Abstract
In this paper, it is argued that the industrial revolution in eighteenth century Great Britain had its origins in the arrival of 100,000–140,000 Protestant refugees in England and Ireland in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Specifically, it is argued that their arrival prompted both Schmooklerian pull and push factors. The pull factor was the thousands of refugee merchants and ship owners/captains to England and Ireland resulting in the creation of the Protestant International (1550-1750). This increased the demand for tradables which in turn spurred invention and innovation among refugees (push factor) and their descendants as well as in the local population. These factors were self-reinforcing, leading in time to the industrial revolution. The result is a novel account of the origins of the industrial revolution, one that is consistent with competing explanations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It is estimated that between 50,000–80,000 refugees arrived after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in1685, and between 50,000-60,000 between 1550 and 1685 (Gwynn, 2015).
Further evidence of the elite nature of the refugees is the Edict of Potsdam 1685, issued by Frederick Willem, Elector of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, in the hope of attracting as many refugees as possible to Brandenburg.
The refugees in question were of Flemish, Walloon and French origin.
Formally, their arrival can be seen as the trigger that prompted both pull and push forces, resulting ultimately in the industrial revolution. This view differs from Davis (2005) who focused on the role of British overseas trade without making the connection between pull and push factors. According to the Schmooklerian view developed here, the two are related, with innovation being the result of the demand for output.
Stanwood (2019) referred to the resulting diaspora and network as the Global Refuge.
Moykr (1977) asked: “If technological change occurred when ‘demand conditions were ripe,’ what changed in this respect in the late eighteenth century?” This paper answers this question by invoking the arrival of tens of thousands of Protestant refugees in the late seventeenth century/early eighteenth century.
Calvinism also solved one of the moral dilemmas of the Middle Ages, namely that of usury. It was generally held that private merchants (not chartered merchants and companies) were fundamentally immoral (witness the Greek god of commerce, Hermès, who was also the god of thieves). Calvinism, with its emphasis on predestination and self-revelation, solved this problem. To cheat (i.e., overcharge) would be anathema to a form of self-condemnation/self-indictment. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that the Bank of England was founded by, among others, refugee descendants, the most renowned being the Houblon brothers, John and James.
This differs from Mokyr (1977) which attempted to discriminate between demand and supply factors in the industrial revolution. The Schmooklerian approach combines both and, as such, is not mutually exclusive.
It is worthwhile to point out that Francis Bacon, the father of what Joel Mokyr refers to as the Baconian Program, was a Calvinist.
Both were the result of the arrival of 100,000–140,000 Protestant refugees in England, prompting a major shift in the merchant and industrial culture.
If ten percent of the refugees were merchants (a conservative estimate), then the ranks of the British merchant class would have increased by 10,000 -14,000 members, which by all measures is considerable.
“In spite of all the promises of the Lords Justices to the Irish Parliament in 1698, no new encouragement was given to the Irish linen industry until after the lapse of seven years. We have seen that during these years the poverty of Ireland was extreme, but a few seeds of prosperity were being sown by the immigration of many Protestant traders and manufacturers. Already in 1697 William III. had invited Louis Crommelin, a Huguenot refugee, to come over to Ireland and superintend the linen manufacture. Crommelin's family had carried on the industry in France for more than four hundred years, and he himself had been head of an extensive linen manufacture in Picardy. In 1698 he came over to Ireland and fixed on Lisburn, ten miles south-west of Belfast, as the best place for establishing his new manufacture. The King appointed him ‘Overseer of the Royal Linen Manufactory of Ireland,’ and in 1699 granted him a patent.” (Murray, 1903, p. 116).
The Asiento, obtained by the South Sea Company in the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, contributed greatly to increasing the British presence in the slave trade. The Hollow Sword Company which became the South Sea Company had been founded by refugee sword makers in 1691. Many of its directors and subscribers had identifiable refugee surnames.
In Smithian terms, refugee merchants were involved in extending the markets, making specialization and innovation all the more profitable and thus, more likely.
It is the authors’ view that the Watt external condenser steam engine and the Watt-Boulton double-acting steam engine were the key developments, without which the industrial revolution would have not occurred. A reading of the history of their partnership reveals that Boulton was the driving force behind the double-acting steam engine that would go on to define the industrial revolution.
While little is known of his background (the Lombe surname is common in France), his involvement in the silk industry would seem to suggest that he was a descendant of refugees. Another important contributor was another refugee descendant, Thomas Cotchett of Norwich.
Moykr (2010) made a similar point, namely that the arrival of the refugees after 1685 was a contributing factor to the development of a class of skilled workmen/mechanics. This paper refines his argument by extending the period over which these skilled craftsmen migrated to England, back to the late sixteenth century.
Nonetheless, there is every reason to believe that what happened in Germany also happened in other refugee host countries, notably the Netherlands and Switzerland. For example, Scoville (1960) documented in great detail what he referred to as the transfer of technology associated with the arrival of refugees in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland and South Africa.
The separation of church and purse (i.e., finance) occurred in the aftermath of the South Sea Bubble when the Bank of England extended its domination of the City of London with its oversight of the South Sea Company and East India Company. From then on, London enjoyed greater autonomy from Westminster, laying the basis for a sound financial sector, a key ingredient in the success of the industrial revolution.
It could be argued that the refugee diaspora/exodus propelled England, and to a lesser degree Holland, to the forefront of the Atlantic economy, and hindered France’s position owing to the loss of thousands of merchants, artisans and tinkerers.
References
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2005). The rise of Europe: Atlantic trade institutional change and economic growth. American Economic Review, 95(3), 546–579.
Allen, R. C. (2009). The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Beaudreau, B.C. (2020). The Economics of Speed: Machine Speed as the Key Factor in Productivity.Zurich: Springer Nature.
Bosher, J. F. (1995). Huguenot merchants and the Protestant International in the seventeenth century. The William and Mary Quarterly, 52(1), 77–102.
Broadberry, S., & Gupta, B. (2009). Lancashire, India, and the shifting competitive advantage in cotton textiles. Economic History Review, 62(2), 279–305.
Cantor, G. (2005). Quakers, Jews and Science: Religious Responses to Modernity and the Sciences in Britain, 1650–1900. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cole, W. A. (1973). Eighteenth-century economic growth revisited. Explorations in Economic History, 10(4), 327–348.
Davis, R. (1979). The Industrial Revolution and British Overseas Trade. London, UK: Leicester University Press.
Davis, R. (2005). Atlantic Trade and the British Economy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
de Vries, J. (1994). The Industrial Revolution and the Industrious Revolution. Journal of Economic History, 54(2), 249–270.
Deane, W. A., & Cole, P. (1964). British Economic Growth 1688–1959; Trends and Structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Encyclopedia Britannica. (2021). On-Line Encyclopedia Britannica. www.britannica.com.
ERPI Classroom Films Inc. (1942). The Industrial Revolution. https://archive.org/details/0199_Industrial_Revolution_The_18_00_33_05.
Evans, C. (2010). Slave Wales: The Welsh and Atlantic Slavery 1660–1850. Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press.
Foote, W. H. (1870). The Huguenots, or Reformed French Church. Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication.
Gauci, P. (2001). The politics of trade. The overseas merchant in state and society, 1660–1720. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gilboy, E.W. (1932). Demand as a Factor in the Industrial Revolution. In: A. H. Cole (Ed.), Facts and Factors in Economic History, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grace’s Guide. (2021). Grace's Guide to British Industrial History, John Lombe. https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/John_Lombe.
Gwynn, R. (2008). Huguenots in English Sea Port Towns in the Late Seventeenth Century. Kobe, Japan: Kobe University Repository.
Gwynn, R. (2015). The Huguenots in Later Stuart Britain, Volume I: Crisis, Renewal and Ministers’ Dilemma. Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press.
Hornung, E. (2014). Immigration and the diffusion of technology: The Huguenot diaspora in Prussia. American Economic Review, 104(1), 84–122.
Jones, P. M. (2008). Minorities and the culture of science and technology. A case study of Birmingham Dissenters 1760–1820. Documents Pour L’histoire Des Techniques, 15, 58–65.
Lachenicht, S. (2016). The Huguenots’ Maritime Networks, 16th-18th Centuries. In: D. Freist & S. Lachenicht (Eds.), Connecting Worlds and People: Early Modern Diasporas, London, UK: Routledge.
Mayo, R. (1985). The Huguenots in Bristol. Bristol, UK: Bristol Branch of the Historical Association.
McCloskey, D. (2010). Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K. (1938). Science, technology and society in seventeenth century England. Osiris, 4, 360–632.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Puritanism, Pietism, and Science. In: R. K. Merton (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure, New York, NY: The Free Press.
Mokyr, J. (1977). Demand versus supply in the industrial revolution. Journal of Economic History, 37(4), 981–1005.
Moykr, J. (2010). The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain, 1700–1850. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Murdoch, T. (1985). Quiet Conquest: Huguenots 1685–1985. London, UK: Museum of London.
Murray, A.E. (1903). History of the Commercial and Financial Relations between England and Ireland from the Period of the Restoration. (https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/murray/HistoryCommericial.pdf)
North, D. C., & Weingast, B. R. (1989). Constitutions and commitment: The evolution of institutional governing public choice in seventeenth-century England. The Journal of Economic History, 49(4), 803–832.
Rostow, W. W. (1975). How It All Began: The Origins of the Modern Economy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schilling, H. (1983). Innovation through migration: The settlements of Calvinistic Netherlanders in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Central and Western Europe. Histoire sociale—Social History, 16(31), 7–33.
Schmookler, J. (1962). Economic sources of inventive activity. The Journal of Economic History, 22(1), 1–20.
Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Scoville, W. C. (1960). The Persecution of Huguenots and French Economic Development, 1680–1720. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Stanwood, O. (2019). The Global Refuge: Huguenots in an Age of Empire. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tattersfield, N. (2011). The Forgotten Trade: Comprising the Log of the Daniel and Henry of 1700 and Accounts of the Slave Trade from the Minor Ports of England 1698–1725. London, UK: Random House.
Thomas, R. P., & McCloskey, D. (1984). Overseas Trade and Empire (1700-1820). In: R. Floud & D. McCloskey (Eds.), The Economic History of Britain, 1700-Present. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wadsworth, A. P., & Mann, J. D. (1965). The Cotton Trade and Lancashire, 1600–1780. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Weber, M. (2002). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: And Other Writings. London, UK: Penguin Books.
Williams, E. (1944). Capitalism and Slavery. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Wood, P. (2004). Science and Dissent in England, 1688–1945. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Wrigley, E. A. (2010). Energy and the English Industrial Revolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Beaudreau, B.C. Protestant Refugees, the Calvinist Ethic and the Industrial Revolution. Atl Econ J 49, 273–291 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-021-09725-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-021-09725-2