Notes Chapter 1: Introduction 1. Sources for the quotations are: Einstein, cited in Carr (1987, p. 164), Thompson (1978, p. 36) and Marx (1978a, p. 64). For all quotations, words in italics have been emphasized in the original, unless otherwise noted. 2. One might make an argument that England in the early modern era cannot be studied as a nation, because of differences in natural landscapes and soils; farming regions (arable, pastoral and mixed); tenure, field systems and common rights; the levels of industrialization; and so on. One could also suggest that England did not have a single welfare system because, in the south and east, a larger percentage of people received relief and the per capita rates of relief were higher than those in the north and west (King, 2000). Acceptance of this argument would have made this book an impossib- ility so, needless to say, it is an argument I reject. Chapter 3 will establish that England was, from the late medieval era onwards, politically, economic- ally and legally uniform, a ‘united kingdom’. To focus solely on distinctions within the country while foregoing any attempt to see the bigger picture is to overlook much. However, there is no need to abandon ‘macro’ analyses, especially given that the consequences of the differences noted above are often immaterial. They were not responsible for creating substantial social heterogeneity. Furthermore, the (apparent) differences themselves are often overstated. For example, Joan Thirsk (1987, p. 25) has observed that there were numerous types of farming undertaken within any ‘region’. A map that tried to distinguish farming regions would quickly end up looking like a puzzle with about a hundred tiny pieces, of nearly a dozen different colours, inter- mixed almost at random. In addition, while there were disparities in early modern England in the rates of poor relief between north and south, similar divisions exist to this day, notably in the United States, yet we would never deny that it has some semblance of a ‘national’ welfare state, especially vis-à- vis the overarching legal framework. The same was true of England in terms of settlement laws, judicial decisions with respect to removing individuals from one parish to another, dozens of acts of Parliament (in particular the acts of 1597–1598 and 1601) and so forth. Even the variations in amounts given to the poor in England can be best explained, I suggest, by the depth of presence of capitalist social relations, deep first in the south then later in the north. In the south and east, it was not the case, as King (2000, p. 268) maintained, that more generous practices had ‘created a raft of “welfare junkies” whose first response when faced with life-cycle stress was to turn to the poor law’, whereas in the north and west there was ‘a culture of self-reliance and making do’ which saw poor relief as a ‘last resort’. I hope this book will contribute, among other things, to greater scepticism of such ‘explanations’. 211 212 Notes 3. I would like to make clear that this book is not the work of an archival historian; hence, I trust it will not be criticized on the grounds that it is ‘almost entirely dependent on secondary literature’. That would be to miss the point. My ambition is not to add to the large number of case studies on English poor relief, but rather to make a contribution to sociological theory, in particular by reassessing our understanding of ‘welfare’. 4. Ian Gough (1979, pp. 44–5) has provided a similar definition, whereby the welfare state is ‘the use of state power to modify the reproduction of labour power and to maintain the non-working population in capitalist societies’. 5. An argument can be made that current welfare states like those in Sweden, Japan, Great Britain, the United States, Canada and so on, are ‘different’ in terms of the range of activities they undertake, the quality of benefits provided, the groups that are targeted for assistance and the amount of wealth that is redistributed. However, I believe one could easily maintain, in contrast to the uniqueness of the English case in the early modern era, that what stands out in early twenty-first century advanced capitalism is not the differ- ences between these welfare states but their striking similarities, a product of capitalism’s increasing globalization and its virtual law-like imposition of homogeneity on most aspects of social life, welfare included. Chapter 2: Capitalist and precapitalist societies 1. A modified version of this article has been reprinted as Chapter 1 of Wood (1995). 2. Saunders (1995, pp. 18–27) went on to note some of the unique features of England, though exploitation (surplus appropriation) played no part in this story. 3. See also Holton (1986, pp. 61–2) who concluded that ‘the notion “town air makes free” is for the most part an over-inflated piece of historical mythology of relatively minor significance in the explanation of capitalist development’. 4. Their contributions, and others, are collected in Hilton (1978). 5. See also E. Wood (1994, 2002a, 2002b) for a discussion of market forces as an imperative as opposed to an opportunity. Chapter 3: The development of capitalism in England, c. 1300–1860 1. Taxes would have been paid, in general, by the upper landed classes but this was wealth that had been created, for the most part, by those who worked the soil. 2. For details on what differentiated freehold from more servile forms of tenure, see Comninel (2000, pp. 22–31). This article also pointed to the unique struc- ture of manorial lordship, as opposed to the seigneurie banale in France, as a critical factor in the development of capitalism in England. 3. Common law courts finally recognized the standing of customary tenants after about 1550 and especially after 1570. For a long time, these courts saw the resolution of disputes between lords and copyholders as the role of manorial Notes 213 justice. It is not clear why protection for copyholders was finally bestowed by the common law courts (Gray, 1963). 4. This is not to suggest that state officials had a thorough understanding of the transformation that was occurring, or that they discussed it in terms of an emerging ‘capitalist’ economy (for example, when framing acts of Parlia- ment). Legislation did not see the poor as the victims of capitalism per se. Nevertheless, prominent writers in sixteenth-century England did grapple with the alterations that were unfolding in their socioeconomic environment, so reformers like Sir Thomas More and Sir Thomas Smith ‘might be called the pioneer observers, if unwitting ones, not only of the forging of a modern state but also of the social results of early capitalist enterprise’ (N. Wood, 1994, p. 3). See also Wood and Wood (1997). 5. The difference between Brenner and Lazonick probably rests on Brenner’s assertion that competitive market pressures were felt by tenants before, and as a prerequisite to, mass proletarianization. 6. King (1989) notes that after 1788 a claim to gleaning could still be made under local, customary law. It was not the law so much as technology that eliminated the practice. After 1850 or so, especially as the result of reaping machines, there was hardly any wheat left on the ground to be gleaned. Chapter 4: English poor relief, c. 1350–1795 1. E.M. Leonard (1965, p. 294) made a similar observation when she concluded that the difference between England and places like France and Scotland ‘was mainly caused by the coexistence in England of a Privy Council active in matters concerning the poor and of a powerful body of county and municipal officers who were willing to obey the Privy Council’. 2. In the early nineteenth century, of the 15,535 parishes in England and Wales, 737 had fewer than 50 residents, 1907 had 50–100 residents, 6681 had 100–300 residents, 5353 had 300–800 residents, while 1521 parishes had a population of more than 800 (King, 2000, p. 7). 3. Cited in Slack (1990, p. 12), who was quoting a monastic visitation injunction of 1535–1536. 4. For two excellent, detailed surveys of poor relief, with copious extracts from the overseers’ accounts, see Ashby (1912) and Emmison (1933). 5. It should be mentioned as well that poor relief could be very important in the life of an individual over an extended period. For a complete list of payments to one woman (a widow, Ann Foster) over 25 years (1669–1693), see Smith (1998, pp. 80–1). 6. The Privy Council distributed a Book of Orders in 1586–1587, 1594, 1595, 1608, 1622 and 1630. 7. It is difficult to ascertain whether or not houses of correction were an indica- tion of a much more punitive attitude towards the poor. They probably were a reflection of a harsher view in their years of origin in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The idea that a poor person could be virtually imprisoned must have struck many as ‘cruel and unusual’. However, I am inclined to agree with David Thomson’s (1991, p. 213) assertion that in the long run 214 Notes we need to see persisting across several centuries a substantial core of belief and practice, with movement around that core taking the form of fairly regular cyclical oscillations, rather than of marked shifts in new directions. The sensitive historian of social welfare must be struck by the repetitive circularity of welfare debates and practices. In a great many instances welfare commentators in one period have resorted, quite unconsciously, to the precise words and phrases, as well as the general modes of thought, of a much earlier time.