 And today, Chas calmed Sami down by talking about cute boys
|
Mar. 9th, 2009 @ 08:47 pm 
|
|---|
Monday mornings are for History lectures. I just indulged in a bit of casual racial profiling, too, by asking the (Scottish) lecturer the difference between a burn and a firth.
His accent makes me miss my grandmother more.
But then, today I know I'm prone to melancholy, because I'm seriously sleep-deprived. Last night I went to bed before ten, got to sleep around midnight, and woke up around 4; I gave up on trying to sleep more (partly under the influence of extreme hunger) around 6 and got up.
Ah well.
Also my bus driver was terrible. Jerky, jumpy, and then he took several wrong turns and missed my stop entirely. His bad driving was, apart from anything else, irksomely distracting from the book I'm trying to read. It's called Scottish Harbours. It's about Scottish harbours. (ARE YOU ASTONISHED I KNOW YOU ARE ASTONISHED)
It's actually about as interesting as a brief summary of the locations and histories of all Scotland's mainland harbours and ports can be. Which... you know, it's not exciting or anything, but it's got points of interest if you're interested in the development of Scottish trade and industry in the 18th and 19th centuries.
*cough*
The British political system is undemocratic in the 1700s. Only a tiny percentage of the population had the vote and the country was controlled by the landed aristocracy. By the nineteenth century this has changed; large sections of the working class have the vote, power has shifted to the industrialists and labour has begun to organise.
*pays attention*
Focus: 1790s (when developments in France triggered agitation for reform)
1830s (Reform Act etc)
There was no Revolution in Britain, just a long, slow process of reform. Which begs the question of why the aristocracy were able to hold on to power.
1790s: Political discontent. Mainly middle-class movement, restricted mainly to the propertied who wanted a greater say in the management/governance of the state. Before the 1790s the vast majority of the "lower orders" evinced no real desire for political change/extension of the franchise, no organisation, etc.
Reason for middle-class discontent: lack of accountability in government, and lack of representation. Barred from holding public office and in many cases couldn't even vote. In 1780 0.2% of the Scottish population had the vote. In Edinburgh only 33 people could vote. Electorates this small are easily controlled, corrupt, and those in power could readily legislate to their own advantage.
The political reformers before 1790 had limited aims - limited reform, wanting only to change the system a little, extending franchise to respectable men of property, not a radical restructuring of the British political system.
However, in the 1790s, the working class/lower orders became more politicised. The decade has a strong growht of political radicalism, with the growth of reform societies like Friends of the People - many sought reform through legal, peaceful means, but some advocated violent resistance, incl. some Scottish and Irish groups.
In 1792, riots all over the country, starting at the King's birthday celebrations. Violence, property damage, and the planting of Trees of Liberty. To some extent advocating social as well as political change - calls for equality, formation of a Republican movement, universal suffrage.
Protest in the 1790s is no longer a middle-class peaceful movement seeking limited changes; is now a widespread movement, demanding radical change and ready to use violence.
How do we account for this transformation?
1789: The French Revolution and the dramatic move first towards constitutional monarchy (later the overthrow and execution of the monarch, but at this point not). Welcomed in Britain till 1791 even by the aristocracy, in the belief that the French had now gone the way the British had, a shift in power from the monarchy to parliament.
The French Revolution politicises the lower orders, popularising politics alongside the rise of the newspaper, proliferating wildly and disseminating ideas of constitutional change and reform, triggering the formation of reform societies.
Adding to this: Thomas Paine, who in 1791 published The Rights of Man, arguing that the British system was unrepresentative and had to be dismantled. He argued the aristocracy were incapable of bringing about reform, as they only legislated in their own interest, providing a powerful critique of the British constitution.
He called for universal suffrage, reformed parliament, and social reform with the redistribution of the wealth. It stimulated tremendous interest among the lower orders in politics and reform.
Overhead: Cartoon showing the dissemination of The Rights of Man through all parts of society.
200,000 copies of The Rights of Man were sold in the UK in 1793.
Developments in France also contributed in an important third way: in 1792, the execution of the monarchy and the beginning of the Terror. The Revolution becomes much more violent, much more intense, and convinces the lower orders of Britain that revolution can be successful, can bring about social change.
All this sends shockwaves through the British aristocracy and inspires fear that Britain is on the verge of political revolution itself.
Why didn't it happen?
1) Repression. The government clamps down. A revolutionary leader (Thomas Moore, I think he said) and many others are transported to Botany Bay.
1794: Habeas Corpus is suspended. Revolutionary agitators are detained without charges or trial for many months.
New taxes on newspapers, making it more expensive for the lower orders to read the press and gain access to revolutionary ideas.
Also, propaganda: The Contrast. I love this one.
And another cartoon suggesting that the movement is incoherent and insincere, petitions getting people drunk to sign, etc.
And another showing the idea that the people agitating are just trying to take over themselves.
2) The aristocracy were willing to make concessions. Not political, but economic: paternalism going wild, buying grain etc and making sure the markets were well-supplied with affordable food, enhancing the idea that the aristocracy will look after the lower orders.
3) The British aristocracy were far stronger than the French. They were much more affluent, having benefited from the agricultural revolution and industrial expansion, and they had a lot more power, as they controlled parliament (where in France the monarchy had still held control). The aristocracy also controlled the courts, and could (and did) use them to take out the revolutionary leaders, executing them or transporting them to Australia.
Developments in France, again
The Terror begins. The aristos start getting executed in France. The British middle classes rally behind the constitution, because the Terror suggests that a British Revolution will also be very very bad for them. This denies radicalism the middle class leadership and respectability it had had and needed.
And finally, in 1793, Napoleon takes over and declares war on Britain. This plays into the aristocracy's hands because they can play the patriotism card, because France is now the enemy and backing them and their ideas becomes treasonous.
To a large extent, the aristocracy got lucky.
Press-ganging began in the 1790s, and many potential troublemakers were forced into the navy. The courts also started offering the choice: admit guilt, join the army/navy and get liberty after the war, or transportation to and hard labour in Australia.
Developments in the 1830s: The Reform Act
Napoleonic Wars end in 1815, bringing a resurgence in political radicalism that reignites fears of revolution, quieted during the next war with France, and returning again after that.
Widespread unemployment, returning soldiers who can't find work, economic hardship. Government concern that revolution will happen.
This time the aristocracy make a political concession and pass the 1832 Reform Act, which sought to reform the ancient/corrupt political system, and extended the vote to ten pound property-holders. Most of the middle class thereby get the vote.
Enfranchises wealthy, employers, and enfranchises the large industrial centres. Centres like Manchester had no parliamentary representation at all.
Reform Act was supposed to fix some of the political system's worst anomalies. Its intention was not to bring about a significant change in power, merely to address middle-class grievances. The working class were not included.
Otherwise it doesn't change a great deal. Aristocracy are still able to control Parliament and political life. In the 1840s 80% of the House of Commons came from landed backgrounds. Reform was designed to preserve the old order, not change it.
To be an MP, you still had to have property valued at 300 pounds or more. Also, MPs are still unpaid, so middle class etc can't afford to organise politically; they haven't the leisure time.
Break before second lecture. *runs outside to snack* Having breakfast before 7am messes up my snack schedule.
Ended up not really taking notes on the second lecture.
And forgetting to post this all day. It gives me a chance to add a PSA:
Making loud phone calls in the Library is NOT OKAY. EVER. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Is it wrong I get most of my history from Wikipedia?
|
(Link) |
|
I knew about the 1832 Reform Act, but didn't realise just how close the monarchy came to falling in Britain.
|
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}