This is a
repeat of a post from February 2010 and may still be of interest.
Something
cropped up which sent me round the web again in search of the past. The locations involved and the period meant
that William Cobbett’s “Rural Rides” was worth re-reading. In 1823 when riding
in Sussex and Kent
he observed a number of oddities.
It was that
the roads were much improved but the farmers were poorer. Moreover, many of the fields and gardens were
not as well tended as he would have expected. It was explained to him that the
farmers could not afford to pay the labourers.
Cobbett
realized that the local property and other taxes imposed on the farmers to
provide Parish Relief for unemployed labourers was the major factor. The men on
relief were then obliged to work on the local roads to earn their pittance.
This was the infamous
“Speenhamland” system of the period the problems of which led to the creation
of many workhouses and the Poor Law Act of 1834 extending the workhouse system
across the country.
Another matter
caught his attention. It was that the
plump rosy cheeked young women talking of “getting a house” rather than finding
a husband. This was their way out of their parent’s family, which meant unpaid
service and avoiding either domestic service elsewhere or low paid employment.
But to get a
house you had to get a man. It seems
from other sources that the conventional means was to get with child by a
likely lad from which marriage would often but not always follow.
In 1821/22 the
Rev. J. Monkhouse wrote in the Parish Register of Bramshott, “Of 72 marriages
in the last 10 years ending 1820, not less than 69 females have been unchaste
before marriage. Those who gain husbands are more fortunate than those who bear
bastards, but not more virtuous."
Even those
with bastards might get another man if one was willing and so a house and the
parish relief. Bramshott is a little way from the Selborne of Gilbert White
where the later Fitt family at the Priory Farm supplied a number of
bastards. Also, it is near to the
Chawton of Jane Austen.
In 1825 during
yet another of the recurrent financial busts of the period, the Duke of
Wellington observed that the nation was only days away from barter; that is
where the money supply had disappeared from circulation altogether, neither
quantity nor velocity were to be found.
The essential
problem was that with a system depending on the quantity of gold and silver a
rate of population increase in excess of the increase in their supply meant
inherent deflation; much as a rate of population increase higher than the rate increase
of real GDP today engenders low wages and unemployment. This was relieved only
by local credit systems and banks issuing their own notes, leveraging their
gold holdings.
When too much
of this paper fiat currency had been issued a lot of banks went wrong or bad
and when that happened everyone wanted gold and there was nowhere near enough
to be had. This might happen after a bad harvest which sent corn prices up.
Because the
money system did not allow too much in the way of rises the effect was then
deflation for the prices of other goods, services, and labour. Work was hard to
find, food was at higher relative cost, poorer and even middling families
crowded into the available buildings and welfare systems all but collapsed.
All this
culminated in considerable disorder and political upheaval around 1830 in Britain and Europe . Captain Swing was about the country. Near
Bramshott at Headley men from there and Selborne were given free passage to Australia after
burning their local workhouse down.
King George IV
and his fellow Royal Dukes did their best for the economy in an early form of
quantatitive easing on the basis of large sums of unfunded debt underwritten by
the taxpayer. The Brighton Pavilion and other arts ventures are their heritage,
as are the maintenance and repair costs.
Their efforts
were little appreciated by the population at large who had begun to develop a
healthy contempt for the upper classes and were beginning to demand an end to
corruption and rule by a self regarding elite using the system for their own
benefit.
The lifestyle,
greed and lack of moral compass of their rulers offended both those with
serious religious convictions and those attempting to keep their farms and
businesses functioning.
Some figures
from the USA
are interesting in this context. During
the American Rebellion 1776-1783 it is calculated that around 20% of Americans were
Loyalist, that is believing in the Crown and British Government.
Recent polls
now suggest in the USA
that only around 20% of the present population believes that the Federal
Government truly represents them and their interests, the future could be
interesting. What is the equivalent figure for the UK ?
In my view a figure of anything under 30% believing in our system and
falling means we are headed for problems.
In the last
couple of generations we have been persuaded to believe we could have ever
improving lifestyles, access to bigger and better consumer goods and housing
space, cheap fuel and food and all of us can fly anywhere and everywhere for
pure fun.
If few of us
now have much confidence in our system what happens when all the lifestyle
fuses blow? I can recall a very
different world for the mass of the people and that is where we are headed now
in real wealth terms.
It does not
take much scratching round census returns and available information about the
pre 1914 generations to tell us that our present Western world would have been
incredible to them as it is to most of the world’s population at present.
In some
respects we are already close to the world of William Cobbett. In his time
neither government nor the economists had any real answer.
Things are going to
change, but how, why, and to what effect we shall just have to see.
Certainly interesting to me.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of this situation was the introduction of the New Poor Law which more or less criminalised poverty. In taking away the "duty of care" from individual parishes to an area administered by a union of parishes, it also began the process of professionalising the provision of poor relief - no longer provided by Church Wardens who were neighbour's of the recipients. You could say that Mr Bumble and colleagues were the first of the "caring professionals" in social service.
ReplyDeleteA Norfolk landowner had recently been going through the estate and parish records. The recipients of parish relief were mostly widows or younger women who had been orphaned. Under supervision, they could all spin wool by hand and this generated sufficient income to keep them. He pointed out that this was a sociable activity and that the room where the work was done was in the parish, so they were not separated from their relatives, friends and neighbours. He had also discovered that there was one girl unable to spin, who was obviously mentally handicapped and she had been given the job of sweeping the path from the village to the church. He had recently commemorated that by putting up a street sign, calling it " Sally's Walk". When the union system came in , they all had to go to the new workhouse which was 13 miles away which, he said was " like putting them in prison".
Last sentence - how awful.
Delete