Dr. R.J. Barendse in New Research in
Chinese Economic History
In response to Erik C. Maiershofer 26 10 2000
mentions the following,
>Now, why did the Royal Navy triumph over
the French Navy - its only serious competitor by >then?
It occurs to
me that superior seamanship along with actions at sea is only a part of what
constitutes a Navy. Behind the scenes there is the huge bureaucratic
function that requires persons that are literate and numerate to prepare
accounts, order stores, negotiate with shipbuilders, complete trade
documents, and whatever else is necessary in a large
organisation.
Now I recollect from my
‘English’ history that Scotland had by about 1600 a
‘school in every parish’, whereas the same general education was
not extended to children in England until about 1890.
So my question is, was the ‘Act of
Union’ of 1701, that gave the United Kingdom, a means of tapping into
a fund of people that was capable of carrying out the behind the scenes
function and ensuring that the English language prevailed over world
transactions since that time?
A difficult question since it mixes a few
issues:
1.)The act of the Union itself was promply
mainly motivated by military and political motives: England was then in the
middle of a bitter and bloody struggle with France: the war of the Spanish
succesion and it certainly didn't need a potential enemy to the
North.
2.) The Scottish contribution to the rise
of the British Empire is undeniable - however, the main contribution here
was not to the Navy but rather to the Army. Navy pressgangs were mainly
active in ports in England rather than in Scotland. Obviously, since
eighteenth century England had a huge population working at sea, which can
be estimated at something like 150.000 people. Particularly that great
school of seamen, the coaleries, fetching coal from Newcastle to London,
employed tens of thousands of seamen, and it's especially the
manpower-reservoir of the coaleries which was tapped by the navy.
But
3.) overall I don't think the main problem
the Empire had in the eighteenth was a lack of people who could read and
write: it might not have been up to our standards but eighteenth century did
have a system of village school, so that about 70% of the English population
could at least write their names in the eighteenth century. Furthermore the
English population doubled in the eighteenth century, so that there was
certainly no lack of personnel with some skills.
So, yes, the Scots did make a contribution
and quite out of proportion of their numbers but that may have been more
because they were more willing to settle elsewhere than the English were,
rather than because they were more highly skilled.
Best wishes
R.J.
Barendse