Businessmen and land ownership in the late nineteenth century revisited

Abstract

Using a comparative dataset of business and non-business elites compiled by Perkin and Rubinstein, Smith argues that I underestimate the extent to which businessmen owned land in the late nineteenth century. My data source, she contends, provides little (if any) useful information about patterns of businessmen’s land holding and wealth accumulation. Through her analysis Smith claims to impart a better understanding of inheritance, social mobility, and land ownership in Britain. She alleges that the traditional land-owning class was sustained by primogeniture, while the business elite was more dynamic socially, as evidenced by low rates of intergenerational wealth transmission. The land held by businessmen was small in size, but it was not insignificant given primogeniture and the concentration of land ownership during these years. Few of Smith’s objections are sustainable. Her data support my central conclusions, while her analysis is sometimes erroneous and often misleading. Smith begins with a critique of the Dictionary of business biography reiterating the well-known bias towards heavy industry and related fields. 1 However, it is difficult to understand her reluctance to see this collection of business biographies as a credible source for investigating patterns of wealth and land holding when combined with probate records and Bateman’s Great landowners of Great Britain and Ireland. Although Smith prefers to analyse ‘pre-defined groups’ of business and non-business elites, there is no evidence that she is able to categorize businessmen as if they were a homogenous group. 2 The principles for inclusion in the DBB allow for underlying population variability. Hereditary landowners with business interests are included alongside founders of firms, managers, and those who inherited family enterprises. Whether businessmen chose to exchange their personal wealth for the ownership of landed assets and the life of the country gentleman is central to our understanding of social