The Museum of English Rural Life is one of the best things to do in Reading. Whether on your own or with friends and family, discover our new immersive galleries, research our collections, refresh in our café and relax in our garden.
Did you know
...city families used to pick hops on holiday?
Hop picking holidays allowed city families to earn money. Pickers were paid with tokens, which were used in local shops or exchanged for wages.
Did you know
...Elizabethan mattresses were used for both childbirth and corpses?
Mattresses, plaited from sedges, were made to support a mother during childbirth or a corpse after death. After use it would have been burned.
Did you know
...farmers used to sow seeds by fiddle?
Sowing by hand can be slow and inaccurate. Seed drills were developed in the 1800s to sow seeds quickly in a straight line at regular intervals.
Did you know
...Lady Eve Balfour (1898-1990) was one of the earliest organic farmers and co-founded the Soil Association?
Women continue to play a key role in this movement, with organic farms employing significantly more women than chemical farming.
Did you know
...Suttons Seeds invented the seed packet?
The local Reading firm, founded in 1806, popularised paper packets of seeds for gardeners.
Did you know
...villages often used to run their own fire services?
The National Fire Service was only created in 1941.
Did you know
Our Country Lives - Latest Blog Posts
Our blog explores the people, places and issues of the historic and contemporary English countryside and rural life, uncovering and exploring our collections, the exciting activity around the MERL and the people we with.
Covid-19 is already having a massive economic, social, and psychological impact on rural communities and the farming sector. The impact on mental health and wellbeing will be ongoing, adding to existing pressures. In this post, Dr Sarah Holland of the University of Nottingham explores the historic relationship between rural communities, farming, and mental health. She draws on The MERL’s farming press holdings and on regional newspapers and archives. These sources help show us how countryside crises have been significant triggers to mental ill health in the past. These histories also reveal how a series of consecutive challenges can make problems worse.
The 1865-67 Cattle Plague was well known for causing financial hardship but it also marked a sharp increase in suicides. Inquests into these deaths highlighted the direct correlation between the loss of cattle and suicide, noting farmers who had become ‘low spirited’ or were in ‘a desponding state of mind’ due to the loss of cattle. In one instance, the relationship between the economic challenges and the psychological impact was highlighted, with a report noting:
‘The family appears to have been ruined by the cattle plague, and the approach of rent day without any means of meeting it had preyed on the deceased’s mind’.
Official policy responses were focused on tackling the ‘primary’ issue, the spread and containment of animal disease and animal health. Insurance schemes sought to offer financial support. Media coverage, both in regional newspapers and the agricultural press, also focused on animal disease and financial issues. Moreover, whilst many livestock breeders and fat-stock farmers experienced great hardship, others were thriving, as revealed by this livestock medal. Occasional references were indicative of underlying psychological concerns. One regional newspaper highlighted the emotional as well as the financial investment farming families had made, and the devastating psychological impact of losing livestock.
Within a decade, the agricultural depression had taken hold, exacerbating existing anxieties. Again, suicides were attributed to economic hardship in the agricultural sector, but there was also an increase in the number of farmers, farm labourers and those employed in occupations associated with agriculture (e.g. food processing) admitted to psychiatric institutions. Many of these admissions were attributed to the agricultural depression, with admission records for psychiatric institutions noting the triggers to include ‘loss of employment’, ‘want of success in business’, ‘due to trouble in business’, ‘due to financial difficulties’, and ‘due to loss of cattle and money’. In 1881, The Farmers’ Alliance highlighted the perilous state of farmers’ finances and the effect on their wellbeing, and urged parliamentary intervention, stating that:
‘There were more suicides amongst farmers than any other class; and…in a certain lunatic asylum three-fourths of the inmates were farmers’.
However, in the 1894 Royal Commission on Agricultural Depression there was only one reference to suicide, which attributed to tenancy issues and the inability to pay the rent. In spite of an awareness of the psychological impact on the farming sector, responses which addressed this specific issue were limited in scope. Again, there were those who thrived and prospered, often as a consequence of the misfortune of others. For example, the Forces for Change gallery at The MERL features a wagon that belonged to George Baylis, a farmer, innovator, and improver who profited enormously at a time when so many struggled to make a living. During the 1890s, when many farmers were still feeling the ongoing effects of the agricultural depression, medical professionals noted that outbreaks of influenza meant members of rural communities were further susceptible to mental illness, due to both the long-term impact of the virus and the economic uncertainty and challenges it posed for the farming sector.
Over a span of just thirty years, rural communities and the farming sector have endured a series of consecutive crises which may be seen to have triggered mental health problems. A parallel can be seen here with COVID-19, if set within a 20-year context, with a series of crises impacting on the countryside. These might include the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak, uncertainties surrounding Brexit, and other economic anxieties. During this period, the agricultural press explicitly addressed mental illness within farming communities. In the March/April 2001 issue of The Landworker, a report highlighted that farm suicides were on the increase, with figures ‘the worst for a decade’. Later that year, the November/December issue discussed the long-term effects of foot and mouth, quoting a farm worker who said they felt ‘very hemmed in, both literally and psychologically’ as a result. Official reports still focused primarily on spread and containment, whereas independent reports highlighted the social and psychological impact of the crisis. A more recent report in the September/October 2010 issue of The Landworker highlighted how working long hours in isolation for low wages was putting the farming population, especially younger people, at risk of depression. Moreover, it noted that:
‘Rural areas often lack local services for people to access mental health information and that in many cases people won’t admit to suffering depression because they feel embarrassed about it’.
As rural communities face new challenges posed by Covid-19, they do so in the wake of ongoing anxieties and concerns, and on the cusp of others relating to the future of agriculture and food-related trade. Media reports again indicate the relationship between economic uncertainty and mental ill health, with the frequent use of terms such as ‘heartbreaking’ and specific references to ‘living on tenterhooks’ and ‘feeling a lot of stress and anxiety’. Again, there is potential risk that some companies are quietly capitalising on the situation whilst others teeter on the brink of collapse. Sector-based organisations are playing a crucial role in ensuring that mental health issues arising from the crisis are not forgotten. Farming Safety Foundation, the Farming Community Network, Farming Connect and You Are Not Alone are just some of the groups responding to the current crisis and highlighting the uncertainty and anxiety it is causing, as well as the reluctance of some farmers to acknowledge mental ill health issues. Nevertheless, they need support, resources and recognition, and the ‘voice’ of the countryside should be foregrounded to ensure the psychological challenges being faced by farming and rural communities are not forgotten.
If you or anyone you know is struggling right now there are lots of people who are ready, willing, and able to help. Here are just some of the UK-based organisations you can contact.
The Farm Safety Foundation (Yellow Wellies) is a charity dedicated to supporting physical and mental wellbeing of farmers. They offer useful resources dedicated to mental health, and have produced a booklet on coping with the stress of COVID-19.
The YANA Project is a charity dedicated to promoting mental health awareness within the farming community.
The Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institute is farming’s oldest and largest support charity. They have a dedicated helpline and special resources in response to Covid-19. The MERL is home to the RABI archive.
Finally, if you found this post useful you may also be interested in our online exhibition about Wellbeing and the Countryside, or in this recent post where our curator explores how the farming community comes together in agricultural shows and is moving online in response to Covid-19.
Dr Sarah Holland is an Assistant Professor at the University of Nottingham. Her research focuses on rural communities and rural health histories. Her forthcoming book chapter, ’Narrating and navigating patient experiences of farm work in English psychiatric institutions, 1845-1914’ in J. Meyer and A. Hanley (eds), Patient Voices in Britain, 1860-1948: Historical and Policy Perspectives, examines how patients narrated and navigated their experiences of farm work in English psychiatric institutions. Her book, Farming, Psychiatry and Rural Society: Asylum and Hospital Farms, England, 1845-1955 is due to be published with Routledge in early 2022.
This ‘Contested Countryside’ blog by Felicity McWilliams tells a story from the Museum’s newly acquired archives of the Open Spaces Society, Britain’s oldest national conservation body. It explores the disproportionate impact of a small group of West Berkshire Commoners on the US-USSR nuclear arms race in the 1980s.
Greenham Common is an 855-acre gravel plateau in West Berkshire. It is also probably one of the most famous and controversial commons in England.
Now a pleasant and accessible open space, during the 1980s it had truly international significance as RAF Greenham Common, the home of 96 American ground-launched Tomahawk nuclear cruise missiles. Local and international opposition to the NATO airbase and nuclear weapons led to the ‘Women’s Peace Camp’ movement, which maintained a presence of protesters at its perimeter fence from 1980 until the early 2000s.
Women from the Peace Camp even made intrusions onto the base, cutting or climbing the perimeter fence to dance on the roof of nuclear missile silos and once to host a picnic dressed as teddy bears. They risked arrest and imprisonment to bring international attention to their calls for nuclear disarmament. However, they were not the only non-military personnel who wanted to gain access to the common on which the base stood. On 3 September 1988, with the backing of the Open Spaces Society, four local commoners arrived at the main gate and demanded entry to exercise their legal right to walk, graze cattle and dig gravel on the common.
Despite the end of the war and the best efforts of several organisations to get the land returned permanently to the people of Newbury, it remained in military use for most of the rest of the twentieth century. In 1960, the Newbury Corporation officially ‘conveyed’ the land to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) under the condition that underlying commoners’ rights remained unaffected and that the common would revert to the control of the Corporation when it was no longer required for defence. In the context of the Cold War, however, with Britain’s NATO ally, the USA, seeking to maintain a military presence in Europe, that time seemed a long way off.
By the 1970s RAF Greenham Common was re-activated as a US airbase. Many local and international groups protested against the plans, but the Crookham & Greenham Commoners’ Association informed the Open Spaces Society in 1978 of its strategic decision not to oppose the US military use of the Common. It argued: ‘at the present time and in these circumstances we would prefer the continued maintenance of the airfield in operational condition rather than for it to be abandoned or to be changed to some other use which could well be more detrimental to the amenities of our members than the present use.’
The aims of the different individuals and organisations involved were to clash on a number of occasions as each sought to bring local, national and international attention to their own particular priorities. For the commoners, that was securing long-term access to Greenham, even if that meant temporarily abandoning their rights to the military in the short-term. For the protestors at the Women’s Peace Camp the priorities included both the removal of nuclear weapons from Greenham in particular, and ideally the wider nuclear dis-armament of both sides in the Cold War. For Newbury District Council, the ongoing presence of the Peace Camp protestors was––to put it plainly––a bit of a headache. In response to apparent pressure ‘from above’ to deal with the problem, the council revoked all local rights of access to the common in order to be able to issue injunctions against trespass to protestors. This earned it the anger and derision of the Open Spaces Society, who pointed out that the council had already had the power to evict those who camped or lit fires on the common. Instead of using those powers to remove the protestors, the council had unnecessarily revoked all access to the common.
As unlikely as it sounds, the society’s involvement in the case of Greenham Common was further reawakened as a direct result of the terms of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. Under the treaty, the US military had an obligation to provide accommodation for a team of up to ten Soviet inspectors to visit the airbase up to three times a year. Yet as had been highlighted by a number of legal cases brought by Peace Camp protestors (to the frustration of the commoners themselves who had not wanted to antagonise the MoD), a side-effect of the way the MoD had acquired the land was that many of the structures it had built there were technically unlawful. Any additional structures, such as the new accommodation block planned for the Soviet inspectors, could cause more legal difficulties. The MoD’s chosen solution, despite the considerable forbearance shown to it by the Commoners’ Association up to that point, was to exercise its legal right compulsorily to purchase the commoners’ rights and be done with the whole messy situation.
For the Open Spaces Society, Greenham was an important test case. It wanted to ensure that no dangerous precedents were set for the numerous other commons in which the MoD maintained an ongoing interest. While the chairman of the Commoners’ Committee wanted to seek a compromise with the MoD, the Open Spaces Society lent its considerable experience and support to others who wanted to take a more adversarial approach. Although this strategy brought it into conflict with other groups, it was consistent with the society’s general attitude towards the protection of commons and rights of way which had developed since its earliest years, to take direct action to exert existing legal rights wherever possible. The society felt that every compromise would chip away at rights of access to common land, piece by piece. In the case of Greenham, it put pressure on the MoD by educating commoners about their rights, encouraging them to make regular excursions onto the base, and advising them on how to take legal action against the unlawful military structures.
Most of the unlawful structures the Open Spaces Society dealt with were house extensions and garages, rather than the missile silos holding the West’s Cold War nuclear deterrent. The wider geopolitical issues, however, were not going to deter the society from sticking to its long-held principle of fighting every encroachment on the rights of access to common land. Writing to the Editor of The Guardian in 1983, Duncan Mackay (then deputy secretary of the society) warned:
‘This society has been attempting, since its foundation in 1865, to obtain a legal right of public access to all common land in order that the public should have some say in its future use. The example of Greenham Common shows just how fragile that public right can be…’
In the 1980s and 90s the Open Spaces Society was also involved with the Commons Again’ campaign which worked with Newbury District Council (now West Berkshire Council) in fighting and pressuring the MoD regarding the extinguishment of commoners’ rights. The campaigners facilitated discussions for all interested parties, and the society and other campaigners ultimately espoused the view that the land should be protected from civil development.
Members of the Open Spaces Society were also in contact with MPs. The MoD intended to buy out and extinguish commoners’ rights which could then enable the de-registration of the common. Commons Again’ also staged events such as temporary public occupation of a small area of the commons to demonstrate that the rights of the commoners were still extant.
The Open Spaces Society continued throughout the 1990s and early 2000s to fight for Crookham and Greenham Commons, especially against encroachment, and it objected to developments such as car parks.
In 1999 the society played an important part in the development of the Crookham and Greenham Commons Bill and with the British Horse Society, and others, it submitted a petition to parliament and gave evidence to the bill committee. This bill became an act in 2002. After more than half a century, it re-established and reasserted commoners’ rights, and a right for the public to walk over the whole area, and for riders and cyclists to follow defined tracks over Greenham and Crookham Commons.
In the 1990s the land was purchased by the Greenham Common Trust. Now, from the new visitor centre and café in the old air control tower, visitors can see across the vast former runway to the old missile silos, among which anybody can now walk, and commoners’ cattle once again graze.
Find out more about the history of the Open Spaces Society on our latest online exhibition or our blog about the acquisition of the Society’s archives.
The Open Spaces Society is generously funding the 2020-2021 MERL Fellowship. Learn about what it will involve and how you can apply on our Fellowships page.
by Rhea Douglas, Learning Officer