Impacts of Economic and Social Changes on Popular Protest in Britain - Essay Example

Impacts of Economic and Social Changes on Popular Protest in Britain, 1770-1830 Impacts of Economic and Social Changes on Popular Protest in Britain, 1770-1830 The period between 1770 to sometime around 1830 was marked by a number of social and economic factors, which in turn resulted into human societal transitions- both positive and negative. Such transitions included industrial revolution and agrarian revolution as activities graduated from hand production methods to machine production techniques, alongside new chemical manufacturing. Indeed, industrial revolution begun from Britain and spread out to the rest of the world (Gregory, 2007, pp. 167). A number of historians in the 21st and late 20th century such as Nicholas Crafts and John Clapham argued that the social and economic changes that gradually occurred during the revolution age contributed to several changes in the characteristics of the human society (Snooks, 2000, pp. 321). Such characteristic changes within the human society included migration and settlements, protests, and political rivalries among others. This paper however, drills deep into the impacts of such social and economic changes on the characteristic popular protests of the period within Britain. The Great Britain provided both legal and cultural platforms/foundations, which enabled many entrepreneurs to pioneer regional, national and international economic growths. The key pillars upon which the Great Britain relied for the achievement of her success included (i) minimal trade barrios between Scotland and England, (ii) a long period of peace and stability that preceded the unification of Scotland and England, (iii) candid legal system that allowed for the formation of common-stock corporations, (iv) capitalism (free market share); and (v) paramount respect of the contracts’ sanctity through the rule of law. Ample about the Great Britain, its rich geographical with sufficient natural resources added into the advantage economic thrive (Gregory, 2007, pp. 185). Britain had extensive coastal lines, alongside several navigable rivers, creating an age of water transport discovery and navigation. Consequently, easy water transportation contributed into increase in both trade and social links. The Great Britain also owned the richest and highest quality coal across the entire Europe. According to Gregory (2007, pp. 176), another theory behind the characteristic changes in popular protest in Britain was due to the prevalence of entrepreneurial classes, which strongly believed in hard work, technology and economic progress. The presence of such entrepreneurial classes is commonly associated to the Protestant work ethics and the distinct status of the Baptists, as well as the rebellious protestant sects such as the Presbyterians and Quakers that flourished during the English Civil War (Paul, 1994, pp. 365). Fortification of confidence within the rule of law, following the establishment of constitutional monarchical prototype in Britain, and the emergence of steady financial market based on the organization of the national debts by the Bank of England, resulted into the interest in, and capacity for private financial ventures in industrial investments. Nonconformists finally found themselves discouraged or barred from almost every public office and educational institutions in England, which was only provided in England’s two universities by that period. Nevertheless, dissenters still had controlled chances to attend free studies or education at four universities of Scotland. Upon the restoration of monarchy and mandatory membership in the official Anglican Churches due to the famous Test Act, insurgents thereafter became active in education, manufacturing and banking. Particularly, Unitarians were so much involved in education, as many begun to run Dissenting Academies, within which, much of attention was channelled towards sciences and mathematics, as opposed to the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, as well as schools such as Harrow and Eton. Dissenting Academies’ administrators believed that sciences and mathematics were the major areas of scholarship, which were essential to the development of technologies in manufacturing. Modern historians commonly consider such social factors to be extremely vital, alongside the enclosed nature of national economies. Even though members of the dissenting sects were sometimes included or excluded from particular circles of the government, they were still regarded as fellow Protestants to some limited extents by many middle class citizens. Such middle class citizens included the traditional financiers, as well as other business people. Given this growing tolerance and relative supply of capital, the expected outlets for some more enterprising members of the dissenting sects would later seek new opportunities created during the wake of scientific revolution by 17th-18th centuries, particularly within the field of technology (Snooks, 2000, pp. 298). By 1799, the scramble and fight for political powers and economic might emerged in the entire Europe in the name of “Napoleon Wars” (Todd, 2001, pp. 632). These were a series of conflicts or wars fought between France leadership under Napoleon Bonaparte, alongside a number of European nations- Britain included. The dawn of the wars arrived in Britain by 1803. The peak of the war was in 1812, a war that involved the Great Britain and the United States. Being a colony of the Great Britain, Canada was also swept into the war and invaded several times by fellow Americans.The Napoleonic Wars prompted the Great Britain to adopt certain measures, which momentously aggravated the United States into the war. Gregory(2007, pp. 182) elicit that this was a battle for economic supremacy! By November of 1806, Napoleon Bonaparte ordered a blockade, commonly referred to as the “Berlin Decree” of shipping (Todd, 2001, pp. 672). This blockade aimed at crippling the British economy through paralyzing its trade links. All the European ports under Napoleon’s control were thereby closed to all British ships. The Great Britain thereby responded to the Napoleon policies with a series of council orders, demanding that all neutral ships should obtain license before sailing to Europe. Following the 21st October 1805 Nelson’s naval victory, Britain expanded mastery of the seas. In response to the blockade Royal Navy, Napoleon’s Milan and Berlin decrees of 1806-07 led to the closure western European ports for the British ships, as well as neutral ships if at all they had previously been to the ports of the Great Britain. This marked the dawn of what was commonly known as the Continental System. Consequently, the Great Britain responded by issuing a series of orders from the Council in 1807, imposing austere restrictions on neutral sea vessel that could be seeking to trade or create links with the continental ports. Lots of the neutral ships were for the United States, and the resultant was the growing Anglo-American antagonism that prompted America to declare war on Britain by Tune 1812 (the War of 1812). These wars are herein considered as the core results and long term impacts of the social and economic rivalry, which instigated and shaped the nature protests within the Great Britain. An economist, Joseph Schumpeter argued that capitalism had begun in Italy by 14th century, but later on spread to the commonly known protestant areas in Europe, such as the Great Britain. Several other factors further that provoked the spirit of protest in Britain included the development of European market economy, including the lowering of costs of transaction, monetization and decline of feudalism, and strengthening of property rights. Another factor witnessed was the increase of wages following the spates of bubonic plague (Charles & Andrew, 1979, pp. 282). One of the histories’ commonly mentioned and written protests/riots of the Great Britain was the “Swing Riots,” the widespread uprising, mainly stimulated by agricultural workers and their activities (Eric & George, 1973, pp. 134). The riots began by the destruction of flailing machines at East Kent in the Elham Valley during the summer of 1830. By the dawn of December that year, it had spread through the entire England, as well as East Anglia. The protesters reinforced their grievances through tithe and wage riots, attacking the popularly hated labour displacement programs, destroying threshing machines and objects they perceived to be of oppression, such as tithe barns and workhouses. They also involved in cattle maiming and clandestine rick burning. By 28th August 1830, the first threshing machine was destroyed on Saturday night. Surprisingly, by the 3rd week of October, over hundred threshing machines had be brought down in the Elham Valley. The rioters directed their anger at three major targets perceived as the primary source of their desolation: (i) poor law guardians, (ii) the rich tenant farmers who consistently lowered wages while introducing their own agricultural machinery, and (iii) the oppressive tithe system. Regardless of their massive riots, if identified or singled out, protestors faced heavy charges of robbery, arson, riot, assault and machine breaking. Those found guilty faced ultimate executions, transportation and imprisonment (David, 2009, pp. 423). Protests in the Great Britain had several long term, short term, as well as immediate causes including the progressive and devastating impoverishment and dispossession of the British agricultural workforce for over the previous five decades, not until 1830. “Swing Riots” was a name derived from the threatening letters sent to magistrates, parsons, and farmers among other workers by the false Captain Swing, who was commonly considered as the mythical figure-head of the movement (Eric& George, 1973, pp. 137). By early 18th century, England and Scotland were virtually unique amongst other major European nations in holding no class of landed small-holding peasantry. For the Swing Riots (Eric & George, 1973, pp. 135), one of the major reasons was the Enclosure Act of the rural Britain areas. Between 1770 and 1830, over six million acres of common public lands were under enclosure. For over centuries, these common lands had been accessible for usage by the poor countryside for animal grazing and crop production. Thereafter, these common lands had been divided and owned by large local landowners, leaving the farmworkers landless and solely dependent on labour provision to their rich neighbouring landowners for quick cash or wages (Charles & Andrew, 1979, pp. 297). This offered a tolerable living standard for the poor during the “flourishing” years the Napoleonic Wars, when labour was short in supply, and corn prices significantly rose high. Nevertheless, the return of peace by 1815 resulted into plunging grain prices and labour finally became “almost excess” in supply. According to social historians Hammond and John (1912, pp. 243), land enclosure was particularly fatal to three classes of workers namely: the squatter, the cottager, and the small farmer. For instance, before the land enclosure, the cottager was not only a labourer, but also owned a piece of land; however, after the enclosure, the cottager was left landless and solely dependent on the provision of labour. By 1780s, workers would get hired or employed at the yearly hiring fairs (also known as mops), in order to serve in the labour market for the entire year. During this era, workers would receive wages in cash and in kind from their employers, who would also work beside their employees and share meals with them at the employer’s table (Armstrong, 1988, pp. 49). With time, there was a widening gap between the workers and their employers (farmers versus workers). Subsequently, worker got hired at strict cash-only contracts, which went for shorter periods than before. The social and cordial relationships between the worker and the employers gradually faded away (Armstrong, 1988, pp. 37). First, monthly terms of contracts became the order of employment, and later on, contracts or employments would go for as short as a week or for days. Between 1770 and 1830, labourers faced forceful and unexpected loss of their lands. There was a great transformation of the workers’ contracts, alongside a sharp deterioration of their economic situations. By the time of the 1828-1831 riots, the protesters (workers) had only retained a negligible portion of their initial status with exception of the right to succumb relief, under the “Poor Old Law” system (Hammond & John, 1912, pp. 268). Tracing back from the history, the convents had ceased the important poor’s responsibility; however, their dissolution in 1530s passes them to parishes. The British 1662 Act of Settlement had confined relief and left it strictly to the parish natives. The poor system of law charged a given parish rate to all land-owners, as well as tenants. This was later useful in the provision of relief payments to the settled parish residents who were out of work or simply ill. However, the payments were too minimal, and sometimes humiliating conditions were dictated for their receipt. As the number of people dependent on parish relief augmented, the rate-payers “loudly” rebelled as never before against the costs (David, 2009, pp. 416). In response, low level relief was provided. By 1795, approximately one gallon (three and half) loaves of bread were regarded as the average food necessity for an average man in Berkshire. The supply had however fallen to just about two similarly sized loaves of bread by 1817. The manner in which the poor fund regulating laws were expended resulted into further public education on agricultural wages (Friar, 2004, pp. 87). This was because farmers were to later pay their workers much compromised wage rates, keeping in mind that the parish funds would supplement wages to rudimentary subsistence rate. Afterwards, the introduction of the church tithes added an extra burden into the mix. Initially, this had been the right of the church to collect a tenth of the parish harvests. Levies on cash were rudimentary for all residents, whether one belonged to the church membership or not, and the demanded amount was commonly higher than what a poor fellow could afford. In response, calls for the reduction of large amounts of tithes and other poor law collections were the demands by the protesters. From the south-eastern county of Kent, the protesters damaged lots of threshing machines, threatening the farmers who owned them. The protests rapidly grew through the southern counties of Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire and Middlesex, before extending into the northern Home Counties, East Anglia and Midlands, moving further to Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, and Lincolnshire. Originally, the riot disturbances were thought to be solely an English affair or phenomenon (Paul, 1994, pp. 359), but a number of historical research reveals that the protests widely and virtually spread into the southern areas of English-Scottish borders. Rioting tactics varied from county to another, typically by writing threatening letters to employers, including magistrates, wealthy farmers, parsons, as well as the poor law guardians within the areas. The letters were to call for the rise in employees’ wages or salaries, the abolition of tithe payments and the destruction of every available threshing machine, or else the protestors would have to take the poor laws into their own hands.Supposing the grievances (or warnings as they term it) were not considered or taken into action, the local employees would gather in groups (mostly in groups of 200s or 400s), and threaten their local employers of direct repercussions if their demand were not taken into consideration. The consequences involve breaking the threshing machines, attacking tithe barns and workhouses. Alternative targets included the buildings where threshing machine engines were kept (horse engine houses or wheelhouses). Other protesters’ actions included attacks on barns, hayricks and farms in the dead nights since it was much easier to avoid any possible detection at this time. Even though a number of protest/riot actions were secretly conducted deep in the night, other meetings with overseers and farmers concerning grievances were organized during the day. Regardless of the presence of the slogan ‘Bread or Blood,’ only a few people (not more than fifteen) were ever recorded to have been killed during the protests, and these were commonly rioters killed by the actions of farmers or soldiers. Protesters’ major intention and/or objective was to destroy of damage properties owned by rich oppressive employers; not to take fellow human lives. References Armstrong, A. (1988). Farmworkers in England and Wales: A Social and economic history, 1770– 1980. London: University of London, Press. Charles, W., & Andrew, M. J. (1979). Historical geography research series and social protest in a rural society: The spatial diffusion of the Captain Swing disturbances of 1830–1831. London: HGRG. David, H. (2009). The English rebel: One thousand years of troublemaking, from the Normans to the nineties. London: Penguin. Eric, R. & George, F. (1973). Captain Swing: A social history of the Great English agricultural uprising of 1830. Socioeconomic History of the Great Britain, 34(3), pp. 133-139. Friar, S. (2004). The Sutton companion to local history. Spark-ford, England: Sutton. Gregory, C. (2007). A Farewell to alms: A brief economic history of the world. London: Princeton University Press. Hammond, J. & John, H. (1912). The village labourer 1760–1832. London: Longman Green. Paul W. S. (1994). The Transformation of European Politics: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Sage Publishers. Snooks, G. D. (2000). Was the Industrial Revolution Necessary? London: Routledge. Todd, F. (2001). The Napoleonic Wars: The empires fight back 1808–1812. London: Oshray Publishing. Read More