Trade and the British Empire.

The long 18^th century, from the Glorious Revolution until Waterloo, was the period in which Britain rose to a dominant position among European trading empires, and became the first western nation to industrialise. The extent of economic change between 1688 and 1815 can be discerned through a glimpse at the state of economic and social conditions at home, and the growth of trade and empire at the beginning and end of that period. In 1688 England and Wales had a population of 4.9 million, and the internal economy was still largely based on agricultural work and production. Domestic industry flourished, with many workers pursuing dual occupations on a seasonal basis in industry and agriculture. English society contained a flourishing and more extensive middling sector than any other western country, including the Dutch Republic. This provided a strong platform for commerce with, and settlement in, far-flung territories. Merchants sent out ships to trade with North America and the West Indies, where England had established a network of colonies, following on from the permanent settlement of Virginia in 1607 and the acquisition of Barbados in 1625. Some 350,000 people had emigrated from England across the Atlantic by the end of the 17^th century. In 1686 alone these colonies shipped goods worth over £1 million to London. Exports to the colonies consisted mainly of woollen textiles; imports included sugar, tobacco and other tropical groceries for which there was a growing consumer demand. Trade and settlement also occurred in Asian waters. This was mainly based around the activities of the East India Company, a large joint-stock company based in London. The ships of the East India Company fleet traded mainly in bullion, textiles and tea with Bengal. In 1688 Britain was still a vulnerable competitor for stakes in overseas colonies and trade - her rivals were the trading empires of France and the Netherlands, as well as Spain and her client state, Portugal.

Britain and the Rise of Science.By 1700, there was a commitment to science as the firm basis for success in commerce and industry. Britain's rapid industrialisation over the next century and its domination of world trade confirmed the importance of science in driving the economy. In Britain, scientific development reached its zenith in the second half of the 17^th century, during the period known as the 'scientific revolution'. The foundation was laid for modern science in Britain long before the Polish mathematician Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) demonstrated a model of the universe in which the Earth and other planets revolved around the Sun. At Merton College, Oxford, Robert Grosseteste (1168-1253) and his student Roger Bacon (1219-1292) argued that geometry was the basis for comprehending the mysteries of nature, and that mathematical models provided our understanding of the world around us. We may trace the birth of the so-called 'scientific revolution' in Britain to the activities of 3 influential figures, all of whom flourished around the year 1600, and all of whom belonged to an exclusive inner circle of advisers to the royal family of the day, Elizabeth I, James I, and above all James's eldest son Prince Henry.

Science took off in Britain with the Restoration of the monarchy. In late 1660, John Wilkins (1614-72), former Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, with a group of talented young experimental scientists and some gentlemen 'virtuosi' (amateur enthusiasts), founded the Royal Society. Among those active in the Society in the early years were some of the major figures in British science: Robert Boyle (1627-91), Robert Hooke (1635-1703), Sir Christopher Wren (1632-1723), and Sir William Petty (1623-87). In 1675 the Royal Observatory was established at Greenwich, and the talented astronomer John Flamsteed (1646-1719) appointed the first Astronomer Royal. Among those closely associated with charting the heavens over the next 25 years were Edmond Halley (1656-1742) and Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Newton, who emerged from scholarly near-reclusiveness at Trinity College, Cambridge, in the 1690s, to become Master of the Royal Mint (assuring the reliability of English coinage), and President of the Royal Society in 1703, now stands as a figurehead for British scientific achievement. By 1700 there were scientific institutions across Britain, and a commitment to science as the firm basis for success in commerce and industry, and for national prosperity, was an established plank in the political agenda.

Life in town and country. In 1700 England and Wales had a population of about 5,5 million then grew quickly to about 8,8 million by the end of the century. Including Ireland and Scotland the total population was about 13 million. In 1700 England was still the land of small villages. By the middle of the century Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield and Leeds were already large. But such new towns were still treated as villages and so had no representation in Parliament. All the towns smelled bad. There were no drains. They also were centres of disease. As a result only 1 child in 4 in London lived to become an adult. It was the poor who died youngest. They were buried together in large holes dug in the ground. These were not covered with earth until they were full. During the 18^th century efforts were made to make towns healthier. Streets were built wider, so that the carriages drawn by horses could pass each other. From 1734, London had a street lighting system.

The use of child labour in the workhouse and in the new factories increased towards the end of the century. This was hardly surprising. A rapidly growing population made a world of children. Children of the poor had always worked as soon as they could walk. Workhouse children were expected to learn a simple task from the age of 3, and almost all would be working by the age of 6 or 7. Then, quite suddenly at the end of the century, child labour began to be seen as shameful. A 1^st blow had been struck some years earlier. Horrified by the suffering of children forced to sweep chimneys, two men campaigned for almost 30 years to persuade Parliament to pass a Regulating Act in 1788 to reduce the cruelty involved. In the 19^th century the condition of poor children was to become a main area of social reform.

Victorian Britain, 1837 - 1901 (the 19^th century)

Covered in honours.In the same year as Trafalgar (1805), a British army landed in Portugal to fight the French. This army was commanded by Wellington, a man who had fought in India. After several victories against the French in Spain he invaded France and with the help of the Prussian army he finally defeated Napoleon at Waterloo in Belgium in June 1815. Wellington was covered in honours by Britain and by all the European powers, but instead of retiring he entered the British Cabinet in 1818, staying there as Master-General of Ordinance until 1827. The following year he became prime minister and in 1829, despite being a reactionary Tory, and against his private inclinations, he helped pass the Catholic Relief Act, with the aid of Sir Robert Peel. He resigned in 1830 when it became clear that he could not prevent parliamentary reform from being enacted.As commander-in-chief of the British Army between 1827 and 1828, and from 1842 until his death in 1852, Wellington was a force for conservatism, and it has been argued that the lack of army reform under his leadership led to the British army being ill-prepared for the Crimean War.

Parliamentary reform.Fear of Charles’s interest in the Catholic church and of the monarchy becoming too powerful in the 17^th century resulted in the 1^st political parties in Britain. One of these parties was a group of MPs who became known as “Whigs”, a rude name for cattle drivers. The Whigs were afraid of an absolute monarchy and of the Catholic faith with which they connected it. They also wanted to have no regular or “standing” army; they believed strongly in allowing religious freedom. The Whigs were opposed by another group, nicknamed “Tories”, an Irish name for thieves – they upheld the authority of the crown and the Church and were naturally inheritors of the “Royalist” position. These 2 parties (Whigs and Tories) became the basis of Britain’s two-party parliamentary system of government. Tory governments since the 1790s had provided a strong thread of anti-reformist continuity. The Whig government that followed it under Earl Grey, however, came into office with plans for parliamentary reform, and a succession of Whig leaders proclaimed that reform was necessary to secure the state. It rapidly became clear that opposition to reform remained strong in the House of Commons and overwhelming in the House of Lords, and this led to the Whigs' first reform bill running into the parliamentary sands. A general election held in 1831 gave the Whigs an unassailable majority for reform in the Commons but it did little to change opinion in the Lords, and the Lords' rejection of the Whigs' second reform bill in October led to widespread rioting throughout Britain. For a time, the authorities lost control of Derby, Nottingham and Bristol. Castles and country houses were hastily reinforced against attack. During the winter of 1831-32, the nation stood on a knife-edge. In the spring, the Lords showed signs of renewed recalcitrance, and the King, as a desperation measure, invited the Duke of Wellington back to form a government. In response, reform leaders made plans to bring the country to a halt by having their supporters withdraw funds from the banks, using the slogan: 'To stop the Duke, go for Gold'.The crisis was averted. The Lords backed down and the Reform Bill was passed. But what if the Lords had stood firm? Historians will always debate 'might-have-beens' and no one can prove things one way or the other. However, the potential for revolution in 1831-32 is clear. Public support for parliamentary reform had never been greater. Outside London, no professional police force was in place and the mechanisms of control available to the authorities were old-fashioned and creaky. There was as yet no railway network to move troops rapidly to areas that were out of control. Revolutions have been mounted elsewhere on less.The Whigs' perception that a measure of concession to popular opinion was necessary in the interests of national security was undoubtedly correct. But if they had not won over the King and the Lords in 1832, then the potential for a revolutionary response certainly existed. So, Britain avoided political revolution in the 19^th century, but it is far from clear that it was bound to do so. In 1831-32, to adapt a phrase used by the Duke of Wellington about the Battle of Waterloo, it had been a pretty 'near run thing'.

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 847