Conference Programme: Muck and Brass: Money and Finance in Victorian Britain

28 09 2012

 

 Saturday, 10th November 2012

 

Provisional Programme & Registration

 

 

9 – 9:45: Registration and Coffee

 

9.45 – 10.45: Keynote Address – Professor Ranald Michie (Durham): ‘The Race for Wealth in Victorian and Edwardian England: Perception and Reality’

 

10.45 – 11.15: BREAK

 

11.15 – 12.30: Parallel Sessions

Session A: Charity, Patronage and Community: Capitalism, Welfare, and Art

 

Mary Clare, Martin (Greenwich): ’Children raise money for children’: the ‘priceless’ child and hospital fund-raising in Britain, 1830-1901’.

Jim Cheshire (Lincoln): ‘Ecclesiological finance: narratives of patronage within Victorian Gothic’

Holly Gale Millette (UEA): ‘’Chugging’ from the apron: Victorian liberalism, ethical economies and neo-liberal entrepreneurialism in Boucicault’s The Poor of New York /The Streets of London’.

 

Session B: Global Flow and Material Encounters: Capitalism and Morality

Ved Prakash Baruah (Cardiff): ‘How opium changed the face of the globe: the empire of ideas and the British opium trade in India’.

Paul Young (Exeter): ‘‘Bird, be quiet!’: Little Dorrit, free trade and frictional globalization’.

Gordon Tait (Newcastle): ‘The economy of the hearth: poetry and the human cost of coal production in Victorian Britain’.

 

Session C: Domestic Economy, Business, and Social Change

Malcolm Chase (Leeds): ‘How a penny became thousand pounds: Robert Kemp Philp and the democratisation of self help’

Chloe Reynolds (Exeter): ‘‘How to live well on nothing a year?’: managing money in the homes of Victorian novels’.

Jennifer Aston (Birmingham): ‘Female business ownership and social mobility in late-nineteenth- century England’.

 

Session D: Currency, Coinage, and Circulation

Claire Wood (York): ‘Haunting speculations and human coinage in Martin Chuzzlewit

Stephanie Polsky: ‘Bank draft: the winds of change in Little Dorrit’s domestic economy’

Nathan Uglow (Leeds Trinity): ‘Cultural capitalism: Ruskin and coins’

 

12.30 – 1.30: LUNCH

 

1.30 – 2.30: Keynote Address – Professor Janette Rutterford (Open): title to be announced.

 

2.30 – 3.45pm: Parallel Sessions

Session E:  Banking, Business, and Buildings: Market Regulation, Ethics, and the Law

 

Andrew Smith (Coventry) and Kevin D. Tennent (York): ‘The Culture of Shareholder-Management Relations in British FSCs and MNCs, 1850-1914.’

James Taylor (Lancaster):‘Directors in the Dock: The Criminalisation of Company Fraud in Victorian Britain’.

Rosemary Mitchell (Leeds Trinity):’ Provincial Prudence, National Narratives: Building a Bank Ethic in the Yorkshire Penny Bank, Infirmary Street, Leeds’.

 

Session F: Exchange, Speculation, Aesthetics, and Value

Kate Compton (York): ‘Exchanging words: paper speculation and the fortunes of Anthony Trollope’.

Cordelia Smith (Birkbeck): ‘When is a lottery not a lottery? Gambling, bad painting and the art unions’.

Jane Ford (Portsmouth): ‘Greek Gift and ‘Given Being’: The Libidinal & Christological Economies of Vernon Lee’s Supernatural Tales’.

 

Session G: Cities, Culture, Environment, and Exposure

Esther Bellamy (Southampton): ‘Mud on the Glass: Bleak House and the Great Exhibition’.

Jo Waugh (York St John): ‘Shelter from the storm’: figuring the economic climate in Léon Faucher’s Manchester in 1844 and Gaskell’s Mary Barton (1848)’.

Keith Linley (independent scholar): ‘Muck and Class: the Culture of Capital’.

 

3.45 – 4.15: BREAK

 

4.15 – 4.45: Roundtable Discussion

 

 





Department of Anachronism

24 09 2012

Ok, so it appears that the United Kingdom and Canada may share some embassies in the future. See here, here, and here.  The announcement by Foreign Secretary William Hague suggests that the two countries will cooperate in both consular and diplomatic matters.

It remains to be seen how many embassies will be shared. It is also unclear to what extent diplomatic as opposed to purely consular activities will be coordinated. However, my initial reaction is to say that I don’t think that this move is in the interests of Canada. For one thing, overlooks the fact that Canada’s image abroad is overwhelmingly positive, whereas Britain’s relationship with much of the world is complicated by centuries of the wrong sort of history. Canada is one of the few Western countries outside of Scandinavia that isn’t tainted by the legacy of overseas colonialism. Canada has never sought overseas colonies and this fact has done much for the country’s image abroad.  In the last fifty years, Canada has gone to great lengths to distance itself from Britain. Indeed, that’s what the 1965 flag was all about.

Defenders of this move will doubtless point out that Canada already pools resources with Australia to provide consular services in some countries. Neither Canada nor Australia have the same baggage as the British.

Renewing Canada’s association with Britain in such a symbolic way could do tremendous damage to Canada’s image. Admittedly, there are some countries, such as former French or Belgian colonies, where people have a neutral attitude to the British. Perhaps Canada and the UK could safely share diplomatic premises there without too much damage being done to the reputation of either country.  However, it would be a mistake for Canadians to share premises with the British in countries that were once the victims of British formal and informal imperialism.

It would be a mistake for Canada and the UK to share even consular offices.  The idea of joint or coordinate diplomacy is even more dangerous. I think that this move overlooks the fact that Canadian and British foreign policy have significantly diverged in the past. For instance, the British recognised the People’s Republic of China as the legitimate government of all of China in 1950, just a few months after the Communist Revolution. In contrast, Canada did not recognise Red China until the 1970s. In this case, Canada’s policy was much more aligned with that of the United States, which is actually what you would expect, given the greater strength of Canada’s ties to the United States. On the issue of climate change, Britain and Canada have very different policies, values, and interests: Britain is an island nation where the population has a highly-developed environmental consciousness. Canada’s had lots of tar sands and has relatively few people near the coast.

This isn’t about cost savings. It’s about both the governments of both countries playing to their respective bases. In the case of Canada, the Conservative government wants to appeal to the surviving Red Ensign wavers and those who object to the idea that the Francophonie and the Commonwealth should have equal status in Canadian diplomacy. In the UK, the Conservatives want to appeal to people who fantasize that the UK could leave the EU and form some sort of trading bloc with the old “White Dominions.” Anti-EU Conservatives in Britain have been overjoyed by Hague’s plan for “Commonwealth Embassies,” since they see a resuscitated Commonwealth as a substitute for the EU. See here.

Notice how neither country is talking about sharing embassies with, say, Singapore or Barbados, even those are also Commonwealth countries. Just the wrong sort of Commonwealth countries, one might suggest.  This announcement is reminiscent of the Mitt Romney advisor who spoke of how Britain and the United States were linked by being “Anglo-Saxon” nations, which was a subtle jab at the current non-Anglo-Saxon incumbent of the White House.

It’s also interesting that this policy is being unveiled by Foreign Secretary William Hague. When William Hague was leader of the Conservative Party in the late 1990s he expressed tremendous admiration for Ontario Premier Mike Harris. Indeed, he visited Oakville, a Canadian town with an unusually low unemployment rate, to inspect a welfare-to-work programme. After he returned to the UK, he plagiarized  borrowed Mike Harris’s slogan of the “The Common Sense Revolution”.

Update:

A blogger on the website ConservativeHome has commented on this move:

United by monarchy, history, language, heritage and political tradition, we have much more in common with, say, a Canberran or a Torontonian than we do with an Athenian or a Roman. We are already diplomatically close, but this move by Mr Hague to extend our interests is a very welcome renewal of our four countries’ friendship. The Commonwealth was neglected under Labour, who rejected the old English-speaking countries, and embraced “forward-looking” Europeans. The Coalition has started correcting this.





High School Named in Honour of Historian Gaétan Gervais

24 09 2012

I just received an email telling me that a high school in Oakville has been named in honour of a former colleague from the history department at Laurentian University, Gaétan Gervais.





Less Equal Than in 1774?

20 09 2012

Economic inequality had become a prominent feature of this year’s presidential election campaign. Just a few years ago there were those who claimed that class politics were dead in the United States and the Western world more generally. The Occupy Movement and the furore about Mitt Romney’s statement about the 47% have falsified these claims: competing definitions of equality are now central to electoral politics in the United States.

The current political climate has increased the public’s interest in the history of inequality.  Yesterday, Salon.com posted an article that claimed that economic inequality in the United States was now greater than it had been in 1774. This article, which was written by Natasha Lennard, was widely circulated and commented on.  The article was based on research by two academics, Peter Lindert of UC-Davis and Jeffrey Williamson of Harvard.

The current debate about economic inequality in the United States offers economic historians a wonderful opportunity to disseminate their research findings to the general public. It’s a “teachable moment” as we educators say.

Among economic historians, it is well known that inequality trends are non-linear: it is possible for measurable economic inequality in a society to go up and then go down, or vice versa. The basic story of economic inequality in the United States goes something like this: in the colonial period up and then up to about the Civil War, wealth and income was fairly evenly distributed among (white) families. Unlike Europe, where there was a vast gap between the aristocracy and the hungry poor, the United States c. 1800 had few really rich people and few desperately poor (white) people. Benjamin Franklin said that American society was characterized by a “happy mediocrity”. [1]Industrialization and urbanization after 1850 changed this, so that during the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, US society had become much more stratified. The period after the Civil War inaugurated a social revolution in the United States that witnessed rapid urbanisation, the rise of Big Business, and the growth of family fortunes, like that of the Rockefellers. In the Gilded Age, some rich American families built European-style mansions and even married into the British aristocracy. In reaction to these changes in society, new political movements such as the Populists, the Progressives, and more militant labour unions emerged. [2]  The introduction of peacetime income tax in 1913 was a response to increasing discontent with the level of inequality in America.

 

Income inequality in the United States remained fairly high until the New Deal when the United States was rapidly reverted into being a country with low income inequality. Economic historians call this the Great Compression. Between 1933 and 1945 the United States became a society with a fairly egalitarian distribution of wealth and a vast middle class that included unionized blue collar workers. Capitalism was tamed, the wealthy under FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower paid tax rates that were extremely high by today’s standards. Paul Krugman fondly refers to this society as the “middle-class society of my childhood.”[3]

Great Compression

 

This situation persisted until roughly 1980. Since then inequality has increased dramatically. The United States is now reverting into a society of haves and have-nots. The trend in Britain and, to a lesser extent Canada, has been similar. Economic historians continue to debate the exact reasons for the re-polarization of society since 1980s. Some attribute it to technological change and globalization, which decimated the old blue-collar working class. Others argue that taxation policy, particularly the massive tax cuts for the wealthy under Reagan and George W. Bush, explain why inequality had grown. See here.

 

I’m inclined to think that politics (i.e., the Reagan tax cuts) explain most of the increase inequality, as other countries with similar levels of technology and exposure to globalization have not experienced a marked increase in inequality in after-tax incomes. I’m thinking of Scandinavian countries here. Richard Wilkinson wrote inThe Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, “if you want to live the American dream, move to Denmark.”

Income inequality since 1980

 

In any event, there is a lot of good research on the history of inequality out there. It needs to be showcased to the broader public as it can inform political debate. Kudos to Salon’s Natasha Lennard for starting this process.


[1] Benjamin Franklin, ‘Information to Those Who Would Remove to America’ Sept. 1782 in The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, edited by Albert Henry Smyth (New York: Macmillan, 1905–7), vol. 8:603–14. The historiography on inequality and social class in early North America is discussed in Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: A.A. Knopf, 1992), 44-53. Peter Lindert,  “When Did Inequality Rise in Britain and America?” Journal of Income Distribution. 9 (2000): 11-25; Peter Lindert, “Three Centuries of Inequality in Britain and America.” In A.B. Atkinson and François Bourguignon (eds.), Handbook of Income Distribution, volume 1.  Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2000, Ch. 3 (pp. 167-216).

[2] Glenn Porter,, The Rise of Big Business, 1860-1920, 3rd ed. (Harlan Davidson, 2006); Alan Trachtenberg, The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in The Gilded Age, 1st ed., American century series (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982); Bryant Morey French, Mark Twain and The Gilded Age, the Book That Named an Era (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1965).

[3] Claudia Goldin and Robert A. Margo, “The Great Compression: The Wage Structure in the United States at Mid- Century,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107, no. 1 (February 1992): 1-34.

 





Next Meeting of the Monetary History Group

20 09 2012

MONETARY HISTORY GROUP

28 September 2012

2:00 – 5:30 p.m.

Speakers

Olivier Accominotti (LSE): ‘The Mother of All Sudden Stops: Capital Flows and Reversals in Europe, 1924-1932’

Forrest Capie and Geoffrey Wood: ‘Can Central Bank Independence Survive the Crisis?’

Venue

Rothschild,

New Court, St Swithin’s Lane,

London EC4N 8AL

If using Bank station, Rothschild is opposite Exit 6.

We are most grateful to Rothschild, and particularly the Director of The Rothschild Archive, Melanie Aspey, for generously hosting this meeting of the Monetary History Group.

RSVP: monetaryhistorygroup @ gmail.com. It is essential to inform the organizers if you wish to attend because places are limited and we need to provide Rothschild with the names of those attending ahead of the meeting for security reasons. A light lunch will be available at Rothschild from 1:00. Please use the MHG’s e-mail address above (not our personal e-mail addresses) to reserve a place, and please let us know if your plans change to allow us to reallocate the place.

Forrest Capie Richard Roberts
Richard Saville





Crediting Canada: Canada as an Economic World Leader?

20 09 2012

38th Annual British Association for Canadian Studies Conference

London, 3–5 April 2013
Call for papers

Canada was widely credited with avoiding the worst of the (ongoing) 2008 sub-prime recession by virtue of a prudent and robust banking system. A further combination of factors has led to booming demand for resource exports and the Canadian dollar has risen noticeably against weaker currencies.

In this conference we seek to examine the deeper roots of – and wider implications of – Canada’s “Triple A” image. How have writers, commentators and researchers – of all perspectives – come to view this new situation? A robust currency can imply losers as well as winners: for example, manufacturers see their prices rise in export markets. How have the cultural and creative industries fared? How is the public sector adjusting? How are Federal-Provincial relationships affected? What are the implications for sustainability, including the environment, of a dependence on resource development for Canada’s economic future? Spatially, which cities and regions are thriving and are any falling behind? What are the implications of “Triple A” for migrants and migration policy – but also for indigenous peoples? All who have social, cultural, political or economic insights into how Canada has become a “Triple A” place to live, work and play are invited to make contributions to our event.
The conference will take place in London over three days beginning with an opening evening reception and keynote address at the refurbished Canada House on Trafalgar Square. The second day will feature additional keynotes and panels related to the conference themes at Canada House. The final day of the conference will be held at the Eccles Centre of the British Library with panels related to the conference themes or to the wider field of Canadian studies.
The deadline for paper or panel proposals is Friday 30 November 2012.
Enquiries and proposals to:

Jodie Robson, BACS Administrator

Email: bacs@canadian-studies.org

Proposals (panel and individual) and deadline:

Email abstract(s) of 200–300 words and brief CV (please do not exceed one side of A4) which must include your title, institutional affiliation, email and mailing address by 30 November 2012. Submissions will be acknowledged by email. Postgraduate students are especially welcome to submit a proposal and there will be a concessionary conference fee for students. BACS regrets that it is unable to assist participants with travel and accommodation costs.





“Canada Abroad”: Herstmonceux Castle, Sussex, July 30-31, 2013

20 09 2012

 

AS: Canada’s Queen’s University acquired Herstmonceux Castle in the 1990s. Since then, it has served a base of operations for Queen’s students who want to spend a term in the UK and as a conference centre. They will be running a conference on Canadian studies next summer. The deadline for CFPs is rapidly approaching. 

Herstmonceux Castle, Sussex, July 30-31, 2013
Queen’s University’s Bader International Study Centre at Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, United Kingdom, a leader in international education, is hosting a conference entitled “Canada Abroad”. The conference aims to explore questions related to Canada’s historic and current roles, in higher education, business, culture, sport, international relations and as a global leader. The conference will be held over two days, 30-31 July 2013. Established scholars, graduate students and professionals in relevant fields are invited to submit papers on issues related, but not limited to, any of the following topics:

  • Canadian Education and Study Abroad
  • The State of Canadian Studies in Britain and Europe
  • Canadian Artists and Writers in an International Context
  • Canadians in International Sports
  • Canadian Business Abroad
  • Canada’s Role in WW1 and WW2
  • Canada’s Contemporary Role in International Affairs
  • The View from Abroad: International Perceptions of Canada

Proposals (250 word maximum) should include a working title and brief overview of the paper’s aims and objectives, along with a short biographical note. The deadline for submissions is November 15, 2012. Proposals for full panels (3-4 papers) and round tables are also welcome. The conference committee expects to publish a select number of papers from the conference and will be announcing further details at a later date.

Proposal submissions should be sent to: Dr. Scott McLean, Queen’s BISC, Herstmonceux Castle, Hailsham, East Sussex BN27 1RN Email:s_mclean@bisc.queensu.ac.uk





Cool New Digital Public History Project at Coventry University “New Connections”

10 09 2012

AS: Coventry University, my employer, will be hosting a major project to digitize the archive of British Telecom, the major phone company in the UK. This will be a fantastic resource for business historians in both this country and abroad.

—————————-

This project is a collaboration between Coventry University (CU), BT Heritage and The National Archive (TNA) and aims to catalogue, digitise and develop a searchable online archive of almost half a million photographs, images, documents and correspondence assembled by BT over 165 years.

This large and remarkable collection details the history of Britain’s leading role in the development of telecommunications and the impact of this technology on society. The BT Archive is held, with some limited public access, in central London and is by any standard a collection of national and international importance, recognised by UNESCO.

Examples of documents in the Archive include the following: details of the introduction of the telephone to the UK by Alexander Graham Bell in 1877; the Installation of the telephone at Balmoral Castle, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle in 1910-11; arrangements for telegraphic transmission of Disraeli’s ‘one nation’ speech from Manchester in 1872; and documentation relating to experiments with optical fibres from the 1960s that led to today’s fibre optics networks.

Examples of photographs include: The first UK telephone exchange 1878; early videoconferencing and viewphones from 1960s and The Queen making the first automatic long distance telephone call from Bristol to Edinburgh in1958.

The digitisation of a significant proportion of the Archive, will allow teachers, students, researchers and the general public in the UK and overseas to gain easier access to our scientific and cultural telecommunications heritage; enabling them to utilise the archive for studies and leisure from anywhere in the world. Digitisation of the Archives will also ensure the continued preservation of the collections in digital as well as analogue format.

The project includes research work around product and graphic design, language development and problem-based learning. Using innovative, immersive techniques the project will develop mobile and web access to the collection for scholars, teachers and learners as well as the general public.

The project brings together those in BT, TNA and CU with expertise in archives and heritage management, Serious Games, Design, Language, Computing, History, and Education and Learning Resources.

 





The Silly Season: Who Would Win a Presidential Knife Fight?

9 09 2012

The Silly Season: Who Would Win a Presidential Knife Fight?

For the last two weeks, the blogosphere has been filled with speculation about the following scenario: suppose we brought all of Presidents back to life, issued each man with a knife, and ordered them to fight to the death in an arena. Who would win? Under this scenario, FDR would be equipped with an electric wheelchair. Alliances are permitted.

I’m amused by how seriously people have taken this question, which was originally posted on Reddit.  Large numbers of people, including several history professors I respect, have contributed to this debate or have retweeted links to it. See here, here, and here.

 

I suspect that the popularity of this meme in internet culture is driven by the presidential election, which had now shifted into top gear. People are thinking about what makes for a good president. Then this absurd debate comes along and it gives people a chance to blow off a bit of steam.  





Gold Standard Madness Engulfs the GOP

27 08 2012

So, the Republican Party has endorsed the idea of the United States returning, unilaterally, to the gold standard. Wow! Has the right-wing fringe really taken over the GOP? The answer to this question is basically no. The chances of Mitt Romney or any other Republican President returning the US to the gold standard are basically zero. Ronald Reagan spoke about the possibility of studying a return to the gold standard when he running for the Republican nomination in 1980. After he became President, he essentially dropped the idea.

A recent poll of economists found that they were unanimous in regarding a return to the gold standard as a bad idea. The economists polled included people with divergent views on other issues.

GOP’s endorsement of the gold standard has occasioned an outburst of scorn and condemnation by commentators similar in proportion to that meted out Todd Akin for his reprehensible comments about rape. The good thing about this stream of abuse is that it has helped to educate the public a bit more about economic history. In attacking the gold standard in a newspaper column, you have to explain what it was, when it is existed (in its classical form, late 19th century/early 20th century), and why it was a bad idea (the golden fetters created by the gold standard exacerbated the Great Depression of the early 1930s).  Lots of great graphs and tables about the gold standard have been published in recent days.

Here are a few of my favourites.

Gold standard advocates like to argue that the gold-standard era was characterized by price stability. Matthew O’Brien of the Atlantic brought us this graph in the course of showing that this wasn’t the case at all.

Gold-standard advocates often assume that the value of gold is fairly stable. Paul Krugman reminds us that it is actually pretty volatile, much like the price of any commodity.

Barry Eichengreen’s essay on the lunacy of a return to the gold standard is essential reading for all concerned.

P.S. Eric Rauchway has published a great post on the GOP’s call for a return to the gold standard.  So why on earth is deflation so hot with the GOP set, whose core constituencies are the same as the Bryanites of the 1890s who opposed the gold standard as the instrument of those who crucified Our LordRauchway is making a good point– the regions and social groups that voted for the Democrats and against the gold standard in 1896 are  precisely those regions and groups that are now the base of the Republican Party (white Southerners, evangelical Protestants, farmers on the Great Plains). The blue states that now vote Democrat are the urban, secular, industrial, and cosmopolitan areas of the country that voted for McKinley and the gold standard in 1896.