User:Laplacemat/sandbox: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

 

Line 25: Line 25:

Overall, Penrith society remained one characterised by a manorial system dominated by aristocratic elites, backed by the Church of England, albeit with challenges in the form of jostling for power in the former (the Lowther versus the Bentinck political struggles, for example) and the rise of Wesleyan Methodism. The [[Toleration Act 1688]] enabled alternative religious practices to feature in Penrith, but small Quaker and declining Presbyterian and Catholic representation did not seriously challenge the status quo. <ref>Mullett (2019), pp.151-199</ref>

Overall, Penrith society remained one characterised by a manorial system dominated by aristocratic elites, backed by the Church of England, albeit with challenges in the form of jostling for power in the former (the Lowther versus the Bentinck political struggles, for example) and the rise of Wesleyan Methodism. The [[Toleration Act 1688]] enabled alternative religious practices to feature in Penrith, but small Quaker and declining Presbyterian and Catholic representation did not seriously challenge the status quo. <ref>Mullett (2019), pp.151-199</ref>

Typical of Georgian England was Penrith’s disparity in wealth between the upper and lower classes. The poor in Penrith were often on the breadline. Agricultural depression (1730-50), cattle plague (1749) and a nutritional shortfall ( possibly resulting in a steep fall in female fertility rates) were factors involved. A mixture of charitable donations by individuals was sometimes supplemented by “informal” activities such as begging, farm work, [[gleaning]] and help from relatives. The official poor law administration (still operating under the [[Poor Relief Act 1601]]) tended to favour those who “deserved” help: widows, fatherless children, those who could no longer work because of incapacity. Apprenticeships for poor and/or illegitimate children was another method tried by poor law officials. Entitlement status as a resident of the parish was enforced under the Act to Relieve the Poor, or Settlement Act (1662). This “outdoor” system of poor relief in Penrith was supplemented by the supervisory “indoor” system of the [[workhouse]] – the one in Penrith opened in Albert Street (1737). <ref>Mullett (2019), pp.200-224</ref>

Typical of Georgian England was Penrith’s disparity in wealth between the upper and lower classes. The poor in Penrith were often on the breadline. Agricultural depression (1730-50), cattle plague (1749) and a nutritional shortfall ( possibly resulting in a steep fall in female fertility rates) were factors involved. A mixture of charitable donations by individuals was sometimes supplemented by “informal” activities such as begging, farm work, [[gleaning]] and help from relatives. The official poor law administration (still operating under the [[Poor Relief Act 1601]]) tended to favour those who “deserved” help: widows, fatherless children, those who could no longer work because of incapacity. Apprenticeships for poor and/or illegitimate children was another method tried by poor law officials. Entitlement status as a resident of the parish was enforced under the Act to Relieve the Poor, or Settlement Act (1662). This “outdoor” system of poor relief in Penrith was supplemented by the supervisory “indoor” system of the [[workhouse]] – the one in Penrith opened in Albert Street (1737). <ref>Mullett (2019), pp.200-224</ref>

Criminal activity was largely related to the agricultural nature of Penrith’s economy – theft of livestock being prominent. <ref>Mullett (2019), pp.225-229</ref>

Criminal activity was largely related to the agricultural nature of Penrith’s economy – theft of livestock being prominent. <ref>Mullett (2019), pp.225-229</ref>

The accession of James VI and I meant the Union of the Crowns. James “saw border areas of England and Scotland as ‘The Middles Shires’ rather than a meaningful frontier, and sought to ensure that the ‘verie hart of the country shall not be left in ane uncertainte’.” ^[1] Trouble broke out following the death of Elizabeth (the so-called ‘busy week’), but this was put down and plans were made to remove the more troublesome reivers – some were sent to Ireland, others to serve in the English army in the Netherlands.

In addition, aristocratic interests were strengthened: Lord William Howard married into the Dacre family and was instrumental in suppressing trouble in the region. A ‘Middle Shires Commission’ was established which included gentry from both the English and Scottish borders. Sir Richard Graham, 1st Baronet, whose father was a reiver, was an example of the way in which clan members could turn to respectability during this time. Despite aristocratic feuding, such as that between the Cliffords and the Howards, and although thieving still went on, the region seemed to be more settled and trouble looked upon as something more unusual than before. ^[2]

In general, the gentry of the region were anxious to avoid any interference in their business, whether royal or Parliamentary. During the English Civil War, most leading gentry supported the King. Parliament found little support amongst the existing landowning class, and the two Parliamentary county committees (for Cumberland and Westmorland) relied upon merchants and other non-aristocratic men to staff them. Their functioning only worked properly when backed up by Scottish or other Parliamentary troops. ^[3]

Little fighting took place in Cumbria during the Civil War. However, Carlisle was besieged during 1644-45, only succumbing when the populace were reduced to eating cats and dogs due to starvation. ^[4]

In general, the landowning class came through the Civil War and Interregnum (1649-1660) largely unscathed, managing, by various means, to hold on to their estates even having been supporters of the king. ^[5]

The repercussions of the Glorious Revolution continued to have an effect on Penrith as its citizens were caught up in the subsequent Jacobite rising of 1715 and the later rising of 1745 – another consequence of the town’s position on major travel routes. In 1715, the local posse comitatus and militia, under the command of Viscount Lonsdale and Bishop Nicolson of Carlisle, failed to stop the southwards-heading Jacobite force on Beacon Fell (not wooded in those days). There is little evidence of pro-Jacobite sympathy in Penrith at the time. The Jacobite army’s overnight billeting in the town was peaceful, however.^[7]The 1745 incursion saw Prince Charles Edward Stuart staying at the George in Devonshire Street on November 21st during the Jacobite army’s route south through England. Local animosity towards the Jacobites’ “living off the land” broke out and there was a disturbance at Lowther Hall. After the retreat from Derby, the pro-Hanoverian sentiment of Penrithians showed itself in the so-called “Sunday hunting” harassment of the Scots by local forces, along with delaying tactics at Thrimby. With the Prince back again in Penrith on 21st December, elements of the army of Prince William, Duke of Cumberland caught up with the retreating Jacobites at Clifton Moor, supposedly the last military engagement on English soil. ^[8]

Penrith in the eighteenth century had approximately 2,000 rising to 4,000 people. ^[9]It was still governed by the landed aristocracy, many of whom built town houses (often in the Palladian style) during this period: Hutton Hall (c.1720), and the Mansion House (c.1750) being examples.^[10] St Andrew’s Church was also subject to change. The nave of the old medieval church was totally demolished and re-built (1722), partly because it was deemed to be beyond repair, partly to prevent the increasingly prevalent private take-over of space by local landowning families, and partly to improve the accommodation, and better to fit the changed liturgical practice and artistic views of the period.^[11]

Industrialization failed to make any headway during this time (lacking “the power resources, raw materials and social structure for a major industrial take-off”). ^[12] The economy continued to rely on agriculture, services and marketing geared towards the local vicinity. ^[13] As the century wore on, tourism joined this list, encouraged by interest in Penrith’s prehistoric and medieval past and in Romanticism. ^[14] The advent of turnpike roads, ^[15] operated by turnpike trusts, aided the movement of goods and people between Penrith and other prominent towns. Penrith was a stopping point on stage-coach routes from London or Manchester to Scotland. ^[16]

Urban renewal was a feature of eighteenth-century Penrith, acting out in the context of two visions. On one hand were those who looked to a future town that would attract the wider trade and tourism as well as increasing shopping and retailing opportunities. These were led by William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire who had bought the Honour of Penrith from his brother-in-law (William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland). On the other hand were those who saw the future as one that concentrated on the local market(s). The chaotic, congested, smelly nature of the latter was not conducive to the former. A compromise was achieved: the old Shambles, Moot Hall and Market Cross were repositioned and the centre of town was made less obstructive and obnoxious. ^[17]

Overall, Penrith society remained one characterised by a manorial system dominated by aristocratic elites, backed by the Church of England, albeit with challenges in the form of jostling for power in the former (the Lowther versus the Bentinck political struggles, for example) and the rise of Wesleyan Methodism. The Toleration Act 1688 enabled alternative religious practices to feature in Penrith, but small Quaker and declining Presbyterian and Catholic representation did not seriously challenge the status quo. ^[18]

Typical of Georgian England was Penrith’s disparity in wealth between the upper and lower classes. The poor in Penrith were often on the breadline. Agricultural depression (1730-50), cattle plague (1749) and a nutritional shortfall ( possibly resulting in a steep fall in female fertility rates) were factors involved. A mixture of charitable donations by individuals was sometimes supplemented by “informal” activities such as begging, farm work, gleaning and help from relatives. The official poor law administration (still operating under the Poor Relief Act 1601) tended to favour those who “deserved” help: widows, fatherless children, those who could no longer work because of incapacity. Apprenticeships for poor and/or illegitimate children was another method tried by poor law officials. Entitlement status as a resident of the parish was enforced under the Act to Relieve the Poor, or Settlement Act (1662). This “outdoor” system of poor relief in Penrith was supplemented by the supervisory “indoor” system of the workhouse – the one in Penrith opened in Albert Street (1737). ^[19]

Criminal activity was largely related to the agricultural nature of Penrith’s economy – theft of livestock being prominent. ^[20]

The major educational institution in the town was the Queen Elizabeth Grammar School which suffered from difficulties in funding itself and from a rather backward-looking classical humanistic curriculum. Lowther College (1697-1740) was founded by John Lowther, 1st Viscount Lonsdale as an antidote to the classical Latin- and Greek-based system (John Locke was Lonsdale’s mentor in this respect).The College sought to fit out the sons of gentlemen for business and trade purposes, along with an emphasis on Stoic morality. By an endowment (1661) of William Robinson, a wealthy London merchant, a school for girls in Middlegate was founded – teaching reading and “seamstry work”. Its regulations featured an Anglican emphasis and had input from the local overseers of the poor. ^[21]