Cobbett on the Problem of Rural Poverty in Modern Britain

College of History and Tourism Culture, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot 010021, China

Abstract In the late 18th and 19th centuries, the problem of poverty in the English countryside was relatively serious. The radical Cobbett pays attention to the rural society and elaborates on the tax burden, the polarization of rural society and the poverty of agricultural workers in a series of works, not only promoting the parliamentary reforms in 1832 but also arousing widespread concern on rural poverty from the society at that time. By drawing on the research of the famous radical Cobbett from domestic and foreign academic circles, based on many original materials such as newspapers, books and pamphlets in the 19th century, this article combs Cobbett’s account of rural poverty in modern Britain and analyzes its value.

Key words Britain, Cobbett, Rural poverty

1 Introduction

William Cobbett (1763-1835) was a famous British radical in the early 19th century and played an important role in the political and social reform movement of the time. European and American academic circles pay close attention to Cobbett’s life experiences and ideological heritage. However, domestic academic circles have rarely been involved so far, and the exploration of related raw materials is also very limited. Based on combing the original documents such as Cobbett’s newspapers, books and pamphlets, this article sorts out his account of the poverty problem in the modern British countryside and explores his role in the solution of social problems in the 19th century.

2 The problem of rural poverty in modern Britain

At the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 18th century, the problem of social poverty in the British countryside was relatively serious. In the agricultural revolution in the first half of the 18th century, landowners occupied land and improved agricultural farming techniques to form a high-performance large-scale real estate system. In the agricultural revolution, the aristocratic landlords were the leader. The rural middle class such as squires, yeomen and tenant farmers also actively participated in enclosure and agricultural improvement. Relying on the opportunity of the great development of agriculture, their strength was strengthened. Relying on hard work, they made fortune. Their economic and social status was also improved. However, in the second half of the 18th century, with the completion of the agricultural revolution and the beginning of the industrial revolution, the development of agriculture in Britain had slowed down. The polarization of rural society was serious, and the beautiful picture of "The Old England" had gradually disappeared. The financial burden and inflation brought about by the long-term foreign wars in the late 18th and early 18th centuries brought a heavy economic burden to the rural middle class. After the French Revolution broke out, Britain fell into a long-term anti-French war, and public spending soared. As the war deepened, the Pitt government extended the practice of successive governments since the Glorious Revolution and borrowed heavily from financial capitalists with state taxation as collateral, causing a sharp increase in the amount of government bonds and increasing the tax burden on the people. In addition, long-term wars had made British metal money scarce, and the circulation was filled with a large number of banknotes. However, the depreciation of banknotes was rapid, and inflation was serious. The Pitt government’s wartime fiscal policy had made financial bourgeois profitable, but it had damaged other sectors of society, especially the rural middle class and the lower class. They were unable to withstand the pressure of tax burdens and the depreciation of banknotes.

In the middle and late 18th century, the parliament continued to issue enclosure laws, making land further concentrated in the hands of a few people, leading to poverty among the people at the bottom of villages. In 1796, Lord Winchlsey wrote in his travel notes:" Whoever travels in the central counties and is willing to ask more questions will get the answer: in the past there were many farm workers who raised cattle, and now the land falls into the hands of the farmer"[1]. In the five years from 1795 to 1799, enclosure caused the rent to be more than three times the original, and the rural poor also doubled at the same time. The enclosure movement in Britain in the 18th century was a legal enclosure licensed by parliamentary decrees, but it still caused great harm to the ordinary people at the bottom who have no rights and no money. As pointed out by Thompson, the enclosure in one village after another destroyed the poor economy that hardly maintained livelihood, raising cattle or raising geese. The rural people collected firewood to obtain fuel and other things from the commons. Cottagers could not legally prove their rights and thus receive very little compensation. Those who could prove that they had this right got a small piece of land, but still not enough to sustain their survival. On the contrary, in the high cost of the enclosure, they had to bear a disproportionate share[2]. In addition, natural disasters occurred frequently in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Two large-scale food failures and famines broke out between 1795 and 1796 and between 1800 and 1801. The problem of poverty in the English rural society had become more serious.

In the early 18th century, the serious rural poverty problem had attracted the attention of middle-class radicals represented by Cobbett. The agricultural depression had little impact on the upper class of the aristocratic landlords. After the long war, the parliament controlled by the nobilities introduced the class legislationTheCornLaw, artificially raising food prices, but the middle class and the bottom workers in the countryside were hard to escape. The radicals of the early 18th century, such as Hunter, Cobbett, were mostly from the old middle class such as squire and farmer. Both Burdett and Hunter were born in the old English squire family. Their families were also actively involved in the agricultural revolution of the 18th century. Hunter’s father was particularly good at grasping the opportunity, and the enclosure and agricultural improvement operations were extremely successful. Henry Hunter inherited the wealthy farm in his adulthood and became the number one farmer in the area. Cobbett was born in a low profile. His grandfather was a rural worker in the southern town of Farham. His father was self-taught and relied on hard work to get rid of the status of employment. He also made a fortune in the agricultural revolution, owning his own small farm and running an inn, jumping to a small farmer. In the early 18th century, Hunter, Cobbett and Cartwright generally felt the adverse effects of economic changes on the rural middle class, and they wrote articles in the newspapers to pay attention to changes in the British countryside. Among them, Cobbett was particularly concerned about the agricultural depression and rural poverty. Cobbett was born in a rural civilian family in the south of England that struggled to the middle class with hard work. His birth and growth experience made him not only passionate about the country world but also sympathy for the ordinary people. Cobbett was also a very influential political journalist in the 18th century. The newspaper Political Register, founded by Cobbett, had been widely distributed in British society for more than 30 years. His series of newspapers, book and pamphlets had detailed records and analysis of the rural poverty in the late 18th and early 18th centuries.

3 Cobbett’s account of rural poverty

Cobbett’s focus on rural poverty began in the early 18th century. Between 1803 and 1804, in the Political Register, Cobbett published a series of articles slamming stock speculation, financial speculation, banks, government bonds and banknotes, equating the problems brought about by national debt and banknotes with the French revolution, and referring to the financial stakeholders as "paper aristocrats". Cobbett believed that the so-called "currency stakeholders" would destroy the existing order. Their activities were harmful to landowners, businessmen, manufacturers, priests, nobles and royals. The condemned the "paper aristocrats" for harming the freedom, independence and social system of the British. The gentleman class had always maintained an independent life by operating the ancestral industry. They were forced to pay taxes to the government to maintain national debt. Coupled with the pressure of depreciation of banknotes, they were increasingly difficult to maintain independence and had to sell some industries. Once the gentleman’s industry was dispersed, his financial resources were weakened, and his son must go to business or be a pastor. The real estate sold was also acquired by those who benefit from paper money and national debt or other new rich people[3]. In addition, the burden of national debt and the proliferation of banknotes had increased the suffering of the bottom people’s lives. Laborers were even experiencing extreme poverty. Political Register pointed out that the bottom labor masses had a difficult life, and the growing number of poor people had reached a dangerous situation: "The tax burden and the depreciation of banknotes had caused hundreds of small laborers to go bankrupt, social wealth has gathered in the hands of a few people, and land and agriculture have become the targets of speculation; many small farmers have been occupies and small farmers have almost disappeared; across England, the houses that once lived with the happy family of small farmers are now ruined and the windows are closed, and there is only a little light on the poor labor in the house; the father might be a small farmer, but his child is poor and almost undressed, and he peeped at this rich and luxurious master with complex feelings from the crack in the door... We are increasingly entering a polarized society: the master and the despicable servant"[4]. At the beginning of the 18th century, Cobbett placed hope on the Whig government, and hoped that Fox and other Whig politicians would carry out fundamental changes to combat paper aristocrats and financial speculators. After the failure of the hopes, he was seriously dissatisfied with the existing political system. Concerning rural poverty had transformed Cobbett into a political radical that advocated fundamental changes.

In the low period of the radical reform movement in the 1820s, Cobbett wrote more works focusing on rural poverty. Since 1821, he began to ride a horse in the southern and central parts of England, observing the topography, crops, country landscape and customs of the localities. He also conducted a "social survey" in person and went deep into the pubic to understand the living conditions of the ordinary people and their aspirations. Cobbett’s horseback survey lasted from 1821 to 1832. He had travelled all over England and even travelled to Scotland and Ireland. Cobbett recorded what he saw and heard, as well as his personal feelings. A travelogue called "Rural Rides" was serialized in the Political Register.

On the way of the horse-riding cruise, Cobbett sympathized with the rural society and the people. Whenever Cobbett saw farmer’s life was affluent, ordinary workers had a tidy house, people lived happily and each shed had one or two pigs, he was often extremely happy and comfortable: "We will know what kind of people are in England when we look at it: these gardens and cots are the best answer to Malthus and other villains. Close your mouth, your Scottish economists! Stop preaching, Mr. Brougham and the critics of Edinburgh"[5]. Unfortunately, in more places, Cobbett witnessed the hardships of people’s livelihood. In the Rural Rides, he constantly denounces the enclosure, taxes and hateful banknotes, blaming these hateful "new tricks" ruthlessly swallowed yeomen. More than a dozen farms were merged into one, leading to the bankruptcy and displacement of yeomen and the destruction of laborer’s shelter. Wars and banknotes brought nabobs, slave traders, generals, marshals, pastors, contract traders, idlers and pensioners, as well as national debt holders, bankers and stock brokers. On the way, a farmer told Cobbett that the same grain could be sold at a price of 25 shillings per bushel many years ago, but it did not work now. Cobbett exclaimed: "it is clear that this generation of farmers will surely suffer a bankrupt disaster"[6]. In many parts of the south, Cobbett found that labor wages were extremely low, with only 8 shillings or even 6 shillings per week, and it is almost impossible to make a living. In the face of a bad year, farmers would cut wages and make agricultural workers’ lives even more impoverished. He even found that in some places, the residence of some labor was only slightly better than the pig pen, and his eating was even as bad as pig’s. "The poor people rely on some potatoes to survive. I have never seen such a miserable person in my life, and even the lives of free blacks in the United States are better than theirs. Is this the so called ‘prosperity’ On! This is the consequences of Pitt and bad system!"[6]. Cobbett condemned the arrogance of the borough mongers. "The public’s money is used to maintain some families that are nothing. The public’s money is used to support them, and no matter what way or by what name, the money is used to feed them. This is one side of our system. The pensioners, sinecures, pastors on the list are always the acquaintances. They are like scorpions, treating the public as rotten meat, climbing on it for generations, and eating non-stop"[7].

Cobbett not only sympathized with the hard-working masses, but also lamented the changes in rural social relations. He pointed out that enclosures, taxes, government bonds and banknotes had destroyed the original harmonious rural society and eliminated the old-style squires and yeomen farmers who were paternalists, and labor lost protection and lived in absolute poverty. He said: "the word ‘farmer ’originally referred to two different people. Only those who rent hand are called farmers, and those who cultivate their own land are called yeomen. When I was young, people used to call the first category as farmers and the second category as yeoman farmers"[6]. Cobbett lamented the disappearance of the old-style paternalistic kindness. "Some superficial idiots say this is very good. In fact, they don’t know the kind of gentlemen who live in the country. This kind of gentlemen has feelings for the land. They watch every yeoman and worker grow up on the land and feel close to them, so they naturally care for them. Old-style gentlemen are essentially different from those of new gentlemen. The latter kind of people do not like the way of life in the country, unfamiliar with the habits of the country, unfamiliar and alienated with the land. They just regard land as a source of rent and an investment sale. They are unfamiliar with the workers on the land, despising them and their wishes. They only rely on power intimidation to control these people"[8].

In short, Cobbett looked at the land and people of England with deep feelings and was integrated into it. The Rural Rides is a picture that reflects the hardship of ordinary people. Therefore, "it is a travel note rarely seen in the history of English literature. It is a combination of natural descriptions and the sufferings of the times. It is both a landscape paining and a map of the people, with the writing of Defoe and the eyesight of Young. What run through the book are the deep feelings for the working people that neither of them has"[8].

British radical reform movement re-merged between 1829 and 1832. During the period, Cobbett actively mobilized all sectors of the southern villages to support parliamentary reforms. In the late 1820s, the agricultural sector in the southern England was poorly harvested, the economy was sluggish, and the social situation was extremely unstable. In the spring of 1829, the Kent farmer submitted a petition to the parliament requesting a suspension of the hop tax. By 1830, more areas in the south had submitted petitions asking the parliament to save sluggish agriculture. After these petitions were rejected, the dissatisfaction in the southeastern region gradually accumulated. Local newspapers had voiced slamming bad governance and demanding parliamentary reforms. In April 1829, Cobbett wrote in a letter to a friend that "the Kent’s submission of a petition to suspend the hop tax is undoubtedly one of the obvious symptoms of the country’s illness. In fact, such a depression is unprecedented"[9]. In October 1830, Cobbett traveled to the agricultural region of southeast England. From October 11 to 26, he gave speeches to the public of Dartford, Rochester, Brighton and Portsmouth. These speeches were extremely provocative. Cobbett repeatedly emphasized the French revolutionary events and pointed out that British workers should act, and now the burden of changing the country’s destiny had fallen on their shoulders. The middle class was inactive and blinded by corrupt propaganda. The working class suffered the most, and it should be tempered to show strength. They might also eventually become doctors who healed the country. In the winter of 1830, the problems of economic depression, unemployment and poverty were even more serious. In mid-October, the turmoil broke out in various parts of the southeast from Kent. The agricultural labors that had always been considered the most tamed initiated "Swing riots". Violent incidents involving arson, smashing threshing machines, attacking farmers and priests broke out in multiple counties. The rioters also asked the priests for tithe relief. Cobbett’s parade in the southeast was like a raging fire, playing a catalytic role in the Swing riots. Rural farm workers had always been considered the most tamed class in British society. The occurrence of the Swing riots shocked the entire ruling class. Eventually, the Tory Party government, which

resolutely resisted change, collapsed, opening a way for the introduction of the Whig Party and the parliamentary reform bill.

4 Conclusions

In summary, in the late 18th and early 18th centuries, Cobbett, who was born in the country and sympathized with ordinary people, was keenly concerned about he poverty in the British countryside at that time. He not only conducted social surveys in person to understand the rural social conditions. In a series of works published by him, he criticized the rural social problems such as tax burden, social polarization and agricultural worker’s poverty, which caused a certain degree of concern in the society at that time. Cobbett attributed rural poverty to political corruption. He believed that radical political reform was the fundamental way to save many social problems. He actively mobilized people outside the parliament to support political reforms, directly promoted the agricultural riots of Swing riots, and promoted the realization of parliamentary reforms in 1832. Not only that, the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 18th century were the transitional periods of British modern history. During the period, the economy developed rapidly, but political and social changes lag behind. A series of social crises lurked in the transition period. Cobbett cruised around the UK to learn more about the situation and exposed rural social issues that were ignored by the upper echelons of society at the time, gradually causing the attention of the society at that time. Cobbett’s critique of rural poverty played a positive role in the resolution of social problems in the 18th century.