Category Archives: modernity

England: the mother of modern politics

I was tempted to entitle this essay “England – the mother of modern democracy” because  the political structures of any state which calls itself democratic today owe their general shape to the English example. In addition, many modern dictatorships have considered it expedient to maintain the form of representative democracy without the content.

But democracy is a slippery word and what we call by that name is very far removed from what the Greeks knew as democracy. The Greeks would probably have described our system as oligarchy – rule by the few. Many modern academics would agree, for they tend to describe representative government as elective oligarchy, a system by which the electorate is permitted to select between competing parts of the political elite every few years, but which has little other direct say in how they are governed.  It is also true that England developed her political system not on the basis of democracy but on notions of who needed to be represented and by criteria such as property qualifications.

If democracy today is a debatable concept, the very widespread modern institution of elected representative government is an objective fact. Elected representative government is an institution of the first importance, for it is a truism that the more power is shared the less abusive the holders of the power will be. Imperfect as it may often be as a reflector of the will and interests of the masses, representative government is still by far the most efficient means of controlling the naturally abusive tendencies of elites and of advancing the interests of the ordinary man or woman, by imposing limits on what those with power may do, either through legal restraints in the form of constitutional law which is superior to that of the legislature, or through fear of losing office in an election. Indeed, no system of government other  than elected representative government manages that even in principle as they all fail to place meaningful restraints on an elite.

Whether democratic or not in the Greek sense, representative government is undoubtedly the only reliable and non-violent means by which the democratic will may gain at least some purchase on the behaviour of an elite. Yet however much utility it has an organising political idea, the fact that we have representative government today is something of a fluke for if  it had  not developed in England we should probably not have it all. In the non-European world nothing of its nature ever developed before the Western model was imported and in Europe the many nascent parliaments of the later Middle Ages either never went beyond the  embryonic form of assemblies which offered advice to and petitioned monarchs or were crushed or simply ignored by autocratic rulers,  for example the Estates-General of France were not called between 1614 and 1789.  By contrast, England has  had continuous parliamentary development for the better part of eight centuries.

The  distinction of the English parliament is not that it  is  the oldest such assembly in the  world (although it is one of  the  oldest),  nor that it was  unusual at its inception  for parliaments  were widespread in mediaeval Europe. The English parliament’s uniqueness lies in the fact that from the first it served roughly the area covered by England today  – no other mediaeval parliament corresponded to the territory of any national state existing today –  its longevity  and the nature of its development. No  other  parliament in a country of any size was meaningfully maintained by  regular  meeting through seven  or  eight  centuries, its only competitors for endurance  being the tiny Icelandic  assembly and the federal arrangements of the Swiss.  Most importantly, before  England  created  such an  institution to  act  as  a model,  no  other parliament in the world developed  into  an fully fledged executive – practising what we know today as cabinet government – as well as a legislature.

The  English  parliament  made a very gradual  progression to the  place  we know today. It  began  as an  advising and  petitioning  body in the 13th century  and  before the end of the  14th  century had come  to exercise  considerable  power  over  any taxation which was considered over and  above the king’s  normal  and  rightful  dues, such  as  the  excise. 

Gradually, this power  transmuted into what was effectively  veto  over  most taxation.  Parliament  also added the  power to propose  and pass  laws subject to their acceptance by the  monarch.  These  developments  meant  that executive  power  gradually  drained  from the King. From  this came cabinet government as the monarch was more and more forced to take  the advice of his ministers and by the end of the  18th century  the  struggle  between  Crown  and  Parliament for  supremacy had been emphatically decided.

As the  Parliament  gained  power, the  Lords gradually diminished in importance and  the Commons became by the  latter half of the 18th century, if not before, the  dominant House, although its power of obstructing Commons Bills other than money Bills lasted till 1911.   The  final  act in the play  was  a  century long extension of the  franchise culminating  in  a government dominated  by  an  assembly elected under full adult  suffrage from 1928 onwards.

By  1600 Parliament  had become important  enough  to  the governing  of  the country  for  Guy Fawkes and  his fellow plotters to think it necessary  to  blow up Parliament rather  than  simply killing the king and his  ministers. In  any  other  major  European  country of the time, the  idea of  destroying  Parliamentary  representatives  rather than  just  the  monarch and his more powerful friends would have  seemed rather odd,  either because a parliament did not exist or was  considered of little account because  European monarchs had by then  been  generally very successful in abolishing  or  curtailing  the  powers  of  mediaeval assemblies  and  preventing  their  political development.

A corrupted Parliament

Parliament,  although growing in power and ambition,  was suffering the ills of any ancient institution.  There  were accretions  of privilege and it had failed to keep pace  with the  changing  times. In 1600 it  neither  represented  the country  as  it was not  satisfied the  growing wish  of  its members,  especially the elected ones, to have a greater  say in the  management  of  England, or at least to restrict the power of the monarch considerably.   This dissatisfaction eventually escalated into the  English Civil War, an event which forced the Parliamentary side to assume  sole executive power  whilst continuing to govern through Parliament. This created the blueprint for Parliament to move from being a legislature to a legislature with an executive within it which was responsible to Parliament.  (The Civil War also gave birth to a short-lived but  powerful  proto-democratic movement  given the derogatory name of Levellers by their enemies.  Had the Levellers  succeeded – and for a couple of years they loomed large in  Parliamentary thoughts because of their wide support amongst the Roundhead Army – England might have had a Parliament far more representative than that  elected after the Great Reform Act of 1832.  But they failed and after   Cromwell’s  establishment  of  the  Protectorate,  democratic ideas  did not gain  serious political currency in  England for  more  than  a  century. )

The Restoration in 1660 did not result in serious legal  abridgements of  the  power  of the monarch, but  Charles  II  was  in practice  much  restricted  by  a  Parliament  unwilling to adequately open  the purse strings for a monarch  who,   ironically,  was expected to do more and more as the formal power of the state grew.  It was in this period that political parties in the modern sense have their beginnings, with the names of Tory and Whig emerging from their origins as derogatory epithets to become the names of the two parties who were to dominate English and from 1707 politics until the latter half of the 19th century.     

The “Glorious  Revolution” of  1689 produced a true constitutional sea-change.  From then on the English  monarch ascended  the throne only with the acceptance  of  Parliament and  the  Bill of Rights (1690) placed  restrictions  on  the monarch.  Amongst  the  long list of things  the  king  was forbidden to do were:

Dispense with and suspend of laws,  and the execution  of  laws, without consent of  parliament.

Levy money for and to the use of the crown,  by  pretence of prerogative,  for another time,  and in other  manner, than the  same was granted by parliament.

To raise and keep a standing army within England  in time of peace,  without consent of parliament,  and quartering soldiers contrary to 4.

To  violate the freedom  of election of members to  serve in parliament.

To  demand excessive  bail of  persons  committed  in criminal  cases,  “to elude the benefit of the laws  made for the  liberty of the subjects.”

To impose  excessive  fines and  illegal  and cruel  punishments.

The abuses of power by the crown listed in the Bill of Rights  are  described  as being ” utterly and directly  contrary  to  the  known  laws and statutes, and freedom  of  this  realm.”   That old reliance on the law and the traditional freedoms  of  the Englishman.

From 1689  began the century long decline of the monarchy  as an executive power.  Cabinet government  gradually emerged in the course of  the 18th century and although George III attempted to revive the executive power of the monarch, the American War of Independence  and the loss of the American colonies sealed the subordination  of  the monarchy to Parliament.

Americans  forged  a  new version  of  the  English  political  model,  with  a  formal separation  of powers and a written constitution to  restrict what governments and legislatures might do. For King, Lords and Commons, read President, Senate and   House of Representatives; for the English Bill of Rights of 1690 read the US constitution.   The novelties, compared to England, was the removal of the executive from the legislature,  the creation of constitutional law which was superior to ordinary law and a Supreme Court whose purpose was to ensure that the actions of President and Congress were compatible with the constitution.  

The received academic opinion on the  American constitutional settlement is that it was primarily the offspring of John Locke’s political philosophy. In fact, it had at least as much  affinity  with the  ideas  of the Levellers. There is no direct intellectual link,  but the most important popular propagandist on the American side, the Englishman  Tom Paine,  shared much of his ideology with  the  Levellers. The  Constitution is a balancing act between Locke  and Paine, granting  a large degree of popular  involvement  in politics,  whilst  tempering  it with  restrictions  such  as  electoral  colleges and granting through the Bill  of  Rights  (which was inspired by the English Bill of Rights of  1690) constitutional  protections  for the individual  against  the  state.

If the American  Revolution  owed its  shape  and inspiration  to England, the French Revolution was inspired by both English constitutional development and the  America revolutionary example. Most political  revolutions  resulting in  an  attempt at representative  government,  have been  touched,  consciously or not, by the legacy of the American and French revolutions. 

England through control of the British Empire, ensured that the Westminster  model of government was  transplanted  with widely differing success,  to approximately  a quarter of the   world’s population,  when the empire dissolved in the  twenty years after 1945. 

The astonishing  upshot of the English example,  the American and French Revolutions and the British Empire, is that  the political structures of most modern states are broadly  based on  the English constitution of King, Lords  and Commons, the  overwhelming majority having  a  head of state  plus two assemblies.  In addition,  the widespread practice of a  written  constitution derives from the example of the  United  States,  which of course drew its form and inspiration from   English  settlements in North America, English history  and  political practices. These political structures  apply as  readily to  dictatorships as they do to liberal democracies. 

Of course, the  balance  of  power between the  head of state and the  assemblies varies widely and there is  much difference between Parliamentary and Presidential government, but  they all  have  their ultimate origin in the example  of the English system of representative government.

One last thing.  Look around the world.  How many countries can be  said  even  today to have  accepted elected representative  government  and  the rule of law as  a  banal fact of life, the norm of their society?  Britain,  the  USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand  certainly,  Switzerland and Scandinavia  possibly.  But where else?  Not France which  as  recently  as  1958 overthrew the  Fourth  Republic. Not Germany which embraced Hitler  nor Italy  the  land  of Mussollini.  Not  Spain  so  recently loosed from Franco.  As for the rest of the world, that tells a sorry tale of  elites who  generally have  such  a  lack  of respect  for the individual and a  contempt  for the masses that the  idea  of shared power  with and for the people  is simply  alien  to them.

The  fact  that the only really  stable examples  of  elected representative  government  in countries of any size  are  in  those countries  which  have their  origins  in English colonisation  strongly suggests that  it was no accident that it was in England that the institution evolved. There  must be something highly unusual about English society for it both to  develop in a manner so different from any other  country and to export this rare and valuable  difference to those  colonies which were firmly rooted in English manners and customs.

English liberty and the Peasants’ Revolt

Nothing  demonstrates the Englishman’s  long held lack of deference  and desire to be his own man better than the Peasants’  Revolt in 1381. General resentment  of  privilege  and  particular  hostility  to  the imposition  of  a  tax  (the  Poll Tax) considered  to  be both unreasonable  and illegitimate,  was given  unambiguous  voice.  For  a brief period the  fog  of  obscurity which  ordinarily  covers  the  masses  in  the mediaeval world  clears. A remarkable  scene meets the  eye for we find not a cowed and servile people but a robust  cast of  rebels  who far from showing respect  for  their  betters display  a  mixture of contempt and hatred for everyone  in  authority bar the boy-king Richard II.

Perhaps  most surprising to the modern reader is the  extreme  social radicalism of their demands which might,  without  too  much exaggeration,  be described as a demand for  a classless society.  The  Revolt may have had its origins in  the  hated Poll  Tax  but it soon developed into a series  of  general political demands. One  of  the  revolt’s  leaders, the  hedge-priest John Ball, reputedly preached “  Things cannot go  right in England  and never will until goods are held  in common  and there are no more villeins and gentlefolk but  we are  all  one  and  the  same”, and the  anonymous  and  revolutionary  couplet “When Adam delved and Eve span/who was then  the gentleman?”  was in men’s mouths.  The  mediaeval chronicler Jean Froissart  has Ball preaching:

Are we not descended from the same parents, Adam and Eve? And  what can they sow or what reason can they give why they  should be more masters than ourselves?  They  are  clothed  in velvet and rich stuffs ornamented in  ermine and  other  furs while  we  are  forced  to  wear  poor  clothing.  They have wines and fine bread while  we  have  only rye and refuse of straw and when we drink it must be water. They have handsome manors…while we must have the wind  and rain in our labours in the field and it  is  by  our  labours that  they…support their  pomp.  We  are called slaves  and if we do perform  our services  we are beaten and  we  have  no  sovereign to  whom  we  can complain…let  us go to the King  and remonstrate  with him; he is young  and from him we may obtain a favourable answer,  and if not we must seek to amend our  conditions ourselves. (Simon Schama  A History of Britain p 248)

Whether  or not these  words  bore any resemblance to  Ball’s actual words,  whether or not  they were black propaganda (on behalf  of  the  elite)  by Froissart  to  show  the  dangers society  faced  from  the  Revolt,  we  may  note  that the sentiments are  compatible with the demands  made by  the rebels in 1381.

When  the Kentish men  led by Wat Tyler,  an Essex man, met the  14-year-old king Richard at Mile End  on 14  June,  they demanded  an  end to serfdom and a flat rent of  4  pence  an acre.  The  king  granted the plea.  When the  king  met  the  rebels  a second time Tyler shook the king’s hand and  called him  “brother”. Tyler demanded a new Magna  Carta  for  the common people which would have  ended serfdom,  pardoned  all outlaws, liquidated all church property  and declared  that all men below the king were equal,  in effect abolishing  the peerage and gentry. Richard, much to the rebels’  surprise, accepted  the  demands,  although  cunningly  qualifying  the acceptance  “saving  only the regality of the crown”.  A  few minutes later Tyler  was  mortally wounded, supposedly after he had attempted to attack a young esquire in the royal  party who had  called him a thief. His death signalled  the beginning of  the end of the  revolt for without  Tyler  the Revolt  lost direction and  those who  remained  willing  to resist were pacified in the next few weeks.

During the Revolt the rebels  did not  run riot, but acted in a controlled  manner, attacking  the  property of tax collectors, other  important  royal servants and  any property belonging to the king’s uncle,  John of Gaunt. Any identifiable Exchequer document was ripe for destruction.  

The revolt  began in  Essex when  the commissioners attempting  to  collect  the Poll Tax were  surrounded  by  a  hostile  crowd  on 30 May 1381.  Physical threats  were  made  against  one  of the commissioners,  and  the  commissioners retreated  from the immediate task  of attempting to  collect the tax.  This  brought in the Chief Justice  of the  Court of Common Pleas to restore order. He was captured by an  even larger  crowd  and made to  swear on oath that  no  further  attempt  would  be made to collect the  tax  the  area. The  names of informers  who  had provided  names to the commissioners was discovered and the culprits beheaded.

The spirit of rebellion soon spread. By 2 June a  crowd  in the village of Bocking  had sworn  that they would “have  no law  in England except only as  they themselves moved  to  be  ordained.” 

The rebellion  had infected Kent by the end of the first week in June.  By the time Wat Tyler,  an Essex man by birth,  had  been elected to lead the Kentish  men  the demand was for the heads  of the king’s uncle John of Gaunt,  the Archbishop  of Canterbury Simon Sudbury and the Treasurer Sir Robert  Hales. After Tyler’s first meeting with Richard,  Sudbury and  Hales were  captured and beheaded by the rebels. No deference  or want of ambition there.

The  extent  to  which the Revolt frightened  the  crown  and nobility can be seen in the violence of Richard’s words  when he addressed  another group of rebels at Walthamstow on  22 June,  by  which  time the danger was felt  to  have  largely passed:

You wretches,  detestable on land and sea ;  you who seek equality  with  lords  are unworthy to  live.  Give  this message to your colleagues.  Rustics you were and rustics you are still:  you will remain in bondage  not as before  but incomparably  harsher. For as long as we live we will  strive  to  suppress you ,  and your misery  will  be  an example  in  the eyes of posterity .  How ever,  we  will spare your lives if you remain faithful. Choose now which you want to follow .  (Simon Schama  A History of Britain p 254 )

The roots of English democracy

The beginnings of English democratic thought

 Contents

INTRODUCTION

THE FRANCHISE BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR

THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

PHILOSOPHICAL AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

SERVANTS AND ALMSTAKERS

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

The Civil War changed English politics utterly. It brought the end of claims by the English crown to Divine Right and absolute monarchy. It promoted the political interests of the aristocracy and gentry as a class. It forced those on the Parliamentary side to effectively exercise power on their own responsibility. It created a political class which saw politics as something they could control rather than merely be part of as a adjunct to the crown. It began the constitutional process which resulted in cabinet government. It laid the foundations for the formation of political parties. In short, it sowed seeds of modern representative government.

But something else occurred which was to be even more momentous in the long run. It was during the 1640s that the belief that men should only be ruled by those they had themselves elected first became a serious political idea, not merely in England but anywhere. Amazing as it may seem now, the idea that every man (but not woman) should have an active voice in choosing those who would represent and govern them was a novel concept in the middle of the 17th  century. A form of male-only democracy existed in the ancient world, but it was never inclusive because the citizens were always greatly outnumbered by the unfree and other non-citizens.

Why was the idea of every man being an elector so revolutionary? The enfranchisement of a wide electorate is perhaps the most fundamental political change a society can undergo. It forces the elite to take note of the masses in a way that no other system does. Even the humblest man must be considered as a man in his own right, a person with a vote and needs and wishes. Those needs and wishes may be heeded and met to varying degrees, but what the majority needs and wants cannot be ignored completely when each man has a vote.

The democratic spirit was surprisingly widespread in the 1640s. By this I do not mean that men were commonly calling for full manhood suffrage, much less the emancipation of women. Rather there was a sense that the social order had been rearranged by the war, that men were on some new ground of equality and had a right to a public voice. In particular, there was a feeling that those who had fought for Parliament had won the right to enfranchisement. There was also a more widespread feeling which penetrated all social classes that the existing franchises (which varied greatly) were frequently too narrow and that the towns, particularly those most recently grown to a decent size, were grossly under-represented.

The group which gave representation to democratic feelings most successfully was the Levellers. They were a disparate and ever shifting crew, drawing their support primarily from the ranks of the Parliamentary armed forces (especially after the New Model Army was formed), small tradesmen, journeymen and apprentices. However, they also included  those from higher social classes, their most famous leader, John Lilburne, being the child of minor gentry.

To call them a political party in the modern sense would be misleading. Yet they were the closest thing to it both then and arguably for several centuries. Their tactics and organisation were modern – the use of pamphletering and newspapers, the ability to get large number of supporters onto the streets (especially in London) at the drop of a hat, the creation of local associations. They also developed an increasingly sophisticated political programme in a series of documents known as The Agreements of the People. These Agreements dealt extensively with political representation and structure. The levellers were also very successful in creating an enemy and sense of grievance. They did this by portraying 1640s England as having declined from a golden age of freedom under the heel of the Normans and their French successors.

Led for the most part by a man of preternatural obstinacy, courage and unreasonableness, John Lilburne (“freeborn Jack”), the Levellers frightened the Parliamentary leaders sufficiently to force various negotiations and discussions. These culminated in the Putney Debates in 1647 when Parliamentary and Army leaders including, Cromwell and his son-in-law Henry Ireton, met with a variety of people on what might broadly be called the democratic side.  Unfortunately Lilburne was not able to attend. Nonetheless,the Leveller position was strongly represented. Most importantly, much of the debate was taken down in shorthand. It is a most intriguing document. The sheer range of political ideas it displays is impressive. It shows clearly that in the 1640s there was a very high degree of sophistication amongst the politically interested class. The ideas run from the monarchical to the unreservedly democratic. This document together with the Leveller pamphlets provide ample evidence of Leveller thinking.

How far did the Levellers reach in their search for political inclusion? Did they go the whole hog and seek a full manhood franchise or were they much more cautious? That is the question which I shall now examine with the aid of Prof C.B. Macpherson.

Macpherson contends in his ‘Theory of Possessive Individualism’ that the Levellers were  never advocates of universal manhood suffrage, but, rather, sought a  restricted franchise which excluded servants (to be equated with wage-earners) and almstakers (or beggars).

He is extremely emphatic in his conclusions. As we shall see, there are substantial reasons for doubting his certainty, both on the question of universal manhood suffrage and on the extent to which a more restricted suffrage was accepted by the Levellers.

To answer the question I shall begin by describing the  attitude  taken towards the franchise before the  Levellers.

I will then cover, in much the same order as  Macpherson, the documentary evidence he puts before us.

Having done this, I shall examine the philosophy he attributes to the Levellers in order to explain their  motivations and to bring forth  any  further evidence and observations.  

Lastly, I will deal with the definition of servants and almstakers,  plus the  nature of Macpherson’s statistics.

 Chapter 1

 THE FRANCHISE BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR

Discontent with electoral qualifications, provisions and practices was not an infant of the Civil War and  its aftermath, although it was greatly increased by those events,  Rather it was the end of a trail which began in Elizabeth’s reign and reached  its highest pitch, prior to the 1640s, during the years 1621 to 1623.

The discontent was provoked primarily by the situation in the boroughs rather than the counties, Since 1430, the county electorate had been restricted to the forty shilling freeholder, which qualification had become almost sacrosanct by the end of the sixteenth century –  only one proposal outside the ‘Great Rebellion’ (1621) was made to raise or lower it.  Tudor inflation had  greatly lowered the barrier it represented (40 shillings in 1600 was worth perhaps 15 shillings at 1430 values) and it is reasonable  to suppose this considerably increased the rural electorate. Also, there is evidence to suggest that the qualification was not always enforced1 and some county electorates may have had a very broad manhood franchise indeed prior to 1640.

Borough franchises were anything but uniform. In some the whole ‘commonalty’  (all householders) or  even all ‘potwallers’ (men with their own  hearths) voted. In others the vote was restricted to all taxpayers (‘scot and lot’), freemen of the town, or those in possession of burgage property. In extreme cases the vote might be restricted to the ruling corporation. Such discrepancies of representation were aggravated by a distribution of borough seats which took insufficient  account of the demographic changes of the past two centuries, during which time England’s population increased very substantially, perhaps by as much as a third. All this meant that there was fertile soil for agitation for more equal borough representation, both in terms of the breadth of the franchise and in the number of seats.

Tudor monarchs, not unnaturally, did not favour larger electorates2. The existence of ‘rotten boroughs’ was a source of patronage and, if the monarch could control the oligarchies who returned the MP, a means of reducing opposition to the Crown. As there was a significant number of such boroughs, this was no small advantage to the monarch.

The attitude of Parliament to the franchise was mixed. The Lords had a similar interest to the Crown in distrusting broad franchises. The peers often effectively controlled seats in the Commons. They also had a natural inclination to deny the ‘commonality’ any voice in the affairs of the kingdom. Conversely, it was obviously in the Commons’ interest to increase electorates, where such increases reduced the Monarch’s’ and the Lord’s opportunities for patronage.

There is particular evidence that the Puritans favoured larger electorates, at least in so far as it suited their own purposes. At Warwick in 1586 Job Throckmorton was  elected after he threatened to invoke the right of the ‘commonality to vote. In 1587 John Field remarked to  colleague ‘seeing we cannot compass these things by suit or dispute, it is the multitude and people that must  bring the discipline to pass which we desire.’3 As Puritans displaced many court nominees and the creatures of aristocrats, this is significant in view of  the attitude of the Commons towards electoral qualifications  between 1621 and 1628.

By 1621, the Commons had gained the right to decide disputed elections and to revive lapsed borough seats and  even make new creations, The tendency until 1628 was to  ecide in favour of wider franchise and to allow  all the ‘commonality’ to vote. At Bletchingly (1624) and Lewes (1628) ‘all the inhabitants ,’ were to be  electors’, and at Cirencester (1624) all ‘resients:’.  n the case of Pontefract in 1624 a general principle was formulated:

‘There being no certain custom nor prescription, who should be the electors and who not, we  must have recourse to common right which, to this purpose was held to be, that more than the  freeholders only ought to  have  voices  in the election, namely all men,  inhabitants,  householders resient within the borough.’4

Further, in the case of Boston (1628) it was asserted that the election of burgesses belonged by common right to the   commoners and only prescription or ‘a constant usage  beyond all memory’ could rob them of this.5

It is true that when the Commons revived or created borough  seats, they concentrated, as the Tudors had done, on small towns to promote their own advantage. But,  even so,  they granted ‘scot and lot’ franchises in every case (except Weobley) which meant  that even small towns such as Great Marlow or Hilbourne Port had electorate of around 200.

Bills  were  introduced to  regulate  elections and standardise, the franchise in 1621, 1623, 1625, 1628  and 1640, The 1621 Bill is of particular interest because it proposed that the 40/- freeholder qualification be increased to œ4 and to admit œ10 copyholders by  inheritance. The borough proposals add no more than the various decisions on individual cases (in fact even less), for electors were to be freemen except where they numbered less than twenty-four, in which case all  inhabitants  not in receipt of alms were to be included,

In 1640 the franchise was raised again by Sir Simonds D’Ewes. It was he who first uttered the idea later made famous by Thomas Rainsborough ‘that the poorest man in England ought to have a voice, that it was the birthright of the subjects of England and all had voices in the election of Knights etc. previously.’6

In 1641 a bill had reached second reading but was then lost. D’Ewes favoured its contents except that he ‘desired that whereas it was provided in the bill that none that took alms should have voices in elections, which I well allowed, we would  likewise provide that no more monopolizing elections might be in cities and boroughs, that all men resients might have voices.’7

It is also noteworthy, both for its own sake and the part it played in Leveller literature, that many believed that the Statute of 1430 had disenfranchised  people. William May, in 1621, said ‘Anciently, all thecommonality had voice, but because such a multitude made the election tumultuous, it was after reduced to freeholders’.  William Prynne put it even more plainly, ‘Before this  Petition and Act every inhabitant and commoner in each county had voice in the election of Knights, whether he were a freeholder or not, or had a freehold only of one penny, six pence or twelve pence by the year as they now claim of late in most cities and boroughs where popular elections are admitted’8. It is a sobering thought that if the Statute of 1430 did disenfranchise large numbers of county electors, the county franchise may have been wider in medieval England than it was to be again before the end of the nineteenth century and conceivably wider than the Franchise before the 1918 Representation of the People Act.

What  of the position of servants,  wage-earners and almstakers in all this? Resident household servants were generally considered beyond the pale, although  ‘servants’ were said to have voted in the Worcestershire county election of 1604. Wage-earners certainly did so, for those in the ‘potwaller’ and ‘scot and lot’ constituencies were granted the right to vote. Almstakers were excluded in the 1621 and 1640 bills, yet at Great Marlow in 1604 77 of the 245 voters were said to be almstakers, nine of  them inmates of the almshouse. In 1640 the right of the Bember inmates to vote was said to have been sustained  and in 1662 the St. Albans almsmen were said to have ‘had voices time out of mind’.

It is clear from all this, that the Levellers did not enter untilled ground when they broached the question of the franchise. There are also, for our purposes, three points of particular interest. First, the Commons,  or at least an influential  part of it,  was not unduly disturbed by the prospect of an enlarged electorate. Second, people whom Macpherson claims the Levellers would have excluded – servants and almstakers – were ncluded in the franchise long before the Civil War. Third, that there existed even gentlemen (such as Sir Simonds D’Ewes) who had an active and unambiguous democratic spirit. The latter point is particularly pertinent because the chief Leveller, John Lilburne, was also of gentle-birth, a fact he never ceased to emphasise. Democratic ideas were not thus foreign bodies suddenly introduced by the Levellers.

 Notes

 I. K. Thomas. The Levellers and the Franchise answer p.62

 2. J.H, Plunb. The Growth of the electorate 1600-1715

 3. Ibid

 4. Ibid

 5 K. Thomas, The Levellers and the Franchise p.62

 6. Ibid p.63

 7. Ibid p.64

 8 Ibid p.64

Chapter 2

THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

The roots of Macpherson’s conclusions lie in the Putney Debates. Prior to Putney, the franchise received relatively little attention in Leveller writings, Those statements which do exist do not explicitly exclude servants and almstakers, and have the appearance of demands for universal  manhood suffrage.  Post  Putney  statements on the other hand consistently advocate, for whatever reason, the exclusion of servants and almstakers. The evidence  of  the Putney  debates provides  Macpherson  with his main means of resolving, at least to his mind, this apparent inconsistency.

The question of the franchise occupied most of the second day’s debate at Putney. The first article of the (First) Agreement demanded ‘That the People of England,.,. ought to be more indifferently proportioned according to the number of inhabitants.’ This provoked Cromwell’s son-in-law, Henry Ireton to say:

‘The exception that lies in it is this. It is said, they are to be distributed according to the number of  inhabitants, ‘The People of England’ etc. And this  doth make me think that the meaning is that every man that is an inhabitant is to be equally considered, and to have an equal voice in the election of those representors, the persons that are for the general representative…’2

Thus Ireton, whatever his motives, charges the Levellers atthe earliest possible opportunity, with seeking universal suffrage. Petty is the first Leveller to answer: ‘We judge that all inhabitants that have not lost their birthright should have an equal voice in elections’,3

Macpherson thinks it significant that Petty does not state in plain words whether he is for or against universal suffrage. Yet why should he have felt obliged to do so? Ireton has asked a plain question and Petty’s reply, no matter what construction is put upon the phrase ‘all inhabitants that have not lost their birthright’, is an adequate and reasonable answer. Surely more significant is the fact that those with Leveller sympathies did not recoil from the suggestion with horror. However, there is a note of ambiguity in Petty’s answer and it is possible, as A.L.Morton suggests4, that Rainsborough’s famous speech which follows immediately (the poorest he that is in England etc.)5 was intended to clarify the situation.

But by far the most significant passage for Macpherson occurs when the debate has turned to considering the particulars rather than the general issue of the franchise, Cromwell in what appears to be a state of some impatience suddenly says:

‘If we should go about to alter these things, I do not think we are bound to fight  for every  particular  proposition. Servants while servants, are not included. Then you agree that  he that receive alms is to be excluded?’

The first to reply is Lt. Col. Thomas Reade, who, although more progressive in spirit than Cromwell, was no Leveller:

 ’I  suppose it’s concluded by all,  that  the  choosing of representatives is a privilege: now I see no reason why any man that is a native ought to be excluded that privilege, unless  from  voluntary  servitude.’ ‘

 Then follow the critical words of Petty:

 ’I  conceive  the reason why we would exclude  apprentices or servants, or those who take alms,  because they depend upon the will of other  men and should be afraid to displease (them). For servants and apprentices, they are included in their master, and so for those  that receive alms from door to door’6

This passage is remarkable for a number of reasons. First, Cromwell assumes general agreement  that servants were to be excluded, although, up to this point in the debate, there appears little, if any, justification for doing so. This may indeed support  Macpherson’s contention that all parties, including, the Levellers were strong for exclusion. But there  are  alternative explanations. Cromwell’s impatience may have got the better of him  and he could have made such a statement in order to  browbeat any opposition. It is after all a common debating trick, and we have ample evidence from Putney and elsewhere that Cromwell was prone to behaving in a domineering and high-handed manner.

Second, what of Petty’s reply? In the first place it may merely be as J.C. Davis7 suggests, a statement of what Petty considered the grounds on which Cromwell would advocate exclusion, rather than an endorsement of them. Alternatively, if we accept that Petty was in agreement with Cromwell, which might be suggested by the alacrity of his reply, other considerations  rise. Macpherson considers Petty to have been the main Leveller spokesman at Putney and by implication, fully representative of Leveller opinion.

This is a dangerous road to travel. Petty, apart from his appearance  at Putney  and on a number of Leveller-Independent committees, was a somewhat obscure figure in the Leveller camp, Perhaps significantly, he was involved in the drafting of the compromise Second Agreement and in later years became a member of Harrington’s aristocratic-republican Rota Club.8 None of this of course does more than suggest that Petty may have been less than representative of Leveller thought, particularly that of Overton and Lilburne.

Petty may have been an opportunist willing to support a movement whose aims and ideals he did not necessarily consider sacrosanct but merely convenient. Or he may have turned his coat  when the movement  failed.  Whatever the truth of the matter, we may join with A.L. Morton in wishing that if Lilburne had been at Putney and in thinking that the position might well be clearer if he had been able to do so.

Then there is the position of Rainsborough at Putney, where he unambiguously embraced adult manhood suffrage. It is true that Rainsborough had, as far as is known, no direct connection with the Levellers prior to Putney, but his sympathies were clearly with the Levellers and he enjoyed a considerable reputation in the Party after Putney, His contribution to the franchise debate was by far the most forceful  on the Leveller side (in the sense that Rainsborough agreed with the Leveller arguments rather than those of Cromwell et al) and greatly outweighed that of Petty. If Rainsborough’s ideas were so acceptable to Levellers after Putney, why not before and during Putney?

Macpherson uses Petty’s reply to Cromwell as a springboard to launch his theory. He  admits that  further sustaining evidence to support his proposition is necessary. The says quite correctly, that Levellers did believe that the right to elect could be forfeited by (freeborn) men. Up until Putney, delinquency was commonly cited as being sufficient reason, However, it must be remembered that the Levellers were in favour of reconciliation with the royalists (delinquents). The fact that they proposed to exclude them for a relatively short period of time from the franchise, (provided their behaviour was satisfactory)is scarcely surprising, for the situation was exceptional. It is reasonable to see such exclusion as simply an extraordinary measure to settle the country after a civil war. One would be very rash to assume that this attitude was indicative of Leveller opinion in general on the loss of birthright.

Macpherson  continues by quoting the  franchise  clause (section ll) of the Petition of January 1648:

‘Whereas  it hath been the ancient liberty of this  nation, that all the  freeborn  people have freely elected their representers  in Parliament,  and their sheriffs and Justices of the Peace, etc. and they were abridged of that their native liberty by a statute of the 8.H.6,7. That, therefore, the birthright of all English  men be forthwith restored to all which are not,  or shall not be legally disenfranchised for some  criminal  cause,  or are under 21 years of age, or servants or beggars .’9

Of this Macpherson says there could scarcely be a clearer indication that the Levellers assumed that those who became servants or beggars thereby forfeited their birthright to a voice in elections (p.124). We may well agree that at this time the Levellers were willing to do so, but as the whole point of Macpherson’s task is to establish a consistency in Leveller thinking, we are really no further down the path of enlightenment. If the Levellers from Putney onward did compromise at various points, it does not prove that they wished for anything other than a full manhood suffrage. More probably, such compromises are simply reluctant adjustments to the political realities of the time.

The  seems to be on firmer ground when he turns to a letter sent from several Agitators of the Army to their respective Regiments (llth November, 1647) concerning the franchise debate at Putney. This tells us that ‘it was concluded by vote in the affirmative:  viz, that all soldiers and others, if they be not servants or beggars, ought to have voices in electing those which shall represent them in Parliament, although they have not forty shillings per annum in freehold land And there were but three voices against this your native freedon’lO.

It does at first glance seem strange that the exclusion of servants and beggars should be linked with the phrase ‘this your native freedom’. However, it must be remembered that the Agitators’ prime concern was for  the soldiers  they represented. If it is accepted that the leading  Independents were willing to include all  soldiers, regardless of their status, in the franchise, it  then  becomes possible that the phrase ‘this your native freedom’ applied to the soldiers rather than the whole  population.

‘The Grand Designe’ of John Harris (the agitators’ pointer) which appeared in December, 1647, and the Third  Agreement of May, 1649, present similar problems. In the former, Harris explained that the intent of the First Article (which provoked the franchise debate at Putney) was that the electors should be:

  ’all  men that are not servants or  beggars, it being pure  equity, that as all  persons are bound to yield obedience to the decrees of the  Representative or Parliament, so they should have a  voice in  the  electing their Representatives or Members of Parliament’ 11,

While the franchise clause of the latter stated that the electors would be:

‘(according to natural right) all men of the age of one and twenty years and upwards (not being servants or receiving alms, or having served the late King in arms or voluntary contributions) l2.

The equating of ‘all persons’, and ‘all men that are not servants or beggars’ in the former and ‘the according to naturall right’ in the latter seem to lend weight to Macpherson’s argument. Yet in both the authors were using well tried phrases and need not have considered the full implications of them. Also, in the latter case, as A.L. Morton says, the statement of general principle occurred before any of the exceptions were detailed.

Having come this far, Macpherson feels he is in a position to interpret, as he puts it, the apparent claims of the Levellers for an ‘unqualified manhood franchise’ and their opponent’s attribution of this to them at Putney, and  the lack  of  any explicit exclusion of servants prior  to Putney.  Thus, when the Levellers used phrases such as ‘every inhabitant’, ‘every person in England’ or ‘the poorest man in England’, Macpherson believes that we must assume that they really meant ‘all freeborn men who have not lost their birthright’, a loss of birthright toinclude servants and beggars. This is a great deal to read into the evidence.

Ireton and Cromwell, on the other hand, were so concerned to defend the existing franchise qualifications, Macpherson says, that for the purpose of debate they were indifferent to whether the Levellers sought an unqualified franchise  or merely a broader but still restricted one. When Ireton referred to ‘all persons’, ‘any man that hath a breath and being’ , ‘all inhabitants’, or Cromwell ‘men that have no interest but the interest  of breathing’13,  this  thinks  Macpherson was hyperbole by Cromwell and Ireton to sharpen the issue, Yet if it were hyperbole, why was it not resisted more vigorously and unambiguously by Petty et al?

Macpherson fastens on to the fact that, as he puts it, “even after Cromwell had explicitly recognized that the Levellers’ proposal excludedservants and almstakers, he still spoke of it as tending to anarchy because it would give a vote to ‘all those who are in the Kingdom’”14. Now, as we have seen, it is by no means certain that Cromwell’s statement was accepted by the Levellers (p above). The fact that he continued to impute to the Levellers this position may reasonably be taken as an indication that the Levellers had not accepted it, that it was an agreed position and Cromwell words thus exaggeration. The same reasoning may be applied to the fact that the Levellers did not bother to refute these ‘apparent’ imputations of manhood suffrage. Indeed, it would seem more significant that they did not do so.

The reason why they refrained from answering such claims directly, says Macpherson, was because it would not have helped their case to have done so, being more concerned to refute the charge that their proposals would destroy property. This is conceivable yet unlikely, unless we accept that the Levellers were only concerned with a limited franchise along  Macpherson’s lines. Moreover, one cannot divide the questions of the franchise and the feared destruction of property, for one stems from the other.

Neither do I find the fact that only Colonel Rich mentioned the Levellers’ ‘supposed ‘ intention to include servants necessarily indicative of a general consensus of opinion. It is surely significant that he mentioned it at all in the light of Macpherson’s position. Nor do I think he was contradicted by Rainsborough as Macpherson believes. Rich said:

 ’If the master and servant shall be  equal electors, then clearly those that have no interest in the Kingdom will make  it their interest to choose those that have no interest. It may happen, that the majority may by law,  not in confusion, destroy property;  there may be a law enacted,  that there shall be an equality of goods and estate’

He then proceeds to point out the danger that the poor night, as in Rome, set up a dictator15. Rainsborough replies:

‘I think it is a fine gilded pill. But there is much danger,  and it may seen to some that there is some kind of remedy [possible]. I think we  are better as we are [if it can be really proved] that the poor should choose many [and] still the people be in the some case, be over voted still,  But of this and much else, I am unsatisfied… and the[first] thing that I am unsatisfied in is how it comes about that  there is such propriety in some freeborn Englishmen and not [in] others.’16

Now this is, to say the least, a messy passage, but its meaning, if we accept Woodhouse’s additions, is surely plain enough. Rainsborough is rejecting  Rich’s suggestion and when he speaks of ‘being better as we are’ he is merely saying that if he was certain this would be the result of an unqualified franchise, he would reject it, but that, in fact, he does not believe this would be the result. He sees it in other words as a red herring. Indeed, if we were to accept that he did not take this position, we are forced to conclude that Rainsborough was in favour of no change at all, which would be a howling nonsense in view of his explicitly democratic ideas.

There is another passage from Putney which suggests that servants were not automatically excluded by all present. Captain Rolfe appeals for greater moderation, saying, ‘I shall desire that a medium or some thoughts of composure, [may be had] in relation to servants or to foreigners, or such others shall be agreed upon.’ Captain Clarke , who possessed Leveller sympathies, replied first, stating that he too ‘shall desire [that] before the question be stated it may be moderated as for foreigners’17. It is noteworthy that  Clarke,  although  agreeing  that foreigners should  be excluded, does not mention servants and that Rolfe believes too much heat is being generated by the subject, scarcely an indication that all concerned agreed that servants were beyond the pale.

The pre-Putney documents receive similar treatment from Macpherson. The case of ‘the Army truely stated’(15th October, 1647), which ha originally accepted as a demand for full manhood suffrage18, asked that:

‘all  the freeborn at the age of  twenty-one years and upwards,  be the electors,  excepting those that have or shall deprive themselves of that their freedom either for some  years or wholly by delinquency.19

This the  sees as excluding servants  and almstakers. This seems a most peculiar conclusion. Why on earth should servants or almstakers be described as delinquent? Delinquency in the seventeenth century meant much what it does today, namely antisocial acts(particularly criminal ones). Being a servant or almstaker could not denote delinquency, for the former was in useful employment and the latter more often than not had to prove that they were of good character before being in receipt of alms (This particularly applied to those in almshouse). Moreover, the common objection to granting the vote to servants and almstakers was one of dependency. Yet it is not mentioned here.

It is just possible that the temporary exclusion referred to apprentices. This  Macpherson rejects as most of such would be under 21, but K. Thomas is favourable to the idea on the grounds that the legal age for the end of apprenticeship was 24. Again, the question arises: why should apprentices be described generally as delinquents?

For my own part, I think it probable that the exclusion of delinquents referred solely to royalists, or just possibly to civilian delinquents, that is, common-criminals. The term delinquent has a special and technical meaning in the context of the civil war, namely a royalist who was considered to be both recalcitrant and to have been a serious and persistent supporter of the King (the practical application of this definition was inconsistent, but that was the theory).

It is true that permanent exclusion seems to run contrary to the Leveller desire for reconciliation with royalists, but it is not necessarily certain  that the authors of ‘The Case’ shared such sentiments. They may for instance  have believed that certain royalists were so responsible for the troubles of the war, that no leniency could be extended. Such an argument could also be advanced in the case of common criminals.

Of the other documents, Lilburne’s ’England’s Birth-right Justified’ (October 1645), ‘London’s Liberty In Chains Discovered’ (October 1646), ‘The Charters of London’; or,  ‘The  Second Part  of  London’s  Chains  discovered’ (December,  1646), and ‘Rash Oaths Unwarrantable’ (May, 1647)20, all fall foul of Macpherson because  they contain such terms as ‘freeborn’, and ‘freemen ‘, in connection with the franchise. This is another case when we must beware of reading too much into regular Leveller phraseology, which would be more suitably viewed as rhetoric, an affirmation in this case that all men were born possessed of the same birthright, and should enjoy the same, There are many instances where such phrases were used in connection with other matters, such a religion or civil liberties, which Macpherson  claims  the Levellers believed were inalienable, and he presumably would not wish to argue that the use of ‘freeborn’ in these contexts did not mean all men, (and indeed women).

 ’London’s Liberty in Chains’ is of particular  interest to ship Macpherson because it bases  its  claim for a broader franchise on the fact that the statute of 1430 (8′H’6’7) had disenfranchised many who  had previously had the vote.  This, says Macpherson, cannot be a claim for manhood suffrage for it is merely a claim to remove the forty shilling qualification which does not necessarily mean servants and almstakers would be included. This is correct, but neither does it mean that it was only a plea for tenant farmers and non-corporate traders and craftsmen, if we bear in mind the evidence of the previous chapter, particularly Poynnes’ words (see above ).

The other two documents that Macpherson examines are ‘The Remonstrance of Many Thousand Citizens, and Other Freeborn People of England’ (July, 1646), and ‘Jonah’s Cry out of the Whale’s Belly’ (July 1647). The former requests that every year in November elections should take place and that ‘all men that have a right to be there, not to fail upon a great penalty, but no summons to be  expected’21. This Macpherson this significant for it states that voting would be by ‘all men that have a right’, not simply all men. Yet, in view of the circumstances of 1646 when the position of  royalists had to be considered, should we expect that no exclusions would be thought reasonable then? The answer is surely no.

The latter document is concerned with the right of soldiers to vote. It states that ‘according to the principles of safety, flowing from Nature, Reason and Justice…  every individual private soldier, whether Horse or Foot, aut freely to have their vote, to chuse the transactors of their affairs.’ This does not necessarily imply that the soldiers desired the same for civilians. However, we know that documents which either originated from or involved the Army, expressed concern for the population as a whole.

The documentary evidence is, to put it politely, less than conclusive. In the absence of even one unassailable statement, Macpherson is forced to rely on building up his argument  by interpretation.  The disadvantage of this is that in so many instances an equally plausible interpretation can be made to prove the contrary. This is not, however, to suggest that  Macpherson has been proven completely mistaken, for we must not fall into the trap, which he himself falls into, of insisting on consistency to the extent where  every statement must be interpreted  in a certain fashion.

 Notes

 1 D. H ‘Wolfe, Leveller .Manifestoes .226

 2 A,S.P Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty , p.52

 3 Ibid, p.55

 4. A,L. Morton, Leveller Democracy p.205.

 5 A,S.P. Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty p.53

 6. Ibid, pp. 82-3

 7. J. Davis, The Levellers and Democracy ,

 8. K. Thomas, The Levellers and the Franchise p.67,

 9 D.H. Wolfe, Leveller Manifestoes P,269.

 10. ASP Woodhouse, p.452.

 11. C .B, Macpherson, p125

 12. D.H. Wolfe, p.403

 13. A.S.P. Woodhouse, pp, 57, 70, 63, 77.

 14. C.B. Macpherson, p.126.

 15. A,S.P. Woodhouse, pp.63, 64.

 16. Ibid, p,64.

 17.A.S.P. Woodhouse, p,30.

 18.K.Thomas, p. 212

 19. D.H. Wolfe, p.212.

 20. England Birthright Justified’ is printed in Haller  ’Tracts on Liberty in  the  Puritan Revolution’, ‘London in Chains’, ‘The Second Part of London  Chains  discovered’ and  ’Rash  Oaths  Unwarrantable’, are not readily available. See Macpherson  pp. 131-135.

 21. ‘The Remonstrance’ is printed in H.H. Wolfe , p.129, but ‘Jonah’s Cry’ is not readily available. See Macpherson,  p.135,

 Chapter 3

PHILOSOPHICAL AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The philosophy which Macpherson  attributes to the Levellers to explain why they proposed  to exclude servant and almstakers derived from the view of a man’s capacities (i.e.  his own labour) as a commodity which  could be sold, This Macpherson believes was the dominant ideology in 17th Century England. Thus, although the Levellers believed that all Englishmen were born with the same  birthright, certain parts of this birthright could be forfeited. Religious, civil and even  possibly economic rights could not be alienated justly, and as such should be protected constitutionally.  The  right  to elect, however, could be forfeited by entering into a condition of dependence, either by taking wages or alms. In such  cases, a just dependence resulted and the  subservient individual’s voice was deemed to be included in that of his master or benefactor, as far as a voice in elections was concerned, jut as that of a wife was deemed to be included in that of her husband.

That this could be  considered just  is further explained by what Macpherson deems to be the general contemporary opinion of what the functions of government should be. The primary function of 17th Century government, Macpherson informs us, was ‘to make and enforce the rules within which men could make the most of their own energies and cpacities’ and the secondary function, derived from the first, was ‘the protection of property in goods and estate’ (p.144). Servants and almstakers had lost the ‘property in their own had labour’ and, therefore, had presumably no land or capital, and as such could have no interest in either function of government,

At first glance this line of argument is both plausible and attractive. We are dealing with an openly acquisitive society which judged a man in large part on the basis of his material estate, and which was still pronouncedly hierarchical. Add in Man’s natural tribal inclinations, and it would not have been  unreasonable for the Levellers in such a situation to be  concerned with advancing those with whom they had most sympathy, the small men, while neglecting the needs of other  groups. Also, the exposition is alluring because it  purports to provide us with a means of assessing all Leveller aims and of removing inconsistencies using a system which is logical and neat. Yet, like all intellectual schemes which purport to show Man as a consistent political animal, the cracks soon begin to appear when compared to the reality.

First let us examine parts of Overton’s ‘An Arrow against all Tyrants’ (19th October, 1646) and his ‘Appeale’ (July, 1547):

‘No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no man’s….for by naturall birth all men are equally and alike borne to like propriety, liberty and freedom,  and as we are  delivered of  God by the hand of nature  into this world, everyone  with a naturall, innate freedom and propriety….even so are we to live, every one equally and alike to enjoy his birthright and privilege…. [no more of which may be alienated]  than is conducive to a better being, more  safety and freedome….[for] every man by nature being a King, Priest and Prophet in his own naturall circuit and compasse, whereof no second may partake,  but  by deputation,  commission and  free  consent from  him,  whose  naturall right and freedome it is.’1

In the ‘Appeale’ 0verton adds to this splendid statement of individual liberty, the duty of all men to protect themselves ‘from all things hurtful, destructive and obnoctious thereto to the utmost of [their] power’. It is difficult to accept that any man who could express such sentiments would willingly have allowed that large numbers of men be excluded from the franchise simply because of their position in life.

However, what concerns Macpherson is ‘the proprietorial quality of the Leveller individualism’. The essence of  Man to the Levellers was freedom which meant the proprietorship of one’s own person and capacities (P.142).

From this Macpherson deduces that certain rights were considered inalienable while the right to elect was not. Thus, ‘property in one’s own mental and spiritual  person required freedom of  speech, publication and religion’ (P.142). These rights, apart from their justification by natural law, were demanded for  all because in Lilburne’s words ‘what is done to any one, may be done to every one’3. Similarly, economic rights must be demanded for everyone or monopolists would return, arbitrary taxation and regulation, introduced, even though only those had retained the disposal of their own labour could benefit from them directly,

It is a pity that Macpherson does not extend this line of reasoning to the right to elect. For surely in this  case  as  well, provision against arbitrary disenfranchisement would be necessary and what better method, on Lilburne’s reasoning, than to extend it to all. To this, of course, Macpherson will reply that the functions of government did not concern ‘those who had lost their birthright’, Yet, neither apparently did economic rights  and there would be as much reason to claim the right to elect for all on expedient grounds as there was in the case of economic rights. Further, if we examine the extent to which the Third Agreement especially shackled Parliament, what possible harm, by way of anarchy, levelling of estates etc. could come of it,

The likely answer as to why the Levellers did exclude servants and almstakers after Putney is expediency, either for the reason Petty gave, that dependant men would be afraid to displease their masters, or because they were made aware of political realities.  Macpherson doubts whether the Levellers would have excluded nearly two-thirds of the adult male population on the grounds of expediency, because he believes that they were such committed idealists they could not have brought themselves to such a business.

This is a rather surprising conclusion for, as J.C. Davis4 points out, the Levellers did compromise on the tithes, an issue of principle if ever there was one for them. The March Petition of 1647 and the July Appeale demanded abolition of tithes without provision for compensation. It was not mentioned in the first Agreement5, and deliberately left out from the January Petition of 1643 so as not to ‘disengage any considerable party, and so continue our distractions’. It returned in the Humble Petition (September , 1648) and the Second Agreement, but now with provisions for satisfying all impropriations.

Also, we must remember that the Levellers compromised on the franchise,  even by Macpherson’s account,  in the Second  Agreement. Of course,  Macpherson would be quick to point out the difference between the ratepayer franchise  (adopted in the Agreement) of 375,300,  and the non-servant franchise he says the Levellers wanted (416,700), was so small to be scarcely worth mentioning,  In that case, why  should the matter have raised so much consternation  at Putney.  Macpherson  says the dispute at Putney arose because Ireton and Cromwell wanted nothing more than the freeholder franchise. Yet Cromwell at Putney admitted he was willing to allow that ‘perhaps  there are a very considerable part of copyholders, by inheritance, that ought to have a voice’6.

There is further evidence that the Levellers compromised. When all seemed lost after Burford, ‘The Remonstrance of Many Thousands of the Free-people of England’ offered  amongst other things votes to ‘all that come unto us’. The  tone of the ‘Remonstrance’ is savage, reflecting the bitter anger felt by the author at the betrayal of the people’s iberties.  That it offered votes to ‘all that come unto us’ may merely be, in part at least, a reflection of this bitterness and also of the fact that it was a call to armed rebellion, Yet it is surely significant that such a statement should be made so soon after the ‘Third Agreement’ which although a partial compromise designed to appeal to moderate opinion, is none the less often viewed as the final position  of  the  Levellers. It is also interesting to note that it demanded ‘that  every free-commoner shall be put into a way and enabled with means for his natural subsistence’7, surely in this context meaning all commoners and thus giving added strength to the belief that the use of the word ‘free’ was merely a rhetorical device.

 A further pamphlet which was Leveller in tone was ‘A Charge of High Treason exhibited  against Oliver Cromwell’ (1653), which summoned all the people of England to the polls ‘as well  masters, sons of servants’ which, if nothing else, reflects a radicalism that, whatever the truth of Macpherson’s  case, reminds us that we have every cause to assume that the seeds of manhood suffrage were always there.

 Notes

 1. C.B. Macpherson, pp. 140-1

 2. Ibid, p.141.

 3. Haller and Davies, The Leveller Tracts, p.455.

 4 J.C. Davis , The Levellers and Democracy .

 5 The  Agreement was  concerned with short-term

 measures which may well explain the exclusion.

 6. A.S.P. Woodhouse, P.7.

 7. Levellers and the Puritan Revolution, p.575

 Chapter 4

 SERVANTS AND ALMSTAKERS

Macpherson  has calculated  (using Gregory King’s estimate of 1688) that universal manhood suffrage in 1648 would have enfranchised 1,170,400 men. The exclusion  of  servants and almstakers (by Prof Macpherson’s definition, and accepting that all soldiers regardless of status were to be enfranchised) would have reduced this figure to 416,700. Thus, the Levellers on this reckoning  were  committed  to excluding nearly two-thirds of the adult male  population from the franchise. That I would suggest is a palpable nonsense.

Various criticisms may be made concerning the manner in which Macpherson has  treated  King’s figures.  These ‘statistics’ were at best informed guesses, and  King himself considerably varied his estimates of the size of social classes.1 In addition, Macpherson takes no account of a probably significant rise in wage-earners between 1648 and 1688, It may  even be, as A.L. Morton suggests,2 that King’s figures are misleading for  1693, because they do not differentiate adequately between the many graduations of employment to be found between a simple wage-earner and independent producer or artisan.

However, such criticisms do not go to the heart of the matter. The crux of the problem lies in the meaning given to the terms servant and almstaker (or beggar)by the Levellers within the context of  the franchise. To  read Macpherson is to gain the impression that servant in  common  contemporary  usage was given the usual meaning which he ascribes to it, i.e. wage-earner.

Yet it would appear that contemporaries used the term variously to accommodate the semantic confusion arising from an attempt to apply a social vocabulary inherited from a feudal and patriarchal past to the needs  of a society in which the relationship of master and servant was steadily yielding to that of employer and wage-earner.3

In fact, as K. Thomas points out, none of the three contemporary economic writers to whom Macpherson refers, Andrew Yarranton, John Carey and Thomas Firrin (p.282), equated ‘servants’ with day-labourers, the latter actually distinguishing between single persons who earned money by pinning with ‘servants’, that is, apprentices or domestics .

The Statute of Artificers also distinguished between ‘servants ‘ who contracted for a year or similar period and ‘artificers and  labourers being hired for wages by the day or week’. Richard Mayo, the author of ‘Present for Servants’ (1693),  considered the normal usage concerned those who ‘….have voluntarily submitted  themselves, by  contract, for a certain time to the disposal of others, according to the word of God, and the laws of the realm’ 4.

Now let us refer back to the statement of Petty during the Putney debates. (p. ). His reason for exclusion was ‘because they depend upon the will of other men and should be afraid to displease then’. In the light of this, there was obviously a  considerable difference between a man contracted to serve a year or so, who could only break his contract by mutual agreement with his employer or by order of a J.P on application by master or servant alone, and a wage-earner who was employed more or less casually, who, in theory at least, could change  employer  frequently  and also could be dismissed at   will. (It might appear that the contracted servant was in  a vastly more secure position, but it must  be remembered  that unilateral application would be infinitely more likely to be granted to an employer than a  servant).

There is further evidence that the Levellers were, at worst, concerned with excluding only those who were really bound to one man. The franchise clause of the  Second Agreement states that electors ‘shall be Natives, or Denizen of England, not persons receiving Alms .,. not servants to,  and receiving wages from any particular person’5 . It is even possible that this ‘wage from any particular person’  represents a compromise on the part of the Levellers. Only in the Second Agreement  do  we  find  wage-earners specifically excluded from the franchise. As this document was the result of bargaining between the Levellers and their opponents, the exclusion of those who received ‘wages from a particular person’ may not have been proposed by the Levellers. It may rather represent a reduction of a more extreme position by their opponents, i.e. that all wage-earners were to be excluded. In itself the distinction made between ‘servants’ and ‘wage-earners’ is evidence that the two were thought of as separate groups.

At best, it would  seen that Macpherson’s definition is too broad, and that the Levellers were thinking in terns of personal servants, employees living in the master’s house and apprentices. If this was so, then the disenfranchisement of the groups would have been, for the most part, temporary. Apprentices would become journeymen and eventually masters (or  at least the Levellers wished to create a situation where this could happen). Of the two other groups, there is evidence that many were below voting age,  and their period of employment relatively short. At Ealing in 1599, 60 per cent of the population aged 15 – 19) were servants. At Claworth in 1676, there were 67 servants of whom only one remained by 1638, and at Cogenhoe again only one out of total of 31 in 1618 was still employed in 1628.6 The most likely explanation for this apparent mobility of labour is that when a man married he set up his own household.

If we then consider evidence suggesting that to be head of household was the mark of a man capable of voting, the significance of this is obvious. Thomas Cartwright  wrote ‘All men understand that where the election is most freest and most general, yet only they have to do which  are head of families’, and, John Eliot in his ‘Christian Commonwealth’ (1659) ‘servants, or sons living with their parents are in the condition of servants…. may not explicitly , politically, personally, choose public  rulers…. But, if they marry or live in the state of allowed public freedmen, then are they capable of the choice of their public rulers’7. If we can accept such views as representative, then the disenfranchisement of  servants in our restricted sense becomes, for at least a great part of then, a temporary affair.

The  Leveller  position on almstakers  is, rather easier to resolve. Until the Second Agreement, only  beggars were mentioned. The Putney resolution, ‘The Grande Designe’ (John Harris) and the ‘Petition of January’ 1648, used the terms ‘beggars’ rather than ‘almstakers’. This in itself might not be significant, for it is conceivable that ‘beggar’ was a term which included persons who begged casually, probably in an  itinerant fashion, and men who were forced to seek parish relief temporarily or permanently.  However, there are indications that this was not so. William Petty alone of the Levellers at Putney spoke of ‘those that  receive alms’. That he used this phrase may be accounted for by the fact that Cromwell had just  posed a question in a fashion which prompted such an answer. In any event, Petty qualified his statement by explaining that he meant ‘those that receive alms from door to door’, surely not a reference to those who received official parish relief.

Cromwell himself, according to John Say’s parliamentary diary, informed the Commons on 23rd November 1647, that the agitators ‘would exclude children and servants, Yet such as received alms they insisted on as persons competent for electors’. It could be argued that Cromwell was slandering them in the hope of discrediting the Levellers, yet in that case why not go further and say they would include servants as well?

We know also of the concern the Levellers showed for those impoverished by the war. It would seem  most unlikely that they would willingly have excluded such persons simply because they were forced to take alms.  Nor do they appear to have regarded almstakers in general as irresponsible. One of the demands of the January Petition of 1643 was that ‘the poor be enabled to choose their trustees’.

The inclusion of ‘almstakers’ alone, even if we are mistaken about ‘servants’, would have increased the electorate considerably. According to Macpherson, in 1643 there were 309,700 ‘almstakers’ and only 9,000 ‘beggars,’9 If we are correct in our interpretation of the term ‘servant’ then a position approaching universal manhood suffrage is in view. (Statistics for ‘servants’ as we understand the term present problems, but Peter Laslett 10 has estimated that 10-15 per cent would fall into this category,  many of whom would be only temporarily disenfranchised or under age,)

There is one further point to consider, namely the Levellers’ own conception of their society and what they wished it to be. Although supporters of property, their main concern was to protect the rights of the small man. For this protection they looked, as was the habit of mind then,  much to the past for answers and justifications and had constantly in their minds some  ideal of a Golden Age, If the master-servant relationship was giving way to that of employer-wage-earner, this was not obvious to them. The type of society which they desired was that of the  small independent man, and they believed that the  safeguards  they sought against monopoly and other  unwarranted interference with the individual  would  produce such a society, and thus the electorate, even if exclusions were made in their own time, would increase over the years. Whether this was  impracticable  or not, is neither here nor there in assessing their intentions,

 Notes

 1. K. Thomas, p. 71.

 2 A.L, ‘Morton , p.213.

 3. K. Thomas , p.72.

 4 Ibid, 3 ,71.

 5. D.H. Wolfe, p.403

 6 A.L. Morton, p,214.

 7 P. 72-73.

 8. D.H. Wolfe, p,82 ,

 9. Beware of making the same mistake as Thomas does

 by taking 1613 figures for 1543.

 l0. P. Laslett, The World We Have Lost.

CONCLUSION

There would appear to be three possible explanations of the Levellers’ attitude to the franchise. Firstly, that Macpherson is correct, namely that the Levellers were always in favour of a restricted franchise,  excluding servants and beggars. Secondly, that they  were from the first in favour of a full manhood franchise, but were forced to compromise when faced with political realities.  Thirdly, that the Levellers were not originally overly concerned with the franchise, or at least their ideas were not clear-cut, but came, through the trials of 1647-9, to a desire for full manhood suffrage but were then thwarted by political realities.

I suspect that the last comes closest to the truth. It is difficult to imagine most of those who followed the Levellers being content with anything less than full enfranchisement for themselves or for others like them. That being so the broad membership of the Leveller cause leads to the logical conclusion that a very wide franchise indeed must have been desired if not attained.  

Macpherson claims too much for his evidence. Firstly, the consistency which he attributes to the Levellers may, I think, be safely discounted. That some men of Levelling colour did think as Macpherson believes is most probably true, indeed almost certainly so, for it would be a strange party or group which did not contain differences of opinion on such a contentious issue.

Secondly, his broad definition of servants is dubious to say the least, particularly when we bear in mind the apparent  readiness of the Commons before 1640 to grant wider franchises than he claims for the Levellers, and the fact that on his definition many who voted previously would have  been excluded.

The position of the almstakers  is, I think, even  more clear cut, remembering that Petty spoke of ‘those that receive alms from door to door’, the use of  ’beggars’ until the Second Agreement , and the entry in John Bay’s diary (a piece of  evidence, incidentally , not available to Macpherson ).

Thirdly, the philosophy which he attributes to the Levellers has logical flaws when examined closely, and the system he constructs makes one wonder, with Peter  Laslett, whether Macpherson has not developed his theory before examining  his   evidence  and consequently  falls, albeit  unconsciously, into the mistake of attempting to sustain his theory by arguing a priori that all must thus be so. 

After the Restoration, democratic ideas did not gain serious political currency in England for more than a century. However, they found ready supporters abroad, most dramatically in the person of Thomas Paine, who although English made his name in the American Revolution. The received academic opinion on the Revolution is that it was the offspring of John Locke. In fact, it had at least as much in common with the ideas of the Levellers. The  Constitution is a balance between Locke and Paine, granting a large degree of popular involvement in politics , whilst tempering it with restrictions such as electoral colleges.

Why did the idea of democracy based on the active consent of all men arise in England rather than elsewhere? There were good reasons why it did. In the early modern period, England was an oddity amongst European states. Representative assemblies were commonplace in the mediaeval world. By 1600 all but a few had fallen to the growing power of rulers and either ceased to exist or had been emasculated to the point of insignificance. In England alone Parliament had increased  its power and status in the 16th century. Not only that, but elections were held to appoint MPs. The membership of most European assemblies was, like the House of Lords, dependent on social position.

There was also a long tradition of liberty in England. In the minds of the Levellers these went back to long before Magna Carta. They also, as mentioned in the introduction, saw this tradition as having been stifled by the Normans and their continental successors. These were and are powerful engines for action.

England was also odd in other ways. Serfdom had withered away early. Enclosure had driven men off the land and into the towns. The dissolution of the monasteries had both removed the incubus of Rome and redistributed land and property, much of which ended up in the hands of “new men”. The population had risen dramatically since 1500 and high inflation (by pre-modern standards) had caused considerable social dislocation. At the same time, the wealth of the country had grown and the foundations laid for the commercial revolution which was to lay the foundation for the industrial revolution. Stuart society was a world on the physical, economic and intellectual move and waiting to move faster if the right engine appeared. The Civil War was the right transporter.

 Notes

 1. Market Society and Political Theory

  Bibliography

 C. B. Macpherson The theory of possessive individualism

 Primary Sources

 D.H. Wolfe, Leveller Manifestoes of the Puritan

 Revolution.

 A,S.P. Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty.

 W. Hall, Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan evolution, Vol. III.

 Secondary Sources

  C.B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism

 K. Thomas, The Levellers and the Franchise (Chapter in the Interregnum The Quest for Settlement, Ed. G.E. Aylmer).

A.L. Morton, Leveller Democracy (In he world of the Rantors).

J.C. Davis, The Levellers ad Democracy : P. & P.X1 1968.

R. Howell and D. Brewster Reconsidering the Levellers, P. & P, 1970.

J.H. Plumb, The Growth of the electorate 1600-1715, P. & P. 1969

V.F. Snow, Parliamentary Reapportionment Proposals in The Puritan Revolution, E.H.R. 1959.

G.F. Aylmer, Gentlemen Levellers, P, & P. 1970.

P. Laslett, The World We Have Lost.

P. Laslett, Market Society and Political Theory, H.J. VII (1964).

J. Frank – The Levellers.

N.H, Brailsford – The Levellers and the English Revolution.

M.A. Gibb – John Lilburne The Leveller.

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.

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.

The English sporting amateur

Top  class  sport is now so tied to money that it may seem  quaint  to his  generation  that for all  of the nineteenth century and  much  of twentieth century the  amateur played a major  role in many of the more popular sports.  This was due to the fact that most major sports originated in England, where the spirit of amateurism was very strong, and these became spread across the globe when Britain had the only world empire worthy of the name and was also the most industrial advanced and economically powerful state in the world.  Other nations who took up the games had a natural inclination to imitate the English way in sport, because of where the games originated and because of England’s prominent position in the world.

There was also a strong class element. This was a time when class and status was still very much an issue throughout Europe and those parts of the world which were within the British Empire. Nor was the United States immune to the lure of class. As the amateur was associated with being a gentleman and a professional classed as a working man, it suited the better-off to support the distinction.  It also provided in some games, especially cricket, the means by which, in even a very socially stratified society, people of very different social status could play together.

But there was more to it than that. The English elite of the 19th century was in thrall to an idealised version of the ancient world and from this came the prime amateur ideals of doing something praiseworthy for its own sake and behaving honourably in the observance of  not only the laws but the spirit of a game.

Football,  cricket and golf  had professionals from their early days as public spectacles, but even within  games those  the amateur had a long run.  Other  major sports such as athletics,  tennis  and  rugby  union remained in  theory at least amateur until well into the latter half of the twentieth century,  although shamateurism,  the paying of  amateurs illicitly  through devices such  as inflated expenses or  salaries  for on-sporting  jobs  which were never actually performed,  tainted  most ajor sports.  But even though this dishonesty went on there were still many   genuine amateurs in top  class sport until quite  recent  times. It is also true that the shamateurs were paid minute sums compared with the vast amounts many openly professional sportsmen get today.

The  amateur  had  a prominent playing role partly because it  was  the upper and middle classes  who developed and ran modern sport.  Even the archetypal  working  class  game,  Association  football,  had  at  its foundations the public schools and innumerable worthies from the gentry and  mercantile  classes who founded many of the clubs  which  are  now household  names.  The true amateur was also cheap because at worst  he drew  only expenses (shamateurs were a different kettle of fish,  often being considerably more expensive to employ than an official pro). 

But there was more to amateurism in top class sport  than simple  class dominance  and  cheapness.  The middle and upper classes  brought  with them a rather noble ethos.  Being an amateur  was more than just  being  person who played without being paid.  Games were seen having a moral purpose  in  the  building  of  character.  Team  sports    taught  the individual  to  subordinate  their own interests to that of the  group, while  individual competition forced a boy  to confront their  personal responsibility.  Playing for its own sake was something pure, untainted by the crudity of commercialism.

That the amateur ethos was always battling with the vagaries of  human nature which in many people invariably seeks to gain advantage unfairly is neither here nor there.  The important thing is the existence of the ideal.  Like  most  noble ideals it was followed to  some  degree   and behaviour during play  was as a general rule rather more sporting thanit  is in a purely professional game.   Moreover,  even where  a  sport became  at   a fairly early stage  overwhelmingly professional  on  the playing side,  as  was the case of football,   the existence of  people with  the amateur spirit administering and controlling the  game  meant their mentality  was reflected in the way professionals behaved – a prowho did otherwise would risk the end of his career.  This was important because   the  behaviour of everyone who plays or watches  a  sport  is influenced by the behaviour of those at the top. 

 The true amateur was also thought to bring a spirt of adventure to  top class  sport  because he  was not weighed down by the thought  that  he must perform if his employment in the sport was to continue.  This  was one  of  the most powerful arguments cited in support  of  the  amateur captain in county cricket. It had a certain force to it.

 I  regret  the virtual extinction  of the amateur in  the  popular  top level sports.  In my ideal world all sport would be amateur.   There is something constricting about all-professional sport. Players do have to consider the next contract.  They do have to consider their performance if  they wish to move to a  bigger club or take part in   international sport.   The  talented sportsman who is not a  professional  is  simply excluded.   Such a person may simply not be able to gain a professional opportunity   or he may simply not want to be a full time  professional sportsman. Either way he is lost to the top level of his sport. Cricket in    particular   has   suffered   from   the   abolition    of    theamateur/professional distinction,  with few if any players who are  not contracted  to a county club having any chance to play for the  county. Professional  sport  has  too much of the closed shop about  it  to  be healthy. 

Attached  to  amateur  ideal was that of  the   “allrounder”.  For  the gentleman the ideal was the  scholar athlete,  an ideal approached most famously   by the Victorian Charles Burgess Fry,  who  won  a  classics scholarship  to Oxford,  set the world long jump record  whilst  there, obtained Blues  for cricket,  football, rugby and athletics and went on to play cricket and football for England. 

But there was also a professional niche as a sporting  allrounder. Many famous  footballers  played  cricket  professionally  and  many  famous cricketers,  football,  perhaps most notably Denis Compton  who  played cricket  for  Middlesex  and England while spending  his  winters  from cricket  tours  speeding down the left wing for  Arsenal.   Sadly,  the  extension  of the football season to ten months of the year has  killed the  professional  footballer/cricketer.   Phil  Neal  who  batted  for Worcestershire  and played left back for Lincoln City in the 1970s  and 1980s was the last of the breed.

Ultimately the USA is the child of England: no England, no United States

Ultimately the USA is the child of England: no England, no United States. The nonexistence of the United States   would have made a colossal difference to the history of the past two centuries and to the present day, not least because  it is and has been for a century or more responsible for a tremendous proportion of global scientific discovery and technological development.

At this point I can hear the cry of many: why the English not the British? Was not the United States formed as much by the  Scots and Irish as by the English? There will even be those who will press the claims of the Germans. A little careful  thought will show that no one but the English could have been responsible, although many peoples and cultures have  subsequently added to the considerable variety of American life.

The English were the numerically dominant settlers from the Jamestown settlement in 1607 until the Revolution. Moreover, and this is the vital matter, they were overwhelmingly the dominant settlers for the first one hundred years. Even in 1776 English descended settlers formed, according to the historical section of the American Bureau of Census, nearly sixty percent of the population and the majority of the rest of the white population was from the non-English parts of Britain. This English predominance may not seem important at first glance because of the immense non-Anglo-Saxon immigration which occurred from the eighteenth century onwards. Would not, a reasonable man might ask, would not the later immigration swamp the earlier simply because of its greater scale? The answer is no – at least until the relaxation of immigration rules in the sixties – because the numbers of non-Anglo Saxons coming into America were always very small compared with the existing population of the USA.

When immigrants enter a country their descendants will generally adopt the social and cultural colouring of the  native population. The only general exception to this well attested sociological fact is in a situation of conquest,  although even there the invader if few in number will become integrated through intermarriage and the general pressure of the culture of the majority population working through the generations. Thus at any time in the development of the USA the bulk of the population were practisers of a general culture which strongly reflected that of the original colonisers, namely the English. Immigrants were therefore inclined to adopt the same culture.

America’s English origins spread throughout her culture. Her law is founded on English common law. The most famous of  American law officers is the English office of sheriff. Congress imitates the eighteenth century British Constitution (President = King; Senate = Lords; House of Representatives = The House of Commons) with, of course, the difference of a codified constitution. (It would incidentally be truer to describe the British Constitution as uncodified rather than unwritten). It is an irony that their system of government has retained a large degree of the   monarchical and aristocratic principles whilst that of Britain has removed power remorselessly from King and aristocracy and placed it resolutely in the hands of elected representatives who have no formal mandate beyond the  representation of their constituents.

 The Declaration of Independence is full of phrases and sentiments redolent of English liberty. The prime political texts of the American revolution were those of the Englishmen John Locke and Tom Paine. The American Constitution is  designed to alleviate faults in the British Constitution not to abrogate it utterly. The first ten amendments which form  the American Bill of Rights draw their inspiration from the English Bill of Rights granted by William of Orange. The  American Revolution was conducted by men whose whole thought was in the English political tradition.

The English influence is written deeply into the American  landscape. Take a map of the States and see how many of the place names are English, even outside the original thirteen colonies which formed the USA. Note that they are divided into parishes and counties.

 Above all other cultural influences stands the English language. Bismarck thought that the fact that America spoke  English was the most significant political fact of his time. I am inclined to agree with him. But at a more fundamental level, the simple fact that English is spoken by Americans as their first language means that their thought processes will be broadly similar to that of the English. Language is the ultimate colonisation of a people.

 Moreover, the English spoken by the majority of Americans is still very much the English of their forebears. It is, for  example, far less mutated than the English spoken in India. The English have little difficulty in understanding USA-born white Americans whatever their regional origin. Indeed, it may come as a surprise to many Americans that the average Englishman probably finds it easier to understand most American forms of often affect not to understand English accents, but it is amazing how well they understand them when they need something. Oscar Wilde’s aphorism that “America and England are two countries divided by a common language” was witty but, as with so much of what he said, utterly at variance with reality.

 There is a special relationship between England and America but it is not the one beloved of politicians. The special  relationship is one of history and culture. American culture is an evolved Englishness, much added to superficially but  still remarkably and recognisably English.

When you go to the cinema think of how often English legends such as Robin Hood are used by Americans. Reflect on how, until recently at least, American universities would give as a matter of course considerable time to the study of writers such as Shakespeare and Jane Austen. These things happen naturally and without self-consciousness because English culture and history is part of American history.

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. Even in the most advanced civilisations, the vast majority of populations lived outside large towns and cities. In England, the most advanced state, 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 vastly 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. Indeed, 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. Moreover, England and eventually Britain did not merely produce an industrial revolution, 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 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 bourgeoise 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 British 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.  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 platform to act upon. Without  the union, the likes of David Hume, Adam Smith and even James Watt would in all probability have been roses which bloomed unseen in the desert air. That is not to decry the talents or contributions of Scots, which are considerable, merely to describe a necessary sociological condition for their full display.

Let us suppose that the union had never occurred. What then? All the evidence suggests that the first industrial  revolution would still have occurred when it did, perhaps slightly slower or with a different emphasis.

Let me demonstrate how much of an English enterprise the Industrial Revolution was by taking the Dragnet approach  (“Just the facts, Ma’am, just the facts”). Take steam power. It is the epitome of the industrial revolution. 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 by 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 Scotchman, 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 the patronage of an Englishman, Mathew Boulton, who in his Soho works in Birmingham had probably the best engineering facilities then in the world. Moreover, within a generation of Watt’s improvements, the English engineer, Richard Trevithick had greatly improved on Watt by producing a non-condensing high pressure steam engine,

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.

 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 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 18 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 most, 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 a vast part of the chemical industry by discovering the first synthetic dye. The first electronic  computer was designed in Britain, after theoretical  conception by the Englishman, Alan Turing. In the previous  century another Englishman, Charles Babbage, designed but did not finished building the first programmable computer.

For much of the nineteenth century Britain remained utterly dominant as an industrial power in a way that no nation, not even the USA, has been since (the nearest approach was America’s position in the immediate post war years). To give an example: in the mid 19 century Britain produced two and a half times the iron produced in the rest of Europe. Even when Britain’s predominate position had gone she still dominated certain industries and trades massively. She built two thirds of the world’s shipping between 1890-1914 and possessed fifty per cent of the world’s carrying trade  between 1890-1914

Along side the development of manufacturing ran that of agriculture at which England became the leader during the  eighteenth century. 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 “Turmip” Townsend who greatly increased crop efficiency by various  means 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.

Why did the first Industrial Revolution occur in England and not elsewhere? The short answer is that no one knows. The explanations given by historians comprise a melange of social development, scientific discovery, legal development, political stability, geographical position, historical circumstances and commercial advance. But the problem is that any of the circumstances can be found in other countries. Obviously it was a confluence of developments which made England unusual. For myself, I give greatest weight to intangibles such as intellectual development, political maturity, legally enforced respect for private property and a sound system of money and credit for without those state underwritten assurances, it is difficult to see how human beings may begin to build the necessary structures for a sophisticated commercial and industrial system.

David Landes  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” (p 219), 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 a general explanation as any and fits the flow of England’s historical development.