Agrarian policies on pauper settlement
and migration, Oxfordshire 1750–1834
Authors: SONG BYUNG KHUN 
Published: July 2002

In a quest to establish the principles behind various migration
currents, a
great body of research has shown that there is keen interest in the
differentials in socio-economic conditions between the places of origin
of
migrants and their destinations, with special focus laid on wage rates,
employment opportunities and availability of information. Although
useful in explaining some of the elements involved in the migration
process, this conventional approach based on the functional analysis of
‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors often fails
to give adequate attention to the
peculiar historical contexts in which individual migration events have
occurred. Recent advances in research into the inter-parochial migration
of the labouring poor in rural England under the laws of settlement have
clearly illustrated how inappropriate the conventional approach can be.
From surviving settlement material such as examinations, certificates and
removal orders, historians have successfully identified distinctive features
of pauper migration and of the settlement material from the migration has
been traced. (For those unfamiliar with the laws of settlement, some basic
terms are explained in the Appendix.)

First of all, the settlement material is not, strictly speaking, direct
evidence of actual migration. Examinations may have been used just for
information-gathering purposes, and removal orders could be issued to
cajole the immigrants' parish of settlement into producing certificates
or
agreeing to non-resident relief. What the settlement documents show is,
therefore, not so much actual mobility as inter-parochial tensions over
the
cost of employment and poor relief. Secondly, those who moved to other
parishes under the laws of settlement hardly achieved equality with the
native parishioners. Many parishes had strict village regulations giving
priority to the parishioners in the allocation of work in the harvest fields,
in the chances of partaking in gleaning, in access to local charity and
in
the exercise of various common rights. Thirdly, these migrants were
particularly vulnerable to changes in the social and economic conditions
of the parishes in which they resided. The parishes of residence were
inclined to force non-parishioners to return to their parishes of settlement
when there was no further need of their labour or when they became less
useful due to decrepitude, injury or other circumstances. Migration
through the process of the laws of settlement was not permanent in many
cases, and return migration was usually forced rather than voluntary.
Finally, it was not uncommon for a conflict of interests to develop
between pauper migrants, parish officers and magistrates. Over such issues
as employment, poor-relief expenditure and the social cohesiveness of
local communities, they often had different interests as waged labourers
and peasant workers, as tenant farmers and other ratepayers and as
landowners, respectively.

These features highlight the point that the functional explanation,
which rests on the notion of the autonomy of the parishes of origin and
destination as decision-making units, can be seriously misleading. A more
important issue is whether the framework of pauper settlement hindered
‘free’ labour circulation and, if so, to what extent, in what
way and in
whose interest it did so. These are crucial questions for understanding
not
only the structure of the English labour market but also the political
contours of rural society between different classes, and for further
evaluating the overall role of the laws of settlement for the industrial
and
urban growth of the time. Focusing on the critical period 1751–1834,
this
article seeks to answer the questions through a careful reconsideration
of
the Oxfordshire settlement material.