My final reflections on Cobbett regard the nature of the man himself and the successes, (if any), which he may claim.
Upon reading his book, Rural Rides, my impression is of a man who was deeply fond of rural life, perhaps considering the countryside as the heart of Britain. Here is a man who, for 4 years, travelled the country in order to experience first hand, the declining standards of living for vulnerable farmers. He did not simply hide away from the public eye, when writing his radical pamphlets, but willingly engaged with those he was defending, gathering much support along his journeys.
It may be argued that his exertions were, at times, somewhat extreme, exemplified by the charges that were placed upon him, for his public advocation of the Swing Riots. These were the movements of labourers in 1830, who vented their frustration at the corruption of government by vandalising rural machinery.
But perhaps his actions were not in vain; in 1832, the Reform Act was passed through Parliament, allowing for greater fairness in electoral measures. Cobbett himself was later elected to the seat of Oldham, where he continued his attacks on government, and in particular, the Poor Law of 1834, which adhered to the extremist utilitarian views of Jeremy Bentham, forcing the poorest of families into the horrendous conditions of workhouses.
And yet, as was pointed out in this week's seminar, we may only need to leave the familiarity of our towns and cities, to find fields and fields, acres upon acres of uninhabited country; a scar upon the work of Cobbett and his contemporaries. To this extent, the radicals may have failed in their attempts to repopulate the rural areas, as the importance of technology in industry has continued to escalate over the last two centuries. Agriculture has not been reinstated as the main artery of British trade and commerce, while heavy duty factories have popped up in every major urban population.
However, this is not what Cobbett's success should be measured by. Instead, his generation should be remembered for the vast amounts of support that was harnessed in altering governmental policies towards the public voice and the changes that can be made by strong willed determination. This, in my view, is the legacy that Cobbett has left us.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The 'tale of two revolutions'
After the booming years that the British economy enjoyed during the Napoleonic War, the beginning of the 19th Century also saw the start of not only the Industrial Revolution, but that of a political nature as well. The French domination of Europe was over, and the British Empire was becoming the strongest in the world, benefitting greatly from the foreign trade of textiles, coal and cotton. And yet, this period in history has become known as one of the most horrendous in which the British population was forced to endure.
With the end of the war, the number of British exports rapidly declined, creating a big hole in various industries, including that of agriculture. In order to protect it, the government introduced the Corn Laws, which placed considerable tariffs upon imported grain. Foreign prices thus rose considerably and forced many of families away from the 'bread line'. Starvation raged across the country.
During this time, Parliament was considered to be extremely corrupt - only 2% of the population was even allowed to vote! It took a strong policy of repression towards any dissent by the public, threatening exportation to one of the new colonies abroad. In 1819 though, thousands gathered in protest of governmental policy, leading to the Peterloo Massacre, in which the cavalry were sent in to disperse the crowds, killing 11 people in the process. This public outcry continued however, and in 1846, the Corn Laws were finally abolished.
By such a time, the developments that were beginning to be made in technology began to see a gradual shift in emphasis towards industry in the cities anyway. The Enclosure Acts cut off the rural land significantly, forcing vast numbers of workers into the city. Again though, living conditions were appaling, due to such large workforces leading to much lower wages. The Industrial Revolution had begun.
During this period, extreme members of the public voiced their opinions as to the damaging effects that technology was causing to British lifestyles and values. One such person was William Cobbett. He was devastated at seeing the countryside being emptied of people, feeling that Parliament's power-hungry policies were simply destroying the country from the inside. He began to distribute one of history's very first pieces of radical press, in the form of a pamphlet named the Political Register. In it, he condemned the government's treatment of the British workforce, particularly those farmers who had been pushed off their own land. He was later sent to prison.
Another radical was a certain Charles Dickens. Like Cobbett, he believed firmly in the harm the government was causing in its chase for world domination, but unlike his contemporary, preached against the horrendous conditions in the city. His criticism of the inadequacy of workhouses, which were slowly starving many thousands of families, is most notable in his novel, Oliver Twist. He was seen very much as an heroic figure to the working classes, condemning the laws which seemed intent on criminalizing the poor.
Indeed, this period is noted as one of the most important in Britain's history, and saw the foundations laid for the country to become one of the most powerful in the modern world. However, it is undoutedly the case that governmental policies were horrendously extreme and perhaps all too guilty of placing the growing Empire before the population itself. Cobbett and Dickens were just two members of the public, who tried vigorously to voice these concerns, and in my view, are rightly commended for doing so.
With the end of the war, the number of British exports rapidly declined, creating a big hole in various industries, including that of agriculture. In order to protect it, the government introduced the Corn Laws, which placed considerable tariffs upon imported grain. Foreign prices thus rose considerably and forced many of families away from the 'bread line'. Starvation raged across the country.
During this time, Parliament was considered to be extremely corrupt - only 2% of the population was even allowed to vote! It took a strong policy of repression towards any dissent by the public, threatening exportation to one of the new colonies abroad. In 1819 though, thousands gathered in protest of governmental policy, leading to the Peterloo Massacre, in which the cavalry were sent in to disperse the crowds, killing 11 people in the process. This public outcry continued however, and in 1846, the Corn Laws were finally abolished.
By such a time, the developments that were beginning to be made in technology began to see a gradual shift in emphasis towards industry in the cities anyway. The Enclosure Acts cut off the rural land significantly, forcing vast numbers of workers into the city. Again though, living conditions were appaling, due to such large workforces leading to much lower wages. The Industrial Revolution had begun.
During this period, extreme members of the public voiced their opinions as to the damaging effects that technology was causing to British lifestyles and values. One such person was William Cobbett. He was devastated at seeing the countryside being emptied of people, feeling that Parliament's power-hungry policies were simply destroying the country from the inside. He began to distribute one of history's very first pieces of radical press, in the form of a pamphlet named the Political Register. In it, he condemned the government's treatment of the British workforce, particularly those farmers who had been pushed off their own land. He was later sent to prison.
Another radical was a certain Charles Dickens. Like Cobbett, he believed firmly in the harm the government was causing in its chase for world domination, but unlike his contemporary, preached against the horrendous conditions in the city. His criticism of the inadequacy of workhouses, which were slowly starving many thousands of families, is most notable in his novel, Oliver Twist. He was seen very much as an heroic figure to the working classes, condemning the laws which seemed intent on criminalizing the poor.
Indeed, this period is noted as one of the most important in Britain's history, and saw the foundations laid for the country to become one of the most powerful in the modern world. However, it is undoutedly the case that governmental policies were horrendously extreme and perhaps all too guilty of placing the growing Empire before the population itself. Cobbett and Dickens were just two members of the public, who tried vigorously to voice these concerns, and in my view, are rightly commended for doing so.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Complexities of 'being'
Having studied both Kant and Hegel a little more over the last week, I've come to the conclusion that it is really impossible to avoid a brief discussion of one of philosophy's deepest and most thought-provoking debates; the theories of existence itself.
As was touched upon in last week's post, Kant's views were based largely upon his noumenal and phenomenal worlds. This was what became known as the Copernican Revolution, i.e. rather than sharing the belief in the influence the world has upon us, he essentially believed in the power of the mind, shaping the universe into how we know it. Or how we think we know it.
Indeed, one of the most interesting parts of the seminar this week was the discussion on whether or not every individual perceives objects within the universe in exactly the same way. I think that by Kant's philosophy, he would agree that everyone would see a tree, for example, in exactly the same way. But I would suggest that there is room for an argument, which says that the perceptions of over six billion people cannot surely be identical. It might very well be possible that my perception of the colour blue, is actually yours of the colour green. Perhaps Kant's yellow is my red. It may even be possible to take the argument a step further and suggest that the way in which we conceive dimensions will be somewhat differing. Perhaps my world is stretched entirely out of proportion to that of another person's? It certainly becomes a dizzying subject and one that can perhaps be left to the scrutiny of our modern philosophers.
My closing point considers a philosophical view of Hegel's. He believed in the universe as being one entity, or one organism, which he called the 'Absolute'. In it, everything is directly and undeniably related to God. This is perhaps one idea that I simply cannot agree with, as through such logic, nothing within the universe could be distinguished at all, as nothing would have a singular quality to define it. I find much of his philosophy to be far fetched in this way, including his belief in the ultimate perfection that the universe is inexorably heading towards - though as our seminar leader pointed out, perhaps this is just me being pessimistic.
In any case, as I anticipated, there is much room for debate around these subjects, which I'm sure shall continue for some time into the future, however, both Kant and Hegel are sure to have influenced many philosophers' views to date and shall continue to do so.
As was touched upon in last week's post, Kant's views were based largely upon his noumenal and phenomenal worlds. This was what became known as the Copernican Revolution, i.e. rather than sharing the belief in the influence the world has upon us, he essentially believed in the power of the mind, shaping the universe into how we know it. Or how we think we know it.
Indeed, one of the most interesting parts of the seminar this week was the discussion on whether or not every individual perceives objects within the universe in exactly the same way. I think that by Kant's philosophy, he would agree that everyone would see a tree, for example, in exactly the same way. But I would suggest that there is room for an argument, which says that the perceptions of over six billion people cannot surely be identical. It might very well be possible that my perception of the colour blue, is actually yours of the colour green. Perhaps Kant's yellow is my red. It may even be possible to take the argument a step further and suggest that the way in which we conceive dimensions will be somewhat differing. Perhaps my world is stretched entirely out of proportion to that of another person's? It certainly becomes a dizzying subject and one that can perhaps be left to the scrutiny of our modern philosophers.
My closing point considers a philosophical view of Hegel's. He believed in the universe as being one entity, or one organism, which he called the 'Absolute'. In it, everything is directly and undeniably related to God. This is perhaps one idea that I simply cannot agree with, as through such logic, nothing within the universe could be distinguished at all, as nothing would have a singular quality to define it. I find much of his philosophy to be far fetched in this way, including his belief in the ultimate perfection that the universe is inexorably heading towards - though as our seminar leader pointed out, perhaps this is just me being pessimistic.
In any case, as I anticipated, there is much room for debate around these subjects, which I'm sure shall continue for some time into the future, however, both Kant and Hegel are sure to have influenced many philosophers' views to date and shall continue to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)