The Industrial History of EnglandGibbins, Henry de Beltgens
History
The Industrial History of England
Gibbins, Henry de Beltgens
Great Britain -- Economic conditions; Industries -- Great Britain -- History
Why this abolition was not more generally resented is a point of some
interest. In the first place, the religious gilds and craft gilds
were suppressed together on the plea above mentioned, and thus the
difference between them was confused. Then again, the London gilds were
spared because of their power, and thus it was made their interest
not to interfere with the destruction of their provincial brethren.
The nobles were bought off with presents gained from the funds of the
gilds. Moreover, the _craft_ gilds in the country towns were becoming
close corporations, whose advantages were often monopolized by a few
powerful members. This led, as we saw, to the manufacture of cloth
being spread from the towns into industrial villages in the rural
districts, where perhaps the mass of the population, not perceiving
the full significance of the act, did not object to a measure which
struck a blow at the town “mysteries.” But, nevertheless, a great
deal of discontent was aroused. Somerset became very unpopular, and
insurrections broke out in many {88} parts of the country, the most
dangerous being in Cornwall, Devonshire, and in the West. They were
caused not only by this spoliation but by agrarian discontent as well,
but German and Italian mercenaries were introduced to put them down,
and the protests of the people were everywhere choked in their blood.
§ 6. THE AGRARIAN SITUATION—Such were the acts instigated or actually
performed by that miserable monarch, whom nevertheless not a few people
who write history seek to glorify. Possibly they do so in ignorance of
the facts. This much is certain, that Henry VIII.’s reign witnessed
growing pauperism in a country which had been a few years previously
in a state of considerable material comfort. But before the close of
his reign the labouring classes became impoverished, and tenant farmers
were ruined with high rents exacted by the new nobility. The landed
gentry and nobility, however, profited by this, and the merchants grew
rich by their accumulations in foreign trade. But those who depended
directly upon the cultivation of the land for their living suffered
severely. There had been for some years past a steady rise in the price
of wool for export, partly because the manufacturers of the Netherlands
were so flourishing, and partly owing to a general rise of prices on
the Continent since the great discoveries of silver in South America.
Land-owners saw that it was more immediately profitable to turn their
arable land into pasture, and go in for sheep farming on a large scale.
They therefore did three things. They evicted as many as possible of
their smaller tenants, and as Sir Thomas More tells us: “in this way it
comes to pass that these poor wretches, men, women, husbands, orphans,
parents with little children—all these emigrate from their native
fields without knowing where to go.” Then they raised the rents of
the larger tenants, the {89} yeomen and farmers, so that, as Latimer
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account