In rural areas, however, whole communities still lived with prejudices that had become deeply rooted because they were related to social customs.
In source B, Thomas Colley was hanged for playing a part in the ‘swimming test’ when Ruth Osborne, a suspected witch, died as a result. Since the swimming test in source B took place in Tring, Hertfordshire, a rural area, the attitude towards witches of the local community may not have changed. That of the courts, however, certainly had changed. From previously considering witchcraft an offence, the state now accused the witch-hunters of criminal behaviour. If a suspected witch died, the state would often hang the person who was to blame.
(b)i. The writer of source C blames the law for ‘encouraging’ smuggling as it ‘made into a crime something which should never have been’.
In the eighteenth century ‘Protecionism’ came into force making the government duties on imported foreign goods very high in order to protect British agriculture and industry. Smugglers were able to sell such goods cheaper as they did not pay government taxes on them. Many people believed that the high taxes forced people to smuggle goods in. “The law has made into a crime something which should never have been”. This quote is saying that if the government had not put the taxes up, ordinary people would not have had to cheat to get certain items.
Smugglers provided people with goods that were otherwise too expensive. They were ordinary, ‘good citizens’. To some people smugglers were seen as harmless adventurers with a taste for excitement and danger; to others they fulfilled a social function in keeping prices down. Ordinary goods were smuggled in, like tea, tobacco, wine, spirits, silk and lace. People did not regard smugglers as criminals.
Many parts of English coastline were ideal for smuggling, from the coves of Cornwall and Devon to the river estuaries of Essex and Kent. It was almost impossible to get caught smuggling as a result of the lack of protection. There were no police to roam around and deter the smugglers and there were also no coastguards along the shores. This lack of defence made smuggling a huge operation and thousands of tonnes of luxuries were brought into the country each year.
Other writers have had the same view on smuggling as the writer in source C. Adam Smith, wrote in his book, ‘Wealth of Nations’; ‘A person…would have been an excellent citizen…had not the laws of his country made that a crime which nature never intended to be so’.
In the nineteenth century successive governments reduced import duties and so lowered prices. Smuggling was therefore undercut by a policy of free trade. This proves that the crime of smuggling did derive from the fact that foreign goods were so heavily taxes, and that the law was to blame as the reduction of government duties resulted in smuggling levels falling.
ii. Smuggling changed its character in the twentieth century, and has gradually come to mean the import of items which are illegal altogether. In the eighteenth century the goods that were smuggled were in high demand and they benefited a lot of people. They were ordinary things such as tobacco, tea, wine, spirits and lace, that were smuggled into Britain due to the high governmental duties. People living in England bought smuggled goods as they had not been taxed and were therefore cheaper. These sorts of items are now, in the twentieth century, readily available to everyone at a reasonable price, so there is no need for them to be bought into the country illegally.
There has been a great change in people’s attitude towards smuggling. In the eighteenth century smugglers were seen as heroes because they provided people with goods that would otherwise have been too expensive. They fulfilled a social function in keeping prices down, and people were very grateful.
Nowadays smugglers do not have as much contact with the public. They are seen as criminals rather than heroes as they smuggle illegal (and usually corruptive) items, such as drugs, guns and stolen goods, that do not benefit many people.
The smuggling of people is also becoming a routine for smugglers. This is a highly illegal and dangerous business with the trade in illegal immigrants worth more than $30 billion a year, it has become a lucrative market for organised crime syndicates.
More than 20,000 people were caught being smuggled into the UK last year but authorities believe many more made it through.
In the eighteenth century the punishment for smuggling was in general very harsh, although it depended on the amount and value of the goods bought. Often, if a smuggler did not surrender immediately they were shot. Many people felt sorry for smugglers because they were seen to be helping and doing good for others, yet their punishment was so harsh. But smuggling was a big problem to the government in the eighteenth century. It threatened to deprive them of money that they needed to carry out their normal tasks. The death sentence was often imposed as a deterrent to others. Now in the twentieth century, capital punishment does not exist, so smugglers are usually imprisoned as a punishment. The sentence depends upon the nature of the goods smuggled.
Smuggling is now on an international scale. In the eighteenth century, small boats bought in the goods at night. Items were only smuggled in from nearby countries, not continents as in the twentieth century.
The advance in technology has brought about a lot of changes in the crime of smuggling. Metal detectors and x-ray machines have meant that certain goods are harder to smuggle in. Scanners have also been introduced at some ports that can detect carbon dioxide, and therefore the presence of people breathing, inside the trucks' cargo containers. In the eighteenth century there were no machines to identify foreign goods as they were usually ordinary household goods, such as tea or silk, that were hard to detect. The people carrying the cargo were supposed to declare the foreign goods to the governmental officials on the coastline. The only way, however, for the officials to tell whether they were telling the truth or not would be to search them, which was very time consuming.
(c) Between 1790 and the late 1840’s the British government was worried about a possibility of being overthrown by a revolution. After all, this happened three times in France during this period, and many other countries in Europe were affected in the same way. The government was therefore always on the lookout for signs of ‘conspiracy’, or the formation of organisations which seemed likely to go against authority. It was, however, so concerned about its security that it did not properly distinguish between different types of organisation or activity. Some organisations were set up as responses to economic hardship, or as peaceful demands for the vote. Others were set up as more deliberate attempts to cause a disturbance or a crisis. As you can imagine, many people were unfairly punished.
In 1933 a group of 40 agricultural workers in Tolpuddle, Dorset, set up a branch of the Lodge of the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers, and organised trade union activities to protect their meagre wages, which fell following the disastrous harvests of 1829 and 1830.
Employers regarded trade unions with a deep lack of trust as they feared that the union would press them for better conditions and higher wages.
The employers in Tolpuddle looked for a way of taking legal action against the Lodge of the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers. Their best chance of defeating the workers was to accuse them of conspiracy, as the government applied tough laws against this.
Harassed by a wave of nation-wide trade union activism, the government, in a repressive measure, prosecuted two brothers, George and James Loveless together with their associates, James Brine, James Hammett, and Thomas and John Stanfield, for administering unlawful oaths (which were, in fact, only oaths of allegiance). They were sentenced to seven years in an Australian penal colony.
Although Charles Grey's Whig government had democratic intentions, passing the Reform Bill of 1832, which extended the electoral franchise to the propertied middle class, it remained fearful of working-class unrest. In the wake of the Captain Swing Riots (1830-1831), the government ignored the popular outcry over the treatment of the Tolpuddle men, expressed in mass demonstrations in London and elsewhere.
Their sentences were, however, remitted two years later, when the men returned to England as popular heroes; ‘Tolpuddle Martyrs’.
(d)i. Sir George Paul, Sheriff of the County of Gloucestershire, was active and important in prison reform. His aim was to make prisons ‘purpose-built’. He said that a prison sentence should not cause a prisoner to die from disease or hunger. The answer was in an ‘airy’ prison, but one which was secure.
As Sir Paul was a Sheriff he was an influential and respected person. He was a rich, independent gentleman and was therefore able to involve local gentry and clergy in his reform movement. Both the local gentry and clergy were influential members of the community, especially the latter who had moral argument on their side. They helped him to gain support for his cause as they had authority. The local gentry as members of the upper class were land owners and could help to get legislation changed.
In 1785, Sir Paul got Parliament to pass the Gloucestershire Act which allowed them to buy land, draw up rules and employ trained staff. It was Sir Paul’s idea to have an architect design the prisons as he could see what was needed. William Blackburn designed the new prisons. In the end his designs were used in building half the new prisons in England. Hence Sir Paul was not only important in Gloucestershire but also in other areas of England.
ii Although Sir Paul played an important role in prison reform in Gloucestershire, there were other factors which helped to bring about the changes he wanted.
During this period France was undergoing major social and governmental reforms. The British government was worried about French revolutionary ideas spreading, and so they tried to introduce some reform in order to prevent unrest. In general, they listened more to what people were protesting about which pleased the public and made it them look more democratic.
Many people were saying that the prisons in England were no better than those in France. It was clear to the British government that in order to appear more caring than their counterparts in France (and the rest of Europe), they would have to improve the conditions in prisons. The size of the prison population was steadily increasing. This was due partly to improved detection and partly to the fall in the number of other forms of punishment. The government was therefore forced to look at the design of prisons and find ways in which they could be accommodate such a large number of people. Sir George Paul wanted prisons to be designed by an architect who could what was needed.
New ideas about improving the social state of Britain started to spread in the nineteenth century. Later on in 1900, Socialists came to form the Labour party. They aimed to get better working conditions and equalities of wealth for working people.
People’s housing and living conditions were also being recorded in the late nineteenth century, not only by writers but also by local councils. The thought of people existing in such dreadful conditions in prisons, as described by John Howard in his report on the State of Prisons in England and Wales, provoked great public sympathy. Britain was generally becoming more caring, and the government was forced to notice this and act upon it.
(e)i. Elizabeth Fry was a great contributor to the history of prison reform. As early as 1813, Elizabeth began to make several visits to Newgate, where a fellow-Quaker introduced her to the conditions in which women prisoners were kept in the prison. Newgate was a prison which held both men and women awaiting trial, sentencing, execution, and transportation. Elizabeth found women and children living and dying in conditions of horror, filth, and crulety and resolved to do something about it.
Firstly, she visited the prisons and encouraged other middle class women to do so, overcoming official opposition and setting up education classes for women. She was ahead of her time in the way she treated the prisoners as human beings. Elizabeth did not impose discipline on them but instead proposed rules and invited the prisoners to vote on them, and she put an educated prisoner in charge.
Secondly, Elizabeth told people in the outside world about prisons. She used her connections in high places to good effect (despite her religious principles she enjoyed high society). Both Florence Nightingale and the young Queen Victoria admired Elizabeth for her compassionate exercise outside the home. She was the figurehead of philanthropic endeavour in this country and today is regarded as one of the early feminists.
The successes of her methods at Newgate impressed the government and were tried in other prisons.
