Rise of the Gentry and The Agrarian revolution - Essay Example

? Rise of the Gentry and the Agrarian revolution In essence this essay addresses the changes that occurred in England and transformed it from a subsistence based, feudal/ medieval economy to an Agrarian Capitalist society which smoothed the path for the subsequent emergence of the Industrial Revolution. Britain from the High Middle Ages, like all other Western European nations, was increasingly part of integrated economies, and centre of this system were the cities. All over the world, economies were organized in a similar feudal manorial system. The paper explores particular conditions that led Britain to be the home of the industrial revolution, and rise of gentry as a key driving force. 1. Background In the Span of 300 years, majority of the population who was working in the agricultural industry dropped to only a quarter1, meanwhile, the population of Britain doubled. Historically, when the population levels in the Middle Ages bubbled in such a fashion, Malthusian checks came into play. Disease and famine became the order of the day, and finally, the back of feudalism broke in England. On the other hand, France was under the oppressive control of feudalism. As I will demonstrate in later part of my research, France also experienced a Malthusian check, even though there was short sea between the two countries This essay explores the evidence on emergence of a non-feudal class, known as the gentry to Tawney2, and the role it played in industrial revolution. This particular class is considered as one of the primary agents that facilitated the path for successful transition from feudalism to an economy that is equipped to embrace the industrial revolution. This research also present the evidence that this non-feudal class rose in the context of: an economic atmosphere in their favor; an opportunity to ascend that was presented primarily through the dissolution of the monasteries; decline of the aristocracy and the centralization of the monarchy; and changing religious atmosphere that became encouraging for entrepreneurship and profit maximization. This economic, religious, and political transformation was not for England alone, the entire continent experienced it. However, the gentry, a particular class was unique to England that was able to escape the cycle. 2. Who were the Gentry? In order to discuss the role of this class in Industrial Revolution, it is crucial to recognize who they were. England, the birthplace of the industrial revolution, had a unique organization of the aristocracy. Unlike the rest of the continent, primogeniture was the order of the day, and thus, title and privilege of nobility and an intact estate were awarded only to the eldest son. Whilst rest of the offspring were considered commoners3.Another distinguishing feature was that English nobility did not rule entire regions or districts, rather their estates were dispersed across the British Isle’. These features proved to be the driving factors that enabled a non-feudal class to emerge. The aforementioned class was also known as the Peerage, and had the right to sit in the House of the Lords. In contrast, the gentry dominated the House of Commons. The gentry was a distinguished group of people with high social standing4 in English society, ranked right below the nobility, and above common people. Economically, this class drew their finances from several arenas including, but not limited to: rents of their farms, town property, investments, and working in law5. Primarily, the major difference between the Peerage and the Gentry was a legal distinction6. The discussion over gentry's role in Britain's development has been extensive, much of the disagreement about their role stems from the absence of a standard classification of gentry7. Trevor-Roper argues, to distinguish between Peerage and Gentry was mere conjecture, rather the differences between the two were minimal since the era was an aristocratic one. The groups were homogenous, and identified by similar lifestyles, interests and values8. Gentry had a greater possession of wealth, rank and social status than the Yeomanry; therefore, their inclusion in gentry was questionable.9 For the sake of argument in this essay, like Tawney10, the wealthier yeomanry, such as, merchants and professional men will be considered as a part of the non-feudal class that emerged in Great Britain and heralded the Agrarian revolution11. However, it is difficult to measure the socio-economic level of a historical group quantitatively since gentry debate spans over a long period of time. In sum, gentry refer to the same non-feudal class that was significant part of the equation, and that veered the British economy from the Feudalistic to the Capitalist stage. 3. Major changes Before proceeding towards analyzing the rise of the gentry and agrarian capitalism, it is crucial to analyze this emergence in the context of major social, religious, political changes. 3.1.1. Medieval Prelude: The economic backdrop 3.1.2. Population Explosion What merits our attention, before we continue is the economic atmosphere whereby this group emerged. It is essential to understand the economic atmosphere which destroyed some, whilst others salvaged the ravages left behind by the economic earthquake of the early modern era. The Middle Age crisis left a legacy of famines, plagues, and wars. Gradually, both population and trade began to recover. It is estimated that the population was more than doubled between 1520 and 165012. London alone experienced an eight fold increase (from 60,000 to 450,000)13. However, according to traditionally trained historians, this population explosion led to prolonged inflation14. 3.1.3. Inflation It was also an era of rapid urbanization. England's major export, woolen cloth, also grew rapidly in this time frame15. This period is now identified as the Price Revolution, and is known to be the longest sustained period of inflation ever recorded16. During the span of 150 years, prices increased six fold, and both relative price’s and the CPI changed17 18. Later, I will contend this very monetary pressure led to technological innovations. Despite the fact that grain prices were raising, it did not translate into an equal increase in revenues for land owners due to feudal land organization. The Middle Age demographic crisis allowed for commutation of rents and the leasing out of the demesne through copyhold tenures. Therefore, agricultural became the domain of the peasants only. As a result, despite inflation, customary rents remained stagnant since they were fixed in advance. 3.1.4. The Enclosure Landowners were also devastated by the price revolution, and in hopes of capturing further Ricardian rents, they pushed for a change in agrarian practices19. Landowners could resort to the revision of the terms that their properties were leased; giving them the flexibility to raise the rents and entry fines, and transform long leases into shorter ones20. Alternatively, landowners could enclose their lands, and thus directly engage in farming themselves. One of the two of the main theories about enclosure is Joan Thirsk’s model. This model argues that population rose in this period, and it forced the peasants to expand the arable at the expense of the pasture. This situation led to the decline of manure which caused fall in the marginal agricultural yield and encouraged land owners to enclose. The contending theory, Ricardo’s theorem of economic rent, instead presents that the enclosure movement was a result of the increased demand for grain from demographic pressures that led to more distant lands being forced into production. The extended discussion on enclosures is necessary as they, for various reasons, were necessary for the adoption of new agricultural procedures that were introduced in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The primary innovation, Up and Down husbandry, was known to be the most productive form of agriculture21; however it couldn't be utilized simultaneously with the Open field farming22 and was capital intensive. Landowners could raise capital, primarily by mortgaging their lands since land that was under communal use could not be mortgaged. In addition, when land was under single management, drastic decisions about agricultural design and usage of land became easier23. In addition, enclosures allowed the accumulation of larger tracts of land that made the utilization of this agricultural innovation as profitable. The positive externalities from new husbandry are numerous, such as: the textile industry received better quality of wool; since it was capital intensive, it allowed for labor to be released from agriculture24. This phenomenon, also known as the agrarian revolution, allowed yield to reach new levels. Moreover, it also facilitated the expansion through the newly cultivated areas25. However, by far the most significant achievement of the agrarian developments was that it provided Britain with the tools to circumvent the Malthusian check that usually arose when the population reached an unsupportable level. It facilitated for the rapid growth of towns and industry. In sum, the price revolution induced the enclosure movement as the economy naturally adjusted to the shifting costs of the various factors of production. Real wages were on the rise whilst the returns from land were diminishing. Land owners were now responding to the market signals indicating that the supply of a different combination of products was more profitable. This economic situation was not for England alone since the prices and supply of grain drastically changed in France as well26. We can conclude that ideal economic conditions were not the only factors which led to the birth of capitalism. It is questionable, however, that in a country where technological innovations are adopted in response to the economic tempo, it is witness to be trapped in feudalistic ways. 3.2.1. Social, Political and Historical Backdrop In Britain, historical, religious, and political conditions were ideal for the emergence of a non-feudal class that would champion Agrarian capitalism. Early modern era was shortly preceded by the cessation of the hundred years’ war. Hundred years of war forced the British Monarchy to prepare a standing army in order to shield its vulnerability from the unreliable Knights. This mercenary army required a government with a wide revenue base27; therefore, they resorted to new forms of raising funds, predominantly taxation of properties28. Consequently, it increased the fluidity of already fluid land markets. On the other hand, the public’s satisfaction with the church began to surface after centuries of simmering under the surface. Kings and popes were continuously warring over the collection of Church taxes29. The protestant reformation was sweeping over the continent and with that came John Calvin’s new doctrine of predestination. Even though it was just a doctrine, it had far reaching repercussions that would alter the course of the European history forever by transforming political and economic values and institutions. According to this doctrine, “Calvinist merchants were (not only) allowed to do business and make money, they were predestined to do as fervently as god’s will30”. Now, it established that maximizing ones profit was the glorification of God, a stark contrast with the feudalistic view on profit and usury. As with every doctrine, the fervor died down, and pursuing profits for your own good was justified. Henry VIII, by taking advantage of the widespread public discontent, cut ties of the Church of England with Rome. Needless to say, Henry VIII achieved his infamous divorce, but what is most relevant to this essay is the ensuing dissolution of the monasteries to raise funds for his military activities31. 4. The Emergence of Gentry, and failure of others In England, as the traumatic memories of the price revolution faded, the fluidity of the land market began to take root and the promises of agrarian capitalism began to materialize. However, why this was the case for England alone? Now with a vivid economic, political and religious background, a better understanding of the class dynamics that led the changes in Britain can be analyzed. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that same feudal method of organization existed across Europe, and social, political, economic and religious circumstances were also similar. A good country to use as benchmark for comparison is France since it actually fell susceptible to a Malthusian check under the same circumstances. In the face of exploding demand and growing population, peasants diverted their outputs to personal consumption despite the rising prices32. Their economic trajectories diverge in the early modern era as Britain's landlords increasingly utilized technological innovations. On the other hand, the broken record repeated itself in France as they failed to innovate33. The cycle of crisis was not broken in England alone, but they not only escaped the Malthusian trap, but also progressed forward into centuries of continued economic growth. Here, the question arises that why was England able to utilize the technological advancements, whereas French landlords couldn't resort to innovation to save their economy from the repetitive crisis cycle? The answer to this question lies in the ability of England to produce a new non-feudal class that as a result of interplay of changing religious beliefs and economic opportunities, could utilize technological innovations for agrarian reform. First we must address why the old feudal classes couldn’t innovate. Why did a new class have to emerge? Understanding their inability to innovate must be understood in the context and era of their existence. Can we argue that a traditional feudal class could engage in agrarian capitalism? It seems unrealistic and unviable for a group to change its values and codes of conduct instantaneously. In explaining this phenomenon, Roland divides institutions as Fast-moving and slow-moving34. He states, slow-moving institutions, such as culture, values and beliefs, “generally change slowly, incrementally and continuously, whereas the latter (fast-moving institutions) are more given to rapid, discontinuous change in large steps”35. Due to this explanation, we will assume that the values of these feudal classes didn't change. What are the values, beliefs and codes of conduct of classes that prohibited them from being the forerunners of the technological innovations? The most obvious group that would have the possible incentive and resources to partake in technological innovations was the feudal landlords. We must take a journey back in time and re-immerse ourselves in the values and beliefs of this group in order to determine the most rational patterns of consumption and production of this class. In the feudal society, involvement in trade was not noble36; rather the honorable ways of acquiring wealth were service at court, a good marriage, or through warfare. This militaristic culture made the knight to be the epitome of crusading chivalry. Therefore, he was interested more in the booty that can be gained at war, rather than the income through trade37. Nonetheless, the expensive maintenance of this knightly lifestyle forced them to engage in some trade. By the twelfth century, they would establish towns, fairs and markets38. It must be noted that this engagement with trade was at best sedentary39. In addition to that, the books of history have proven that feudal landlords did not manage their estates rationally. To amass further wealth, they would resort to further accumulation of land instead of efficient estate management40. They would engage in further surplus extraction from peasants rather than introducing technology that would increase productivity levels. Though, they were not thoroughly engaged in wealth accumulation, they were very active in ways of spending it41. To this effect Tawney notes, “standards of expenditure were those of one age (middle Ages), its income that of another [price revolution]”. As a result of this conspicuous consumption, the price revolution shook up the foundations of this class and many family estates came crashing down. The Decline of this class is well documented in Stone’s work, “Crisis of the Aristocracy”. However, a barrier existed between the Peers and Gentry; therefore, they did not suffer to the same degree during the crisis42. On the contrary, Mingay argues that gentry actually grew through successful management of their estates43. Moving forward, another subcategory of land owners was, the Yeomanry. They were the wealthier and more successful farmers from peasantry origin. Further research can be done to investigate about their ability to partake in the agrarian revolution. However, their access to land acquisition was extremely restricted44. The successful implementation of the technology required for the agrarian revolution was dependent upon access to large tracts of land. Also, as a class, they did not have the advantage of merchants and lawyers to move up the social ladder through marriage45. In addition, as a group, the facts state the opposite pattern during this period of extreme land exchange as they increased land ownership by 5 % only ( see appendix 1). Peasants, who constituted majority of the feudal society, were the least likely to engage in agrarian capitalism as it would be irrational estate management on their plots46. Peasants engaged in subsistence farming, and the surplus that they produced would be sold off in the market. France demonstrates an exemplary model of the effects of a deeply entrenched peasantry47. As a result of their strength, they protected themselves from falling in leases; rising fines; or compelled to sell their lands48. Even if this group were to have access to the resources required for the capital intensive innovations that was required to compete with the agrarian capitalist farmers, they could not had afford to wait, take the risk, and the time required for the success of these innovations. It took up to 10 years for up and down husbandry to take root and become successful49. No doubt, 10 years is a very long period for a group that posses subsistence ethos's or mindset. As France demonstrated, a well-entrenched feudal system ensured that the potential for long term growth was sabotaged. The English, on the other hand, circumvented that self-destructing system, and the landlords were able to increase the rents, shorten the lives of the leases, or better yet, enclose. When the forces of the market were unleashed, the peasantry was outbided by the large capitalist farmers. As Tawney puts it, "the new world had victims and it also had conquerors." The time was ripe for the gentry to arise, and scourge for opportunities in the wake of the demise of aristocracy. Tawney observes that the gentry tapped into the signal and purchased land50. The gentry were already on the rise during this period51. In the wake of a financial storm, the price revolution blew violently. Gentry were not overwhelmed by conspicuous consumption52. It takes two to make a sale, as result of all this unrest; there was a wave of sellers and buyers. The way to get ahead in that era was to innovate, something that the Gentry were more likely to do. Tawney argues that the reasons for this were their freedom as they were spared from public duty; they did not have large estate overheads; and they had the experience of running their enterprises53. As a result, “as a class, they had gained most by the dissolution. They not only succeeded in retaining their acquisitions, but continued to add to them in the course of the next century”54. While we have established gentry and the context it emerged in, let us return to the bigger question, why did England develop faster then France and continental Europe? No doubt, the answer lies in their ability to innovate agriculturally. This ability embarked them on a path of sustained economic growth, rather than a cycle of prosperity and decay. Tawney also advanced his thesis that England surpassed the Malthusian check due to a rising gentry. On the other hand, Trevor-Roper argues gentry and aristocracy were the same group since aristocracy was a way of life rather than a matter or title. Despite the negative debate, Tawney provides a plausible explanation of why the gentry were the class that acted like agrarian capitalists. However, in order to better understand the determinants of change in England, Tawney’s work would have provided a better insight had it shed light on the role of changing values and norms due to the rising Calvinism. Appendix: Table 1 Read More