Magistrates, Scarcity And The Crowd In South West England, 1801

Documents dating 20th March 1801 to the 13th April 1801, give a representation of food rioting in the South West,and show an intricate picture of the relationship between the crowd, farmer and magistrate. Within the sources there is supporting evidence for the presence of the moral economy and evidence which might allow us to scrutinise it. Interestingly, the documents evidence for and against E.P. Thompson's 'moral economy'. The essay will draw on E.P. Thompson's theory to help inform the analysis of the primary sources, and then will turn to consider where the theory is not helpful. The critique will primarily be informed by the work of Bohstedt, who has argued that the since moral economy cannot explain variation in rioting geographically, locality and social framework has to be understood.

The sources show a picture of social unrest throughout the South West, from Devon to Bristol, in the spring of 1801. During this period war with France was creating endlessly high taxation; economic depression had taken hold of the country and created low wages, and in the year 1799 a poor harvest had created a crop shortage for the coming years. Furthermore, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations promoted ideas of Free Trade. Free Trade economics was soon adopted by the Pitt government, while encouragement was given to merchants to become entrepreneurial. These changes to Britain's economic stance were supposed to create competition and consequently lower prices, however food prices remained high. This shows the poor economic state Britain was in, which understandably led the way to food rioting. In 1801 the South West witnessed particularly severe food rioting; Grain prices had been relatively low in this area so merchants, with the endorsement of the government to be entrepreneurial, went to other areas in the country to sell their grain for larger profit. In turn the South West faced escalating grain prices, since they now needed to rely on their own stocks. A scarcity was created, because there was less supply for the high demand. So, since the rioting was so prevalent in this area of the country, we can use the sources to look at the nature in which the riots were conducted and dealt with. This can help us understand the relationship between magistrates, crowds and farmers, and whether or not they differed from place to place within the South West.

By looking at the first set of sources dated the 20th March 1801 to the 2nd April 1801, where the sources depict large crowd gatherings in Devon and Somerset, we can see E.P Thompson's moral economy at work. The moral economy comprises of the idea that society was "grounded upon a consistent traditional view of social norms and obligation of the proper economic functions of several parties within the community, which taken together can be said to constitute the moral economy of the poor" . This suggests that the whole of society shared a view of how the economy should be carried out, and that the community had an active part to play in the running and maintaining of the economy. Rioting was a way of showing what the "poor" felt was immoral behaviour on the part of the farmer or merchant, who the poor would often take their grievances to. In many examples the crowd's grievances were often just to lower food prices. For example "they (the crowd) visited, in different parties, the farmers from miles around and obliged them to sign an agreement to bring their wheat to market and sell it at 10s per bushel and potatoes and other articles in proportion." And, "The mob compelled the farmers to sign a paper, the purport of which was that the market should be supplied with wheat at 10s a bushel" These show the crowd-farmer dynamic; the crowd felt that they were being wronged by the farmers who were selling their crops at a rate the crowd believed was too high, so they took their grievances directly to the farmers to communicate that the "economic function" , in which the farmers were supposed to be performing, was being diverged from. The farmers in this case are the villains, who have manipulated the economy immorally, probably by engrossing to create a false scarcity. Roger Wells states that for the crowd "Any deviation from the moral economy, was immoral" . Worries about forestalling (the buying and selling of items outside the marketplace), regrating (the purchasing of items and selling them for a profit in the same or a nearby market), and engrossing (the holding of provisions to create scarcity and to increase demand, and consequently price) were common place and part of a wider consensus. These processes were seen as immoral, and would be enough to force people to congregate into a crowd and protest the issue.

The sources, which focus on the more rural market towns, show this same consensus shared by magistrates. A magistrate's job was to make sure the community enjoyed relative harmony, so would need to understand the views of the plebeian. Whether through settling simple neighbourly dispute or to the more serious issues of food rioting, the magistrate would use their discretionary power to promote peace within the community. Prior to the changing ideas about how economy should be run, all magistrates felt it was there duty to prevent the farmers and merchants from manipulating the markets . E.P. Thompson suggests magistrates behaved in this way so they could keep their ruling power over the poorer masses. The magistrates felt they had no other choice but to bend to what the crowd wanted since if they didn't the crowd would over-rule them, giving the crowd more political clout . However, it seems more likely that the magistrate had a close connection with their community, and understood that the needs of the crowd. This is since the magistrate often resolved various issue with their community and would be in close contact with them on a regular basis. One very telling source demonstrates the shared belief that the farmer was a villain through the thoughts of the magistrate D.Davis: "I cannot help thinking that the farmers are to blame" . Another source states that "The farmers have long been exorbitant in their prices" These sources show that despite the governmental implementation of free trade, some magistrates believed the farmers were fixing prices and selling their produce at prices which were too high, so were to "blame" , so supported the view of the crowd. This implies that the magistrates were still striving for greater market regulation to control this. The relationship between the crowd and the magistrates are explained here as being one of shared consensus. They both believe that the market should be regulated. If a farmer does as he is expected in accordance to the traditional values, and he did not break with the ideologies of the moral economy (which were "supported by every level of society" ), then rioting would not take place. We can also see that the magistrates have considerable discretionary power, and are able to choose the ways in which they appease the crowd. While some brought in the military "at length the constables and military were called out", others resorted to theatrics "At last they came to Mr Evered's at Hill, who assured them, with tears, that he felt for their distresses and promised to exert his utmost to relieve them" . They chose how to interact with the crowd and this seems to be highly linked to the geographical location in which the riot is taking place. The first source shows how the magistrate reacted in Bristol, while the second in a more rural setting.

However, there are examples where this idea of free trade is being promoted. For example "trust that by the exertions of government to import large quantities of grain and by the flattering prospect of an abundant crop now in the ground, the present high price will soon be considerably reduced" . This source from the Bristol magistrates shows the support that they seem to have for the government. It shows that there were differences in opinion to how the economy should be run and it was not one of consensus.

This idea of the immorality exemplifies E.P.Thompsons idea of the "legitimising notion" . This is demonstrated within these sources for example "A fellow. attempted to carry off a bag of potatoes, but the women soon brought him back and made him restore it to the farmer and then turned the fellow out of the market." . The legitimising notion Thompson states is "the men and women in the crowd were informed by the belief that they were defending the traditional rights or customs; and, in general, were supported by the wider consensus of the community" . The sources show legitimisation set by the "consensus of the community" . They could act in a orderly fashion to defend the right of the community, but if they resorted to more illegal activity this could be regarded as counter-productive making them as bad as the farmer or merchant. In the source from the Times we can see this in action. It is legitimate for the crowd to form in the first place, but illegitimate for theft to take place as the "fellow" doing so is soon force to return the stolen potatoes and then made to leave the crowd completely.

E.P Thompson stresses that the crowd was "disciplined" , simply showing what they felt was wrong with a "with a petition in one hand" . A number of the sources show this to be the case; "The populace behaved with great temper" , "obliged the bakers to sell the quartern loaf at 9d or 10d but they did no mischief." , "forced none and they did no mischief" , "To this proposal they agreed and I had the heartfelt satisfaction to find that my address to them was productive of the most complete success as I not only induced them to drop the idea of procuring my signature to their paper but prevailed on them to return quietly to their respective homes" . All these sources support the view of Thompson, suggesting that the crowd simply stated their grievances and awaited the reply. If the reply was to disperse, as in the last quote from a letter by John Evered, JP to John Acland, JP, they left "quietly" and in an orderly manner . Importantly these sources show the views of both the newspaper writers and a JP, both of which highlight the orderly manner in which the crowd behaved. Since there are two views by differing people in society, it gives this idea that they were orderly validity. It shows the relationship of the crowd and magistrate as being fairly synchronised, since they have an understanding of how each should behave: when the crowd is told to move on it will with submission, if the magistrate sees that the farmer is doing wrong then will submit to the crowd.

However, if we look as the sources geographically, we can see that there are variations in the way in which the magistrates and the crowd interact with each other. We can no longer use E.P Thompson's moral economy to explain these, as this theory is unable to take into account variation, it assume everyone is thinking and acting with the same traditions and morals in mind. During this period, there were clearly variations in economic thinking as the ideas of free trade were being implemented. The sources show the progression of the rioting; they commence in Exeter and Wellington move through smaller villages such as Stogursey to Taunton and finally in Bristol. If we look at these sources as a whole we can see that the outcome of each of these is different and as the rioting progresses through to Bristol we can see increasingly harsh punishment instilled on the crowd. If we take the example of the Taunton Assize source, then we can see that violence did occur in crowds as well as harsher punishments for this behaviour. The source shows that twenty rioters were very threatening to a baker's wife. In questioning she was asked "Tripp: Were you put in fear by the persons then assembled?" and she replied "Griffey: I was very much..." . Above all, however, the ruling showed that the main concern was that the bread had been stolen by the rioters. "If property be feloniously taken away in the day, any person being in the dwelling house, and put in fear, it is a felony" . The prisoners were then sentenced to death. "On Wednesday morning the following executions took place at Taunton, viz. Samuel Tout and Robert Westcott" . This does not show a working moral economy, the rioters did not behave in the orderly fashion, and the authorities did not react in a lenient fashion as has previously been seen.

Similarly, more severe punishment and quick disabling of the crowd occurs with the enforcement of the magistrate in Bristol. For example "some dragoons came up and dispersed the mob and this informant took the said Samuel Nash into custody." In this case the crowd has been stopped quickly by the use of the army and little orderly communication has taken place between the "informant" (a butcher) and Samual Nash (a member of the crowd). In these instances it is difficult to see a working moral economy. In this case the moral economy is no longer relevant in urban areas and more harsh actions are likely to be placed upon the rioter. Roger Wells states that "Almost every persons tried in the courts in the South West lived in an urban setting." This is because there was is not so much of a link between the people of the crowd and the authorities. In the rural market towns more civilised communication between the crowd, farmers and magistrates occurred. There was only a mere threat of violence occurred, "with a petition in one hand and a halter in the other" , and never any theft. Soldiers were called out in the rural areas but were more intertwined with the community and were hungry too so often joined the crowd "The military were called out, but the greatest part assured the people that they would not fire on them. The sailors placed their little swivel guns in such direction as to command Castle Street and declared that if the soldiers fired, they would immediately discharge their pieces." If we look to the results of these riots as shown in March 31st handbill to the April 2nd handbill, there are examples in each that show the magistrates working for the crowd to benefit them: "A printed notice signed by R Codrington (mayor of Bridgwater), W Anstice (Bridgwater alderman) and W Wollen (Somerset JP) declaring that a town meeting has resolved to request farmers to bring to Bridgwater market every Thursday one twentieth of their stock of provisions on hand for sale, and to reduce their prices. All market tolls to be scrapped as an inducement." This shows again an understanding of the crowds needs and again shows close community understanding the magistrates and crowd shared. The proceeding documents read in the same vein, showing a shared understanding within the whole community. The 2nd April Handbill demonstrates the acceptance of the magistrate regulation and shows a consensus throughout all echelons of society.

However, a different picture can be seen in the larger town of Taunton and in Bristol. This could be due to the lack of community larger towns and cities had. People would not have the same connections: the crowd, farmers and magistrates would not appreciate each other. The Salisbury and Winchester Journal, 13 April 1801 Promoted the use of the military "Gibbs and Lens respecting the extent of their power to suppress riots and insurrections by the aid of military force" So every echelon of society would have differing agendas and would not understand or share the same consensus as the people do in the rural setting. This view is shared by Bohstedt who believes that there were three separate localities where rioting would take place, and always three different outcomes . Where people were most successful would be the market towns were greater connections were held between the plebeian and patrician, while in the larger more industrial towns there was a greater distance culturally between these groups. He suggests that "the scale of urbanisation. brought about by industrialisation disrupted traditional and social relations" . This view could therefore be applied to Bristol as it did not have the same moral economic relationship as seen in the smaller communities.

It can be argued that the physical numbers of crowd members in the urban areas were far smaller compared to the rural crowds meaning that the crowds were easier to remedy with force. For example the Letter, D. Davies, JP, John Acland, JP, April 1st 1801 (Acland Papers, Somerset County Archives) tells of a thousand members in the crowd having started in Stogursey making there way to Stowey then to Petherton to Taunton and finally commencing at Bridgwater being described "snowball-like" . This compared to the fifty found in a Bristol riot seems vast . However more than the fact that the smaller crowds were easier to act forcible against, it seems that it again supports the view that traditions and customs in the urban areas had diminished. Smaller groups formed purely because they did not interact in the same way as in market towns. This was due to the breakdown of community and understanding of traditional moral behaviour. This is unlike in the rural areas where these traditions remained and stayed relevant.

To conclude, these sources have demonstrated that the moral economy was present, but only in the rural areas of the South West. As the food protests moved further north and riots started taking place in more urban areas the communication and relationships between the crowd, farmer and magistrate dramatically changed. Rather than being part of a close knit community in the urban the traditions and customers differed between the plebeians and patricians. The crowd, in urban areas, could not show there grievances in the same way as people in the rural areas did. There were no shared grievances to drive people to riot, explaining why fewer did in the urban areas. In the rural areas customs and traditions remained so meant that at all levels of society the grievances were shares and understood. Rioting for the rural plebian worked and remained working despite changes to the way the economy was run. The moral economy in the case of the rural remained. In the case of the urban the changing nature of the economy coupled with the nature of urban areas (meaning people were far less connected) meant that the moral economy was no longer relevant or even understood by the people in these places. Therefore Bohsedt's approach to looking at food riots is more applicable in these cases. The locality needs to be understood so that the differences to the way in which the crowd, magistrates and farmers interact from town to town can be understood.

Word Count: 2539

Bibliography

Secondary Sources

E. P. Thompson, `The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century`, Past & Present (1972)

E.P. Thompson, Customs in Com