Agricultural History Review, Volume 57 Part 1 (2009), p. 145

Until fairly recently it was quite commonplace to suggest that the English, whether politicians, intellectuals, writers, wealthy industrialists or the ‘common man’, were uncomfortable with modernity, and tetchy with urban, industrial, capitalist Britain. Martin Wiener’s book, English culture and the decline of the industrial spirit, 1850–1980 (first published in 1981), was the most influential book amongst this literature, a cultural analysis of economic history that placed the prevalence and popularity of nostalgic arcadian versions of national identity at the heart of its explanation of Britain’s decline. Wiener’s conclusions spawned an industry in cultural history aimed at uncovering this reactionary form of ‘Englishness’. A number of historians have undermined this argument from various angles. In cultural history Peter Mandler has constructed a more nuanced and persuasive interpretation of ‘Englishness’ and raised serious questions about the prevalence, meaning and significance of ‘rural nostalgia’ in British culture. Paul Readman’s impressive volume on the politics of land enriches this debate (which he rightly points out has often been neglected by political historians) as well as a number of other key discussions in modern British history.

Readman’s main argument is that political discussions on the land question, whether on the part of Liberals, Conservatives or the left, were ‘deeply coloured’ by patriotic rhetoric and discourse. He finds a significant connection between the politics of land and the politics of ‘Englishness’. Political engagement with the land question and rural England interacted closely with ideologies of national identity. However, such discourse was not reactionary but rather a means of preserving links with the past in the context of rapid and profound change, a source of social cohesion in the face of a broadening electorate and the rise of radical political philosophies. The importance of the rural in the public articulation of national identities reflected a desire to find a way forward whilst avoiding radical upheaval, providing a political anchor in a period of realignment. Although some of those on the left sought just this type of upheaval, the focus on cohesion and continuity was as true of radical liberalism as it was of conservatism. For instance, Liberal policies were not based on collectivist or ‘socialistic’ principles. Instead, much of this discourse was framed as an appeal to a national tradition stressing the primacy of the state in ultimate responsibility for landed property, articulated in patriotic terms. Such socially conservative, yet progressive, aims lay behind the discourses of a diverse range of thinkers and politicians, from Brodrick and Arnold to Collings and Chamberlain.

Readman’s thesis is set out in a clear and incisive introduction and developed over eight chapters. The first chapter provides a chronological discussion of the main events in the history of rural society and politics. The further seven chapters are divided into two thematic parts. Part one focuses on four key ‘national issues’ in the politics of land as they were articulated by politicians and pressure groups; the importance of land reform for ‘national stability’, the ‘English national character’, agriculture and property rights. Part two provides an analysis of the development of thinking and policies on agriculture, property and rural society by the three main parties. Readman finds a range of discourses on the land question, both between the different parties and within them, perspectives that developed across the period in response to broader events as well as shifts in their own fundamental principles. Consideration of the full range of political discourses on the issue is one of the strengths of this volume.

A further strength is the way that Readman imbricates high politics with extra-parliamentary agitation and pressure, in a manner reminiscent of the late Ewen Green. The relationship between Conservative policy and broader conservative thinking on agriculture as ‘the national industry’ is a particularly interesting case of this. Under Lord Winchilsea the National Agricultural Union was one amongst a number of organizations in the late nineteenth century seeking to protect agriculture and bolster the tri-partite rural social order. This approach was popular amongst mainstream Tories, including Lord Salisbury, and the wider public since the NAU sought the same objective as the parliamentary party, to effect ‘national renewal’ through ‘agrarian means’ (p.88). In the later 1890s, however, as Conservative politicians sought a more progressive means of attracting the lower orders, they focused on smallholdings rather than large-scale farming, a policy priority that fed into the Edwardian Conservative focus on tariff reform. As a result the NAU declined from 1896 onwards and Conservative policy moved towards more radical policies such as smallholdings.

There are several criticisms to be levelled at this volume. The structure of the book, in particular the slightly cumbersome first chapter, leads to a disappointing level of repetitiveness in the argument. At points the author draws over-simplistic distinctions between ‘socialism’ or ‘collectivism’ and ‘patriotism’, which slightly undermine his argument on both the traditionalism of Liberal politics and the peculiarity of British radicalism in a European context. Also, whilst Readman emphasizes the range of opinions in the political culture of rural society and the land, he does not always clarify the social range of such discourses, particularly in reference to radicals. For instance, he often refers to the landed origins of Conservative politicians and thinkers but fails to identify the gentry origins of radical Liberals such as Arthur Herbert Dyke Acland, scion of a wealthy gentry family with over thirty thousand acres and protagonist for radical change articulated, for instance, through his reference to the 1894 Local Government Act as a ‘charter for self government’ in rural parishes (p.65). These, however, are generally minor points. Readman’s volume makes important contributions to a range of crucial debates in modern British history. It will interest a range of scholars and students of politics, rural society, agriculture, national identity and land reform and provide them with a thoroughly good read.