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.