How Open was the Landed elite during the era 1780 - 1888 - Essay Example

? How Open was the Landed elite during the era 1780 - 1888? Number] Word count: 4,503 Throughout history, there has been interplay between land and power. Land has largely conferred powers on the owners, enabling them to derive economic and political power. However, the motivations for owning lands changed drastically over time, depending on the socio-economic circumstances of that period. Throughout the era 1780-1888, the changing modes of production and political imperatives of different states, shaped not only the extent of powers conferred on the landed elite, but also molded how landed elite responded to the changes. The landed elite not only changed its role depending on these conditions, often giving in to the pressures of revolutions and ensuing capitalism, but reacted differently to these pressures in different parts of the world, depending on the socio-economic and political milieu. In European agrarian societies, after the medieval period, land was attributed as a highly demanded asset because it enabled the feudal lords to produce crops for subsistence. However, that was not the only purpose land served. Land was largely seen as a status symbol, a highly valued possession, whose worth could be gauged and flauntedi.It was regarded as a safe asset, where wealth could be sustained for a long period, without the fear of deception or fraud. In addition to economic power, land enabled the landowners to amass political powers as well. This was so, as the owner of an estate also served as the head of the community and solved domestic disputes. Moreover, it allowed the landlords to control the inhabitants that lived on his estate, the majority of which derived subsistence through working on his lands. A landlord had a wide access to people who held positions of authority, which buttressed his influence and prestige in his regionii. Hence, land enabled him to uphold an administrative role in his area, in addition to it,accruing economic and political power. In England, while some men acquired land in order to establish their names, from a feudal family or become part of the landed elite, the others acquired it as an investment or amenity. Due to laws and policies, acquiring land became easier. For example, the Act of 1711 passed in Ireland, which forced MPs to hold land, which was later, revised in 1760 to add more people who were legally able to possess land, greatly incentive people to acquire landiii. The legal obstacles were removed for them and lawyers devised easy and cheap ways to acquire land. Some political entities also bought land in order to ensure their electoral strength.The demand for land also increased as people sought to keep it in order to undertake leisurely endeavors such as shooting and hunting. Some bought land in order to keep it as a buffer before they retirediv. Interest rates came to be greatly associated with the worth of land in the early eighteenth century. Sometimes, when the interest rates were low, especially during and after Louis XIV wars, many people expected that the value of land would adjust to ultimately lower levels and hence, acquired lands. During the mid-Victorian boom 1790-1815, rental rates in England surged, and hence, the attractiveness of land as an asset increased. In addition, it was regarded as a stable investment as its value did not fluctuate as much as government bonds in England, as a result of political shocksv. Marriages also allowed for acquisition of land, as office holders who belonged to prestigious families but did not have lands, often married into landholding families, and hence became part of the landed elite. Many of them either belonged to political establishment, or were rich merchants. Many of them were traders in East India Company, who later themselves married into land owning families, or married their sons and daughters, and became part of the landed elitevi. A number of these merchants, who served in the subcontinent, commonly known as ‘nabobs proper’ bought huge estates in England, namely Robert Clive. Similarly, after the onset of industrial revolution, industrialists also bought lands and formed part of the landed nobility, establishing their family as landed elitevii. International trade paved way for traders, commonly known as merchants to acquire land, as lending and borrowing procedures became easier and access to governmental finances became easier. Throughout seventeenth and eighteenth century, merchants belonging to London, who were involved in internal or international trade acquired lands at modest rates. Similarly, money lenders amassed enormous wealth through working as intermediaries between landlords and people with high mortgages. They too bought lands and became part of the landed eliteviii. Hobsbawn coined the term dual revolution for French and Industrial revolution as both can been seen to formulate a new socio-economic milieu, where the existing relations between various segments of the society changedix. According to him, the French revolution supplied the political and ideological framework of the nation-state, together with the idea of rights and liberties of citizens and the British industrial revolution complemented it through providing an economic material aspectx. It gave way to industrial capitalism and commercial agriculture. Thus, after the emergence of commercial agriculture, land was increasingly seen as a viable investment, rather than a source of prestige. The mercantile capital was used to buy lands if the economic return from the purchase was deemed greater than the investment, or was invested in industrial apparatusxi. The revolutionary middle-class thus, clamoured and championed for political freedoms and new institutions. The new institutions were needed to manage and consolidate the economic transitions that were gradually taking place since the Middle Ages and had finally fully materialized, namely, the transition from an outdated, ‘feudal’ or traditional world to a modern economic system of production- capitalism. According to Wallerstein, French Revolution can be termed as a bourgeois revolution, where the middle class sought to overthrow feudalism. The state was regarded as inefficient as the aristocratic elite dominated itxii. Thus, the power of landed elite was undermined. According to him, the larger agricultural elites remained, although property-holders changed. However, the labour class, known as ‘yeoman’ came about stronger than ever, largely at the expense of small scale producersxiii. This would mean that the power of landed elite was substantially decreased, with the incoming of merchant class that fought for its rights. However, the revisionist historians regard this view of the revolution as misleading. They argue although that the economic and political conditions changed drastically, the landed elite were not in opposition to the merchant class. The demography of France can be classed into three different groups, namely the clergy, nobility and the Third Estate. The clergy enjoyed a lot of privileges and was exempted from paying taxesxiv. In addition, it was able to tax the land owning classes as well. The second tier comprised of nobility, which owned 25% of France. Due to their prestigious social position, they enjoyed various privileges as well. These included exclusive rights of wearing swords, hunting and were granted monopolies on various productions such as that of bread and winexv. Keeping both the statements in view, we can infer that whether the nobility was inherently against the bourgeoisie or their interests matched, given the set of empirical data, it can be inferred that the two classes increasingly interacted with each other and intermingled socially and economically, thus undergoing enormous changes. Commonly it is regarded that the bourgeoisie took up the rights of the whole Third Estate. However, according to the new research, the landed elite weregreatly fragmented, and so was the merchant class. For example, there was robe-wearing nobility that possessed high official positions and there was militaristic nobility that engaged in wars. There were differences within the bourgeoisie class as well, as some were traders and financiers, while others were lawyersxvi. However, both of these held large tracts of lands. The nobility and the merchant class shared similar economic interests, because both were keen to hold administrative positions and both were interested buyers and holders of land. Similarly, wealthy nobles often undertook mercantilist and capitalistic endeavours; they often invested in mining and foreign trade.By the end of the revolution both the classes unified against the government. They both saw the government as curbing the interests as the state was enshrined with absolutist power. Hence bureaucratic notables and aristocratic elite both revolted against the monarchy. Yet, both the classes shared common features such as economic interests and assets. Just as the landed class witnessed the incoming of aristocratic nobles and bourgeoisies, similarly the landed class formed part of the aristocracy through multiple ways. Due to the selling of offices especially during the eighteenth century, a huge number of landed elite formed nobility. Thus, a new aristocracy constituting office holders had been formed. This new aristocracy intermarried with old nobility and the ones who were wealthy enough to purchase prestigious titles became ‘noblesse de la robe’ or Parlementairesxvii. Long-distance trade with the Americas and the East provided enormous profits, sometimes in excess of 200-300 percent, for small merchant elite. Smaller merchants could not hope to enter this profiteering without substantial capital and some state help. Eventually, the profits of the trans-Atlantic trade filtered down and strengthened the merchants' hold over European agriculture and industriesxviii. It could be seen that the mercantilists who had enough power amassed profits through production of the widely demanded goods. They could also determine the final cost of the products, and hence could set their profit margins, which were sometimes a lot more than the original price incurred. Thus, they not only controlled internal markets but provided the capital that led to industrialization in Europexix. Material forces and pressures thus triggered political revolutions. These revolutions were representative of economic transitions from feudal or mercantile to capitalist modes of production. Through the history of French revolution, one can observe that the key demand of French revolutionaries was to put an end to the feudal order, to end the internal tariffs and aristocratic privileges that hindered trade and free market exchange. The Declaration of the Rights of Man insists everyone has the right to private propertyxx. All of which suggests these revolutions are at least partly traceable to the ambitions of an emergent middle-class that found its path blocked by entrenched aristocratic privilege. At the world level mercantilism, roughly from 1400-1770, was giving way to industrial capitalism and the ‘New Imperialism’ of free trade led by Britain, in which manufactured goods are exported in exchange for raw materials, and subsequently the USxxi. British, French, American revolutions were all triggered by political and economic crises caused by high levels of military expenditure. In each case, the monarch demanded money to fund mercantilist military adventures, state-building, lavish courts and was challenged by elites on the basis of Enlightenment values through existing parliamentary machinery. Charles 1 was challenged by Long Parliament; Louis XVI was challenged by Estates Generalxxii. These elite representative bodies called for wider debates about governance and modes of rule. Even where monarchs attempted to placate these protests with attempts at reform (e.g. Louis XVI) their efforts proved inadequate to alleviate the crisis and merely hastened the conflict. This elite conflict triggered a political crisis which encouraged the masses to enter the political stage and revolts spontaneously erupted as the confrontation deepenedxxiii.In some cases this mass participation was encouraged and manipulated by elites (for example in the case of Jacobins). In others mass protest caused revolutionary elites anxiety. As in the case of Layfayette, head of the Parisian revolutionary guard fired on protestors, for which the Jacobins later criticised him; the moderate wings of the French revolutionary executive (the Girondists) were by no means supportive of unbridled mass political revolts.xxiv The revolts of 1848 were crushed by absolutist states across continental Europe with the blessing of liberal elites who were anxious at the sight of workers and peasants joining protests; the ultimate ‘betrayal’ of the masses was in 1871, when the French ruling elite ordered the massacre of the Parisian working-class government that had seized power in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian warxxv. They did this with the collusion of their Prussian ‘enemies’ who gave them logistical support and free passage across the border, underlining the extent to which the Age of Revolution in Europe was dominated by bourgeois elites with a shared certain class interest in limiting its radicalismxxvi. Hence, it can be gauged that there was a combination of industrialising andintroducing civil liberties or political reforms (e.g. constitutions), but in practice many states tended towards one more than the other. For example, Prussia, Russia and Japan, for instance, instituted ‘revolution from above’xxvii. That is to say, modernisation for these societies was a top-down, state-led project that emphasised the technological and industrial aspects without placing much emphasis on rights or political freedoms.In other contexts still, such as Latin America, the political aspect of modernisation, which was nationalism, rights-based constitutionalism and the desire for autonomy were prevalentxxviii. The areas which were reluctant to allow industrialization and changing modes of economic production, lagged behind from areas that accepted these socio-economic changes. Industrial revolution witnessed the emergence of few characteristics that dotted the period, and changed the relationship between various classes. It greatly motivated European states to actively explore new markets, which could be exploited to cater the growing needs. Through better technology and communications, the linkages between markets improved, and hence the new markets could be captured if the production levels paralleled the new demand levelsxxix. The Industrial Revolution witnessed the triumph of a middle class of industrialists and businessmen over a landed class of nobility and gentry, which derived its prestige through land ownership. The new industrial class invested in land as well, but they increasingly invested their capital in order to gain ownership of modes of production. Ordinary working people found increased opportunities for employment in the new mills and factories, but these were often under strict working conditions with long hours of labour dominated by a pace set by machinesxxx. During this phase, the core regions shifted from a combination of agricultural and industrial interests to purely industrial concerns. The significant shift can be understood by the fact that in the 18th century, England was Europe's leading industrial producer as well as the leader in agricultural production. However by 1900, only 10% of England's population was engaged in agriculturexxxi. Hence, it shows how industrialization and emergence of capitalism widely changed labour relations and the chief mode of production in England. Hence, political and economic conditions after the breakdown of feudalism transformed north Western Europe into the predominant commercial and political power. The geographic expansion of the capitalist world economy altered political systems and labour conditions wherever it was able to penetrate. It also changed how landed elites power changed and they conformed to the new economic and political systems. These changes were not just limited to Europe. They filtered into various other parts of the world as well. Hence, the political, economic and structural changes, that took place in early modern European states, which brought about the revolutions in Europe, had equivalents in other parts of the world as well. In Mogul India for example, regionalism and new forms of merchant banking (usury) and capital accumulation had been developing alongside the European presence before the British East India Company established control in the late 18th centuryxxxii. When the East India Company began to expand from Bengal, it did not simply introduce modern forms of governance from the outside. It developed them in alliance with indigenous capitalists who funded their expeditions and early conquests in exchange for protection, privileged access to trade and investment opportunities. And in order to avoid having to pay taxes to Indian states which had already begun modernizing, which included developing as medium-sized, centralized fiscal-military statesxxxiii. A patchwork of powers in India already replacing Mogul rule when the British began to conquer and annex India, the East India Company was just one , it began by offering financial and military services to the other competing powers, dividing and ruling, picking them off one byone. Bankers and military men saw advantages in collaborating with them, soldiers for example, gained employment and the chance of loot whilst bankers gained access to revenue flows and merchants to an expanding overseas trade in China and Southeast Asiaxxxiv. Similarly, scribal groups were attracted by positions of power in the centralizing bureaucracy established by the East India Company. All participated in and collaborated in the exploit then began to reward feudo-military groups and ancient aristocracies for their loyalty, cut back on the Bengal army and move the Bengalis upper- casts of non-martial peoples, Sikhs and Punjabi Muslims among the beneficiaries of the system, which emerged after the war of independence in 1857. They were rewarded with land like other well considered castes, who settled the canal colonies in the decades that followedxxxv. The legacy of British rule was thus an overdeveloped coercive apparatus; Punjabi army and dominant castes wedded to commercial agriculture that produced severe inequalities in the countryside, also highly uneven development within India itselfxxxvi. Industrial development in Europe crept into India as well. The British defeated the Marathas and then made Bombay a commercial, administrative and political structure. The American Civil War boom of the 1860’s allowed for further commercial expansion of Bombayxxxvii. The development of roads, rails and communication networks further aided the growth. Banking businesses and usury were introduced and by 1850’s India became the largest industry for cotton textiles. Indian merchants participated wholly in this expansion. The private traders depended on these merchants as they helped them in getting acquainted with the regionxxxviii. They acted as mediators and helped the British in settling to India. A capitalist class emerged as large scale industries were developed in the region. The traders increasingly became associated with industry and invested in itxxxix. However, the agrarian elites and farmers also played a vital role in accumulation and deployment of capital.Hence, they also undertook capitalistic endeavors. The agrarian depression of 1830’s also provided opportunities to merchants and artisansxl. With the British policies of resumption of alienated lands, emphasis on bureaucracy and abolition of revenue farming weakened the position of local elites. British advent in the subcontinent greatly facilitated the growth of capital, which in turn enforced producers to increase their product and strictly regulate their labor. Hence, agriculture’s revenue formed the agriculture capital that along with merchant capital served the needs of Britishxli. After the depression of 1840’s lifted, there was a period marked with steady growth. By then, the revenue settlements were revised as well and cultivation increased. Similarly, prices began to rise as wellxlii. However, as communications improved, distant markets became accessible as well, and rather than being affected by a single market, a variety of factors and markets affected the prices, hence prices became stabilized. This further buttressed consumer demand, as the goods became more easily available. This further increased the demand for capital on agricultural productionxliii. Realizing the importance of capital,a number of moneylenders mushroomed in India. They acted as mediators between the people willing to invest, and allowed for easy borrowing of money. This included some money lenders that were primarily feudal lords who owned lands and engaged in agriculturexliv. Before British came to India, land was owned by the king. The British introduced private property in India and hence land ownership was introduced. The population was also divided along various purposes, with ‘jagirdars’, who were army men who played no role in the economic or political life of the agriculturalistsxlv. There were ‘zamindars’, which owned lands, and collected revenues from the population and lived in villages. After the death of last Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, they greatly strengthened their hold on land. The zamindars performed various functions that made them a local head in the region. They settled disputes as well and hence, were the local political and administrative bodies. They comprised of the feudal lords in India who held a combination of economic and political powerxlvi. However, the changes brought about by the British; changed the landholding and agricultural practices. These reforms were mainly, introduction of private property, formation of a legal system and an efficient government. The British sought to separate the zamindar’s economic and political powers, in order to control the region more effectively. They introduced a Land Settlement Act in 1793, which brought about huge social transformations and drastically changed the patterns of landholding and redefined the political and economic powers of feudal lordsxlvii. The act stripped the peasants of land, and forbid the extra economic coercive powers of the zamindars to collect revenuexlviii. Although the zamindars continued to have lands, it was legally enshrined now with the introduction of property rights, as the British ensured a smooth collection of taxes. The introduction of this legal aspect was a huge step towards transforming the economy towards a bourgeois capitalist society. However, the British granted some influential with tracts of land as wellxlix. New markets for agricultural products emerged, and agricultural produce was no longer produced for subsistence, but it was rather commercialized and thus, catered numerous markets. The number of cropped area increased as well. With the onset of industrial revolution in Britain, the demand for raw materials increased, and agriculture was further developed. However, due to the introduction of monetary taxes,many landowners had to seek loans, pay mortgages or sell their lands. The taxes had to be paid on cultivated and fallow lands as well and hence, it became increasingly difficult for landlords to pay the huge taxesl. Thus, the lands resumed from these landlords were sold to merchants, the majority of whom belonged to urban areas and had little or no connection with landholding and agricultural productionli. The landed elite’s power base was hurt, and the state effectively stripped them of their autonomous powers, that they had been enjoying since the Mughal period. However, British later realized that their own power was undermined with the corrosion of economic and political powers of the landed aristocracy as they strengthened British control, especially; Sindh and Punjab. In 1870, the Land Act was thus revised and taxes on fallow lands were removedlii. British relied on agricultural castes, and with most of the agricultural land been transferred to usurers and non-agricultural castes, they prohibited the passing on agricultural lands to outside castes. Thus, agricultural land could then only be transferred within the agricultural castesliii. This meant that the land in India after 1870 largely remained amongst the castes who already acquired it. Thus, through a restriction imposed by the state, the landed class was forced to follow the policies laid down. Thus, the openness of the landed elite, or the extent of its transformation largely depended on state policies. If the laws and policies facilitated selling of land, as in the case of Britain, the landed elite effectively sold it. It also invested in other areas as well, such as trading. However, in India they were open to the mercantilist class and other middle classes only as long as the state policies allowed it. Conclusively, we can argue that the landed elite underwent huge transformations and changed depending on the social conditions. From regarding land as a source of prestige to an investment opportunity, various fragments of the society formed part of the landed elite. The landed elite largely gave in to the socio-economic pressures and allowed the new merchant class to operate, often undertaking such endeavors themselves.The landed elite intermarried and intermingled with the middle class in order to consolidate their power. Their power however, varied across different societies depending upon state policies and the modes of production. The state policies and laws greatly determined how much the landed elite transformed. Works Cited Berlanstein, Lenard R (ed.),The Industrial Revolution and Work in Nineteenth-Century Europe, New York:Routledge, 1992. Bourke , Joanna.Working-Class Cultures in Britain 1890-1960: Gender, Class and Ethnicity, London: Routledge, 1994. Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolutions in France. Ed. J. C. D. Clarke. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. Chandavarkar, Rajnarayan, The Origins of Industrial Capitalism in India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Cannadine, David. The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy. London: Penguin, 2005. Chaussinand-Nogaret, Guy. The French Nobility in the Eighteenth Century: From Feudalism to Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. Ellis, Elisabeth Gaynor, and Anthony Esler. World History. Boston: Pearson Preston Hall, 2008. Spring Eileen and Spring David. ‘’The English Landed Elite’’, 1540-1879: A Review.Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 17 (1985): 149-66. JSTOR .The North American Conference on British Studies. Gallie, Duncan. In Search of the New Working Class: Automation and Social Integration within the Capitalist Enterprise, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 1978. Guy Josephine M, The Victorian Age. London: Routledge, 1998. Gould, Andrew. ‘Origins of liberal dominance’, Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press, 1999 Sydenham, M. J, The King's Good Pleasure, The French Revolution, New York: Capricorn Books, 1965. Halevy, Elie. Halevy's History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century. Vol. 4. London: Ernest Benn Limited, 1962. Immanuel Maurice, Wallerstein. French Revolution As A World Historic Event. Unthinking Social Science: The Limits of Nineteenth-century Paradigms. Cambridge, London :MA, Polity in Association with B. Blackwell, 1991. Hashmi, Javed Iqbal. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Lahore: Punjab Law Book, 2010. Haigh, Christopher. The Cambridge Historical Encyclopedia of Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990. Johnston, R. M. The French Revolution.Jones. E. L and Woolf. S. J. Agrarian Change and Economic Development The Historical Problems, London: Methuen, 1969. Paris: Echo Library, 2009 Jupp, Peter J. ‘’The Landed Elite and Political Authority in Britain’’, Ca. 1760-1850." Journal of British Studies  (1990)29.1 n. page. JSTOR .The University of Chicago Press.Web. Habakkuk Jhon, Marriage, Debt, and the Estates System: English Landownership, 1650-1950: Oxford, 1994.  Stone Laurence , 'Spring back', Albion, 17, 2 : Summer, 1985, pp. 167-180  Lakha, Salim. Capitalism and Class in Colonial India.Cnberra, Asian Studies Association of Australia: South Asian Publication Series, 1988. Nussbaum, Felicity A., ed. The Global Eighteenth Century. N.p.: JHU, 2005. Rubinstein, W. D. Capitalism, Culture, and Decline in Britain: 1750-1990. London: Routledge, 1994. Thompson, E. P. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage : Alfred A. Knopf, 1966. Vincent, David. Bread, Knowledge & Freedom: A Study of Nineteenth-Century Working Class Autobiography. London: Methuen &, 1982. Zaidi, Akbar, Is Pakistan Feudal, Issues in Pakistan’s Economy, Oxford University Press, 2005. End Notes: Read More