Dear Richard,
I completely agree with Mike... I was thinking what an excellent question
even before reading Mike's post.
The answer as to "normal attitude" is 'not quite', indeed, Joseph
Townsend's view is somewhat enlightened since he has studied and observed the
social impact of what was the infancy of the Industrial Revolution - and it's
general social changes. Somehow, I don't think his Father would have thought
the same about - let alone considered - the social aspects etc. that his
son has carefully observed.
Landowners were in the majority of cases the mineral owners, so they were
not very bothered about the impact of a mine on their land; however, as Mike
very correctly points out, it was the tenant who suffered. However, the
tenant, if not moving to farm elsewhere, would most likely have switched from
farming to mining.
Without going into fine detail, whilst many did loose money, many also made
fortunes. Quite a few held onto their wealth, some lost much or all on
unconnected adventures, and some of course whilst doing very well at one mine
- and riding on the crest of a wave - then proceeded to loose some/most/all
of it on another mining adventure!
It is interesting to note what Joseph Townsend says regarding
sub-adventurers. What he says is perfectly correct, and has been seen many many times
since on all Continents where there have been mining rushes of all kinds.
What one must consider into what Joseph Townsend says about the
sub-adventurers is the social level viewpoint of the times/day... particularly those
sub-adventurers who were successful. The gold rushes of California and Alaska
produced the same scenario: those who lost everything, and those who had
little to nothing and made huge fortunes. There were was an 'in between'
however; these being not as prudent or capable as the far more serious
approached budding up and coming 'Barons'. These 'in betweens' did lead a very wild
life in the way that Joseph Townsend outlines due to the sudden riches
that came upon them - and as often the case did not last long. General human
nature, together with the psychology of those from all backgrounds and
social levels, and their thinking and approach must be considered in this matter
- it is all very different...........
I cite the case of Barney Barnato, who, arriving in South Africa with
nothing from the back streets of London, did, by sheer determination, stamina,
great natural wisdom, become one of the wealthiest men in world, and
created one of the largest business empires. There were briefly many Barney
Barnato's in SA, but only a few kept things together. On the other hand there
was Cecil Rhodes, who, coming from a relatively comfortable background, had a
good start, but, he had a fixed agenda virtually from the very beginning.
There is a parallel even today, and I use both Richard Branson and Alan
Sugar as my examples - both being from completely opposed origins... one only
has to see the Dragon's Den TV prog. to see what does and can happen in
between. I know this is very generalised, but I don't want to write a book
about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There were some who didn't like the moral affects of mining in/on the
community. I was reading only recently about a Shropshire mine where miners were
brought in (I will not say from where), who were hard workers, hard
players, and hard drinkers, and unfortunately became indifferent timekeepers and
were not easy to control. They succeeded in upsetting and offending the
local populace from time to time. However, this is nothing new either:
invariably wherever an outside workforce camp is created, such things just happen.
Oh dear, what I am writing is starting to sound dangerously like a lecture
so I am going to stop now!!!!!!!! Richard, thankyou for starting a very
interesting subject and stimulating the little grey cells!!!
Regards, Bernard
|