ECONOMIC CHANGES IN THE 18TH AND THEIR

CONSEQUENCES ON POVERTY
Demography

The population grew throughout the 18th century (although not exponentially) due to food
availability: if more food was available, then less people would die of hunger or hunger related
diseases.

Economy

During the first part of the 18th century, the situation was okay, with a growth of population.
Agricultural prices were low and real wages were high.
This disposable income led to the Gin craze. It was a moral panic, which showed a renewed
interest in morality. So, the situation was rather good.

The 18th century was the century of trade and consumer products, of changes in agriculture
with enclosure and modernisation.
Consumer products: a lot more people had access to a lot of unnecessary shit, like coffee or
Gin, and luxury shit, like sugar. This also highlights a development of trade between a growing
empire and the rest of Europe.
To manufacture, for instance, good leather, it is easier to make it move to the Mediterranean,
but in order to do so, a canal must be created, an artificial body of water that can be controlled In
every way. A road is also needed to get the cart of leather through the forest. To get those roads,
money needs to be involved, and for that, people are working and paying. That way, products were
obviously transported much quicker than before and a lot of money was coming in.
Real wages= relation between money earned and money spent, related to prices
People wanted to trade leather and woollen clothes was is was more profitable than growing
food or have a house on the land (and any land not used was money lost). To raise cattle of sheep,
only a field is needed. Of course, this was not going to solve the hunger problem, and it takes less
work force to raise cattle and thus created fewer jobs.
Enclosures were famous symbols of modernisation of agriculture but were very much
unpopular (we know because there were pamphlets about it).

With the agreement of the Parliament, people started closing the commons, which then
became parliament enclosures. The community mostly agreed with it, too.

There was land around the villages, and the fields – which could be cultivated – were
divided into strips. As the commons were hard to cultivate, those strips of land allowed crop
rotation, so the dirt would be fallow on the 3rd year. To modernise those kinds of work tasks, the
agreement of everybody would be needed, as they all have a say in it. So, it was very complicated to
modernise it. But in order to do it still, the striped started to get bigger, to increase the productivity
– only problem is, productivity is calculated on how many people are working. It led to an
unemployment rise.
Still, it was not widely unpopular. Although, small landowners disappeared, and larger barns
started to replace them. There was, indeed, a rise of capitalist farmers who worked the large amount
of land they had – and they were not some passive landowner, they were actually growing shit.

Agricultural employment was seasonal as the amount of work was not linear during the year.
Thus, a big part of the rural lands had jobs only parts of the year, and to compensate that lack of
income for the months during which they did not work in the fields, they would work from home
(by producing woollen clothes, etc...) (men and women)

Industrial Revolution

Manufacture started to develop in the 1st half of the 18th century, since the British invented
the steam engine. The latter opened the way for factories – which became more and more important
throughout the century. The development of factories made place for the creation of new jobs – lots
of them at that – to transport materials, etc... but still, seasonal workers could not always top up
their wages.

landscape: from rural life to urbanisation

• if you manufacture good leather and want to get it to the Mediterranean, you need a canal
◦ artificial body of water, you can control the depth and everything
• you also need roads to go through the forest, especially if you have a cart
• for the road you need work ← money ←

Most of the sources of history come from pamphlets (leaflets), as there were no newspapers

The growth of population can be

explained by urbanisation. Indeed,
rural decreased a lot while
industrial ones increased. We can
even observe a large amount of
people around ports – especially on
the western side –, proving of the
growth of trades with the Empire.
Factories were implanted where
coal was.
The ability to transport goods
allowed decentralisation.

At some point, a mass of people

started coming to the cities, which
city people did not really like as
they believed the paupers to be barbarians, and full of diseases to spread. That was until they
realised, they could be workforce, ofc. Since housing all of these people was pretty hard, hygienic
conditions were not at their best, to say the least – on top of that, physicians (not physicists) were
the only one to understand how the spread of a disease works. The government wanted to be more
modern to be able to handle this mass of people.
They created a New Town, as a mean to accommodate from the sewer system (it dates back
from this period) – although there were still slums, it helped to improve sanitation.
That did not stop London, in the 19th century, to be a monster that ate people up, since
diseases were still frequent, to the point where even the rich were touched by it. All of this led to an
increasing inequality in the rural area, in particular between small landowners and capitalists
farmers.
increasing inequality

The development of the industry and of agriculture created the 'middling sort'. They are
neither workers nor landowners, they are new professions: bankers, lawyers, traders, etc... Instead
of keeping a philosophy in which the only mark of responsibility is being an aristocrat or a land
owner, you could now be a gentleman. The Georgian Society was divided between aristocracy, the
gentry and the people. The gentry were lucky to be able to marry aristocracy, as the latter could not
survive by only marrying those of their social class – although aristocrats would choose the richest
of the gentry.

At the end of the 18th century, the aristocracy and the gentry were the elites of the kingdom,
the 1%. Those 1% enjoyed 14% of the wealth of the country.
Knights and Esquires were part of the gentry.
Those bankers and lawyers were part of the 'pseudo gentry', meaning those who wanted to
be part of the 'landed gentry' (hereditary). The differences were that they were in the city, had to
work (dealing, business, etc...) – which was not something the actual gentry would do. The richer
they would get the more they would try to get out of the city.

While the rich were getting richer, the poor were getting poorer. Travel being easier, people
were able to move from place to place and witness the inequalities, making them realise that
something was going on. Social tension grew from that. The Poor Laws were still on.
By the end of the 18th century, 20% of the population was so poor they could not eat well
enough to be efficient workforce.

means of staving off poverty

The paupers would do additional work in order to get some more money, women and
children would join, in the cottage industry or in the commons. As expected in these situations, at
some point, it exploded and there was some violence and hunger riots – but they were tolerated
because people considered them to be uneducated and not know better.
Although, poverty started to be a problem at the end of the 18th century: the aristocrats
feared for themselves just by watching the French Revolution.
Actually, in June 1780, the Gordon Riots occurred. It started as anti-Catholic demonstration
but ended in mob violence that terrorised London for 10 days.

The Old Poor Law was inefficient. They tried to create the workhouses – The
Workhouse Test Act – in 1723, but it failed because the costs of this indoor relief were too high
compared to the waste the workhouses were. It eventually led to the 1782 Gilbert Act, also known
as the Relief of the Poor Act. It was proposed by Thomas Gilbert and aimed to organise poor relief
by county – which means by parish – so they could set up poorhouses or workhouses between them
– for the deserving poor. After a meeting in Speenhamland, Berkshire, the Speenhamland System
was created to be a form of outdoor relief intended to mitigate rural poverty in England and Wales
at the end of the 18th century and during the early 19th century. In other words, they gave money to
those who couldn't find a job but still had a family to feed, they recognised that workers were not
paid enough and needed money to top their wages up. This amendment to the Elizabethan Poor Law
was widely adopted.
poverty and morality

Poverty was seen as a moral flaw: if people were poor, it was because they were lazy. Since
it was a flaw, they either had to be punished to be cured or be educated – since they don't know
what they're doing is wrong (it was charity work). The Poor Relief policies were basically deterrent
against poverty, meaning that if they were punished hard enough (could be physical), they were
going to stop engaging in that behaviour – which of fucking course does not work.
This worked hand in hand with the idea of social control to prevent riots and keep them
docile.

On the contrary (could not be more at the opposite huh), a flawed morality would lead to
poverty. It goes with the belief of Reverend Malthus that one of the reasons why people are poor is
because they have too many children. Thus, if money was to be given to the poor, then they would
feel encouraged to have children, and they would have to receive more money, etc... A vicious
circle. In other words: the poor are sex beasts who need to stop having sex. He thought that policies
should focus on reducing the amount of poor people. Jonathan Smith, a satirist, suggested that the
Irish should eat their kids to get out of poverty.
This belief fit in the period of reformation of manners. There were temperance leagues and
upper/ middle class women indicating that their gender should stay at home, which led them to
getting involved in charities.

Poverty was also considered to be the cause of moral decay: better get rid of them quickly
before the whole country is immoral.

Workhouses in the 19th century

Men and women were separated, which was one of the reason many people did not want to
go there – to stay with their significant other.

During the Victorian era (1837-1901), women were believed to be the guardians of morality,
thus if poverty was such a moral problem, then women should take care of it – hence why it was
women who came in the workhouses for charities.

Definition of poverty keeps changing. You are poor compared to somebody, depending on
time, place and environment. Definition of poverty is linked to the society. A community that takes
care of each other is not the same as a charity. Private charity= rich people gave money to people
and organisations.