Although there is a wealth of books and papers from historians discussing the causes of the Swing Riots of 1830-31, it is interesting to hear the views of those who held a position of authority in the Hampshire parishes when the riots took place.
In 1832 the Royal Commission of Enquiry into the Operation of the Poor Laws sent questionnaires to the figures of authority in every parish in England and Wales. There were 53 questions which included requests for the numbers of agricultural labourers in employment, the numbers unemployed, wage levels, and the level of allowances. The answers were published in a House of Commons paper in 1834.
Almost as an afterthought, the final question, number 53, asked, “Can you give the Commissioners any information respecting the causes and consequences of the agricultural Riots and Burning of 1830 and 1831?”.
The respondents, who were mainly the overseers of the poor, with a smattering of clergy, churchwardens, farmers, landowners and JPs, were free to answer only those questions they wanted to, or to ignore the questionnaire completely, which most did. In Hampshire only 58 parishes responded, of which only 40 answered question 53.
Eighteen parishes blamed low wages and unemployment. Comments included: “overplus of labourers, and consequent low wages” (Amport); “Want of employment, and the wages being inadequate” (Boldre} ; “want of employment on the farms, in consequence of which many good labourers are put on the roads, and all friendly intercourse between the farmers and the poor ceases” (Burghclere); “the farmers paid wages too small for the family to subsist upon” (Eversley); “discontent at the low price of labour” (Michelmersh); “want of employment” (Milford on Sea); “want of employment, very low wages” (Soberton); “riots existed first and most in districts where the lowest rate of wages was paid” (Titchfield); “Labourers were thrown out of employment, and, urged on by hunger, committed these excesses” (Whitchuch); “want of regular employ, arising in some measure from a surplus of population, and the reduced prices of agricultural produce not enabling the farmers to employ a sufficient number of labourers, and from too low wages” (Isle of Wight). The respondents from Bishopstoke and Fawley said the rioters were demanding that their wages should be increased to two shillings a day.
Some thought the rioters were incited by outside influences: “agitation produced by inflammatory publications; and general excitement at that time prevalent throughout the nations of Europe” (Amport); “the example of France and the influence of the violent publications which were circulated“ (Burghclere); “inflammatory publications” (Michelmersh); “discontent and insubordination, greatly increased and fearfully augmented by Political Unions among the agricultural labourers” (Wherwell): “wrong impressions conveyed to their minds by designing and interested persons” (Bentley); “political designing demagogues” (Milford on Sea); “the minds of the lower orders were excited by ill-disposed persons, and in some cases the labourers had too just cause for complaint” (Odiham).
On a similar note, eight respondents claimed that beerhouses were the main or contributing cause of the riots. They thought beerhouses were centres of sedition and revolt that poisoned the minds of the working men. Beerhouses were established by the Beer Act 1830, a piece of legislation intended to address the moral panic about people drinking too much gin in inns and alehouses. Under the Beer Act anyone could open a beerhouse for the sale of beer, ale and porter, but not wine and spirits, without the need for annual magistrates’ licences by buying a two-guinea licence from the Excise Office. Many cottagers were encouraged and supported by the breweries in this enterprise. While those who had been without a pub in their village welcomed this innovation, the local magistrates were unhappy that the beerhouses were outside their control.
The rector of Silchester referred to “the excitement caused by the beer-shops, giving them a point to meet in every village to discuss their grievances, and to hear them aggravated by the reading, or hearing read there, low and dangerous pamphlets. The injury arising from the Beer Act surpasses all calculation. They are the worst description of public houses.” Other comments included “political designing demagogues, availing themselves of … that great enemy of the poor the Beer-shop” (Milford on Sea); “ the mischief is formed and aggravated by that most disastrous enactment the Beer Bill” (Boldre); “the liberty of drinking in Beer Shops” (Bentworth}; and “the assemblage of idle persons at different beer-houses” (Widley).
The operation of the poor laws was seen by some as a contributing factor, particularly as the level of allowances varied from place to place depending on the whim of the local magistrates and the desire of the ratepayers to keep the allowances as low as possible: “the inequality of magistrates’ allowances which differed in the different divisions” (Winchester St Faith); “there should be … a similarity in the way of granting relief throughout every parish in the kingdom” (Minstead); “the overseer had been reducing the amount of wages to those who applied for parish relief to the lowest possible scale, more particularly to single men” (Eversley); “the system of putting numbers of men together at useless work on the parish” (Aldershot); “the numbers of able-bodied labourers working on the roads at very low or inadequate wages” (Hambledon); “dissatisfaction of the paupers at the low rate of wages and allowances” (Winslade).
Only four parishes mentioned agricultural machinery: “machines were pointed out as interfering with labour” (Bramshaw) “employment of machinery” (Ringwood); “the unnecessary use of threshing machines” (Soberton); and “dissatisfaction at the use of threshing machines” Nether Wallop).
Some seemed to suggest that there was a common cause between the rioters and the tenant farmers. The farmers were suffering from a loss of income due to poor harvests, with no compensating reduction in the tithes or the rent they were paying their landlords: “the rioters demanded that the tithes should be lowered … and in some cases they demanded that rents should be lowered. Many of the farmers seemed to sympathize with the rioters, and some joined them in their demands” (Bishopstoke); “the want of that good feeling which ought and used to exist between the farmer and the labourer, the former of whom seemed endeavouring to indemnify himself against his excessive rent at the price of justice and liberality to the latter” (Minstead) ;“dissatisfaction at … their rate of wages, which, although low, was more than the tenants could afford” (Nether Wallop)
Bob Clarke’s latest book, The Woman Who Gave Birth to Rabbits; Godalming’s Gift to Grub Street, was published on August 31, available from bookshops and Amazon, RRP £9.99.
By Bob Clarke
Share