What enabled the tons of coal mined in England to change between 1750 and 1830? (List statistics for both 1750 and 1830)
Catalog and evaluate the impacts of increased coal production on British society.
Excerpt one primary source that describes typical dangers found in coal mines.
How should Parliament improve coal mine conditions?
Coal was an important source of fuel for iron making, steel mills, locomotives, and steam engines; it powered many of the new inventions of the Industrial Revolution
ReplyDeleteBeing in close proximity to iron ore fields, coal was closely associated with the iron/steel industries
DeleteDavid, What is the difference between iron and steel?
DeleteSteel is a stronger and lighter mixture of irons that doesn't rust.
DeleteHow can steel be stronger than iron if steel IS iron? Has steel been made the same way throughout history?
DeleteWhat are other properties of iron and steel?
DeleteIn 1750, no official records of total coal production exist, but the estimates place the consumption of coal at between 4.774 - 6.18 tons. The estimate for 1830 places consumption around 23.86 tons. This increase of nearly 400% was caused in part by the increasing demand. The developing steam engine for both trains and factories required coal to run, and as such, they became large users of coal. However, the emerging iron business used more coal then steam engines, and were estimated to use about three tons of coal for every one ton of pig-iron.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1780's, a new method of mining was used. This method, called Room and Pillar, allowed the coal to be extracted from more than just the side of cliffs, but instead miners could go deep into the seem and extract much more coal. However, this method was less safe. It required large blocks of coal to be left as pillars to support the roof, and also good ventilation. These two things decreased the total efficiency of the mining operation. Without regulations, such things could be left out, causing many "accidents." The coal was extracted with hand tools, or blasting powder.
DeleteMore information on http://www.minersmuseum.com/hof_techniques_2.htm
DeleteAbout a coal mine around the same time in America, similar techniques.
How did the supply of coal in England separate England from the rest of the countries in Europe?
DeleteHow did this supply of coal as well as its use directly affect production of goods?
DeleteThe supply of coal in England was widespread, meaning many different regions could access their own coal. Also, coal had to be used to heat English homes frequently, increasing the pre-industrial demand. These demands created a need for a more efficient way to extract the coal, and the ingenuity of industrialists created another need for coal. In other words, it was the supply, but also the demand that separated the English from the other parts of Europe. The supply and the innovations allowed the coal to be used differently. If there was very little coal, little experimentation would be done. However, with the great amounts that Britain had, people could try new ways of using coal, like the steam engine. The abundant supply allowed coal to be used on things not directly connected to barebones living, such as factories. So, the abundant coal could be used to not heat homes, but in factories to power machines.
DeleteAs a result of the increased demand for coal, there were more people involved in the mines. Afterward, the number of deaths in the coal mine increased, as well as the number of child and women laborers. The public requested information, and inspectors were sent out to see what the mining conditions were. In the mind, many accidents and deaths occurred, as there were little to no regulations concerning mines. Such mining accidents have been recorded in the 1842 Royal Commission Reports. (URL: http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/site/literature/royalcommissionreports/index.html)
ReplyDeleteVery interesting material, Josh, and well cited. Your earlier post estimates a roughly 400% increase in coal consumption. Were there any improvements in the way coal was extracted during this time or were there simply 4x as many workers hauling coal out of the earth?
DeleteQuestion 3:
ReplyDeleteFrom the Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1842, Vol. XV, p. 84, and ibid., Vol. XVII, p. 108, a first-hand report of a coal miner describes the antic conditions: “I have a belt round my waist, and a chain passing between my legs, and I go on my hands and feet. The road is very steep, and we have to hold by a rope; and when there is no rope, by anything we can catch hold of. There are six women and about six boys and girls in the pit I work in; it is very hard work for a woman. The pit is very wet where I work, and the water comes over our clog-tops always, and I have seen it up to my thighs; it rains in at the roof terribly. My clothes are wet through almost all day long. I never was ill in my life, but when I was lying in.” Another report, written by Friedrich Engels about coal mine conditions, describes some typical mine work, “Women always did the lifting, or heavy part of the work, and neither they nor the children were treated like human beings; nor are they where they are employed, Females submit to work in places where no man nor even lad could be got to labour in: they work in bad roads up to their knees in water, in a posture nearly double: they are below till the last hour of pregnancy: they have swelled ankles and haunches, and are prematurely brought to the grave, or, what is worse, a lingering existence.”
Justify the owners' decision to put employees through such hard and dangerous labor. Does the flourish of a community make it ok to sacrifice the safety of a small group of that community?
ReplyDeleteThere are many ways to look at this question. One could argue that morally, this is unjust and therefore not ok in the slightest. The ends rarely justify the means and the terribly dangerous labor the workers had to endure may had been too much. If the job came with better pay, job security, and additional payment in the event an injury it would be far fairer and still allow England to flourish as it did. Now one could also play devil's advocate, and claim that the owners of coal mines were a necessary wrong. Many times in history the suffering of others led to greater success later on; the birth of the U.S. involved the massacre of Native Americans as well as the long lasting slavery and oppression of Black citizens. Although the workers of coal mines suffered greatly, it helped communities rise. One could say that owners should have spent more money paying employees or giving them benefits. Yes, the owners were far wealthy than their employees, a richer owner means a stronger business with the most efficient and up-to-date machinery. As I stated in the beginning of this answer, there are many ways to answer this question and it all depends on whether one values morals or success more.
DeleteJustify the worker's decisions to keep working under such terrible conditions.
ReplyDeleteThe Industrial Revolution was a time where you really couldn't turn down a job opportunity, and working in a coal mine was, regardless of such conditions, a job. Though many men were not willing to do some of the work, women were, and women did do many of these jobs. Many of the women were single, poor, in dept, and in a large need for a job, which a coal mine provided. Over all, it was the lack of jobs and the need for a job that kept these workers to continue regardless of conditions.
DeleteParliament could have changed some of the coal mine conditions if their legislation for textile mills and other industrial settings applied to coal mines. But for Parliament to change a problem they must first notice it. A way that the conditions could have been changed sooner would have been to send inspectors to the schools and see who was and was not there. This would then lead the inspectors to the jobs of the children, like the coal mines. The inspectors could then make reports about the children, including the overall conditions. Following that, the government could have investigated coal mines and other industrial settings to protect the people. After the results were in, the most effective legislation could be written. Part of that legislation would be to have regulators ensuring that all industrial settings followed the rules concerning labor. This eventually did happen, but it took so much time that many people were killed or maimed. As sad as this part of history is, the best thing for modern consumers to do is to find out were your products are made and if the people making them are being treated fairly. People today cannot help the early industrial workers, but we can help modern labors to gain equality and rights.
ReplyDeleteHow did these lethal working conditions underground influence laws later passed to regulate these working conditions?
ReplyDeleteAs the death tolls rose, more people noticed the horrible conditions. Parliament did social investigations, and eventually found how many lives the coal mines had ruined. The evidence provided a basis for improvement, as it was hard to make things worse. The horrible conditions gave rise to better ones through understanding and communication of problems. This system has consistently worked throughout history, and is how many industrial conditions improved.
DeleteEvaluate the reasons children came to work in these terrible coal mines, rather than other such industrial business, such as the textile industry or work on a farm?
ReplyDeleteMany children were employed in their local industrial setting, and some only had coal mines around. Many poor farmers had been kicked off their land to make room for larger mechanized plots. This left most children in the mines or the factories. Many factories had lines of unemployed people waiting outside, so they could easily get more labor. However, the work in the mines was dangerous and was often more productive with more people. Thus, the mines could have near constant influxes of people to maintain or grow their workforce. Children were just some cheap labor who needed to support their families, and one of the few options they had were the mines.
DeleteSuppose you lost a family member in a cave in, and you are employed at the same mine. Would you try to get compensation for his/her death, or just keep working in your world. In other words, do you risk your job, or the memory of your loved one?
ReplyDeleteThe Industrial Revolution presented itself not of times of morality, but of times of productivity and advancement. A job in these times, was something that you needed to have, and if you had a job, it was something you needed to keep, regardless of affecting conditions, like in this case, the memory of a loved one.
DeleteI would try to get compensation. First of all, it would be dishonorable to my family member if I didn't try to get compensation for their deaths. Also, because we were both working that most-likely means that we were tight in budget and their death would hurt our family greatly. In addition, although I risk losing my job, the coal mining business was in great quantity and finding another job would be easier than it may seem.
DeleteSuppose you are a parent at this time in history and your child is being employed in a mine to help feed the family. How would you feel about the working conditions, would you be willing to go slightly hungrier to help keep your kid safe?
ReplyDeleteWorking kid and parent= money for both parent and kid to eat. Hungry kid and 1 working parent: The kid has a great possibility to die, and therefore, less heads to feed.
DeleteDo you think that coal was the most useful material in the time period?
ReplyDelete