NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Poor and backward or Wealthy and developing: Which of these descriptors most accurately portrays Britain in 1750? Britain in 1750 could be described as either, poor and backward or wealthy and developing as there are any number of points to support each side of the argument. To set the scene of Britain in 1750, the population was approximately 6 million. The South East and London were the most densely populated with London alone having a population of 675, 000 in all 15000 parishes, and in all 15 % of the total population lived in urban areas (E. J. Evans).
The ports and harbours were growing rapidly especially Liverpool, Glasgow and Bristol, and even the hinterland (regions near these ports) experienced change and growth. For example, there was change in transport, the improvement of goods roads and trading links, which meant that after 1750 some regions were growing more rapidly than others (e. g. Hull due to the imports needed for shipbuilding from Europe). The South East and East Anglia remained the most populated areas because they were at the centre of the woollen cloth industry and agriculture and wear near to the continent for importing and exporting goods. The Bank of England had been founded in 1697 and banks were beginning to appear around the country, new commodities had been introduced like coffee and cocoa in the 1680 s, there was the rebuilding of London after the Great Fire of 1666, and a gradual evolution of economic activity meant that there were new crops and rotations in agriculture.
As you can see, Britain was already developing before 1750 and the average income was 12 p. a. compared favourably with Britains European counterparts. By comparison to other countries in the early 18 th century England was probably the richest country in the world in 1700 and relatively an extremely advanced country, with London possibly being the largest city in the world.
Britains Empire and commerce had extended into the Americas, Asia and Africa and England produced enough to have an export surplus of grain. Englishmen were by far better clothed, fed and housed than their continental counterparts (Daniel Defoe). There was small scale manufacturing in the countryside and cottages of agricultural labourers, as agriculture and manufacturing were not separate as today. Less than half of Britains labour force were employed in agriculture, compared to 75 % of a backward country thus proving that Britains economy before 1760 was relatively advanced and well developed. By 1750 even more specialist institutions had arisen like banks, joint-stock company, insurance to mortgage markets was developed, and even local organisations improved harbours, docks, bridges, roads, paving and sewage showing how Britains consumer market was developing.
The improvement of transport was a main sign of increasing wealth and development in the early 18 th century, proving even more so Britain was truly a wealthy and developing country. Another reason why Britain was wealthy and developing was the role of the Central Government. Britain had an elected parliament but was not democratic as only 280, 000 men elected the MPs for the House of Commons. This was because franchise depended on whether you lived in a town, borough or a county and all voting took place in the open (i. e.
there was no secret ballot), which means that corruption and intimidation were rife. Land - owning classes usually influenced politics by bribes, which meant that generally the Government looked after the needs of the wealthy because of their influence and encouraged change in agriculture. Parliament could influence the economy by laws and taxation, and in Britain taxation levels were relatively low. No King could order a new tax because it had to go through parliament. Evidence shows that 1700 - 1780 the general taxation level was between 8. 7 % and 11. 7 % of total income, which is regarded as very moderate. Excise taxes promoted smuggling because of taxes on goods e.
g. tea was taxed at 112 % in the 18 th century, however, the taxation Britain had did not harm investments in agriculture and industry. Parliament dominated by land owners, tended to encourage agricultural change and transport change, which benefited the circulation of goods, showing Britain as wealthy and developing. Britains trade also had an impact on the economy and had been developing strongly since Tudor times (around the 16 th century) and was already a worldwide trade, mostly from private trade companies, usually given the right to trade in an area by the King and charges on imports and exports paid to the Crown. Most items imported were luxurious, which shows a wealthy country, or at least wealthy classes. There were laws restricting trade and they were called the Navigation Acts (it is however debated whether these helped trade or not) abd reflect Britain was the greatest trading nation at the time.
The main imports to Britain were sugar, rum, silver, gold, slaves, rice, cotton, tobacco, furs, fish, silk, coffee, indigo, pepper, pearls, opium, cinnamon, porcelain, tin, diamonds, ebony and spices. The wealth from trade was also changing society in Britain in the 18 th century and the increased imports of luxurious goods reflects the increase in social emulation (i. e. if the lower classes see the higher classes drinking tea, then they will want to drink tea and copy them) and an increase in consumer demand for these imports and an increase in wealth to afford these imports.
Changes in the structure of British society also helped Britain to become wealthy and developing as Kings population estimate shows society to be highly differentiated, which means that there were many different groupings that reflect economic status: - the middling groups (or middle class) were educated and mainly lawyers, professionals, merchants or shopkeepers who needed to farm to profit to add to their middle income. These middling groups showed the potential for a developing economy, as because of poverty there was lots of cheap labour. King calculated that a yearly income of 40 was needed to live comfortably, out of 1, 360, 586 families 511, 586 families had 40 or more income meaning that half of the families were able to live comfortably (2, 659, 520 people had this income out of 5, 309, 020 people, again half of the population). However, by todays standards Britain was poor, predominantly agrarian and little urbanized, there was a smattering of small scale industry in the countryside using simple labour intensive techniques, and endemic poverty, underdevelopment, underemployment had caused a vicious poverty circle: - the productivity in industry and agriculture was low which meant low average incomes (although there were a few wealthy people) which meant there was a limited capital investment which meant the techniques of production remained primitive and this meant that productivity was low and so on and so forth. There was also population pressure feared because an increase in numbers means an increase in the amount of productivity needed and the vicious poverty circle meant the economy as it was could not deal with the increased demand. Kings Estimate of the population and wealth of England and Wales shows that at least half of the population were labouring people and out-servants, cottagers and paupers who lived in great poverty.
King emphasised this (which was not unusual for the time) so half of the population would have been incapable of buying large amounts of goods (i. e. not good potential consumers). King also highlighted groups of people he considered to be decreasing the wealth of the country i. e. common soldiers, labouring people, out-servants, paupers and cottagers, common seamen and vagrants.
This was because their yearly expenditure was more than their yearly income because of either poor relief or stealing and begging (which were illegal). Poor relief was organised in each parish for the poorer families earning under 40 a year to help them to not struggle to survive, this was done more out of fear of the poor than genuine concern for their well being. The need for poor relief in Britain could be interpreted as Britain being generally poor and backward. In conclusion, there was a low production in industry and agriculture, which meant the average wages were low and this limited capital investment, there was little manufacturing compared to agriculture, which used labour intensive techniques that were primitive and the average income was equivalent to 90 a week in the 1960 s which puts England on a par with modern day Brazil or Mexico.
However, I believe that Britain was wealthy and developing due to the overwhelming number of arguments supporting this point: the most visible sign of economic growth was the steady increase in Britains population, nearly trebling in a century to reach 21 million in 1851, also of particular significance were the establishment of new, long-distance trading links and technological and organisational changes in both agriculture and industry. Britain had a relatively small agricultural sector as much of the population were trading or manufacturing and the country was getting richer (although most of this money was spent on expensive wars, mainly against France i. e. the American War of Independence). Britons had also turned westwards to exploit the untapped resources of the New World through settlement, trade and mining coal, and the immigration of European artisans who introduced their superior skills and manufacturing techniques meant continental manufacturers were poaching British workman, altogether showing Britain was wealthy and developing.
Free research essays on topics related to: capital investment, average income, 18 th century, yearly income, small scale
Research essay sample on 18 Th Century Yearly Income
