"Punch" and the Great Exhibition: a caricature of Victorian society

Punch was a British weekly magazine of humor and satire established in 1841 by Henry Mayhew and Ebenezer Landells.  Reflecting this satiric and humorous intent, the name Punch refers to the anarchic puppet, Punch, of Punch and Judy.  It was Punch that not only helped to the coin the term "cartoon" in the modern sense of a humorous illustration, but also coined the term "the Crystal Palace" in reference to Paxton's huge exhibition building in Hyde Park.  The magazine provided a weekly satirical glance at the week's news events, its irreverence for British institutions appealing to the rapidly expanding middle classes.

Punch produced a series of articles and visual caricatures on the Great Exhibition that by turn satirized and praised the Great Exhibition in response to changing public opinion on the Exhibition.  Punch's commentary on the Great Exhibition is interesting because, in contrast to many newspapers that documented the objects displayed at the Exhibition in great detail, it focused very much on the people who visited or "occupy[ed] other relationships to the Exhibition (cabbies, shopkeepers, the police)"[1].  Virtually the only exhibits to be represented in Punch during the period of the Exhibition were the koh-i-noor diamond and the statue of an Amazon, and even then only to signify "racial, social and gendered meanings"[2].

Contemporary issues 

In its approach to the Great Exhibition, Punch picked up on a number of issues and tensions in mid nineteenth century England.

A first example can be seen in "Specimens from Mr Punch's Industrial Exhibition of 1850", which displayed workers in a glass case including "A Labourer aged 75" and "A Distressed Shoemaker".

"Specimens from Mr Punch's Industrial Exhibition of 1850" (to be improved in 1851), published in Punch 18 (1850) Pg 145

The cartoon picked up on class tensions in society, heightened by the Chartist riots and European revolutions of 1848, and caricatured by the corpulent figure of Mr Punch in comparison to emaciated workers.  Punch also criticized the Exhibition's perceived preoccupation with foreign industry at the cost of local trade.  A full page of cartoons, below, entitled "The Workings of the Great Exhibition", satirized the plight of small businessmen, the manager of a theatre forced to close through a lack of ticket sales, for example, and the folly of others including “the British Merchant, taking leave of his senses – and his business”, off to “lounge about the Crystal Palace .” 

"Workings of the Great Exhibition", published in Punch, 1851

One of the "Workings of the Great Exhibition" cartoons, entitled "The Tradesmen at the West End is obliged to give up his trade and breed poultry"

A third target of Punch's satire was the use of the Great Exhibition by Parliament as a distraction from the troubles of the country.

Above: The Raft of the Medusa, Theodore Gericault, 1818-1819, the painting on which "The Shipwrecked Ministers saved by the Great Exhibition steamer" cartoon was based.


Left: "The Shipwrecked Ministers saved by the Great Exhibition steamer" by John Leech, published in Punch 20, 1851.











“The Shipwrecked Ministers saved by the Great Exhibition Steamer,” was published in Punch in 1851 and  is based on a painting by Gericault, The Raft of Medusa.   Gericault's painting is a haunting depiction of the survivors of a ship thought to be shipwrecked by the neglect of the captain.  The Ministers in Punch’s cartoon, meanwhile, similarly huddled together on a make-shift raft, look on at the wreckage of the cabinet ship, whilst Lord John Russell waves frantically at a passing ship for rescue, the "Exhibition Steamer" which will raise the popularity of a defeated and helpless government.

Society at the Great Exhibition


Punch's other main focus of satire was the attitudes of the working, middle and upper classes to the Exhibition and their interaction with each other at the Exhibition.  The middle class were deemed to have superficial reasons for visiting the Exhibition whereas the working class went to improve their education.  Thus "The Looking Glass Department" caricatures middle class self absorption as ladies preen themselves in a series of mirrors in one of the Exhibition's salons, a neat illustration of Punch's acid observation that "the high-paying portion of the public go to look at each other and be looked at, while the shilling visitors go to gain instruction from what they see"[3].

"The Looking-Glass Department", published in Punch's Almanac for 1851, 20 1851. Pg ix.

Through "The Pound and the Shilling" (below), Punch highlights another much commented on aspect of the Great Exhibition, the substantial social mixing at the Great Exhibition at a time characterized by social segregation.  Here, John Leech's engraving depicts the Duke of Wellington and some well dressed ladies, face to face with a working man in a stocking cap and his poorly dressed children.

Punch cartoons of the Great Exhibition, then, provide a valuable insight into Victorian society, into its norms, outlook and contemporary issues of debate.  The Great Exhibition provided a microcosm of Victorian society which Punch was quick to observe and exploit.

__________________
Notes:
[1] "Thackeray and Punch at the Great Exhibition: authority and ambivalence in verbal and visual caricatures", Richard Pearson in The Great Exhibition of 1851: new interdisciplinary essays, Louise Purbrick, ed. (Manchester University Press, 2001) Pg 181.
[2] Ibid
[3] "The Shilling days at the Crystal Palace",  Punch 20, 1851. Pg 240

The Working Class Home at the Great Exhibition

A particularly Victorian feature of the Great Exhibition was to be found in Prince Albert's model working-class houses, designed by architect Henry Roberts and exhibited by the Society for Improving the Conditions of the Labouring Classes (SICLC).

The Victorian dilemma

The late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries saw rapid industrialization and urbanization in England.  With it came a host of associated problems such as insufficient housing, sanitation, public health and education.  The dominant laissez-faire ideology suggested that unfettered market activity would ensure the welfare of all by providing the conditions for each individual to maximise their own individual well-being. The persistence, and even deterioration, of the living conditions of the urban working classes in a climate of rising wealth therefore baffled contemporaries. Was there something wrong with the working classes which prevented them seizing the opportunities presented to them, or was there was something wrong with their analysis and understanding of the operations and outcomes of a market economy? Whichever view they took, the Victorians increasingly came to recognise that some sort of collective response was required.

A Victorian slum in Kensington, London, now one of the most fashionable parts of the City.  It was demolished in the late 1860's.  Source: Bentley, Nicholas. The Victorian Scene: 1837-1901. London: Spring Books, 1971. 

A proliferation of voluntary and charitable organizations sprung up to address issues such as Ragged Schools which tackled education and SICLC which addressed housing.

Prince Albert's model working class houses

Prince Albert expressed a keen interest in the conditions of the working classes, and was SICLC's first president.  He commissioned the architect, Henry Roberts, to design and build a model working class house for the Great Exhibition.  It was located outside the Crystal Palace, near the South-East corner of the building.  This positioning reflected Prince Albert's belief that the construction of working class homes constituted the first step towards improving the life of the working class.  Providing them with cheerful and comfortable homes would result in improved health, sobriety and domestic peace, especially in conjunction with education and employment opportunities [1].  The "cottage" was therefore separate from the Exhibition and free and open to the public so as many people as possible would be able to look at them.

A model house erected in Hyde Park for the Great Exhibition.  Source: "Home reform: or, Advice to the labouring classes on the improvement of the their dwellings, and the keeping them in good condition", Henry Roberts (London: the Society for Improving the Condition of the Labouring Classes), ca. 1850

Inside the model house

The house was intended for four families "of the class of mechanical and manufacturing operatives who usually reside in towns or in their immediate vicinity" in separate flats, two families to each floor [2].  Each flat was provided with running water and internal sanitation, with a separate kitchen area and three bedrooms, providing, according to the Official Catalogue, "that separation which, with a family, is so essential to morality and decency"[3]. The construction of the house was simple, robust and economical.  The use of hollow bricks for example, afforded an "insensible means of effective ventilation" on a cost effective basis [4]. 

Just as important as the social value of these prototypes was their ability to make a profit.  A brochure produced by the SICLC calculated that the houses would offer investors a 7 per cent. return [5], whilst the Official Catalogue offered more detailed mathematical calculations:

"In Most parts of England, the cost of four houses, built on the plan of this model structure, with ordinary materials, and finished similar to the ground floor apartments, may be stated at 440l.  to 480l. or from 110l. to 120l. for each tenement, contingent on the facilities for obtaining of materials and the value of labour.  Such dwellings, let at 3s. 6d. to 4s. a-week, after deducting ground-rent and taxes, afford a return of 7 per cent. on the amount of outlay.  Where hollow bricks are obtainable at a fair price, their use ought to effect a reduction of  about 25 per cent. on the cost of the brickwork, or equal on these four houses to 40l." [6]

Floor plan for the model house erected in Hyde Park.  Source:  "Home reform: or, Advice to the labouring classes on the improvement of the their dwellings, and the keeping them in good condition", Henry Roberts (London: the Society for Improving the Condition of the Labouring Classes), ca. 1850

Reaction to the model houses

The houses proved extremely popular, drawing more than 250,000 visitors. [7]  Within two weeks of the closure of the Exhibition, construction of two groups of houses based on Prince Albert and Henry Robert's model had begun.  The Illustrated London News called the model houses "a contribution not less important, and in many respects far more interesting than most of the works of art and utility within...His Royal Highness...could have devised no more appropriate contribution to the extraneous utility of the Exhibition than this unpretending block of buildings". [8]

The houses in many ways embodied the spirit of the Victorian era, combining a philanthropic urge with a drive for efficiency and order.  That Prince Albert took such a keen interest in the design and construction of these houses speaks volumes for the prevailing outlook of the Victorian establishment.

The original cottage built for the Great Exhibition was dismantled and transferred to Kennington Park, a working class area of South London, where it became home to four families.  It remains standing today.

Original building displayed as a prototype at the Great Exhibition, 1851. Source: Victoria & Albert Museum of Childhood: http://www.vam.ac.uk/moc/images/image/47175-popup.html

______________________

Notes:

[1] Auerbach, Jeffrey, The Great Exhibition of 1851: A Nation on Display (Yale University Press 1999). Pg 112

[2], [3], [4] Official Catalogue Vol 3 Pg 111
[5] Auerbach, The Great Exhibition Pg 112
[6] Official Catalogue Vol 3 Pg 112
[7] Ibid
[8] Illustrated London News, 14 June 1851

Science at the Great Exhibition

Attitudes to science in mid nineteenth century Britain.

Science received comparatively little attention at the Great Exhibition, a product of British attitudes towards it in the mid nineteenth century.  Science was not widely regarded, as remarked upon by a number of contemporary commentators.  Charles Babbage, for example, in his Reflections on the Decline of Science in England and Some if its Causes, was already writing in 1830 that Britain was "much below other nations" in the more difficult and more abstract sciences.  He found it shocking that a country "so distinguished for its mechanical and manufacturing ingenuity" should be so indifferent to the technical aspects that provided the foundations for its success [1].

Such commentators voiced real fears that Britain's indifference to scientific knowledge would endanger Britain's status as the premier industrial power.  Eric Hobsbawm and other economic historians have highlighted the differences between a "first" and "second" industrial revolution. During the "first", textile based, industrial revolution, "the important inventions were simple, the product of skill, practical experience and a readiness to try anything new and see if it worked", whereas the key component of the "second" industrial revolution was the mechanization of machine-making [2].  This depended on standardization and the growth and increasing importance of science, particularly chemical and electrical knowledge.  An inventor who had never heard of Newton, for example, could devise something like the spinning-mule, whereas the least technically qualified inventors of the age of electricity had to have some knowledge of electricity [3].  

Science at the Great Exhibition

With all the attention focused on heavy machinery in motion, very little attention was paid to science at the Exhibition.  What attention there was paid was often cursory at best.   The editor of a synopsis of the Official Catalogue, for example, described Fromont's turbine, a significant advance in hydraulic machinery, as nothing more than an efficient horizontal water wheel [4].

Illustration of Fromont's turbine, taken from the Official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue 1851

Electrical machines were classified as "philosophical instruments" within the fair's classification system and the editors of the Official Catalogue gave them little attention with short entries and few illustrations.  Engineers regarded electrical devices with contempt.  Isambard Kingdom Brunel, for example, told John Scott-Russell, that he wished to see excluded from the exhibition "any mention of electrical machines which as yet can be considered only as toys". [5]

Britain won 16 out of 31 council medals awarded in Class X ("Philosophical Instruments and Miscellaneous Contrivances"), including three for photography and four for the electric telegraph.  France, its nearest rival, took home nine.  Despite such a clear margin of victory, however, few of the British medals were for instruments with commercial application, whereas the French medals included awards for barometers, an air pump, a heliostat and theodolites.  Such results appeared to bear the fears of contemporary commentators out.

Henley's electric telegraph, one of the few applications of electricity thought to be important.  Source: http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/1851_Great_Exhibition:_Official_Catalogue:_Class_X.:_William_Thomas_Henley

The Science Museum

On a more positive note, the Great Exhibition was a resounding financial success, resulting in a surplus of £186,000.  After much debate, it was decided to apply the surplus to buy land in South Kensington on part of which the South Kensington Museum was built to house exhibits given to the Royal Commission by exhibitors following the Exhibition.  The land now accommodates the Science Museum in London, a museum dedicated to the furtherance of science.

The Science Museum, London

____________________________
Notes:
[1] Auerbach, Jeffrey. The Great Exhibition of 1851: A Nation on Display.  (Yale University Press, 1991) (hereafter Auerbach); pg 123
[2] Hobsbawm, Eric. Industry and Empire (Penguin, 1999). Pg 150
[3] Ibid Pg 151
[4] Auerbach Pg 123
[5] Ibid