'Poor and backward' or 'wealthy and developing' - which of these descriptions most accurately portrays Britain in 1750?

Authors Avatar

‘Poor and Backward’ or ‘Wealthy and Developing’:

Which Of These Descriptions Most Accurately Portrays

Britain in 1750?

To describe Britain in 1750 as ‘wealthy and developing’ would be, from a contemporary perspective, a fairly accurate portrayal. However, after having considered such aspects of economy as Agriculture, Industry, Trade and Transport and Society, it has become clear that Britain could only be described as ‘wealthy and developed’ to a certain extent. Though all sectors of the economy showed improvement during the period before 1750, and a certain amount of dependence on each other, (for example trade and transport, agriculture and industry and society and trade) all sectors had both positive and negative aspects. For example, in the agricultural sector, there were, according to E. Kerridge, signs of significant progress. In his opinion, the period 1560-1690 saw “an agricultural revolution of unparalleled achievement.” However, in other sources, there is little evidence of development. In C More for example, it states that “Many of them [the agricultural workforce] were not far above the subsistence level.” When judging whether ‘Britain’ in the mid eighteenth century was ‘wealthy and developing’ or ‘poor and backward’, it is difficult, as national and regional differences were very distinct. Some of the more affluent areas of England, such as London, could have most definitely been considered ‘wealthy and developing’, but some parts of Scotland and Wales are depicted to be much more ‘poor and backward’ in various sources.

        Agriculture, according to some sources, seemed to be at an unrivalled stage for its time. As stated by N. Tonge, “Even agriculture was developed beyond a mere subsistence level.”  23.5 million pounds of the annual national income was in fact derived from the land. This was almost 50%, showing the immense importance of the Agricultural sector in the mid eighteenth century. E. Kerridge has very much supported the idea that agriculture was ‘wealthy and developing’ in 1750 by claiming that an agricultural revolution did in fact take place between the period 1560-1690.

        British farms prided themselves on their productivity compared to other countries in 1750. For example, as stated by C More, the yield ratio of Britain was 10:1, whereas the yield Ratio of France lagged behind at 7:1. This highlights the fact that the progress of Britain was superior compared to their European counterparts. Only small areas of Holland could equal the productivity of British agriculture. Britain was so productive in agriculture, in fact, that it was able to provide and annual surplus of grain for export. There were also increasingly marked areas of specialisation. For example, Norfolk was renowned for turkeys, Cheshire for cheese, the Cotswolds and Lincolnshire wolds for mixed grain and sheep, and the West Country for cattle (J.V Beckett and M. Falkus)    

        Another point that solidifies the notion that British agriculture was advancing in 1750 is the statistic supplied by C. More that 70% of the land area of England was enclosed. This shows that in the majority of England, even in 1750, they had begun to use more modern methods of farming. Though this was significantly less in Scotland and Wales, it still proves to be a noteworthy sign of progress. E. Kerridge has argued that the development of agriculture before the eighteenth century was ‘revolutionary’. He asserted that several factors of farming had massively improved agriculture in the time period 1560-1690. Firstly, the method of convertible husbandry (flexible farming) was said to have increased the yield in some areas by 100%. Also, drainage and reclamation was supposedly another major development, putting previously useless land to more productive use. Finally, the floating of water meadows increased the supply of fodder. Kerridge appears, however, to have generalised these improvements so that British agriculture appeared more ‘wealthy and developing’ than it probably was in reality. Though all three of these methods were highly successful where used, they were often very costly, and geographically limited. This meant that despite the potential to be very effective, these methods were usually isolated to certain areas (e.g. convertible husbandry was confined almost solely to the West-Midlands) and were adopted by few farmers, as the majority had neither the attitude nor sufficient capital to be able to implicate these practises.

Join now!

        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 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay