In my two articles 1 on the standard of living during the Industrial Revolution, which Dr Hobsbawm now criticizes, I was concerned both with surveying the literature of the controversy, and also with analysing the available evidence to see if conclusions could be made. The conclusions I came to were, first, the controversy has been confused by arguments about values and by people talking about different things as though they were talking about the same thing, and second, that there had been 'an upward trend in living standards during the Industrial Revolution' and that 'the standard of living of the mass of the people of England was improving ... slowly during the war, more quickly after I 8 I 5, and rapidly after I 840'. This conclusion I modified by stressing that the standard of living was not high and was not rising fast before the forties, and also that there was 'dire poverty' and 'cyclical and technological unemployment of a most distressing character'. I emphasized also that increasing real income was no measure of 'ultimate well-being' and that the period of the Industrial Revolution was one of political discontent and social upheaval but also that it was a period of increasing opportunity for working-class men and women. To this 'extreme' view I still hold, and it may be compared with the latest conclusions of Dr Hobsbawm, which seem mild enough consumption figures 'are compatible with a slight decrease, possibly with a slight increase', the case for deterioration 'while not implausible, cannot be proved', 'the view that there was substantial, or any, deterioration has not yet been firmly established', 'the argument that real incomes remained roughly stable will commend itself as the most acceptable formula' but which are established in such a fashion as to create an impression of pessimism, quite apart from the grand final conclusion that, whatever can be said about material standards, 'the sociological argument for deterioration is far more powerful'. Indeed, Dr