Agricultural History Review, Volume 57 Part 1 (2009), p. 137

This book seeks to argue that English poor relief was unique, developing from the sixteenth century as a direct product of the ‘exploitative social relations’ (p.4) of agrarian capitalism. It is intellectually stimulating, and to the unwary or misinformed might be a convincing account of the rise of capitalism in England and the role of the coercive forces of the capitalist state in this process. It is argued that state-controlled social welfare first developed in England as a product of the class relations of agrarian capitalism. State-controlled welfare is portrayed as being the corollary of privatized exploitation, and a means by which to remove the economically ‘useless’ from the labour market. By providing this economic safety net, poor relief delivered long-term social and political stability within which capitalism could flourish, marking England out as singularly unique.

Patriquin writes from a decidedly Marxist perspective. Chapter one briefly introduces and summarizes the main arguments of the book. Chapter two provides the theoretical basis, not least of which is a summary of Brenner’s thesis regarding the emergence of agrarian capitalism – discredited by some, but clearly not by Patriquin. Chapter three reviews the development of capitalism in England from 1300 to 1860, discussing the rise of agrarian capitalism, the decline of customary law, tenurial systems, the impact of enclosure, and the advent of industrial capitalism. The chapter finishes with a discussion comparing the ‘capitalist state’ of England with the absolutist state of France. Chapters four and five review English poor relief from c.1350 to 1834, within the context of the theoretical framework, agrarian capitalism, privatized exploitation and the capitalist state. It is argued that poor relief was compensation for the loss of common land, and for the ‘landed classes … was the price to be paid for an “improved” method of exploitation’ (p.115). The loss of status, detachment from the means of production, and the subordination of the working class were confirmed by the ‘crowning achievement’ of capitalism: the New Poor Law. Chapter six emphasizes the uniqueness of the English experience by drawing comparisons with Ireland, Scotland, France and Germany. The conclusion summarizes the main argument, briefly discusses the post-1860 period, makes some observations about America’s social welfare reforms of recent years and speculates about the future of social welfare.

As an empiricist, I value historical evidence and the careful construction of evidential arguments; as a theoretician Patriquin is less concerned about balanced evidence, and concentrates instead on thinking through his grand narrative, drawing on selected secondary texts when deemed to be available or appropriate. My concern is that many (but by no means all) of these secondary texts are either elderly, or would not be considered mainstream by most British scholars. Indeed, there are some very notable gaps in the literature, leading to conclusions and statements that readers of this journal might find somewhat surprising, simplistic or dismissive of wider debates, including statements such as: ‘All enclosures … had a detrimental effect on the village economy’ (p.56); or that ‘Large farms … meant that a subsistence crisis would never happen again’ (p.60).

In the discussion on enclosure, the work of Neeson is prominent, but no mention is made of Leigh Shaw Taylor’s criticisms, or of Michael Turner’s contributions. Alan Macfarlane’s work on English individualism is not acknowledged, and the output of many British agricultural historians too numerous to mention is simply not referred to at all. Such omissions are unforgivable and are not mere oversights. Patriquin simply does not engage with any literature that detracts from his argument.

My criticism here is not merely a form of intellectual xenophobia. Patriquin’s version of the rise of agrarian capitalism in England out of which emerged the first industrial capitalist nation is simplistic; his understanding of rural social structures and agricultural change are unconvincing; his awareness of the complexities of English society and economy simply not sufficiently demonstrated. The role of the market and of demography is largely unacknowledged. There is no real coverage of the debate over the periodization, scale and pace of agricultural change; and no attempt at all is made to understand the significant regional variations in the development of rural society, agricultural practices, and, crucially, in social structure. In common with much Marxist history, people are represented as classes who either act, or are acted upon by others, according to predetermined economic functions.

Thus, the emergence of agrarian capitalism is deemed important, but the processes of agricultural change, the nature of the agricultural revolution, and the role of landlords, farmers and labourers (and servants) in agricultural change, are poorly developed. This leaves us with largely meaningless statements such as ‘[after 1650] Improvements were made in husbandry, drainage, irrigation, fertilizers, crops and breeds of animals …’ (p.59). This skirting over the surface of much of the detail of agrarian development is a major weakness of the book. Indeed, Patriquin generalizes in ways that are entirely unconvincing, even though to the unwary or misinformed they might be seductive.

It is undeniable that the welfare system formulated in the sixteenth century strived to serve the welfare needs of society until the early nineteenth century. However, Patriquin’s explanatory framework is based entirely on an unquestioning assumption that Robert Brenner was right both in terms of the agrarian origins of English capitalism and the periodization of English (and European) history. This argument might be more convincing if Patriquin had addressed the concerns of the Brenner’s detractors. That he did not is much to his discredit.

Similarly, there is sleight of hand in the discussion of the emergence of industrial capitalism. Even if we accept (and many do not) that England could be considered a fully-fledged agrarian capitalist economy in 1600, this does not in any way apply to the northern half of the country. However, a causal link is made between early modern agrarian capitalism and the emergence of modern industrial capitalism without any discussion of the nature of this link and the intervening developmental stages. There is a lengthy discussion on enclosure, suggesting that this was a crucial aspect of this process by establishing private ownership and eradicating common rights. However, when put under close scrutiny, comments such as ‘[The] massive reorganisation of the economy, concentrated in the years 1830–1880, was made possible by the capitalization of agriculture that had been taking place since the sixteenth century’ (p.68) are not convincing.

Enclosure is clearly an important aspect of English rural history in the period 1750 to 1850, and Parliament’s involvement in this is crucial to Patriquin’s argument, but the chronology, nature and location of parliamentary enclosure shows that it had almost no connection at all with the emergence of industrial capitalism. Patriquin simply fails to provide a convincing account of exactly how agrarian capitalism developed into industrial capitalism. In the literature generally there is little evidence for the large-scale transfer of surplus food, capital or labour, or even political ideas, welfare systems (i.e. Speenhamland) or culture, from southern counties of ‘agrarian capitalism’ to northern counties of ‘industrial capitalism’. Despite the discussion on welfare systems and protest (ch.5), Speenhamland was confined to a relatively small region; Swing had no northern counterpart; anti-poor law protest was largely confined to the north of England; the industrial regions of Lancashire and Yorkshire were sustained by thriving, commercial family farms; farm service flourished as part of northern capitalist farming long after it had been virtually eradicated from the south. Within this context, it is difficult to sustain an argument about the direct relationship between the emergence of a fully-fledged agrarian capitalist economy in 1600 and industrial capitalism in 1800.

What is more convincing is Patriquin’s argument regarding the role of the state in economic development. Indeed, whereas his understanding of British economic history is greatly hampered by his theoretical perspective (and his lack of original research), it enhances his insights into the role of the state, providing much food for thought about the role of the state in economic development. However, whether or not the English state was simply a tool of the capitalist is open to question:

The English state changed over the course of a few centuries, from a body that allowed for the possibility of capitalist development, to one that was more eagerly involved in clearing away the social impediments to this new mode of production … [The] English state was also, especially at the local parish level, an active participant in helping those who bore the brunt of socioeconomic changes. (p.78)

The idea that fulfilling ones parochial duty by serving a period as an overseer of the poor made a ratepayer an extension of the state is not convincing to anyone who has spent any time with parochial records. True, overseers may have been unwitting (and, in some cases, unwilling) agents of the state, but most had very narrow horizons, and were concerned with parochial affairs and fulfilling their duties of office. These ‘middle sort’ undoubtedly saw themselves as being part of parochial ‘society’, but I doubt that many of them saw themselves as being part of even regional ‘society’ and certainly not members or representatives of a local state: unpaid parochial office simply does not make an individual a state official.

There may, of course, be a dissonance between the capitalist state’s requirement for a system of social welfare and the aims of the local individuals charged with implementing national policy. Indeed, with the latter there is considerable scope for welfare to be altruistic, theologically based, humanitarian, paternalistic, or simply motivated by a desire to preserve social stability. Nevertheless, the above quote suggests that social welfare provided by capitalist states is by necessity underhanded, dishonest and self-serving. Analysis of the old poor law has long been subject to the vagaries of the political outlook of the historian, but it is undoubtedly the case that the lot of the English poor, both before and after 1834, would have been considerably worse had a system of social welfare not been in existence.

Overall this book is intellectually stimulating, if only for the profound sense of disagreement I find with the overall argument. It is a book that encourages reflection, and I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in economic development and social welfare, but I would urge that it ought to be read with great caution. The unnecessary explanations that litter the text, such as the definition of what a settlement examination is (p.130) or even the fact that Patriquin feels it necessary to define for the (American?) reader that a stile is ‘a series of steps on each side of a fence’ (p.114) should not detract from the fact that there is much else within this book that requires considerably more detailed explanation: ‘Poor relief was an important component of the transition to capitalism, notably in southern England’ (p.203). The appended qualifying comment comes a little late in the book, but for Patriquin’s argument to be convincing he needs a conclusion, and a theoretical model, that holds true for England as a whole – and one that can be supported through empirical research. If agrarian capitalism provided the basis for the transition to industrial capitalism, with poor relief being instrumental in that process, then why is it that the economic fortunes of much of southern and eastern England in the period 1600 to 1850 contrasts sharply with that of much of the north of England in the same period? Rather than industrial capitalism springing from agrarian capitalism, counties which might be regarded as more advanced in 1600 de-industrialized over the following two centuries. It was the fragile economic system of northern counties, with a population vulnerable to harvest failure, very low capitalization of farmers, and poor internal communications that was to witness the emergence of industrial capitalism alongside commercial small farms and extremely low levels of pauperization. So, as an intellectually stimulating book, this is worthwhile reading. But as a contribution to our general understanding of the agrarian economy and the role of social welfare within economic development, this book offers little. Indeed, there is empirical research not referenced by Patriquin that does this job much better.