著者

赤津 正彦

出版者

明治大学国際武器移転史研究所

雑誌

国際武器移転史 (ISSN:24238538)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.9, pp.87-109, 2020-01-21

著者

赤津 正彦

出版者

政治経済学・経済史学会

雑誌

歴史と経済 (ISSN:13479660)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.47, no.4, pp.17-32, 2005-07-30 (Released:2017-08-30)

---

After the Industrial Revolution, mid-19th century Britain experienced such serious air pollution due to the smoke generated by the combustion of coal used for industries that it required some form of social response. Scholars have argued that only humanitarian landlords pushed for the enactment of the Smoke Prohibition Bill of 1844, and that the Bill was thwarted by the general resistance of industrial capitalists, who believed in Laissez-faire ideals. This paper, however, will throw light on factory owners' participation in smoke regulation, and follow the process in which the Bill was rejected, not by the confrontation between landowners and industrialists, but by differences of factory owners' interests with regards to the regulation. In mid-19th century Britain air pollution was recognized in most manufacturing towns as something that damaged not only rich proprietors' real estate and properties, but also town laborers' health. Moreover, even many textile factory owners who caused the smoke nuisance were aware of the damage to their own business and properties. In response to such awareness, many landlords and humanitarian politicians, seeking relief for laborers, became promoters for nationwide smoke control. However, some industrialists in connection with the textile industry also played an important role in the promotion of smoke control. Moreover, smoke prevention technologies at that time, which not only could reduce smoke but also save fuel, enabled state interference that wouldn't go against the profit principle of manufacturers. And, the national importance of saving coal was also emphasized, as coal had been recognized as a limited and precious national wealth. Consequently, a strict smoke regulation bill drafted by a large cotton mill owner was presented to Parliament by a humanitarian landlord. The bill, however, was weakened by the disparity in financial strength between large and minor manufacturers, and was rejected due to the conflict of interest between textile factory owners and iron masters or collieries, for whom fuel saving, one of the grounds of the smoke prevention regulation, could not be easily implemented. Nationwide smoke regulation, therefore, suffered a setback due to the confrontation between industrialists. The disclosure of such problems, however, was important in that it made future Parliament turn to steadier measures, taking full consideration of the differences between industries and regions.