Category Archives: World influence

England was wealthy long before the Empire and the Slave Trade

Researchers at Warwick University led by  economist Professor Stephen Broadberry have concluded that Mediaeval England,  far from being a land of poverty-stricken peasants oppressed by a small aristocratic  elite,  was a prosperous land with a higher average per capita income more than double that of the poorest nations in the world today*  The results are published by the University of Warwick’s Centre on Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE)in  a paper entitled British Economic Growth 1270-1870. www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/broadberry/wp/britishgdplongrun8a.pdf

The researchers  took as a benchmark an annual income of  $400 annually (as expressed in 1990 international dollars) , a measure often  used as a measure of “bare bones subsistence”.  They estimated  English per capita incomes in the late Middle Ages were around  $1,000 (again as expressed in 1990 dollars) and that even just before the Black Death, which first struck in 1348/49, they were  more than $800 using the same 1990 dollar measure.  This is significant because incomes rose significantly after the Black Death because of a dire shortage of labour.

In an interview with Science Daily  Professor  Broadberry,  said:

“Our work sheds new light on England’s economic past, revealing that per capita incomes in medieval England were substantially higher than the “bare bones subsistence” levels experienced by people living in poor countries in our modern world. The majority of the British population in medieval times could afford to consume what we call a “respectability basket” of consumer goods that allowed for occasional luxuries. By the late Middle Ages, the English people were in a position to afford a varied diet including meat, dairy produce and ale, as well as the less highly processed grain products that comprised the bulk of the “bare bones subsistence” diet.”

He also said: “Of course this paper focuses only on average per capita incomes. We also need to have a better understanding of the distribution of income in medieval England, as there will have been some people living at bare bones subsistence, and at times this proportion could have been quite substantial. We are now beginning research to construct social tables which will also reveal the distribution of income for some key benchmark years in that period”

“The research provides the first annual estimates of GDP for England between 1270 and 1700 and for Great Britain between 1700 and 1870. Far more data are available for the pre-1870 period than is widely realised. Britain after the Norman conquest was a literate and numerate society that generated substantial written records, many of which have survived. As a result, the research was aided by a wide variety of records — among them manorial records, tithes, farming records, and probate records.”

Professor Broadberry further said that: “Our research shows that the path to the Industrial Revolution began far earlier than commonly has been understood. A widely held view of economic history suggests that the Industrial Revolution of 1800 suddenly took off, in the wake of centuries without sustained economic growth or appreciable improvements in living standards in England from the days of the hunter-gatherer. By contrast, we find that the Industrial Revolution did not come out of the blue. Rather, it was the culmination of a long period of economic development stretching back as far as the late medieval period.”  (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101205234308.htm)

Broadly, there is nothing tremendously new here, although the research  includes interesting work on the quantification of wealth in England before the Industrial Revolution with for the first time annual estimates of English GDP between 1270-1700.  From the advent of printing,   it was common for travellers in England who wrote and published  their experiences there to comment on the wealth of England generally  and the good condition of the poorer classes in particular.  Middle English literary works such as the Canterbury Tales and Piers Ploughman  (both 14th Century) also paint a picture of an England far from poor. To those literary sources can be added the evidence of the many magnificent mediaeval cathedrals and the plentiful supply of mediaeval castles  which both speak of considerable national wealth.

As for the notion that the Industrial Revolution suddenly sprang into the world  newly minted around 1760, this has always been treated by serious historians as a nonsense. It was clearly the culmination of a long period of economic accretion and social, legal and political  evolution.  (see  http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/england-and-the-only-bootstrapped-industrial-revolution-2/)

The estimates of mediaeval per capita income may even produce a false comparison between that time and place and the poorest countries today. Most would have had land to work on their own account, whether that be as a freeman or serf, and with that land would have come a place to live in. The same does not apply to the poorest countries today.

If there is nothing startlingly novel, the research is immensely valuable as an antidote to the idea constantly promoted in the mainstream media  that England only became rich because of the empire and slave trade and before those events was a poor and insignificant country.

*Poorest nations today per  capita income at 1990 dollar values – Zaire $249, Burundi $479, Niger $514, Central African Republic $536, Comoro Islands $549, Togo $606, Guinea Bissau $617, Guinea $628, Sierra Leone $686, Haiti at $686, Chad $706, Zimbabwe $779,  Afghanistan $869 

England and the only bootstrapped Industrial Revolution

Of  all the social changes  which have occurred in human history,  none has been  so  profound as the process of  industrialisation.  The  two previous  great general  amendments  to  human  life  –  farming   and urbanisation – pale into insignificance. Before industrialisation,  man lived  primarily  from  the  land and  animals  whether  from  farming, husbandry or hunter-gathering. In the most advanced civilisations,  the vast majority of populations lived outside large towns and cities. Even in  industrialising England a majority of the population derived  their living  directly  from the land as late as the 1830s.  France  did  not become a predominantly urban nation until the 1930s.  

With  industrialisation  came  not  merely a  change  in  the  material circumstances, but profound social alteration. There arose much greater opportunity  to move from the small world of the village.  The  massive increase  in wealth eventually made even the poor rich enough  to  have aspirations.  Sufficient numbers of the wealthier classes became guilty enough  about  abject  poverty existing beside great  wealth  that  the condition  of  the poor was further mitigated  by  greater  educational opportunity,  welfare provision and legislation regulating the abuse of workers  by  employers.    Political  horizons  were  expanded  by  the extension of the franchise.  

The  industrial revolution altered the balance of power throughout  the world.  David Landes “In the wealth and Poverty of  Nations”  describes the effect succinctly:  “The industrial revolution made some  countries richer,  others (relatively) poorer; or more accurately, some countries made an industrial revolution and became rich;  and others did not  and stayed  poor.”(p168).  Prior  to industrialisation,  the  disparity  in wealth  between  states,  regions and even  continents  was  relatively small.  Come the Industrial Revolution and massive disparities begin to appear.  For  Dr  Landes,  it  is  to  the  success  or  otherwise   in industrialising  which is the primary cause of present  disparities  in national wealth.

All  of this tremendous amendment to human existence occurred   because the  one  and  only bootstrapped Industrial Revolution  took  place  in England.  Why  England?  David Landes in the  “Wealth  and  Poverty  of Nations”  sees the  historical process of industrialisation as twofold. First,    comes     a  pre-industrial  preparatory  period   in   which  irrationality  of thought is  gradually replaced by scientific   method and what he calls “autonomy  of  intellectual inquiry”(p201),  that  is, thought    divorced   from   unquestioned   reliance   on    authority, irrationality,  especially superstition.   At the same  time  technology begins to be  something more than by-guess-and-by-God. This gives birth to industrialisation  by creating both the intellectual climate and the acquired knowledge,  both scientific and technological,  necessary  for the transformation from traditional to modern society. It is as good an explanation   as  any  and  fits  the  flow  of  England’s   historical development.

It is not utterly implausible to suggest that without England the world might have had no Industrial Revolution. Those who would scoff at  such a  proposition should consider the cold facts:  even with  England  and Britain’s   example to follow no other nation matched   her  industrial development until the 1870′s and  then the first  country to do so  was a  state  ultimately derived from  England,  namely the  USA.  Nor  did  England produce an industrial revolution only in England, they actively exported and financed it throughout the world, for example, most of the European  railway  building  of the years 1840-70  was  the  result  of British engineers and money.  

Some  may  point to scientific advance in Europe from 1600  onwards  as reason  to  believe  that industrialisation would  have  been  achieved without England. It is true that Europe advanced scientifically  in the seventeenth  and eighteenth centuries,  but scientific knowledge is  no guarantee  of  technological progress.  Moreover, a good deal  of  that scientific advance came from England.   Nor does  scientific  knowledge  have  any natural connection  with the severe social upheaval  required for  a transformation from the land-working  dominated   pre-industrial  state to capitalism.  Indeed,  the landowners of pre-industrial  Europe had  a vested interest in not promoting industrial advance.   Moreover, in many parts of Europe,  particularly the East,  feudal burdens became greater not less after 1500.  This was so even in as advanced a country as  France.   Consequently,  the   widespread  social  mobility   which historians  have generally thought necessary to promote a  bootstrapped  industrial revolution simply did not exist in  Europe at the  beginning of  the  British  Industrial revolution. Even  the  country  most  like England in its commercial  development, the Netherlands, became socially and politically  ossified in the Eighteenth century,  with a bourgeoisie developing  into an aristocracy and representative government  narrowed to what was in effect a parliament of nobles. 

There will be those – Scots in particular – who will chafe at the  idea that  the industrial revolution was dependent upon England.  The  facts are against them.

Scotland  before  the union with England (1707) was a  remarkably  poor state.  Nor,  despite its much vaunted educational system –  supposedly much   the  superior  of  England  –  had  it  produced  many  men   of international importance. Read a general  history of Europe, either old or  modern,   and you will  find precious few Scots mentioned on  their own account before the Union.    The names John Eringa and Duns  Scotus with  perhaps a nod to John Knox are the best the reader may hope  for, and  the former two had to leave Scotland to make their names.  If  any other  Scotsman who lived before the Union  is mentioned,  he  will  be noticed  only  because  of his connection with  another  country,  most commonly England.   It required the union with England to give Scots  a larger stage to act upon.  Without the union,  the likes of David Hume, Adam  Smith  and James Watt would in all probability  have  been  roses which  bloomed  unseen in the desert air.   That is not  to  decry  the talents and  contributions  of Scots, which are considerable, merely to describe a necessary sociological condition  for their realisation.

Let  me  demonstrate how much of an English enterprise  the  Industrial Revolution was by using the example of the development of steam  power. Contrary  to many a schoolboy’s imagining,  James  Watt did not  invent the steam engine. That was the province of Englishmen.  The Marquess of Worcester  may have produced a working steam engine on his  estates  in 1663;  James Savery certainly did in 1698. This was improved by another Englishman,  Thomas Newcomen.  Their machines were crude beam  engines, but the technological  Rubicon had been crossed.

It is true that the Scotsman Watt’s  improvements to the steam engine – the  conversion of linear to rotary action and  the introduction  of  a separate condenser – were profoundly important and provided the   means to  extend the use of steam engines from their limited applications  in pumping water from mines. But it should be noted that he had to come to England  to achieve his improvements through his association  with   an English  entrepreneur of genius,  Mathew Boulton,    who at  his   Soho works  in Birmingham had probably the best engineering facilities  then in  the  world.  It was also Boulton who pressed Watt  to  develop  the conversion  of linear to rotary action.  It is worth adding  that  Watt was  a timid,  retiring personality who left to his own  devices  would probably  have  achieved  little of practical  consequence.   Moreover, within  a  generation  of Watt’s improvements,  the  English  engineer, Richard Trevithick had greatly improved on Watt’s engine  by  producing a high pressure steam engine, arguably a more important advance than Watt’s innovations because without it steam engines would have remained large and seriously underpowered.. static installations unable to drive vehicles such as trains and ships..

But before steam could play its full role there had to be a  revolution in  iron  production.  This was accomplished  by   Englishmen.    Until Abraham Darby began smelting iron with coke made from coal in the early 1700s,  iron making was an expensive and uncertain business carried  on in small foundries using charcoal to fire the kilns (an ironmaker named Dudley claimed to have used coal successfully for smelting as early  as  1619  but died without establishing a business to carry the  work  on).  Compared with coal,  charcoal was in short supply.  Worse, it did  not produce  the same intensity of heat as coal converted into coke.  Darby and  his son solved the basic problem of smelting with coke  made  from coal. Henry Cort’s puddling process  allowed cast-iron to be refined to remove the brittleness. A little later Benjamin Huntsman improved steel making. In the middle of the next century the  Bessemer  revolutionised steel  production  to such a degree that its  price  fell  dramatically enough  to  make steel no longer a luxury but the  common  material  of construction.  All these advances were made by Englishmen.

Large scale organisation is also intellectually demanding.  If a  ready and cheaper supply of iron was a necessary condition for the industrial revolution,  so  was the very idea of large scale  manufactories  using machines.  Undertakings employing hundreds of men on one site were  not unknown before the 18th Century – a clothier named Jack of Newbury had  a factory employing 500 in Tudor times –   but  they were very rare.   In 18th  Century England  such enterprises became if not  commonplace,  at least   not  extraordinary.  By the next century they  were  the  norm.  Industry  became for the first time geared to a mass market.   Nor  was  this  new  method  of  manufacturing confined to  the  necessities  and banalities of life.   Factories such as  Josiah Wedgewood’s at  Etruria  manufactured  high quality and imaginative china directed  deliberately at  the growing middle classes.  All the most successful  18th  century machines for mass production were  developed by Englishmen. Arkwright’s water frame, Crompton’s mule, James Hargreaves spinning jenny. 

Once  the  first  blast of the industrial revolution  had  passed,  the fundamental fine tuning was undertaken by Englishmen,  with men such as Whitworth  leading  the  way with machine tools and  new  standards  of exactness in measurement and industrial cutting and finishing. All very boring to the ordinary man, but utterly essential for the foundation of a successful industrial society.

Many   vital industries since have originated in  England.  To  take  a few,  George  Stephenson  produced the  first  practical  railway  (the railway  probably  did  more  than anything  to  drive  the  Industrial Revolution because it allowed a true national market to operate  within England);   Brunel  issued in the age of the  ocean  going   steamship;   William  Perkins laid the foundation for the modern  chemical  industry by discovering the first  synthetic dye;  the first electronic computer was  designed  in  Britain,   after the  theoretical  foundations had been laid  by   the Englishman,  Alan Turing.  (In the previous century another Englishman, Charles  Babbage,  designed  but did not finished  building  the  first programmable machine.) 

Alongside the development of manufacturing ran that of agriculture. The enclosure movement was already well advanced by 1700. By the  middle of the   nineteenth  century  it  was  effectively  finished.  Not  merely feudalism but the peasantry were gone. The old,  inefficient open-field system was a dead letter. With enclosure came agricultural  innovation. In  the  eighteenth  century we have  Jethro  Tull,  whose  seed  drill greatly reduced the amount of seed needed for sowing,   Robert Bakewell  whose selective breeding greatly increased the size of sheep and cattle and “Turnip”  Townsend who greatly increased crop efficiency by various mean  such  as  the  marling of sandy soil.   The  importance  of  such developments cannot be overestimated because the population of  Britain rose so dramatically  in the next century. 

The  technological inventions and discoveries made by the English   are legion. The list below gives  some idea of their importance and range.

Thomas Savery (1650-1715). Invented the first commercial steam engine -a steam pump. 

Thomas  Newcomen (1663-1729).  Improved Savery’s engine by  introducing the piston.  

Richard  Trevithick  (1771 – 1833). Invented the  high  pressure  steam engine. Built the first steam locomotive.

George Stephenson (1781-1848). Made the railway a practical reality. 

Abraham Darby (1678-1717). Developed the process of smelting iron using coke.

Sir Henry Bessemer,  1813-1898. Devised a process for making steel on a large scale.

James Hargreaves (1722-1778). Invented the spinning jenny.

John Kay  (1733-1764). Invented the  flying shuttle.

Samuel Crompton  (1753-1827). Invented  the spinning mule.

Richard Arkwright (1732-1792) Invented the waterframe.

Edmund Cartwright (1743-1823). Invented the power loom.

John  Harrison  (1693-1776) First to build watches accurate  enough  to solve the longitude measurement problem.

Edward Jenner (1743-1823). Developed vaccination.

Joseph Lister (1827-1912). Developed  antisepsis.

Sir Joseph Whitworth (1803-1887) standardised  screw threads,  produced first true  plane surfaces in metal, developed ductile steel.

Henry Maudslay (1771-1831).   Invented the screw-cutting lathe and  the first  bench  micrometer  that  was capable of  measuring  to  one  ten thousandth of an inch. 

Joseph Bramah (1748-1814). Invented the hydraulic press.

John Walker (1781- 1859).  Invented the first friction matches.

John  Smeaton  (1724-1792) made the first  modern  concrete  (hydraulic cement).

Joseph  Aspdin  (1788-1855) invented Portland Cement,  the  first  true artificial cement.

Humphrey Davy (1778-1829).  Invented the first electric light,  the arc lamp.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867). Invented the electric motor.

Isambard  Kingdom  Brunel (1806-1859).   Built the first  really  large  steam ships – the  Great Britain, Great Western, Great Eastern.

Sir  Isaac  Pitman (1813-1897).  Devised the most  widely  used  modern shorthand.

Sir Charles Wheatstone (1802 – 1875).  Developed an electric telegraph at the same time as Samuel Morse.

Rowland Hill (1795-1879). Invented adhesive postage stamps.

John Herschel (1792-1871). Invented the blueprint.

William  Henry Fox Talbot (1800-1877)  Invented the   negative-positive photography and latent image shorter exposure time.

Sir  Joseph  William Swan (1828-1914).  Invented the  dry  photographic plate.  Invented, concurrently with Edison, the  light bulb.

Sir William Henry Perkin (1838-1907). Created the first artificial  dye –  aniline  purple  or  mauveine – and  the  first   artificial  scent, coumarin.  

Alexander  Parkes  (1813-90).  Created the  first  artificial  plastic, Parkensine.

Sir   George  Cayley  (1773-1857).   Worked  out  the   principles   of aerodynamics,  his  “On  Ariel Navigation” showed  that  a  fixed  wing aircraft  with a power system for propulsion,  and a tail to assist  in the control of the airplane, would be the best way to allow man to fly. Also invented the caterpillar track.

Sir  Frank  Whittle  (1907-1996).  Took out the  first  patents  for  a Turbojet.

Sir Christopher Cockerell (1910-1999). Invented the hovercraft.

Charles  Babbage (1792-1871).  Worked out the basic principles  of  the computer. 

Alan Turin (1912-1954). Widely considered the father of modern computer science – worked out the principles of the digital computer. 

Tim  Berners-Lee  (1955-).  Invented the World Wide Web  defining  HTML (hypertextmarkup language), HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol) and URLs (Universal Resource Locators).

England and the Enlightenment

 In his book “Enlightenment:  Britain and the creation of the modern  world”, the  historian Roy Porter remarks how peculiar it is  “that  historians have  so  little  to say about the role of  English  thinkers   in  the European  Enlightenment  as a whole” (p3).  Peculiar  indeed  when  one considers  the  English  intellectual personnel of the  17th  and  18th centuries and the  high  reputation  English institutions and ideas had amongst    the  leading  lights  of  the   continental   Enlightenment, especially  in  the  country  which is  generally  represented  as  the powerhouse of Enlightenment thinking,  France.   Here is the philosophe of philosophes,  Voltaire,  at full Anglophile admire: “The English are the only people on earth who have been able to prescribe the limits  of Kings by resisting them;  and who,  by a series of struggles,  have  at last  established  that  wise  Government,  where  the  prince  is  all powerful  to  do  good,  and  at the  same  time   is  restrain’d  from committing evil;   where the Nobles are great without insolence,   tho’ there  are no vassals;  and where the People  share in  the  government  without confusion.”  Lettres philosophiques on Lettres Anglais (1775).

 A  strong argument can be made for the English Enlightenment  not  only existing  but  occurring  a century or so  before  that  of  any  other nation  and subsequently providing much of the  basis  for the  general Enlightenment movement.  

Consider these figures from  the seventeenth century:   William Gilbert (science,   especially  magnetism),   Francis  Bacon  (philosophy   and science),  Thomas Hobbes (philosophy), John Locke (philosophy),  Thomas Harrington     (nascent economics     and    sociology),   William  Harvey (biology/medicine),    Robert   Hooke   (polymathic    scientist    and technologist),  John Rae (biologist), Edmund Halley (astronomy),  Isaac Newton  (mathematics and physics).  What did they have in common  other than  intellectual distinction?   They were all driven by the  idea  of reason,  by the belief that the world could be  understood  rationally. That  is  the  real  essence  of  the  Enlightenment,   the  belief  in rationality,  in particular,  the belief that the world is  subject  to  physical laws, that God does not intervene capriciously, that the world is not governed by magic.  Such ideas did not preclude a God or prevent an intense relationship with the putatively divine, but they did encase God   within  a  rational system of thought in which  His   action  was limited, voluntarily or otherwise. Newton may have been utterly fixated with the numerology of the Bible but he believed the world was  ordered according to physical laws.    From  the belief that the universe is organised  rationally  comes  the corollary  that it can be understood,  that everything is  governed  by laws which can be discovered by men. This idea pre-dated Newton, but it was his ideas,  most notably his laws of motion and theory of  gravity, that elevated the idea to almost a secular religion.   During  the next century   intellectuals   took  the  example  of   Newton’s   inanimate mechanistic physical world and extrapolated the idea to every aspect of existence, from biology to philosophy  to social policy. If only enough was known,  if only enough effort was made,  then everything,  of  this world  at least,   could be understood and controlled  and   everything could be the subject of rational decision making.      

The 18th  century Enlightenment  had another aspect,  an  association with the  democratic or at least a wish that the power of kings  should be greatly curtailed – the Voltaire quote given above is a good example of the mentality.  This also  has its roots in England.  The ferment of the  English  Civil war  not only produced  proto-democratic  political movements  such as the Levellers, it also started  Parliament along the road  of being more than a subordinate constitutional player by forcing it to act as not only  a legislature but as an executive.  Stir  in  the experience  of  the Protectorate,  simmer for  30 years or so   of  the restored  Stuart kings,  mix in  the Glorious Revolution of 1689  which resulted  in  the Bill of Rights and established the English  crown  as being in the gift of Parliament  and  season with half a century of the German  Georges  and   you have the British (in  reality  the  English) constitution   which was so admired by Voltaire,  who  thought it quite perfect,  and  which  gave the American colonists the  inspiration  for their   own political arrangements (president = king,  Senate =  Lords, House  of Representatives = Commons,  with a  Constitution and Bill  of Rights  heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights.)

Engalnd and the practice of science

 England was from the seventeenth century in the vanguard of the rise of science.    William  Gilbert’s   work on   magnetism  was  followed  by William Harvey tracing the circulation of the blood,  Halley’s work  on comets and Robert Hooke’s polymathic span from microscopy to a  nascent theory  of  gravitation.   Above all  stood the  formidable  figure  of Newton,  neurotic, splenetic and marvellous, a man who demonstrated the composition  of light and developed the powerful mathematical  tool  of the  differential  calculus,  besides formulating the  laws  of  motion which  form  the basis  of all mechanical science and  the   theory  of gravitation,  which was the most complete explanation of  the  physical universe until Einstein.

Newton  probably  had more influence on the mental world than any  man  before him.  Even  today  his importance is  vast.    Quantum   mechanics   and  Einstein’s  physics  may  have superseded the  Newtonian  as  the  most advanced explanation of the physical world,  but Newton still rules as the  practical  means of understanding the world above  the  subatomic. More generally,   Newton  provided an intellectual engine which allowed men  to make sense of the universe and to see order and  predictability where  before  there had been an order seemingly kept from  chaos,  and often  not  that,  by  the  capricious will  of  a  god  or  gods.  The psychological as well as the scientific  impact of Newton was great.

To these early scientific  pioneers may be added  the likes of   Joseph Priestly  (the  practical  discoverer of oxygen),    John   Dalton  who proposed the first modern atomic theory), Michael Faraday (who laid the foundations  of the science of electromagnetism),  J.J.  Thompson  (who discovered  the first atomic particle,  the electron),  James  Chadwick (the  discover  of  the  neutron)   and  Francis  Crick  (who   jointly discovered  the  structure of DNA with his pupil,  the  American  James Watson).      

Then  there is Charles Darwin,  the man with a strong claim to  be  then individual  who  has most shaped  the way we view  the  world,  because natural  selection  provides  a  universal  means  of  explication  for  dynamic systems.  We can as readily visualise pebbles on a beach  being selected  for  their utility in their environment (from qualities  such as crystal structure, size, shape)  as  we can a horse. As with Newton, Darwin profoundly affected the way men look at the world.

Of all the important scientific fields established since 1600,   I can think  of  only two in which an Englishman did not play a substantial role in their discovery and early development. . Those  exceptions are Pasteur’s proof of germ theory and Mendel’s discovery  of  genes.   The list below  gives  an idea of the scope  of  English scientific discoveries. 

Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Gravitation, laws of motion, theory of light.

Robert Hooke (1625-1703). Wrote Micrographia, the first book describing observations made through a microscope. Was the first person to use the word “cell” to identify microscopic structures. Formulated  Hooke’s Law — a law of elasticity for solid bodies.

Henry Cavendish (1731-1810).  Discovered the  composition of water  and measured the  gravitational attraction between two bodies.

Joseph Priestly, (1733-1804). Discovered Oxygen.

Humphrey Davy (1778-1829). Discovered  the elements  potassium, sodium, strontium, calcium, magnesium and barium nitrous oxide.

Michael  Faraday (1791-1867).   Widely regarded as the   greatest  ever experimental  scientist.  Conceived  the idea of   lines  of  force  in magnetism, discovered electromagnetic induction, developed the  laws of electrolysis.

Charles Darwin (1809-1882). Created modern evolutionary theory.

John  Prescott Joule (1818-1889). Calculated the mechanical  equivalent of heat.

John Dalton, (1766-1844). Created modern atomic theory.

Sir  J  J Thomson (1856-1940).  Discovered the electron  and  made  the first  attempt  to represent atoms in terms of  positive  and  negative energy.

Sir James Chadwick 1891-1974.  Discovered the neutron.

Francis Crick (1916- ). Joint discoverer of the structure of DNA.

England and the concept of science

The development of the concept of what we call science is arguably  the most  dramatic intellectual event in history,  for it  utterly  changed both  the way in which men viewed the world and provided them with  the means to mould it ever more completely to their will.

Science is the opposite of “by guess and by God”.  It is the process of not  only knowing that something has worked before and replicating  the event or process to achieve the same result,  but of understanding  the process behind an event or process. 

The  classic   scientific  experiment involves  the  generation  of  an hypothesis to be tested (for example, the behaviour of falling objects) or  a  defined  field  to be investigated  (for  example,  an  animal’s behaviour),  the  creation  of  the means of  doing  so  and  a  strict observance of the rules by which the experiment is  to be conducted and meticulous  recording  of   data.  That in essence  is  the  scientific method,  although  in practice  science is far from being as  neat  and regular  as that.  Nonetheless,  it does encapsulate  what  science  is supposed   to  be  about:   the  rigorous  observation   and   rational interpretation of what is rather than what  the mind might fancy to  be the case. It is inductive  rather than deductive.

The beginnings of the scientific mentality can be found in the minds of two  13th Century Englishmen,  the Franciscan Roger Bacon  (c1214-1292)  and Robert Grossteste (c1168-1253),  Chancellor  of Oxford then  Bishop of   Lincoln.   Both  saw   the  importance  of   experimentation   and observation,  Bacon  advocated mathematics as the  sure  foundation  of science  while  Grosseteste  anticipated the  idea  of  the  scientific hypothesis.    Grossteste was also the first to understood the value of falsification,  namely,  although any number of observed events  cannot prove beyond doubt that something is  generally  true  it can be proved false by  a single case which shows it to be false.  There  are  difficulties with  the  principle  of falsification philosophically  but  it  is,  in Practice, a most useful tool for scientists.

Another important intellectual tool for the scientist was developed  in the  fourteenth Century by the  Franciscan,  William of Ockham.  Ockham formulated  the  principle of parsimony which we know today as Ockham’s Razor.  This  is  commonly  expressed   as  “entities  are  not  to  be multiplied beyond necessity”   or,  more bluntly,   always choose   the simplest explanation  for something unless there is good reason not to.  Apart  from being philosophically important,  this dictum is  immensely valuable  as a guide for scientists,  especially those engaged  in  the “hard”   sciences  of  physics  and  chemistry,    where  the  simplest explanation has often been found to be the correct one.   

Roger Bacon, Grossteste and William of Ockham were also responsible for a  substantial  amount of important philosophy  related  to  the  other aspects of the physical world and to metaphysics.  In addition, Ockham was a radical political theorist who fought the conciliar case in the  long schism  in  the papacy (which straddled the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth Centuries),  arguing that authority within the  Church should not  rest solely  with  the  Pope but be delegated in part to a  council  of  the Church.

At  the beginning of the Seventeenth Century Francis Bacon   moved  the idea of the scientific method forward  in his Novum Organum (1620),  in which  he  laid  out  the classic  version  of  scientific  method  and reinforced the ideas of induction and the importance of  falsifiability (Bacon  stands  as  the first in the long  line  of  important  British empirical   philosophers).    Bacon  was  also  responsible   for   the re-classification  of  sciences  to something approaching  their  modern divisions  in his Advancement of Learning (1625) and argued  vigorously  for the separation of reason and revelation.

On  the practical science side there is  William Gilbert with his  work on  magnetism (published in his De Magneto 1600),  who was one  of  the first men, even perhaps the first, known to have conducted a controlled experiment, that is, one in which the experiment is entirely artificial and  can  be  exactly repeated.  It is the  difference  between  simply watching  falling objects which fall without human intent and  creating  a situation where falling objects can be observed repeatedly under  the same conditions.

It would be a vainglorious  exaggeration to say that science was the invention of England, but they played a great part, arguably the greatest part, in its creation.

The beginnings of English intellectual history

English intellectual history is a long one.  It can reasonably be  said to  begin  in  the early eighth  century   with  Bede’s  Ecclesiastical  History of the English,  which amongst other things firmly  establishes the  English  as  a people before England as  a  kingdom  existed  (“At present  there  are  in Britain…five languages  and  four  nations  – English, British, Irish and Picts…” Book One).  

In the late ninth century comes Alfred the Great,  a  king  whose reign was  one  of  constant struggle against the Danes,   but   who  thought  enough of learning to teach himself to read as an adult and then engage in  translations  into Old English of  devotional works  such  as  Pope Gregory’s Pastoral Care,   Bede’s Ecclesiastical History  and Boethius’ The Consolation of Philosophy.  It is difficult to think of any other monarch anywhere who showed such a practical concern for learning.

From Alfred’s reign  comes the Anglo-Saxon Journal (ASJ),  a work  also written in Old English.  (There are nine  surviving versions written at different  places,  eight of which are in Old English with the odd  man out being in  Old English with a Latin translation).   The journal   is  a  history/myth  of  Britain and a narrative  of   the  settlement   of  Anglo-Saxons  within it  until the time of Alfred and then  a  putative  record of and commentary on the great events  of English life from  the time  of  Alfred until the middle of the 12th century  (like  all  suchmedieval works the veracity of the ASJ is questionable, but at worst it gives a flavour of the mentality of those living at the time). The work is  unique  in  medieval Europe for  its scope  and  longevity  and  is particularly  noteworthy  for  the  fact that it  was  written  in  the vernacular throughout the three centuries or so of its existence,  this at  a time when the normal language for  writing in Western Europe  was Latin. 

The    Norman   Conquest   subordinated   the   English    politically, linguistically  and socially  for the better part of three   centuries,but  it  did  not kill English  intellectual  endeavour.   Those  three centuries  of oppression saw the emergence of  many of the ideas  which were later to produce the modern world.  John of Salisbury   produced a work  on politics (Policraticus 1159)  which was “the first attempt  in the  Middle Ages at an extended and systematic treatment  of  political philosophy”  (G  H Sabine A History of Political Theory p246)  and  one which  argued  for  a form of limited monarchy  and  the  overthrow  of tyrants,  views  given  practical English  expression  in  Magna  Carta (1215). The period was also noteworthy for the strong showing of annals and histories,  most notably those of Eadmer (Historia Novorum  or  The History of Recent Events – it covered the  period 950-1109),  Henry  of Huntingdon (Historia Anglorum or  History of the English 5BC-1129)  an  Matthew  Paris (Chronica Majora).   In addition,   the Common  Law  was formed,   English  became  once  more  a  literary  language  (Chaucer, Langland),   John  Wycliffe  laid  the  intellectual  roots   of    the Reformation and,  perhaps  most impressively, ideas which were later to provide the basis for a true  science emerged.

Quantifying English intellectual accomplishment

In  his  book  “Human  Accomplishment”   the  American  Charles  Murray calculates  the  contribution  to  civilisation  made  by   individuals throughout  history  up until 1950.  To give his calculations  as  much objectivity  as possible he measures  the amount of attention given  to an  individual   by  specialists in their  field in   sources  such  as  biographical  dictionaries – put crudely, the greater the frequency  of mention and the larger the space devoted to an individual,  the  higher they score.

Murray  quantifies   achievements  under  the  headings  of   astronomy (Galileo  and  Kepler  tied  for  first  place),  biology  (Darwin  and Aristotle),  chemistry (Lavoisier),  earth sciences  (Lyell),   physics (Newton  and  Einstein),   mathematics  (Euler),   medicine   (Pasteur, Hippocrates  and  Koch),   technology  (Edison  and  Watt),    combined scientific (Newton), Chinese philosophy (Confucious), Indian philosophy (Sankara), Western  philosophy (Aristotle), Western music (Beethoven and Mozart),  Chinese painting  (Gu  Kaizhi  and  Zhao  Mengfu),  Japanese painting  (Sesshu,  Sotatsu and  Korin),   Western  art  (Michelangelo), Arabic  literature,  (al-Mutanabbi) Chinese literature (Du Fu),  Indian literature  (Kalidasa),   Japanese  literature  (Basho  and  Chikamatsu Monzaemon), Western literature (Shakespeare).  

Objections have been made to Murray’s methodology such as the fact that many  of the great achievements of the past,  especially in  the  arts, have  been anonymous,  which give it a bias towards the modern  period, and fears that it has a built-in Western bias –  the  representation of  non-Western  figures in the science  and technology  categories  is minimal.   Nothing can be done about anonymity – it is  worth  pointing out  that the majority of those heading the categories lived  at  least several  centuries  ago  – but  Murray  substantially   guards  against pro-Western  bias with the breadth and number of his sources and it  is simply  a fact that science and advanced technology arose only  in  the  past few centuries and that both are essentially Western  achievements. It  is  also noteworthy that Murray’s  method only places  one  of  his fellow   countrymen  at  number  one  in  any  category    (Edison   in technology).  If  any bias exists it is unlikely to  be  conscious.  At worst,  Murray’s  findings  can be seem as a fair  rating   of  Western achievement.

The list of those heading the various categories (see second  paragraph above)   suggests  that  Murray’s method is pretty  sound  despite  any possible methodological  shortcomings,  because those who come top  are all men of extreme achievement.  There might be arguments over  whether Aristotle should take precedence over Plato or Kant,   but no one could honestly argue that  Aristotle was an obviously unworthy winner of first place in the philosophy category.

Of the 13 categories which  can include Westerners (they are  obviously  excluded  from  non-European  literature  and  art),   Englishmen are indisputed firsts or share  first place with one other in four: biology Darwin with  Aristotle;   Physics  Newton  with  Einstein;   combined scientific  Newton alone;  Western literature Shakespeare  alone.   No other  nation  has  more  than two representatives  at  the  top  of  a category.  The thirteen Western  ncluding categories have a total of 18 people in  sole or joint first place.  England  has nearly a quarter of those  in first place and more than a quarter of the 15 who  are  drawn from the modern period, say 1500 AD onwards.   

Apart  from those coming first,   the English show strongly in most  of the  Western qualifying categories (especially in physics – 9 out of the top 20, technology – 8 out of the top twenty – and Western literature). The  major  exceptions  are   Western art  and   music,  where  English representation  is mediocre.   I think most people who think about  the matter  at  all  would feel those  quantified cultural  strengths  and  weaknesses represent the reality of English history and society.     

The fact that England shows so strongly in Murray’s exercise  gives the lie  to  the common representation of the  English  as  unintellectual. Moreover,  there is much more to human intellectual accomplishment than the fields covered by Murray,  most notably the writing of  history and the social sciences,  areas in which England has  been at the forefront throughout the modern period: think Gibbon,  Macaulay,  Herbert Spencer and Keynes.

Important English constitutional documents

The text of each of these important constitutional documents has been posted as pages on England Calling.  The links can be found at the top of the blog.

1. The development of Parliamentary Government

These documents show the gradual reduction of the power of the  monarch and the eventual development from this of Parliament and eventually the shift of the executive power from the monarch to the House of Commons.

1100 The charter of liberties of Henry (also known as the Coronation Charter)

This concerned primarily the relationship between the King and his nobles and foreshadows that part of  Magna Carta  which deals with things such as inheritance and the treatment of widows.

1215 Magna Carta

Apart from the  stating of rights and restrictions on what King John might do in certain situations, this was the first formal attempt to impose a council with powers to not merely advise the King but to restrain him (article 61).  This article was never implemented.

1258 The Provisions of Oxford and  1259 The Provisions of Westminster

These attempted to do what article 61 of Magna Carta  intended,  impose on Henry III a council with power to restrain the King.

1311 The Ordinances of the Lords Ordainers

These  vigorously  reiterated Magna Carta, bound Royal officials to obey the Ordinances and   in article 40 introduced a panel to have power to interfere with the king’s ministers, viz:  “ Item, we ordain that in each parliament one bishop, two earls, and two barons shall be assigned to hear and determine all plaints of those wishing to complain of the king’s ministers, whichever they may be, who have contravened the ordinances aforesaid.”

1628 The Petition of Right

This was a direct challenge to the attempt of Charles I to extend the Royal Prerogative, or more unkindly, to simply assume that he could do anything, in the early years of his reign. The primary complaint  was Charles’  raising of money without Parliamentary approval.  It set in train the events which led eventually to the proroguing of Parliament for 11 years(1629-1640).  The Petition relies heavily on citing documents such as Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest, as well as the usual insistence of the restitution of English liberties.

1641 The Grand Remonstrance

This was another attempt to persuade  Charles I to do Parliament’s will by what had the form of a traditional petition to the King but the content of demands with unspoken menaces .  The King was not blamed personally – the failings were ascribed to a Papist conspiracy – but the tone of the petition was much more robust than the Petition of Right and left no doubt that Parliament was not pleading for Royal indulgence but insisting that Charles did their bidding.

It listed 204 separate points of objection, including a call for the expulsion of all bishops from Parliament and a  Parliamentary veto over Crown appointments. Charles refused to agree to all Parliament’s demands  in December 1641 and the first Civil War began a few months later.

1653 The Instrument of Government

This document  is in content if not formal description a written constitution. It created Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector, stipulated that the office of Lord Protector was not to be hereditary, required regular Parliaments,  and  laid down a mesh of obligations and restrictions on government.

1689 The Bill of Rights

Further formal restrictions on the monarch, a list of rights to protect the liberty of all English men and women, the protection of MPs, regular Parliaments  and the assumption of the English crown to be in practice dependent upon the support of Parliament, thus driving the final nail into the coffin of the  doctrine of the divine right of kings.    This opened the way for the development of the executive in Parliament.

1789 The American Constitution and Bill of Rights

The influence of English constitutional development can be clearly seen in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (the first  ten amendments).  The short lived US Articles of Confederation is  placed below the Constitution and Bill of Rights to allow comparison between the documents.

2. The unification of Britain

1535 The unification of England and Wales

There was no formal Act of Union between England and Wales but the 1535 Act   – “An Acte for Lawes & Justice to be ministred in Wales in like fourme as it is in this Realme” –  was the most important  piece of legislation in the piecemeal process of  administrative incorporation of Wales into England which took place  in the latter years of Henry XIII. The text of  this Act  is in England Calling.

It isn’t “just sport”

Sport  has  a  particular  importance to  England  at  present  because sporting sides are the only source of national focus the English  have. The  English  are  denied a parliament,  they  are  betrayed  by  their political  elite who shudder at the idea of English  nationalism,  they are constantly insulted by the national media,   but the national sides continue. These sporting institutions  permit the English to articulate their  feelings as a tribe.  Even  English men  and women  without  any interest in sport should support them for that reason if no other.

Those  who say “it’s only sport”  should stand back and reflect on  the amount of time, effort and money which is spent throughout the world on sport. Women may be generally less enthusiastic,  but sports  obviously speak to a deep seated desire within men.

Man  is  a  tribal animal.  If he were not it would matter  not  a  jot whether  one team won or another,  unless money was on the result.  But manifestly men do care and care passionately when no material advantage is  to  be  gained or lost by the result.  In  fact,  the  relationship between  a football fan and his club is probably the most  enduring  of his life, for it commonly begins in childhood and ends only with death.

The  outpouring  of joy when a goal is scored dwarfs any  other  public expression  of  positive  feeling  today.  Those  who  imagine  that  a football  club  is merely a business and that selling  football  is  no different from selling baked beans, fail to understand the game and  the fan.

Sporting heroes are heroes in the literal sense for they play the role of the champion whether it be in single combat (tennis) or as part of an army (football). There is something primal about this.   Watch even a powerful man  in  the presence of his sporting hero and the  powerful  man  will almost certainly be unconsciously  deferring to the sportsman.

Team sports are war games, a war game in fact as well where men meet in a  form  of direct  physical confrontation  which  is  a  pretty  good substitute  for  tribal war,  war fought hand to hand  with  sword  and shield  and  spear.  Sport is  war without the  weapons.  That  is  its primal  glamour.

Because of their  function as lightening rods of national feeling  the  existence of England sides are  hated and feared by  our  elite. The  erstwhile  and now deceased Labour Sports minister,   Tony  Banks, persistently  puffed  the idea of a British football  team,   something that is indubitably not wanted by any of the four home FAs or the  vast majority of fans.

The  political  dimension  goes beyond  the  English  national   sides. In  these politically correct times sporting crowds in England for  the major sports are also disturbingly white for the liberal  bigot  elite. Vast amounts of time and money have been devoted to making crowds “more representative”, happily with precious little  success.  Football crowds in  particular  are  a source  of concern to our  liberal elite because they provide  the  one opportunity  where large numbers of the white working class can  gather together and express themselves  uninhibitedly without having to gain the permission  of the police. This concern is amplified by  the general contempt which the British  elite  have developed for the white working class which, in the sporting context,  is especially focused on the football fan.  (Margaret Thatcher more  than any  other  individual  fostered  the  contempt    when  she  routinely painted  English football supporters as hooligans and  enthusiastically promoted  the  exclusion  of English football clubs  after  the  Heysel stadium  tragedy at the 1985 European Cup final between  Liverpool  and Juventus. )

But  sport has much more to it than tribalism.  It is a constant  in  a changing world.  It is a source of aesthetic delight.  It speaks to the whole range of human emotions. When a great batsman goes to the wicket  when his side is in trouble and makes the bowling look easy,  the whole mood of the players and spectators  changes within minutes: when a football side which is 2-0 down gets a goal back the swing in moral certainty from one side to another is palpable.  It is much more than being “just sport”. It is a mirror of what it is to be human.

Football – the world game

Football  is  the  nearest there is to  a world game.  There  are  easy reasons for this. At its most basic football  is a game  which requires the  most  rudimentary  of equipment,  a ball.  Its  rules  are  simple compared with those of other  games such as rugby or cricket.   But  it is  more  than  that.  Football is also the game  which  arguably  best combines  pure  athleticism  with the felicity  of  human  thought  and movement to which we give too often the bone-achingly dull  description ”hand/eye coordination.”

Football  was  in a state of flux until the middle  of  the  nineteenth century.   Various  forms  existed.  Some codes allowed  kicking  only, others handling.   There were disputes over whether hacking and gouging were allowed.  In 1863 the Football Association was created and stopped the confusion. It was the first national sporting association which was purely  that.  The MCC in practice directed  English  cricket  and  was responsible for the laws of the game, but they were first and foremost, a private club,  as was the Jockey Club. The FA was  the first formally constituted   sporting body created to explicitly to direct  an  entire sport.

No sport has had such a rapid rise to popularity.  In the last  quarter of  the  nineteenth century  it went from a poorly organised  game,  to something  which  was recognisable as the game we  know  today.  Famous clubs  of  today were formed by Public School Old  Boys,  vicars,  boys clubs,  public  houses,  in the work place and  by cricket  clubs.  The first  international  game took place between England and  Scotland  in 1872  The world’s first cup competition, the FA Cup, was born in 1872.

In  1888 the world’s first  sporting  league was formed,  the  Football League.    International matches involving countries other than England were being played well before the First World War and   football was an Olympic  sport  from  early on in the modern  Olympiad’s  history.  Not

least,  football’s  world governing body, FIFA, was founded as early as

1904 (with no encouragement from England it has to be said).

By  1900 the top teams had become overwhelmingly professional and  club owners were often drawn from the ranks of local businessmen.  The  game had become  much more of a business than any other sport.