Party Of Bristol Colliers example essay topic

In order to answer this question we must assess the extent to which the English were outside the normal constraints of civil and criminal law. So we must look at the nature of authority, how this authority / power was used and how the authority was look upon by the different members of class. Once this has been done we will come to the conclusion that to a certain extent the English were ungovernable due to the above factors. In 1660 it was a significant time because the puritan ideological of the commonwealth dissolved itself and the monarch was restored by Charles II who used the arms of the law to exercise his power. At the time the court system was seen as the states main body of power. There was a slight problem in that not all classes / social groups were instutionalised by the legal process especially people who lived in remote areas or who worked in remote jobs and even the people that were institualised by the legal system had problems with what they saw as what should and shouldn't be law.

Historically there is two stances of opin on on the above question, yes England was a governable and no England was ungovernable. We will see that J. A Sharpe has the view that the English during the period 1660-1750 in majority were governable J.A. Sharpe believes this to be the case because of the way in which the legal systems functions were operated and the way in which parishes dealt with crime and because by the early 17th century England had moved away from a freud ual system and had started to move towards a capitalist system. The wealthy yeomans and land owners could now be identify with the rich nobility of England than it could with that of the landless labourer and poor man... This was important because in turn it effected the nature of crime and who committed the crime The crime in medieval England was that of violently bloody crimes committed by that of the nobility but from 1660 the gentry were more less likely to comitte a crime than that of the poor man, but according to J.A. Sharpe this was suppressed through the convention of the poor law. The legal system at the time was established to stop violent and bloody retribution between parties.

It also in theory was the way in which central government would enforce it's authority. It did this through it's courts and it's judges the court system would execute the state law and the judges would keep the king's peace by enforcing punishment on those who broke the rules; but in reality it was not the actually justices of peace nor was it the courts that enforced the state laws and kept the king's peace it was actually the job of the inferior officers such as the parish constable". despite the attention given by historians to the justices of the peace, and the praise generally lavished upon the incumbents of that office, most of the daily round of county adminstration and law enforcement was carried out by inferior officers within the parish". J.A. Sharpe 'Crime In Early Modern England 1550-1750' Longman second edition pp 107. The parish constable was the local inferior officer who usually came from richer offices usually from a neighbouring town / village. His localities were to the monarch but also to that of the parish. Therefore the constables duties at times would be to mediate between the actual statues and the actually parishes customs but some times this could clash '...

We find constables bound over for failing or refusing to report religious conventicles'". J.A. Sharpe 'Crime In Early Modern England 1550-1750'longman second edition pg 107. 'Quarter sessions Records, Trinity 1682 to Epiphany 1690 ed. H.C. Johnson, Warwickshire County Records, 8, 1953, pp 30, 31,183,215,227,257. ' Other duties they also would have to implentment was village rituals and festivities. On the whole constables where valuable in keeping England govern due because they were local they bridged the gap in culture differences between the wealthy yeoman / land owners and the landless labourers / poor members of the parishes as they where a tool of the legal system in controlling the ever growing gap between the different parties of the parish. The opinion of crime was more a nuisances to a community and the actual usage of a court was majority of the time last resort but it was used 'Of the permanent local residents who came to trial, 68 per cent were convicted; of the outsiders, 93 per cent... servants tired... status of being somewhere between established residents and total outsiders: 88 per cent of them convicted' J.A. Sharpe 'Crime In Early Modern England 1550-1750' Longman second edition pp 107. Firstly before a person of the commiunty was even tired at a court the parish would log written and verbal complicates to the person, perhaps deal with the person via the poor law.

Failing that they would then use a local courts such as the leet court or archdeacon's this was to gain a local involvement and a speedy trail. If the person carried on after the local courts and persisted then they would be taken to the assize court. Usually if the person went to assize courts and they were members of the local community and of status, other good members would ask the courts for lenicey. ' Thomas west... provoked an imposing display of solidarity on his behalf from respectable elements of the parish'. J.A. Sharpe 'Crime In Early Modern England 1550-1750' Longman second edition pp 107.

The parish in most incidents dealt with crime in a community way, either by sorting it out by themselves or by actually taking local legal action. With this approach it didn't iradicate criminal offences but it did n't empathy them either, so even though there were offences taking place overall the parishes were governable due to the fact that constant perpatratiors were accepted by the comminute Another important method in the late 17th century was the poor law. Due to a increase in population from 1550-1750 and poor crop it left a large social group the poor members of society to look for a other alternative to be able to eat and to make money. So it was felt if there was to be alternative means to control and relink wish the desire for the people to comitte crime, this was done through the poor law. The actual mechanism of this was the invention of workhouses. The poor would be expected to support themselves by work.

Obviously this belief is not shared with all historians, on the other side of the coin historians who believe that England during the period of 1660-1750 England was ungovernable and put that down partly due to the uneven authority and due to isolation of certain social groups it meant that they weren't colonizised by the legal system. Such group that was chastised as been a un lawless group pf society was either people that resided in foresty areas or miners. People from foresty area were seen as been lawless due to the lack of colonisatistaion of the noblebity, churches and lack of a legal strong foothold. Miners on the were also seen as a solidarity body that worked in a united corp ation method. Miners were also isolated from the normal social institutes culturally and phisycally. John Brewer and John Styles support there view by studying the miners in the period of 1660-1750 especailly a group of miners that lived in the kingswood forest which was situated outside of the city of Bristol.

The Kingwood forest in the 18th century was renowned as the most unmangerable area in England due to the coutinueous conflict the miners had with the crown and land owners. The Miners played a important role in providing coal to function Bristol industry and domestic lifestyle. The first major incident arose in 1727 between the collies and the authorities because the conditions of the roads of Bristol had become a state. So in febuary 1727 two parties had drawn up petitions addressing the House of Commons with regards to the state of the roads to get a act passed to refurbish the roads. The results were that in April 24th 1727 two turnpike acts The Bristol act (13 Geo. I C. 12) and the Studley Bridge Tog hill Act (13 Geo.

I C. 13) Brewer, J & Styles J. (eds), An ungovernable people: the English and their law in the seventeenth and eighteenth Centuries. - London: Hutchinson, 1980. - ( (Hutchinson University library) with royal assents had been passed to set up tolls to levy on 12 roads leading out of Bristol. These levy were to apply to all road users. The acts were mange by a tolls trustees which out of 146 there were 62 large landowners named.

As soon as the first day of collection of the tolls on 26th June 1727 the colliers demonstrated there disapproval and opposition ' assembled in body, and pulled down 4 of [turnpikes]... some of them which they set fire' Farley's Bristol journal 1 July 1927 Brewer, J & Styles J. (eds), An ungovernable people: the English and their law in the seventeenth and eighteenth Centuries London: Hutchinson, 1980. - ( (Hutchinson University library) and using what necessary force to bring them down. Within that same week the miners marched into the city of Bristol ' with clubs and staves in a noisy manner; according to the mayor of Bristol' Brewer, J & Styles J. (eds), An ungovernable people: the English and their law in the seventeenth and eighteenth Centuries London: Hutchinson, 1980. - ( (Hutchinson University library). This made the mayor nervous and so troops were sent in to catch the colliers but only 4 prisoners were caught. So in July 1727 the colliers sent a letter addressing the issues to the king and the underlining problems wasn't the actual taxation but they were distressed by the power in which was given to the trustees 'to remove furze and heth from any common land' Brewer, J & Styles J. (eds), An ungovernable people: the English and their law in the seventeenth and eighteenth Centuries London: Hutchinson, 1980- ( (Hutchinson University library). they were upset that a balance would be upset by the meddling of the trustees such as the heth which was used as fire wood and to graze there horses.

Secondary they were upset that they had to pay a levy for the roads when infact they believed it to be the trustees fault for the conditions of the road and thirdly they believed it was also the failure of the magistrates to enforce the law to get the roads fixed in the first place. Overall the colliers felt that the authority had neglected to act properly and that the King wouldn't have passed such an act against them. By late 1727 the 4 collier prisoners were tired at the assizes court and aqucuttied due to lack of evidence and the colliers were subdued. As result of the colliers taking action in 9th May the Studley Bridge trustees petitioned parlimentant for a effective punishment as the Bristol Act were ambigoust as it didn't state a punishment which meant that the gentry didn't know how to or what under to prosecute any one found damaging the tolls.

So 3 weeks later a new act was introduced ' I Geo. II C. 19' Brewer, J & Styles J. (eds), An ungovernable people: the English and their law in the seventeenth and eighteenth Centuries London: Hutchinson, 1980- ( (Hutchinson University library). Which stated that for first offence if found to be destroying a tollgate then they would be imprisoned in the gaol for 3 months and publically whipped and for a second offence they would be sent to do 7 years of transportation. Then in! 731 the actually Bristol Act was amend to a change of how the adminstration of the trustees was ran and a clause that allowed any animal carrying coal to go through free of charge. This meant that the authorities only answered one of the colliers grievances and the road had even been fixed either.

So in 1731 when the trustees began to erect the tollgates again on the roads to Bristol colliers and countrymen began to destroy the tolls once again. June 30th 1731 Some colliers were destroying a toll when a gang led by William Blaithwaite the Justice of Peace stop them in there tracks and took 4 prisoners to his home. What the colliers did afterwards displays the mentality the colliers had for the law and the weakness of the law. Before Blaithwaite took the prisoners to the gaol he came under siege from the colliers threatening to destroy his house if he didn't release 'their brethren " Brewer, J & Styles J. (eds), An ungovernable people: the English and their law in the seventeenth and eighteenth Centuries London: Hutchinson, 1980. - ( (Hutchinson University library). in which Braithwaite released the prisoners. That summer the authorities were unable to excess size any of the law and no prosecutes were made against the colliers. still unhappy with the present climate 3 gentry petitioned for further advancement's of punishment to be made so in may 1732 the result was a new act was passed 5 Geo.

II c. 33 which stated any person convicted of destroying a turnpike would in affect be transported for seven years. With this new harish law in August 1732 trustees of the Studley Bridge-Tpg hill began to erect 2 toll-gates which resulted in ' a party of Bristol colliers arm'd with axes... cut down the turnpike... without any oppsitition' Brewer, J & Styles J. (eds), An ungovernable people: the English and their law in the seventeenth and eighteenth Centuries London: Hutchinson, 1980- (Hutchinson University library). The consequences of the colliers actions lead to 3 prisoners taken and in 1733 a enomurous amount of effocet to gain a conviction against the colliers was taken. At the Salisbury assizes court 2 colliers were convicted and sentenced to transportation this was only possible via the deter mation of one Roger Hollands who infact had played a important role in attending the toll-gate Acts in parliament. This incident made a clear statement to people that the law if stood strong could achieve a positive and just outcome.

The following years the turnpike issue subsided. It wasn't until 1740 where the colliers involved majorly involved in another riot. Due to a price war between the owners of the coal mines they plan on reducing miners wages by a 25% decrease so they strike and stop working. The colliers didn't just stop work they also made sure that coal couldn't leave Bristol and they also organised a strike collection of food and money from non miners. They began there strike in 9th October and in the next 4 days they wreaked havoc ' procession of colliers through Bristol hallowing and shouting... robberies on the highway' Brewer, J & Styles J. (eds), An ungovernable people: the English and their law in the seventeenth and eighteenth Centuries London: Hutchinson, 1980- ( (Hutchinson University library). So the authorise worried wrote to the secretary of state to arrange emergency coal and guard.

Within a week it was all over and coal began to be brought back into the city and evict ence was been collected against the rioters so they could be made of examples. But in November troops were situated on the eastern boarder to prevent a reduce mission to break a pitman free. The colliers took no direct action due to the troops and April 1739 there were 36 warrants issued for the arrest of colliers who took part in the October riot but no even dice to suggest that any were tired nor is there any evidence that the pitman was prosecuted either. Even though the colliers took part in other riots they either didn't orchestrate the riot they just tagged along 1749 the somerset turnpikes or when it came to actually using direct action in 1740 possible food riot they are deterred by the force of soldiers. The only time the colliers of kingswood united was when they felt that the authority wasn't doing it's job properly such as in the case of the turnpikes the colliers felt it was down to the authority to sort the roads out and so they went looking for redress of grievances and make the authority accountable to by addressing there disagreement. In conclusion J. A Sharpe argument is correct to say that England was fairly govern because it had a hierarch of gentry to establish and enforce the laws due to the coming of the large cultural and social gap that was becoming apparent from the early 17th century.

John Brewer and John Styles were also correct in there argument that England was ungovernable due to the lack of colonisation of institutes such as churches and even the gentry were sparse in Kingswood. Even though both arguments are correct I think England was governable because with in time Kingswood would have it's first church and there was a present of authority but it wasn't rooted authority and there was no social and cultural diversity between the community, so I think such incidents that happen in Kingswood were probably isolated incidents and didn't generally spring up all over England due to the evidence that J. A Sharpe presents about community morale.