Two Labour Markets in Nineteenth-Century English Agriculture: The Trentham Home Farm, Staffordshire

Abstract

Traditionally, historians have tended to accept the view that agricultural labourers in nineteenth-century England were subject to seasonal unemployment. In this article, however, it is argued that this is an over-simplification, and that there were in fact two coexisting labour markets. Using two sets of micro data, a wage book and the Census Enumerators' Books, it will be revealed (1) that there were two groups of agricultural labourers: those who were employed throughout the year (core workers) and those employed only in the busiest season (casual workers); (2) that the core workers and casual workers performed different tasks; (3) that they had different places of residence; and (4) that the casual workers' wages were more market-dependent. The movement of wages at the time of the arrival of Irish migrant labourers sheds further light on the different natures of the two markets. While core workers' wages appear to have been unaffected by this change in labour demand, English casual workers' and women's wages increased sensitively.

Job Tenure and Unskilled Workers before the Industrial Revolution: St Paul’s Cathedral 1672–1748

“…It was in this vein that the seventeenth-century political economist, William Petyt, spoke of labor as “capital material …raw and undigested…committed into the hands of supreme authority, in whose prudence and disposition it is to improve, manage, and fashion it to more or less advantage.” 3 Unskilled laborers have featured more prominently in literature on mobs, unrest, and disputes in pre-industrial London than in economic analysis (George 1965, p. 124; Harrison 1986; Landes 1987; Gilboy 1934). Although some studies suggest laborers might have more complex relationships with their employers (Woodward 1995; Yamamoto 2004; Schwarz 2007), economic historians have generally agreed that more structured approaches to hiring arose later (Clark 1984, 1994), when firms eventually “rejected the market…to secure a reliable and productive labor force” (Huberman 1996, p. 6).…”

“…3 Unskilled laborers have featured more prominently in literature on mobs, unrest, and disputes in pre-industrial London than in economic analysis (George 1965, p. 124;Harrison 1986;Landes 1987;Gilboy 1934). Although some studies suggest laborers might have more complex relationships with their employers (Woodward 1995;Yamamoto 2004;Schwarz 2007), economic historians have generally agreed that more structured approaches to hiring arose later (Clark 1984(Clark , 1994, when firms eventually "rejected the market… to secure a reliable and productive labor force" (Huberman 1996, p. 6).…”

Review of periodical literature published in 2004

“…These findings indicate apparently that institutional forces did distort the labour market. That wages were determined by a mix of institutional and market forces emerges from Yamamoto’s micro‐study of a huge Staffordshire home farm's labour force, 1849–55. This was a (largely) pastoral farm on which permanent, often skilled, male workers provided 90 per cent of labour; casual labourers rounded out the workforce, supplying a third of labour needs in mid‐summer.…”