But peace'tis presumption,-too much would demean 'em
To hold converse with upstarts, a vulgus profanem.
Their blood in pure currents thro' ages conveyed
It were impious to taint with the contact of trade.

In a succeeding letter he describes the early vicissitudes and later triumphs of industry in Venice and Holland, and in prophetic strain foresees the shifting of power in England to the industrialized north of England:

At length (thanks to heav'n) she is freed from her thrall,
And her weeds has thrown off to reign empress o'er all.
Yet her mansions in chief she has fixed on our shore,
Where freedom and justice maintain her in power.
See around—but around it were needless to roam;
For the climax reversed, we may look nearer home.
For thy glory, Mancunium, these tributes are paid.”

The government of the industrial city of Manchester itself was a picturesque survival from the days of landlord supremacy. On November 20, 1787, appeared the following advertisement of the proffered sale of the city: "To be sold by private contract all that the ancient Manor of Manchester, in the County of Lancaster, with its rights of markets, royalties, members and appurtenances, the property, and now in possession of Sir John Parker Mosley, Baronet.” Sir John seems to have received no satisfactory offer, however. “This is to give notice," runs a typical advertisement of later date, "that the Court Leet, or View of Frankpledge, of Sir John Parker Mosley, Bart., Lord of the Manor of Manchester, in the County of Lancaster, will be holden at the Exchange, in Manchester aforesaid, on Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 1789, at nine of the clock in the forenoon, at which time and place all burgesses, inhabitants, and other persons who owe suit and service at the said court, are required to attend.” Signed by the Deputy Steward of the Lord of the Manor. 23

Two full sessions of the Court Leet were held each year, one at Easter, the other at Michaelmas. At the latter session, town officers were elected, from boroughreeve (equivalent to mayor) to swineherd and beadle for rogues. It was by means of this election that the interests of a "town of trade” found expression, but not without conflicts with the landed interests. Attempts on the part of the Lord of the Manor to influence elections and to enforce his ancient privileges and prerogatives as to markets, tolls, and control of the highways, were opposed with increasing vigor. The land steward of the Lord of the Manor was in 1786 publicly censured by members of the Court Leet for attempting to control elections. In 1788 subscriptions were raised for the purpose of enabling a committee to combat Sir John's authority and "for asserting the rights of Manchester.” Sir John on his part maintained also a belligerent attitude, declaring in response to proposed compromises that “my manorial rights [are] fully ascertained and secured by the laws of the country.”

But the committee continued its activities, reinforced by the fact that the town officials, almost continuously, were prominent manufacturers who were able and willing to support them. The controversy continued till at length at least partial victory was gained in the form of legislation increasing the powers of the elected officials and authorizing the reconstruction and enlargement of the city. In connection with these controversies and other matters affecting the interests of the industrial classes, a significant change is observable in the attitude of the professional classes.

Naturally sensitive to economic changes because of economic dependence upon the dominant group, it is not surprising that in spite of supposedly superior status conferred by alliance with the landed aristocracy, they rapidly shifted their connections and their support to the industrialists.24

In Manchester and in other localities, the new manufacturers were beginning seriously and not without measureable success to challenge the long-unquestioned local supremacy of the landed aristocracy, and to assume a position as a distinct and powerful group. In lesser degree the same is true of their national status and influence. It was no longer possible for "the indolent and ignorant Great”—as the aristocracy were described in an earlier complaint—to class them with “men possessed of no property and capable of nothing but labor," and "confound them indiscriminately with the refuse of mankind.” 26

Many of the manufacturers had in fact come from what the "Great” were often disposed to look upon as “the refuse of mankind,” and their very emergence from the ranks of common labor tended to raise higher the barriers already existing between employers and employees in manufacturing enterprises. The further separation of these two groups is another manifestation of the early differentiation of the new manufacturers from other groups. The idyllic pictures of the state of labor

preceding the rise of modern industrialism painted by its opponents must be largely discounted. In mining, in domestic manufacturing, in lace making, in hosiery making, and most notoriously of all, perhaps, in agriculture, the distressing conditions caused multitudes to seek refuge in factories and allied industrial enterprises. In many cases this proved to be a jump from the frying pan into the fire, due in part to war, political reaction, and other influences for which the new system of industry was not responsible. In any case, the concentration and regimentation of labor had early the consequence of giving to the industrial workers a greater unity and distinctness as a class, and a greater opportunity for developing group consciousness and concerted action.26

3. The relation of the great industrialists to politics

The opportunity which the new system gave was for a long time nullified by other influences. One of these was the united action of landlords and manufacturers, who, however divergent their interests in other respects, were bound together as employers and exploiters of labor, and as adherents to the same general conception of the impropriety of allowing to their employees any share whatsoever of economic or political authority. The direct political authority of the manufacturers themselves was at first not recognized, but their indirect influence in national and especially in local affairs found immediate and vital expression. Their rapid rise to power in economic life and economic policy as officially expressed was deplored by many but denied by none.

Many of the manufacturers were truly described as men of "great wealth and opulence, and of great power

* For discussion of these and related subjects, see Ch. IV.

and influence arising from that wealth and opulence." They employed workmen "amounting in some instances to several thousand”; they were able to employ in some cases “single capitals of two or three hundred thousand pounds”; their enterprises and investments were so extensive as to enable them “to give credit almost everywhere [in foreign markets as well as at home] from twelve to eighteen months.” They were rising rapidly to a position of international economic importance. “Go to France," exhorts Arthur Young with characteristic exuberance, as early as 1787 when the great capitalists were daily waxing greater, "and look for an Arkwright, a Wedgwood, a Darby, a Wilkinson, a Boulton, a Parker: there are no such men to be found in that kingdom. . . . Can one man, with 6 or £8,000 capital, bear the rivalry of another with £100,000?” In the debates of the time on taxation, the corn laws, the navigation system, and commercial laws and treaties generally, the economic status and interests of the newly risen lords of industry were reiterated in various forms. A member of the House of Lords asserted that if weighed in the balance with men of such ingenuity and enterprise, "ministers and anti-ministers would together kick the beam." 27

In view of their status and the recognition of their importance, and in the light of the current agitation for the reform of parliament, it is naturally to be supposed that the new manufacturers would have sought to bring about a change in the electoral and representative system such as would have given them a proportionate voting power in the House of Commons. The press and political

a