Wyatt L.T. III The Industrial Revolution
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
System entailed applying a series of interrelated measures on the
enclosed farm. These included the use of sandy soils of marl and clay
to aerate the land and improve drainage, a four -cr op rotation: turnips,
barley, clover, and wheat, a shift from sheep production to grain and cat-
tle, and the employment of tenants under long leases on the larger scale
holdings. The 18th century witnessed the spread of the Norfolk approach
to other parts of Great Britain and the old three-crop rotation cycle of
winter crop, spring crop, and fallow withered away. The result was a ten-
fold increase in the land values in Norfolk in the period 1730 to 1760.
6
Traditionally, several individuals have been associated with the
forward-thinking and new techniques associated with the changes in
British agriculture in the 18th century. More recent interpretation has
downplayed their role significantly, but their names are worthy of men-
tion, even if they merely represent the collective trend that had begun
to modernize British agriculture. One such figure was Jethro Tull. He
was educated at Cambridge and studied law in London. However, for
health reasons he left his study of law and collaborated in agriculture
with his father, who was a member of the landed gentry. In the early
18th century seeds were distributed (or drilled) into furrows by hand.
Tull observed that the usual heavy sowing densities were not efficient,
so he instructed his farm laborers to drill at somewhat precise low den-
sities. He held the theory that plants obtained their nutrition through
tiny particles that he named atoms. Tull believed that the persistent pul-
verizing of the soil through working it to greater depths would bring on
better nutrition of plants. His agrarian laborers apparently did not follow
his instructions to his satisfaction, so out of necessity he invented a
machine to standardize the work. Although he was not the first person
to dabble with a mechanized approach to planting seeds, his device was
sophisticated enough to distribute the seeds evenly and at the precise
depth required and then cover them with soil. The key aspect of his
apparatus was to eliminate a major portion of the waste inherent in the
previous seeding technique and to make the crop easier to weed.
After relocating and traveling in Europe to study techniques on
the continent, he revised his machine and approach. He believed that
he had eliminated the need for a heavy manure application and sup-
posedly grew wheat in the same area for more than a dozen years with-
out using manure as fertilizer. Skeptics believe that the soil remained
fertile and productive because the device prevented weeds from taking
control. His ideas did not take immediate root. In 1731 he published
Horse Holding Husbandry, a work that provided specifics regarding his
discoveries, although most observers believe that he overstated its im-
portance. His difficult personality and the controversy generated by
his book delayed widespread adoption of his approach until the 19th
31
The Agricultural Revolution in Great Britain
century. By that time, several other seed drill inventions and improve-
ments had appeared. Nonetheless, his name has remained affixed to
the development of the seed drill in generations of textbooks.
7
Another important agrarian pioneer was Robert Bakewell. Born
into a tenant farmer family in Leicestershire, he obtained enough
means to travel in Europe to study farming methods. After his father’s
death in 1760, Bakewell inherited the family farm, which consisted of
one quarter arable land and the remainder for grasses and grazing. Tra-
dition states that he began experiments with manure fertilization in
the grassland portion and conducted a major effort to irrigate the area
by diverting river water and using canals to bring water to these fields.
However, it was his interest in stock breeding that brought him notori-
ety. Until this time, farmers kept livestock of both sexes together in the
same fields, a practice that resulted in random breeding and the crea-
tion of a variety of breeds possessing unique but often random traits.
Bakewell decided to separate the males from the females and then
forced the mating to occur deliberately and specifically. This approach
known as the ‘‘in and in’’ or inbreeding meant that he obtained live-
stock that generally possessed both fixed and exaggerated characteris-
tics that he deemed desirable. His first experiments were with an
established Lincolnshire breed of sheep that he transformed into the
New Leicester. This larger breed possessed delicate bones, a high qual-
ity fleece, and fatty fore-quarters. This latter trait was important as the
British had a taste for fatty shoulder mutton to grace their tables. Bake-
well also hired out his best rams to other farmers so that they might
improve their stock. He also founded the Dishley Society, an organiza-
tion with the mission to maintain the standards of the New Leicester
sheep breed he had developed. The result was highly visible. In 1710
the average sheep sold at the major London market weighed approxi-
mately forty pounds. By the end of the century the weight had
doubled.
8
Unfortunately, following his death, the taste in meat changed
and his New Leicester sheep died out, although the later breeds main-
tained a lineage founded in his sheep. ‘‘Just as Boulton produced but-
tons for the people, not the nobility, so Bakewell said he did not breed
sheep for gentlemen’s tables but for the masses.’’
9
Bakewell’s interests
turned to cattle breeding. He observed that the Longhorn breed ate less
and put on more weight and thus were the best meat producers. He
applied the ‘‘in and in’’ technique to cattle with success but only for a
short while. As with the New Leicester sheep, the fashion in meat con-
sumption changed, and Charles Colling and his brother developed
the Shorthorn breed that supplanted Bakewell’s Longhorn cattle. Some
critics have claimed that Bakewell has received more credit than he
was due, because his new breeds barely survived his lifetime. Other
32
THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
commentators, while conceding that point, emphasize that his innova-
tions in stock breeding influenced later practices and led to more meat
for consumption by the general public.
Arthur Young (see Document 13) is also considered a controver-
sial 18th century agriculture reformer. In 1759 he inherited his father’s
estate in Suffolk and began a series of agricultural experiments in order
to increase cultivation. His real contribution was not in any specific
improvements but rather in his keen observation and analysis of
changes taking place around him in agriculture in the late 18th and
early 19th centuries. He traveled widely in Great Britain and France
and commented on developments in these countries. Beginning in
1770, Young wrote extensively for the next four decades, publishing
works on experimental agriculture, agrarian developments in British
counties and Ireland, and interesting commentaries on the state of
French agriculture on the eve of the Revolution.
10
His writings were
very popular, quickly ran through many editions, and were translated
into several continental languages. His forty-five-volume Annals of
Agriculture was in print from 1784 until the early 19th century. Young
had a staunch belief in individual property rights, but he also pos-
sessed an open mind. He originally was a supporter of the enclosure
movement but later lamented that it had put great stress on the agrar-
ian lower classes. In one account he wrote about the wretched circum-
stances of one of the families dispossessed of its land. The scene he
described was one of a poor, ill, and starving mother, lying uncomfort-
ably on a bed too small for her frame, and her dead infant in a cradle
beside her. His works are also laced with pithy quotes that speak of his
close attachment to the land. For example, ‘‘Great farmers are the soul
of the Norfolk culture.’’
11
After returning from France, his reputation
led to his appointment as the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture in
Great Britain. In this role he supervised the collection and preparation
of agricultural surveys of the British counties. Unfortunately, in later life
he experienced blindness brought about by cataracts and worsened by
an unsuccessful operation to cure the ailment. Some critics have ques-
tioned the data he collected and the conclusions that he drew from his
analysis, often referring to him as a charlatan or a mere scribbler. How-
ever, despite the flaws and inaccuracies found in his works, Young’s im-
portance rests in his insistence on keen observation of the conditions of
the rural countryside and the collection of a compendium of data related
to cultivation practices, livestock, and productivity of the land. These
methods provided an early model for the application of statistical analy-
sis to the changing nature of agriculture over time.
12
The increase in arable land had several important impacts. Over
the space of several decades, an increasing variety of crops such as
33
The Agricultural Revolution in Great Britain
asparagus, artichokes, and fruits spread across the landscape. That
development, coupled with falling food prices, ensured that even the
average person could afford a more diverse and healthy diet and con-
tributed to the rapid growth in population. In addition, the new forage
crops of alfalfa (lucerne), turnips, and clover supplemented the raising
of hay and resulted in higher yields and the reclamation of former mar-
ginal pasture lands for productive farming. The turnip was the most
important crop in this system. The turnip reduced the fallow land that
formerly had been used to clear the land of weeds by plowing. How-
ever, crops of turnips planted in rows could be hoed to remove weeds
while growing. In 1700 fallow land was 20% of arable land, but that
percentage dropped to about 4% over the space of the next two centu-
ries. Fallow land had been used in the past to allow time for the soil to
replenish itself and to control perennial weeds. Fallows began to be
replaced using crops such as turnips and clover, which accomplished
the same end and provided additional nitrogen-rich fodder crops. Ma-
nure produced by the animals grazing on these crops returned a better
fertilizer to the soil. In addition, higher yield crops, such as wheat and
barley, replaced the lower yielding rye. In the 18th century, British
wheat yields increased by a quarter and were 40% greater per acre than
that of the French. An important contribution to the improvement of
cereal yields was nitrogen, a property that farmers certainly did not
know about until later in the 19th century. However, their practices
indicate a growing feeding of nitrogen to the soil. The collection of ma-
nure from animal stalls and its application to needed areas was one
means to increase nitrogen. The long-held practice of growing legumes
continued to contribute to nitrogen enrichment. And, the introduction
of red and white clover in the 17th century improved the amount of
nitrogen in the soils used for cereal crops. It is estimated that in Nor-
folk the use of legumes and introduction of clover may have tripled
the rate of nitrogen found in the soil from 1700 to 1850. The signifi-
cance of this new approach was that it was sustainable, and thus the
increase in food output could be maintained almost indefinitely, one
key reason why Britain’s burgeoning population could be easily fed
even though the agrarian work force had dwindled.
13
Agrarian Worker Productivity
New agricultural techniques and practices are one explanation
for the increase in agricultural productivity and crop yields in Great
Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries. A second was the phenomenal
increase in worker productivity during the same era. The agricultural
34
THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
worker in Great Britain produced more food, allowing the proportion
of workers devoted to agriculture to fall. By the 18th century, Great
Britain had experienced an increased output per person engaged in
agriculture. This feature of British growth is striking because the popu-
lation more than doubled in that period, but the number of persons
engaged in farming increased only moderately from 2.78 million in 1700
to 3.84 million in 1850. The actual pr oportion of the workforce engaged
in agriculture actually had declined for several centuries, but the country
nonetheless had achieved self-sufficiency in food production. This fact is
even more remarkable when one considers that Britain’s output per agri-
cultural worker was double that of the rest of Europe in the period. By
1800, four in ten adult males in Great Britain made their livelihood by
farming while the corresponding ratio on the continent was six to eight
out of every ten persons, a number not seen by the British since Elizabe-
than times. By 1850, only 22% of the British worked in agriculture.
V iewed another way, in 1600 the average farmer in Great Britain had pro-
duced enough food to support his family and half an additional one. By
1800 that same farmer could feed his own family and one and one-half
more. By the mid-19th century, Great Britain had the lowest proportion
of its workforce in agriculture than any other country in the entire world.
Thus, the majority of the British agrarian workfor ce was not only provid-
ing food for their family but also farmed for the market.
14
This ability of the British farmer to produce well beyond the sub-
sistence level had an additional component. By the 19th century the
agrarian worker harvested enough fodder to sustain a large draught
animal force that contributed to increased productivity not only for the
farms but also provided labor for the mines, growing manufacturing
enterprises, and transportation. Scholars have estimated that an indi-
vidual can produce only 1/10th the foot-pounds per hour as the horse,
and that three oxen provide the equivalent work of two horses. There
were approximately 19 million acres under cultivation in Great Britain
in 1820. Just ten years prior, figures point to about 1.2 million horses
in the nation of which 0.8 million were used in agriculture. By the
turn of the 20th century those numbers had increased to roughly 3.21
million and 1.51 million, respectively. Using these numbers, it is esti-
mated that almost six horses existed for every 100 acres of British arable
land in 1820. Comparing the French animal numbers in a correspond-
ing period underscores the greater productivity of the British. In 1820
France had an estimated 52 million acres under cultivation and 1.87
horse equivalents (horses and oxen), resulting in 3.6 horses per 100
acres of arable land or nearly 40% less than Great Britain. Draught ani-
mals also had an important uses well beyond the normal tempo of
planting and harvesting the land. A large number of draught animals
35
The Agricultural Revolution in Great Britain
also produced additional manure and promoted higher cereal yields
and in no small way contributed to a healthy diet. Furthermore, con-
siderable animal labor was used in clearing land and transporting marl,
lime, shells, chalk, and organic manure to the fields for application,
sometimes at a distance of several miles from their supply points such
as pits or stalls. It is estimated that 100 to 150 tons of marl had to be
applied per acre. Thus, an estate of 100 acres required repeated trips
back and forth, resulting in thousands of ton-miles of transport. This
level of agricultural productivity resulted in an overall 43% increase in
British farm output in the 18th century, and productivity improved fur-
ther in the next century. Although there were exceptions, by 1800 the
general nature of the English agricultural workforce had evolved
gradually over the course of 200 years and consisted of the large land-
owners, tenant farmers, and a class of landless wage laborers.
15
Conclusion
Despite the debates that historians engage in regarding the rela-
tionship and impact of the Agricultural Revolution to the Industrial
Revolution, there can be little disagreement that significant agrarian
changes were underway in the 18th century. This Agricultural Revolu-
tion consisted of a myriad of parliamentary and informal land tenure
changes, the introduction of new crops and livestock breeding prac-
tices, and the adoption of innovative farming techniques. Led by enter-
prising and dedicated men, the agricultural developments increased
the productivity of a smaller rural labor force that sustained a growing
population, one that could be released from subsistence farm labor
and shifted to other opportunities for work in the growing manufactur-
ing enterprises of the nation. Thus, by the 19th century Great Britain’s
rural economy and society had experienced a dramatic transformation
in large part fueled by the changes in the nation’s approach to agricul-
ture. The appearance of Britain’s laboring folk, formerly reflected in
their weather-worn and creased faces from toiling in the fields, now
increasingly became that of the working men, women, and children in
the mills and factories of the nation’s booming industrial towns.
Notes
1. Hill, Reformation to Industrial Revolution, 1: 115–117.
2. T. Williams, The History of Inventions (New York: Facts on File
Publications, 1987), 179; T. S. Ashton, The Industrial Revolution (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1971), 18–19.
36
THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
3. Williams, The History of Inventions, 199.
4. http://www.surreycc.gov.uk.
5. Ibid.
6. Hill, Reformation to Industrial Revolution, 222.
7. http://www.bbc.uk.history/historic_figures/tull_jethro.shtml; Ashton,
The Industrial Revolution,20–21.
8. http://www.bbc.uk.history/historic_figures/bakewell_robert.shtml;
Pulse of Enterprise , 51.
9. Quoted in Hill, Reformation to Industrial Revolution, 1: 222.
10. For a detailed review of Arthur Young’s travels and observations
regarding French agricultural life, see M. Bentham, ed., Arthur Young’s Trav-
els in France during the Years 1787, 1788, 1789 (London: George Bell and
Sons, 1909).
11. Quoted in Pulse of Enterprise, 52.
12. http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Young/yngTFO.html.
13. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/agricultural_
revolution_03.shtml.
14. Ibid.
15. E. A. Wrigley, Continuity, Chance and Change: The Character of the
Industrial Revolution in England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988), 34–43.
37
The Agricultural Revolution in Great Britain
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 4
THE INDUSTRIAL
REVOLUTION IN GREAT
BRITAIN
The Industrial Revolution that began in Great Britain marked a distinct
break with the continuity of economic life that had dominated the
Western world for centuries. In the early 18th century, Great Britain’s
economy was similar to that of other nations in Europe, characterized
by a heavy reliance on an agricultural system supplemented by basic
handicrafts and localized commerce and mercantile activity. Spurred
by a combination of favorable conditions, within the space of one cen-
tury (1750–1850), Great Britain had erased the long-standing era of
agrarian dominance and replaced it with a modern industrial and
urban society. By 1850 Great Britain had become the wealthiest
nation on earth and achieved a position of power and influence that
no other country could rival. The booming cotton textiles, mining,
and iron-producing industries brought about the transition, and new
energy sources of coal and steam powered machines that were
increasingly sophisticated replaced the age-old reliance on man, ani-
mal, wind, and water power. Great Britain’s labor-intensive agrarian
society gave way to a capital-intensive economy that was dominated
by machine manufacturing, new arrangements to perform labor, and
industry characterized by the factory system. These changes had
enormous consequences and not only fundamentally altered the way
the British people worked and sustained themselves but also changed
Great Britain’s physical landscape, political and social institutions,
and the nation’s outlook and relationship with the wider world.
Indeed, the Great Britain of the mid-19th century had developed its
own special setting and bore little resemblance to the nation of just
a few generations earlier.
Causes of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain
Historians have long debated the causes of Great Britain’s emer-
gence as the world’s first industrial nation. These discussions notwith-
standing, it is apparent that a number of factors had coalesced by the
late 18th century to put Great Britain in the position to experience its
‘‘take off’’ moment on the road to embrace industrialization. These
include Great Britain’s geographical location in Europe, rich natural
resources, the marriage of science and technology and inspired inven-
tors, revised thinking about national economics, a ready supply of cap-
ital for investment and risk-taking entrepreneurs, government support
for innovation and economic growth, an available labor supply, the
rapid development of a commercial economy, and an ever expanding
worldwide trade network to secure raw materials and markets.
1
Geography
The luck of geography played directly to Great Britain’s advant-
age. The relatively small and consolidated terrain coupled with rich
farm land, a good river and improving road network, and an excellent
coastline with sufficient ports linking Great Britain to the wider world
ensured that the nation was knitted together economically on a far
more efficient basis than its European counterparts. Long before their
rivals on the continent, these advantages helped the British to reduce
and then eliminate internal barriers to commerce. France, by compari-
son, had three times as many people as Great Britain in the 18th cen-
tury. However, that nation retained much of its regional distinctiveness
until and even after the French Revolution. A poor road network and
many internal and local tolls and customs duties prevented France
from adopting a new commercial attitude prior to the disruption of the
revolutionary and Napoleonic eras. As an island fortress, Great Brit-
ain’s separation from Europe allowed it to avoid on its home soil the
ravages of warfare (other than the Civil War of the 1640s) that had
devastated continental Europe during the 17th century and the inter-
national conflicts of the 18th century. Thus, Great Britain invested less
in defense and retained more of its young, talented, and energetic citi-
zens who in ever increasing numbers turned their attention to eco-
nomic matters. Even during the upheavals of the Napoleonic Wars,
Great Britain did not resort to burdensome taxation and military con-
scription. After the defeat of Napoleon’s fleet in 1805 at the Battle of
Trafalgar, little disruption occurred in Britain’s trade network. Further-
more, Napoleon’s heralded Continental System, which had as its
40
THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION