The expansive- power of steam was known to the ancient Greeks, but not until the 18th century was it put to practical use., In 1705 Newcomen constructed a practicable engine for pumping water out of the mines, and it was while repairing one of these crude affairs that James Watt in 1769 invented the improvements that made it a modern machine. It Was now made adaptable for driving .spinning machines, power looms and other mechanical devices. Its first use, however, was .for pumping water, which had previously been a -great menace, out of the coal mines, and hoisting the to the surface. This gave a great impetus to coal mining, which was further hastened by the invention of the safety lamp. The art .of smelting iron by coal was made available about 1750, and in 1784 Corte discovered the protess of °puddling.) Other improvements were made in the blast, the . substitution of rollers for the• hammer, and in appliances for handbag heavy castings. These c..-nges reacted power fully on the iron industry and tine- manufacture of machinery, as the- new processes made iron stronger and at the same- time more malleable and easily worked ink. There was now no limit to the' supply of strong and -powerful machines, for which the demand seemed unceasing.
Results.— The effects of the Industrial 'Revolution were momentous and far-reaching, and resulted in a veritable -social revolution. The most striking result was the great increase of productive power of a society equipped with these new appliances. Unfortunately, however, the benefits. of this increase in output and wealth were very unequally distributed; the landlord and the capitalist class profited greatly, - but the mass of the wage-earners gained little ' if any by the new inventions. Indeed for .a while it . seemed 'as if. .they suffered only loss, for the use of machinery pecinitted the use of the' labor) of women and -children on a large scale and rendered valueless the painfully acquired skill of the former hand workers.' A second result was the destruction of the do mestic system of production and the substitu tion therefor of the factory system. Under the former system industry had been carried on within the home by the domestic artisan, who generally owned his tools. Now, however, the new machines were much too expensive to be owned by a cottage workman, and it was more over impossible to operate them in the home, as they were driven by power. It became neces sary to bring both machines and workmen to gether in factories, where the building, the machinery and the materials were owned by the capitalist enterprisers. This brought about a sharp distinction between the two classes of workers involved, the capitalists on the one hand and the wage-workers on the other. Due to the need of capital in order to undertake manufacturing under the new conditions, the worker became more dependent upon the capi talist for employment. These facts brought to
the front questions of labor and capital, which have become increasingly important as time has passed. See FACTORY SYSTEM.
Industrial Revolution in the United States.
The term Industrial Revolution has usually been applied to the sudden and remarkable series of changes that occurred in industry in England between 1760 and 1790, though it took another generation for them to work them out. The old domestic system of in dustry was completely transformed and a revolution wrought in the economic and social life of the people. It is interesting to raise the question whether other countries have ex perienced similar changes and whether we can apply the term to other periods than that just mentioned. The nearest approach to an indus trial revolution in the United States probably occurred in the 30-year period beginning with 1808, when a series of political and indus trial events led the people to develop manu facturing by the factory system in addition to agriculture and commerce. This did not lead to any revolutionary changes as in England, since there had never been any widespread de velopment of the domestic system of manu factures before this time. The transfer from one system to the other was therefore accom plished without any painful readjustment or suffering. A similar industrial transformation from agricultural to manufacturing conditions occurred in France between about 1820 and 1850, and in Germany after 1870.
Conclusion.— It is unlikely that we shall again have such a sudden and complete revo lution in industry as occurred in England at the end of the 18th century. And the reason is not because of the absence of change, but rather because change is a normal condition of modem industry. Manufacturers to-day ex pect new inventions and take into account the obsolescence of their machinery as naturally as they do its depreciation. Change is constant but ust on that account it is less felt than was the Industrial Revolution, because there is con stant. adjustment. New inventions or changes in transportation or other factors may and often do completely revolutionize a business within a decade. hut such changes are now regarded as a condition of progress. Being anticipated, they are•met and bring no train of disasters such as made the English Industrial Revolution famous in history. See GREAT BRITAIN — INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION; HISTORY, MODERN.
Bibliography.— Baines, E.