WHILE HIS TWO friends were mapping the skies and the seas, Jones was suddenly made responsible for mapping the land. By the end of his efforts, rural England and Wales were completely mapped for the first time.
At the end of 1834, Robert Malthus died, leaving vacant his position as Professor of Political Economy at the East India College at Haileybury, where his students had referred to him affectionately as “Pop” (for “population”) Malthus. Jones and Whewell had befriended Malthus some years earlier, during their fight against Ricardo’s political economy. Whewell had even performed optical experiments on Malthus, who was color-blind.94 Although Whewell and Jones disagreed with Malthus on the population principle, he shared their positive opinion of the value of inductive method in economics, and had often argued the point with his close friend Ricardo.
At the time of Malthus’s death, Jones was still officially Professor of Political Economy at Kings College in London. But he had never been called upon to lecture since his inaugural discourse in 1833—apparently not enough interested students could be found to make up a class.95 Jones soon discovered that Malthus had recommended him as his successor at the East India College. Maria Edgeworth reported the news to her brother, noting the irony that Malthus’s “pupils at Haileybury must now learn from Jones’s lectures the objections he made to Malthus’ system!”96 Whewell was thrilled—not only would Jones be earning a much higher salary (£500), but Haileybury, in Hertfordshire, was closer to Cambridge than was London; he told Jones that “I shall rejoice much to think you are so near.”97
The East India College had opened at Hertford Castle in February 1806 and moved to the “palatial buildings” built for it by the directors of the East India Company in 1809. It was something between a school and a university—boys entered when they were young, usually around sixteen, and left before the age of completing university. The college was intended to educate men hoping to receive appointments to the civil service in India. In a pamphlet published in 1817, Malthus explained that he and his colleagues tried to “inculcate … manly feelings, manly studies, and manly self-control.”98 The boys studied classical and general literature, Hindu literature, the history of Asia, Arabic, Persian, Hindustani, Sanskrit, Bengali, and Telugu (the language of one of the most ancient ethnic groups in India), as well as French, drawing, fencing, dancing, mathematics, natural philosophy, history and laws of England, and, of course, political economy. The college, with its lovely rural setting and eminent group of professors, became a center for intellectual activity, where men of science, literary figures, and politicians would often congregate on the weekends. Herschel, Babbage, and Whewell were frequent visitors during Jones’s career there.99
Jones threw himself into the position, preparing lectures and examination papers with relish. The students regarded him as the cleverest of the professors. They appreciated that he never asked questions of them during his classes, nor expected any prior preparation from them. Jones merely checked their notebooks once a month to be sure that they had understood his lectures, which the students considered lucid and carefully argued. His popularity with the students was rooted as well in his propensity to share with them his love of the good things in life; one student remembered coming to him with a personal problem at three in the afternoon. After giving the student useful advice, Jones “then sent for a bottle of champagne to crown his exhortation with a little refreshment.”100
Five of the professors were also ordained clergymen, and they rotated the twice-daily compulsory church services among them. When it was Jones’s turn, the students groaned at his sermons—he had a stock of them, which he repeated in a predictable cycle—but they enjoyed the spectacle of his delivery. As one student later recalled:
The pulpit in the Chapel at Haileybury was in front of the altar, and stood facing the congregation.… It had to be ascended with some agility, from behind.… Oh! Who can depict the appearance of Jones! First, an amazing rumbling of stools over which he invariably fell; then a panting for breath, a groaning and a muttering; and lastly, with a start, the elevation, in the sight of all men, of a huge torso, surmounted by a colossal red face, incarnadined beyond its wont by recent exertion, and this, again, wreathed with a little brown wig, somewhat deranged by the troubles of the ascent.… When, after a good deal of rocking and diving after spectacles, which would fall off the cushion, we were bid to prayers, it was with a voice such as a zealous sea captain would use in a storm to an inattentive sailor.101
Though pleased that Jones was nearby, Whewell worried that he would be less likely than ever to finish his second book on political economy, which was supposed to carry forward the arguments made in his first book. Herschel agreed with Whewell that Jones had been particularly slothful in the few years since he had been appointed to Kings College. When Herschel, in Africa, heard of his appointment at Haileybury, he wrote to his brother-in-law, “I don’t think it is a situation very fit for him—but anything with duties and regularly recurring call upon his store of knowledge in his own department, is better than the dreamy half extinct existence in which he was vegetating.”102 Jones had spent the last few years not writing, not lecturing, indeed apparently doing not much of anything at all besides enjoying his life in London. Whewell had reverted to his old habit of wheedling Jones to write. During one of Jones’s recurrent spells of illness, Whewell wrote him, a bit harshly, “The only moral I can extract … is the importance of getting our speculations into such a form that not calamity or adversity shall have the power, by putting an end to us … to destroy the chance of our beautiful theories coming before the world.… You know as well as I do that those who theorize rightly are in the end the lords of the earth.”103
WHEWELL GAVE UP all hope of Jones completing his second book when Jones was appointed one of three commissioners charged with implementing what was then the largest government initiative ever enacted: the Commutation of the Tithes.
Tithing is a notion that derives from early Jewish society. Tithe literally means “a tenth part.” The idea was that one tenth of a land’s produce and livestock would be given to the land’s “minister,” or local clergyman, in exchange for the use of the land. Tithing was typical in most early Christian societies as well (and still exists in many synagogues and churches today, where members are encouraged to “tithe” their income for the support of the congregation). For centuries, in England and Wales, tithes had been a way for the clergy to be supported by the landowners and farmers; it also was a way to link the clergy to the land and its people, to make their fortunes dependent upon the productive toil of the community.104
By the eighteenth century, tithe payments made up the bulk of most clergymen’s income, especially in rural areas. But it was considered a most irksome tax by both the clergy, who had to collect it, and the landowners, who had to pay it. Tithing in kind, the most common form, meant that the pastor had to travel to the farms to collect bales of hay, stalks of corn, bundles of wood, buckets of milk, even pigs and cows. Landowners were generally unwilling to make the payments, and caused as much difficulty as they could to the clergyman. A farmer might, for instance, inform his vicar that his crop was ready for tithing, so that the clergyman would ride his horse and a wagon—perhaps rented for the occasion—to the farm, only to be presented with a single turnip, and the promise of more to come. Even when he could collect the tithes, a clergyman was then often forced to sell the produce at the market lest it spoil before he could eat it. Thus we have enshrined in the historical records a disturbing image of the vicar of Battersea: during tithing time, it is reported, “nothing was more common than to meet his carts in the streets retailing his tithes: ‘Come, buy my asparagus: Oh, rare Cauliflowers!’ ”105 The system of tithes undermined the dignity of the clerical position, and strained the relationship between clergy and parishioners.
By the early nineteenth century, many of the tithes were substituted by money payments, a predetermined amount that was paid every year, regardless of the value of the
harvest. This solved the problem of having to hand over produce. But it required regular valuations of the land and its produce, meaning more work by the clergy and more efforts by the farmer to evade an accurate assessment. The amounts paid by money were assessed in a large variety of ways: there was no uniformity from place to place. Often, values remained the same over the length of a clergyman’s incumbency, even if this lasted fifty years. Clergymen of lower social stations—who depended the most on the tithes for their survival—were not in a position to argue with the powerful landowners; indeed, the tithing system made them more dependent on the rich members of their community, leading to the extreme deference shown by the clergymen lampooned in the works of writers such as Jane Austen. Her William Collins (in Pride and Prejudice) is made a figure of fun because of his almost pathological reliance on the good opinion of his patron, Lady Catherine de Bourgh—whose influence over him extends to his choice of a bride.
At the same time, the landowners complained that the tithes were a disincentive for them to improve their land. Why should they invest in new agricultural technologies, which required the outlay of large sums of money, if their eventual profit would only be eaten away by the vicar? By the time of the report of the Poor Law Commission in 1834, it was being alleged in numerous cases that farm laborers had been thrown off the land by landowners who would rather leave their land fallow than pay the heavy burden of the tithes. It was said that in Herstmonceux (Hare’s parish), “the whole labor force has been thrown upon the [poor] rates, for the avowed purpose of fighting the parson.”106 Political economy fanned the flames of dissent. Ricardo had argued that the tithe should be abolished, as it was actually a tax on everyone, because consumers paid more for produce driven up in price by the tithe.107 Radical politicians called for the elimination of tithes. Clergymen were portrayed in snide cartoons as “parsons in the pig-sty,” choosing the plumpest pig for their tithe in kind.
On the other side, the Church of England supported the tithes, arguing that tithes were a kind of property belonging to the Church, and should be preserved on that basis. The excesses of the French Revolution and its aftermath—with its aristocracy literally losing their heads along with their lands—were used as a rallying cry: “No French Revolution on British Soil!”
The Reform Bill of 1832 opened the floodgates to nationwide reform of the tithe system: such reform began to seem inevitable. In 1834, even the Times, always a friend to the Church, asserted, “All men of all parties express the most anxious desire to see the tithe question set at rest.”108 Major bills designed to solve the tithe problem were introduced in 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1836, until the last of these was successful.
This final bill, introduced by Lord John Russell, was partly written by Jones. His friend John Drinkwater Bethune, army officer and military historian, had received instructions from Lord Russell to prepare four bills on Church matters, and conferred with Jones. Together the two men—probably over several bottles of claret—composed a sketch of a tithe bill that was eventually placed before the House of Commons. Jones’s work on the bill was not purely public service, or a favor to a friend—he hoped to gain an appointment as one of the Tithe Commissioners. Whewell wished him luck: “I hope you have now a fair prospect of success both in your public and private project.”109
Jones was the obvious choice for Drinkwater Bethune to turn to for help; he had published a pamphlet arguing for the “commutation,” or replacement, of tithes with money payments in 1833, at the time of the first Tithe Bill. He also had experience with tithes from his days as the parson in Brasted. As the local vicar, he was owed tithes, and saw firsthand the oppression faced by some farmers due to the tithe system.
Jones and Drinkwater Bethune’s Tithe Bill, which had the support of both the government and the opposition, was passed in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and given the Royal Assent in June of 1836. It called for the conversion of all tithes into cash payments. The amount of the payment the first year would be based on the average value of the tithes over the previous seven years, and the value would fluctuate in later years based on the price movements of the three main arable crops: wheat, barley, and oats. There would be three commissioners overseeing this conversion, two appointed by the home secretary and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury. As a reward for his work on the bill, Jones was appointed by the archbishop to be the Church’s representative. The commissioners, based in Somerset House, the home of the Royal Society, were paid a salary of £1,500. Jones received special permission to retain his position and salary at Haileybury; so he and his wife, Charley, were suddenly, for the first time, quite well off, with £2,000 between the two jobs.
Herschel wrote Jones from the Cape that he was “delighted” with the news of Jones’s position. “To see your powers rendered efficient and excited with a consciousness of their efficacy in working out good is all that your best friends can possibly desire for you!” he enthused.110 In the same letter he asked Jones and his wife to serve as the godparents for his newest child, John. “If you will let our little cub look up to you for a constant good example and an occasional good precept (or a good whipping as the case may be) the better for him!” (The Herschels had first thought of giving the honor to Whewell, but in the end made him wait until their daughter Amelia was born in 1841).111
The three commissioners hired an army of assistants who would travel to every rural town and village, working out the details of tithes owed on every single parcel of land. Jones drew up skeleton forms and instructions for the use of the assistants.112 The commission attempted to bring the landowners and tithe owners to a mutually acceptable agreement, which made the process much easier: no one needed to gather the seven years’ worth of past receipts showing the value of the tithe. But when the two parties could not agree on a voluntary commutation, the commissioners were charged with making a compulsory determination.
Jones’s time was almost entirely filled up now; he had no free moments to ponder philosophy or to give in to his depression. Jones lectured in Haileybury on Saturday evenings and Monday mornings, taking his turn with the Sunday sermons, and then traveled to London for a busy week’s worth of work at the Tithe Commission. Whewell complained to Herschel that “Jones is so much immersed in Tithe Bills and the like that I can get no general philosophy out of him.”113 As he worked, Jones devised a plan to match the mappings of his two friends with maps of his own.
For each parish district involved in the commutation, maps were needed to show the different parcels of land and their sizes. Jones knew that the maps they had been given already for some of the early voluntary commutations were terribly inaccurate. In one such map, two fields were represented as nearly the same size, although in reality one was 3.5 acres and the other only .75 acre.114 This was bound to cause problems later on, when the tithe owner or landowner decided to contest the valuation in coming years, or when disputes arose questioning whether certain land was subject to the tithe or not.
Jones and one of his assistant commissioners, Lieutenant R. K. Dawson of the Royal Engineers, saw the need for the tithe maps as an opportunity to conduct a full cadastral survey of the country: a comprehensive and detailed register of all the land boundaries in the nation, showing the location, dimensions, ownership, tenure, cultivation, and value of each and every lot. The Napoleonic cadastral survey—the results of which were calculated by de Prony and his team of computing hairdressers—had been followed by similar surveys in Austria, Bavaria, Savoy, and Piedmont. There were many advantages to such a detailed mapping of a nation: the resolution of boundary disputes, the simplification of property transfer, the identification of the best routes for new roads, canals, and railways, and the pinpointing of zones where government investment in making improvements would be most beneficial. It would also be useful for the administration of the New Poor Law: the maps would indicate clearly how much each landowner owed in poor rates.
Dawson estimated—probably underestimated—that a full c
adastral survey would take five years, at a total cost of £1.5 million (at 9 pence per acre for the land survey and 3 pence per acre for the valuation). The maps would be at a scale of 26.7 inches to a mile, drawn by triangulation using fixed lines between tall edifices—churches, windmills, obelisks. The maps would be coded with symbols to show at a glance how the land was used: hops, wheat, or oat fields, orchards, pasture, and woodland would all be clearly visible.115 As Whewell’s cotidal maps did for the world’s oceans, and Herschel’s star maps did for the skies, the tithe maps as envisioned by Jones and Dawson would allow a viewer to take in, with a single look, a complete understanding of the whole extent of the rural land of England and Wales.116
It soon became obvious, however, that neither the landowners nor the Church would be willing to pay for this nationwide mapping endeavor. The tithe commissioners wrote to Thomas Spring Rice, the chancellor of the exchequer (equivalent to our treasury secretary), requesting that the government defray some of the costs. Spring Rice appointed a parliamentary committee in March 1837, which reported two months later that the extensive mapping was not required. It was a blow to Jones, but he was not surprised: he had seen Babbage struggle with the attempt to get the government to fund a project whose motivation was greater accuracy, and he had taken note of the lukewarm response. Once again the government was unwilling to pay for increased precision, this time precision in mapping the British nation.
The Philosophical Breakfast Club Page 24
