at least two groups—the ‘‘la-
bor aristocracy’’ of highly skilled artisans and the remainder of the manual workers.
John Stuart Mill wrote (1848 [1909], p. 393) that ‘‘the line of demarcation’’ be-
tween different classes of workers was so complete ‘‘as to be almost equivalent to
an hereditary distinction of caste.’’ Some historians contend that the labor aristoc-
racy ‘‘should be grouped with the middle class[,] many of whose prejudices about
keeping down the rates and maintaining social order they probably shared, and a
large gap should be marked between them and the mass’’ of manual workers (Clark,
1966, p. 132). Chartism offers an example of the differences in outlook within the
working class. Its support came largely from ‘‘the casualties of the industrial changes

of the period.’’ The labor aristocracy was not much involved with Chartism, except
during times of ‘‘intense trade depression,’’ and the trade unions never became
‘‘part and parcel of the Movement’’ (Pelling, 1987, pp. 34–35; Musson, 1972,
pp. 45–48; Webb and Webb, 1920, pp. 174–77).
How did Marx and Engels respond to the economic and political developments
in England after 1848? According to Hobsbawm (1975, p. 108), they ‘‘maintained some
hope of a revived revolution after 1849, . . . then put their faith in the next major
economic crisis (that of 1857), [and] resigned themselves to the long haul thereafter.’’
Possibly the best statement of their later views was written by Engels in 1885, two years
after Marx’s death. Engels admitted that 1848 was the beginning of ‘‘a new industrial
epoch.’’ The manufacturing capitalists now controlled national politics, but the ex-
perience of Chartism had taught them that they could ‘‘never obtain full social and
political power over the nation except by the help of the working class.’’ As a result,
the manufacturers gradually came to support the Factory Acts, trade unions, and even
the franchise for the working class (1885 [1971], pp. 389–90). The condition of the
factory operatives and the members of the ‘‘great trade unions’’ permanently improved
after 1850. However, for the majority of workers, ‘‘the state of misery and insecurity in
which they live now is as low as ever, if not lower’’ (pp. 391–92). Moreover, the relatively
high living standards of the factory workers were a result of ‘‘England’s industrial
monopoly,’’ which would soon be ‘‘irretrievably broken up’’ by the economic rise of
Germany, France and America. The working class then will lose its ‘‘privileged position
. . . [relative to] its fellow-workers abroad. And that is the reason why there will be
Socialism again in England’’ (pp. 393–94).
Despite this prediction, in their letters Marx and Engels were very critical of
the British working class. Marx wrote in 1878 that the working class ‘‘had at last got
to the point when it was nothing more than the tail of the Great Liberal Party, i.e.,
of the oppressors, the capitalists.’’ In 1894, a year before his death, Engels wrote:
‘‘One is indeed driven to despair by these English workers . . . with their essentially
bourgeois ideas and viewpoints, with their ‘practical’ narrow-mindedness’’ (Marx
and Engels, 1953, pp. 509, 537). As their hopes for a proletarian revolution in
Britain, or elsewhere in western Europe, declined, Marx and Engels in the late 1870s
began to turn their attention to Russia (McLellan, 1973, pp. 438–42). It was there,
22 years after the death of Engels, that a communist revolution finally occurred.
! I thank Brad De Long, Stanley Engerman, Alan Krueger, Peter Lindert, Andrew Rutten, Nick
Salvatore, Timothy Taylor, and Jeffrey Williamson for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

References
Adshead, Joseph, Distress in Manchester: Evi- Crouzet, F., The First Industrialists: The Problem
dence of the state of the Labouring Classes in 1840– of Origins. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
42. London: Henry Hooper, 1842. Press, 1985.
Berg, Maxine, ‘‘Factories, Workshops, and In- Disraeli, Benjamin, Coningsby. London: Dent,
dustrial Organisation.’’ In Floud, Roderick, and 1911. Originally published 1844.
D. N. McCloskey, eds., The Economic History of Brit- Edsall, Nicholas, The Anti-Poor Law Movement
ain since 1700, 2nd edition, Vol. 1. Cambridge, 1834–44. Manchester: Manchester University
UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994, 123–50. Press, 1971.
Boot, H. M., ‘‘Unemployment and Poor Law Engels, Friedrich, The Condition of the Working
Relief in Manchester, 1845–50,’’ Social History, Class in England. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin
May 1990, 15:2, 217–28. Books, 1987. Originally published 1845.
Boot, H. M., The Commercial Crisis of 1847. Hull: Engels, Frederick, ‘‘England in 1845 and in
Hull University Press, 1984. 1885.’’ In Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels, Ar-
Boyer, George R., An Economic History of the ticles on Britain. Moscow: Progress Publishers,
English Poor Law, 1750–1850. Cambridge, UK: 1971, 388–94. Originally published 1885.
Cambridge University Press, 1990. Engerman, Stanley, ‘‘The Standard of Living
Boyer, George R., ‘‘What Did Unions Do in Debate in International Perspective: Measures
Nineteenth Century Britain?’’ Journal of Economic and Indicators.’’ In Steckel, Richard, and Rod-
History, June 1988, 48:2, 319–32. erick Floud, eds., Health and Welfare during Indus-
Briggs, Asa, Victorian Cities. London: Odhams trialization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
Press, 1963. 1997, 17–45.
Brown, John, ‘‘The Condition of England and Engerman, Stanley, ‘‘Reflections on ‘The Stan-
the Standard of Living: Cotton Textiles in the dard of Living Debate’: New Arguments and New
Northwest, 1806–1850,’’ Journal of Economic His- Evidence.’’ In James, John, and Mark Thomas,
tory, September 1990, 50:3, 591–614. eds., Capitalism in Context. Chicago: University of
Brundage, Anthony, The Making of the New Poor Chicago Press, 1994, 50–79.
Law, 1832–9. London: Hutchinson, 1978. Feinstein, Charles, ‘‘Changes in Nominal
Bythell, Duncan, The Handloom Weavers. Wages, the Cost of Living and Real Wages in the
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom over Two Centuries, 1780–
1990.’’ In Scholliers, P. and V. Zamagni, eds., La-
1969.
bour’s Reward. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar,
Carlyle, Thomas, Chartism. London: James Fra-
1995, 3–36.
ser, 1840.
Feinstein, Charles, National Income, Expendi-
Carlyle, Thomas, Past and Present. New York:
ture, and Output of the United Kingdom, 1855–1965.
New York University Press, 1977. Originally pub-
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
lished 1843.
1972.
Chadwick, Edwin, Report on the Sanitary Condi-
Floud, Roderick, et al., Health, Height and His-
tion of the Labouring Population of Gt. Britain. Ed-
tory: Nutritional Status in the United Kingdom, 1750–
inburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1965. Orig-
1980. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
inally published 1842.
Press, 1990.
Charlesworth, Andrew, et al., An Atlas of Indus- Floud, Roderick, and Bernard Harris, ‘‘Health,
trial Protest in Britain 1750–1990. London: Mac- Height, and Welfare: Britain, 1700–1980.’’ In
millan, 1996. Steckel, Richard, and Roderick Floud, eds., Health
Clark, G. Kitson, The Making of Victorian En- and Welfare during Industrialization. Chicago: Univer-
gland. New York: Atheneum, 1966. sity of Chicago Press, 1997, 91–126.
Clark, G. Kitson, ‘‘Hunger and Politics in Fraser’s Magazine, ‘‘Review of Mary Barton,’’
1842,’’ Journal of Modern History, December 1953, April 1849, 39, 429–32.
25:4, 355–74. Hammond, J. L., and Barbara Hammond, The
Crafts, N. F. R., ‘‘Some Dimensions of the Skilled Labourer. London: Longmans, 1919.
‘Quality of Life’ During the British Industrial Hartwell, R. M., ‘‘La révolution manquée.’’ In
Revolution,’’ Economic History Review, November Coleman, D. C., and Peter Mathias, eds., Enter-
1997, 50:4, 617–39. prise and History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Crafts, N. F. R., British Economic Growth During University Press, 1984, 52–68.
the Industrial Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Henderson, W. O., The Life of Friedrich Engels,
Press, 1985. volume 1. London: Frank Cass, 1976.

George R. Boyer 173
Henderson, W. O., and W. H. Chaloner, ‘‘Ed- teenth-Century Lancashire,’’ Research in Economic

itors’ Introduction.’’ In Engels, Friedrich, The History, 1989, 12, 45–91.
Condition of the Working Class in England. Oxford: McCloskey, D. N., ‘‘The Industrial Revolution
Basil Blackwell, 1958. 1780–1860: a Survey.’’ In Floud, Roderick, and
Hennock, E. P., ‘‘Finance and Politics in Ur- D. N. McCloskey, eds., The Economic History of Brit-
ban Local Government in England, 1835–1900,’’ ain since 1700, Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
The Historical Journal, 1963, 6:2, 212–25. bridge University Press, 1981, 103–27.
Himmelfarb, Gertrude, The Idea of Poverty: En- McLellan, David, ‘‘Introduction.’’ In Engels,
gland in the Early Industrial Age. New York: Knopf, Friedrich, The Condition of the Working Class in En-
1984. gland. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Hobsbawm, Eric, The Age of Capital. New York: McLellan, David, Karl Marx: His Life and
Scribner’s, 1975. Thought. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.
Hobsbawm, Eric, Labouring Men. London: Wei- Marcus, Stephen, Engels, Manchester and the
denfeld and Nicolson, 1964. Working Class. New York: Random House, 1974.
Hollingsworth, T. H., ‘‘Mortality in the British Mather, F. C., ‘‘The General Strike of 1842.’’
Peerage Families Since 1600,’’ Population, Sep- In Quinault, R., and J. Stevenson, eds., Popular
tember 1977, 32, 323–52. Protest and Public Order. London: Allen and Un-
Horrell, Sara, and Jane Humphries, ‘‘Old win, 1974, 115–40.
Questions, New Data, and Alternative Perspec- Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels, The Commu-
tives: Families’ Living Standards in the Industrial nist Manifesto. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
Revolution,’’ Journal of Economic History, Decem- 1992. Originally published 1848.
ber 1992, 52:4, 849–80. Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels, On Britain.
Howe, Anthony, The Cotton Masters 1830–1860. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. 1953.
Huberman, Michael, Escape from the Market: Ne- Matthews, R. C. O., A Study in Trade-Cycle His-
gotiating Work in Manchester. Cambridge, UK: tory: Economic Fluctuations in Great Britain, 1833–
Cambridge University Press, 1996. 1842. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Johnson, Paul, and Stephen Nicholas, ‘‘Male Press, 1954.
and Female Living Standards in England and Matthews, R. C. O., et al., British Economic
Wales, 1812–1857: Evidence From Criminal Growth, 1856–1973. Stanford: Stanford Univer-
Height Records,’’ Economic History Review, August sity Press, 1982.
1995, 48:3, 470–81. Mill, John Stuart, Principles of Political Economy.
Kay, James, The Moral and Physical Condition of London: Longmans, 1909. Originally published
the Working Classes employed in the Cotton Manufac- 1848.
ture in Manchester, 2nd edition. London: James Mill, John Stuart, ‘‘The Claims of Labour.’’ In
Ridgway, 1832. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. IV: Essays on
Knott, John, Popular Opposition to the 1834 Poor Economics and Society. Toronto: University of To-
Law. New York: St. Martins, 1986. ronto Press, 1967, 365–89. Originally published
Lindert, Peter, ‘‘Unequal living standards.’’ In 1845.
Floud, Roderick, and D. N. McCloskey, eds., The Mokyr, Joel, ‘‘Editor’s Introduction: The New
Economic History of Britain since 1700, 2nd edition, Economic History and the Industrial Revolu-
Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University tion.’’ In Mokyr, Joel, ed., The British Industrial
Press, 1994, 357–86. Revolution: An Economic Perspective. Boulder: West-
Lindert, Peter, and Jeffrey Williamson, ‘‘En- view Press, 1993, 1–131.
glish Workers’ Real Wages: Reply to Crafts,’’ Musson, A. E., British Trade Unions, 1800–1875.
Journal of Economic History, March 1985, 45:1, London: Macmillan, 1972.
145–53. Pelling, Henry, A History of British Trade Union-
Lindert, Peter, and Jeffrey Williamson, ‘‘En- ism, 4th edition. London: Macmillan, 1987.
glish Workers’ Living Standards During the In- Read, Donald, ‘‘Chartism in Manchester.’’ In
dustrial Revolution: A New Look,’’ Economic His- Briggs, Asa, ed., Chartist Studies. London: Mac-
tory Review, February 1983, 36:1, 1–25. millan, 1959, 29–54.
Lloyd–Jones, R., and A. A. Le Roux, ‘‘The Size Rose, Michael E., ‘‘The Allowance System un-
of Firms in the Cotton Industry, Manchester, der the New Poor Law,’’ Economic History Review,
1815–41,’’ Economic History Review, February December 1966, 19:3, 607–20.
1980, 33:1, 72–83. Schumpeter, Joseph, ‘‘The Communist Mani-
Lyons, John, ‘‘Family Response to Economic festo in Sociology and Economics,’’ Journal of Po-
Decline: Handloom Weavers in Early Nine- litical Economy, June 1949, 57:3, 199–212.

Struik, Dirk, Birth of the Communist Manifesto. Williamson, Jeffrey G., Did British Capitalism
New York: International Publishers, 1971. Breed Inequality? Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1985.
Taylor, A. J. P., ‘‘Introduction.’’ In Marx, Karl Wohl, A. S., Endangered Lives: Public Health in
and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto. Victorian Britain. Cambridge: Harvard University
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1967. Press, 1983.
Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Wood, George H., The History of Wages in the
Working Class. New York: Pantheon, 1964. Cotton Trade During the Past Hundred Years. Lon-
Tocqueville, Alexis de, Journeys to England and don: Sherrat and Hughes, 1910.
Ireland. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958. Wrigley, E. A. and R. S. Schofield, The Popula-
Webb, Sidney, and Beatrice Webb, The History tion History of England, 1541–1871. Cambridge:
of Trade Unionism. London: Longmans, 1920. Harvard University Press, 1981.

The Historical Background of The Communist Manifesto: George R. Boyer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Historical Background of The Communist Manifesto: George R. Boyer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Historical Background of The Communist Manifesto: George R. Boyer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 12, Number 4—Fall 1998—Pages 151–174

The Historical Background of the

/ 300e se07 Mp 151 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

The Economic Arguments in the Communist Manifesto and their

/ 300e se07 Mp 152 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 153 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 154 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 155 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 156 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

[In Manchester] it was forcibly brought to my notice that economic factors,

/ 300e se07 Mp 157 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

Contemporary Views of Conditions in Manchester in the 1830s and

/ 300e se07 Mp 158 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 159 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 160 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 161 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 162 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

The Standard of Living of the Working Class, 1820–1850

/ 300e se07 Mp 163 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 164 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

All Manual Workers Factory Cotton Handloom All Cotton

/ 300e se07 Mp 165 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 166 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 167 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

Why were Marx and Engels’s Predictions Wrong?

/ 300e se07 Mp 168 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 169 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 170 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 171 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 172 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

Henderson, W. O., and W. H. Chaloner, ‘‘Ed- teenth-Century Lancashire,’’ Research in Economic

/ 300e se07 Mp 173 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

/ 300e se07 Mp 174 Tuesday Oct 03 02:16 PM LP–JEP se07

You might also like