David Sugarman 220 A second aimhas been to return to what Edward Thompson has called “the peculiarities of the English”."^ Since at least the writings of Marx and Engels, the dominant tendency in the human sciences has been to treat England as the template of capitalist development in the Western world: after all, it was the first industrial nation.*'. In contrast, the singular character of the British route to modernity has not received much attention. A notable exception is Weber’s discussion of the irrational character of the English legal system.'- According to this interpretation, Britain was not the archetype of modernity. It was a deviant case or a unique exception which departed in certain fundamental respects from the orthodox models and images of industrial society. In other words, some of the most abiding “peculiarities of the English” deconstruct those same universalistic images of “modernisation” that the British route was supposed to exemplify. Weber’s treatment of England is unusual on two fronts. It is a rare attempt to meld legal, economic, and intellectual history, as well as the sociology of law. In fact, his extended attention to the character and importance of legal institutions and the culture of the lawis in marked contrast to the relative neglect of things “legal” that characterizes much of the historical and sociological literature.'^ But his is no ordinary, evolutionarv or celebratory history of the law. Its special importance stems fromits concentration upon theperverse features of the English legal systemand their relationship to the rise of capitalism. Now the human sciences tend to overlook the unorthodox in their efforts to nail “cause” to “effect”. Thus, Weber’s attempt to unravel “the English problem” addressed two relative silences in the historiographical and sociological literature’s. That these silences still need to be addressed is a major theme of this essay. For as one historian recently put it: “If historical research into modern British history is to advance beyond those frames of reference which normally mark its conceptualisation, it is surely just to these bizarre and anomalous - and hence, ignored or camouflaged - trends and tendencies to which the historian ought to turn ... E. P. Thompson, “The Peculiarities of the English” in his The Poverty of Theory, (London: The Merlin Press, 1978) pp. 35-91. " Some of the problems arising fromMarx’s use of England as the model of capitalist development are insightfully discussed by G.S. Jones, “Some Notes on Karl Marx and the English Labour Movement”, Elistory Workshop Journal. 18, 1984, pp. 124-137. '- See infra. Cf. D. Sugarman, “Theory and Practice in Lawand Historv: A Prologue to the Study of the Relationship Between Law and Economy from a Socio-ITistorical Perspective” in B. E'rver et al (eds.). Law, State and Society (London: GroomHelm, 1981), pp. 70-106; “Law, Economy and the State in England”, 1750-1914: Some Major Issues” in D. Sugarman (ed.). Legality, Ideologv and The State, (London: Academic Press, 1983), pp. 213-266; D. Sugarman and G. Rubin, “Towards a New Historv of Law' and Material Society in England , 1750-1914” in G. Rubin and D. Sugarman (eds.). Law, Economy and Societv . 1750-1914: Essavs in the Historv of English Law, (Abingdon: Professional Books, 1984), pp. 1-123. '•* W.D. Rubinstein, “The End of ‘Old Corruption’ in Britain 1780-1860”, Past and Present, No. 101, 1983, pp. 55-86, 59. ”14
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=