Although there is much evidence that Agriculture before 1750 was ‘wealthy and developing’, some historians, such as M. Falkus, have argued that agriculture was underdeveloped and almost stagnant. He claims that primitive farming methods were being employed, and according to C. More, “It took endless human toil to plough the land and sew the crops, which then produced a meagre return.” One of the main reasons for this could have been the three-field system, which some historians believed to be ‘backward’, as it dated back to the sixteenth century, when the feudal system had been used. This appears to be evidence that there was little change, and almost stagnation between the sixteenth and mid eighteenth century. Also, C More claims “Technology and understanding of plant and animal life was limited.” This would have meant that much more work would have been required in the mid-eighteenth century then it would have needed today, and explains why there had to be such a large workforce.
When considering whether agriculture was ‘wealthy and developed’ or ‘poor and backward’ we must bear in mind that geography severely limited progress in some areas. As claimed by J.V Beckett, more progressive areas such as East Anglia, improvements were seen as early as the 1580s, indicating a tendency towards ‘wealthy and developing’. However, in other areas, progression may not have been seen for two hundred years in areas such as the North-West. In Scotland, there was great famine in the 1690s, which is evidence that there was very little productivity in that area (R. Brown). Methods that had been employed in the past had a great influence on methods of farming used in different regions. This meant that in some areas, there could be considerably less effective methods being used than in other areas. Fundamentally, though agriculture was a very important part of British economy, there were areas that saw very little development before 1750.
By 1750, trade and transport were beginning to become an important part of the British economy. Other sectors such as Agriculture and Industry relied on transportation methods to transfer products from one place to another to sell.
There were three main types of transport, which were all beginning to show improvement, though in varying levels of significance. These were, (in perceived order of importance): Transport along navigable rivers, transport by road, and by coastal shipping.
Transport along navigable rivers was improving constantly by 1750. Since Britain had a relatively small land mass, much smaller than other Europeans countries such as Holland and France, transport costs were kept low and ideas could be spread much more easily. As stated in J Chartres, “By 1721…acts had been secured for [the improvement of] among others, the Stour, Wye, Medway, Great Ouse, Colne, Tyne, Aire and Calder, Trent, Bristol, Avon, Derwent, Douglas, Idle, Kennet, Weaver, Mersey and Irwell.” This indicates a developing waterway infrastructure, which undoubtedly supports the opinion that the river system was eminently ‘wealthy and developing’ M Falkus states that between the 1690s and 1725, the length of navigable rivers increased by over 2,000 miles.
Despite the fact that there was evidence of improvement, however, some sources argue that it showed little significance. For example, P Mathias claims that “Canal age began in the 1750s with improvements before that piecemeal and no great capital investment taking place in transport.” This would tend to indicate the very embryonic nature of river transport before 1750, since there was evidently little wide spread adoption of ‘revolutionary’ techniques such as canals.
Road transport was also exhibiting signs of improvement. Turnpikes (roads which provided capital for improvements by charging people to travel along them) were, according to K Morgan, far advanced as an innovation as 1750, and were fully networked by 1770. Even “By 1730, 57% of the 1560 route miles of the 13 main roads to the capital had been turnpiked; another 31% was added by 1750, leaving only 182 miles to be so improved.” This could be said to be a pioneering phase of network development up to the 1740s and 1750s. It is evident to see how ‘wealthy and developing’ turnpike roads were in 1750 when we consult M Falkus’ statistics of journey times to London. In 1700, a journey from Edinburgh by stagecoach to London took 256 hours. By 1750, because of the improvements in roads by turnpiking, this time had been halved to only 150 hours. Overall, there was definitely evidence of rapid development of roads in certain areas of the country
Despite the substantial proof for the argument that road transport was very developed by 1750, some historians believe that there only was perceptible improvement after the end of the 18th century. According to J Chartres, “Up to the 1750s, services to London predominated and inter provincial links were few.” Some historians, such as M Falkus, believe that the introduction of turnpikes only occurred where individuals used initiative. There did not appear to be any sort of ‘system’. Moreover, even in 1836 there were still 106,000 miles of road still under parish control (not turnpiked).
Road development was very much restricted by geographical factors. According to M Falkus, even in 1750 many important regions like Birmingham, Staffordshire and South Wales were not properly connected. The only really ‘wealthy and developing’ areas were based around the capital. “Growth was slow, uneven and mainly concentrated on routes in and out of London.”
According to N. Tonge, “British shipping was the largest and most powerful in the world” around the middle of the eighteenth century. Coastal traffic was well developed and well organised before 1700, with London receiving goods from the North East, grain from Norfolk and stone from the West Country. New harbours in Newhaven and Littlehampton had been constructed by the 1740s (J. Chartres), and wet docks were making an appearance by the turn of the century at Rotherhithe (1700) and Liverpool (1709). These advancements greatly contributed to the amount of foreign trade as well as domestic trade. However, many products that were imported into Britain exceeded, in quality and price, the products made by the British themselves. Examples of these were French silks, Venetian glass and Indian cotton goods. It could be said that British shipping, though very effective, could have shown signs of stagnation, as these methods were very traditional, and had remained unchanged since as early as the sixteenth century.
The transport system and trade appeared to develop together, having a symbiotic relationship with each other. Along with improvements in road haulage, the navigation of rivers and the increase in the efficiency of shipping came and increase in domestic and European trade. As claimed by M Falkus, “Britain’s foreign trade in 1700 scarcely presents the picture the picture of a backward country, for the nation had long been essentially an exporter of manufactured goods and an importer of raw materials and semi-processed products.” As well as being a known centre for trade internationally, inside Britain there was great development also. The development of transport, as stated by M Falkus, lead to better knowledge of shifts in price and spread of ideas. This allowed development in different areas of the country, and therefore regional specialisation became extremely marked. Examples of regional specialisation were Sheffield, famous for cutlery, Honiton lace and Norwich Worsteds. Specialisation such as this is usually indicative of a very ‘wealthy and developing’ country. However, there were some things restricting trade in the period before the mid eighteenth century. According to P Hudson, most markets remained regionally fragmented until the developments of the canal and railway transport networks (much later than the period specified in this essay). Though transport was acceptable for the demands of the time, there could be some speculation as to whether the current standard would still be adequate after the development that was still to come, in the ‘heroic’ ‘industrial revolution’.
Financially, Britain was in a very stable position in 1750 when compared to other countries. M Falkus asserts that England’s average per capita national income in 1750 stood at about three times richer than Nigeria at the same date. He then goes on to state that this would be roughly on a par with Mexico or Brazil in the early 1960s. From these statistics, it is clear to see how advanced England was as a national economy in 1750, when some countries are today still only at the level England was at 200 years ago.
Yet more evidence to sustain the argument that British finance was ‘wealthy and developing’ by 1750 was that by this period, a number of specialist institutions had evolved. The bank of England was established in 1697 in London, (which was said by M Falkus to be the largest and most wealthy city in the world.) There was also, around the turn of the 17th century, the emergence of a joint stock organisation, which by the early eighteenth century was dealing in shares. This was an example of a nascent stock exchange- the first in the world. Furthermore, as early as 1700, according to N Tonge, insurance and mortgage markets had developed in London. These facts very much indicate that England was certainly well developed economically and financially before 1750. However, there is very little evidence of any development in the other areas of Britain, such as Scotland and Wales. Improvement seemed to be centred in and around London, and evidence of any institutions developing outside the capital was rare. According to P Mathias, “great wealth from lands and foreign trade was available, potentially, for mobilization long before 1750” but the institutional development which accompanied the changes in economic structure came primarily after the mid-century, and at a much faster rate after 1780. This shows that the development evident before 1750 was minimal, and not sufficient to be able to handle the demands of the country.
Though the average national income was said to be relatively high, N Tonge still claimed that “In many places, low incomes meant few savings, which meant, in turn, low capital investment.” This strengthens any view that Britain in 1750 was, in fact, more ‘poor and backward’. Overall though, British finance, with the exception of some areas, was exemplary.
Society in 1750 appeared to have a small, but noteworthy influence on British economy. In N Tonge’s opinion, “The social hierarchy of Britain…had a greater number of segments and opportunities for social mobility.” The middle classes, compromising of tenant farmers, bankers, merchants, clothiers, brewery owners and even some shop keepers and craftsmen whose businesses had prospered, were beginning to emerge as the individuals who were sustaining and promoting the country’s economy. “Far from the very simple pyramid country we might expect in a backward country” (M Falkus), these ‘middle men’ enabled a ‘consumer revolution’ to occur. The only factor preventing the entire country from becoming a consumer based market were the working class, who received very little annual income. According to C More, the gentry and aristocracy together constituted around 20,000 families, owning between them nearly three-quarters of the land surface of the country. This shows that though middle classes were emerging, the upper classes still owned the majority of the land between them, seemingly preventing further advancement towards a less ‘backward’ society.
Quintessentially, the economy of Britain in 1750 could be considered to be ‘wealthy and developing’, but only to a certain extent. Some sectors, such as industry, were said to show ‘revolutionary’ development before the time of 1750, whereas others, for example shipping, were categorised as almost stagnant, and lacking any real progress. The contrasting views of historians and the erratic nature of progress in different areas of the country pre-1750 make it almost impossible to define whether development by the mid eighteenth century was in fact ‘wealthy and developing’ or ‘poor and backward’, and the true picture of the economy in 1750, from a contempory view, was likely to be at a point somewhere between the two extremes.