Location of Repository

A Comparative Study of Class Relationships and Institutional Orders in Birmingham and Sheffield between 1830 and 1895 with Particular Reference to the Spheres of Education, Industry and Politics

By Dennis Smith

Abstract

Birmingham and Sheffield had strategic significance — demographically, politically and technologically — in English society during this period. Although their local industries had many similarities, particularly before 1850, structures of social differentiation and integration differed greatly between the two cities. These structures are examined in terms of two considerations: the processes of conflict and accommodation between a weakening commercialised agrarian order focused upon the county and the parish and a strengthening urban industrial order centred upon the large manufacturing city; and the shift of social and political initiative away from lower levels of integration (such as the neighbourhood and the parish) towards higher levels of integration, especially national networks of status and influence focused upon the metropolis. Birmingham had a very complex division of labour in which commercial and professional occupations were better represented than in Sheffield, the latter city supporting a narrower range of occupations and having a highly specialised position within the national division of labour. The balance of power between town and countryside was skewed more heavily towards the latter in the case of Sheffield for much of the period. Birmingham occupied a much more central position in the national network of communications. Strong neighbourhood-based movements (political, industrial, religious) in Sheffield were swamped by the development of heavy steel industry oriented to regional and national networks. Municipal solidarity remained very weak and class divisions very pronounced. Sheffield's largest manufacturers resisted arbitration, neglected civic involvements and sought to use education as a cheap but efficient way of subordinating their workforce. In education, industry and local government at Birmingham norms and practices oriented to the old agrarian and parochial order and the new constraints of industrial capitalism were interwoven, tending to diffuse conflict. Birmingham's bourgeoisie achieved greater solidarity and dominance within the city and great influence regionally and nationally

Publisher: University of Leicester
Year: 1980
OAI identifier: oai:lra.le.ac.uk:2381/8810

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (1972). (Overend family); doi
  2. (1976). 11.1849.1.11.1851; C0 Reid
  3. (1926). 1862,361; ;
  4. (1926). 1924,234-5. On Holland see
  5. 1959,129-30; GCM Smith 1912,13-41; C0 Reid 1976,322-3`.
  6. (1961). 1973,822; Mole doi
  7. (1928). 21, --39, "-75; C,
  8. 269-When Thompson refused the presidency of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association in 1845 the position°was awarded to Favell. Thompson gave as his reason for refusing
  9. (1959). 37; FML Thompson 1963,292-302;
  10. (1926). Bayley see Odom
  11. C0 Reid 1976,208-9. This censorship was supported by relatively 'liberal' professional men such as Charles Favell and GC Holland, both medical practitioners.
  12. (1961). ch 3; Mole 1976,6-9; doi
  13. Ex-students teaching at the Institute included CJ Woodward - (chemistry) and Albert Cresswell (practical mechanics); BMIAR 1863;
  14. Hos 1844; Gutteridge 1844,13.
  15. In 1862 there were 512 students on the books at the Sheffield Institution compared to 717 at the Birmingham and Midland Institute. Pawson and Brailsford"-1862,
  16. including a talk on'the advantages and disadvantages of trade unions. '. Through this institution Ironside was putting y18
  17. (1932). Lit and Phil's inaugural meeting, Montgomery recalled Byron's sneer at 'classic Sheffield'.
  18. Ms relating to Sheffield Mechanics' Institute', no 43, letter,,,
  19. Odom 1926,77. pursuing understanding. Its president in 1849 was a shoemaker, Thomas Rowbotham. When Bayley left Sheffield in 1848,
  20. (1926). On People's College see Stainton
  21. On Sheffield medical societies see Snell 1890. The 'Medical Society' founded in 1841, for instance, 'simply ebbed away'. Other attempts were subject to a 'process of atrophy and decadence'. op cit 20,40,48. King Edward VI
  22. op cit,
  23. See Leader and Snell 1897,83-8, 116; 146; Odom 1926,123-5 (Arthur and Henry Jackson); Odom11926, ` 128-9,139-40; Porter 1928,15; Leader and Snell .
  24. (1924). Snell 1897,106 (Branson); op cit 100-1; Odom 1926,133-4
  25. (1975). Stephenson 1857; Norris 1857; doi
  26. Sturge bought the library of the defunct Mechanics' Institute and promptly re-sold it to the Polytechnic Institution. Langford 1873,
  27. (1843). t": Sheffield Mercury (henceforth SM) 26.10.1839;
  28. (1940). Vol 1,113-4,116-8,120-8; Foster
  29. Vol 1,131-2; Miller 1857; Miller 1858, 197; BMIAR 1856; BMIAR 1859. -260-The School and the Institute were complemented by a third institution: Queen's College, known before 1843 as the Birmingham Medical School. In 1830, its founder
  30. w: See Chapter Four. doi
  31. (1926). Wright); Inkster 197r, 138-9; Leader and Snell 1897,102-3

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.