LIBRARY

"university of Cslifofnia
IRVINE

LAND REFORM

V\/-r

1 ii e n 1 11 / Q 0 6

LAND REFORM

OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP
PEASANT PROPRIETARY

AND

RURAL EDUCATION

RIGHT HON. JESSE COLLINGS, J.P., M.P.

President of the Rural Labourers' League
Life Member of the Soci6t6 des Agricullcurs de France

'MOREOVER THE PROFIT OF THE EARTH IS FOR ALL: THE KING
HIMSELF IS SERVED BY THE FIELD." — EcclesiasteS V. 9

WITH ILLUSTRATIONS

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.

39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON

NEW YORK AND BOMBAY

1906

All rights reserved

THIS BOOK

IS INSCRIBED

TO THE CHERISHED MEMORY OF

A NOBLE PEASANT WOMAN

BY THE YOUNGEST AND LAST SURVIVOR

OF HER MANY CHILDREN

CONTENTS

Provisions of Land Purchase Bill —
I. Part I — Occupying Ownership .
II. ,, I — Occupying Ownership {continued)

III. ,, II — Peasant Proprietary .

IV. ,, II — Peasant Proprietary {continued)
V. Provisions of Agricultural Education Bill

VI. Rural Education .....

VII. The English Land System : Its Origin and
Growth ......

VIII. The English Land System : Its Origin and
Growth {continued) ....

IX. The English Land System: Its Origin and
Growth {continued) ....

X. The English Land System : Its Origin and
Growth {continued) ....

XI. Peasant Revolts

XII. Peasant Revolts {continued) .

XIII, Peasant Revolts {co7itimied) .

83

95
103

164
176

XIV. Yeoman Proprietary, or Occupying Ownership 187

XV. Land Hunger and Peasant Proprietary . 205

XVI. Risks to the State, and other Objections . 234

XVII. Other Schemes of Land Reform . . . 261

PAGE

Introduction ix

CHAPTER

3

5

II

13
21

23
40

Vlll

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

XVIII. The Home Market and the Industrial Classes 284

XIX. Our Food Supply in the Time of War .
XX. Fiscal Policy and Agriculture
XXI. Fiscal Policy and Agriculture {continued)
XXII. Depopulation of Rural England
XXIII. Conclusion
Appendix I
„ H
„ III
Index

3"

329
366

376

394

427

431

437
445

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

TO FACE PAGE

FIRST cottage BUILT ON THE ESTATE (W. J. POWELL) . . 214

From a photograph by Lewis, Bromsgrove.

cottage (benjamin WALDRON) 2l6

From a photograph by Lewis, Bromsgrove.

cottage (WILLIAM BINNER) 2l8

From a photograph by Lewis, Bromsgrove.

cottage (E. banner) 220

From a photograph by Lewis, Bromsgrove.

plan OF HOLDINGS 220

"harvest time" 426

INTRODUCTION

DURING the past few years several Allotment
Acts have been passed by Parliament which
have conferred great benefits on the rural labouring
population. A Small Holdings Bill also, after years
of delay, became law in 1892. From causes which
will be referred to. County Councils, in whose hands
the administration of this Act was placed, have, with
few exceptions, made no attempt to deal with it. But
in the few cases where the Act has been put into
operation, the results have been most satisfactory and
encouraging. The chief significance, however, of these
measures lies in the fact that Parliament, by passing
them, has reversed its former policy. The Legisla-
ture has at last recognized the principle of giving
public aid to restore to the labourers some little of
that personal interest in the soil of which ages of pre-
vious legislation had so completely deprived them.

The Purchase of Land (England and Wales) Bill,
introduced in the session of 1904, while containing
the same principle as the Small Holdings Act, is a
far more important measure, affecting, as it does, all
classes of the agricultural industry. It seeks by State
aid to restore those classes of yeoman farmers and
peasant proprietors which in former times were such
valuable elements in our rural economy, and had such
a marked influence on the social life of the nation.

X LAND REFORM

It was my intention at first to write a few pages
only, simply to explain the scope and provisions of
the Bill. But the subject was so interesting, and its
bearings so far-reaching, that I felt impelled to con-
tinue my remarks until the subject-matter had grown
to the dimensions of a book — a book which, after
some hesitation and much diffidence, I have ventured
to place before the public, in the hope that at least
some of the propositions and opinions contained in its
pages may be found heedworthy.

My general apology for taking this step is the life-
long attention I have given to the question of the
land, and my close relationship with not the least
important class connected with its cultivation. I have
always regarded agriculture (in its widest sense) as
the chief national concern, and as the only basis on
which the real welfare of a country can be securely
established. If we have purchased commercial su-
premacy at the cost of a permanent decay of that
great industry, we have bought it at a ruinous price.

Nations may have brilliant epochs — more or less
long-continued — of commercial prosperity, with vast
accumulations of money wealth, but their strength,
virility, permanence, and resisting power must ever
depend on a numerous rural population. The com-
batant in classic story who, when hurled to the ground
by his antagonist, gained renewed life and vigour by
each contact with Mother Earth, is an apt illustration
of the strength and recuperative power of a nation
whose people are rooted in the soil.

These views and opinions, which I have always
held, have been confirmed and strengthened by a long
experience in commercial affairs and a close acquaint-
ance with the conditions of life in large towns.

INTRODUCTION xi

The question of agricultural depression is one that
is always with us. Discussions on the subject in Par-
liament, in the Press, and in agricultural societies have
been almost innumerable. But nothinsf has been done
worth consideration, certainly nothing of an effective
kind, to provide a remedy for an evil the existence of
which is universally admitted. Successive Govern-
ments, as far as Great Britain is concerned, may be
said to have shown an almost absolute indifference to
a matter that should have had the foremost place in
their programmes.

Up to about sixty years ago the landed interest —
or rather, the landlord interest — was paramount in
Parliament. Since that time (at least in the House
of Commons) that power has steadily declined, and
the commercial and urban influence has as steadily
increased. The manufacturing school of that day
unfortunately regarded agriculture, if not with antag-
onism, at least as of secondary importance. They
had need of the support of agriculturists in order to
carry out their free-trade policy, and they secured
that support by foretellings which have never been
fulfilled and by assurances — no doubt sincerely given
— which have never been realized. The effect of
that policy was to bring the British farmer into com-
petition with the whole world, and to leave him there.
No attempt was made, by readjustment or removal of
the special burdens on land, or by any other means,
to enable farming to adapt itself to the new conditions
it had to face.

The manufacturinor classes declared land to be *' a
raw material," but they left it subject to those rates
and charges which they took care should not be

xii LAND REFORM

imposed on any raw material used in their own indus-
tries ; and thus, on the principle that " if you tax the
machine you tax the product," the farming interest
remains unduly handicapped to this day.

These classes have still the same short-sighted indif-
ference to the condition of agriculture, on which their
own prosperity so largely depends. They show this
indifference generally, and especially by their attitude
towards such measures as the Cattle Diseases Act
and the Butter Bill, by their determined opposition
to the shilling duty placed on imports of foreign corn,
and to the small scrap of just relief given to the farmer
by the Agricultural Ratings Act.

On the other hand, the tendency to throw the bur-
dens of the commercial classes on to the shoulders of
the general community is increasing. This tendency
is shown by such measures as the Rating of Ma-
chinery Bill, and by a Bill promoted by the powerful
shipping interest, which proposes that the whole cost
of lighting our coasts should be paid out of the taxes
of the country. At the same time the farming inter-
est has to pay, through the general taxes and local
rates, the cost of rural education, almost the sole out-
come of which is a supply of workers for the towns,
for railways, and non-rural industries generally.

All these considerations point to the urgent necessity
of increasing the power of the agricultural interest in
the House of Commons. But this cannot be done
under our present system. It can only be brought
about by a large increase in the number of those who
have a direct and personal interest in the soil.

During the past four or five decades of years the
rural population has been steadily getting fewer, until,

INTRODUCTION xiii

by the last census, we find that only about 23 per cent
of the people of England and Wales are found in the
country districts. Of this remnant, which includes
those who live in the country for pleasure or retire-
ment, only a small minority has any direct cause to
concern itself with the interests of ao^riculture. During^
the same period the number of agricultural labourers
has lessened by one-half, while the general population
has enormously increased.

Farmers have been steadily on the downward path.
Large numbers of them, by emigration and other out-
lets, have left their occupations altogether. Many, no
doubt, have been, with difficulty, holding their own ;
but taken as a class they have been steadily losing
their capital, and of late years have been figuring in
a very prominent place in the annual list of bank-
ruptcies.

In the meantime the land has been steadily going
out of cultivation and lessening in value. In the
returns for last year (1904) we find that out of a total
of 32,317,610 acres under grass or crops of some kind
in Great Britain, only 1,375,284 acres were cultivated
with wheat. This is less than the previous year by
206,303 acres. The great extent of this falling off
can be realized by bearing in mind that the area of
the county of Surrey under crops and grass is only
268,451 acres, and that of many other of our counties
much less. It is evident therefore that if the present
state of things continues, the time is not far distant
when a field of corn will be a rare sight in our
country.

We are every year becoming more dependent for
our daily bread on foreign imports, the stoppage of

xiv LAND REFORM

which, from any cause, even for a few months, would
cause a famine in the land.

Some years ago an enterprising American attempted
to make a "corner" in wheat. He did not succeed,
but came near enough to success to show that what
was too difficult for a private person would be quite
practicable for a hostile nation.

In case of a war with a great Power or combination
of Powers (themselves self-feeding) it would not be
difficult, but a mere business transaction, for our
opponents, secretly acting through chosen agents, by
the well-known operation of dealing in "futures," to
place this country in a perilous position. Our navy
might possibly — though this is doubtful — make the sea
secure for grain-laden ships, but the grain itself would
not be forthcoming except in scanty quantities and at
famine prices. In fact, we are in the foolish position
of spending vast sums to strengthen and guard the
fortress, and omitting to victual the garrison inside,
trusting for that to convoys from without which may
never come.

Unhappily, the mass of the people of this country
have been so long cut off from any connection with
the land that they have ceased to regard agriculture as
a subject which specially affects them. They regard
it simply as one among many industries, instead of as
being the root of all others, and the one industry
in which they are vitally concerned.

Land being one of the elements indispensable to
human life and happiness, its ownership is naturally
subject to certain conditions for the public good which
are attached to no other form of property. The first
of these conditions is that it should not become dere-

INTRODUCTION xv

lict or even half-cultivated, but should be made to
yield food to its full capacity. The people have a
natural right to claim the fulfilment of this condition,
and to call for such a system of cultivation as will
secure it. With these views I have endeavoured to
speak, not only to agriculturists, but to the general
public, and especially to the labouring classes, and to
point out that under the system proposed in this
volume it would be possible to increase largely, even
to double, the present produce of the soil, and, at the
same time, to provide a vast amount of good and con-
tinuous employment for the people.

It may be suggested that there was no need for
dwelling at length, as in the following pages I have
done, on agrarian proceedings in past times. That
would be so were it not for the fact that the effects
of these proceedings are living forces with us at the
present day. It is impossible to judge rightly the
present condition of land tenure in England without
recalling the historic processes by which it was created
— processes by which the yeoman farmer was reduced
to the position of a dependent tenant, and the peasant
proprietor to that of a landless man.

The history of the land question from the point of
view of the occupying owner — peasant and yeoman —
has never yet been written. Historians as a rule
deal mainly with the political events and national
occurrences of the times of which they write. Facts
with regard to the land may be duly recorded, but
their bearings on the life of the people are insuffi-
ciently dealt with, misapplied, or passed over alto-
gether. As an instance, take the so-called " peasant
revolts" which were ever recurring throughout succes-

xvi LAND REFORM

sive centuries. Those who took part in them (yeomen
as well as peasants) are usually described as "rebels,"
"fanatics," "idle and vagrant persons," etc., while
their leaders are nicknamed and caricatured.

Looking beneath the detraction, misrepresentation,
and tainted party colouring, which generally follow
defeated efforts, it will be found that the root cause
of these revolts was the intolerable agrarian oppres-
sion which existed. These uprisings were forlorn
attempts of desperate men to keep by force those
rights in the land on which their well-beinof and
very lives depended, and from which they were being
steadily ousted under baron -made law or by the
"strong hand" under no law at all. A study of
those uprisings, and the causes of them, is absolutely
necessary in order to trace and understand the social
history of England down to the present time.

Read by this light it will be found that the
"Wat Tylers," "Jack Straws," "John Balls," "Jack
Cades," and others were the inevitable outcome of
the almost incredible cruelty and oppression under
which the peasantry were suffering. Kett, the great
yeoman — called "Kett the Tanner" — is always de-
scribed as the "rebel leader" of the widespread
Norfolk revolt in the sixteenth century. His army
of sixteen thousand husbandmen was at last defeated,
not however by Englishmen, the mass of whom were
on his side, but by foreign mercenaries. He him-
self was hanged in chains as a traitor. But it is
time that he was spoken of, not as a "traitor," but as
a brave leader of men, just in action, moderate in
demands, and one who, when the people know their
own, will be looked upon as a hero who laid down his

INTRODUCTION xvii

life for the despoiled tillers of the soil whose just cause
he championed.

The prowess shown in the frequent agrarian strug-
gles and on-falls is worthy of being called to mind.
In none of the renowned battlefields of those times
were the qualities of dogged courage, patient endur-
ance, and defiance of odds, more often shown than
in those so-called rebellions. These qualities, which
from the earliest times belonged to the yeomanry
and peasantry of this country, became imprinted on
the English race. How long they will remain unim-
paired among the people after these classes have dis-
appeared, and whether or not they will tarry for long
in town populations made up largely, as medical men
tell us, of "stunted men and anaemic women," are moot
questions.

In dealinor with the ao^ricultural labourer I have
based my statements on my own experience, on the
lore and traditions of the cottage, on Parliamentary
papers, as well as other authorities.

It is necessary to bear in mind that the ''agri-
cultural labourer" of modern times is in a position
quite different from that of the " agricultural labourer"
of former years. In former times the agricultural
labourer (always called the "poor" and the "labouring
poor") was a man who generally possessed land and
almost invariably had rights of common in connec-
tion with the curtilage of his cottage. This enabled
him to keep stock of various kinds and of more or
less value, the proceeds of which, added to his earn-
ings as a labourer, placed him in a fairly prosperous
condition.

The modern agricultural labourer is a mere wage-

xviii LAND REFORM

receiver. The process of his degradation to a distinct
hireling class was a gradual one. It was enormously
quickened about the middle of the eighteenth century,
and completed about the middle of last century. Dur-
ing these long years he was a unique and pathetic
figure in the social life of England ; a man starving
in the midst of plenty through a life of patient en-
durance and ceaseless toil, lightened by no hope for
the morrow or any prospect but the workhouse and
the grave.

The prosperity of commercial and manufacturing
undertakings, which was so quickened in 1843 and —
from causes which will be examined — increased so
rapidly during succeeding years, enabled the labourer
somewhat to improve his miserable condition by mi-
grating to the industrial centres. This migration has
continued to the present day. It received a great
impetus by the operation of the Education Act of
1870, which gave the labourer instruction enough to
enable him to see beyond the limits of his parish
and to acquire that discontent which, after all, is
the parent of change, if not of improvement. This
exodus of the labourers from the land and the con-
sequent deserted state of our country-sides constitute
a national danger, the magnitude of which is either
not seen or is disregarded by all those who view
the condition of the people through commercial spec-
tacles.

A certain class of persons, including a school of
political economists (happily becoming more and more
discredited), produce an array of figures to show how
great is our prosperity as a nation. Our exports and
imports have reached a record amount. Receipts

INTRODUCTION xix

from the income-tax are yearly growing. Accumu-
lated wealth, ever on the increase, is reckoned by
thousands of millions, and shows a satisfactory aver-
age sum per head of our population.^ This golden
image set up to represent the national prosperity is
certainly a splendid one, but it has feet of clay.

Doubtless we are in the front rank as a nation of
brokers, bankers, carriers, and other handlers of
wealth, but the vital question is, What is our position
as a producing country ? Are the productive powers
of England increasing, decreasing, or at a standstill ?
That is the real test ; for — to put the case in an
extreme way — the man who cultivates in wheat a
thousand acres of land hitherto uncultivated creates
more real wealth for the country than do all Lombard
Street and the Stock Exchange put together.

We are assured by those economists who deal only
with totals — to whom the condition of the units of our
population seems to be of small account — that we are
the most prosperous nation in Europe. But every-
thing depends on what is meant by "the nation" and
what is meant by " prosperity." The only true gauge
of real prosperity is the condition of the people gene-
rally ; and tried by that standard, we are anything but
a prosperous country. No doubt England is the hap-
piest place in the world for the limited number — the
very few millions of wealthy and well-to-do persons.
Their motto is naturally " let well alone." With
many of these classes there is a feverish race for

^ Sir Robert Giffen assumes the aggregate income of the United
Kingdom to be about 1,750 millions per annum, and the aggregate
wealth of the United Kingdom about 15,000 millions. (Paper read
before the British Association, 1 1 September, 1903.)

XX LAND REFORM

wealth, and an indulgence in luxury of every form,
which are demoralizing- to themselves and to those who
come in contact with them. The pace is thus set,
and those with smaller means, through a spirit of
imitation and rivalry, strive to keep up with it, and so
the old simplicity of our national life is disappearing
before the attractions and temptations of a hollow and
an artificial society.

But outside this circle what are the undisputed
facts ? We have a large section of the people strug-
gling for a bare subsistence, another large section
living in a hand-to-mouth way, while probably a
fourth of the whole population are either on the
poverty line or below it — on the "verge of hunger"
or in actual want.^

The labour statistics of the Board of Trade are
being continually referred to, and too often accepted,
as an indication of the state of the labour market in
this country. No doubt, on paper, the standard of
weekly wages of skilled workmen is satisfactory. But
it is not known how many of them are working full
time and getting a full week's wage, because the term
" unemployed " in these statistics means a man who is
without any work in his own trade. If he is employed
only two or three days a week he would not be in-
cluded among the number of " unemployed," Further,
no information is or can be griven of the number of
skilled workmen who, through want of work and other
causes, leave their unions and take to employment of

^ " In their own land vast wealth and hideous squalor, shameful
luxury and gaunt hunger, lived side by side, and presented a problem
of which the wisdom of man could not at present see the solution."
(Bishop of Liverpool, Commemoration Sermon at Oxford, 19 June, 1904.)

INTRODUCTION xxi

a lower grade, and, as age and incapacity come on,
sink finally into the ranks of the submerged.

These Board of Trade returns, interesting so far as
they go, refer only to about one million of the pick
of skilled workmen, on the reports of whose organiza-
tions the statistics are based. They are no guide
whatever to the condition of the millions of persons —
the great bulk of the people — who depend solely on
employment for their living.

The actual condition of large masses of our popula-
tion is best known to the devoted men and women who
work privately or in connection with such associations
as the Salvation Army, Church missions, refuges, and
numerous other similar agencies. But these workers
know too well that the result of their self-sacrificinof,
faith-supported efforts is rather the alleviation of
existing human suffering than a permanent solution
of the seemingly hopeless social problems with which
they are confronted.

Side by side with plethoric wealth we have our
Poor Law institution, peculiar to this country and, in
its present form, a standing disgrace to it. Organized
relief no doubt will always be needed for cases of
poverty, disease, and misfortune, which in some degree
will ever exist. But it should be given as far as possible
in a manner not calculated to demoralize and degrade
the recipients. The operation of our Poor Law has
been and is rapidly sapping the life and destroying the
self-respect of masses of the people. Numbers of
obscure respectable poor whose sufferings are, per-
haps, of all the most acute shrink with a wholesome
dread from parish relief; some prefer even to starve,
but as a rule poverty and hunger compel them at last

xxii LAND REFORM

to sink into the ranks of pauperism. There are thou-
sands of persons who are not only benevolent, but
actively beneficent, who spend time and money un-
grudgingly in trying to alleviate the misery that exists.
I would ask these persons and others when next they
journey through the country to note how small is the
quantity of tillage they see ; that there is grass, grass,
almost everywhere, the land carrying cattle instead of
men. While noting this let them recall the poverty
they deplore and the condition of slum life they may
have witnessed. They may then safely associate
those two conditions (of the land and of the people) as
veritable cause and effect.

The divorce of the people from the land was the
original cause of our Poor Law system. The same
cause has been operating since the sixteenth century,
and is at work with similar effect at the present time.
The " casual " and the *' vagrant " of to-day are in-
directly (through the effect of the rural exodus) the
counterparts of the " valiant beggar " and the " sturdy
vagabond " of old. The perplexed authorities in those
days adopted branding, ear-cropping, and hanging as
a cure for the evil. Our Boards of Guardians in
similar straits are crying out for fresh methods of
dealing with these so-called "pests of society."

But the only effective way of dealing with vagrancy
and able-bodied pauperism is to remove the cause of
which they are the outcome. Prompt legislation for
the revival of agriculture with the consequent re-
peopling of the land is the only hopeful way out
of these evils. In this direction also I believe lies, to
a large extent, the solution of those social problems
in our midst — of overcrowding, provision for old age,

INTRODUCTION xxiii

the state of our streets at night, the unemployed, etc.,
etc. — which occupy and perplex the mind of every
thoughtful person in the kingdom.

The unceasing migration from our country-sides
into the centres of population is at the root of those
evils. During the period in which our trade and
manufactures were increasing by " leaps and bounds "
labour from the country was more or less welcome and
useful, but for years past our towns and other centres
of industry have been dangerously overstepping their
powers of profitably absorbing this steady human
influx. The process of the evil is a simple one, and
I have watched it in individual cases. The man from
the country, being strong, towardly, and cheap, finds
as a rule employment of some kind. But there is no
legitimate room for him ; he only displaces another
man, who in his turn displaces another, and so on till
an older and a broken man is found at the bottom of
the social scale, to swell the ranks of the unemployed
and destitute.

The proposals made in the following pages are
— in the true and not in a party sense of the word —
conservative in the highest degree. However they
may be criticized, they have at least the merit of
being definite, practical, and such as can be put into
immediate operation without injury to any existing
interest. Whether or not a British Government will
deal with the question in the same wise spirit and
with the same object as similar questions were dealt
with by great continental statesmen, remains to be
seen.

In any case our present wasteful out-of-date land
system cannot long remain unchanged. In times of

xxiv LAND REFORM

bad trade and dearth of employment, the people
generally will more and more realize the extent to
which their well-being depends on the cultivation of
the land in which they live.

The danger is that, by delay, this great national
question will become one of party politics, and that
time and energy will be wasted by the advocacy of
impracticable schemes, supported by those specious
party cries so often heard on platforms, to which the
terms "land" and "landlords" so readily lend them-
selves.

In the history of social and political movements,
in this and in other countries, one thing is clear, that
wild and unjust demands could have been almost always
forestalled and prevented by the timely adoption of
reasonable reforms.^

J. C.

Edgbaston, Birmingham,
October, 1905.

^ The plan adopted in the arrangement of the contents of this book
is first : to describe the provisions of the Land Purchase Bill and of
the Agricultural Education in Elementary Schools Bill ; then to dis-
cuss the merits of the latter measure ; after that, to consider the origin
and growth of our present land system ; and lastly to set forth the argu-
ments for and against the proposals made for a reform of that system.

Note. — This work was finished in 1905, and arrangements were made
for its appearance in the first week of January, 1906, but from causes
which could not be avoided the publication was delayed for several
months. This explanation is necessary to enable the reader to rightly
understand certain references that appear throughout the book which
could not be corrected without re-writing the text. As examples, the
expressions " present Government " and " this Parliament " mean the
Government and Parliament of 1905. The term " last year" means 1904,
the "present year" 1905, etc. For the same reason official and other
reports dealing with the year 1905 are not used. They were not avail-
able at the time of writing.

Purchase of Land
(England and Wales) Bill.

A
BILL

To provide facilities for the Sale of Land
to occupying Tenants ; and to extend
the System of Peasant Proprietary in
England and Wales.

Presented by Mr. Jesse Collings,

supported by
Sir John Dorington, Mr. Spear,
Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Herbert Roberts,
Sir Lewis Molesworth, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney,
Mr. William Mitchell, and Lieutenant-
Colonel Pryce-Jones.

Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed
22 February 1905.

The Bill is in Two Parts :

Part I. — "Acquisition of Land by Tenants."

Part II. — "Purchase of Land for

Smaller Holdings."

No tenancy-at-will or with a year's notice, however favourable the con-
ditions of compensation for unexhausted improvements, can give the farmer
security beyond the year. . . . The "good understanding" which has
hitherto as a rule protected the English farmer under a yearly tenancy will
not for many years longer be able to stand the inevitable pressure of home
and foreign competition. (Sir James Caird.)

The magic of property turns sand to gold. . , . Give a man the secure
possession of a bleak rock and he will turn it into a garden. (Arthur Young.)

The farmer compared with the proprietor is as a merchant who trades
with borrowed capital compared with one who trades with his own. . . .
The station of a farmer besides is from the nature of things inferior to that
of the proprietor. (Adam Smith.)

CHAPTER I

SYNOPSIS OF PURCHASE OF LAND
(ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL, 1905

PART I
OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP

Part I. provides means to enable the tenant to
acquire the freehold of the farm he rents. When the
landlord and tenant may agree for the sale of a farm,
and on the price to be paid for the same, the Board of
Agriculture may, after making due inquiries, advance
to the tenant the whole of the purchase-money.

The repayment of the advance so made is to be by
an annual instalment (purchase annuity) at the rate of
3I (three pounds five shillings) per cent of the whole
sum.

The three pounds five shillings per cent is made up
of two pounds fifteen shillings per cent for interest
and ten shillings per cent for sinking fund. This
sinking fund will in a certain number of years recoup
the whole amount advanced, and no further payments
will be made.

The advances and rates of repayment are the same
as those accorded to the Irish tenant under the pro-
visions of the Irish Land Act, 1903.

As soon as the agreement for purchase is com-
pleted the tenant becomes immediately the owner of

4 LAND REFORM

the farm, subject to payment of the annual instalment
and to certain other conditions.

The only conditions of importance are those con-
tained in Clauses ii and 12, by which subdivision and
subletting of the farm are forbidden except with the
consent of the Board of Agriculture, and restrictions
are placed upon the power of mortgaging.

Under Clause 10, the farmer, if he is able and will-
ing to do so, can at any time redeem the outstanding
purchase annuity, by the payment of a lump sum.

No holding of leasehold tenure can be sold under
the Act unless the lease, under which the landlord is
possessed, is one renewable for ever, or for a term of
years of which not less than sixty are unexpired at the
time of the sale.

Definitions are given in the Bill of the terms "ab-
solute owner," " tenant for life," and "limited owner."

Provisions are made for the distribution of the
purchase money among the persons entitled to, and
having charges upon, or otherwise interested in any
holding sold under the Act.

The sum to be advanced for the purposes of this
part of the Bill is limited to ten millions sterling. The
Bill, like the Irish measure, contains no compulsory
provisions. It seeks only to give to English farmers
advantages and opportunities similar to those given to
Irish tenants by the Act of 1903.

CHAPTER II
OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP {continued)

It is difficult to see how any valid objection can be
raised to the principle of the Bill in any quarter, for,
as Sir James Caird stated some years ago: " There is
not a single reason in favour of exceptional aid from
the Treasury for Ireland that is not equally applicable
to the rest of the United Kingdom."

It will be noticed that on the completion of the pur-
chase the farmer becomes the actual owner of the
land, subject to the yearly instalments. He has free-
dom of cultivation, security for outlay, and every other
incentive for industry, energy, and enterprise, inas-
much as all improvements made and the result of all
money spent on the land remain his own. Subject to
the yearly instalments and other conditions named, he
can at any time sell his farm, or can devise it to those
who come after him. But the holding must always be
in the hands of an occupying owner.

The amount of an instalment, by reason of the very
low rate of interest on which it is based, will, as a rule,
work out less, in some cases much less, than the rent
previously paid.

Nearly all other nations in Europe, some by revolu-
tion, others by wise statesmanship, have adopted
"cultivating ownership" as the basis of their land
tenure. Great Britain (no longer Ireland) almost, if
not quite alone, retains a system based on " landlord,
tenant, and labourer." The results of that system,
as experience shows, are disastrous to all concerned.

5

6 LAND REFORM

Landlords have seen their rents reduced to the lowest
point ; tenants have lost their capital ; labourers have
been driven from the land ; and the whole community
is suffering socially, economically, and physically from
the decay of agriculture. No doubt it will be urged
that there are other causes of the decay of agriculture,
but an attempt will be made to show that those causes
would not have existed but for the land system
referred to, and that they cannot be removed so long
as that system lasts.

Another serious question in this connection is that
of our food supply. The large and yearly increasing
area of land laid down in so-called permanent pasture
("tumbling down" to rubbish would be a better de-
scription so far as much of it is concerned) is a
serious and progressive reduction in the self-feeding
power of the nation, because, as Adam Smith re-
marks, " a cornfield of moderate fertility produces a
much greater quantity of food for man than the best
pasture of equal extent." The area under corn crops
in this country is not only extremely small, but it does
not yield to its full capacity. Sir James Caird re-
marked, some years ago, " People are surprised that
so large a proportion of cultivated land is still per-
mitted to remain partially productive." But there is
no ground for surprise. A good tenant farmer, from
a love of his calling, and to the extent of his means,
does justice to the land; but he has no encouragement
to do so. On the contrary, the system under which he
works justifies the description frequently given of it
as " a premium on bad farming."^

Mt is frequently stated that the average yield of corn per acre in
Great Britain is larger than that in any other country in Europe. This
statement is true, but it is a misleading one. No fair comparison is

OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP 7

I have received many private letters giving strong
opinions on this point. The following two are typical
of the whole, and are selected as coming from men
well known in the agricultural world, and who are
considered to be good farmers : —

" 15 October, 1903.

" I welcome every effort to rid farmers of the mill-
stone always round their necks. I dare not farm well,
or my rent may be raised, or I may not be able to get
the reductions off, which any of my neighbours can
who never put more into their land than the next
crop will take out. There is nothing so disheartening
as to feel that one cannot safely make the land pro-
duce all it can, and thouo-h I have felt it best to do
all one can in spite of the bad system, I have been
paying ten to fifteen shillings per acre more rent than
my neighbours, whose farms used to be higher rented
than mine."

"23 December, 1903.

" I am heartily in favour of making it possible for
tenants to own their occupations. The present system
of tenancy is a premium on bad farming. Whenever
any change of ownership or other cause involves a
readjustment, the good farmer, in most cases, has to
pay an increase of rent, and the bad farmer gets a
reduction."

In looking for a remedy for this state of things it is
wise frankly to consider the facts of the situation.
Under our present system it is difficult to see how
any sufficient help can be given to agriculture. Small
advantages such as are given by the " Agricultural

possible, because the cultivating owner on the Continent utilizes every
patch of ground. He grows corn on land that would not be used for
that purpose in this country. He gets a less number of bushels per
acre off such land and thereby lowers the total average yield, but the
cultivation pays him and is a gain to the community.

8 LAND REFORM

Rating Act," and such as would be given by, say, a
-half-crown duty on imported corn, are no doubt valu-
able, and the gains therefrom remain with the farmer.
But any legislation proposed with the object of giving
substantial aid to the tenant would be regarded and
strongly opposed, as being "landlord relief" It must
be admitted, moreover, that there are grounds for
such opposition. The man who has control over rents
must always be master of the position, and the land-
lord having himself passed through bad times, would
naturally, by an increase of rent, secure a share, and
in many cases, perhaps the whole, of any benefits
which miorht accrue from such legislation.

o o

This view is confirmed by past experience and by
the evidence given before many of the numerous
Royal Commissions and Select Committees on agri-
cultural depression. This evidence conclusively shows
that though improved prices may benefit the tenant
farmer to some small extent, and to a larger extent
during war or other exceptional times, yet the main
and general result of high prices has always been
increased rents.

Under a system of "Cultivating Ownership," how-
ever, all these difficulties disappear. Any aid given
would stay with the cultivator and be used for the
improvement of the land and for the increase of its
production. Further, public opinion, when fully in-
formed on the subject, would soon be in accordance
with the view that really effective assistance given by
legislation to the occupying owner — say, for example,
a premium on every acre cultivated in wheat — would
be for the benefit of the whole community, which has
a primary interest in the productiveness of the soil.

These proposals must be considered together with

OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP 9

the provisions of the second part of the Bill — provi-
sions for the restoration of a peasant proprietary for
the production of the smaller articles of food. If the
provisions of the Bill as a whole were carried out we
should then see the two branches of the agricultural
industry — the large cultivation and the small cultiva-
tion— placed under what Arthur Young called the
"omnipotent principle" of ownership, with the result
that the produce of the land would be more than
doubled. The effect might be even to prove that Sir
J. B. Lawes was not over-sanguine when he said that
" the soil of this country is capable of producing very
much more wheat as well as meat, if not indeed all
that is required to support the population."

The social and other questions involved in these
proposals will be considered later on ; but without
further argument every one must see that a revival of
agriculture, and of the numerous subsidiary trades
connected therewith, would, by a continually increas-
ing demand for labour, be a natural and practical
remedy for the depopulation of our rural districts and
for the over-population of our towns, which have
together become a national danger of the first mag-
nitude.

PEASANT PROPRIETARY

Wherever we find peasant proprietors we also find the comfort, security,
confidence in the future, and independence which assure at once happiness
and virtue. . . . His little patrimony is a true savings bank, always ready
to receive all his little savings and utilize all his moments of leisure. . . .
The peasant proprietor is of all cultivators the one who gets most out of the
soil. . . . Let other nations boast of their opulence, Switzerland may always
point with pride to her peasants. (M. de Sismondi.)

I conceive it to be established . . . that no other existing state of agri-
cultural economy has so beneficial an effect on the industry, the intelligence,
the frugality and prudence of the population. (John Stuart Mill, "Political
Economy.")

The peasants are not, as with us, for the most part totally cut off from
property in the soil they cultivate, totally dependent on the labour afforded
by others — they are themselves the proprietors. . . . They labour busily,
early and late, because they feel they are labouring for themselves. (Hewitt,
*' Rural and Domestic Life of Germany.")

It is almost a universally acknowledged fact that the gross produce of
the land in grain, potatoes, and cattle is increased when the land is culti-
vated by those who own small portions of it. (Prussian Minister of
Statistics, quoted by Mr. Kay in " Free Trade in Land.")

The ancients thought it of prime importance to limit the size of estates,
as they deemed that it was better to have a small acreage with better culti-
vation, an opinion also held I see by Virgil. And if one will confess the
truth, the " Latifundia " (huge estates) have been the ruin of Italy, and are
now also ruining the provinces. (Pliny, " Natural History," Book XVIII.)

An activity has been here that has swept away all difficulties before it,
and has clothed the very rocks with verdure. It would be a disgrace to
common sense to ask the cause. The enjoyment of property must have
done it. Give a man secure possession of a bleak rock and he will turn it
into a garden. (Arthur Young, "Travels in France.")

CHAPTER III

SYNOPSIS OF PURCHASE OF LAND
(ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL, 1905

PART II
PEASANT PROPRIETARY

Part II. of the Bill enables the Board of Agricul-
ture to purchase any land which they may deem
suitable for the purpose of providing holdings for per-
sons who desire to buy and who will themselves
cultivate the holdino-s.

Every such holding shall be not less than three
acres and not more than one hundred acres in extent.

The Board may adapt any land they may acquire
for the purpose of these small holdings by dividing it
and doing what is necessary to make each holding
complete in itself, the cost of such adaptation to be
equitably apportioned among the several holdings.

The Board may erect on each holding a dwelling-
house and such other buildings as may be desirable
for the due occupation of the holding, or if thought
preferable they may advance sums to the purchaser to
enable him to do the work himself, such sums to be
included in the purchase price of the holding.

The Board may advance any money not exceeding
nine-tenths, or, if they think fit in suitable cases up to
the whole of the cost, to a purchaser of a small holding

12 LAND REFORM

for the purposes named in the foregoing sections, and
the method of repayment and the provisions as to sub-
letting and subdividing are the same as in Part I
of the Bill.

The Advisory Committees appointed by County
Councils and Councils of Non-County Boroughs
under the "Small Holdings Act, 1892," are to be
Advisory Committees to the Board, to give informa-
tion and assistance in respect of putting this part of
the Bill into operation.

The sum to be advanced for the purposes of this
part of the Bill is limited to two millions sterling.^

^ In every rural district there are to be found men very suitable as
regards character and ability to be peasant proprietors but who have
not the sum required to be paid down at the time of purchase. To meet
such cases the Board of Agriculture, on the recommendation of the
local Advisory Committee, is enabled to advance the whole of the
purchase money. As far as young men are concerned, a real prospect
of getting land of their own would be enough to induce the best of them
to save money in order to become purchasers.

CHAPTER IV

PEASANT PROPRIETARY {continued)

The imports of the smaller articles of food into this

country are enormous, and are increasing every year.

Through changes in classification made in the official

returns at different times it is difficult to show in

tabulated form the actual increase of every article

during a given number of years. But selecting those

articles which are returned under the same headings in

1895 and 1904, the following table shows the rapid

rate at which the imports have increased during the

ten years : —

TABLE No.

Imports
1895.

£
7.925.979 •••
2,898,018 ...

14,245.230 •••
4,675,130 ...

4.003,446 •••

960,273 ...

166,696 ...

166,045 •••

96,047 ...

2,941,941 ...

696,428 ...

1,169,922 ...

605,160 ...

Bacon

Hams

Butter

Cheese

Eggs

Raw apples

Raw pears

Raw plums

Raw cherries .

Lard

Raw onions

Potatoes .

Poultry and game

Poultry only .

Game only

Rabbits .

3^5.594
40,865,909

I.

Imports
1904.

£

12,832,142

Increase in
10 years,

£
.. 4,906,163

3,104,999 ,
21,117,162
5.843.770

206,981
.. 6,871,932
.. 1,168,640

6,730,574
2,118,294

503.573
526,438

.. 2,727,128

.. 1,158,621

336,877

•• 360,393

319,824

3.342,389
1,076,472

.. 223,777
.. 400,448
.. 380,044

2,437.971

.. 1,268,049

1,089,145

128,132

612,117

780,737

• • 465,143

61,951,622

21,086,313

Besides the above there are other articles which, for
the reason given, cannot be tabulated for the purpose

14 LAND REFORM

of comparison. In the year 1904 the imports of these
articles were as follows : —

TABLE No. 2.

Raw currants, gooseberries, and straw- £

berries . . ... 214,543
^Raw fruits of kinds that could be grown

at home 372,575

Fresh milk and cream .... 25,771
-Condensed and preserved milk in various

forms, and sterilized milk . . . 1,640,215
^Raw vegetables unenumerated (peas,

beans, celery, cabbages, etc., etc.) . 457,491

Margarine 2,494,467

;^5,205,o62

From the above fisfures it will be found that of raw
fruits of the kinds we could produce, and are produc-
ing at home, we imported in 1904 to the value of over
four millions sterling. No doubt a considerable quan-
tity was sent from warmer climates before our own
produce was marketable, but the quantity so sent was
but a small proportion of the whole. Besides the
articles noted, there are tomatoes which could be
grown in England in the same manner as they are
grown in the Channel Islands.^ There is also as-

^ Of this amount (^372,575) Germany sent us to the value of
;^52,692, Holland ;^i 8,699, France £24,7 S7-

2 The great bulk of this came from Norway, Holland, France, and
Belgium.

3 Of this amount (;^457,49i) France sent us to the value of ;^277,356,
Holland £97,Z^9, Germany ^19,481, Belgium £s^^^-

•* Some time ago I was visiting a peasant proprietor in Guernsey who
owns about fifteen acres of land, which he cultivates largely with tomatoes
in glass-houses built in a plain and cheap way under his own direction.
He knew the south of England fairly well, and said that he could do
better there, as land was so much cheaper than in the Island. I re-
minded him that there was plenty of land to be rented. His reply —
which he considered conclusive — was, " Seeing the competition we have
to meet, hired land would be no good to me."

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 15

paragus — a plant indigenous to England — for which
there is an enormous demand, and the successful cul-
tivation of which, in a form to meet the requirements
of the market, requires that minute attention which
a small owner alone can give. Besides the articles
named there are vast quantities of dried and preserved
fruits and vegetables and of fruit jellies of various
kinds imported every year — mainly from Holland,
Belgium, France, and Germany — which, with a revival
of rural prosperity, would in all probability, at least to
a large extent, be produced at home. Flowers and
honey may be termed specialities of the peasant pro-
prietor. Of the former we imported in 1904 to the
value of nearly a quarter of a million sterling, and of
the latter about ^30,000.^

Here at our very doors we have a vast and ever-
increasing- market for articles of food which this
country is by nature fitted to produce, and with regard
to some of them more fitted than any other country.
But it is a market we cannot supply under our present
system, and so the door is closed to sound and profit-
able employment for an enormous number of our
people. At the same time millions of acres of land
have gone out of cultivation, and the process is steadily
continuing, while the rural population are migrating to
already overcrowded centres of industry, in the hope
of bettering their condition.

It is as if a manufacturer with the offer of abundance
of orders, with materials lying on the ground, and
workmen standing idle, were, through defects in his

* A year or two ago there was a growing trade in the export of
English grapes to France, but recently the French Government put a
prohibitive duty on that article which straightway put an end to the
trade.

i6 LAND REFORM

plant and machinery, to allow those orders to pass to
foreign makers who showed more adaptability in their
methods of production. Only by a system of peasant
proprietary can this vast amount of trade be secured
for our own people. There is no other way. Peasant
proprietary existed at one time in this country for the
country's good. It exists now in other lands, where
it is prized as a firm basis of national strength and
security. It was destroyed in England largely by
legislation. It can be restored only by the same
means.

M. de Laveleye (the Belgian Rural Economist)
stated that "peasant proprietary is a lost art in
England." It is true that ages of class legislation —
most of it unjust, much of it iniquitous — has divorced
the peasant from the soil ; reduced him to a mere
wage-receiver and left him with no prospect but
that of private charity or parish relief. Other
nations have pursued precisely the opposite policy.
They held it to be in their best interests, at all
costs, to root the peasant in the soil instead of
squeezing him off. Stein and Hardenberg in Prussia
dealt with the question in its most complicated
form. To the bitter opposition of the feudal powers,
and to the warnings of the economist, they had
practically one reply, which was to the effect that
a numerous rural population, possessing interests in
the land, was of vital importance to the state — to its
health, strength, and permanence. Subsequent events
have abundantly vindicated the wisdom of their states-
manship.

Mr. Thornton — one of the greatest authorities —
in his " Plea for Peasant Proprietary" states that "as
long as the connection of the peasantry with the land

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 17

remained unbroken, England was perfectly free from
every symptom of pauperism." An attempt to restore
that connection should enlist, not only the sympathy,
but the active aid of all classes of the community.

The scheme proposed is at least a practical one. At
the worst, any money risks which might be involved
by its possible failure, or partial failure, are quite un-
worthy of consideration alongside of even a chance
of success and the consequent benefits, social and
economic, which would accrue to the nation.^

> Peasant proprietary no doubt, as M. de Laveleye states, has practi-
cally died out in England. In different parts of the country, however,
there are still to be found many examples of the old yeoman farmers,
a class of men that used to exist in such large numbers, and which it is
the object of the Land Purchase Bill to restore. An account of the
position of one of these cultivators might enable the general reader to
realize the importance of the class better than he could by any general
description. To that end the following letter might be useful, a letter
received this year from a yeoman farmer in the west of England, whom
the present writer has known for the past thirty years, and for the
correctness of whose statements he can vouch : —

" The Purchase of Land Bill is much wanted, and I am sure the Bill
will rapidly gain ground among farmers when its objects are known and
understood. I have a practical experience of the merits of your proposal
(cultivating ownership), for, as you know, I own the farm I occupy, and
can therefore realize to the full what the magic of ownership, as Arthur
Young calls it, will do. I own and cultivate 120 acres of land. I keep
70 sheep, 50 to 70 bullocks, 4 horses, a fair stock of pigs, and a large
number of poultry, and I grow a considerable quantity of fruit. I am
C

i8 LAND REFORM

liberal in the employment of labour, as the land is naturally so poor and
hilly that, if it were let and rack-rented for a term of seven years, no tenant
farmer would give more than los. an acre for it. Sixty years ago the
farm was valued at £ss ^ year. Last year (1904) the whole of this
Union was valued by a well-known firm of valuers, and my farm was
assessed by them at ^211 a year.

" I am bounded on three sides by tenant farmers who have no interest
in improving their land. I have had the curiosity to look into the past
and present rateable value of their farms, and find it is now just what it
was many years ago, about 12s. an acre, although the land is, to say the
least, quite as improvable as mine. Obviously the output of food from
these farms is very small as compared, acre for acre, with that of my
own farm, and the national loss, due to this system of tenancy, is, as
a consequence, very great. Some people thought that Lord Derby was
drawing the long-bow when he said the produce of the soil of England
could be doubled. It is all nonsense, it could be done easily, very
easily.

" Singularly enough, one farm that adjoins me has for many years
been cultivated by the owner, and I must confess that it has increased
in value even more rapidly than my own."

The writer of this letter takes a prominent part in local work, educa-
tion, etc., shows a keen interest in agricultural and other public questions,
and is a member of the County Council. The arrangements and sur-
roundings of his comfortable and well-equipped homestead show the
special attributes of a permanent home. This is the type of farmer
which it is sought, for the public good, by the proposals made, to increase
by thousands in number. No doubt he works hard, but, as a yeoman
owner, he enjoys what he himself describes as "one of the healthiest
and most independent of occupations under the sun."

Agricultural Education
in Elementary Schools.

A

BILL

To promote Agricultural Education and
Nature Study in Public Elementary
Schools.

Presented by Mr. Jesse Collings,

supported by

Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Rothschild,

Mr. Seymour Ormsby- Gore, Sir Ernest Flower,

Mr. Spear, Mr. Morrell, and

Sir Fortescue Flannery.

Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed,
9 March 1905.

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND
NATURE STUDY

In teachings facts to the young, the great thing to aim at is not dis-
cipline, but interest ; learning should be a joy, children should be assisted
forward by attraction in front. . . . First arouse interest, then supply in-
formation. ... Is the teaching in rural schools all that could be desired in
view of the future life and surroundings of the scholars ? . . . I have often
felt as if they would be better out observing nature, with educated assist-
ance, in the fields, and laying a foundation for knowledge such as may
hereafter provide them with some hobby of perpetual and lifelong interest ;
instead of being cooped up in stuffy rooms " with blinded eyesight, poring
over miserable books." Books, too, are necessary, of course, and poetry
and much human information as well ; but should not the forces and the
intricacies and the secrets of nature also be opened up? . . . Yet these
children, uneducated and unenlightened, will have far too much of it, will
feel deadly dull, and will flock into the towns hereafter for comradeship and
interests which they cannot create for themselves. (Sir Oliver Lodge.)

There is no doubt of the necessity for work of this kind (nature study)
with the children. The love or antipathy of the farm is engendered at a very
early age in the minds of the young. (Prof. Bailey, " Cornell University,"
U.S.A.)

The efficiency of tuition will, other things equal, be proportionate to the
gratification with which tasks are performed. ... It is desirable that the
instructive inclination which every child shows to observe natural beauties
and investigate natural phenomena should be encouraged. (Herbert Spencer,
" Education.")

From observation and memory there is only one step to reflection . . .
every object that surrounds the child might be made instrumental to the
excitement of thought. . . . We must bear in mind that the ultimate end of
education is not a perfection in the accomplishments of the school, but fitness
for life. . . . There are scarcely any circumstances in which a want of
application does not proceed from a want of interest. Indescribable tedium
must oppress the juvenile mind while the weary hours are slowly passing
away, one by one, in an occupation which they can neither relish nor under-
stand its use. ... It is well to make a child read and write and learn and
repeat — but it is still better to make a child think. Education, instead of
merely considering what is to be imparted to children, ought to consider first
what they may be said already to possess, if not as a developed, at least as
an involved faculty capable of development. (Pestalozzi, " Letters on
Education," 1827.)

I found that in America it is the " practical" subjects which are princi-
pally taught. . . . With the ordinary " everyday " boy who has to fight his
way in the world, the bulk of the time is devoted to practical subjects likely
to be of most use to him in after life. (Alfred Mosely, " Reports of the
Mosely Commission.")

CHAPTER V

SYNOPSIS OF

THE AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BILL, 1905

The general object of this Bill is to provide for the
teaching in public elementary schools of agricultural
and horticultural subjects ; to give facilities for nature
study ; and generally by means of object lessons to
cultivate habits of observation and inquiry on the part
of the pupils.

A Schedule attached to the Bill contains the follow-
ing subjects, in addition to nature study, to be taught
in the schools : Fruit-, flower- and vegetable-growing ;
poultry- and bee-keeping ; budding, pruning and graft-
ing ; cow- and pig-keeping ; milking ; rotation of
garden crops ; nature and properties of soils ; know-
ledge and choice of seeds ; structure, life and food of
plants ; action of birds and insects on crops ; use of
manures ; use of simple tools ; packing fruit, veget-
ables and other produce for market.

Clause 2 gives to local Education Authorities wide
powers for giving this teaching and for the provision
of school gardens, tools, workshops, and all else that is
necessary for carrying it out in an effective manner.

A special grant, not exceeding 75 per cent of the
cost, is to be made by the Board of Education to local
Education Authorities towards the expenses incurred
in carrying out this part of the Bill.

21

22 LAND REFORM

Under Clause 3, local Education Authorities are
empowered to form small museums or collections, con-
sisting of minerals, plants, seeds, birds, animals, etc.,
etc., for the purpose of illustrating the instruction
given.

Towards the expenses of putting this section into
operation a special grant, not exceeding 50 per cent
of the cost, is to be made by the Board of Education
to the local Education Authorities.

Local Education Authorities are empowered to apply,
for the purposes named in this Clause 3, any sums
they may deem necessary from the Local Taxation
Act, 1890 (Whisky Money).

Under Clause 4 the Board of Education is directed
to make such alterations in the Code as may be neces-
sary to make the teaching specified in the Bill com-
pulsory in all elementary schools situated in rural and
semi-rural districts.

Further, the grants paid on account of children
taught in the subjects named are to be according to
the highest scale named in the Code.^

1 A Bill similar to the present one was introduced by the present
writer in 1893. It was backed by Sir John Lubbock (Lord Avebury),
Sir Bernhard Samuelson, Sir John Kennaway, Sir Robert Reid, and
Mr. George Dixon. It passed its second reading, but the Education
Department at that time looked on the measure with scant favour, and it
went no further. The present heads of the Board of Education, together
with the Secretary to the Board, are, however, showing themselves more
favourable to a change in the direction desired.

CHAPTER VI

RURAL EDUCATION

Various causes are assigned for the fact that the
younger generation are leaving the country districts
as fast as they find opportunities for doing so. Better
wages, attractions of town Hfe, social considerations,
and the stagnation of village life, are the reasons
usually given for this " exodus." But there is no doubt
that one of the most potent causes of all is to be found
in the kind of education oriven in rural schools.

The direct tendency of that education is to create
a distaste for agricultural labour — if not for manual
labour of all sorts — and a dissatisfaction with country
life generally. By it new ideas, totally dissociated
from the localities in which they live, are instilled in
the minds of the young, who believe that such ideas
can only be realized elsewhere. This, and a total
absence of any prospect for the young labourer of a
career on the land, are together sufficient to account
for that wholesale migration which is such a serious
incident in our national life.

The authorities a generation ago, in putting the
Act of 1870 into operation, took a too scholarly view
of education. Their methods were to store the rustic
mind with undigested facts, to teach children as you
would teach parrots, unmindful of the fact that they —
the children — had powers of observation, of thinking,
and of inquiry, the development of which is " educa-
tion." Hence the well-stuffed codes and the wonder-
ful invention of " payment by results " (rather a pay-
ment for appearances), which together gave a paper

23

24 LAND REFORM

satisfaction to the ratepayers, but cribbed the powers
of the teacher and were injurious to the child.

It was an error to assume that the agricultural
labourer of that day was an uneducated oaf. It is
true he had no book-learning, but he had a shrewd
common sense, while his knowledge and powers of
observation with regard to crops, weather, seasons,
and all other things that came within the narrow
range of his hard and dismal life, were marked and
hereditary. In rural schools the true educational
method should have been (besides the three R's) to
lay hold of and develop the inherent capacity in the
children, and by appropriate teaching to train them in
the knowledge of the "how and the why" of the
natural objects by which they were surrounded. As
Lord Bacon says, " Certainly custome is most perfect
when it beginneth in young yeeres. This wee call
education ; which is nothing but an early custome."^

There is on the part of the young no natural anti-
pathy to country life. On the contrary, their inborn
tendency is to love it. That tendency could be
developed and made lasting by a suitable system of
education and training-.

The teaching of agriculture (agriculture in its widest
sense) and a study of the phenomena connected with
the mystery of growth, is the one teaching that can
be made interesting and even fascinating to the minds
of children. As Professor Carroll (Report, 1902)
states : " In no other subject of education are there so
many details within which may be found matter of
disciplinary value in training the minds of the young.
... In agriculture there exists ready in its every
phase and varied in its extent, matter for useful in-

1 " Essay on Custom and Education." — Arber's Reprints.

RURAL EDUCATION 25

struction. ... In vegetable physiology and botany
there is in the neighbourhood of all rural schools
matter for thought, observation, and teaching."

To be effective, however, in developing the tastes
and influencing the career of children, this teaching
must be begun early. For children engaged in book-
learning and literary cramming till they are thirteen
or fourteen years old, it is too late. By that time
other ideas and habits will have been acquired, and
a dislike for country work confirmed. Lord Kelvin
states:^ "The work on which I am enora^ed this
day is work to which I was initiated when I was a
child," and he goes on to narrate the subsequent steps
in his great career. So, on the same principle, chil-
dren in the elementary schools, if " initiated " in rural
subjects, and with some prospects of a career held out
to them, would become the natural feeders of those
admirable classes for " technical agricultural teaching "
which so many County Councils have instituted, and
these classes would then become continuation schools
in the true sense of the term.

But teaching of a kind quite different from this
was adopted at first in our rural schools, and with
some modifications has been continued to the present
day. Children are subject to a steady grind of book-
work, practised without much interest, and often with
aversion. As Sir Oliver Lodge describes it, " a certain
amount of orthodox but dull material is laid before
them, and they are condemned to spend a certain
number of hours over it." The memory is loaded
with facts and information often useless and mostly
soon to be forgotten, while the powers of observation
are destroyed and the " innate inquisitiveness of child-
' " Nature," 29 October, 1903.

26 LAND REFORM

hood slain." A system more calculated to give children
a distaste for country life and to divorce them from
their surroundings can hardly be imagined. It is, as
a writer observes, as if " the manufacture of little clerks
was the final end of education."

Mr. J. A. Willis, one of H. M. Chief Inspectors,
puts the case very clearly. He says that the scheme
of work in several subjects is too large and too detailed
for rural schools. For example, he condemns the
practice of teaching history " in periods," as it involves
an amount of detail "quite foreign to the minds of the
elementary scholar." He adds : " Nothing can be
more mournful than to see little unfortunates, on their
first introduction to history, laboriously spelling their
way through statements in journalese English about
the policy of Sir Robert Walpole, because, forsooth,
' we are taking the Hanoverian period ' ! " ^

Mr. Willis is content to abide the charge of " lower-
ing the standard of education." He very wisely has
the " ordinary child " in mind, though, as he says, the
" extraordinary child " need not be left out of account.
In the same report Mr. Willis states : "As I said in
my last report, I believe that if teachers were minded
the cottage garden could be made the basis of the
whole rural education."

Many of the general body of Inspectors in the
same Report speak in a similar strain. These men,
being in continual touch with schools, teachers and
teaching, have the best opportunities of knowing the
actual state of things, and therefore their opinions
ous^ht to receive the orreatest consideration.

^ General Report on Elementary Schools (Cd, 1706-1903). Note: —
These Reports are quoted at some length because so few of the general
public have either the opportunity or the desire for studying Blue Books.

RURAL EDUCATION 27

The following extracts from their Reports are in-
structive and worth quoting.^ Mr. Jarman says (p. 29) :

" I think the average child leaves school less
thoroughly prepared for the ordinary working person's
life. The exceptional child, keen to learn, is better
than he used to be, but the average child is more
superficially taught. There is a growing spirit of
indifference to School Work on the part of the
children."

Mr. E. Roberts reports (p. 59) : —

" There hardly exists a rural school which is not
surrounded by a rich variety of phenomena, growths,
and animated life, upon which children can bring their
powers of observation to bear with radiant pleasure
and delightful profit. These should be sought and
studied, and not the stereotyped and hide-bound
homilies, however eminent their authors and excellent
their contents."

Mr. Hughes states (p. 64) : —

" Finally there is one general remark that I should
like to make, and that is to emphasize what I have
already hinted at, as to the lack of growth of resource-
fulness in our pupils. Too often indeed pupils leave
school unable to do anything for themselves. . . .
There can be no doubt that our trained teachers are
apt to teach far too much, — the children are never
allowed to surmount an obstacle for themselves — they
are not allowed to think a matter out for themselves —
the food in front of them is arranged so scientifically,
it is so carefully sifted and chosen, that the mastication
becomes a most mechanical process. . . . Until we can
inscribe Power and not Knowledge as the aim of train-
ing we shall suffer from a bad system of education."

' General Report on Elementary Schools (Cd, 1706- 1903).

28 LAND REFORM

Much evidence is to be found also in the Report,
showing the remarkable effect which an improved
method of teaching has on the children in schools
where such teaching is given.

Mr. L. J. Roberts (p. 52) says : —

" The process of making acquaintance with external
nature is being" made delightful and stimulatinor to the
children, and while their capacity for exact observa-
tion is being developed, they are being taught to take
a pleasurable interest in every living thing around
them. That interest in the green earth and its
feathered and four-footed tenantry, which is seem-
ingly instinctive in most children, is being fostered
into a lifelong resource. It is pleasing to notice how
many school plants are now grown for observation,
and how the growth of the plant is observed and
recorded from day to day, so that the children gain
something of the pleasure of original investigation,
simple though it be as yet. . . . Many teachers
possess a special knowledge of school gardening and
a real interest in the subject, and one cannot too
greatly admire the readiness with which many of
them, often out of school hours, take their scholars
to the school -house garden, there to tell them
what he has learned and observed in his leisure
hours."

If we turn from the evidence of inspectors to that
of teachers, we find that with many of them the same
view of the subject prevails. ^The following extracts

^ For a full report see " Nature Study," by W. M. Webb. (Co-opera-
tive Printing Society, London. Price 6d.) See also a valuable work,
beautifully illustrated, on the same subject, "Eton Nature Study and
Observational Lessons." (Matthew Davenport Hill and Wilfred Mark
Webb. 1903. Duckworth & Co.)

RURAL EDUCATION 29

from papers read by teachers at a recent " Nature
Study Exhibition " are very interesting : —

"The school garden is a piece of ground preserved
solely for school purposes. . . . Except that it is kept
weeded during the holidays, the whole work of the
garden and orchard is done by the boys and girls,
from first to last, under the direction of a master on
the staff. The experimental portion is used for grow-
ing all the plants most necessary for life in different
conditions of soil, manure, and so on. In fact, it is
an outdoor laboratory, to be used in connection with
the class-room, in which further experiments are
carried out in plant physiology and the chemistry of
earth, air, and water, for the investigation of the
problems suggested by the garden work." (Mr. F. H.
Badley.)

Again : —

•• I am dissatisfied with mere book-education. I
want my children to see, to smell, to handle, to feel,
and to think about things for themselves. In books
we do all this, at best, second-hand, I want to make
their observation more acute and their records more
accurate. . . . We are not taucrht to see thingrs, and
we do not see them. We o^o through life without
seeing half the beauty, half the wonder that is daily
before our eyes." (Mr. H. Lorison.)

It is difficult to understand how the Board of
Education — in spite of traditional leaning in favour
of literary education — can resist evidence, not only
from its own officers, but from many other quarters —
in favour of a reform in the present methods of
teaching. It is true that several subjects of a rural
kind are now added to the code as " optional " sub-
jects. This "permission" is useful as far as it goes.

30 LAND REFORM

as it gives an opportunity for managers and teachers
to show what gfood results can be o"ot from the kind
of teaching referred to, even when given under un-
favourable, and sometimes even discouraging, circum-
stances. But the schools in which this instruction is
given with any thoroughness are comparatively few
in number. Inspectors report whole districts with few,
if any, school gardens. It is stated that school gardens
are very slow to "take on," for the reasons that the
"expenses are great," and that the "grant is inade-
quate," etc.^

This state of things is likely to continue so long as
what may be called apathy exists at headquarters.

The addition of Nature Study and the teaching of
agriculture as " optional " subjects to an already over-
crowded curriculum is altogether insufficient to meet
the case. They should be made compulsory subjects
in all rural schools, and a foremost place given to them,
by the omission of other subjects that are either use-
less or of minor importance. It is not a question to
be treated in any perfunctory way, but as a serious
and pressing one on which the future character of
rural life in England greatly depends.

In France the Chiefs of the two Departments of

^ The Education Committee of the Warwickshire County Council
have provided school gardens in some villages, but they state : " As the
Board of Education have declined to express an opinion whether a Local
Education Authority may provide land for school gardens for the use of
children attending non-provided schools, we have required managers of
non-provided schools to provide the land at their own cost." (Report
of Warwickshire Education Committee, 19 April, 1904.)

The same Committee later on state : " We are of opinion that though
the teaching of some principles of Agriculture and Domestic Economy
is desirable, the practical difficulties and expense are so great that we do
not see our way to recommend it for all rural schools." (Report, July
30, 1904-)

RURAL EDUCATION 31

Government (Agriculture and Education) combine
together to promote in every way the teaching of
husbandry in rural schools. Their joint object, freely
expressed in reports and speeches, is not only to
improve agriculture, but "to inspire the young with a
love of country life," so as to keep them permanently
on the land. They regard any tendency towards
migration as a national misfortune to be counteracted
in every possible way. In this course they are backed
up by the Government and by public opinion. In-
stead of ;^ 1 36,000, which is the sum placed at the
disposal of our Board of Agriculture for all purposes,
the French Department of Agriculture is credited by
the State (1904) with ;!f 1,759,000.^

The yearly grants in aid given by our Board of
Agriculture to agricultural institutions of various kinds
amount to only ;!^ 10,000, while the vote for agricul-
tural education in France has reached the sum (1899)
of no less than ;!^i52,46o.^

Agricultural teaching is compulsory only in the
elementary schools of France ; but in order to have
no idle interval in the child's education, a new class of
schools was established by the Act of 1875, which
are practically continuation primary schools. They
are for the children of labourers, peasants, and small
farmers, who can enter at the age of thirteen on leav-
ing the elementary schools.

' "Consular Report No. 3172 on the French Budget for 1904."
- " Consular Report No. 505 on Agricultural Education in France,
1899." This is, of course, in addition to the large sums voted by Local
Authorities for the same purpose. In the small kingdom of Wiirtemberg
(about the size of Wales), with a revenue of about four and a half millions
sterling, the State grant was ^72,550 for the promotion of agriculture.
This is in addition to grants for veterinary matters and for the manage-
ment of woods and forests.

32 LAND REFORM

The object of these E coles pratiques d' Agriculture
(Practical Agricultural Schools), as officially described,
is the "practical elementary teaching of agriculture."
The whole of the teaching staff and the expenses of
all accessory work (such as experiments, etc., etc.)
are provided exclusively by the State.

A farm is attached to each school, and the training
is thoroughly practical — learning by doing. The ob-
ject, as stated in one of the reports, is "to take the
child when he leaves the primary or superior primary
school, to give him two years' thorough practical and
theoretical learning, and then to send him back to the
agricultural family, which he will not again leave."
Such is the object of the Ecole pratique d'Agriculture ;
the School does not pretend to make finished agri-
culturists of its pupils, but it furnishes them with the
means of becoming so, by giving them a solid founda-
tion of essential agfricultural knowledore.

The promoters (Local Authorities or others) are
responsible only for the establishment and upkeep of
the schools, for which they receive the fees. These
fees are fixed by the Minister of Agriculture, who in
an official circular fixed them at from ^i6 to £24. per
annum, which sums include board, lodging, and every
other expense. For day pupils the fees are very low,
generally merely nominal. But a very large number
of free scholarships is given by the State and by the
Local Authorities to assist — in the words of the cir-
cular— " those small cultivators who desire for their
children the training offered, but who cannot well
afford the expense." Practically no one is excluded
on the score of expense.

Full particulars of these schools are given in a
report issued by the Minister of Agriculture (Rapport

RURAL EDUCATION 33

sur I'Enseignement Agricole en France, Imprimerie
Nationale, Paris).

They are described in this Report as "practical
schools of agriculture for the class of peasant pro-
prietors, who form such an immense majority of the
cultivators of the soil — for those laborious peasants
who are counted by millions, and who constitute one
of the greatest forces of the country." The Report
further states that the children are taken at the age of
thirteen, on leaving the primary schools, with the
object of completing the instruction given in those
schools.

It is claimed for this widespread and "very suit-
able agricultural education,"^ that it binds the children
to rural life, and makes them less desirous of going
into towns "to swell the numbers, already too
great, of those dSclassds who constitute a perpetual
danger to society." There were thirty-nine of these
schools established at the date of the report, and a
hope is expressed that the time is not far off when
each of the eighty-seven departments of France will
possess one.^ These institutions are referred to at this
length because they are so nearly connected with the
elementary schools, and chiefly because of the value
set on them by the French authorities, both central
and local. They are valued, not only from an
economic point of view, but on account of the great
effect they are supposed to be having on the social
life of the nation.

The most important and instructive document of

' See Vol. I, p. 74.

2 The present writer has visited two or three of these schools, and
though it is unwise to generalize from a few examples, yet, judging from
these examples, the schools deserve the high praise given to them.

34 LAND REFORM

all, however, is that issued by the French Minister of
Education, which contains "A Scheme for the teach-
ing of elementary ideas of Agriculture (a compulsory
subject) in rural schools." It is a practical guide to
teachers in o^ivinof this instruction. It contains essen-
tial directions with which the teacher must comply,
with such modifications as are required by the circum-
stances of the locality. The document is well illus-
trated with drawings showing the apparatus, kind of
experiments, etc., recommended. Three courses of
instruction are set forth : the Elementary Course,
for children from seven to nine years of age ; the
Middle Course, for children from nine to eleven ;
and the Higher Course, for those from eleven to
thirteen.

It is impressed on the teachers that "the aim of
elementary instruction in agriculture is to initiate the
bulk of our country children into that degree of
elementary knowledge which is necessary to enable
them to read a modern book on agriculture with
profit ... to inspire them with a love of country life
so that they may prefer it to that of towns and
factories ; and to convince them of the fact that agri-
culture, besides being the most independent of all
means of livelihood, is also more remunerative than
many other occupations, to those who practise it with
industry, intelligence and enlightenment."^

Many of our County Councils have made admirable
arrangements for teachingr the various branches of
agriculture. But they labour under great difficulties —

^ "Enseignement des Notions El^mentaires d' Agriculture dans les
Ecoles Rurales." This scheme should be read by all who are interested
in the subject. A full translation is published by the Board of Education
in Ireland as an Appendix to the Report (C. 8925-1898).

RURAL EDUCATION 35

first, the sparseness of the rural population ; next, the
want of preliminary training in the elementary schools ;
and lastly, the almost total absence in our villages of
the class of children found in the French schools. In
France the great bulk of the pupils in elementary
schools are the children of small farmers, peasant
proprietors, or of labourers either owning some land
or with prospects of doing so.

In English schools these classes are rarely found.
The children learn what is set before them, with no
fixed idea as to their later career, except it be to get
away from their villages, as others have done before
them. If there is a very sharp lad among them, he is
considered by parents and friends as " too good for
the land," meaning by that that he is too good to
become and remain an agricultural labourer, to which
state his prospects are at present confined.

No doubt there would at first be a difficulty in
securing competent teachers, but it is a difficulty con-
nected with educational administration, and could be
readily overcome if there were a will to do so. At
present the best-paid situations are in cities and other
populous places. The village schoolmaster, besides
being less well paid, leads an isolated life, unrelieved
by any special interest (either for himself or his pupils)
in the dull routine of instruction he has to g"ive. These
positions should be reversed, and the best teachers
should be secured for country schools by the offer of
pecuniary and other inducements.

To acquire a practical knowledge of the subjects to
be taught in the schools, free scholarships should be
offered to teachers, tenable at suitable agricultural
institutions. The knowledge of these subjects should
be obligatory on teachers in rural schools, and a certi-

36 LAND REFORM

ficate of proficiency in them should carry with it special
advantages.^

Under these new conditions numbers of men and
women, whose natural tastes and inclinations lean
towards country pursuits, would speedily qualify them-
selves as teachers in rural schools where the education
given would be so interesting to themselves and to
their pupils.

There are many who hold it absurd to suppose that
agriculture can be taught to young children in elemen-
tary schools. But the term agriculture is used here,
not in the usual and restricted sense of referring only
to the farmer's work of raising corn, cattle, etc. It is
used in its real and inclusive sense, as relating also to
horticulture and to everything else connected with the
cultivation of the soil.

No one pretends that advanced agriculturists can
be turned out of the elementary schools. But what
can be done is, in the words of Lord Kelvin, " to
initiate " the children in rural subjects ; and, during
the most impressionable age, to form and confirm
their taste and love for everything belonging to
country life. It is a timely and necessary begin-
ning of an education to be continued during later
years.

Those who are old enough can remember at what
a very early age children in former times — either by
apprenticeships or through the needs of parents —
took part in farm work ; and it is astonishing what

1 Mr. Howard states : " Facilities and assistance are at present needed
for rural teachers to attend suitable classes. Even if fees for tuition are
merely nominal, the travelling expenses are serious for a teacher with
a small salary" (General Reports on Elementary Schools, Cd, 1706,
1903)-

RURAL EDUCATION 37

useful things they were capable of doing.^ This cus-
tom, however, was a wrong one, not on the score of
health, but because it deprived the children of educa-
tion, and wiped out the period of child-life with its
leisure and play. Still, if we are to have a continuous
race of agriculturists, this "initiation," this training,
must be begun at the same early age, and the elemen-
tary school is the only place where such training can
be given to an extent sufficient for the object in view,
and in a manner that will leave the pleasures of child-
life untouched. Work in connection with the land is
not like that in factories and workshops. Children have
a natural bent to busy themselves in it whenever they
can ofet the chance of doingr so.

It is useless, however, to expect that this alteration
in rural education will be sufficient of itself to stop
migration, at any rate, so far as the cleverer children
are concerned. Indeed, so long as there is no visible
career on the land, and to become "little clerks"
remains the ambition of sharp children in rural

' A letter recently received from a clergyman illustrates this point.
" I have been Vicar and Rector of two country parishes : twenty-two years
in Suffolk, twenty-one in Berkshire. During most of that time I have
taken children out of school hours and had them to work in the house ;
if girls, in the garden, and in the stable if boys. Many have thus got
' technical education ' and have started in good places on leaving me. I
have a boy now nearly twelve, who came to me eighteen months ago.
He has learnt to clean shoes, knows how to milk, to help in the stables,
even to harness a pair, and has got some knowledge of poultry-keeping,
growing cucumbers and melons in frames, and, in fact, is generally useful
and perfectly healthy. He regularly attends school. He began at is. a
week, and now earns 3s. a week. If he were free from school he would
be worth 6s. a week." (From the Rev. C. T. Cornish, Childrey Rectory,
Wantage, August, 1903.)

The present writer could dig, plant, attend to poultry and pigs, and
do other work of the same kind at ten ; could mow, harness, and "put
to" a horse, and do other things on the land at twelve to fourteen, the
doing which was regarded as a pleasure, and not as a toil.

38 LAND REFORM

schools, it would perhaps be better to let the present
system of education remain as it is, and to improve it
in the direction of making these children efficient
"little clerks," so as to give them equal chances with
those turned out from urban schools with whom they
have to compete.^ Therefore, the recommendations
contained in the " Rural Education Bill " must be
taken with those contained in the " Land Purchase
Bill," particularly in the second part thereof which
relates to the creation of a peasant proprietary. To
the extent that these reforms taken as a whole could
be carried out, to that extent would the whole force
and meaning of our country life be changed.

Agriculture is the one industry that never dies. It
is the one for the produce of which there is an ever-
increasinor demand. To the deo^ree that it is restored

o o

to prosperity on the lines suggested, to that degree the
" decay of our villages," about which so much has
been written, would be stopped, and their " silent
loneliness," so much complained of, would disappear.
In olden times village life in " Merrie Enorland" was
not a dull one. The villages were peopled by all
those classes of cultivators that have been destroyed,
largely by legislation, and which it should now be the
object of legislation to restore. The old yeoman
farmers were alive with interests in their own pro-
perty. The small colonies of peasant proprietors in
Worcestershire and elsewhere are not "lonely," nor
are their lives dull, and with proper education and fair

' " Some country schools have a kind of connection with various
London firms, and find regular employment there for some of their
brightest boys, who often do very well." (Mr. Henderson, Report on
Elementary Schools, Cd, 1706, 1903, p. 75.)

RURAL EDUCATION 39

prospects the rural youth would learn to regard the
country districts as their permanent home.

These ideas may appear somewhat visionary, and
it is possible that the attempt to realize them would
be tempered by some failures. But they are in reality
reasonable and practical. The policy they contain
should be a popular one, because, to say the least, it
gives some hope of a remedy for the present deplor-
able condition of rural life in England.

CHAPTER VII

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM
ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH

Before dealing further with the arguments for and
against a scheme for the restoration of Yeoman or
Occupying Ownership, and Peasant Proprietary, it is
well to review the causes which have led up to the
present system of land tenure in England. Such a
sketch, however, to be of any use, must begin at
a very early date, for " the centuries are all lineal
children of one another."^ Without this historical
reference, it is impossible for the general reader to
understand the present position of the Land question.
The problems contained in that question can only be
solved in the light of history. It is quite necessary
" to learn the meaninor of the old order of things with
its community and equality, as a key to the right
understanding of the new order of things, with the
contrasting individual independence and inequality."^

This sketch, however, is by no means made in a
spirit of antagonism to any particular class. On the
contrary, it is made in the hope that all classes — land-
lords included — after seriously considering the results
of past legislation and methods, will come to the con-
clusion that for their own as well as for the national
good, a drastic alteration is urgently needed. At the

' Carlyle.

" "The English Village Community," Seebohm.
40

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 41

same time no excuse or apology is felt to be necessary
in placing before the public the case of the descendants
of the despoiled classes of former days. It must
always be borne in mind that the principle o{ purchase
is the basis of the proposals now made. That being
so, it is impossible that any material harm can be
done to anyone. There remains, therefore, only the
wisdorri and fitness of the suggested changes to be
considered.

A proper understanding of the following pages is
difficult therefore without some knowledge of the
history of land tenure in England. The study of all
matters connected with the land from early times —
the various kinds of land tenure which existed and
the complicated laws, customs, and practices on which
these tenures rested — are all intensely interesting.
It is to be regretted that more persons — especially
young persons — do not engage in this study, as it is
the very best quest into the real history of the
English people. For the present purpose and for
the sake of plainness, it is thought best, in tracing
the growth of the English land system, to start from
a certain point — the Norman Conquest — when a
comparatively new order of things with regard to
the land began.

As to questions such as the existence of feudal tenure
in England before the Conquest, and the modifications
thereof which the Conqueror introduced ; the changes
effected by its development as a territorial system
rather than a judicial one ; the position of the Anglo-
Saxon holders of folcland and bocland ; the manner in
which King William treated the land question from
the point of view of a conqueror dividing the spoils
among his followers, and also from the point of view

42 LAND REFORM

of a rightful heir to the English Crown, which he
claimed to be ; the extent to which the King retained
the supreme power in his own hands and exacted a
direct oath of fealty to himself from every tenant of
land in the kingdom, whoever was his lord ; the
manner in which the whole country was parcelled out
into manors ; the powers of the lords of the manors
and the extent to which they were controHed by
custom ; the methods by which the manors were
divided into the lord's demesne, common land, and
holdings of free and unfree tenants and the terms of
the tenure of these holdings ; the manner in which the
lord carved up portions of his demesne lands and let
them to a new body of tenants, who, so long as they paid
their rents, had practically perpetual tenure and were
free men ; the creation of a class of customary tenants,
or copyholders, who, notwithstanding the payment of
rents, retained the servile status ; how far these copy-
holders were the historical successors of the old English
folcland holders, who had heritable titles, according
to local customs, and who paid services originally to
the State, but subsequently to the lord ; the intricate
manner in which sub-letting — sub-infeudation — was
affected by the statute "Quia Emptores," 1290; the
different forms and powers of alienation : — all these
subjects are fully treated by eminent authorities, and
are most interesting even to students without legal
training, but would take too much space to deal with
here.

The laws relating to land are so complicated
that only lawyers can understand them. The only
method for a layman to pursue is to carefully study
the opinions and decisions of the best authorities on
each of the several branches of the question, and to

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 43

accept the views of these authorities when he finds
them in general agreement,^

In deaHng thus with the question of the land, the
great facts to be grasped — on which the most eminent
writers are agreed — are, that land throughout England
is the subject of " Tenure," and not of Ownership ;
that absolute ownership of land is unknown to English
law ; that in practice in early times and in theory at
the present day the only absolute owner is the king,
and that every one else holds such land as he may
possess (whatever may be his rights with regard to it
and its free alienation) simply as a tenant of the king.

This may or may not be regarded by the territorial
party as a mere legal fiction, but nevertheless there
seems to be no doubt that in theory at least the
king — as representing the people — is the sole owner
of the soil of England. " The king of Domesday
is the supreme landlord of all the land of the nation ;

^ As a short account of the English Land Laws, and one containing
very few technical terms, "The Land Laws," by Frederick Pollock (Mac-
millan) will be found most useful. On the land laws and customs, and on
other questions connected with the land, the following are among the best
authorities: — "The English Village Community," Seebohm. "Con-
stitutional History," Stubbs. " Law of Real Property," Joshua Williams.
" Common Rights," by the same author. " Village Communities," Sir
Henry Maine. Goodeve's " Law of Real Property." " Custom and
Tenant Right," Charles Elton. Freeman's "History of the Norman Con-
quest." "Villeinage in England," Professor Vinagradoff. "The Growth
of the Manor," by the same author. " Constitutional History of England,"
Hallam. " Europe during the Middle Ages," by the same author.
"History of the Law of Real Property," Kenelm E. Digby. "Six
Centuries of Work and Wages," Thorold Rogers. "The Economic
Interpretation of History," by the same author. "Agricultural Com-
munity of the Middle Ages, Enclosures etc.," Dr. Nasse. " Economic
History," Professor Ashley. "A Students' Manual of English Con-
stitutional History," D. J. Medley. "History of the Anglo-Saxons,"
Sharon Turner. Also the Statutes at large, and the Rolls of Parlia-
ment, so far as they deal with the question.

44 LAND REFORM

the old folk land had become the king's and all private
land is held mediately or immediately of him."^

It is worthy of note that in the old statutes referring to
the question, the fact that the ownership of land is vested
in the nation, as represented by the king, seems to be
unquestioned. Every holder of land is a tenant except
the king. The Charter granted by Henry III, which
confirms the provisions of Magna Charta, contains,
in the second chapter, the conditions on which the
tenants-in-chief renewed their holdings.

" If any earls or barons or any other which hold of
us in chief by knight's service dye and at the time of
his death his heir be of full age and oweth to us relief,
he shall have his inheritance by the old relief, that is
to say the heir or heirs of an earl for a whole earldom
by one hundred pounds ; the heir or heirs of a baron
for a whole barony by one hundred marks ; the heir
or heirs of a knight for one knight's fee one hundred
shillings at the most," etc.^

Also it is enacted in the same reign that : —

" No one shall constrain a freeholder to answer for
his freehold without the King's commandment."^

Again, a Statute of Edward II enacted: — "When
anyone who holds of the King in chief and his heir
enters on the land before he has done homage to the
King and received seisin of the King he shall gain
no freehold thereby."*

^ Stubbs' " Constitutional History."

^ 9 Henry HI.

^ SI Henry HI, Ch. 22.

•» 17 Edward H, Ch. 13.

These and other Statutes on the subject are set out in English in an
edition (black letter) by Joseph Keble published in 1681. They are " not
abridged nor parceled but taken intire as in the Public Rolls."

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 45

The principle of feudalism was a life estate only, the
land reverting to the King on the death of the holder ;
the greatest landlord therefore was only a tenant,
holdincr land under the Kinsf on condition of services
rendered, usually of a military kind. These tenants-
in-chief in their turn granted land to sub-tenants on
the conditions that personal service should be given
or annual payments made in money or in kind. In
parish records and county histories the particulars of
these tenures are very frequently given. For instance,
" The hundred of Wynkelegh is in the hands of Sir
Roger de Keynges, and the same Roger holds the
said hundred from Lord Gilbert, and aforesaid Gilbert
holds the said hundred of the king in chief; that the
hundred is valued at a half mark per annum." ^

The oath of fealty taken by freemen and villeins
before the lords from whom they held lands involved
mutual obligations between the two parties. It in no
way suggests that either party was an owner of land
or anything more than a holder of it. The statute
enjoins that : " When a freeman shall do fealty to his

^ " History of the Manor of Winkleigh, Devon," by Charles Worthy,
1876. An immense number of parish records contain similar inform-
ation. As an instance, in the history of Southmolton, among other cases
it is stated that : " The Manor of Southmolton with the said Borough
and hundred is held of the king in the form aforesaid and is worth yearly
clear £iS." " Records of Southmolton," John Cock, 1893.

The services by which lands were held varied greatly ; they were
sometimes of a substantial kind, and often light and even nominal.

On the holder of the land at Bicton (Devonshire) was imposed the
duty of guarding the gate of Exeter Castle. The holder of land at
Budleigh had to pay lis. a year. Some holders had to execute sum-
monses and distraints, others to supply the king with bows and arrows,
and salmon when he came to Dartmoor to hunt. Some had to supply
armed attendants, etc. A list is given in a paper read before the
Devonshire Association by the Rev. Oswald Reichel, July 20, 1905.

See also more complete accounts in the " Pipe Rolls," or the " Great

46 LAND REFORM

lord he shall hold his right hand upon a book and
shall say thus : Hear you my lord, that I shall be to
you both faithful and true, and shall owe my fidelity
unto you for the land that I hold of you, and lawfully
shall do such customs and services as my duty is to
you at the terms assigned. So help me God and all
His Saints."

The oath taken by a villein is somewhat different.
He does fealty "for the land that I hold of you in
villeinage, and shall be justified by you in body and
goods," etc.^

This holding of land in fealty seems to have lasted
at any rate in theory till it was abolished with other
feudal incidents in 1660. In 1642 an ordinance was
issued founded on an Act passed in that year by
which episcopal lands were to be sold and the
proceeds used for the payment of the debts of the
kingdom and for the service of the Commonwealth.
The purchasers were not to be absolute owners, but
were to have "letters patent for these grants which
they were to hold directly of the king in fealty only." ^

Indeed, the legal principle of land tenure in Eng-
land seems to have continued unchanged down to

Rolls of the Pipe." These remarkable records were begun in the twelfth
century. They set forth the financial position of the holdings of the
country. There is no suggestion in them of any private ownership of
land. They contain minute particulars of lands granted by the Crown ;
the yearly sums payable to the Crown on account thereof; the disburse-
ments (tithes, alms, etc.) made by the holders of farms, and other matters.
The accounts are put in Dr. and Cr. form, and show the balance due to
the Exchequer. These records are edited by the " Pipe Roll Society,"
which has published a number of volumes. Volume iii, which contains
the " Introduction," is specially interesting. It gives a facsimile of the
elegant style of handwriting of the time, and several examples of the
completeness with which the accounts were kept.

^ 17 Edward II, St. 2.

2 " History of Northallerton," Rev. J. L. Saywell, 1885.

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 47

the present day. A great authority on the subject
writes: "An English subject may enjoy the absolute
ownership of goods, but not of land. The law does
not recognize absolute ownership in land unless in the
hands of the Crown. . . . For by English law the
king is the supreme owner or lord paramount of every
parcel of land in the realm. English law then recog-
nizes property in, but not absolute ownership of land :
the most absolute property in land that a subject can
have is but an estate. . . . In law a landholder's estate
is his interest in the land of which he is a tenant, and
the word is specially used to denote the extent of his
interest. Thus a man is said to have an estate for life
in land, or an estate of inheritance, as an estate in fee
simple ; and all his estate in his land is equivalent to
his right therein."^

The vast number of freeholders which existed in
olden times were freeholder-tenants, who as a rule held
their lands from over-lords or from the king himself,
subject to a variety of services which were not of a ser-
vile kind — knight's services, etc. These freeholders
were nominally protected by the common law, and from
a legal point of view were safe in the possession of their
holdings. For centuries they were a powerful class
and resisted the encroachments of the territorial maof-
nates, but as time went on, by one means or another
they were gradually worsted in the struggle and even-
tually they disappeared as a prominent factor in our
rural economy. Of these freeholders Stubbs writes : —
" Next after the gentry in respect of that political
weight which depends on the ownership of land was
ranked the great body of freeholders, the yeomanry of

' " Law of Real Property," by Joshua Williams. 19th edition, 1901.

48 LAND REFORM

the Middle ages, a body which in antiquity of posses-
sion and purity of extraction was probably superior to
the classes that looked down upon them as ignoble." ^

There was another order of cultivators which, per-
haps, from an historical point of view is more interest-
ing than any other, namely, the copyholders. They
were largely recruited from the villeins, who were
a erade above the serfs, and held their lands on a
servile tenure, that is, on conditions of service rendered
to the lords, usually in the form of ploughing, mow-
ing, and tilling the lords' demesnes — services which
in those days were deemed to be of a servile kind.
The nature and extent of these services were " copied "
or enrolled on the rolls of the manor and were en-
forced with more or less severity according to the will
of the lord. After the " Black Death," labour being
scarce, these services were enforced with a cruel rigour.
One of the outcomes of the rebellion under Wat Tyler
was a great increase in the ranks of this class with
an improvement in their position. The lesson the
great landholders learnt from that rebellion was, that
they could no longer, with impunity, inflict these oner-
ous conditions on those who held under them, and
consequently personal services were generally modi-
fied or commuted into annual money payments. But
the fines, fees, and other exactions connected with the
copyholds were retained. The actual tenure of these
copyholders, or customary tenants, was reckoned quite
as secure as that of the freeholders. They ranked in
importance and probably in numbers with the free-
holders, and the two classes together formed the great
body of English yeomanry.

1 "Constitutional History," Vol. III.

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 49

The position to which the copyholders had attained
is described by one of the most eminent authorities.
" Whereas at one time they were so dependent on the
lord's will that the lords upon the least occasion,
sometimes without colour of reason, sometimes only
to make evident to the world the height of their
power and authority, would expel out of house and
home their poor copyholders, leaving them helpless
and remediless by any course of law, and driving
them to sue by way of petition. But now copy-
holders stand on a sure ground ; now they weigh not
their lord's displeasure, only having a special care to
perform carefully what duties and services soever their
tenure exacts."^ On the same subject Hallam writes :
" So long as the copyholder did continue to discharge
the stipulations of tenure (inserted on the roll), the
lord was not entitled to divest him of his estate."^

But all this apparent security did not save the copy-
holders as a body. There remained the fines on alien-
ation and on succession. There remained also the
heriots, a tribute which the lord demanded on the
death of the holder, and which was usually paid in the
form of goods, chattels, or the best beast on the hold-
ing. The copyholder therefore was subject to " suit,
service and arbitrary fines and to heriots which add a
sorrow to death. "^ The amount of the fines was not,
as a rule, stated in the manor rolls ; as land became
more valuable, it was raised and raised to sums that it
was impossible for the farmer to pay, and so the hold-
ing had to be surrendered to the lord, to whom it was

1 Sir Edward Coke, quoted in the " History of the Law of Real Pro-
perty," by Kenelm E. Digby (p. 248). Third Edition, 1884.
- " Middle Ages," Vol. Ill, p. 17.
^ "Custom and Tenant Right," by Charles Elton.

50 LAND REFORM

worth many times the lawful rent which the copyholder
had been paying. That a legal limit should be put to
the amount of these fines was one of the demands
made by the insurgents during the yeoman and peas-
ant rebellions of the sixteenth century.^ Besides these
classes there was the great mass of peasantry, prac-
tically all of whom had land or rights in the land of
some kind. The village tradesmen, smiths, wheel-
wrights, and others, also held land of their own,
subject to their doing certain work on the lord's
demesne.

The modern historian, as a rule, passes over with
scant notice the disputes and severe struggles between
the territorial lords and the cultivators of the soil ; and
yet these disputes and struggles constitute to a large
extent the social, the domestic history of England.
The history of the proceedings, legal and illegal, with
regard to the land of England has never yet been
fully written from the view of the cultivator and of
the general community.^

^ In the old histories bitter complaints are made of this unjust exer-
cise of the arbitrary powers of the landlords. Cases are recorded where
the fines alone which were demanded amounted to ^{^loo and upwards —
probably ten times, and sometimes even twenty times the fixed yearly
rentals of the small copyholds.

^ For valuable suggestions touching the legal part of this chapter I
am indebted to Mr. Rowland Powell-Williams, of Lincoln's Inn, son
of my former colleague, the late Rt. Hon. J. Powell-Williams, M.P. for
the South Division of Birmingham.

CHAPTER VIII
THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM {continued)

The policy adopted by the landed aristocracy in
those early times, and carried out through succeeding
ages in a continuous and unswerving manner, was a
very plain one. Shortly stated, it was to turn com-
monalty into severalty ; to ignore the rights of the
community ; to destroy all joint and common owner-
ship in the soil, and to turn the landlord into a land-
owner. The general result of that policy was to
reduce the yeoman and copyholder to ordinary rent-
paying tenants, the peasant to a mere wage-receiver;
to aggregate land into large, often immense estates,
the private property of a comparatively few persons ;
and finally, to settle our land system on the basis of
landlord, tenant, and labourer.

One potent method of pursuing this policy was by
legal proceedings. The feudal land laws were so
intricate and subtle that long and expensive lawsuits,
carried on by wealthy landlords, by the aid of cunning
and unscrupulous lawyers, too often ended in the ruin
of the cultivatino- holder and the loss of his land.

Hence it was that, in all the peasant revolts, such
fierce hatred was shown towards the lawyers, many of
the insurgents no doubt having lost their lands by
process of law and most of the others being liable^to
a similar proceeding.^

' This point will be further dealt with in the chapters on " Peasant
Revolts."

51

52 LAND REFORM

But of all the means by which the cultivators of the
soil were deprived of their rights, the inclosures of
land were undoubtedly the most effective and calamit-
ous. The evils connected with the practice were the
result, not so much of the actual inclosures of land,
but of the principle of general confiscation on which
they were carried out.

The beginning of the policy of inclosures — as far as
legal action is concerned — may perhaps be placed at
the passing of the "Statute of Merton" in 1235, ex-
tended soon afterwards by the " Statute of West-
minster." ^ Before that date, a lord could not inclose
without the consent of his free tenants.^ The Court
held at Merton, composed of the " archbishops,
bishops, and the greater part of the earls and barons
of England," decreed that "as certain great men"
complained that they could not make profit, etc., from
their waste lands, territorial lords thenceforth should
appropriate their vast manors, provided they left to
the freeholders existing at the time "sufificient pasture
to their tenements with ingress and egress to and from
the same." The freeholders themselves had no voice
in this settlement. Thus the barons assembled, by a
law made by themselves, gave to themselves full rights
over all the manor, wastes, woods, forests, and pastures
of England, with the exception of the "sufficient pas-
ture " which was to be left for the then existing free-
holders. In the face of an ever-increasing population,

* *' Henry III held Parliament at Merton the day after his coronation,
in which were enacted Provisions of Merton, which are the most ancient
body of laws after Magna Charta, and consist of eleven Articles" (Cam-
den's " Britannica," published 1607). The Statute of Westminster was
13 Edward I, chap. 46.

2 See " Villeinage in England," by Paul Vinagradoff. (Clarendon
Press.)

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 53

the statute contained no provision whatever for the
descendants of the then existingr freeholders and
commoners, whose rights in the soil — rights equal to
those of the lords — were thus exting-uished.

The effect of these statutes was not immediately
felt. The population was then so small, the extent of
the so-called " wastes " so vast, that it was only in a
limited number of cases that lords of the manor found
it to their interest to inclose. But the evil seed had
been sown which was to ripen into disaster and ruin.
The Black Death, imported into this country in 1348,
destroyed, according to the lowest estimate, a third of
the whole population.^ This appalling mortality caused
such a dearth of labour that it was found more profit-
able to lay down land in grass, and consequently
inclosures were multiplied.

The high price of wool early in the fifteenth century
gave an immense impetus to the practice of inclosures.
The increasinof demand for Eng-lish wool, from Flan-
ders and other manufacturing places, stimulated the
rapacity of the landlord class, who found that by
creating large sheep-farms, their revenues were enor-
mously increased.

As land became more valuable, so inclosures, legal
and illegal, were carried on with increasing activity —
an activity that was continued through successive
centuries down to about two generations ago.

Durinof these centuries the act of stealinor the gfoose
from the common was treated as a violation of the
rights of property, to be promptly dealt with by
the prison and the gibbet ; but the seizing of the

^ All the old chroniclers refer to this fearful pestilence. For a modern
account of its origin and progress, see " Six Centuries of Work and Wages,"
Thorold Rogers, Vol. I, p. 219.

54 LAND REFORM

common itself was viewed in a different light. It was
a larger and more respectable transaction, carried out
under class-made law, or more often by the strong
arm under the law of "might is right," so potent in
former times. Donald Ben Lean, in " Waverley,"
was regarded, not as a purloiner of cattle, but as a
"gentleman drover," for the reason that "he never
lifted less than a drove in his life."

Vast areas of land were cleared of men to make
room for sheep. Commoners found their few acres
of arable land almost useless when deprived of that
common pasture for their cattle, which had always
belonged to them. Rights, customs, and privileges
which had been enjoyed by different classes of
cultivators from time immemorial, were extinguished
by force or legal technicalities, while large numbers
of freeholders and copyholders were, by the same
means, either evicted or reduced to the position of
tenants, with ever-increasing rents. These dispos-
sessed classes were driven by want and despair to
swell the ranks of beggars, vagabonds, and robbers,
whose existence so puzzled successive governments,
and for whose suppression the most cruel and wicked
laws were enacted in vain.

One of the most brilliant of modern historians thus
vividly describes the situation : —

" Increase of rent ended, with such tenants, in the
relinquishment of their holdings ; but the bitterness of
the ejections which the new system of cultivation
necessitated, was increased by the iniquitous means
that were often employed to bring them about. The
farmers, if we believe More in 151 5, were 'got rid
of either by fraud or force, or tired out with repeated
wrongs into parting with their property. In this way

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 55

it comes to pass that these poor wretches, men,
women, husbands, orphans, widows, parents with Httle
children, households greater in number than in wealth
(for arable farming requires many hands, while one
shepherd and herdsman will suffice for a pasture farm)
— all these emigrate from their native fields without
knowing where to go.' The sale of their scanty-
household stuff drove them to wander homeless
abroad, to be thrown into prison as vagabonds, to
beg and to steal. . . . The social disorder, in fact,
baffled the sagacity of English statesmen, and they
could find no better remedy for it than laws against
the further extension of sheep-farms, and a formidable
increase of public executions. Both were alike fruit-
less. Inclosures and evictions went on as before and
swelled the numbers and the turbulence of the floating
labour class. The riots against "inclosures," of which
we first hear in the time of Henry the Sixth, and
which became a constant feature of the Tudor period,
are indicative not only of a perpetual strife going on
in every quarter between the landowners and the
peasant class, but of a mass of social discontent which
was to seek constant outlets in violence and revolution.
. . . England, for the first time, saw a distinct criminal
class in the organized bands of robbers which began
to infest the roads, and were always ready to gather
round the standard of revolt. The gallows did their
work in vain. ' If you do not remedy the evils which
produce thieves,' More urged, with bitter truth, ' the
rigorous execution of justice in punishing thieves will
be vain.'" ^

^ Green's "History of the English People," Vol. II, chap. i. The
quotations the author gives are paraphrases from More's " Utopia," but
in the "Utopia" itself (see Arber's Reprints) the description is more de-
tailed, and is more pathetic and angering than even Green's. By a
statute of Henry VIII, chap. 25, a sturdy beggar is to be whipped for the
first offence, his right ear is to be chopped off" for the second, and if he
again offend he is to be indicted for wandering and idleness, and if
convicted to suffer death as a felon.

56 LAND REFORM

In the greater part of Europe the same bitter
struggle was seen between a rapacious feudal aristo-
cracy and the despoiled cultivating classes. In Ger-
many the struggle culminated in the formidable and
widespread peasant wars of the sixteenth century,
which were crushed out by wholesale bloodshed and
almost incredible cruelty/ In most of the countries
of Europe, however, the cultivating classes, though
defeated in their armed efforts, had, later on, their
rights largely, and in some cases wholly, restored to
them, either by revolution or by wise legislation. In
our own country similar risings, continually recurring,
were either quenched in blood or appeased for the
time by promises never fulfilled, and which were never
intended to be fulfilled. But in England, while armed
efforts were thus put down, the wise legislation never
appeared. On the contrary, when legislation on the
subject was adopted it was in an opposite direction, by
enabling the territorial party to complete their policy
under the sanction of successive Acts of Parliament.
"In France, the peasant won, the manor lost. In
England, the manor won, the peasant lost. In
Germany, a drawn battle."

During the ages of struggle in this country,
monarchs, statesmen in high places, and others, saw
the impending national danger and sought to avert
it. Dignitaries of the Church, to their honour, took
the side of the people.^ Bishop Latimer, in his oft-

^ See "The Peasants' War in Germany," E. B. Bax, 1899.

- In the Primer (or Prayer Book) of King Edward VI, 1552, which
was the authorized Prayer Book of that day, there appears the following
" Prayer for Landlords," coming immediately after the Collects : " We
heartily pray Thee to send Thy Holy Spirit into the hearts of them that
possess the grounds and pastures of the earth, that they, remembering
themselves to be Thy tenants, may not rack or stretch out the rents of

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 57

quoted sermon, preached (1549) before Edward VI
and his Court, spoke plainly on the subject. He
charged the nobility (many of them being present)
with reducing the yeomanry to slavery for the sake
of acquiring private wealth. " These graziers," he
said, " enclosers and rent-rearers are hinderers of the
King's honour. For wher as have bene a great many
of householders and inhabitantes there is now but a
shepherd and his dogge. . . . We have good statutes
made for the common-welth as touching comeners,
enclosers many meetins and sessions but in the end of
the matter there cometh nothing forth. "^

The monarchs of those times and their advisers
were not political economists, the " dismal science "
being as yet undiscovered. They held what with
many seems now the exploded doctrine that the wealth
of a nation lies in its people, and its strength in a
prosperous rural population. They, therefore, did not
accept the plea of the landlords that inclosures, grass
lands, and cattle, were the most profitable to them.
Accordingly in successive reigns many ordinances

their houses or lands, nor yet take unreasonable fines or moneys, after
the manner of covetous worldlings, but so let them out that the in-
habitants thereof may be able to pay the rents and to live and assist
their families and remember the poor. Give them grace also to consider
that they are but strangers and pilgrims in this viforld, having here no
dwelling-place but seeking one to come ; that they, remembering the
short continuance of this life, may be content with that which is sufficient,
and not to join house to house and land to land to the impoverishment
of others, but so behave themselves in letting their tenements, lands, and
pastures that after this life they may be received into everlasting habita-
tion."

It would be interesting to know why, and by whose authority this
appropriate supplication was afterwards omitted from the Common
Prayer Book.

' " Seven Sermons before King Edward VI," by Hugh Latimer.
(Arber's English Reprints.)

58 LAND REFORM

were made with the object of restraining the evil
practices referred to. But, as will be seen, the landed
aristocracy were strong enough, in spite of all opposi-
tion, to carry out their policy to completion.

The Act 4 Henry VII, ch. 19, imposed heavy
penalties for "decaying Houses of Husbandry or for
not laying convenient land for the maintenance of the
same." It describes the increasino- evils and desola-
tion resulting from the " wilfull waste of Houses
within this realme and laying to pasture lands which
customably have been used for tillage." It states that
in some places "where two hundred persons were
occupied and lived by their lawful labour now there
are occupied two or three heardsmen, whereby hus-
bandrie, which is one of the greatest commodities of
this Realme, is greatly decayed, and the defense of
this land against our enemies outward feebled and
impaired."

The Statute goes on to enact that at least twenty
acres of land shall be attached to each farmhouse, and
that the "owner of such house do keep and sustaine
the buildings on the said ground and land convenient
and necessairie for maintaining and upholding of the
said tillage and husbandrie."^

Another Act in the same reign provided that who-
soever decayeth any town, hamlet, or house of hus-
bandry, or shall convert tillage into pasturage, shall
forfeit half the profits thereof until the offence be
removed.

^ Of this Act Lord Bacon writes : " By this means the houses being
kept up did of necessity enforce a dweller, and the proportion of land for
occupation being kept up did of necessity enforce that dweller not to be
a beggar or cottager but a man of some substance to keep hinds and set
the plough on going. This did wonderfully concern the might and man-
nerhood of the kingdom." — " History of Henry VH."

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 59

In 1534 an Act was passed with the following signi-
ficant preamble : —

" Inasmuch as divers of the King's subjects, to
whom God of His goodness hath disposed great
plenty and abundance, now of late years have daily
studied and practised ways and means how they might
accumulate into few hands, as well as great multitude
of farms, as great plenty of cattle, and in special
sheep, putting such lands as they can get to pasture,
and not to tillage, whereby they have not only pulled
down churches and towns and enhanced the old rents,
or else brought it to such excessive fines that no poor
man is able to meddle with it . . . the great reason
that moveth these greedy and covetous people to
accumulate in their hands such great portions of the
lands of the realm, from the occupying of the poor
husbandman, is the great profit that cometh from
sheep, some having as many as 24,000," etc. etc.

The Act goes on to provide that under heavy
penalties no one person shall keep more than 2000
sheep.^

^ Many other Acts of the same kind and with the same objects were
passed in successive reigns. See Statutes at large, Edward VI,
chap. 5 ; 4 Heniy \'II,chap. i6 ; 7 Henry VIII, chap, i ; 6 Henry VIII,
chap. 5 ; 27 Henry VIII, chap. 22 ; 39 Elizabeth, chap, i : and others.

In 1517a Commission was appointed to inquire into the operation of
the above statutes " against ingrossing and inclosure." Cardinal Wolsey,
in 1 5 18, issued a decree ordering the inclosers, under heavy penalties, to
" pull down and lay abroad all inclosures and ditches made since the
statute of I Henry VII." (1485). To those who wish to study this ques-
tion the following important work will be found useful, " Domesday of
Inclosures, 1517-18," edited for the Royal Historical Society by J. S.
Leadam, m.a. (Longmans, 1897). The extent to which the statutes in
question had been set at naught is shown by such passages as the follow-
ing : "Six messuages occupied with 280 acres of land all razed to the
ground." " Evictions and displacement of labour of 670 persons accom-
panied by destruction of 119 dwellings," etc. etc. The arable land, when
turned into sheep-farms, rose enormously in value on account of the high
price of wool. Farm-houses being no longer wanted were pulled down.

6o LAND REFORM

By the Act 31 Elizabeth, chap. 7 (1589), no one was
allowed in rural districts to build " any manner of
cottage or dwelling unless the same person do assign
and lay to the same cottage or building four acres of
ground at the least." Anyone building a cottage
without this provision " shall be fined forty shillings
for every month the cottage is so continued." ^

Destitution, disorder, and crime, direct results of
cutting off the people from the land, had become so
serious and widespread throughout the country that
in order to deal with them the memorable Poor Law
Act, 1 60 1, was passed, which, with amendments, in-
cluding the drastic amendment of 1834, is the basis
of our Poor Law of to-day.^

Thus official pauperism began. It grew rapidly as
regards both numbers and cost, and is now recognized,
without shame, as a permanent institution in the social
economy of the "wealthiest nation in Europe." Every
householder, when paying the poor-rate, should re-
member that the origin of the impost was the ousting
of the people from the soil, and that its continuance on

A few shepherds only were required, and thus a vast number of small
yeomen and peasants were ruined and rendered homeless, and became
for the most part vagabonds. All this was done for greed and in viola-
tion of the law. " The husbandman thrust owte of their owne," as More
says, by "the covetous and unsatiable cormorante" ("Utopia"). See
also for valuable information on the subject, Prof. Ashley's "Economic
History," Vol. I, chap. iv. (Longmans).

' There are evidences that this Act was put in force. Hearn, in
his " Book of Dorset Sessions," speaks of persons convicted of breaking
this law, and adds the "parties were peremptorily ordered to pull down
the cottages erected." Quoted in " History of People in Southern
Counties in Past Centuries" (by George Roberts, 1856). This Act was
repealed by 15 George HI, chap. 3.

2 For a detailed account of the almost incredible state of degradation,
immorality, and semi-barbarism to which the " bold peasantry " of
England had been reduced under this Poor Law, see " Report of Poor
Law Commission," 1834. This report was reprinted in 1885, No. 347.

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 6i

its present scale is mainly due to the same cause. It
is probable that the strong measures referred to had
some effect in checking for a time the practice of
inclosures. No doubt, the ever-increasing amount
of relief given under the new Poor Law contributed
to restrain the rural population from those acts of
disorder, beggary, and crime to which they had been
driven by want and despair.

Up to the end of the seventeenth century inclosures
had been made by private action. There are no
records to show what proportion the area which had
been inclosed up to that time bore to the whole of the
land of England. Later statistics, however, make it
clear that there were many millions of acres of land
still uninclosed.^ It seems certain that duringr the
seventeenth century and the first part of the eight-
eenth there still remained a multitude of cultivating
owners, composed of yeoman farmers, peasant pro-
prietors, and labourers with rights in the land. The
wage-receiving labourers were, however, increasing in
number, and were very badly off, being largely depen-
dent on the poor-rates for existence.

Lord Macaulay, writing on the state of England in
1685, dwells on the power of the yeomanry, whom he
describes as "an eminently manly and true-hearted
race." He goes on to say : —

" The petty proprietors, who cultivated their own
fields with their own hands and enjoyed a modest
competence, then formed a much more important part
of the nation than at present. . . . Not less than one

^ Lord Macaulay quotes an authority showing this to be the case.
From " Abingdon to Gloucester, for example, a distance of forty or fifty
miles, there was not a single inclosure, and scarcely one between Biggles-
wade and Lincoln." The population at that time was estimated at
5| millions (Vol. I, chap. iii.).

62 LAND REFORM

hundred and sixty thousand proprietors, who with
their families must have made up more than a seventh
of the whole population, derived their substance from
their freehold estates."^

But only a few years later, at the beginning of the
eighteenth century, a new system was adopted with
regard to inclosures — a system which was destined to
destroy the state of things described by Lord Mac-
aulay. Parliamentary powers for inclosing land were
asked for, and — the territorial party being dominant
in the Legislature — were easily obtained. The first
Inclosure Act was passed in 1710. This was the
beginning of the last chapter of the proceedings which
completed the divorce of the people from the soil.
The rural population, which up to that time had been
despoiled by private action, was thenceforth to suffer,
perhaps even more severely, by Acts of Parliament.

The effect was not immediately felt ; for the period
of high prices had not yet begun, and the area in-
closed for some years after the passing of the Act was
comparatively small. Professor Rogers describes the
first half of the eighteenth century as a time of pros-
perity for the peasantry.^ But later on prices rose
enormously, in consequence of the Continental and
American wars. This gave a great, almost a wild,
impetus to the inclosure of land.

In the first Report of the Royal Commission on
Agriculture, 1867 (issued in 1896), it is estimated that
from the time of the first Inclosure Act, 17 10, to the
year 1760, there were 334,974 acres inclosed — an
area about half that of the county of Dorsetshire. But

^ Macaulay's " History of England," Vol. I.
■^ " Six Centuries of Work and Wages."

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 63

from the latter date (1760) to 1867 there were above
four thousand inclosure Acts passed, and the quantity
of land so inclosed was no less than 7,325,439 acres.
Thus the total of the land inclosed from 17 10 to 1867
was 7,660,439 acres, or about one-third of the whole
of the land under cultivation in England and Wales
at the time of the Report (1867).

This does not include large areas of land inclosed
without the sanction of Parliament — roadsides (so use-
ful to the cottager by giving food for his cow), commons,
pieces of commons, and other intakes. The usual
practice in such cases as these was to put up rail and
post or some other kind of fence. In very many cases
these fences were pulled down in the night by the
people in the locality. They were put up again, and
perhaps pulled down a second time ; they were again
put up, and as a rule they permanently remained.
The usual notice, " Trespassers will be prosecuted,"
then appeared, and the people's land became private
property. Any action at law was too costly for the
commoners to take ; but a case is recorded of a man
of wealth and influence who interfered to stop one of
these illegal inclosures and to save the common right
of the people. In 1866 the lord of the manor of
Berkhampstead inclosed a large part — 500 acres — of
the common land with more than a mile of iron
fencing. Mr. Augustus Smith (of the Scilly Isles)
happened to be a commoner in the parish, and he
took the side of the people. Assisted by a large body
of hired navvies, he pulled down the whole of the
fencing and laid it carefully on the ground. The lord
of the manor began an action for trespass against Mr.
Smith, who, however, defended the rights over the
common of himself and other commoners and of the

64 LAND REFORM

" freeholders and copyholders of the manor." The
result of the trial was that a perpetual injunction was
granted with costs. The common was thus saved for
the people to whom it belonged.^

The effect of this vast increase of inclosures was
soon generally felt. Small holders and peasant pro-
prietors disappeared as fast as the common land on
which they relied for pasture was inclosed, and their
holdings were absorbed into adjoining farms. Prices
of cereals ruled so high that old pastures and other
kinds of land, suitable or unsuitable, were put under
the plough. To make the evil worse, the rage for large
farming set in. By adding farm to farm, and holding
to holding, there was supposed to be an economic gain
through having only to keep up one homestead in-
stead of several. It was true, and known to be true,
that the process inevitably squeezed the smaller and
moderate-sized farms out of existence and caused the
classes that tilled them to disappear ; but the notion of
gain overpassed every other consideration. On this
subject also the local records and histories give
abundant information.^ In a very interesting account
of the manor of Bramshot the following appears : —

^ A brother of the writer's, in one of these cases of illegal inclosures,
pulled down the fences, which were of iron and masonry. He was prose-
cuted, and the trial took place at the Exeter assizes before a judge and
jury, when the verdict was given in his favour, and the ground — since be-
come very valuable — was saved for the use of the public for ever. But
it very rarely happened that the efforts of the common people to protect
their rights were successful. These efforts were not often made, because
they carried with them social punishments hard to be borne.

^ These extracts and quotations are given because they bring the
matters referred to more clearly to the minds of general readers than
mere abstract statements can do. The same remark applies to extracts
and quotations generally throughout this book. Old documents, official
documents, Blue Books and Hansard, though they are mines of informa-
tion, are consulted only by the few. For this reason the present writer

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 65

" While large estates were being thus acquired by
the Butlers, little holdings were being thrown to-
gether, to be held in the same hands. The history of
the Downlands estate will illustrate the process. A
small copyhold called by that name for centuries was
enfranchised by George Enticknap in 1686, and an-
other adjoining it called ' Clerks,' by Thomas Entick-
nap in 1703. The two were merged in 1742 and sold
to Nicolas Kent. . . . The other tenement at ' Clerks '
was used by the labourers on the land. 'Adams ' and
the ' Church Farm ' with ' Old Place ' were acquired
at different dates, and so the present estate was
rounded off ... A like accumulation was going on
elsewhere."

After giving several other cases the writer con-
tinues : —

" In 1786 twelve of the farms consisted in each case
of two or three of the old holdings thrown together.
. . . All this could not have gone on without con-
siderable displacement of the old yeomanry, the copy-
holders of early date. They have left their names in
many cases linked to the farmhouses which they once
occupied, or where their dwellings stood, but one after
another they departed, and while a few rose to more
substantial fortunes, most of them sank to the level of
the wage-earners around them. Even thus early the
changes had begun which turned the substantial
houses of the yeomen into pairs of inconvenient
tenements for carter and for shepherd who were
needed close to the farm buildings. ... At West-
meon all the land at the beginning of the last century
(nineteenth century) was owned by the men who

has thought it best to illustrate his general statements by concrete cases.
This might be thought unnecessary, and even tedious, by experts, but
by the general public— for whom, it might again be stated, these pages
are mainly written — the way taken might be found a gainful one.

66 LAND REFORM

worked it, and there is much evidence to show that
the same was true of many parts of England. But
in Bramshot the displacement began long before."^

The practice of consolidation was the subject of
a large amount of discusssion and of protest during
the last quarter of the eighteenth century and the first
half of the nineteenth. One writer states : —

"It is no uncommon thing for four or five wealthy
graziers to engross a large enclosed lordship, which
was before in the hands of twenty or thirty farmers
and as many tenants as proprietors. All these are
hereby thrown out of their livings, with their families,
and many other families who were chiefly employed
and supported by them." Again : " In several
parishes in Hertfordshire twenty-four farms, number-
ing on the average from 50 to 1 50 acres, have been
melted up into three farms."

The same practices are reported in almost every
county. A writer as early as 1778 states : —

" Much has been written for and against the utility
of great farms ; but the argument against them drawn
from the consequent depopulation of the country,
seems strongly enforced by an instance in this neigh-
bourhood. At Chadsunt was a mansion house, the
seat of Mr. Newsome, and ten farmhouses on so
many farms, let altogether at about jC^oo per annum.
Not long since this estate was sold to Lord Cather-
lough ; the ten farmhouses are pulled down, and all
the lands and the mansion house are let at ^1000 per
ann. to one farmer who manages the business, as
a grazier, with the help of two or three servants."^

1 " Scenes of Rural Life in Hampshire among the Manors of Bram-
shot," by W. W. Capes, Rector of Bramshot. Macmillan, 1901.
^ "A Tour in Warwickshire, Derbyshire, and Yorkshire," 1778.

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 67

Eminent rural economists and political economists
supported the policy of inclosures as the best means
of improving agriculture and consequently of increas-
ing rents. Sir John Sinclair, himself a large land-
owner, for some years President of the Board of
Agriculture, was an enthusiast in the matter of
inclosures. His reports abound with statements in
favour of the system. His arguments in its favour
are elaborate and conclusive from his own point of
view.^ " The very appearance of inclosures," he says,
" indicates comfort and security. Landlords, on that
account, never fail to draw very advanced rents from
well-inclosed lands. They are generally let at from
2/- to perhaps 10/- or 15/- per acre higher than open
lands of the same description in their immediate
neighbourhood." In a letter written in 181 1, he
describes the effect of inclosures and consolidation
of holdings on a particular parish : —

"The chief circumstance," he writes, "in which
the present differs from the past state of the parish
(Melrose) is the general enlargement of the farms.
Except in the case of the carrier, and the miller, who
rent a few acres, a small farm is nearly unknown.
The displacing of the old small tenants was at first
viewed with deep regret, but the introduction of a
better and more spirited style of agriculture has, in
a limited period, raised the rental of the parish from
^4000 to nearly ^20,000 a year."

Arthur Young, who was secretary to the Board of
Agriculture was — for similar reasons — much in favour

^ These arguments are set out at length in a chapter on " The Nature
and Advantages of Inclosures," contained in "The Code of Agriculture,"
by Sir John Sinclair, Bart., Founder of the Board of Agriculture. Fifth
edition, 1832.

68 LAND REFORM

of inclosures. Among other proposals he puts forward
a scheme for inclosing a square of land twenty-two
miles each way, and dividing the whole into farms of
one square mile each.

Now, by this scheme 484 square miles of land —
equal to 309,760 acres — would be inclosed, and 484
tenant farmers would be placed on holdings of 640
acres each. Young goes into elaborate calculations
as to cost of inclosure and other details of an economic
kind, and concludes by saying : —

*' Such an improvement as this creates a clear
income to the landlords of more than eleven hundred
thousand pounds a year, and forms a new rental of
ninety thousand a year, and of course such an income
to the tenants, who in return support many other
classes, etc."^

He makes no mention of the rights of the com-
moners, of the peasant proprietors and others, in
the commons to be inclosed. With regard to the
labourers, whose wages were then seven and eight
shillings per week, he guards himself by saying :
"Very far is it from my thoughts to assert or hint
that our poor are too well paid. I am sensible that
there is much wretchedness amongst some of them
which oueht to be alleviated." But the labourers in
nearly all cases eked their miserable wages by certain
benefits they got from the commons — benefits of
which inclosures, as fast as they were made, deprived
them.

In many parish and other local records a profit and
loss account is preserved which shows the enormous

1 Arthur Young's " Tour Through the Southern Counties of England
and V^^ ales." Third edition, 1772.

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 69

gains which fell to the share of the inclosers. A
balance-sheet of the inclosure of Kind's Sedormoor

o o

(12,000 acres) shows that after Parliamentary and all
other expenses are charged, there remains for the
inclosers a net profit of ;f 365, 373. 15s. 4d.^

Later on, McCulloch, speaking of the advantage
of having division of labour on a farm, so that the
occupier might avail himself of new improvements
and increased facilities for production, adds : " But it
is almost superfluous to say that these objects can
only be attained when the lands of a country are
divided into extensive farms occupied by opulent
farmers."^ In this, and in his opinions of peasant
proprietary generally, experience has proved that
McCulloch was wrong in every particular.

Numerous essays have been written by economists
on the " Theory of Rent," but a study of the evidence
given before the numerous Royal Commissions shows
that, whatever might be the "theory," the practice
was to get as much rent as the farmer could be in-
duced to give, which was in many, if not most, cases
more than he could afford to pay.^ Tempted by the
high prices which prevailed, competition set in among
the farmer class for the possession of the large farms
that had been created, and rents in consequence rose

1 " General View of Agriculture in Somersetshire," by John Billings-
ley, of Shepton Mallet, 1798.

" " Principles of Political Economy." Third edition, 1842.

^ The study of these essays on " Rent " is a necessary but a profitless
one. Political economists differ on the subject, but their theories, though
interesting, are of no practical value. Ricardo states that " Rent is that
portion of the produce of the earth which is paid to the landlord for
the use of the original and indestructible powers of the soil," and not
for buildings and improvements. "Political Economy," p. 46, 1819.
McCulloch takes a similar view, and sustains it by pages of bewildering
disquisition. Adam Smith's theory, from which the above writers dissent.

70 LAND REFORM

rapidly. A golden era for the landlord began about
1770, which lasted for about a century.

Mr. Porter, writing on the subject in 1846, states : —

"With scarcely an exception the revenue drawn in
the form of rents has been at least doubled since
1790. This is not a random statement, but as re-
gards many counties in England can be proved by
living witnesses"; and he adds: "During the same
period the prices of most of the articles which con-
stitute the landowner's expenditure have materially
fallen." '

Mr. Caird (afterwards Sir James Caird), after
visiting thirty-two out of the forty counties of England,
states : "It thus appears that in a period of eighty
years the average rent of arable land has risen 100
per cent. "

It must not be supposed, however, that the rapid
increase of inclosures, the eviction of farmers and
copyholders, and the consolidation of farms, were car-
ried out without the strongest opposition. The litera-
ture of the time is full of it. The expropriated class
of small farmers, having no power and no longer any
social standing, had to accept their lot. The peasantry
were not a factor in the political system that then
existed, and were cowed into submission. There was
no longer any violent resistance, except occasional out-
is more akin to the general practice as regards rent : " The rent of land,
therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of land is naturally a
monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may
have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford
to take, but to what the farmer can afford to pay." (" Wealth of Nations,"
iith ed., 1805, Vol. I, p. 231.)

^ Porter's "Progress of the Nation."

2 " English Agriculture in 1850-1." (James Caird — the "Times"
Commissioner.)

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 71

breaks, the last of which were the " Swing Riots " of
1830-1.'

But earnest and far-seeing men among all classes,
even among landowners themselves, were found, as
they were found in previous centuries, who protested
against the policy that was being pursued. Philan-
thropic societies were formed to counteract the evil.
Clergymen pointed out the ruin that was being
wrought in their several parishes. But it was all in
vain. The landed interest was all-powerful in Parlia-
ment, and the ruinous system was continued with
unabated vigour.

The Rev. D. Davies, Rector of Barkham, writes in

1795 :—

" Cottages have been progressively deprived of the
little land formerly let with them, and also their rights
of commonage have been swallowed up in large farms
and by enclosures. Thus an amazing number of
people have been reduced from a comfortable state
of partial independence to a precarious state as mere
hirelings, who when out of work immediately come
upon the parish."

In 1 83 1 a society was formed called the " Labourer's
Friend Society," with the object of giving back to the
peasants, by voluntary agencies, portions of the land
of which they had been deprived. It was an influen-
tial society, with the king and queen as patrons. Its
aims and methods seem to have been similar to those

1 These were not riots but lawless acts— rick-burnings, etc., done in
different parts of the country in the name of a fabulous person, a " Captain
Swing." Many of the participators were taken, some of them were hanged,
and others transported. Particulars of these so-called " riots " can be
found in Alex. Somerville's " Whistler at the Plough."

72 LAND REFORM

of the " Rural Labourers' League " of the present
day.^

In 1835 The Labourer's Friend Society issued a
report which throws a strong side-Hght on the miseries
and injustice inflicted on the rural population, "by
enclosing waste lands and depriving labourers of their
hitherto available resources."

A few extracts from this report might be interesting
to the general reader. In support of the contention
that "enclosures and the severance of the labourer
from the land was a principal cause that has led to the
peasant's degraded condition," the report, among other
cases, states that " the parish of Abringdon Pigots
in Cambridgeshire was enclosed in 1770; before the
enclosure every man had a cow. On the enclosure
the owners of common rights had allotments assigned
to them, but they were soon severed from the cottages
and thrown into the adjoining farms. Before the en-
closure no poor's rates had been levied, but ever since
the allotments had been taken from the cottages, the
poor's rates have been gradually increasing, and they
now bear a large proportion to the rental."

"In the parish of Lidlington, in consequence of the
same system of depriving cottagers of land, the poor's
rates, which in the year 1751 were only sixpence in the
pound, became four shillings in 1801, and have been
since annually increasing."

The report contains a remarkable letter from the
Rev. R. Warner, Vicar of Castle Carey, Somerset-

^ The principal objects of the Rural Labourers' League are : to assist
every practical effort to secure a more direct connection between the agri-
cultural population and the soil ; to improve the condition of the rural
labourers with a view to make village life more attractive, etc. (Office :
no Strand, London.)

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 73

shire, pointing out that the existing state of things is
" deplored by every humane man and a subject of
serious alarm to those who are in the habit of directing
their thoughts to the usual causes of decadence and
ruin ; because they are well aware that, as these
classes (the peasantry) form the foundation of the
pyramid of civil society, by which alone the superior
grades are supported, in their regularly ascending
series from the yeoman to the monarch, so, if they
be allowed to be reduced to dust, the destruction of
the whole fabric will then be no longer a doubtful
problem." The reverend gentleman goes on, in
the most earnest language, to welcome all plans " for
restoring to them the advantages which they once
enjoyed, and which they have a right still to enjoy by
all the laws of God and man."^

Examples are given of petitions against inclosure.
Mr. Herod, a small yeoman farmer of North Creak,
Norfolk, describes his journey to London to present a
petition against an inclosure bill for his parish. His
journey was fruitless. Mr. Herod afterwards states : —

" Here were lands that the poor would have been
happy to hire, at a fair rental, to keep their cows upon,
rather than sell them when the Act took place ; but
not one was favoured with an acre. They were all
laid on to the great farms." He goes on to describe
the inevitable results, in the form of increased
poverty and destitution, and double and treble poor's
rates. Those of the peasantry who ventured to
continue to put their cows and stock on pastures,
which were their own, were summoned and punished

1 Could the writer of this letter know the state of things which now
exists in our towns and rural districts, he would see how largely his grave
prophecies have been fulfilled.

74 LAND REFORM

as trespassers and their cattle impounded. They
had to submit, and finally sank into the position
of hirelings. They were only men, and figured lightly
in schemes which promised higher rents and profits.

The present writer has now before him a printed
copy of a form of a petition which was largely used in
the various parishes. The preamble is as follows : —
" We the underwritten the Freeholders, Copyholders,
Leaseholders and others of the inhabitants of the

Parish of in the County of beg leave to

set forth," etc. After referring to the high rent to
be paid for land when inclosed, " where now no rent
is paid for rearing cattle on commons," the petition
states " that provided the said common be inclosed,
many poor inhabitants in the said parish will be re-
duced to distress, as they will be deprived of their
present benefit of rearing horned cattle, pigs, etc., and
furnishing themselves with fuel in winter, etc." "In
short," the petition concludes, "we cannot see any
benefit to the nation in general, nor to any individual,
by enclosing said common except to the landowners
who may thereby be enabled to raise their rents at
the expense, and detriment of the parish at large."
Besides individual protests, combined action was taken
by the farming classes against the rapid increase in
inclosures. The arguments against the practice are
often expressed in dignified and well-reasoned terms.
One farmer writes : —

" I have laid it down in my mind as a truth that
agriculture is the parent of industry and wealth. . . .
It is the only root from whence can spring lasting
wealth, power, and happiness. . . . Whenever the
farming interest shall be considered by the legislature
as subservient to the trading interest, this nation, from

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 75

that moment, is tending towards decline. First, in
respect of power and happiness, and afterwards in
respect of wealth. . . . There are other classes of
people living near great commons, besides farmers,
who derive very essential advantages from the rights
of common ; namely the cottager, the mechanic and in-
ferior shopkeeper ; but more particularly the cottager,
who in oreneral are labourers to the farmer. This
common right is an incitement to industry ... a means
of supporting their children with credit and comfort.
. . . They become valuable members of society.
Young men and women, after a few years' service in
which they manage to scrape up ^20 or ^30, marry
and take a cottage near a common. They then stock
their cottage with cows, calves, sheep, hogs and
poultry, &c., as much as their little fortunes will admit
of. He then hires himself as a day labourer to a
farmer, and the wife stays at home to look after the
live stock. I could mention many cottagers in my
neighbourhood under this predicament who keep two
or three milch cows, two or three calves a-rearing,
forty or fifty sheep, two or three hogs, and poultry
consisting of chickens, ducks, geese, and turkeys. . . .
The greatest part of the live stock, viz., of cows, sheep,
hogs, poultry, &c., seen upon the commons in general
in my neighbourhood, which are numerous and exten-
sive, are the property of cottagers. . . . We may
expect to see, every session, fresh violations of the
natural rights of the cottagers and the legal rights of
the small freeholders and copyholders, a species of
legal rapine justified by the Acts of the legislature
under the plausible pretext of the public good. It is
said that what people consent to give up cannot be
deemed an act of violence, and the law declares that
the consent of three-fourths of the inhabitants in
respect to number and value of possession must be
first obtained before any such Act can pass, but this is
mere sophistry, for those must be very obstinate or

76 LAND REFORM

very ignorant who will not allow that coaxing, bribing,
and threatening, together with many other acts which
superiors make use of, will very often induce the in-
feriors to give their consent to things which they are
convinced will be to their future disadvantage."^

In 1813 a General Inclosure Bill was promoted by
the territorial party which, however, did not pass. Its
object was to do away with the heavy Parliamen-
tary expenses connected with private bills. William
Cobbett was applied to for his support to the measure,
but, though he would have been a great gainer by the
inclosure of commons in his neighbourhood, he was
strongly opposed to the Bill. He wrote : —

*' Those who are so eager for new inclosure seem to

argue as if the waste land in its present state produced

nothing at all. But is this the fact ? Can any one

point out a single inch of it which does not produce

something and the produce of which is made use of?

It goes to the feeding of sheep, of cows, of cattle of

all descriptions, and, what is of great consequence in

my view of the matter, it helps to rear, in health and

vigour, numerous families of the children of labourers,

which children, were it not for these wastes, must be

crammed into the stinking suburbs of towns amidst

filth of all sorts, and congrrepfatinof toofether in the
' 0000

practice of every species of idleness and vice. A
family reared by the side of a common or forest is
clearly distinguishable from a family bred on the
pestiferous stench of the dark alley of a town." He
goes on to say that with regard to the waste in his
neighbourhood (Botley), he would be entitled, in case
of a general inclosure, to sixty or a hundred acres of
good land, yet he "would never consent to the inclo-

^ " Observations on the Enclosures of Waste Lands." By a Society
of Farmers, 1785.

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 77

sure of it, or any part of it, except for the purpose of
the labourers. All around this great tract of land,
which is called waste, the borders are studded with
cottages of various sizes and forms, but the more
beautiful for this diversity."^

But remonstrance, opposition, and petitions were
all of no avail. On the contrary, in 1844 another
departure was made in the matter of inclosures. In
order to avoid the expenses connected with private
bill legislation, measures were demanded to make
inclosures less costly and still more easy. In that
year a General Inclosure Bill was introduced. This
being a public Bill came under the notice of the whole
House, where it received so much opposition that it
had to be withdrawn. The debate on the measure
is, however, of much interest from the fact that even
in the House of Commons, where the landed interest
was predominant, grave doubts were at last felt as
to the soundness and justice of the manner in which,
under Parliamentary sanction, the policy of inclosures
had been carried out during more than a hundred
years past.

Mr. Aglionby, in opposing the Bill, said : —

" If the poor had rights, they ought to be inalien-
able, they ought to be protected. . . . Inclosure Bills
had been introduced heretofore and passed without
discussion, and no one could tell how many persons
had suffered in their interests and rights by these
Bills. They were referred to Committees upstairs, but
everyone knew how these Committees were generally
conducted. They were attended only by hon. members
who were interested in them, being lords of the manor,

' "Selections from Cobbett's Political Register," 18 13, Vol. IV.

78 LAND REFORM

and the rights of the poor,' though they might be
talked about, had been frequently taken away under
that system." (Hansard, Vol. 75, p. 301.)

The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Peel), in his speech
on the second reading of the Bill, said : —

" As to the actual rights, the House must be cautious
how they deal lightly with those rights. . . . The
rights of common connected them (the peasantry)
with the soil. The right of turning a goose on a
common made a man feel interested in the tenure of
land. It might be more beneficial to him to accept
two or three pounds,^ but recollect that you are not
dealing with the rights of the individual, but with
those of his successors." (Hansard, Vol. ^2)^ p. 976.)

In the face of this opposition the Bill was withdrawn,
but the promoters persevered and managed to secure
the appointment of a Select Committee *' to inquire
into the expediency of facilitating the inclosure of
commons, etc." This Committee, " after taking the
evidence of competent and experienced witnesses,"

1 It must be remembered that the peasantry and labourers of all con-
ditions, were described in official and other language of the time as "the
poor" and the "labouring poor."

2 Even in cases where a few pounds compensation were given, if the
cottager happened to be a tenant, the compensation was paid to the
owner of the dwelling to which the common rights were attached.
The claims of the cottager, who by long custom had enjoyed those
rights, were entirely ignored. He was simply turned out. In any case,
as the Prime Minister points out, the incloser had no moral right to buy,
much less to take without buying, that which the commoner had no right
to sell. The rights of the commoners were very many. The common
of pasture was the principal one. Among others there were " Estovers "
(the right of cutting underwood and timber for fuel and repairs of build-
ings, making fences, etc.), "Turbary" (the right of cutting peat and turf
for fuel, furze and ferns for the fodder and litter of cattle), " Pannage "
(right of turning swine into the woods to feed on acorns), etc.

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 79

reported in favour of a general measure to facilitate
inclosures/

In the following year, 1845, a General Inclosure
Bill, based on this report, was introduced, and after
much opposition was passed into law. The promoters
of the Bill claimed that it provided safeguards for the
peasantry and others who had property and rights in
the soil. Some of its provisions seemed, on paper, to
go some way in this direction, but experience proved
that these safeguards were practically worthless. The
debate on the Bill gives further evidence that the
opinion of the House of Commons with regard to
inclosures was fast changing. It amounted, however,
to no more than an attempt to "shut the stable-door
after the steed has been stolen."

Lord Lincoln (afterwards Duke of Newcastle), in
introducing the Bill, compared it favourably in this
respect with the private bill system. He said : —

"This I know, that in nineteen cases out of twenty
Committees of this House on private Bills neglected
the rights of the poor, . . . Committees being per-
mitted to remain in ignorance of the claims of the
poor man because, by reason of his poverty, he is
unable to come up to London, to fee counsel, to
produce witnesses, and to urge his claims before the
Committee."

Mr. Sharman Crawford denounced the measure as
a "landlord's Bill." He declared that whatever land
was set apart under the Bill for the small holders

' The writer has analysed the evidence given before this Select Com-
niittec. He finds that the "competent and experienced witnesses" were,
with the exception of one farmer, composed of solicitors, clergymen,
hotel keeper (i), gentlemen, land agents, and tithe commissioners.

8o LAND REFORM

would ultimately be bought up, or by some means
come into the possession of the landlords. " It
would," he said, "take away rights of common
from all future generations. ... Its provisions would
offer a bribe to those who had the present use of
those rights to sell that which they had no power
to dispose of, the rights of future generations. . . .
He did not object to enclosures of commons on just
and equitable terms. . . . The experience of past
enclosure Bills proved to him that those interests,
peasants and labourers, were not cared for. . . . From
the reign of Queen Anne (time of first Inclosure Bill)
down to the reign of George IV, 1820, six million
acres had been enclosed . . . waste lands which, if
applied for the purpose of small occupation, would be
of great benefit to the poor by increasing employment
and the supply of food."

Mr. Hume, as a landed proprietor, strongly opposed
the Bill. He said, " In his opinion the commonages
comprised lands never granted to any individuals, but
belonging to the Crown for the benefit of the public."
Referring to the Report of the Committee of 1844, he
asked — "What evidence did the Committee receive
from the poor who used these commons ? . . . He
should be glad to hear what trouble had been taken
by the Select Committee to get the evidence of the
poor man and the labourer on the matter. ... It was
a one-sided report in favour of the landed proprietor.
... He opposed the measure, as taking away the
rights of the community at large. ... He would put
it whether getting rid altogether of the connection of
the poor with the soil was not an evil which would
affect society at large."

The Bill, however, passed, but the predictions of

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 8i

those who opposed it turned out to be correct. Some
official writers and others, speaking in the landed
interest, endeavour to show that great advantages
resulted from the administration of the Inclosure Com-
missioners who were appointed ; that a certain extent
of the inclosed land was sold in parcels to many per-
sons of different classes ; that a large number of roads
were made ; that the existing commoners who could
make good their claim had land assigned to them ;
and especially that field gardens and allotments were
put aside for the labourers. All this is true as far as
it goes, but it affected the general results of the Act
to such a small degree as not to be worth con-
sideration.

A Parliamentary return of Inclosures, dated 1869,
gives 614,804 acres as the quantity of land inclosed
since the Act of 1845. Of this large area (about
the size of the whole county of Northamptonshire)
only 2223 acres were allotted to the "labouring
poor." The reasons given by the Commissioners for
setting aside such a small quantity of land for that
purpose were of the most flimsy kind. The people
" had gardens already." Land was " too distant from
the dwellinsfs." It was "too elevated" or otherwise
"unfit." Much of the land inclosed "was not subject
to the operation of the Act," etc. etc.

This policy pursued by the territorial classes through-
out the centuries — a policy often checked but never
abandoned — may be said to have been completed
about the sixties of last century. The proceedings
connected with the policy, so far as statistics and
dry facts go, are recorded in the numerous Parlia-
mentary Blue Books and other official documents,
but the sufferings and wrongs inflicted on the rural

G

82 LAND REFORM

population can be learned only from the literature,
chronicles, and other utterances of the time ; while the
disastrous effects which the policy itself has had on
the social life of England are to be seen in the state
of our towns and rural districts to-day. The final
result of the policy is that the soil of this country and
all beneath it are owned by a handful of men. "It
may seem strange that in England, the land where
above all others the personal and political rights of the
simplest freeman have been saved whole through all
changes of princes and dynasties, the law should find
so little room for public and unstinted rights of using
the very elements. Even the air is not free, for the
maxim is that the owner of the soil is owner up to the
height above and down to the depth beneath. I con-
ceive it is indisputable that to pass over land in a
balloon, at whatsoever height, without the owner's or
occupier's licence, is technically a trespass." ^

' " The Land Laws " (Sir Fredk. Pollock). The author states that this
doctrine does not lead to any "grave inconvenience." It may not do so
in the case of a balloon, but if the discoveries of science should make
aerial transit practicable — as some say they will — then owners could
legally charge a toll for every aerial machine passing over their land. It
is, however, fortunate that the element of air is not visible and fixed, and
is not subject to manage, like the element of land. Were it so, it is
probable that we should now be paying sums for the right of breathing
it to certain air-lords who in times past had succeeded in getting it into
their hands.

CHAPTER IX

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM {contimied)

In the year 1085 William the Conqueror caused a
survey to be made of all the counties of England
except the four northern counties. Referring to the
completeness with which this great undertaking was
carried out, one of the oldest and most trustworthy of
chroniclers, who wrote in the twelfth century, states :
"He (the king) had subdued the inhabitants so com-
pletely to his will, that without any opposition he first
caused an account to be taken of every person ; com-
piled a register of the rent of every estate throughout
England, and made all free men of every description
take the oath of fidelity to him."^

Camden speaks of it as follows : " He (the king)
commanded every inhabitant of England to do him
homage and to swear fealty to him against all men.
He tooke the survey and description of the whole
Land neither was there an Hide of England thorow
but he knew both the value and the owner thereof;
there was neither plash nor place but set down it was
in the King's Roll and the rent revenue and profits
thereof, the verie tenure of possession, and possessour
himself was made knowen to the King.""

> William of Malmesbury's "Chronicle of the Kings of England"
(Bohn's Antiquarian Library).

" Camden's "Britain," 1586. First translation by Philemon Holland,
1610, p. 153. This interesting return can be seen in the Public Record
Office, but most, if not all, of it has been translated and published.
The following example gives the form in which the particulars concerning

83

84 LAND REFORM

This remarkable work is called the Domesday
Book, and contains the most minute information
touching all the farms of the kingdom. It gives the
names of all the holders of land in Edward the
Confessor's time and at the time of the survey. It
states the number of hides of land in each manor, of
the villeins, servi, free men, cottiers, and tenants in
socage. It records the quantity of wood, meadow,
and pasture, and the number of mills and fishponds,
and states the oross value thereof in the Confessor's
time and at the time of the survey ; and sets out the
value of what each freeman possessed, in each of the
two reigns. The number of oxen, cows, and swine is
also given. ^

every holding were given : " Baldwin holds Ghent. There is land for
twenty-five ploughs, and as many are there, and twenty serfs and forty
two among the villeins and bordars and five swineherds rendering forty
four swine. There is a mill returning thirty pence and ten acres of wood
and one hundred acres of pasture. Formerly it was worth twelve pounds.
Now it is worth ten pounds," etc. etc. (From the part of Domesday Book
which relates to Devonshire, translated and edited by the "Domesday"
Committee of the Devonshire Association.)

^ Though a digression, it is interesting to notice the good kind of
domestic legislation which was carried out in those, so called, dark ages,
especially under the Norman and Plantagenet kings. Our present Local
Authorities might, with gain, study those old statutes. The question of
adulteration is dealt with in no namby-pamby way. The butcher and the
baker had to be careful about the weight and quality of their wares ; the
brewer was warned, at his peril, to brew nothing but pure beer. A paper
read last year before the Sanitaiy Institute showed that sickness and
death lurked in the filthy stuff used in stuffing the cheap bedding usually
sold to the poorer classes. Statute ii Henry VII, chap. 19, directs that
no one shall make, obtain, or put to sale any mattresses or bedding
unless made of " clean stuff, clean wool or clean flocks," under pain of
forfeiture of "all such unlawful wares." Statute 27 Edward III, chap. 11,
deals with the question of "forestalling" merchandise or food in a
manner that would greatly trouble the speculators in cotton and grain of
the present day. Slaughter-houses must be outside a town lest " the air
within become corrupt." There are many other acts of a similar character
dealing with the domestic life of the people.

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 85

On the motion of the late Lord Derby a return —
commonly known as the " New Domesday Book "
— was ordered by the House of Lords in 1876. This
return professes to give the number of landowners in
the United Kingdom. It is, however, inaccurate, and
greatly overstates the actual number of owners of
agricultural land. Men owning land in several districts
are counted as separate owners. Leaseholders are
included, common land, woods, and wastes which are
mostly attached to large estates, and all lands not
rated, are left out of account altogether. But the
most misleading feature of the return is the inclusion
of owners of less than one acre. These small holdings
are mainly gardens and plots of land attached to
dwelling-houses, and should be discarded in any esti-
mate of the numbers of owners of agricultural land.
They, however, immensely increase the tale, being
more than two-thirds of the whole number given.
This report — the New Domesday Book — is con-
tained in bulky volumes, but an abstract of its contents
will be found in a Return presented to the House of
Commons.^ This summary gives a total of 972,836
owners of the 33,000,000 acres of land dealt with.^ Of
this number however no less than 703,289 are owners
of less than one acre each. Those who, previous to
the return, knew that the landowners in this country
were a small number, were surprised to find that the
number was so very small. The return shows how
thoroughly the land policy of the territorial party had
been carried out and that the smaller cultivating

' " Summary of Returns of Owners of Land in England and Wales,
exclusive of the Metropolis." 4 May, 1876.

2 The total area (land and water) of England and Wales is 37,327)670
acres, but the return deals with only just over 3j,ooo,qoo.

86 LAND REFORM

owners — yeomen, copyholders, and peasant proprietors,
had practically disappeared.

Many able writers have carefully analysed the re-
turns, and the several results arrived at do not greatly
vary. Mr. George Brodrick has examined them in
a most painstaking manner, and sums up his inquiry
by stating : —

" At all events it is certain that not more than 4000
persons, and probably considerably less than 4000,
owning estates of 1000 acres and upwards, possess
on the aggregate an extent of 19,000,000 acres, or
about four-sevenths of the whole area included in the
Domesday Book Returns ... we find that a landed
aristocracy, consisting of about 2250 persons, own
together nearly half the enclosed land in England and
Wales. The residue of owners between one acre and
2000 acres ostensibly number 249,996, but may be
reduced by a proportionate allowance for double en-
tries to 147,657. This would give a net total of about
150,000 owners above one acre in England and Wales,
or less than xro^^ ^^ ^^^ population — a result which
corresponds somewhat closely with Mr. Shaw-Lefevre's
conclusion that the whole number of landowners prop-
erly so called in England and Wales certainly does not
exceed 166,000."^

1 For details of these calculations see " English Land and English
Landlords," by the Hon. George C. Brodrick. Mr. Kay estimates that
nearly five and a half million acres, or nearly one-sixth of the inclosed
land in England and Wales, is owned by 280 persons, and that more
than one-fourth of the land in England and Wales is owned by 710
persons. — (" Free Trade in Land," by Joseph Kay.) The late Sir Arthur
Arnold went carefully into the question of "double entries," and after
dealing in detail with the Return, he came to the conclusion that 525
members of the peerage are counted as 1,500 owners, and that 7,000
persons own four-fifths of the land of the United Kingdom. — (" Free
Land," Arthur Arnold.) Bateman, in " The Great Landowners of Great
Britain and Ireland" (1878), gives an amusing account of the manner in
which men owning in several districts are returned as separate owners
with different names. Errors in names are abundant. Mr. Ellis Nanney,

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 87

Having traced the proceedings by which the great
bulk of the land of Great Britain was inclosed and
turned into private property, it may be well to con-
sider the arguments used in justification of these pro-
ceedings. One argument, ever repeated inside and
outside Parliament, was that inclosing lands provided
employment for the rural population. No doubt it did
provide employment in the following manner. A
common — and the very word common indicates the
rightful ownership — a common, say of 2000 acres, is
inclosed, and the cottagers, commoners, and small
yeomen are deprived of their rights on it ; any plots
or holdings of arable land which they may possess are
rendered useless when the pastures are taken away.
These men have thus to sell their cows, geese, pigs,
poultry — all their little stock — and become mere la--
bourers, dependent on employment for a living. Work
is found for them by inclosing, say, a further 2000
acres. They are consequently the innocent cause of
displacing another lot of peasantry and in reducing
them to the same condition as themselves. And so
the miserable process goes on, destroying the race of
peasants and increasing the hireling class with cumu-
lative rapidity. This is what really happened, and the
process was continued until the cultivating classes re-
ferred to disappeared almost completely.

But the main argument in favour of the system of
inclosures, was, that it was for the public good, by
making the land more productive and profitable. To
"approve" the land, and to make it more profitable,

for instance, is returned as an owner for part of his land, and as Mr.
Vanney for the rest. Viscount Valentia is returned as Mr. V. Valentia.
Tenants are often returned as owners. Frequently the same man, if he
happens to own land in different counties or parishes, is entered as an
owner four or five times over.

88 LAND REFORM

were the reasons given before the Court at Merton,
when the barons assembled passed the statute of that
name in their own favour. The same reasons were
urged in succeeding reigns, reasons which, as we have
seen, were not accepted by the monarchs of the time ;
and the same pleas were urged in support of every
Inclosure Act passed by Parliament.

Political economists and other writers of the day
supported this view. They rarely allude to the
wrongs inflicted on the mass of cultivators by the
system of inclosures as it was carried out. If they
do allude to these wrongs it is simply to treat them
as " inevitable," as results " inseparable from improved
methods of agriculture." Lord Macaulay, in his
History, passes lightly over this part of the question.
"It must be admitted," he says, "that the progress
of civilization " has diminished the comforts of certain
classes of the rural population, and after referring to
the advantages which the peasant had received in
food, fuel, etc., he dismisses the subject by saying
that " the progress of agriculture and the increase of
the population necessarily deprived him of these
privileges." But they were not privileges ; they were
rights ; and rights of, what was then, the mass of the
population, which were sacrificed to what is called
"civilization." Moreover, a policy, however bene-
ficial in itself, becomes a vicious one, and produces
disastrous results if unjust and selfish methods of
carrying it out are employed.

Setting aside, for the moment, the economic side of
the question, and looking at it from the point of view
of the labourer, the peasant, the yeoman, and the
community, several answers can be given to the argu-
ments referred to. To hold that a class of men —

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 89

having the power to do so — is entitled to abolish the
rights and take the property of other men, or of the
community, on the grounds that they can put it to a
more profitable use, is a doctrine capable of a far-
reaching and dangerous application.

But the territorial classes were at the time all-power-
ful, and could settle among themselves what they
considered right ; while those whose interests they
dealt with were voteless and powerless. In these
modern times an advocate of the rights of a de-
spoiled peasantry, reviewing the question in the light
of equal justice between man and man, cannot fail to
condemn the whole proceedings. He may justly ask,
in the words of the eminent Swiss economist — M. de
Sismondi — who wrote on the subject at the time : —

" You tell me you have improved the land, but
what have you done with the labourer? You have
converted vast wastes into cornfields, but what have
you given the peasant in exchange for his common-
able rights ?"^

In the same strain a distinoruished Eng^lish economist
writes : —

" Few persons are less inclined than I am to call
hard names ; it is generally best, even when we are
protesting against an injustice, to protest against it
under the most moderate appellation which it admits
of But there are cases when thing-s ouorht to
be called by names which throw no veil over their
enormity, and I confess that I cannot speak of the
existing practice of dividing the common lands among
the landlords by any gentler name than robbery —
robbery of the poor. It will, of course, be said that
people cannot be robbed of what is not theirs, and
that the commons are not the legal property of the

' Essays by M. de Sismondi on " Political Economy and the Philo-
sophy of Government," translated from the French.

go LAND REFORM

poor. Certainly not ; our masters have taken care of
that. They have taken care that the poor shall not
acquire property by custom, as all other classes have
done. But if the commons are not the property of the
poor, they are just as little the property of those who
take them. They cannot make them their property
without an Act of Parliament, and they have had
no difficulty in obtaining any number of such Acts
from two Houses of their own making as often as they
pleased, whether the Government was liberal or con-
servative. It is only in the last three years that they
have been forced, to their own great indignation, to
grant a temporary respite, chiefly by the public-
spirited exertions of Professor Fawcett and of that
very valuable body, the Commons Preservation
Society."^

Turning to the economic side of the question, it
was claimed that the result of this great pillage was
for the public good by improving agriculture and
increasing the productiveness of the soil. But it can
be shown, by facts that can hardly be disputed, that
all the advantages claimed could have been secured

o

^ " Dissertations and Discussions," John Stuart Mill, Vol. IV, pp. 280-1
(Longmans).

The general public are greatly indebted to the Commons Preservation
Society, which during many years past has done much valuable work.
The society is very active in watching such bills before Parliament as
affect commons and open spaces. Its efforts in this and in many other
ways to guard the public interests have been successful in a number of
notable cases. (See " Report" of the Society 1902-3.) This association
is well worthy of the support of all those who are interested in rural
questions.

For further information touching matters connected with inclosures see
" Open Spaces, Foot Paths, and Rights of Way," by Sir Robert Hunter ;
also " Essay on Preservation of Commons," by the same author. Sir
Robert Hunter has a complete knowledge of the subject, and during
many years past has given great and special service to the cause of
commons preservation. There is also a useful little pamphlet by Percival
Birkett, Hon. Solicitor to the Commons Preservation Society.

See also " Six Essays on Commons Preservation " (Sampson Low,
1867). These are competition essays for prizes given by Mr. H. W. Peek.

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 91

in a better and more permanent form by just instead
of unjust legislation. No doubt as inclosures in-
creased agriculture was greatly improved. More
capital was spent on the land ; chemical and other
scientific discoveries were made use of; better
methods of cultivation were adopted ; cattle became
larger and more shapely, fleeces heavier, and gener-
ally the produce of the soil was largely increased.
In the Report of the Select Committee on Waste
Lands, 1795, tables are given showing how much
heavier beeves and sheep were when fed in inclosures
than when fed on the wastes. But this report, like
nearly all the agricultural reports of the time, was
drawn up by those who looked at things from the
point of view of the territorial party. The interests
of the multitude of dispossessed peasantry, and other
small proprietors, were not considered. No account
was taken of the fact that before the inclosure the
kine on the common, though leaner, were the peasants'
own, and that after the inclosure these men, deprived
of their own stock, became mere labourers, working
for scanty wages in byres not their own, and tending
other people's cattle on the lands from which they had
been shut out. Besides, there is reason to suppose
that the number of cattle and other stock was far
larger before inclosures took place than afterwards.
The high prices of grain, which meant high rents to
the landlord, led to an indiscriminate inclosure of land.
Large areas, totally unfit, were put under the plough.
Old turf, the growth of centuries, was broken up, and
later on, after the irreparable mischief was done, was
allowed to go back into inferior pasture.^ All this

1 " A field of old grass is a treasure which deserves to be guarded,
and ought not to be wantonly broken up." — " Treatise on Agriculture," by
Robert Brown, farmer at Markle, iSi i.

92 LAND REFORM

was an economic loss as far as the community was
concerned. Among the competent judges who were
of this opinion William Cobbett, a keen observer,
writes : —

"In all the really agricultural villages and parts of
the kingdom there is a shocking decay, a great dilapi-
dation and constant pulling down or falling of houses.
. . . The cows, pigs, geese, poultry, gardens, bees,
fuel, that arise from those wastes far exceed, even in
the capacity for sustaining people, similar breadths of
ground distributed into these large farms in the poor
parts of Northumberland. I have seen not less than
ten thousand geese in one tract of common in about
six miles in Surrey."^ He expresses his belief that
these geese alone, " raised entirely by care and by
the common," are worth more than the profit from
the inclosed lands referred to.

Had our statesmen in former times, like statesmen
in other countries, dealt with this vital question of the
land by wise legislation in the interests of the nation,
instead of allowing it (often against their better judg-
ment) to be settled by class-made law, greater and
more lasting economic advantagres would have been

0 o

secured and the ruin of our rural population avoided.

With the millions of acres of common and waste
land to be dealt with, the just and even excessive
claims of the landlord class might have been satisfied,
and at the same time the yeomen and peasant-pro-
prietors retained permanently in self-contained hold-
ings. No doubt there was a difficulty with the small
commoners. The open field system of cultivation was
certainly a wasteful one. It was almost impossible to
apply new and improved methods of husbandry to
long tracts of arable land separated by strips of grass,

1 "Cobbett's Rural Rides," 1 821 to 1832.

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 93

or balks, and belonging to different owners. But by
an adjustment of claims these difficulties might have
been readily overcome if the national good had been
the principle of action.

This view is well expressed by one of the wisest
of our old English writers — one who detested all
inclosures that led to depopulation, but was in favour
of them when carried out on just lines. " Inclosures,"
he writes, "may be made without depopulating, . . .
but depopulation has cast a slander on inclosures
because often done with it people suspect it can not
be done without it. Inclosure made without depopula-
tion is injurious to none. I mean if proportional
allotments be made to the poor for their commonage
and free and leaseholders have a considerable share
with the lord of the manor. Inclosure without de-
populating is beneficial to private persons. Then
have they most power and comfort to improve their
own parts, and for the time and manner these may
mould it to their own conveniency. The monarch
of one acre will make more profit thereof than he
that has his share in forty in commons. . . . Inclosure
with depopulation is a canker to the commonwealth.
It needs no proof; woful experience shows how it
unhouses thousands of people, till desperate need
thrusts them on the gallows." He goes on to further
describe the effect of the action of the "desolating
and depopulating owners."^

' Fuller's "The Holy State and the Profane State," 1642; see also
"The Good Yeoman" and other essays. Thomas Fuller was a pre-
bendary of Salisbury, and also for a time rector of a village in Dorset, so
that he had opportunities of seeing the evils he spoke of, and like so many
clergymen in those times did not shrink from denouncing the policy that
caused them. The remarkable sentence " The monarch of one acre," etc.,
is a striking illustration of the power of ownership in the cultivation of
the soil.

94 LAND REFORM

By the course adopted the extinction of the peasant
class was inevitable, because when once the common
land was inclosed and had become private property,
not only the rights of the then existing peasants were
affected, but also those of their descendants ; " all
hope of emerging from their position and rising into
a higher grade, however industrious, was taken
away."^ This view was repeatedly urged by one of
the ablest of the Royal Commissioners. " I think," he
says, " that there is a prior and an equitable right in
all cases of inclosures vested in the person who, if the
inclosures had not been made, might have obtained
interests in that land."^

The superior economic results of an opposite policy
of dealing with the land in Germany, and in France
under the French Civil Code, will be dealt with in
later chapters. In the meantime, however, it might
be stated that in Germany, where the problem was
similar to that in England, but far more difficult and
complicated, wise statesmanship, a century ago, found
a way to retain on the land all classes of cultivators,
where they have remained until now, the sinews of
the empire. But no one will contend that in Germany
agriculture is behindhand, or that the most scientific
methods are not adopted in the cultivation of the
soil.

1 Royal Commission, " Employment of Women and Children in
Agriculture," First Report, 1868.

^ The late Mr. Tremenhere, with whom the present writer had some
correspondence on the subject, which showed the strong views he held
on this point — views stronger even than those expressed in his official
reports.

CHAPTER X

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM {continued)

In dealing with the causes which brought about the
ruin of the peasantry and yeomanry of England, the
suppression of the monasteries and other religious
houses cannot be left out of account. Before touching
on the direct effect which the dissolution had on the
cultivating classes, it might be well, in a few words, to
consider the object which the despoilers of the monas-
teries had in view. That object was neither religious
nor political but simply a mercenary one, that of get-
ting hold of the wealth of the Church.

In order to carry out this the more easily it was felt
to be necessary to embitter Parliament and the people
against the dwellers in monastic institutions. With
that view the most scurrilous charges ag-ainst the in-
mates of the religious houses were scattered broadcast.
One of the most violent and damacrino- documents

o o

issued with this aim is entitled " The Beesfar's Petition
against Popery" (see Somers Tracts, Vol. I, p. 41.)
Every known crime is charged against the religious
orders, but the work is overdone and bears on its face
its object and partisan character. The unscrupulous
Cromwell, with the rest of the dishonest cabal that
surrounded the king, lent himself to this work.

Under the mask of religious zeal commissioners
were appointed to visit and examine the monasteries.

95

96 LAND REFORM

These commissioners, who were creatures of the
court, proceeded to vilify the lives and characters of
those whom it had been decided beforehand to despoil,
and afterwards they, with their staff and helpers,
secured a goodly share of the plunder.^

The sacking of these institutions inflicted on the
nation at large losses that were irreparable. Splendid
monastic buildings were stripped of historic monuments,
ornaments, old bells, screens, windows, metal work, and
everything else that could be turned into money, and
then left in ruins which were used as common quarries
by the people in the neighbourhood. Great libraries
containing rare books and priceless MSS. were either
destroyed or sold for trifling sums. It is recorded that
" two noble libraries " were sold to a merchant for forty
shillings and were used mostly for waste paper. Cart-
loads of precious documents found their way into the

1 Speaking of " these instruments employed by the Lord Cromwell,"
Fuller writes : " The inquisitors were men who well understood the
message they were sent on, and would not come back without a satisfac-
tory answer to him who sent them knowing themselves to be no losers
thereby." Of one of the principal of these commissioners he remarks :
"Though employed to correct others he was no great saint himself; for
afterwards he was publicly convicted of perjury and adjudged to ride
with his face to the horse-tail at Windsor and Oakingham with papers
about his head; which was done accordingly." ("Church History,"
Vol. II, p. 214.)

This part of the question, though perhaps not quite pertinent to the
subject treated in these pages, is an interesting one. No doubt the report
of these commissioners, known as the " Black Book," created to a large
extent the desired effect. Among the great population of the religious
houses there were doubtless many individuals guilty of the alleged crimes,
but looking at the corrupt character and evil purpose of the accusers, the
non-judicial methods of the inquiry, the rapidity with which it was carried
out, and the absence of any sifting of evidence, the impartial student
must come to the conclusion that the sweeping indictment of the religious
orders as a whole, as it was presented by these inquisitors, is not worthy
of acceptance or belief

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 97

hands of different tradesmen who used them as paper
in which to wrap their wares.^

Turning from the venal squalid part of the question
it is impossible to over-estimate the evil effects which
the movement had on the rural population. Before
the Reformation an immense portion of the land of
England, probably one-fourth of the whole, was in the
hands of the Church. By the suppression of the
monasteries the Church lands were nominally trans-
ferred to the Crown, but the great bulk of them imme-
diately found their way into the hands of a com-
paratively few men who were the favourites and
courtiers of the king. The first step in the policy of
confiscation was the Act of 1536, by which the lands
and other property of the monasteries with an income
less than ;if 200 a year, were given over to the Crown.
It is estimated that nearly 300 religious houses came
under the operation of this measure. By the Act of
^^539 the remaining monasteries were dissolved and
their property also transferred to the king. The final
effect of the dissolution of the monasteries was to place

' Those who wish to study the subject should read — in addition to the
modern historians named — Strype's "Ecclesiastical and Civil Memorials"
(Clarendon Press, 1822); Gasquet's "Henry VIII and the English
Monasteries"; Dixon's " History of the Church of England"; Blunt's
"Reformation in England"; Fuller's "Church History"; Sir Henry
Selman's " History and Fate of Sacrilege" (1632), edition edited by Dr.
Eales(i888).

See also the lengthy preamble to the Act of Dissolution of the smaller
monasteries (27 Henry VIII, chap. 28). In this preamble, while the
houses dealt with by the Act are condemned in violent terms, the larger
institutions are spoken of as " divers and great solemn monasteries of
this realm, wherein, thanks be to God, religion is right well kept and ob-
served." It appears that the suppression of these smaller houses served
only to whet the appetite of the king and his courtiers for further spoils,
and in spite of religion being "right well kept and observed" in them,
the large monasteries shortly afterwards shared the fate of the smaller

98 LAND REFORM

nearly the whole of this vast area of the soil of
England in the hands of private owners. These lands
were distributed mainly to a limited number of cour-
tiers and "satellites who revolved around them,"
together forming a shameless oligarchy which had
the control of public affairs. Not only they, but
others of lesser degree, who were their favourites
and hangers on, shared the spoil. " A great number
of men, when appointed to office, were possessed only
of inkhorn and pen — were after two years able to
rank in wealth and estate with the highest in the
land."^

Old writers and modern historians are agreed as to
the unrestrained rapacity of those pilferers during the
reigns of Henry VIII and that of his son, the boy king,
Edward VI.

Taking the reign of Edward VI alone, Froude
estimates that at a low computation the ministers of
the Crown and their friends had appropriated, " I sup-
pose I must not say stolen," he adds, estates worth in
modern currency about five millions sterling, and
divided them among themselves."

In this reign the chantries — chapels, most of them

* Arundel MS. 151, fo. 386b. See also Sloane MS. 2495, fo. 49b.

Spelman gives a list of the principal families into whose hands these
estates passed. Some of them secured from one to twenty abbeys or
priories, and one of them no less than thirty. See " History and Fate of
Sacrilege."

Further particulars are given of these proceedings in Strype's " Eccle-
siastical Memorials," Book II, Chaps, xxviii., xxx. and following.

See also "Rolls Publications," "State Calendars," Vol. XII, Part i.
and ii., edited by James Gairdner. In this volume lists and particulars are
given of between three and four hundred " grants " made in one year
(1537). Each grant contains a list of the property disposed of In some
cases a single grant includes a number of manors, abbeys, advowsons,
priories, tithe rents, etc.

■^ " History of England," Vol. V, p. 467.

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 99

rich with endowments bequeathed for religious pur-
poses— were suppressed in the same way as the monas-
teries. Of this Green writes : " The plunder of the
chantries and gilds failed to glut the appetite of the
spoilers. Half the lands of every see were flung to
them in vain ; an attempt was made to satisfy their
greed by the suppression of the wealthy see of Durham.
. . . But while the courtiers gorged themselves with
manors the Treasury grew poorer."^

The hollow pretence for suppressing these chantries
was that their revenues were to be devoted to the
maintenance of the poor, for providing schools, assist-
ing universities, etc. On this point Hallam writes :
" But this was entirely neglected and the estates fell
into the hands of the courtiers. Nor did they content
themselves with the escheated wealth of the church.
Almost every bishopric was spoiled by their rancorous
power in this reign, either through mere alienations or
long leases or unequal exchanges."^

1 Green's " History of England," Vol. II, p. 238.

In the rural districts these chantries afforded the only means by which
the people could get any education at all, and nothing arose afterwards
to take their place. Great store is often placed on the Grammar Schools
and other educational institutions founded by Edward VI and endowed
mainly out of the revenues of these chantry lands ; but the sums devoted
to this purpose were insignificant compared with the total amount of the
property confiscated. Strype gives a list and other particulars of these
schools, about sixteen in number (see "Ecclesiastical Memorials," Book
II, chap, xxxill). One of them was "erected by the King at Brymingham
(Birmingham) called ' King Edward the Sixth's free Grammar School,'
for the sustentation whereof he gave all that his barn and four messuages
lying in Dalend in Birmingham, to the value of £;i\ per ann." Since
then that small revenue has increased above fifteen hundred-fold. If all
the great monastic estates had remained in the hands of the Crown or in
the possession of the Church till such times as they could have been dealt
with by legislation in the public interest, the available income from them
at the present day would be so enormous that there would be no need
for rates and taxes for education, or rates for the relief of the poor.

' " Constitutional History," Vol. I, p. 94.

loo LAND REFORM

These men seem to have had the fear of "restitu-
tion " before their eyes. For this reason they effected
exchanges and sales of land, and took other means to
make themselves secure. Large estates were bought
at low prices by merchants and others of the commercial
class, "new men," who wished to found and did found
"county families," and by acquiring titles became mem-
bers of the aristocracy.

Tho. Lever, a divine who, next to Latimer, was
one of the most urgent in denouncing the wrongs in-
flicted on the cultivators of the soil, refers in one of
his sermons to the wealthy merchants of London as
being not content with their position, but, he said,
"their riches must needs abroad in the country to
buy farms out of the hands of worshipful gentlemen,
honest yeomen and labouring husbandes."^

It is necessary to refer to these proceedings because
the effect of them on the yeomen, the small landed
gentry who tilled their own farms, the peasantry and
the cultivating classes generally, was so disastrous.
The Church of that day being the Church of the people
— that is, of the State — Church lands were of the
nature of public property. The revenues of these
lands were used to an enormous extent in the public
service. They were used for schools and other educa-
tional institutions, for making and mending roads,
building and repairing bridges, making sea walls,
dykes, etc. They were further used for providing
maintenance and refuge for the poor and for caring for
the sick. In the rural districts especially the religious
orders might be said to have carried on the work now

^ See " Sermons " preached by Tho. Lever (Arber's Reprints). These
sermons are delightful reading, picturing as they do the age in which the
preacher lived.

THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM loi

done by the modern boards of guardians. They were
the doctors, nurses, and advisers of the cultivating
classes among whom they lived and (many of them
being cultivators) alongside of whom they worked,
and generally they mingled freely with the people and
took an intelligent personal interest in the social life
of the districts in which their houses were placed.

The religious orders, in spite of all that has been
said to the contrary, were easy landlords.^ Those
holding under them were rarely liable to be ousted
from their holdings by excessive fines and other
forms of eviction so often practised by the lay land-
lords. All this was changed when the lands fell
into private hands. The "new families" which were
founded on monastic spoils recognized none of the
public and charitable duties referred to. They re-
pudiated the charges for national works to which
the land had been subject. They adopted a course
dictated by personal gain, and put the lands which
they had grasped to the most profitable use, regard-
less of the dwellers on the soil whose rights were
far superior to their own. They found that sheep
farming was the most easy and profitable system they
could adopt, but in order to turn tillage land into sheep
farms it was necessary to evict the yeomanry, peasantry,
and cottagers, and accordingly they evicted them with
a merciless hand.

Froude describes the situation by saying : " As to
the mass of the people, hospitals were gone, alms-

' This has frequently been denied, but it is certain that when the
monastic lands came into private hands rents were raised and fines
increased in order to get rid of the sub-holders. As to the lands that
remained in the hands of the king, a main object of the "Augmentation
Courts," established by the Act 27 Henry VIII, chap. 27, and other Acts
was to increase the revenues of the Crown.

I02 LAND REFORM

houses swept away, every institution which Catholic
piety had bequeathed for the support of the poor was
either abolished or suspended till it could be organized
anew. The poor, smarting with rage and suffering,
and seeing piety and honesty trampled under foot by
their superiors, were sinking into savages."^

The old feudal aristocracy, oppressors of the hus-
bandmen as they were, had some regard for those
rights of the cultivators which were founded on custom
law and tradition, but the new aristocracy had none.
"Ingrossing" and inclosure and other forms of con-
fiscation were carried out with viofour. Some of the
unfortunates who were thus dispossessed of their hold-
ings— uprooted from the soil — entered into trade and
other callings, others sunk into the position of hirelings,
but most of them, rendered houseless and landless,
went to swell the ranks of the vagabond class.

To these must be added the vast number of persons
belonging to the religious houses, who, with their de-
pendents, were cast adrift. Altogether, this social
revolution resulted in such widespread misery and
destitution as can hardly be estimated. The process
of turning public lands into private property was the
direct cause of the great rebellions of 1 549 under Kett
and other leaders. Further, it created a multitude of
beggars, rogues, and vagabonds, which governments
tried in vain to put down by the gallows and other
severe punishments, and which, in a later reign, had
to be dealt with by the establishment of our poor-law
system, and the creation for the first time in England
of a class of legal paupers.^

1 " History of England," Vol. V, p. 273.

^ The rebellions under Kett and others will be referred to in a later
chapter.

CHAPTER XI
PEASANT REVOLTS

Any review of the English land system would be in-
complete, and could not indeed be properly understood,
without some reference to the peasant revolts which
occurred during its development. These uprisings are
usually called "rebellions," but the most striking cir-
cumstance connected with them was the great per-
sonal loyalty of the insurgents to the reigning monarch.
They believed that if they could lay their case before
him, their wrongs would be righted. Their anger and
o^rudsfe were ag-ainst the minions that surrounded him
and against their tools.

The second circumstance in order was the demand
of the "rebels" that the rapacious territorial magnates,
who were confiscating their rights, should be made to
obey the laws affecting the land. The struggles of the
English peasantry and yeomanry, continued through-
out the centuries against force, fraud, and oppression,
form an interesting and an important part of the story
of our nation.^

In all these struggles the spirit which animated the
contending parties was the same, from the days of
Wat Tyler to those of Joseph Arch.

In every age the rural population have had their

^ The peasantry and yeomanry were so much allied, the principles of
their land tenure were so much alike, they were so united in interests
and in action that, for historical purposes, they must be looked upon as
parts of the same body. The insurrections were composed of husband-
men of all classes.

103

I04 LAND REFORM

poets, their champions, and their martyrs, whose action
and utterances can only be fully understood when
considered in connection with the evils with which
they dealt. Most of these utterances were quaint or
allegorical and are apt now to be looked upon as
mere literary curiosities. But they were well under-
stood by the masses of the people to whom they were
addressed, to whose dumb feelings of misery and despair
they gave a welcome voice.

"The Vision of Piers the Plowman,"^ when inter-
preted, pictures the oppression, injustice, and selfish
arrogance which characterized the ruling classes. It
describes the "homely poor in their ill-fed, hardwork-
ing condition, battling against hunger, famine, injustice,
oppression, and all the stern realities and hardships that
tried them as gold is tried in the fire."^ The writer
of the " Vision " is constrained to speak out all the
bitter truth, and his cry is as earnest as that of "an
injured man who appeals to heaven for vengeance."

But it was by the crude and figurative writings and
sermons of John Ball, the " crazy priest of Kent," for
which he was hung, drawn, and quartered, that the
rustic population had their eyes opened to the true
cause of their sufferings, and caught the first glimpse
of their natural rights as men. From that hour slavery,

' By William Langland, a poor priest, said to have been born at
Cleobury Mortimer, Shropshire. His poem, written for the most part
on the Malvern Hills, was published in its more complete form in I377>
some years after the " Black Death," and four years before Wat Tyler's
rebellion. Unlike John Ball, Langland had no intention of inciting the
people to resistance, but trusted to milder influences to secure reform.

^ "Piers the Plowman," edited by the Rev. W. W. Skeat, M.A.
(Clarendon Press), 1869. An edition published by the Early English
Text Society, also by Skeat, is perhaps the more interesting, as the
side-notes are in modern English, which allow the text to be read with
greater ease.

PEASANT REVOLTS 105

in its different forms, was doomed in England. In
Wat Tyler — stabbed in an hour of truce, by a treacher-
ous sycophant — was found a leader who, by his cour-
age, power, and ability, was able to rouse the people,
so prepared, to the only form of resistance then open
to them.

In the annals of the English peasantry Wat Tyler's
rebellion demands a foremost place and an extended
notice, for the reason that it was the first occasion in
English history in which the idea of freedom — of per-
sonal liberty — was openly received and formulated into
a distinct demand. Throughout the villaores the ea^er
listening peasantry were told that the time for action
had come, that John Ball "hathe rungen youre belle,"
that by nature all men were born equal ; that the
distinction of bondage and freedom was an invention
of their oppressors, and contrary to the views of the
Creator ; that God now offered them the means of
gaining their liberty, and that if they continued slaves
the blame must rest with themselves.

In order to understand the character of the out-
break it is necessary to refer to the condition, at the
time, of the cultivating classes who formed the great
bulk of the nation. The subject, however, as has
been stated, is extremely complicated. Customs
varied on different manors. Men under the same
name lived in various parts of the country under
different conditions, but all of them were under the
most oppressive serfage. Speaking generally, there
was a number of feudal lords and lordly prelates
who held the land as tenants-in-chief of the king.
To hold the great mass of the people in servile
bonds was in their eyes a divine right. All legisla-
tion— they being the legislators — was based on this

io6 LAND REFORM

assumption. The great body of serfs who cuhivated
their manors were their property, whom they could
sell, and over whom they had even the power of life
and death. These serfs had no rights agrainst their
lords, not even the right to marry or give their
children in marriage without their lord's consent.
They were often allowed a little land to cultivate, but
anything they could save, and all their belongings,
as well as themselves, were the property of their
lords.

The villeins — a mild name for slaves — appear to
have had some rights, but were bound fast to the
manor and could be sold with the land like cattle or
any other stock. ^ Besides these, there were the free-
men, who held land direct from the king, or from great
landlords under special charters or agreements, and
subject to personal service, or annual money payments,
or both. It was the great object of the nobles to re-
duce these freemen to vassalage on the principle which
they sought to enforce that "every man must have
a lord." Altogether the system was a merciless one,
under which the peasantry had neither rest nor hope.

The " Black Death," ^ a few years before, had swept

^ It is shown also that they could be sold without the land. Hallam
(" Middle Ages," Vol. Ill, p. 263) quotes several instances of villeins sold
with their families and chattels, but without land. He also quotes a case
where a man defended at law his right to the freehold of land that he
held, but he failed because the prosecutor was able to prove that he held
the land in villeinage, and the proof consisted in the fact that he — the
prosecutor — had himself sold one of the defendant's sisters for four
shillings. In a previous reign an ordinance was made " that there should
be no more buying and selling of men in England, which was hitherto
accustomed as if they had been kine or oxen." But this ordinance was
issued through the influence of some of the superior clergy, and was quite
disregarded by the manorial magnates.

2 The pestilence recurred in 1361 and again in 1369, but that of 1348
is known as the " Black Death."

PEASANT REVOLTS 107

away, it is estimated, nearly one half of the population.
The cultivators of the soil, thus reduced in numbers,
were in demand everywhere. They naturally, in the
face of the demand, sought to better their material
condition. This was resented by the landlord class,
who insisted on the old rates of payment and the old
conditions of service.

Before the " Black Death " a large number of serfs
had gained their freedom, some by flight, others by
manumission. Now, however, labour being scarce,
the dominant class sought to thrust these men back
again into bondage. The landed aristocracy secured
the passing of the most stringent laws and ordinances
to compel the people to submit to their tyrannous will.
The infamous " Statute of Labourers " was enacted in
1349/ the year after the great pestilence.

After the following preamble — " Because a great
part of the people, and especially the workmen and
servants, have late died of the pestilence, and seeing
the necessity of the masters and scarcity of servants,
who will not serve unless they receive excessive
wages," etc., the Statute proceeds, "After deliberation
with the prelates, the nobles and learned men assisting
us of their mutual consent, it is ordained that every
one, bond or free (with a few exceptions named), shall
be bound to serve anyone that shall require him at
the same wages as in the 20th of our reign" (in 1347).
Anyone who refused was to be " committed to the
next gaol, there to remain under strait keeping till
he find surety to serve in the form aforesaid." The
peasants, however, were stubborn. They sought by
flight and other means to evade these cruel restrictions.
But the feudal aristocracy were inexorable. In the

' 23 Edward III, chaps, i. to v.

io8 LAND REFORM

following year (1350) another " Statute of Labourers"
was passed.^

After stating that the people had ignored the pre-
vious ordinance passed "by the assent of prelates,
earls, barons, and others of his council to the great
damage of the great men," this Statute makes provi-
sions still more definite and severe " to refrain the
malice of the said servants." The peasantry — bond
and free — i.e. the great mass of the people — were
restricted in their movements from one locality to
another ; their personal liberty touching the common
incidents of life was curtailed, and their whole exist-
ence, their "bodies" and service, were to be reduced
to an item which was to be the perquisite or property
of a small ruling class.

The Act lays down minutely the maxim.um wages
which the men, under threat of " grievous punish-
ment," are to demand or receive — for haymaking, not
more than 2d. per day; mowing, 5d. per acre or 5d.
per day; reapers, 2d. to 5d., "without meat or drink
or other courtesy to be demanded, given, or taken."
The men are to be publicly sworn to obey these ordin-
ances. " Those that refuse to take such oath or to
perform that that they be sworn to, shall be put in the
stocks by the said lords, stewards, bailiffs, etc., for three
days or more or sent to the next gaol till they will
justify themselves."

Still the peasantry were stubborn, and still the lords
of the soil were inexorable. In 1360 another statute
was passed,^ the provisions of which were revolting
to human feeling. It was headed " Punishment of
labourers departing from their service into another

^ 25 Edward III, chaps, i, ii, iii.
- 34 Edward III, chap. 10.

PEASANT REVOLTS 109

County." It enacted that anyone — bond or free —
who should leave the service into which he had been
forced, or should go into another locality, should be
outlawed, should be hunted down from place to place,
and when taken "he shall be burnt on the forehead
with an iron made and formed to the letter F, in token
of falsity."

It seems, however, that even these cruel measures
were not successful enough to satisfy the manorial
lords. In 1377, four years before the rebellion, another
statute of the same kind was passed.^ The preamble
recites the " misbehaviour of villeins and land-tenants
in withdrawing services and customs from their lords
due as well of their body as of their tenure," that
they declare themselves discharged of these burdens
" by certain exemplifications made out of the book
of domesday of the manor and their evil inter-
pretation of the same," and that they "resist their
lords to the great damage of their said lords." "There-
fore," the Statute continues, " it is ordained and stab-
lished that the lords which feel themselves grieved
shall have special commission who shall be empowered
to imprison the offenders who are indicted and shall
not be released on bail or otherwise from prison with-
out the assent of these lords till they be attainted or
acquit."

In the "Rolls of Parliament" (Edward III, 1376,
Vol. II, p. 340), full directions for enforcing this statute
are set out. No one in any condition, rich or poor, on
pain of fine, is to receive, employ, or harbour these
" malicious riotous rebeales." Bailiffs, gaolers, con-
stables, and all officials in hundreds, wapentakes, and
burghs, " toutes parts universalment," are enjoined to

' I Richard II, chap. 6.

no LAND REFORM

take their bodies and to imprison and chastise them.
Every ingenious method is adopted to make their lives
unbearable until they submit to the claims of their
oppressors.

The persecuted husbandmen of all classes found a
new vent for their sufferings in the form of popular
songs which circulated throughout the country and
became household words. These ballads show the
miserable and oppressed condition of the rural popu-
lation. Many of them are quaint, forcible, and
pathetic in their language.^ One or two examples
will show their kind : —

" A Song of the Times " :

'* All the land of England is moist with weeping. . . .
The fraud of the rulers prevails; peace is trodden
underfoot. . . . Right and law lie asleep. . . . The
wealth of the rich is increased by exacting gifts ;
almost all the nobles spend their time in contriving
evil ; the mad esquires delight in malice. Lo ! the
rapacious men appear on every side."

Song against the King's Taxes:

" He sins who takes the money of the poor without
cause. . . . It is no trouble to the great to grant the
King's tax; the simple must pay it all, which is con-
trary to God's law. . . . How well they perform good
deeds out of the sweat of the poor. . . . They are
proud ; with other people's goods they hold great
court. . . . Such tribute can in no manner last long ;
out of emptiness who can give ? . . . People are
reduced to such ill plight that they can give no
more ; I fear, if they had a leader, they would rise
in rebellion."

1 " The Political Songs of England," collected from various sources,
and published by the Camden Society, 1839.

PEASANT REVOLTS in

*• Song of the Husbandmen " : —

" I heard men on the earth make much lamentation.
. . . They keep here no saying and sing no song.
He who hath any goods expects not to keep them, but
even the dearest we lose at last. It is grievous to
lose where there is little. . . . The bailiff causes us
to know evil. . . . The woodward has woe in keeping
for us. . . . There may not arise with us or remain
with us riches or repose. . . . Thus they rob the poor
man who is of little value ; he must needs in sweat
and labour waste away. . . . Thus they rob the poor
and pick him full clean — the rich lord it without any
right. . . . Thus we are hunted from hall to corner.
... I must lay my pledge well if I will, or sell my
corn while it is green grass. . . . Yet I shall be a foul
churl, though they have the whole. . . . To seek
silver for the king I sold my seed, wherefore my land
lies fallow and learneth to sleep. . . . Since they
fetched my fair cattle in my fold, when I think of my
weal I nearly weep. ... As good to perish at once
as so to labour." ^

** Song of the Venality of Judges " :

** There are judges whom partiality and bribes
seduce from justice ; that pay toll to the devil and
serve him alone. . . . The ushers say to the poor who
follow the Court, ' Poor man, why do you trouble your-

' The following is a specimen of the English language in those
days : —

" Ich herde men upo mold make muche men."
(I heard men on the earth make much lamentation.)
" He kepeth here no sawe ne no song sing."
(They keep here no saying and sing no song.)
"Thus me pileth the pore that is of lute pris."
(Thus they rob the poor who is of little value.)
" Nede in swot and in swynk synde mot swo."
(He must needs in sweat and labour waste away.)
" Forthi mi lond leye lith and leorneth to slepe."
(Wherefore my land lies fallow and learneth to sleep.)

112 LAND REFORM

self? Why do you wait here? Unless you have
money to give to everybody in this Court you labour
in vain. Why then, wretch, do you remain ? If you
have brought nothing you will stand altogether out of
doors.' ... If these (bribes) are not sent privately
then they (Sheriffs) proceed as follows ; whatever
cattle they find are driven off to their own manors,
and the owners themselves are put in confinement
until they make satisfaction, so that they give double ;
then at length they are liberated."

The scenes of these cruelties and persecutions were
neither in Eastern lands, nor among savage tribes,
but in the fair villages, hamlets, and market towns of
England. The victims — tracked and hunted from
place to place like wild beasts ; fastened in the stocks
for days and nights, exposed to hunger and cold ; kept
in filthy prisons till they were subdued ; their faces
branded with hot irons ; their peaceful homes and
little homesteads broken up, and their wives and
children subjected to untold misery ; — were not the
savages that some chroniclers have represented them
to be, but frugal, hardworking English peasants, who
only asked for some small degree of natural justice at
the hands of the rapacious class who ruled them.

Courtly and monastic chroniclers of the time, while
keenly alive to the discomforts of the aristocratic
classes, had not a grain of sympathy — nothing but
condemnation — for the peasants and their cause.
Modern historians, for the most part, pass over these
doings with a few platitudes of sympathy, or with a
bare reference to the iniquitous statutes named, which
few persons take the trouble to consult. Modern
readers, however, must realize the state of things thus
pictured before they can judge of the great revolt

PEASANT REVOLTS 113

which followed, and which proved to be a turning-
point in the history of the EngHsh peasantry.

During these years of discomfort, allied with despair,
discontent became intense and widespread, and the
rural population in every part became ripe for an out-
break. They welcomed with open arms certain of
the inferior clergy, wandering preachers, whose political
sermons gave voice to their wrongs and suffer-
ings. Chief and foremost among these humble and
despised preachers was the "profligate priest," the
"wicked incendiary " John Ball, who, in season and
out of season, in market-place and churchyard, braving
all consequences, taught self-help and deliverance to
eager and sympathizing crowds. In spite of persecu-
tion, imprisonment, and excommunication, and with a
full knowledge of his ultimate fate, this lone and
homeless man, in the true spirit of a martyr, obeyed
the dictates of something within him which he regarded
as greater than himself. The ruling classes became
speedily aware of the dangers of these teachings.
They tried, but in vain, to stop them by securing a
law inflicting heavy penalties for " telling horrible and
false lies of prelates, dukes, earls, barons and other
great men of the realm." ^

In this inflammable condition of the people the
rebellion of Wat Tyler broke out. It is generally
stated that a brutal assault made by a tax-collector on
Wat Tyler's daughter was the cause of the outbreak.
The peasantry and other cultivating classes were the
beasts of burden, not only for work, but for money
to maintain the extravagance of the corrupt ruling

' 2 Richard II, chap. 5.

114 LAND REFORM

classes.' More money was wanted, and a poll tax was
decreed of a groat (fourpence) per head to be paid by-
all persons above the age of fifteen. No doubt this
fresh extortion added fuel to the flames ; but the
cause of the revolt lay far deeper. Indeed, it is
questionable if the incident of the killing of the tax-
collector had anything to do with Wat Tyler. The
matter is immaterial, but Stow in his " Chronicles "
describes the occurrence as follows : " One of the Col-
lectors of the grotes coming to the house of one John
Tylar in Dartford (Wat Tyler belonged to Maidstone)
demanded a grote from Tylar's wife, for herself, hus-
band, servants and her daughter. She was willing to
pay for all except her daughter, who, she said, was a
child and not a woman." The collector denied this
and committed an indecent assault on the girl, as it is
stated he had done in other cases. " Thereupon," the
chronicler continues, "great tumult ensued and the
Tylar met the collector and killed him with his
lathing staffe and everyone supported the said John
Tylar," etc.

As to the subsequent proceedings of the '* rebels "
all the chroniclers are in general agreement. The
extraordinary rapidity with which the rebellion spread
throughout the English counties after the first out-
break at Dartford (5 June, 1381) shows how well

^ Among the thirteen volumes of ancient documents — interesting in
almost every page — which Lord Somers collected, is to be found a remon-
strance bearing on this point addressed to Richard II. "The Com-
mons of this realm have poured out goods and innumerable sums of
money . . . have undergone such heavy taxes tow^ards the maintenance
of wars that they are reduced to such incredible poverty that they cannot
so much as pay the rent for their farms, &c., &c. . . . All these mischiefs
happen by reason of the King's evil ministers who have hitherto mis-
governed both King and Kingdom, &c." " Somers Tracts," Vol. I.

PEASANT REVOLTS 115

the ground had been prepared and how general was
the spirit of disaffection.

The Commons and villeins of Essex marched in a
body to Mile End. The Kentish men, led by "those
insolent rebels Wat Tyler, Jack Straw and one John
Balle and their adherents with a rabble of near 100,000
men lay encamped for some time on Blackheath, a
beautiful plain lying on the South side of Greenwich
Park."^ The king- sent messengers to know the cause
of their rising. They answered that " they were
gathered for his safety to destroy those who were
traytors to him and his kingdom." They asked that
the king should come to see them at Blackheath.
The men of Essex, who had encamped at Mile End,
had made a similar demand, to which the king had
wisely assented. At the interview the king granted
their moderate demands, and the men of Essex dis-
banded and returned to their homes. Had the king,
at first, met the Kentish men on Blackheath in a similar
way, as it is said he was willing to do, it is most prob-
able that the rebellion would have been ended; but he
was swayed by the evil influence of those around him.
The Archbishop who was Chancellor, and Sir Robert
Hales the Treasurer, were foremost in persuading him
not to go. For this " traitorous " counsel the men
threatened them with death, a threat they carried out
a few days afterwards.

Failing to see the king at Blackheath the rebel
army marched to South wark. " They passed through
the citie and did no hurt. They took nothing from
any man, but bought all things at a just price. And
if they found any man with theft they beheaded him."
They sought for the traitors, as they called the king's

^ Hasted's '• History of Kent," published 1778.

ii6 LAND REFORM

advisers. " Their cry was against the Duke of
Lancaster and the ministers who held the king in
durance, especially the Archbishop, the Chancellor,
and Sir Robert Hales, the Treasurer."^ They burnt
and sacked the duke's palace — the Savoy. The gold
and silver plate and other valuables found there they
threw into the Thames, and the jewellery they de-
stroyed. No man was allowed "on paine to lose his
head, to take anything for his own use." One of their
number having secreted a silver vessel, "they hurled
him and the piece of plate into the fire, saying that
they sought justice, and were not thieves and rob-
bers." ^

The poorer citizens of London sympathized with
them, and threatened to burn the city if the gates
were closed against them. Great excesses and crimes
were committed, and those who had advised the king
not to meet the rebels at Blackheath were caught and
beheaded.

The king afterwards met the insurgents at Smith-
field and told them that he had satisfied the men
of Essex, and that he " would grant them the like
form of peace if it would please them to accept there-
of." Wat Tyler, however, demanded that the king's
promises should be confirmed by letters and charters.
It is recorded that "Wat Tyler their Captaine a
crafty fellow of an excellent wit but lacking grace "
bore himself insolently at this interview, and indulged
in threats and made extreme demands. Walworth,
the Mayor of London, stabbed him unawares ; those
who attended the king surrounded him so that his
followers, who were some distance off, should not see

1 Stubbs' "Constitutional History," Vol. II, p. 457-

2 Stow's " Chronicles of England."

PEASANT REVOLTS 117

what was going on. They dragged him from his horse
and with their swords "thrust him through in divers
places of his body so as he died there in his place." ^

For this act Walworth and his fellows were loaded
with rewards, and their names handed down to pos-
terity with honourable mention ; but it was nevertheless
a dastardly one. Wat Tyler was at the head, not of
a mob, but an organized force. He was a leader in a
position to treat, and to make terms, and to see that
those terms were carried out. He came alone — with-
out even a bodyguard — practically unarmed, to a parley
arranged by the king himself and at his invitation.
In this position his person, at least, should have been
respected. Admitting the doubtful charge of insolence,
his death under the circumstances was nothinof less
than a treacherous and cowardly murder, which should
be regarded with horror rather than approbation.
The force he led was under full discipline, but a
discipline which was not the result of drill, but of
absolute obedience to a trusted leader. The leader
dead, and none to take his place, confusion and panic
ensued ; resistance was at an end and the insurgents
fled.

The demands of the rebels were moderate and
reasonable. As formulated they were : (i) That they
should be free from servitude and bondage and from
thenceforth there should be no bondmen ; (2) That
the king would give them a general pardon and
"graunt them peace"; (3) That all men should be
free to buy and sell in all the markets of the realme ;
(4) That no land in England holden in bondage or
service should be holden but for 4d.

This 4d. per acre was not rent in the modern sense
' Sir John Baker's " Chronicles."

ii8 LAND REFORM

of the term, but — with certain services — the conditions
on which the land was permanently held. By raising
this sum — though he had no right to turn him out — a
landlord could impoverish a peasant holder to any
extent. Hence the demand made.

In Blomefield's '* History of Norfolk," a most valu-
able local record, prices and other interesting parti-
culars connected with the agriculture of the day are
given. ^ From this and from other sources it appears
that sixpence per acre was the average of this so-
called rent of arable land and 3s. to 4s. per acre for
meadow land. Hallam quotes, from accounts kept at
a convent some years later, that the prices of wheat
were from 4s. to 6s. per quarter, oxen from 12s.
to i6s. each, sheep is. 2d. to is. 4d., eggs twenty-five
for a penny, etc. But the enormous difference between
the value of money then and now, must, of course,
be taken into account.

The rising in Suffolk and Norfolk seems to have
been of a less united character. Stow states that men
went into Norfolk and Suffolk " to raise like commo-
tions and to turn the hearts of the bondmen against
their lords." Their captain was "a most ungratious
priest John Wraw, who, instructed by Wat Tyler,
easily assembled a multitude of the common people."
Some of the leaders were taken, and there was the
usual "hanging, drawing, and heading." The rebel-
lion was finally put down by the Bishop of Norwich,
" who took some of the rebels and struck off their
heads and placed them on poles." ^

1 Blomefield's " History of Norfolk," Vol. II, pp. 79, 80.

2 The history and incidents of the outbreak in Norfolk are given in an
interesting work, "Rising in East Anglia in 1381," by Edgar Powell.
(University Press, Cambridge, 1896.)

PEASANT REVOLTS 119

All the old chroniclers agree in vilifying the insur-
gents. The vocabulary is exhausted to supply oppro-
brious terms to them. They are described as " filth,
scum, traitors, clowns, and scoundrels." The peasants
of Norfolk are " vile wretches and cruel traitors."
(Holinshed.) *' They follow one another like beasts."
(Froissart.) As to the leaders of the peasantry, no
words are too strong to blacken their characters and
to belie their objects and aims. No condemnation is
uttered of the oppression and wrongs that had become
unbearable and had driven the people to revolt. The
peasantry themselves had no chroniclers.

The Chronicles of Walsingham,^ which were con-
temporary with the events recorded, are to a large
extent the source from which later writers derived
their information and founded their opinions. Now
Walsingham was a monk of the priory of St. Albans.
As one of the regular clergy he had — as his writ-
ings show — the bitterest hatred towards the inferior
wandering priests, of whom John Ball was the most
prominent. The abbot and monks of the priory were
large landholders who seem to have enforced with
the utmost severity their " rights " over the peasantry
of all classes, and to be determined that " all tenants,
whether free or not, should not claim any further
liberties or privileges."^

' " Historia Anglicana," by Thomas Walsingham. I cannot find that
these volumes have ever been translated into English. For a translation
of Walsingham's statements, and of the quotations from his work, here
used, I am indebted to the kindness of my friend Prof. Sonnenschcin, of
the Birmingham University.

' In those days, whatever they may have been later on, the monks
were more or less popular. They held as tenants-in-chief of the king
a very large portion of the soil of England, and were more lenient and
considerate to those who held land under them than were the lay land-
lords. They recognized and practised the duty of relieving the poorer

I20 LAND REFORM

John Ball declared that the priests had no such
rights. The town-folk of St. Albans resisted.
Grindecobbe, one of their number, a constant man,
encouraged and led them on, assuring them that they
would not lack support in the town, and that the
people of the villages around would come to their
assistance. The charges formulated against the
abbot and monks of St. Albans were, "(i) injustice
and tyranny against the peasantry, (2) oppression of
the Commons, (3) retention of the wages of the poor
and the enslaved." The leaders of the outbreak
were arrested and would have been dealt with in the
usual way, but the people of St. Albans issued a
declaration that " if any of the men arrested were put
to death one hundred of their opponents should be
killed for each one of their friends so executed."^

This state of things at St. Albans is referred to
here to show how impossible it was for Walsingham —
himself one of the monks of the abbey — to take
anything but a partisan view of the proceedings he
recorded ; and therefore the views of the later chroni-
clers who adopted so largely Walslngham's account,
should be regarded In this light.^

classes, for which object it seems that a considerable portion of the
monastic revenues were set aside. St. Albans and one or two other
religious communities seem to have been an exception to this rule. One
at least of these was attacked by the insurgents on the avowed grounds
that the monks had inclosed, and were inclosing, land belonging to the
commoners.

^ Walsingham's " Chronicles."

- At the trials of the prisoners at St. Albans, after the rebellion, no
lawful jury could be found to convict, and it was only by severe threats
and infamous jury-packing that convictions could be secured at all.
Even then, writes Walsingham, " They would have preferred to give a
false verdict." He evidently regarded any verdict, except that of guilty,
as a false one.

PEASANT REVOLTS 121

Walsingham gives the story (repeated by other
chroniclers) of the confession said to have been made
by Jack Straw, "the ungratious priest," on the eve of
his execution. According to that confession, one of
the objects of the insurgents at Blackheath was to
kill the king and all the knights, squires, and gentle-
men who attended him. Jack Straw was taken and
condemned to death by Walworth, the Mayor of Lon-
don, who afterwards spoke to him in prison as follows :
"John, behold thy death is at hand beyond all doubt and
there is no way by which thou mayest escape, where-
fore for thy soules health tell us to what end ye did
assemble the commons } If ye doe it, it shall redounde
to thy soul's health."

After this so-called confession he was beheaded and
his head set on London Bridge alongside of the heads
of Wat Tyler and many others. The whole story is
unworthy of credence, first because it rests on the sole
testimony of Walworth, the chief murderer of Tyler,
a time-serving caitiff, who doubtless felt it necessary
to invent some justification for the merciless reprisals
he was adopting ; and secondly, because it was con-
trary to the recorded action of the rebels.

If Wat Tyler had intended to kill the king, he could
easily have done it at Blackheath. But loyalty to the
king was preached everywhere, his banners were
carried, and most of those who joined the ranks of
the insurgents were required to take "an oath of
allegiance to King Richard and to the Commons."^

' Holinshed, in referring to Jack Straw's alleged confession, seems
to have had some doubt as to its truth. " Sith," he says, " they that rote
in those daies may happilie in that behalf misse the truth in construing
things according to their affections." Stubbs says, " His reported con-
fession is too comprehensive to be veracious." ("Constitutional History,"
Vol. II, p. 492.)

122 LAND REFORM

During the progress of the outbreak the territorial
party was panic-stricken. Local authorities took the
side of the rebels, and the local forces could not be
relied on to oppose them. Even in London, where
the king's forces were stationed, the same state of
things was found. "It is strange to consider," writes
the chronicler, "in what fear the lords, knights, and
gentlemen stood of these rude and base people. For
there were 600 armed men and as many archers in
the Tower, but there was not one that durst gainsay
their doings."^

On the news of Wat Tyler's death, which spread
rapidly, the rebellion collapsed everywhere. Then
terror gave place to revenge, and a series of reprisals
was begun of a character too atrocious almost for
belief. The charters of manumission, so solemnly
conferred, were cancelled and the promises of pardon
revoked.

Commissions were appointed to try all prisoners and
others who had taken part in the rebellion or were
suspected of having taken part in it. Sir Robert
Tresilian, Chief Justice, was appointed head of one of
these commissions. This man seems to have been a
prototype of the infamous Judge Jefferies. Before
him "above 1500 men were found guilty and in sundry
places put to death." He received his desserts, how-
ever, a few years afterwards. He was sent to the
Tower, " thence drawn to Tyburn, and there hanged."
The judges at first employed the method of beheading
the rustics "on account of the multitudes that had to
be executed." But this method of capital punishment
" did not correspond to such monstrous and manifold
crimes," and they decided " to punish with hanging
' Holinshed's " Chronicles of England," Vol. II, p. 739.

PEASANT REVOLTS 123

and drawing," nine or ten being hanged on one
beam.

John Ball was arrested and brought to trial at St.
Albans. He "confessed to his abominable wicked-
ness," and was convicted of having ** monstrously out-
raged the King's Majesty " and sentenced to death.
On 15 July, some weeks after Wat Tyler's murder,
he was " hanged, drawn, and decapitated in the
presence of the king, and his body having been quar-
tered was sent to four cities of the realm." (Walsing-
ham.)

The proceedings were all done in the king's name,
but some of them were so fiendish that they could not
possibly have been thought of by a boy of fifteen.^ No
doubt they were the acts of the minions in whose
tutelage he was, and of the great magnates by whom
he was surrounded, and who, when the danger was
over, let loose their vengeance on those who had
caused the trouble. All the leaders of the rebellion to
a man were put to a cruel death, and they were re-
garded by the old chroniclers as men unfit to live.^

The proper method for the student of history to
pursue is to discard the biassed opinions of these
writers, to take the facts recorded and the inferences
to be drawn from them, to mark the current events

' The friends and relations of those executed at St. Albans stealthily
removed the bodies from the gibbets. Strict orders were sent to the
bailiffs to cause chains to be made and to compel these people " to bring
back the same bodies to the gallows and to hang them on these chaines
so long as one piece might sticke to another." (Holinshed, Vol. II,
p. 750). This appears to be the origin of hanging in chains.

^ Walsingham gives the names of the principal leaders in order : —
Wat Tyler, the chief; John Straw, John Wraw, a lewd and naughty
priest ; Helyer, John Kyrkely, John Stanlynge. Stow and other writers
add : Alan Theder, Thomas Scotte, Radolf Rugge, Robert Westbrun,
John Grindecobbe, and John Lettestre, captain of the Norfolk rebels.

124 LAND REFORM

and the conditions of the people, and then to weigh
the whole in the scales of justice and humanity.
Judged in this way, how different will the actions of
these peasant leaders appear ! Wat Tyler will stand
out as a great historical figure. He was a patriot and
a born leader of men. He was a strong character,
and inspired confidence in his followers and fear in his
opponents, When appealed to for help by the op-
pressed townsmen of St. Albans, he replied that "he
would come, if necessary, with twenty thousand men
at his back, provided always that the men of St.
Albans would obey his orders to the letter," and fur-
ther, that he would then "shave the beards of the
abbot and prior and of the other monks " — in other
words, that he would cut off their heads. (Walsing-
ham.)

Another remarkable man in the revolt was William
Grindcobbe, leader of the St. Albans contingent of
Wat Tyler's army, a man of calm courage and absolute
devotion to the cause of the oppressed peasantry. He
got from the king a promise that a letter should be
sent to the abbot of St. Albans ordering him to
restore to the people those ancient rights and privileges
of which they had been deprived. This letter was
delivered to the abbot, who, under pressure, sur-
rendered certain deeds in his keeping which conferred
these rights and privileges. He also granted to the
people a charter of freedom. After the defeat of the
insurgents a demand was made, in the name of the
king, that these deeds and this charter should be
given back to the abbot. Grindcobbe encouraged
the people to resist this demand, and for so doing he
was imprisoned in Hertford jail. The authorities,
however, through fear, released him on bail, and he

PEASANT REVOLTS 125

returned to St. Albans. Here he was in the power
of his enemies, who offered to save his Hfe on the
condition that he would persuade his followers to
surrender the documents in question. But he refused,
and, addressing the people, among whom were those
who had become his sureties, he besought them not
to be influenced by his personal peril. " Fellow
townsmen," he said, "you who have been now raised
from long-standing oppression by a scanty measure of
freedom, stand firm, I entreat you, so long as you
shall be able to do so and have no fear on the score
of my punishment ; for if it is now my fate to die,
I shall die in the cause of the liberty we have gained,
deeming myself happy to be able to end my life by
such a martyrdom. Act at this juncture just as you
would have been bound to act if I had been beheaded
yesterday at Hertford" (Walsingham, Vol. H, p. 27).
Grindcobbe was afterwards executed, drawn, and
quartered as a " malefactor." This obscure hero had
climbed to the heights of that self-sacrifice which, in
various forms and in different degrees, is the one
great mean for the betterment of humankind. Had
the incident happened in classic times, or farther back
into antiquity, it would now no doubt be a subject
treated by the professor in his class-room, but it is
not the less magnificent because it is one of humble
English life.

But the most remarkable figure in the rebellion — the
most vilified, but the man to whom the great bodies of
English peasantry and yeomanry of later times owed
most — was John Ball, " the crazy profligate priest." In
previous struggles, as we have said, the peasantry had
striven only for improvement in their material condi-
tion, for some outlook and hope in their cruel lot.

126 LAND REFORM

Their aspirations never went beyond this. But in the
villages throughout the country, in season and out of
season, with his life in his hand, John Ball had for
years been teaching and explaining to listening crowds
a higher doctrine, strange and new to them — that of
human liberty and the equality of human rights.

The written messages which this *' hedge priest "
sent to the people had an unbounded effect on those
to whom they were addressed, and who perfectly
understood the figurative allusions with which these
messages abound. In a seemingly hopeless enter-
prise this poor preacher never lost heart, never gave
an uncertain note or fell from his high ideal. ^

In all parts the poor peasantry received and pored
over, with greedy and excited interest, such messages
as the following : —

" John Ball gretyth you wele and doth gow to
understande he hathe rungen your belle . . . stonde
manlyche tojedyr in trewth and helpe ye trewthe and
trewthe schal helpe gowe. Now regneth pride in pris
and covetys is held wys, and lecherye withouten shame
and glotonye withouten blame." Again : — " Now
nereth the day, for if the end be well then alle is well.
Let Piers the plowman stay at home and dyght us
corne and I will go with you and help that ye may be
dyght your mete and your drynke that ye none fayle
... for ye have grete nede to take God with youe in
alle youre dedes. For now is time to be war."

Some of these letters referred to imaginary persons,

* These curious letters are given by Walsingham and other chroni-
clers, but can be found together in their different versions in Lingard's
" History of England," Vol. IV, pp. 58, 239, and in Sharon Turner's
" History of England," Vol. IV, p. 580. The most curious version per-
haps is that given in Knyghton's Chronicle. See " Rolls Publication,"
edited by Dr. Lumby.

PEASANT REVOLTS 127

"John the Miller," "John the Carter," etc., and are
treated by the old chroniclers with great contempt.
One writer refers to the message sent to the Com-
mons of Essex as a "letter of nonsense sent by this
incendiary priest to the rebel-rabble of Essex," and as
showing "how fit an orator he was for such an audi-
tory, and what strength of persuasion lies in non-
sense."

The letter runs : — " John Sheep St. Mary's
Priest of York and now of Colchester greeteth well
John Nameless, and John the Miller, and John the
Carter and all manner of men and biddeth them be-
ware of guile in the Borough and stand manlyke
together in God's name ; and biddeth Piers Plowman
go to his work and chastise Hob the Robber and take
with you John Trewman and all his fellowes and no
more ; John the Miller ye ground small, small, small ;
the King's son of Heaven shall pay for all. Beware
or ye be woe, know your friend from your foe, have
enough and say ho ; and do well and better. Flee sin
and seek peace and hold ye therein. And so biddeth
John Trewman and all his fellows."

For his sermon to Wat Tyler's great army of rustics
on Blackheath, John Ball took his usual text, the demo-
cratic and oft-quoted distich : —

When Adam delved and Eve span
Who was then the gentleman ?

" By what right," the preacher urged, " are they
whom we call lords greater folk than we ? On what
grounds have they deserved it ? Why do they hold
us in serfage ? If we all came of the same father and
mother, of Adam and Eve, how can they say or prove
that they are better than we, if it be not that they
make us gain for them by our toil what they spend in

128 LAND REFORM

their pride. They are clothed in velvet, and warm in
their furs and their ermines, while we are covered with
rags. They have wine and spices and fair bread, and
we oat-cake and straw, and water to drink. They
have leisure and fine houses; we have pain and labour,
the rain and winds in the fields. And yet it is of us
and of our toil that these men hold their state." ^

If love for his fellow-men, intense sympathy with
their sufferings, self-sacrifice even unto death for ideas
of human freedom constitute heroism, then John Ball
stands out as a hero of the first rank, compared with
whom the spurious claims of the so-called order of
chivalry of that day are as dross to gold.

The old chroniclers seem to have taken it as a
matter of course that the peasantry had brought the
severe punishment on themselves by rebelling against
the powerful classes of the day ; that they had, in fact,
merely paid the penalty for their misdeeds. But in
these pages events are treated from the point of view
of the peasantry and other cultivators of the soil who
were, in fact, the nation.

No doubt unsuccessful rebellion carries with it
consequences that have to be borne, and the actors
in it must expect scant mercy. On the other hand, if
a few thousand persons, having unbridled power,
arrogate the right of keeping the great bulk of their
fellow-men in bondage and inflicting on them intoler-
able misery, they, too, must accept the dangers of
their position. All violence should be deplored, but
it is futile for writers to affect a maundering surprise,
and an unqualified indignation at events which, in the
course of things, are bound to happen if the victims of

^ Froissart's " Chronicles."

PEASANT REVOLTS 129

long-continued provocation and oppression once gain
the upper hand.^

It is difficult to ascertain the exact number of the
ruHng classes in these remote times. Hallam speaks
of the peers of the realm as " a small body varying
from about 50 to 80 persons." Green states, but
does not give his authority, that "Under Edward II
little more than 70 were commonly summoned to
Parliament ; little more than 40 were summoned
under Edward III " (Vol. I, p. 457). That they were
a very small number there is no doubt. In an old
and rare book, referring to a later date, a good
authority gives the whole number of peers — including
the lords spiritual — at 203, and of these only forty were
summoned to Parliament."

To reckon the noble classes in the fourteenth cen-
tury at 10 per cent of the population would be a high
estimate, and to put the number of those who swayed
legislation and were responsible for it at 5 per cent
of the population, would be equally above the mark.
But it is to the administration of the laws — which was
under their control — rather than to the laws them-
selves, that the student must look. The proverb,
" Those that administer govern," was never better
illustrated than it was in those days. The barons
were so powerful that they could make bad laws worse
by the manner in which they were administered, and

* During the past few months our hearts have gone out in sympathy
for men shot down for seeking an interview with their sovereign and for
the brave priest who stood by them. We have felt for people led like
sheep to the slaughter at the will of a shameless and criminal autocracy ;
surely we should have nothing but warm sympathy with Englishmen in
their struggles against a still greater tyranny.

- "An exact Catalogue of the Nobility of England," by Robert Dale,
Pursuivant and Deputy-Register of the College of Arms, 1697.
K

I30 LAND REFORM

could ignore laws altogether if it suited their purpose
to do so.

After all, the excesses committed during the short
time the rebellion lasted — deplorable as they were —
cannot be placed in the same scale with the daily
sufferings, the brandings, the hangings, and other
villainies, legal and illegal, inflicted on the peasantry
by the dominant class/

Most of the leading men who suffered at the hands
of the insurgents were those who had made them-
selves notorious for extortion and wrong-doing, or
obnoxious by their evil counsels to the king or by
their open and inveterate hostility to the people.
The beheading of Sir John de Cavendish — regarded
by some of the chroniclers with horror — was the result
of his known zeal in maltreating the peasantry. " He
had been granted an extra salary as a Justice for en-
forcing the Statute of Labourers in Essex." (Powell.)

The present writer is no judge of an education
founded on the literature and history of ancient
nations ; of old " republics " which were only republic
in name; of "democratic" states in which the prin-
ciple of democracy never existed ; but he is convinced
of the advantages that would accrue to the young
from a closer study of the social and domestic history
of their own country. The study of the struggles,
continued for centuries, of the English peasantry ; of
their constant qualities and marvellous staying power
as recorded in the old chronicles, is a fascinating one.
Volumes have been written of the splendid deeds that

* Though London and the counties around lay for a time at the mercy
of the insurgents, there is no case hinted at in which a woman was hurt.
Compare this with Froissart's account of the brutal doings of the " noble
order " of chivalry after the capture of Limoges.

PEASANT REVOLTS 131

made for the expansion of England and for the build-
ing up of our Empire, but too little attention is given
to those dark days of trial and suffering which
developed, and made permanent, the indomitable
qualities of our race which alone made those achieve-
ments possible.

The history of England has been too often written
in the " drum and trumpet " style, and that of the
English people too much neglected. Numberless
books have been written, and the imagination racked,
to idealize, in visionary style, the doubtful deeds of
a class who were quite apart from the real life of the
nation. Romancists deal with episodes in the careers
of that class, adopt artificial standards of virtue and
morals, and by their genius cast a glamour of greatness
and nobility over deeds which, judged by a righteous
standard, are little else than lawless ruffianism.

Froissart, a Frenchman who came to this country in
1394, wrote, in brilliant style, what he called the
"Chronicles of England."^ On these, and on similar
writings, poets, painters, and romancists have exercised
their gifts in so many ways, and so many forms, that a
totally false idea is given of what England really was
in those days. If some foreigner with facile pen, in
the present day, were to describe in attractive style
the doings of the turf, the sporting world, of high
" Society," of adventurers living on their wits, of
reckless speculators and financial gamblers, with an
occasional scornful reference to the "unemployed,"
to Hyde Park riots and meetings in Trafalgar Square,
he would hand down to posterity as true an account
of the real England as Froissart orives of the England
of his day.

" Chronicles of England," by Sir John Froissart.

132 LAND REFORM

Froissart was an aristocrat to the tips of his fingers,
and, in common with his order, had not the remotest
idea that the common people had any natural rights
whatever. For the husbandmen — bond or free — to
assert any rights was, in his view, a proof of their
wickedness in questioning what was considered to be
a divine order of things ; accordingly he refers to the
rebellion with contempt, and vilifies the actors in it.
Except for this reference to Wat Tyler's revolt, his
books are filled mainly with brilliant descriptions of pre-
datory warfare, plots and counterplots, battles, sieges,
intrigues of kings and nobles, scandals and gossips of
courts, tournaments, etc. The terrible wars he de-
scribes were actuated by no patriotic motives or aims
and secured no permanent good to the nation. They
were mainly caused by the quarrels of kings and by
dynastic squabbles. War was a trade. Knights and
squires of the order of chivalry sold their swords to the
highest bidder regardless of side or cause or the just-
ness of the quarrel. Taking prisoners for the sake of
ransom was a miserable traffic recognized by these
warriors. Altogether it was a squalid business. The
vaunted rules of chivalry, which this class professed
to observe, imposed no obligation of honour or justice
in dealing with the inferior classes. A man might
treat the common people with any amount of cruelty,
meanness, and deceit, and still be regarded as a
chivalrous knight. Chivalry had no permanent effect
in the formation of the national character except to
inspire an exclusive class with a spirit of superiority
and arrogance which has not wholly died out at the
present time.

In short, Froissart's Chronicles, and others of the
same type, refer only to the doings of a handful of men

PEASANT REVOLTS 133

and their hangers-on. Ever quarrelling and fighting
among themselves they were united only on one point,
namely, oppression of the cultivating classes. The
cost of the pageantry and splendour described, of the
castles and mansions raised (as of many a stately
dwelling since) was all wrung out of the thew and
sinew, the hard labour of the yeoman and the peasant,
bond and free. Vivid accounts have been given of
the exploits of the peasantry in other countries.
Splendid dramas and poems have been written, in
another country, on the deeds of Tell; but the field
is still open, and the materials abundant, for some
able writer by prose, verse, or drama, to bring home
to the people of this country the feats of the peasant
leaders throughout the centuries — those obscure
heroes to whom the liberties of Englishmen are so
largely due.

William Morris has done something in this direc-
tion— enough to show with what attractive interest
a brilliant and sympathetic writer who looks below the
surface can invest the subject.

In his charming idylP he speaks of the "Fellow-
ship," the freemasonry, which existed among the
peasantry ; the caution they exercised in those
dangerous times ; of the nay- words they employed
when as strangers they met at the cross roads. These
nay-words were not " mum " and " budget," but were
equally well understood. A peasant with the terrible
longbow in his hand would whisper to a stranger,
"John the Miller that ground small, small, small," and
the reply would come from the lips of the stranger,
"The King's son of heaven shall pay for all."
Straightway the bow fell on the shoulder, hands were
' " A Dream of John Ball," by William Morris.

134 LAND REFORM

grasped, and the men knew that they were of the
" Fellowship." John Ball is pictured on the steps of
the village cross, surrounded by a throng of people,
whose "eyes and hearts were fixed on the dark
figure," and on whom " a great expectation had fallen."
The village bells were stopped so that he should not
be interrupted. Then with "hands stretched out
before him, one palm laid on the other," the preacher
began : —

" Ho all ye good people ! I am a priest of God,
and in my day's work it cometh that I should tell ye
what ye should do and what ye should forbear doing,
and to that end I am come hither." He hears a voice
warning him of his fate unless he desists from his
work and saying, " The hemp for thee is sown and
grown and heckled and spun, and lo there, the rope
for thy gallows tree " ; but he declares that the saints
in heaven forbid him to forbear, for " he shall not fail,
though he seem to fail to-day, but in days hereafter
shall he and his work yet be alive, and men be holpen
by them to strive again and yet again."

But, it may be asked, what good results came from
the rebellion? It is true that at the first glance the
rural population seemed to have gained nothing by
the sacrifices they had made, but rather to have made
their position worse than before. Every pledge given
to the insurgents was broken, letters of pardon were
recalled and all charters of manumission were can-
celled. The men of Essex who had returned home
quietly, content with the concessions made, were, if
anything, treated with more savage cruelty than the
insurgents from other parts. But their spirit, though
damped, was not broken.

After the rebellion, in spite of the punishment they

PEASANT REVOLTS 135

had received, the " Commons of Essex decreed either
to enjoy the Hberty they had gotten by force or to
die in fighting for the same." They sent special
messengers to the king asking if "he thought good
to permit them to enjoy their permitted Hberty." The
answer given to these messengers in the name of the
king was a brutal and, seemingly, a hopeless one :
" Miserable men, not worthy to live, doe ye require to
be equal to your lords ? Declare our answers to your
fellowes on the king's behalf : husbandmen and bond-
men they were, so shall they remain in bondage, not
as before, but more vile beyond comparison ... so
that your service may be an example to posteritie."^

Barons, prelates, and monastic communities were
unanimous in the declaration that neither by "per-
suasion or violence " would they be deprived of the
services of the serfs and villeins.

The most severe laws were passed after what
Hallam calls " this tremendous rebellion." To prevent
the recurrence of the risincr it was enacted that even
mere riots should be treated as treason punishable by
death. ^ In appearance, but only in appearance, the
outlook of the peasantry was more gloomy than ever.

Succeeding events showed that a mighty change
had been wroucrht in the rural life of England. The
rebellion had struck terror into the hearts of the
landlord class, and dread lest the uprising should be

' Stow's " Chronicles," p. 292.

2 See 5 Richard II, chap, vi : "Manumission releases and other
bonds made in the last tumult by compulsion shall be void. . . ." " It
shall be treason from henceforth to make or begin any manner of riot
and rumour nor other like ... all such deeds with any copies shall be
restored so that they may not be used in any future time and all entries
in lands and tenements all feoft'menls made in compulsion and menace
shall be void."

136 LAND REFORM

renewed.^ They saw for the first time the risks they
ran in keeping the people in slavery. Above all, they
realized the danger of having pitted against themselves
the power and unflinching courage of these despised
husbandmen — men of the same stuff — many of them
no doubt the very men — who had fought at Crecy
and Poitiers.

John Ball had sounded the death-knell of slavery in
every form. The new ideas of personal liberty — so
outrageous in the eyes of the manorial lords — spread
far and wide and took deep root, and changed the
whole character of the situation. From that time
the conditions of the tenure of land steadily changed.
The Statute of Labourers, with other obnoxious laws,
became a dead letter. " From henceforth we find
little notice taken of villeinage in Parliamentary
records, and there seems to have been a rapid
tendency towards its abolition." (Hallam.) The
oppressive services demanded of the husbandmen
were either greatly modified or were converted into
annual money payments. The number of yeomanry
rapidly increased. Emancipation of the bondmen
largely added to the class of copyholders, a valuable
class who, with the yeomen and peasant proprietors,
became the mainstay of the nation. As already stated,
these copyholders had an indefeasible title to the
land, and could not be legally deprived of their
holdings so long as they fulfilled the conditions
inscribed in the manor rolls. These conditions
included fines of various sorts, heriots, and other
payments. Although the landlord could not dis-

' Lingard relates that even in Parliament " a new tax was refused on
the ground that it nriight goad the people into a second rebellion."
("History of England," Vol. IV, p. 250.)

PEASANT REVOLTS 137

possess them legally, yet, as we have seen in previous
chapters, he could so increase these exactions as to
squeeze them off their holdings and reduce them
to mere tenants, and finally, by the consolidation of
farms, to put them out of the occupation of land
altogether.

From this time the condition of rural life generally
began to change, the boundaries of peasant existence
became enlarged, and the personal character of the
people was raised. Numbers of villeins and other
bondmen, as they became free, went into the towns,
where, by their industry and enterprise, they laid
the foundation of the great middle class, from whose
ranks came the lords of industry who were destined
ultimately to leave in the background the lords of the
soil.

We have dwelt at some length on Wat Tyler's
rebellion, because it was an epoch in the rural life
in England. It gave a fresh start, if not the first real
start, in the creation — as a body with a distinct social
and political power — of that great free peasantry and
yeomanry of which England has had such good reason
to be proud. The results of the rebellion fully justify
the notable statement of one of the most able and
judicious of our constitutional writers, that " this rising
of the Commons is one of the most portentous phen-
omena to be found in the whole of our history."^

The peasant revolts which took place after Wat
Tyler's time were of a different kind, and had different
aims. The main object of Wat Tyler's rising had
been achieved, and after that rising slavery in Eng-
land soon died out. Thenceforth the struggle of
the cultivating classes was for the retention of their

' Stubbs' "Constitutional History," Vol. II, p. 489-

138 LAND REFORM

rights in the soil. Wool rose in price, and sheep-
farming became profitable. Land consequently be-
came more and more valuable, and the manorial
lords pursued a steady policy of getting it into their
hands as private property. The struggle between
the two classes was a bitter one, and was carried on
almost without ceasing till the eighteenth century and
the first half of the nineteenth, when, by the aid of a
landlord parliament, the objects of the landed aristo-
cracy were attained. " The manor won, the peasant
lost."

A short review of the chief of these outbreaks will
show, better than anything else, the difficulties the
peasantry had to contend with, and the forces arrayed
against them. About seventy years after Wat Tyler's
revolt the great rebellion under Jack Cade broke out.^
Perhaps no man, in all history, has been more ridicu-
lously caricatured than this remarkable peasant leader.
The plaster of calumny was, by his enemies, laid so
thickly over his reputation and has become so time-
hardened that it is difficult to break it off. His
character, as portrayed by Shakespeare ("Henry
the Sixth," Part H), has been generally accepted
as true. He is there represented as a vagabond,
plunderer, and a boasting clodpoll, a sort of slip-
gibbet, who, at the head of an army of " rebellious
hinds, the filth and scum of Kent," had, for his main
object, to obtain such reforms as should secure that
there " shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves
sold for a penny," that the "three-hooped pot shall

^ The object of Cade's rebellion was to secure political and economic
as well as agrarian reforms, and on that account classes, other than the
peasantry, joined the movement. Nevertheless, redress of land grievances
was most prominent among the demands made by the insurgents.

PEASANT REVOLTS 139

have ten hoops," and that " it shall be a felony to
drink small beer."

The name "Jack Cade" is, to this day, a byword
denoting a low type of pillage, robbery, and everything
else of a predatory character. But, if we take the
facts contained in the old records, how different do the
character of the man and the aims of his followers
appear ! The old historians, all in deadly opposition
to Cade, are practically agreed as to the incidents of
his rebellion. They show beyond dispute that he was
a brave soldier and an able general, who fought, with a
definite end in view, for the reform of the agrarian
grievances under which the rural classes were suffer-
ing. He called himself Mortimer, and was known
generally by that name throughout the rebellion. It
was afterwards, in the proclamation setting a price on
his head, that he was called Jack Cade.

" The Commons of Kent," says the chronicler,^
"assembled in great numbers, having for Captaine
John Cade, a certain young man of goodlie stature
and right pregnant of wit. . . . They marched to
Blackheath and there kept the field for more than a
month. . . . The kino- sent notable men to the said
Captaine to know the purpose and cause of the in-
surrection." The reply sent back was in the form of
a " Bill of requisites, by them made, of things to be
reformed wherein was nothing" contained but seemed
reasonable."

This Bill was composed of a number of items.
Item six ran as follows: — "Though divers of the

' Holinshed's "Chronicles," Vol. Ill, p. 220. A much earlier chronicler
in 1 5 16 (Cade's rising was in 1450), referring to the interview which the
king's messengers had with Cade, says, " They faude him right discrete
in his answerys ; how be it they could not cause hym to lay downe his
people and submyt hym vnto the kinge's grace." (Fabyan's "Chronicle.")

I40 LAND REFORM

poor people and Commons of the Realme have so
great right, truth, and perfect title to their land, yet
by untrue claymes of enfeffeement into divers states,
genteles, and the King's menial servants in mainten-
ance, against the right, the true owners dare not have
hould claim nor pursue their right." (Stow, p. 388.)

The Bill expresses complete loyalty to the king, but
demands justice against the *' traitors " by whom he is
surrounded. Item five asks that "all the extortions
used daily among the common people be layed down."
It refers to the "taking of wheat and other grains,
beef, mutton, and other victuals, without the provision
of our sovereign lord," and asks that " they may no
longer bear it."

This account is confirmed by another writer of
repute, Stowe the antiquary (not Stow the chronicler),
who left special memoranda on the subject in his own
handwriting.^ He gives full particulars of " a pro-
clamation " made by Jack Cade and *' ye rebelles in
Kent." They trust, the rebels say, "our sovereign
lorde the Kynge will remedy the grievances of the
pore Commyns of England, or else we shall dye
therefore." They complain that they cannot come
near the king's person without bribery. They wish
it to be known that they "wyll not robbe, ne reve, ne
stell, but these defautes be amended and then we will
go home," for *' his commyns may no longer here it."
If redress is given — the proclamation concludes — "we
shall be all weye redy to defend our countre from
all nations with our owne goods and to go with our

^ This MS. is published by the Camden Society. New Series,
Vol. XXVIII. "Historical Memoranda," by John Stowe. Fabyan, refer-
ring to the " Bill of Petitions" presented to the king, says that it showed
"injureys and oppressions the poore comons suffred by suche as were
about the kynge a few persones in nombre."

PEASANT REVOLTS 141

sovereigne lorde where he wyll commande us as his
true ligemen."

But the king's advisers counselled him to refuse
these demands and to put down the rebels by force.
Accordingly "the King sent certain Lords to suppress
them, but their men told their Lords that they would
not fight against them that labour to amende the com-
monweale. . . . Then the King himself went against
the Kentishmen with fifteen thousand men well pre-
pared for the warre." But Cade, by skilful strategy,
around Sevenoaks, evaded this force and the king
returned to London. Another army was then sent
against him under the command of Sir John and Sir
Humphrey Stafford. This force, by Cade's able
manoeuvring, and by the courage of his men, was
defeated in battle, and the two generals slain.

Cade then marched to Blackheath, and certain
nobles were sent to negotiate with him, who found
him "discrete in his answers," but determined not to
lay down his arms until his demands were granted.
He then marched to Southwark and entered the city.
He issued a proclamation to the effect that " no man
under payne of death should rob or take anything
without paying therefore. By reason whereof he
wanne the hearts of the Commons."

Cade was a strong man, who meant his orders to be
obeyed. He " publicly executed some of his fol-
lowers, and particularly a petty Captaine, named Paris,
who had done things contrary to his Proclamation."

After severe fighting and heavy losses on both sides,
the Chancellor of England sent a messenger " to the
Captaine," with a general pardon for himself and his
men, whereupon he and his people withdrew. Cade,
however, like Wat Tyler, and all other peasant leaders,

142 LAND REFORM

distrusted the promises of those in power, and with
good reason, for they were never meant to be ful-
filled. He tried in vain to keep his followers together,
but they disbanded, though he warned them what
would happen. Shakespeare makes him say, " Do
you believe him ? (the messenger). Will you needs
be hanged with your pardon about your necks ? "

Cade then became a fugitive with a few followers,
and immediately a proclamation was issued charging
him with various crimes, "revoking the charter of
pardon, and offering rewards to anyone who should
take him quicke or dead, or any who are with him."
A few days afterwards he was taken and killed. "His
head was set on London Bridge and his quarters sent
to divers places in Kent," and a large number of his
followers were executed.

The chroniclers give an account of the alleged
crimes and excesses committed by the insurgents, and
speak in the strongest terms of the wickedness of
Cade's character. All this may be true, partly true,
or not true at all, but in any case it in no way affects
the cause and objects of the rebellion.

In most of the revolts the rage of the peasantry was
specially directed against the lawyers, and for good
reason. It was by the aid of the lawyers and the
subtleties of baron-made law that the peasants were
continually deprived of their rights in the land by the
manorial lords.^ It was a lamentable thing "that, of
the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parch-
ment," and that parchment, "when scribbled o'er,
should undo a man." (" Henry the Sixth," Part II.)

1 Among other works see " Rights of Common," by Joshua Williams ;
" History of the Law of Real Property," by Kenelm C. Digby. Both
are extremely technical ; the latter can only be understood by juris-

PEASANT REVOLTS 143

The spirit of Sir Giles Overreach was prevalent in
a variety of forms. " These trespasses will draw on
suits, and suits expenses which I can spare, but will
soon beggar him. ... He frights men out of their
estates and breaks through all law nets as if they were
cobwebs." ^

Instances abound, in the old records, of the free
tenants being deprived of their lands and commoners
of their commons, by process of law. As an illustra-
tion of one of the methods, a case is given in Britton's
" History of Wiltshire,"" in which the lord of the
manor, by litigation lengthened out until the means of
the commoners became exhausted, succeeded in con-
fiscating the land in dispute as well as other property.
In this case the commoners and free tenantry, being
beaten at law, sent a petition to Parliament stating that
the lord of the manor was too powerful for them, and
that " the said free tenants were not able to waee law
any longer ; for one of their number was thereby forced
to sell all his land (to the value of ;^50o) with following
the suits in law, and many others were thereby im-
poverished and were thereby forced to yield up their
rights and take a lease of the said common, of the
said Sir Francis Englefield for the term of his life.
. . . We have not so much as a foot of common left
us, and are thereby grown so in poverty unless your
Honourable House enact something for us that we
may enjoy our rights again."

It is necessary to dwell on these proceedings in

prudents, A glance at them, however, is useful, as showing the com-
plexity of feudal legislation and the small chance the peasants had in
contending against acute lawyers with wealthy landlords for clients.

' Massinger's "A New Way to Pay Old Debts."

'■' Quoted by Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice in an article on "Enclos-
ures," •' Nineteenth Century," December, 1886.

144 LAND REFORM

order to realize the steady and unswerving manner in
which the manorial lords were pursuing their policy.
The peasantry and yeomanry could get no help from
Parliament, because the legislature was controlled by
feudal influence. The king and the best men of his
executive were powerless, because the baronial power
was too strong. It is true they succeeded in passing
laws — some of them severe — to check the evil, but
these laws were disobeyed or evaded. As Bishop
Latimer preached, " We have good statutes made for
the Common-welth as touching comeners, enclosers,
etc. but in the end there cometh nothing forth."
Numbers of remonstrances were addressed to succes-
sive governments, especially by some of the superior
clergy.

We have already referred to Bishop Latimer's fruit-
less warnings. Another sermon has been preserved
and handed down to us, in which the preacher, in a
very pathetic strain of eloquence, boldly describes to
the king and his court the crying evils inflicted on
the rural population.^

•• Be the poor man's cause never so manifest, the
rich shall, for money, find six or seven counsellors
that shall stand with subtleties and sophisms to cloak
an evil matter and hide a known truth. . . . Such
boldness have these covetous cormorants that now
their robberies, extortion and open oppression have
no end nor limits, no banks can keep in their violence.
As for turning poor men out of their holdings they
take it for no offence, but say their land is their own,
and they turn them out of their shrouds like mice.
Thousands in England, through such, beg now from

^ Sermon preached in the court at Greenwich before the king,
Edward VI, 1552, by Bernard Gilpin. See " Life of Gilpin," by his son
William Gilpin, Vicar of Boldre, near Lymington (3rd edition, 1780).

PEASANT REVOLTS 145

door to door which have kept honest houses. ... So
many mighty Nimrods in England that hunt for pos-
sessions and lordships that poor men are daily hunted
out of their livings. There is no covert or den can
keep them safe. They have such quick -smelling
hounds they can lie in London and turn men out of
their farms and tenements an hundred, some two
hundred miles off. When wicked Ahab hunted after
Naboth's vineyard he could not, though he were a
king, obtain that prey till cursed Jezebel took the
matter in hand, so hard a thing it was then to wring a
man from his father's inheritance which now a mean
man will take in hand."

It is further necessary in an account of the peasants
of England to dwell on these proceedings because so
many writers have treated these peasant revolts as
though they arose from political causes. But if the
events which took place prior to the risings are ex-
amined, it will be found that agrarian grievances were
the chief cause of them all, though increased political
liberties were sometimes among the results.

The rebellions of the year 1549 were of this order.
The Duke of Somerset, Protector of the young king
Edward VI, took a serious view of the public danger
likely to accrue from these continual encroachments on
the rights of the peasantry, and was well known to
have practical sympathy with the despoiled husband-
men.

In any account of the peasantry of England the
Duke of Somerset should have an honourable place.
During different reigns many were found, of all de-
grees, to protest against the evil practices referred to,
but the Protector, in an unprecedented manner, pitted
his great power, as the virtual ruler of the country,

146 LAND REFORM

against the power of the landed aristocracy, in an
endeavour to stop, if possible, the decay of England's
rural population.

Political offences and court intrigues are usually
given as the cause of the Protector's fall. No doubt
these were the nominal means by which his ruin was
wrought. It was on the charge of felony that he
was convicted and condemned to death, but the forces
behind and underneath which made the prosecution
successful were undoubtedly agrarian. The landed
aristocracy, and especially the "new nobility" (the
" new men " to whom the spoils of the Church had
fallen), were alarmed at the policy of protecting the
peasantry and yeomanry which the Protector had
adopted. Their evil practices of confiscation would
be checked, and restitution be demanded if that policy
were carried out. In their eyes, therefore, the action
of the Protector was an offence to be neither condoned
nor forgiven. These were the motives which led them
to support, with all their great strength, the intrigues
of the Earl of Warwick (afterwards Duke of North-
umberland), the bitter and vindictive enemy of
Somerset, whose place he wanted and whose ruin he
was determined to effect, and to use every means to
that end. It must be admitted that the action of the
Protector was an earnest of his intentions.

On his own authority, without consulting his col-
leagues, he first issued a proclamation, couched in
strong terms, demanding that " they who had enclosed
any lands accustomed to lie open, should, upon a
certain pain, before a day assigned, lay them open
again." This proceeding "highly incensed the offen-
ders."

His next step was nothing less than a declaration of

PEASANT REVOLTS 147

war against the whole of the feudal aristocracy. It
was a determined attack on their settled policy and
dearest interests. He appointed an Extraordinary
Commission to inquire into the whole subject. The
reference to that Commission is a lengthy document
drafted in precise, thorough, and even aggressive
terms.^ The recital of a few of the heads of it may be
interesting to those who have not studied the domestic
history of the English cultivating classes, that is, of
the English people as apart from the history of the
his/her orders.

The Commissioners were instructed to inquire into
the questions of decayed towns ; of houses of husbandry
pulled down through inclosures ; of pasture turned
into tillage ; of the excessive fines and raisingr of rents
whereby the holders were driven from the soil (" which
must abate "), etc. etc.

"Ye shall put away all fear," the Reference ran,
" for you will be defended against the Devil, the
world and private profit, so you may be sure they will
suffer no person to do you injury. . . . Do as be-
cometh honest men, declare the truth and nothing but
the truth. ... In what ye go about have no favour
or leave unpresented those that ye know to have
offended."

' " Memorials Ecclesiastical and Civil of the Reign of Edward VI,"
by John Strype, M.A. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1822.

Strype, who began to write towards the end of the seventeenth
century, was a painstaking and an industrious collector of original State
papers, charters, etc. The above work contains copies of these. Books
I and II give in full, documents relating to the Duke of Somerset ; his
policy with regard to inclosures ; his intense sympathy with the peasantry ;
his reluctance to punish them for revolts which he regarded as almost
justifiable ; and the warnings he received from friends as to the dangers
he ran in pursuing his policy. Full copies are also given of his Procla-
mation ; of the Reference to the Commission ; of the Report of the
Commissioners, etc.

148 LAND REFORM

But the barons were too powerful to submit to
these measures without retaliation. Referring to the
sequel, Strype writes (p. 237) : —

" The Protector had by this time lost himself among
the nobility and gentry, for, being of a gentle and
good nature, he loved and pitied the poorer sort, too
much oppressed by the rich and particularly by that
covetous practice of inclosures whereby the cattle of
the poor were shut out of their ancient benefit of
feeding in common . . . which made the Protector
somewhat sharp upon those of the higher rank and
quality."

Altogether, reading those numerous, lengthy, and
— most of them — original papers, it is impossible to
come to any other conclusion than that the Protector's
fall and fate were brought about mainly by the intense
hatred of the lords, caused by his agrarian policy.
Among the counts in the indictment against him at
his trial, there were three which, no doubt, in the eyes
of the peers who tried him, contained the greatest
possible offences and which contributed largely to his
condemnation.

These counts are : —

" I. You caused a proclamation to be made con-
cerning inclosures, whereby the common people have
made divers insurrections and levied open war and
spoiled divers of the king's subjects, which pro-
clamation went forth against the will of the whole
Council.

" 2. Also you caused a Commission to be made
out concerning inclosing of commons, decaying
cottages, giving the Commission power to determine
and hear such causes to the subversion of the laws
of the realme, whereby much sedition, insurrection,
and rebellion have arisen among the King's subjects.

PEASANT REVOLTS 149

" 3. Also, you said that the lords of Parliament
were loth to incline themselves to reformation of
inclosures and other things ; therefore the people had
good cause to reform the things themselves." ^

The people throughout the whole country loved
him as the one man among the ruling classes who
sympathized with them and tried to serve them. At
his execution, later on, a multitude attended and
showed great grief. They wept aloud as they listened
to his last speech, addressed to them as his " dearly
beloved friends." ^

The report of the Commission appointed by the
Protector revealed a deplorable state of things as
regards the peasantry throughout the country, and it
also showed up the relentless action of the manorial
lords. " So great was the power of the provincial
nobility in the counties, and so weak the protection
and helping hand of the central government, that, in
many places, the witnesses who were summoned did
not dare to appear, and in others those who had given
truthful depositions were persecuted in various ways
by the landlords."'

As might be expected, nothing came from the
labours and the report of the Commission, except a
petition to the king. John Hales, a zealous member
of the Commission, proposed to the king "a general
pardon for all that had happened — for the benefit of

' Holinshed's "Chronicles," Vol, III, pp. 1019, 1020.

2 Holinshed calls him (Vol. Ill, p. 1035) "this worthie and gentle duke."
Hallam refers to him as " the popular and well-natured Duke of Somerset,
more estimable at least than any other statesman employed under the
king" ("Constitutional History," Vol. I, p. 38).

•' For particulars of the Report of this Commission see "Land Com-
munity of the Middle Ages," by Dr. Nasse. Translation published by
Macmillan, 1871.

I50 LAND REFORM

rich inclosers as well as of the poor sufferers — in the
hope that the rich violaters of the law would amend."
(Strype.) He also introduced three Bills in Parlia-
ment to remedy the evils by curtailing the powers of
the landlords. On their rejection Hales bitterly com-
plained " that the sheep were entrusted to the care of
the wolf."

The appointment and report of the Commission
gave great hope and joy to the rural population, but
when they found that no results followed, disturbances
broke out among them, and the great peasant re-
bellion, led by Robert Kett, a yeoman as well as a
tanner, immediately followed.^

Froude, taking a sentimental and an artificial view,
describes the advantages connected with the existence
of an exclusive system of landownership,^ and is not
likely, therefore, to be unjustly severe on the landlord
class. But he recites the state of things which existed
after the failure of the Commission and on the eve of
Rett's rebellion with a severity that can hardly be
increased, and in language that cannot be improved
upon.

"There was," he writes, "a gathering of people for
an annual festival at Wymondham, in Norfolk (where
Kett lived). The crowd was large, and the men who
were there brought together found themselves pos-
sessed of one general feeling — a feeling of burning
indignation at the un-English conduct of the gentle-
men. The peasant whose pigs and cow and poultry
had been sold, or had died because the commons were

^ Although Robert Kett was a tanner, he held three manors in Norfolk,
and, being a man of good speech and taking manner, he was readily
accepted by the people as a leader. (" Kennett's History.")

" " Short Studies on Great Subjects," 3rd series, by J. A. Froude.
Longmans, 1879.

PEASANT REVOLTS 151

gone where they had fed — the yeoman dispossessed of
his farm ; the farm servant out of employment, because
where ten ploughs had turned the soil, one shepherd
now watched the grazing of the flocks ; the artisan
smarting under famine prices which the change of
culture had brought with it ; — all these were united in
suffering ; while the gentlemen were doubling, trebling,
quadrupling their incomes with their sheep-farms, and
adorning their persons and their houses with splendour
hitherto unknown."^

The story of this rebellion has been often told.
Holinshed, of all the chroniclers, describes the revolt
in the most bitter terms of condemnation, and smirches
the character of the insurgents with an acerbity that is
almost grotesque. Following, mainly, his long and
full account, the events of the rebellion may be con-
densed as follows : — In July, 1549, the peasantry
assembled — sixteen thousand " ungratious unthrifts "
— and entered on their " wicked enterprise." Having
formed a camp at Moushold, near Norwich, and
fortified it, they scoured the country around, destroyed
inclosures, filled in ditches, levelled fences, etc. Kett
formed a representative council, whose duty was to
regulate the affairs of the camp, to keep strict order,
and to punish offenders. He appointed special squads
of men with authority to range over the country and
bring in cattle, food, and other supplies which were to
be taken from the "gentlemen," their enemies, but
nothing was to be touched which belonged to the
peasantry or other honest cultivators of the soil.
Regular council meetinsfs were held under an oak
tree, "called afterwards the Tree of Reformation."
Here matters concerning the government of the camp

' Froude's " History of England," Vol. \', p. 201.

152 LAND REFORM

were disposed of and all disputes settled. Before this
tribunal were brought numbers of " gentlemen " who
were inclosers of the people's land. Demands were
strongly made that some of the most notorious of
these should be hanged, but in no case would Kett
allow a murder to be committed or any punishment
awarded except imprisonment.

The camp was open to all comers. A chaplain and
other officers were appointed. Neighbouring clergy-
men came regularly and joined the men in " common
prayer under the oak tree." They preached to them
and " tried to persuade them from their wicked
attempts." The Government became alarmed, and
the king sent a herald to proclaim a free pardon to all
who would lay down their arms and go home. But
"that wicked caitiff, Kett, dissuaded them. . . .
Kings, he said, were wont to send pardons to traitors
and wicked persons, not to innocent and just men."

Kett's power increased ; his following is described
as a multitude of "unthrifts and rascalles." Lord
Northampton, with a force of horsemen, " a great
number of knights, esquires, and gentlemen, and a
band of Italian mercenaries under Captain Malesta,"
was sent into Norfolk to suppress the rebellion. It
appears that throughout the rebellion the only man
the insurgents murdered was an Italian officer.
"This," says the chronicler, is "what was to be ex-
pected at these cruel traitors' hands — putting such a
gentleman and worthy soldier to death for whose
ransom, if they had demanded it, they might have
had no small portion of monie." The rebels at mid-
night attacked the city of Norwich, and after des-
perate fighting, continued till "their hands were scarse
able to hold up their weapons," they were repulsed

PEASANT REVOLTS 153

with the loss of 300 men. Next day a herald with
a trumpeter was sent to the insurgents with the offer
of a free pardon if they would lay down their arms.
They refused this and renewed the attack and entered
the city, where "many bloudie conflicts" took place,
in which many were killed and wounded on both
sides. Lord Sheffield was slain, " though he pulled
off his head-piece and declared who he was and offered
largely to the vilans if they would have saved his life."

Lord Northampton being defeated, retreated from
the city and returned to London. Kett then made
preparations to meet a powerful army under the Earl
of Warwick, Somerset s great rival, which he heard
was coming against him. The rebels were "men not
slack to make themselves strong and ready to abide
all the hazard that the fortune of war might bring."

The Earl of Warwick soon arrived at Wymond-
ham with his army and "diverse men of honour and
of great worship as lords, knights, squires, and gentle-
men." Norwich was summoned to surrender. A
herald with trumpeters was again sent with an offer
of pardon " out of the exceeding greatness of the
king's bountifull mercie and clemencie." The offer
was refused. It was distrusted as having "no other
end but to bring them to destruction."

Warwick then assaulted the city and drove out
the rebels with great slaughter on both sides. During
the conflict "threescore were taken and incontinently
executed according to martial law." The insurgents
immediately attacked the city again and took some
pieces of the king's artillery (and other munitions of
war), which they turned against the city and "blew
down Bishop's-gate and much of the walls." The
Earl of Warwick was in great straits, and his followers

154 LAND REFORM

urged him to leave the city, but he refused to do so.
His position was saved by the timely arrival of a large
body of trained, well-armed, foreign mercenaries.^

A few days later a pitched battle was fought, when,
after severe fighting in which the '* Almans (foreigners)
were prominent " and much slaughter, the insurgents
were routed and put to flight, and " their grande
Captaine Kett galloped away as fast as his hosse
would bear him." A number of the insurgents, how-
ever, were hemmed in and could not escape. An offer
of pardon was sent to them if they would lay down
their arms. They distrusted and refused the offer,
declaring that " it meant but a subtle practice to bring
them into the hands of their adversaries who had
halters prepared for them, . . . they would rather die
like men than be strangled at the wils and pleasures
of their mortall enemies." Warwick, however, on
receipt of this reply, pledged his word of honour for
their safety and the men surrendered.

Next day a number of the " principal abettors and
chiefest procurers of all the mischiefe were hanged on
the oke of reformation " and " some others of them
were drawn, hanged and quartered and their heads and
quarters set up in public places for a terror to others."
The Earl of Warwick was strongly urged to continue
the executions, but he refused to do so, and said, " Shall
we not at length show some mercie ? Is there no place
for pardon ? What shall we do, shall we hold the
plough ourselves, plaie the carters, and labour the
ground with oure owne hands? "^

^ German lansquenets and Italian free-lances— soldiers who hired
themselves to the highest bidder for their services.

^ In a note to a short interesting poem by an anonymous writer pub-
lished in 1869 (Bumpus) it is stated: "So inveterate was the feeling of

PEASANT REVOLTS 155

The brave and constant Kett and his brother were
captured, and after being kept for some months in
prison in London, Robert — the leader — was hanged in
chains on the top of Norwich Castle, and his brother
William on the steeple of Wymondham Church.

Risings took place about the same time in different
parts of the country, the revolt in the western counties
being specially formidable. These rebellions in the
west are generally ascribed to religious disaffection.
This is only true in a small degree. The reformed
religion had just been confirmed by Act of Parliament
and was distasteful to many who preferred the old
faith. The rebellion was therefore joined by " certain
squires and gentlemen and many priests." The
demands put forward, mostly referring to religion,
" were hammered up in the name of the people by
these religious mutineers." But with the peasantry
agrarian grievances were to the front, and "above all
enclosures must down."

Strono" forces under the command of Lord Russell
and Lord Grey were sent by the king to suppress
these outbreaks, and after many conflicts — with varying
results and much bloodshed — the rebels were finally
routed, most of them slain, and their leaders and many
others executed." ^

After the rebellion was crushed the usual cruelties
were inflicted on those who had taken part in the out-

the landholders in Norfolk against the rebels, that after 3500 had been
massacred in Duffins-dale and another 300 had been hanged, they
positively asked for more executions."

' The most desperate fighting took place close to the present writer's
birthplace and no doubt his forefathers had the honour of taking part in
the struggle. Fifty or sixty years ago traditions of these conflicts still
survived in the villages. In many labourers' families (including the
writer's family) traditions also lingered of their forefathers having been
despoiled of their lands by the methods described.

156 LAND REFORM

break and on many who had not. The whole west of
England was under martial law. "It is memorable,"
writes a chronicler, " what sport the Provost- Marshal
made, by virtue of his office, upon men in misery."'
Among other instances of this "sport," mentioned by
nearly all the chroniclers, is one which illustrates the
spirit of vengeance which prevailed.

The Mayor of Bodmin, Boyer by name, a com-
moner, was instructed by the Provost- Marshal, Sir
William Kingston, to set up a pair of gallows, as an
execution must take place that day. At the same
time the Provost sent word to say that he would come
and dine with the Mayor, who accordingly made "great
provision to receive him." ..." After dinner the
Provost- Marshal, taking the Mayor by the hand, en-
treated him to lead him to the place where the gallows
were, which when he beheld, he asked the Mayor if
he thought them to be strong enough. Yes (said the
Mayor), doubtless they were. Well then (said the
Provost), get you up speedily, for they are provided
for you. I hope — answered the Mayor — you mean
not as you speak. In faith — said the Provost — there
is no remedy, for you have been a busie Rebel. And
so, without respite or defence, he was hanged in death."

It is a noteworthy fact that the old writers, in re-
cording such an act as this, express no indignation, not
even surprise, at its vile and dishonourable character.
One of them dismisses the incident with the mild com-
ment that it was "a most uncourteous part for a guest
to offer to his host"^

1 Sir Richard Baker's " Chronicles," p. 305.

'^ Froude, in his "History of England," seems unwilling to believe this
story, but only for the reason that the Provost- Marshal was a friend of
Hooker, and therefore not likely to do such an act as this. But unfortu-
nately there seems to be little room for doubt The old chroniclers give

PEASANT REVOLTS 157

Thus the rebellion in the west of England, like all
other peasant outbreaks, was drowned in blood. It
must be remembered, however, that these brave men
were conquered, not by English soldiers, but by
foreign mercenaries.

There are one or two things connected with these
uprisings that are worthy of notice — first, the skill,
powers of organization, strength and determination
of the peasant leaders, and the confidence they in-
spired in the minds of their followers ; secondly, the
dogged courage and endurance of the men, which
warrant the description given of them as the " finest
peasantry in the world."

We have already seen the brave mettle of the army
of rustics in the east, led by Kett. The " rebels " in
the western counties were of the same quality. They
were united to a man, and had no michers among
them. In one of the fiercest of the fights they were so
surrounded that " they could not by any means escape,
but must yield or fight. The one they would not, and
the other they prevailed not. Valiantly and stoutly
they stood to their tackle, and would not give over so
long as life and limb lasted, yet in the end they were
overthrown, and few or none left alive. Great was
the slaughter, and cruel was the fight. "^

a circumstantial account of the occurrence. Before repeating it, however,
I consulted a Cornish antiquary, who seemed to have no doubt about the
matter. An account of it is given in the "Life and Reign of Edward VI,"
by Sir John Hayward, 1630; also in Carew^s "Survey of Cornwall," 4th
edition, 181 1. The first edition was published in 1602, only a compara-
tively short time after the transaction. Besides the evidence, there is
the fact that such a crime as this was in accordance with the brutal treat-
ment inflicted by those in power at the time on the so-called " rebels."
The foul deed, in the eyes of his peers, cast no blot on the escutcheon of
the "noble knight" who committed it.
» Holinshed, Vol. Ill, p. 957.

158 LAND REFORM

Many of them poorly armed, all of them without
defensive armour, they faced without fear the well-
equipped, well-trained mercenary soldiers who fought
against them. Referring to the battle of Clist Heath,
the chronicler writes: "Such was the stoutness of
these men, that Lord Grey reported himself that he
never in all the wars that he had been in did know
the like."^

The agrarian rebellions of 1 549 were the last that
took place of a national character. Smaller disturb-
ances of a local kind, of which few particulars are
given, were continual, while the feelings of anger and
injustice on the part of the peasantry were continuous.
A formidable outbreak took place in the midland
counties so late as 1607, which at one time bid fair
to extend throughout the country, but it was promptly
suppressed. The peasants assembled together in
different places in large numbers.^

" These riotous persons bent all their strength to
level and lay open inclosures without exercising any
manner of theft or violence upon any man's person,
goods or cattell and wheresoever they came they were

1 Holinshed, Vol. Ill, p. 957-

In reading of the doughty deeds of the lords, knights, and squires, it
must be borne in mind that their bodies were cased in plate armour, and
that in a conflict with the peasantry they ran but few risks — fewer perhaps
than those to which men are liable in the hunting-field and the steeple-
chase.

"The poor husbandmen were obliged to come to the field of battle
with such arms as they had ; and it was no uncommon thing to see a few
of these knights and squires ride over and put to flight hundreds of them,
for the gentry were clothed in complete armour, so that they could receive
little hurt, and the poor peasantry had scarce clothes sufficient to cover
them."—" Tales of a Grandfather," Sir Walter Scott.

- In the quiet little village of Hillmorton, Warwickshire, about 3000
men gathered together to regain their rights by throwing down in-
closures. The population of the whole of the parish of Hillmorton
(about 3000 acres) is now, according to the last census, only 1243.

PEASANT REVOLTS 159

generally received by the neere inhabitants who sent
them not only many carts with victuall but also good
store of spades and shovells for speedy performance
of their enterprise." ^

They had heard of the large number of townships
and villages which had been depopulated and had
decayed, and their declared object was " the preven-
tion of further depopulation, the increase and con-
tinuance of tillaofe to relieve their wives and families.
. . . Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice, with other
learned judges and discrete justices, was sent to do
justice on the levellers. . . . Some of these were exe-
cuted for high treason in opposing themselves against
the King's forces."

No apology is needed for dwelling at some length
on these peasant revolts, because it is only by a study
of them that the origin and growth of the present
English land system can be understood. Apologists
for that system, and a certain order of economists,
preach the specious and — to them — the satisfying
doctrine that the disappearance of the great peasant
and yeoman classes in England was caused by the
action of economic laws. But the history of the peas-
ant revolts shows the untenable character, the utter
absurdity, of any such doctrine as that.

It is stated that the revolts during the year 1549,
which extended almost all over the country, "involved
the destruction of 10,000 brave Englishmen by the
arms of foreigners." This was but an instalment of
the cost of building up our present land system. The
account is still open. The state of agriculture and
the social condition of masses of the people of England

' Stow's " Chronicles," p. 890.

i6o LAND REFORM

at the present time are an assessment, so to speak, of
the national damage accruing from the creation and
retention of our land system and a gauge of the price
we are still paying for it.

For centuries the rural population was prosperous
and well to do, and if they had been justly treated they
would have remained happy and contented. They pos-
sessed to the full those qualities of thrift, frugality, and
industry, which are always allied to cultivating owner-
ship— qualities which writers so often declare are want-
ing in the labouring classes of to-day.

The decayed market towns and grass-grown villages
of the present time were in former times teeming with
people. Some of our small villages were important
places. The number and large size of the country
churches, the homesteads and substantial yeomen
farmhouses which still remain, testify to the vigorous
character of country life in England. The village
sports and games, which were no doubt rough, and
sometimes rather cruel, possessed, nevertheless, the
great merit that the people themselves took part in
them. The modern notion of paying people to play
for one had not arisen. The men and women were
of fine physique, healthy and strong, with whom in
this respect our town-bred population cannot vie.

In a village of " Merrie England " in those days
things went suently and well till the fatal time arrived
when the manorial lord began to inclose the commons
and to take other proceedings with regard to the land.
Then the despairing villagers were despoiled, their
efforts to save themselves ignored or defeated, and
the decay of the parish set in. ^

^ A very interesting account of the rural economy which existed in
those times is given in Fitzherbert's "Boke of Husbandrie." The English
Text Society (1882). Reprinted from the edition 1554. Edited by the
Rev. W. W. Skeat.

PEASANT REVOLTS i6i

In previous chapters the agrarian policy of the landed
aristocracy has been traced down to modern times, and
the economic and social effect of that policy has been
described. It remains now in this account of the
English peasantry to inquire how the peasant fared
under that policy after he ceased to be a real peasant
(a man possessing land or rights in land) and became
a mere waofe-receivingr labourer. There has been
much correspondence lately in the Press on the sub-
ject of " The Deserted Village." That correspondence
seems to have left the question pretty much where it
was, for the simple reason that the writers have ignored
the root cause of the depopulation they deplore, in-
stead of makinof it the basis of their discussion.

The charming and pathetic poem from which they
borrow the very heading of their letters, was written
with the sole object of describing the policy which
caused the depopulation of our country-sides.

In a letter (1770) to Sir Joshua Reynolds — to whom
the poem was inscribed — Goldsmith writes : —

" I have taken all possible pains, in my country
excursions, for these four or five years past, to be
certain of what I allege, and all my views and en-
quiries have led me to believe those miseries real
which I here attempt to display. ... In regretting
the depopulation of the country, I inveigh against the
increase of our luxuries ; and here also I expect the
shout of modern politicians against me."

A few lines will recall the object and meaning of
the poem. Looking at the idyll by the light of our
present experience, we shall see that the insight of the
poet was truer than the arguments of the political
economist.

i62 LAND REFORM

" Sweet smiling village, loveliest of the lawn,
Thy sports are fled and all thy charms withdrawn ;
Amidst thy bowers the tyrant's hand is seen.
And desolation saddens all thy green :
One only master grasps the whole domain.
And half a tillage stints thy smiling plain ;

111 fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay :
Princes and lords may flourish, or may fade ;
A breath can make them as a breath has made :
But a bold peasantry, their country's pride.
When once destroyed, can never be supplied.

Ye friends to truth, ye statesmen who survey
The rich man's joys increase, the poor's decay,
'Tis yours to judge, how wide the limits stand
Between a splendid and a happy land.

If to some common's fenceless limits strayed,
He drives his flock to pick the scanty blade,
Those fenceless fields the sons of wealth divide.
And even the bare worn common is denied." ^

1 "The Deserted Village."

In that gem of English literature, Gray's "Elegy," is pictured the
ideal of village life ; the " short and simple annals of the poor " who keep
on " the even tenour of their way," and " over whose tombs no trophies
raise." The poem calms like a soft lullaby the doubts and misgivings as
to the actual state of rural life. But it was Crabbe who, following Gold-
smith, described in realistic verse the miserable condition to which the
rural population had been reduced. It was his poem "The Village" that
no doubt led later writers — Carlyle and others— to deal with the subject.
Crabbe's village is a place

" Where Plenty smiles— alas ! she smiles for few —
And those who taste not, yet behold her store,
Are as the slaves that dig the golden ore,
The wealth around them makes them doubly poor."

•'The Village" (1783).

PEASANT REVOLTS 163

At the time Goldsmith wrote the process was be-
coming more and more rapid by which the real
peasantry were reduced to mere labourers. The story
of the English agricultural labourers is one of the
saddest in our history. Until they, as a class, became
emancipated by flight from the land no pen can ex-
aggerate their sufferings and the lowness of their
condition. There were numbers of rural labourers in
every country, but in no country but ours were they
a class apart, a caste, a permanent part of a land
system composed of landlords, tenants, and labourers.
Our landless peasantry became a unique class, and
their counterpart could be found in no other country
in Europe, In all but the name they were worse off
than serfs of olden times, for serfs, though slaves, had
plenty of food, generally land to cultivate, and dwell-
ings which they regarded practically as their own. It
was sound economy for a feudal lord to keep his serfs
— like his horses — in a condition fit for work.^

' In times of famine, which often occurred, "freemen from above,
could and did descend into serfdom " for the sake of food and shelter.
" The English Village Community,"^ Seebohm.

CHAPTER XII
PEASANT REVOLTS {continued)

A REVIEW of the "rebellions" of the English peas-
antry would be incomplete without some reference
to the movement of the labourers led by Joseph
Arch in the seventies of last century. This uprising
was not, like previous outbreaks, a struggle for the
retention of rights in the land, because the divorce of
the peasantry from the soil had been completed some
years before. It was nevertheless a revolt — a revolt
of that which is a portent for any nation — a landless
peasantry — against conditions of life that had become
unbearable.

The year 1872 must be looked upon as an epoch in
the history of the agricultural labourer. The nation
as a whole had been rapidly increasing in wealth, but
the condition of the labourer had been steadily on the
down grade.^ The attention of influential men be-
came more and more fixed on this blot on our social
life. The continental Press, now and again, com-
mented with much sarcasm on the shocking condition
of the rural population in "the richest country of
Europe," and compared it with the different state of
things which existed in most of the continental States.

The town workmen, by Trade Unions and other
combinations, had secured better things for themselves.
The severe penal laws against such combinations were
partially repealed in 1824, and Trade Unions became
legally recognized in 1871. The changes in the rela-

' The alleged betterment of the condition of the agricultural labourer
by the fiscal policy adopted in 1846 will be dealt with later on.

164

PEASANT REVOLTS 165

tionship between employers and employed caused by
the increase of machinery, and the development of the
factory system were such as to make these combina-
tions absolutely necessary to enable the workman to
protect himself from the increasing power of the large
capitalist. These unions, on the whole, have worked
well, and, in spite of some abuses which may exist in
connection with them, they have proved beneficial,
both to employers and employed.^

The spirit of combination had been quietly spread-
ing, even among the rural labourers. Their eyes were
becoming open to the power of union as a means for
bargaining with employers in a manner individuals
could not do, and of bettering their lot generally. A
man was necessary to voice the new feeling and to
lead it, as a man is always necessary to concentrate
the forces of any social or political movement. In
1872 the man appeared. At an open-air meeting held
under a chestnut-tree at Wellesbourne, a village in
Warwickshire, Joseph Arch began a movement which
was destined to become far-reaching and to have a
permanent effect on the character of English labourers.

Arch himself was a fine representative of the English
peasant. Honest, energetic, of good character, and
with a great gift of rude oratory that always swayed
his audience, he entered into the struggle with the
sinorle aim of bettering the condition of his fellow-
labourers, whose sufferings he knew so well. He had
passed through the bitter experience himself and had
discharged special family obligations with a courage

' A well-written statement on the subject of Trade Unions is to be
found in "Conflicts of Capital and Labour," by George Howell. For a
more complete account of trade combination, see " History of Trade
Unionism," by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and " Problems of Modern
Industry," by the same authors (Longmans, 1902).

i66 LAND REFORM

and an independence worthy of respect and admira-
tion.

In March, 1872, the "Warwickshire Agricultural
Labourers' Union" was formed. The movement spread
so rapidly that at the end of May a great gathering
of delegates from all parts of the country was held at
Leamington, and the " National Union of Agricultural
Labourers " was formed.^ The meetings of delegates
and friends were presided over by the late George
Dixon, M.p. for Birmingham, and the Hon. Auberon
Herbert. Arch was elected president, and Henry
Taylor was made secretary. An executive committee
was appointed, composed of twelve labourers. It was
decided to have a " consultative committee of gentle-
men, with no power to vote, but for consultation and
advice." Trustees were also nominated in whose
names the funds of the Unions were to be invested.

The movement received a large amount of financial
support from outsiders, from men who were convinced
that something should be done to deal with the low
depths of destitution into which the labourers were
sunk.'

The combination was a legal one and its aims were
moderate. Arch held out hopes to the men that, by
union, they would secure sixteen shillings per week,

' The present writer took part in these inaugural meetings. He was
elected a member of the committee, which, with the executive committee,
met at Leamington once a fortnight. He was also appointed a trustee
for the funds of the Union. The only other surviving trustee is Mr.
Edward Jenkins (author of " Ginx's Baby "). Mr. Jenkins for many years
did good work for the Union. A newspaper was started, which secured
a great circulation under the conduct of Matthew Vincent, who, by his
able and sympathetic writings, placed before the public in a plain and
skilful manner the conditions of the men and the objects of the Union.

^ The trustees had for some time many thousands of pounds in their
hands, but the strikes, lock-outs, migrations, and other expenses made
great inroads on the funds, and finally exhausted them.

PEASANT REVOLTS 167

with a working day reduced to nine and a half hours,
exclusive of meal-times. These were not extravagant
demands, and in the circumstances should have won
the sympathy of all men. In any case the labourers
should have been treated fairly in their efforts to
better themselves by legal and orderly methods. But
it is impossible to exaggerate the frantic opposition
with which the movement was met by the territorial
party. ^

Efforts were made by employers to stamp out the
Union by " lock-outs," by agreements among them-
selves not to employ Union men, and by other means,
all showino- the most bitter feelinof. Threats and
torrents of abuse were launched on men for refusing
to leave the Union. In numerous cases labourers had
the brutal choice put before them either to give up the
Union or to quit their employment and be ejected
from their cottages. Respectable, industrious men,
who had dwelt in cottages for many years and had
paid their rents regularly, were turned out at a week's
notice for refusal to leave the Union. Arch himself
was denounced as a setter of class ao^ainst class and as
an "apostle of arson." While denouncing this legal
and peaceable combination among the men, farmers
and landlords were themselves forming associations
for "protecting the interests of employers of agricul-
tural labourers." One rule of these associations was
that no member should employ a labourer belonging
to the Union unless he was already a hired servant.
" The farmers are beginning to retaliate on the Union,
which they are determined to extinguish. As a body,

' There were a few, but only a few, worthy exceptions among landlords
and farmers. One landlord, Mr. J. A. Campbell, of Coventry, joined the
Union, and became a member of the committee.

i68 LAND REFORM

the farmers are resolutely opposed to the Union, which
they regard as a most dangerous confederation. Some
have already discharged all their labourers who have
joined the Union, and other unionists are under notice
to leave. "^

But in spite of this opposition the movement spread
through the counties with great rapidity. An im-
mense number of meetings was held throughout the
country. The present writer attended a great many
of them, and can vouch for the moderation, common
sense, good feeling, and simple speech of the poor
half-starved labourers. Their speeches were always
pithy, simple, and to the point. "They wanted only
to state their case fairly to the country and let the
country judge." The remembrance of these gather-
ings adds poignancy to the regret that these fine,
tough, stalwart men, homely healthy women, and
their numerous families — the real human ** pedigree
stock " of the nation — should have disappeared, and
left our country-sides almost a desert.

An account of one or two of these gatherings will
show the character of them all.

At a meeting held at Lyneham Green, -aeax-YeovH, ^
in the midst of heavy rain, there were 600 labourers
and women present. Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, a
warm sympathizer with the men, was in the chair.
Among the speakers was a labourer, Absolom Black-
man, who said that he had a wife and five children,
and his wages were los. a week. He had to pay 50s.
a year for his cottage, 4d. a week to a benefit society,
and 5^d. to a clothing club. Out of what was left there
were seven persons to keep. " He should be glad to
know," he said, "how 'twas done, for he didn't. He

' "Times," 25 March, 1872.

PEASANT REVOLTS 169

had lived hard to get on, but the more he tried, the
farther he got behind."

Henry lies said that he was lucky in renting an
acre of land at £1 the acre, though farmers were
renting better land close by at 37s. ; but it had enabled
him to raise himself above dependence on the farmer
and to bring up eight children, three of whom were
now out at service.

Ann /\.tter said that her husband had been getting
9s. a week; but now he was a milker, worked on Sun-
days, and got 1 2s. They had to pay ^3 a year house-
rent, and it had often gone to her heart when she had
" only a bit of bread with nothing on't to be paid out
amonor the children."

At a meeting held in the village of Montacute, in
Somersetshire, William Chard, a grey-headed but
stalwart labourer, said he had los. a week when he
married. Since then he had been getting 8s., now
raised to 9s. with cider. He had eight children, and
had to pay is. 6d. per week house-rent. "He did
not get 3d. worth of meat from one year's end to
another."

Amelia Boot said she had fifteen children. Her
husband got 7s. a week when they married, and was
now getting 8s.

At a meeting of 200 labourers at Marlborough Mr.
Royce, the chairman, said that the "labourers suffered
profound misery. They never tasted meat for months.
They ate what dogs would turn away from."

The tyrannous opposition to the Union became at
last a scandal. Men holding meetings were prose-
cuted, on the charge of obstructing the highway.
Sixteen women and girls were sentenced by magis-
trates (two clergymen) to imprisonment with hard

lyo LAND REFORM

labour for " intimidating " two labourers imported into
the neighbourhood to supply the places of men who
were on strike for an increase of wages. ^

The country was roused by these harsh proceed-
ings. Sympathy and financial help were given to the
men by many classes of the community, and a greater
impetus than ever was given to the progress of the
Union. At the next annual meeting, in May, 1873,
it was reported that there were about a thousand
branches formed, with over 70,000 members.

Arch's influence over the men in those times was
unbounded, and they would have gone in any direc-
tion he wished them to go. But in spite of all pro-
vocation, he discouraged everything in the form of
retaliation. He and the Consultative Committee
were at one in the desire to conduct the movement in
the way of law and order. " I am not here," he
preached to the men, " to advocate rowdyism or any-
thing like that." The great work, he said, was to be
done, *' not in an un-English or unlawful manner."
But in spite of his moderation and of the justice of
the claims he made, he was met by the territorial
party in the same spirit of hatred and implacable
opposition as that in which the peasant leaders of old
were met ; and had he lived in their times, doubtless
he would have shared their fate.

The country clergy of the day, who knew so well
the starving condition of the labourers, unfortunately
missed a great opportunity of showing sympathy with
them in their legitimate efforts to help themselves.
The great majority of the clergy stood aloof from the

' The Press was unanimous in condemnation of the sentence. The
"Times" declared that the course taken was "extremely harsh and
singularly ill-advised. . . . Such a sentence staggered the poor women ;
and well it might, for it staggered the whole country."

PEASANT REVOLTS 171

movement altogether, but a large number of them
showed a bitter hostility to it.^

The Union was carried on vigorously for some
years, but the difficulties in the way of forming a
permanent combination among agricultural labourers
were very great, and proved to be insuperable. It
was not like dealingr with men working- together in
large numbers, in mines, factories, and other industries,
who could continually meet together and discuss
matters, and so become united in purpose and action.

The rural labourers were so sparsely scattered in
villages, hamlets, roadsides, and on single farms, that
occasions of meeting in numbers were few ; the com-
mon help and spur which numbers give were wanting,
and the strength which fellowship begets was therefore
lacking among them.

Besides these difficulties there were the continued
and determined efforts of their masters to stamp out
the Union by every means that could be adopted.
These efforts had, to a very large extent, the desired
effect when directed against men who for so long
a time had been in a servile condition, and who as a
class had hitherto been in a state of hopeless submis-
sion to their lot. So, after some years' existence, the
National Labourers' Union died out.

But the Union — like earlier uprisings — though de-
feated, was by no means a failure or fruitless of results.
During the years of its existence the labourer learnt to

' There were some worthy exceptions. Prominent among them was
the late Canon Girdlestone, who for years had taken great interest in the
men. The present writer had much correspondence with this good man
touching plans for helping the labourers. " My heart aches," he wrote,
" when I think of their condition." The late Cardinal Manning (then
Archbishop) heartily sided with the men, and appeared on their plat-
forms.

172 LAND REFORM

look beyond his village ; he acquired new ideas, a
glimmer of independence, and above all, he became
capable of active discontent with his lot, without which
it was impossible to help him.^

It is difficult to find sufficient reason for the bitter
feeling described above towards men whose sufferings
and degraded lot were so well known. It was not from
money reasons, for agricultural depression had not then
become severe : rents were high, wheat was 57s. per
quarter, barley 37s., and at the same time the skilled
toilers on the land, with their families, were starving
on I OS. per week. It was not through intentional
cruelty, for the village squire and the " Lady Bounti-
ful," in the old feudal way, were generally kind, and
often very generous to the individual labourer and his
family, but it was always in the form of charity and in
the spirit of patronage. The real offence of these
poor hirelings was that they should assume to be of
the same clay as their superiors, and should actually
assert that they had some rights of their own.

The farmer, too, as a rule, was kind to his men
so long as they were content, or appeared to be
content, with their station, and did his behests ; but
for these men — these hereditary bondsmen — to assume
the right to make terms, or to strike, created as much
astonishment and resentment in his mind as if the
horses on his farm had assumed the like. Hence the
statement made by so many witnesses before the Royal
Commissions on agriculture, that the action of the
Union and the teaching of the delegates had "de-
stroyed the good relationship which had previously

' Even as regards wages, evidence is given that up to 1876 at least
3s. per week had been gained on the old rate prior to the movement. See
Brassey's "Work and Wages," p. 139.

PEASANT REVOLTS 173

existed between the employers and the employed."
These statements are no doubt true, but their real
meaning is that the labourers were no longer willing
to submit to the hard and miserable conditions which
employers sought to impose upon them. One result
of the movement was that migration, with and without
the assistance of the Union, rapidly increased.^

The transactions connected with the Agricultural
Labourers' Union illustrate the thoroughness with
which the old peasantry had — by our land system —
been reduced to a servile caste.

The changes in the ranks of the contending parties in
the struggle of 1872 are worthy of notice. In previous
outbreaks the cultivators of the soil of all classes were
found in one camp, and the landlord class in the other.
In 1872 the labourer stood alone, and had arrayed
aofainst him both landlord and farmer. The farmer
was no longer an independent yeoman cultivator. In
1872 he had no Compensation Act to protect him.
Practically all he put on the land was the landlord's, on
the "good understanding" with whom he was abso-
lutely dependent. He was but a yearly tenant, pay-
ing a competitive rent which was often so high that in
order to make a sufficient profit for himself he had to
keep his labour bill at a starvation rate. Hence his
resistance to what he called the "excessive demands"
of the labourer. In these circumstances it is absurd to
affect surprise that the agricultural labourer fled from
a system in which — though the real cultivator of the
soil — he was but an outcast. Accordingly, during the
three decades of years ( 1 87 i-i 901) nearly 400,000

' The funds of the Union were spent, to a considerable extent, in
assisting labourers to migrate. In one day alone (24 June, 1872) forty
agricultural labourers, with their wives and families, were sent from South
Wales to take situations provided for them in the north.

174 LAND REFORM

labourers left the great calling of agriculture and dis-
appeared into the towns. These, with wives and
children, represented probably above two million
persons.

In the olden times the higher clergy bearded the
baronial magnates, even in the king's court, and in
their presence, and rebuked them for their unjust treat-
ment of the tillers of the ground. In these modern
times, politically and socially, the clergy are more or less
allied to the territorial order. Their kindness towards
the labouring classes, as a rule, is in the form of
charity — charity, the practice of which is ever increas-
ing, and which, as opposed to self-help, bids fair to
become the curse of the English people.

Since the revolt of 1872 the relations between
farmers and their men have changed. Labourers are
now scarce, are largely of the casual class, and less
dependent on their employers. But even now the old
feeling is seen in places and on occasions where it can
be safely shown.

In a letter received from a country clergyman
(1905) the following appears: "I am obliged sorrow-
fully to admit that very many of the clergy do exhibit
a lamentable lack of true and active sympathy with
the aspirations and wants of the rural population.
They lean far too much to the side of the squire and
to big farmers. Huge farms have been the bane of
England. I have long been convinced of this fact

by my own past experience in a rural parish in ,

where most of the land is in the hands of one large
farmer, who treats the labourers like bond-servants.
Recently a young labourer told the farmer he meant
to quit the village : instantly the farmer said he would
turn the young man's father out of his cottage if he

PEASANT REVOLTS 175

did leave the place. Poor men in such circumstances
dare not move a finger for themselves. They dare
not apply for land or make use of Acts of Parliament."

In such cases as this it would seem to be the duty
of parish parsons — no matter who were offended — to
stand between the oppressor and the oppressed.

At a recent Church Congress "The Village Ques-
tion " was appropriately introduced by the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, but the discussion on it — compared
with the gravity of the subject — was of a poor and
superficial kind. Judging from the short report of
his speech, Earl Nelson was the only speaker who
touched the root of the matter. He proposed, as far
as can be gathered from the report, that men should
own the cottages they dwelt in and the land they tilled.
There is no doubt that in this direction alone lies the
remedy for the depopulation of the rural districts.
The need for such a remedy is expressed in a wise
and far-sighted manner in the following extract : —

"He assured his father that it would never be well
for England until this order of the peasantry was
restored to its pristine condition ; not merely in physical
comfort, for that must vary according to the economic
circumstances of the time, like that of every class ;
but to its condition in all those moral attributes which
make a recognised rank in a nation." — " Coningsby "
(Lord Beaconsfield).

CHAPTER XIII

PEASANT REVOLTS {continued)

It remains now to refer to the attempts, legislative
and voluntary, which have been made in modern
times to restore in some small way the connection of
the labourer with the soil. The few and stinted
efforts made to give back land to the rural popula-
tion are in marked contrast to the continuous energy
shown in depriving them of it. These efforts took the
form of granting, at a rent, allotments of land to the
rural population. The granting of allotments has
always been described as a generous policy, and great
credit is claimed for it. But looking at the question
with labourers' eyes and from the labourers' stand-
point, the practice after all is only a loan to the
peasantry of an instrument which had originally been
filched from them.

The question of allotments, which gained so much
attention in the eighties of last century, was by no
means a new one. By a return issued 1873 it was
shown that, without reckoning land attached to
cottages, there were about a quarter of a million
allotments in England and Wales under one acre
each, most of them below a quarter of an acre.^

An association of land and glebe owners was formed
for the express purpose of extending the allotment
system.^ Several Bills were introduced during last cen-
tury for the purpose of supplying labourers with land,

^ " Return of Allotments and Small Holdings." Board of Agricul-
ture, C. 6144.

2 See " Landlords and Allotments," by the Earl of Onslow, Hon. Sec.
to the Association. (Longmans, 1886.)

176

PEASANT REVOLTS 177

but these and all other efforts were on the voluntary
system. The policy of withholding from the labourers
any rights in the land was steadily continued.^

Even those who were most liberal in grantinof
allotments were opposed to any legislation which
would Q-'ive the labourer the shadow of a rigrht to
demand them. He was to be kept dependent, in this
respect, on the goodwill of his employers, who, as a
class, too often objected to his having land at all.

Even the Statute of Queen Elizabeth, which re-
quired that every cottage that was built should have
four acres of land attached to it, had been quietly
repealed."

In 1845 ^I^- Cowper (afterwards Lord Mount
Temple) brought in a Field Gardens Bill for the
legal provision of allotments, but it failed to pass.
In introducing the Bill, Mr. Cowper put forward the
old arguments at that time so well known and so
fruitless. He referred to the time when, as he said,
"all labourers above the condition of serfs had land
in their own occupation, and in addition to this had
common rights over the waste tracts." Referrinor to
the voluntary system, he said, " A great number of
non-resident landed proprietors did not take the
trouble to establish allotments." He stated his belief
that a generation would pass away before there would
be, by voluntary action, a general allotment of garden
ground to the rural labourers.^

' No notice is here taken of a number of allotment measures passed
at different times in connection with the Poor-law.

- Unrestrained by any measure of this kind, the speculative builder,
by erecting rows of unsightly cottages with little or no land attached to
them, has destroyed the beauty and rural character of many of our old
Eiv^lish villages.

-' Hansard, Vol. VII, p. 30S.
N

178 LAND REFORM

The Bill was strongly opposed by the representa-
tives of the manufacturing class, who held that the
voluntary system was sufficient to supply all the allot-
ments that were needed. In this opposition they were
consistent. They had never lifted a voice against the
spoliation of the peasantry. They taunted the land-
lords with the miserable condition of the rural
labourers, and, at the same time, were, as a class,
indifferent to the shocking state of things in their
own factories, in which their workpeople were labouring
long hours for small wages, under unhealthy condi-
tions, while children of tender years were worked
almost to death. Cheap labour, and plenty of it for
the price paid, was the policy of the manufacturing
classes durinsf the free-trade agitation and after it.
It was on this ground that the mill-owners, as a body,
strongly opposed the Factory Acts.^

The territorial parties were notably inconsistent in
the display of interest with regard to allotments.
Their action was totally at variance with the interest
shown. During the years when the fruitless dis-
cussion was ofoinof on in the House as to whether or
not the labourers should have plots of land, generally
at a good rent, to enable them to eke out the semi-
starvation rations which alone their miserable wages
allowed. Parliament was year after year actively
engaged in carrying inclosure acts which destroyed
the remaining rights of the rural population in the
soil.

1 " When children of the tenderest years were employed fourteen or
fifteen hours a day, and often all night ; when factory cripples were a
specific class of deformities constantly to be seen in the manufacturing
districts ; and when human life was held in small comparison to com-
mercial profits." — " Speeches of the Earl of Shaftesbury," Preface.
(Chapman & Hall, 1868.)

PEASANT REVOLTS 179

The "Allotments Extension Act" was probably the
first measure passed which contained direct com-
pulsory clauses. The Bill was first introduced by
Sir Charles Dilke in 1874, but it did not pass. It
was again brought forward in 1875, when, after dis-
cussion, it was rejected.

The present writer introduced what was practically
the same Bill in 1882, when it was fortunately passed
into law.^ This piece of legislation was small, but it
was important, because it gave the labourer for the
first time certain legal rights in the land, though only
to rent it. The Act provides that trustees of certain
charity lands, held for the benefit of the poor, should
offer them in allotments to cottao^ers and labourers at
fair rents and terms. The Act gives the men a legal
claim on these lands. But most of the local trustees
were opposed to the measure ; many of them put
every difficulty in the way of its operation, and some
ignored it altogether. The Charity Commissioners
of the time, whose duty it was to enforce the Act,
showed themselves unfriendly to it, so unfriendly that
they sanctioned the action of the trustees, who fre-
quently preferred to sell the land rather than be forced
to let it to the labourers.

Subsequently, however, largely by pressure, the Act
became more operative ; and as it was estimated that
no less than a quarter of a million of acres came
within its scope, the labourers and others were much
benefited by it,'^

* The credit for this Act is due to Mr. Howard Evans and Mr.
Theodore Dodd, who were ever in sympathy with the men. See also
the writings of a man who has done yeoman's service in the labourer's
cause, the present Dean of Ely. See specially " The Land and the
Labourers " (C. W. Stubbs).

- For particulars of the lukewarmness of the Charity Commissioners

i8o LAND REFORM

Later on the present writer introduced a " Peasant
Proprietary and Acquisition of Land by Occupiers
Bill," and an "Allotments and Small Holdings Bill,"
but these measures made no progress in the House,
though public opinion outside was rapidly strengthen-
ing in favour of the principle contained in them.^

The time had arrived, however, when the political
status of the labourers was to be changed. The
Franchise Bill, which became law in December, 1884,
extended household franchise to the counties. The
labourers acquired the rights of citizenship, and hence-
forth became an object of attention on the part of
different political parties. But the effect of the Act
would have been nullified by the law which disqualified
any man who had received from the parish medical
relief of any kind for himself or his family. As the
majority of the labourers — in some localities nine-
tenths of them — were compelled, through their ex-
treme poverty, to receive this relief in some form or
another, an alteration of the law was necessary if they

with regard to the Act and the opposition to the legal rights of the
cottagers on the part of country trustees, see Report of Select Com-
mission on the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1884, No. 306, and Report of
Select Committee on Endowed Schools Acts, 1 886-1 887, No. 120.

^ It was in a speech in support of these Bills that the phrase "Three
acres and a cow " was used. The exact words were that " He," the
writer, "hoped that the day would come when every labourer who wanted
them might have his three acres and a cow." All the statements made
afterwards as to providing the labourers with cows, etc., were, of course,
amusing political inventions. There was nothing original about the
phrase. It was quite a natural one to use in support of a measure which
provided, among other things, three acres of pasture land, that quantity
being generally reckoned as sufficient to support a cow. But it attracted
a great deal of attention. A large number of letters were received from
home and foreign correspondents, some of them declaring that the
phrase had been used by German writers ; that its equivalent was to Ic
found in Virgil ; that Sir John Sinclair had used it early in the century ;
that Jeremy Bentham was the real author of it ; etc. etc.

PEASANT REVOLTS i8i

were not to be deprived of the franchise. But time
was pressing, as the overseers were already pre-
paring the voting Hsts and omitting the names of
all those who had during the year received medical
relief.

The present writer, in June, 1885, brought in a Bill
to remove this disqualification. The measure was,
however, withdrawn on a promise being given by the
Government to introduce a Bill to deal with the
matter. But the Bill, when introduced, was found
to give relief only in cases where drugs and other
medicines were supplied.

It was evident that this was not enough, because in
such times as childbirth and other cases of illness, and
in cases of accident, not only medicine, but surgical
appliances, medical comforts, nursing, and other things
were wanted, which labourers out of their scanty
wages could not possibly provide. Accordingly the
present writer moved that the following clause be
added to the Bill : " The term medical or surorical
assistance in this Act shall include all medical and
surgical attendance and all matters and things supplied
by or on the recommendation of the medical officer
having authority to give such attendance or recom-
mendation at the expense of any poor-rate."

There was the bitterest opposition to the clause,
especially on the part of the so-called "political
economists," on both sides of the House. These
theorists, by dilatory motions and by obstruction, did
all that lay in their power to defeat the measure.
They were ready to brand poverty as a crime, and to
punish it by depriving the poor of the first rights of
citizenship. " I have no fear," said one of them, "of
universal suffrage, but I have "reat fear of (livincr

i82 LAND REFORM

political power to those who are pensioners of the
State." ^

Fortunately, however, common sense and justice
prevailed. The clause was carried by a large majority,
and the Bill became law towards the end of the
session, and the labourers were enabled to vote in
the general election which took place in November of
the same year (1885).

In the following year, however, an event occurred
which, though it bore no immediate fruit, yet doubt-
less had subsequently a great effect on the question
under consideration. On 26 January, 1886, at the
opening of the session, an Amendment to the
Address was moved in favour of allotments and small
holdings. This Amendment was carried and the
Government defeated. But though a Liberal Ministry
came into office on this question, though it came into
power on the backs of the labourers, so to speak, no
attempt whatever was made to deal with it. The
question was set aside and entirely ignored in order
to deal with the question of Home Rule for Ireland.
It would be difficult to find in all political history a

^ The doctrines of these pedants, now happily "banished to Saturn,"
are aptly described by a distinguished novelist and poet in the following
passages : —

" Rev. Dr. Folliott : But pray, sir, what is political economy?

" MacQuedy : Political economy is to the State what domestic
economy is to the family.

" Rev. Dr. Folliott : No such thing, sir. In the family there is a
paterfamilias who regulates the distribution, and takes care that there
be no such thing in the household as one dying of hunger, while another
dies of surfeit. In the State it is all hunger at one end and all surfeit at
the other. . . . There are two great classes of men : those who produce
much and consume little ; and those who consume much and produce
nothing ... to take as much as I can get, and pay no more than I can
help. . . . There, sir, is political economy in a nutshell."

" Crochet Castle," by Thomas Love Peacock.

PEASANT REVOLTS 183

greater betrayal than this of the interests of a de-
serving and long-suffering class of men.^

In 1886 the Allotments and Small Holdings Bill
was again introduced, when it was discussed and
"talked out." In 1887 the "Allotments" part of the
Bill, with some modifications, was embodied in a
measure brought in by Lord Salisbury's Government.
The Bill was subjected to lengthy discussions, and
its passing was endangered by dilatory amendments
moved by the Opposition. The Government, how-
ever, persevered, and the Bill became law towards
the end of the session. The principle of compulsion
was retained, which was a great advance in the
question."

Much has been said in depreciation of this Act
from the fact that the compulsory clauses have only
to a small extent been put into operation. But the
compulsory clauses were only intended to be used as
a last resort ; and the local authorities, to whom the
administration of the Act was entrusted, were directed
to secure land, whenever possible, by voluntary arrange-
ment. There is no doubt that this Act has been very
successful in securingr allotments for the men wherever
a demand existed. It is difficult to gauge exactly the
measure of its success, but by comparing the number
of allotments given in the Government return for
1886 with that given in a similar return for 1890, we
find that the number had enormously increased during

' The terms of the Amendment as drafted by the present writer were
as follows : " But this House humbly expresses its regret that no measures
are announced by Her Majesty for the present relief of these classes,
and especially for affording facilities to agricultural labourers and others
in the rural districts, to obtain allotments and small holdings on equitable
terms as to rent and security of tenure."

^ Kor the drafting of the original Bill the present writer was indebted
to Sir Robert Reid, M.r. for the Dumfries burghs..

i84 LAND REFORM

that short time, and there can be no reasonable doubt
that this increase was due mainly to the provisions of
the Act.^

The Small Holdings part of the Bill of 1886 was not
dealt with in the year (1887) when the allotments part
was passed into law, but the Government appointed
a Select Committee to consider the question. This
Committee, of which Mr. Chamberlain was chairman,
reported in 1890 in favour of the proposals of the
Small Holdings Bill, " with such alterations as in
their opinion would add to their value and secure
the practical success of the scheme."^ In 1892, Mr.
Chaplin, President of the Board of Agriculture, on
behalf of the Government, introduced a Small Hold-
ings Bill based on this report, which Bill was passed
into law the same year.^

The last piece of legislation dealing with labourers
and the land was the Local Government Act, 1894,
introduced by Sir Henry Fowler. Under that Act a
Parish Council is empowered to hire or purchase land
by agreement and let the same in allotments not
exceeding one acre of arable and three acres of
pasture, or four acres of pasture, to one person. The
Parish Council has no power to take land com-
pulsorily ; but in case they are unable to acquire it on
reasonable terms by agreement, they may apply to the
County Council, who may, if they think fit, cause a

1 In 1886 the number of allotments under one acre was 353,821 ; in
1890, 448,586. Since 1890 the increase has been equally rapid, so that
it might be said that the demand for allotments is now fairly well sup-
plied. These returns deal with England and Wales only. They refer
to detached allotments, and do not include gardens and other ground
attached to cottages.

2 Report of the Select Committee on Small Holdings, 1890, No. 223.

•' The provisions of this Act and its operation will be fully described
in a later chapter, " Land Hunger and Peasant Proprietary."

PEASANT REVOLTS 185

public inquiry to be made, and if satisfied that a
demand exists which cannot be suppHed by voluntary
arrangement, may provide a provisional order for the
purchase of special land under the provisions of the
Lands Clauses Acts which relate to the taking of
land otherwise than by agreement. In case the
County Council decline to act, the Parish Council may
appeal to the Local Government Board, and the
Board, after a further local inquiry at which owners,
occupiers, and all concerned are represented, may, if
they think fit, overrule the decision of the County
Council, and make a provisional order for the purchase
of the land required. These proceedings, however,
are so cumbrous, and the expenses connected with a
forced purchase — including compensation to landlord
and tenant for severance, etc. — are so heavy, that
the compulsory clauses of the Act, like those of the
Allotments Act of 1887, have rarely been put in
force.

The provision of allotments and small holdings
under the several Acts named has no doubt added
largely to the comfort of the labourers who still
remain on the land. In many cases the possession of
allotments — even as tenants — has been the deciding
factor in keeping them from migrating. But the
Small Holdings Act of 1892 is the only one of the
measures referred to that has had the effect — so far as
its limited operation goes — of anchoring the men
permanently on the soil. Allotments alone have few
attractions for the younger men, or for the more
enterprising among those of older years. Hence it is
that the steady flow of men and women from country
to town continues practically unchecked.

P rom the foregoing it will be seen that the scanty

i86 LAND REFORM

legislation up to the present time, though good as far
as it goes, is altogether insufficient to secure the
desirable objects of arresting the decline of the rural
population and of restoring the people to the land.
The Purchase of Land Bill under consideration is a
measure of far wider scope. In the following pages
further arguments will be brought forward in its
support, and further evidence to show its pressing
importance and practical character.^

^ Sir Henry Fowler's Act referred to above is 56 & 57 Vict. c. 73 —
" An Act to make further provisions for the Local Government of
England and Wales" (5 March, 1894).

Up to 31 March, 1902, only 270 acres of land had been acquired under
sec. 10, which deals with the compulsory hiring of land. Sec. 9, which
relates to the compulsory purchase of land, had not been used at all.

CHAPTER XIV

YEOMAN PROPRIETARY,
OR OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP

The system of occupying ownership, as it exists in
other countries, has been the subject of much im-
perfect and often ignorant criticism on the part of
many writers at home. An impression is given that
the system involves questions of small farms as against
large ones ; of continual subdivision of holdings, of
cutting the land "up into patches"; of a ''morcelle-
me7it of the soil," etc. As a matter of fact, in con-
tinental countries all kinds of tenure, and holdings of
almost every size, exist. There are large estates
which the landlords themselves cultivate, and other
large estates, of which they cultivate a part and let
the rest. There are farmers, peasants, and labourers
who rent, as well as those who own, the soil they
cultivate.^

It is true there are very few of what in England
would be called large farms. But that arises from
the conviction, on the part of continental agriculturists,
that large farms are not so profitable and productive
as smaller ones.^ The different sizes and kinds of

' In some parts of the east of Europe large estates and the tenant
system still exist ; and where they do exist, agriculture is in a bad state.

^ Those who wish to know the arguments which, in France, have led
to this conviction should read " Des systemes de culture en France et de
leur Influence sur I'^conomie sociale" (M. Passy). M. Passy was an ex-
Minister of Finance ; a landowner and a distinguished writer on rural

187

i88 LAND REFORM

holdings dovetail in, one with another, and form
together a prosperous system of cultivation. But
it is the principle of ownership that dominates the
whole system and is the secret of its success. This
principle governs the rural economy of France. It
is the one which all agriculturists in that country,
without exception, recognize as the most effective for
getting the most out of the soil. What is equally
important — it is the principle that determines the
character of the land legislation of the country.^
French writers vary slightly in their estimates of the
actual number of proprietors of agricultural land in
France. M. de Lavergne, one of the best authorities,
gives the approximate number as follows : — ^

50,000 great proprietors with average holdings

of 750 acres .... =37,500,000 acres.
500,000 middle-class proprietors with average

holdings of 75 acres . . . =37,500,000 „

5,000,000 small proprietors with average holdings

of 7^ acres .... = 37,500,000 ,,

5,550,000 112,500,000 acres.

The French Civil Code was issued by Napoleon
during the first decade of years of the last century.^

economy. His book contains the most exhaustive arguments as to the
relative advantages of large and small farms, and also as to the social
and economic effects of the division of land in France.

^ The present writer deals specially with France because he has
a more intimate personal knowledge of that country and of its rural
economy than of other foreign countries. His remarks, however, are
equally applicable to the other countries which have adopted the French
Civil Code.

^ " Economie Rurale de la France," M. L. de Lavergne. This is
reckoning the hectare at i\ English acres. The exact equivalent is
2.471 acres, or about 2 acres, i rood, 35 perches.

^ Although the Code was issued by Napoleon, and called by his name,
its provisions were based on the "Code Rurale 1791 " of M. de Lamer-
ville, a name now forgotten, who was a Deputy of the Noblesse de Berri
to the States-General, and who was also a practical agriculturist.

OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP 189

For a long time afterwards the new system intro-
duced under it was fiercely discussed. Even in
France a large party was strongly opposed to it.
All those who looked with regret at the dis-
appearance of the old state of things before the
Revolution, urged that small ownerships and the
division of the soil as provided by the Code would
lead to the ruin of France. They argued that the
ultimate effect would be that the land would be cut up
into little squares like a vast chessboard, on each
square of which would be a family living in a ''petite
case " (little hut or nigger's cabin) and toiling for a
mere existence. This party became strong enough to
cause a Bill to be introduced in the French Chamber
(1826) the object of which was to stop the division
of land and to go back a great way towards the old
methods of cultivation. The Bill was, however, de-
feated. Facts showed that the principles of the Code,
so far from producing the evils named, were rapidly
adding to the agricultural prosperity of France, by
attracting to the land the resources and energies of
the nation. As to the social effect — " The Code had
sensibly reduced the number of the poor and of the
unemployed. The labourers had gained ground in
welfare and self-respect. Each portion of the land
that had passed into their hands had made them a
ofuarantee for social order. "^

During the period referred to, the discussion was
equally active and general in England ; but the
British political and agricultural economists were
strongly in favour of the English system. Only
poets and sentimentalists, they said, could be in
favour of that of the French. These writers de-

• Passy, " Des systemes de culture, etc.," 2ncl edition, p. 19.

igo LAND REFORM

clared that small cultivators must go on without
money or instruction, that they would be unable to
adopt improvements, and that their operations would
leave no surplus products. The English system, on
the contrary, was held to be more profitable, more
economical in the matter of labour, and more calcu-
lated to secure a larger surplus yield for the use of
the community. The social side of the question
was not much considered.

These objectors ventured upon the most positive
foretellings as to the ruinous effect which the appli-
cation of the Civil Code would ultimately have on
the agriculture of France. It was predicted that
in " fifty years the land of France would become
a pauper warren." McCulloch wrote:^ " The law is
radically bad and bids fair in no lengthened period to
reduce the agriculturists of France to a condition
little, if at all, better than those of Ireland."

In 1893, when more than the "fifty years" had
passed away, the president of the oldest and largest
agricultural society in France, in his address at the
annual meeting, dealt specially with these predictions.
He referred by name to some of these British econo-
mists, and showed how completely their prophecies
had been falsified. It was the labourer in England,
he said, who had been driven off the land to seek
other employment or to emigrate, while the French
peasant remained on his own holding of land, "which
he made fertile by stubborn industry, and on which
he lived happy and free." "The report," he said,
" will show you that the cultivator is as free as the
soil he cultivates ; the rural labourer is well fed, well
housed, and well clad. ... It will show you how

^ McCulloch's " Principles of Political Economy."

OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP 191

the peasant, thanks to the savings he can make, can
easily go through the greatest crisis in agriculture. . . .
It will show you that the average production of wheat
has been so raised as to triple the bread supply of
France. . . . The peasant becomes more and more
the proprietor of the soil he cultivates, is one of the
most solid pillars on which social order rests, and his
savings constitute the financial power of France."

The president goes on to state that this progress
is far from being finished, and after referring to the
vast increase which had taken place in stock and
other produce, he concludes by saying : " Our society
knows that the fortune of the country depends on
agricultural prosperity, while to increase the well-being
of all classes of the rural population is the surest
means for the Government to secure the stability of
our institutions and to increase the strengrth of the
nation."^

This is not an address on agriculture given by an
amateur to a debating society. It is the utterance of
an eminent rural economist to an association of the
first rank, composed of practical agriculturists and of
distinguished scientific men. One notable feature in
the address is that all classes of cultivators are reck-
oned of equal importance. If there is any difference
shown, it is in the form of extra consideration for
those classes which by our own agricultural societies
are left out of account altogether — namely, the labour-
ers and the small cultivators.

Fortunately, we possess information by which the

' The address and the report itself should be read by all interested n
the subject, and specially by those prejudiced in favour of the landlord and
tenant system. They are published in pamphlet form by Chamerot, Rue
des Saints-P^res, Paris, and entitled "Discours de .M. Tisserand, Presi-
dent de la Soci^t^ Nationale d'Agriculture."

192 LAND REFORM

working of the two systems — English and French —
can be traced throughout a long period of years. At
the end of that period the contrast between the results
of the two systems, both from an economic and a
social point of view, is very striking.

Arthur Young, who is regarded, even by French
writers, as the best authority on the condition of agri-
culture in France at the time he wrote, gives a most
deplorable account of it. ("Young's Travels in France,
1787, 1788, 1789.") Nearly one hundred years after
Arthur Young wrote, another Englishman — George
Gibson Richardson — who knew France well, and who
was equally observant and equally qualified, gave us
detailed descriptions of the condition of French agri-
culture. His book ^ is dedicated to one of the best
writers on French rural economy — Leonce de La-
vergne — who warmly acknowledged " the important
service rendered to French agriculture " by Mr. Rich-
ardson. The book in question is specially instructive
from the fact that the author went over the districts
visited by Arthur Young and applied his practical
knowledge to a careful examination of those districts.
He recites Young's description of the miserable state
of agriculture in a given district, and then describes
the state of things which he — Richardson — found in
that district. A comparison can thus be made between
the conditions of agriculture at two periods, with an
interval of about one hundred years.

The facts, figures, and descriptions given show the
marvellous and steady progress made in France since
the present system was adopted. It is interesting to
note the variety — both as regards size and tenure — of

1 "Corn- and Cattle-producing Districts in France," by George Gibson
Richardson.

OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP 193

the holdings which exist in France. To take one or
two examples. In the Department of Seine-et-Marne
(about the same area as that of Norfolk) Mr. Richard-
son states that there are many large estates, and that
farms of several hundred acres each, let at high rents,
are not uncommon; but he adds: " This occupation by-
large landowners by no means excludes the small.
There are as many as 10,000 owners cultivating their
own soil, and living by it, and 13,000 labourers out of
a total of 26,000 who are also landowners."

The Department of Seine-et-Oise (about the same
area as that of the North Riding of Yorkshire) is
described as a "country of large estates," but there
are " 12,000 owners who work their own land and do
nothing else, and there are as many labourers — that
is more than half of this class — who are also land-
owners."

In contrast to this, in Franche Comte (with an
area about equal to that of the whole of Yorkshire)
" farm labourers seem hardly to exist, as only 2000
are returned." One-fourth of the county is covered
with forest, but there are 92,000 holdings, of which
50,000 are under 12 acres, and not 800 of 100 acres
and over in the whole province. In the higher
districts, each village has an important quantity of
common land, which allows some stock to be kept,
but which does not count in the individual holding.
There are some villages which appear to have made
some appropriation of the common land, as each
householder has an almost equal portion.

La Brie, a wheat-producing district, nearly forty
miles square, has few towns, but the " country swarms
with villages, hamlets, farmsteads, and country seats."

Mr. Richardson refers to the steady rise in the

194 LAND REFORM

value of land in France, and gives particulars of the
rapid increase in stock, horses, etc. He makes some
noteworthy comparisons between the corn growth of
France and that of the United Kingdom.

At the time he wrote (1877) ^y^ million acres, or
more than one-fourth (nearly three-tenths) of the
whole area of France, were sown with corn of one
sort or another. In the corresponding year the land
sown with corn of all kinds in Great Britain and
Ireland was 11 million acres, or one-seventh of the
whole area of the United Kingdom. In that year
there were 23!- million acres, or above one-sixth of
the whole territory of France, sown with wheat and
rye, which are articles wholly available for human food.
In the United Kingdom there were, in the same year,
only 3,600,000 acres, or about one-twenty-second part
of the whole area, sown with wheat and rye. To com-
pare the figures given by Mr. Richardson with those
recently given by the Board of Agriculture, is to bring
vividly home to us how rapidly, as a nation, we are
losing the power to feed ourselves.

According to the French statistics last issued by
the Board of Agriculture, there were in France, in
1901, above 35 million acres, or considerably more
than one-fourth of the whole country, under corn
crops of one sort or another, while in the United
Kingdom the acreage under similar crops, in the same
year, had fallen to less than 8|- million, or about one-
ninth of the whole country. Taking wheat and rye
alone (as being human food), the area in France under
these crops in 1901 was 20^ million acres, or just under
one-sixth of the whole country, while in the United
Kingdom in the same year the acreage under these

OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP 195

two cereals had fallen to 1,813,907 acres, or about one

forty-third part of the whole area.

The exact proportions for that year (1901) were : —

France. United Kingdom.

Total Area ^ . . 130,765,000 ... 77,682,516 acres.

Corn Crops of all kinds 35,111,247 ... 8,476,876 acres.
Wheat and Rye . . 20,268,610 ... 1,813,907 acres.

It thus appears that while France, so far as cereals
are concerned, is practically a self-feeding country, the
British nation has become absolutely dependent on
other countries for this kind of food.

Turning to '' la petite culture'' — small cultivation —
we find the same results. The intensive cultivation,
enterprise, and economy always allied to a peasant
proprietary have enabled France — after supplying her
own tables — to export to this country enormous and
ever-increasing quantities of the smaller articles of
food scheduled on a previous page. As regards her
home consumption, foods which are comparative
luxuries with the mass of the people of this country
form, on account of their cheapness, the ordinary
fare of the people of France. Mr. Richardson on
this head remarks : " Hardly a meal is ever eaten
in France at any table above the very poorest with-
out eggs and poultry forming part," and as to milk,
after referring to its sale as a source of steady weekly
income, he says : " Milk will always be of great im-
portance in French farming ; it is an article whose
benefit makes itself felt daily and weekly ; the daily

' Mr. Richardson gives as the whole area of France, 132,000,000 acres ;
the Board of Trade, 130,765,000 acres. The value of the cereals of all
kinds imported into France in the year 1904 was only ^4,432,000
Consular Reports, "Trade with France," 2682-35 (1905).

196 LAND REFORM

nourishment of the family of the small farmer depends
largely upon it."^

Nothing is wasted by the small cultivator, and no
kind of produce is neglected. Mr. Richardson illus-
trates this fact among other ways by stating that a
sum of ;!^6o,ooo per annum is "gathered from bee-
hives in one department alone, which is a pure gift
of Nature, realized without cost, and as the reward of
a little care."

The superior cooking of the French peasant woman
is one of the results of the thrift always practised by
peasant proprietors, and which is not likely to be ac-
quired by a proletariat. The late Sir Henry Thompson,
in his useful book, speaks of the cheap, tasty, and
highly nutritious meals produced by the " French
peasant's wife, who turns everything to account in a
manner quite incomprehensible to the English woman.
. . . To the pot of the peasant, who wastes nothing
whatever, all things are welcome ; and every atom of
nutritive material goes into it, to which are always
added herbs, vegetables, etc."^

The comparison drawn between the two systems
is an apt one, because the original positions of the
cultivators in the two countries were alike in princi-
ple. Peasant proprietary existed both in France and
England. In England it was crushed out by the

^ Travellers in rural France know that at snaall inns in the villages,
fowls, eggs, vegetables, omelettes, etc., can, as a rule, be readily obtained
at cheap rates and well cooked.

^ "Food and Feeding," 6th edition, 1891. By Sir Henry Thompson.
No girl should be allowed to leave our elementary schools without some
practical knowledge of cooking — cooking, not with expensive apparatus,
but with simple utensils. " Tether them by the teeth " is a good proverb
for all housewives, especially for those of the middle and poorer classes,
who would find that meals, however scanty, if well cooked, are a great
home-attraction for their men-kind.

OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP 197

methods we have described. In France it remained,
but the tyrannies and oppression practised by the
landed aristocracy of that country made the peasants'
lives miserable almost beyond endurance.

The Revolution, as far as the peasantry were con-
cerned, was in no sense a political one. Mr. John
Morley, speaking of the state of affairs after the death
of Louis XV. (1774), and of the "mortal paralysis"
with which the existing political system was smitten,
says: "No substantial reconstruction was possible, be-
cause all the evils came from the sinister influence of
the nobles, the clergy, or the financiers; and these
classes, informally bound together against the common
weal, were too strong for either the sovereign or the
ablest minister to thrust aside." ^

But the French cultivators had not political insight
enough to understand this combination ; they only
knew that their condition was one of deep wretched-
ness. The Revolution in their eyes was simply a war
against their immediate oppressors. Their cry was
" Guerre aux Chateaux, Paix aux Chaumieres ! " (War
against the Mansions ; Peace to the Cottages) ! They
saw in the Revolution a way of freeing themselves
from the yoke of misery that galled and worried them
in every incident of their lives. The " rights " and
"privileges" of the seigneurs were so numerous that
they dogged the peasant at every step. The ''Droit
de colombier'' — to wit, the exclusive right of the
lord to keep countless pigeons, which fed on the

1 " Critical Miscellanies," first series. John Morley.

In a previous reign (Louis XIV.) a great minister, referring to these
classes, told the king: "Their tables and their stables consume the
patrimony of the poor, and if in the midst of their plenty they cast their
eyes on a poor wretch, they command he should be taken out of their
sight instead of taking pity on him." (Colbert.)

igS LAND REFORM

peasants' land and ate his scanty grain, was a source
of continual loss and grievance. The lord had the
exclusive right to all game ; he had unlimited rabbit
warrens, of which the peasants had to pay the cost.
The poor men, under heavy penalties, were forbidden
to touch pigeons, rabbits, or game, though they were
impoverished by them.

Worst of all was the hated corvee. The lord had
the right to compel the peasants to make roads, to
lay out and ornament his grounds, gardens, etc. This
right was enforced vigorously, even at harvest and
other times when the peasants' own land needed at-
tention. The peasants were compelled to grind their
corn in the lord's mill and to pay any price asked for
the grinding. Their bread had to be baked in the
lord's bakery, while both mill and oven had been built
by their forced labour. No wonder that the deep
hatred of the oppressors pent up for ages in the hearts
of these poor cultivators showed itself in violence and
excesses when once set free by the Revolution. But
from the peasants' point of view these excesses, and
even the horrors and brutalities of the whole Revolu-
tion, pale before those which the peasantry had en-
dured for centuries.^ Volumes have been written to
describe the excesses of the peasantry at this time,
the sufferings of high-born women and well-nurtured
children, and the burnings of stately mansions where
ease, wealth, and luxury had reigned. Our sympathies

1 A short but vivid description of the manifold character of the
oppression which the French peasantry suffered is given in " The Mean-
ing of History," by Frederic Harrison. One of the best accounts of the
general political and social state of France before the Revolution is to
be found in De Tocqueville's " L'Ancien Regime," edited by G. W.
Headlam, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1904. Books ii and iii deal with the
rural population.

OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP 199

no doubt are naturally roused on reading the painful
details of personal sufferings of this class — the landed
nobility. But their sudden change of fortune and all
their trials were brought about by the complete break-
down of a wicked system which they had relentlessly
upheld by the most cruel means and which they looked
upon as permanent. Hence it is necessary that the
other side of the picture should be shown, so that our
sympathies may be properly balanced and — what is
more important — the character of the peasantry vindi-
cated.

Carlyle describes the "general overturn" in lurid
terms: "The Traveller," he says, "walking up hill,
bridle in hand, overtakes a poor woman ; the image, as
such commonly are, of drudgery and scarcity ; looking
sixty years of age though she is not yet twenty-eight.
They have seven children, her poor drudge and she :
a farm, with one cow, which helps to make the
children soup ; also one little horse, or garron. They
have rents and quit-rents ; hens to pay to this
Seigneur ; oat-sacks to that ; King's taxes. Statute
labour, Church taxes, taxes enough ; — and think the
times inexpressible. She has heard that somewhere,
in some manner, something is to be done for the poor:
* God send it soon ; for the dues and taxes crush us
down. ..." Five full-grown millions of such gaunt
figures, with their haggard faces ; in woollen jupes,
with copper-studded leather girths and high sabots,
starting up to ask, as in forest-warnings, their washed
Upper classes, after long unreviewed centuries, virtually
this question : How have ye treated ; how have you
taught us, fed us and led us, while we toiled for you ?
The answer can be read in flames over the nightly
summer-sky. This is the feeding and leading we

200 LAND REFORM

have had of you; Emptiness of pocket, of stomach, of
head and of heart. Behold there is nothing in us,
nothing but what Nature gives her wild children of
the desert. Ferocity and Appetite; Strength grounded
on Hunger." ^

Dr. Arnold, referring to the destruction of the
feudal tyranny of the nobility and great men, writes : —

"In my opinion this blessing is enough to com-
pensate the evils of the French Revolution ; for the
good endures while the effects of the massacres and
devastations are passing away. ... I am sure that we
have too much of the oligarchical spirit in England
(both in Church and State), and that these one-eyed,
the political economists, encourage this by their lan-
guage about national wealth."^

The Revolution of 1789 did not therefore, as is so
often stated, create a peasant proprietary, which, in
fact, existed before the outbreak. What the Revolu-
tion did was, first, to free the peasant from his bonds
and then, through the provisions of the Civil Code, to
put hope into his life by securing to him the fruits of
his own industry and thrift. From that time the
career of the French tillers of the soil has been one
of increasing comfort and prosperity.

A writer who knows France well, and has closely
studied the condition of the rural population, speaks of
the " unique position of the French peasant, no other
country in the world showing his compeer. . . . From
generation to generation the rural population of
France has been materially and morally progressive.
At the present day 63 per cent of the inhabitants of

^ Carlyle's " French Revolution."

' " Life and Correspondence of Dr. Arnold," by Arthur Penrhyn
Stanley.

OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP 201

Communes numbering two thousand souls, occupy
houses of their own, etc."^

In his book on this subject, M. de Lavergne not
only gives the history of French agriculture from the
year 1789, but gives a full description of its condition
during many years before the Revolution, because he
says " it is a question before all to seek the effects of
the Revolution of 1789 on our rural economy, and it
is impossible to fairly state these effects without going
back to the causes."^

It is urged by the apologists for the English system
of agriculture that this satisfactory state of things in
France is mainly due to soil and climate. As to
climate, that of course is the same as it was when
agriculture was in the deplorable condition described
by Arthur Young ; but the climate, no doubt, enables
certain articles — such as some kinds of fruit, flowers,
and vegetables — to be produced earlier than they can
be produced in England.

With regard to the soil, the land of France, though
of much higher value on account of its intensive culti-
vation and consequent superior productiveness, is but
little, if anything, more suitable for general farming, or
for the growth of the smaller articles of food (taking
them as a whole) than is the land of this country. But,
as has been pointed out, the remarks and comparison
made apply not only to France, but to those other
countries in which a similar system prevails. The
conditions of both soil and climate in some of these —
Belgium, Holland, and Denmark, for example — are
less favourable to all-round cultivation than are those
of England. M. de Laveleye, in a letter to the present

^ " Home Life in France," Miss Betham Edwards, Methuen, 1905.
^ " Economic Rurale de la France," M. de Lavergne. 3rd edition.

202 LAND REFORM

writer, states that the soil of Flanders was originally
pure sand, and that it has been brought into its pre-
sent fertile condition by the labour and efforts of the
peasantry.

It is further argued that the progress of agriculture
in France is due to protection. But on examination
this will be found not to be the case. Protection in
France has varied very much. Up to 1853 there
were duties on a sliding scale imposed on the importa-
tion of corn ; but up to 1 849 protection existed also in
England, and high prices prevailed for several years
after its abolition.

From 1853 to 1877, the time Mr. Richardson
wrote his account of the flourishing state of agriculture
in France, imports of wheat into that country were
practically free, and continued to be so up to 1884.
In 1885 the effect of foreign imports began to be
severely felt, and the French agriculturists, who —
thanks to their system — were so largely synonymous
with the French people, determined to defend their
great industry from the ruinous effects of foreign com-
petition. In that year 5s. 2d. per quarter import duty
was put on foreign wheat. In the succeeding years
that duty was increased, till in 1894 it was fixed at
128. 2d., at which sum it has since remained.

It is curious to notice, in passing, the large extent
to which the price of wheat is governed by causes
quite apart from protection. During the eighteen
years (i 885-1 902) in which the duty on wheat im-
ported into France was from 5s. 2d. to 12s. 2d. per
quarter, the official average price in that country was
13s. per quarter less than during the previous eighteen
years, when the duty was only is. id.

Again, taking the nine years (i 894-1 902) during

OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP 203

which the higher duty of 12s. 2d. was imposed, the
official average price was 35s. 6d., or 6s. 6d. per quarter
less than during the previous nine years, when the
lower duties of 5s. 2d. to 8s. 9d. were levied.^

It is clear from the foregoing facts that the steady
improvement of agriculture in France and its com-
parative prosperity referred to (up to 1885), cannot be
ascribed to soil, climate, or protection. It can only be
accounted for by the system of cultivation which exists
there — a system based on what has been justly termed
"the omnipotent principle — the magic — of ownership."

No doubt over-sea agriculturists supply this country
with wheat a few shillings per quarter less than the
French people pay for their own home-grown pro-
duct. Our foreign loaf is therefore slightly cheaper
than their French loaf; but in a later chapter other
factors will be brought into consideration, and an
attempt will be made to show that we really pur-
chase our so-called " cheap loaf" at a ruinous cost.

The French people have not adopted the curse of
cheapness as the governing principle in their rural
economy. They look on the productive side of the
question. Instead of saving a small sum per quarter
by the purchase of foreign grain, they prefer to pay
a higher price for their own ; the difference being — so
to speak — an investment in their own land-bank which
bears a tenfold interest. They bring their own people
and their own soil together, and the result in wealth is
marvellous, not only in the form of money, but in that
of a prosperous rural population.

Their huge national debt, nearly two-thirds bigger
than that of England, is said to be more largely held

These calculations are worked out from the figures given in the
"Statistical Tables of the Board of Trade" (1903, Cd. 1761).

204 LAND REFORM

by the cultivators of the soil than by any other class
in France. Mr. Richardson states : " Within the last
twenty years fund-holders in country places have in-
creased more than tenfold." No official information
as to the proportion held by these classes at the
present time appears to be available, but in France
it is generally accepted as a fact that the peasant
proprietors own an immense part of the government
stock. The fact is continually referred to as a great
proof of the wide diffusion of wealth, and as a
guarantee for the stability of the nation.

M. Tisserand, President of the Agricultural Society
already referred to, states that the French look upon
the soil as the true source of wealth, and on agriculture
as the chief industry, " on the prosperity of which the
fortunes of the country depend." Their thriving and
numerous rural population, he adds, " is one of the
most solid pillars on which social order rests," and their
savings "constitute the financial power of France."

These statements are not flights of oratory, but are
based on sad experience. It was the rural population
that pulled the country through its darkest national
troubles. If France, when worsted in her conflict
with Germany, had had nothing but trade and com-
merce to fall back upon, ruin must have followed. It
was her multitude of thriving cultivators that enabled
her, not only to pay off so quickly the 200 millions
mulct imposed by her adversary, but, after the devasta-
tions of a great war, to recover her position and pros-
perity in such a rapid and marvellous manner.^

1 The indemnity at first demanded was 240 millions. The English
Ministry made friendly representations to the German Government as to
the excessive character of this demand, and the amount was finally
reduced to 200 millions. For particulars see Parliamentary Papers,
" Franco-German War," No. 3 (1871).

CHAPTER XV

LAND HUNGER AND PEASANT
PROPRIETARY

It is frequently stated — chiefly by those who do not
believe in peasant proprietary, or are prejudiced against
it — that there is no demand for small holdings. The
favourite phrase is "there is no land hunger" among
the people of this country.

After ages of successful efforts to squeeze the
peasantry off the land and to destroy every link that
connected them personally with the soil, there is a fine
irony in the statement that there is "no land hunger
in Enofland." It is a statement which, if true, is a sad
proof of the completeness with which the work has
been done. But it is happily not true. In all other
countries in Europe the affection for the land is
great, even among the poorest. "Our backs are
the lords'," said the Russian serfs, "but the land is
our own."

With the common people of England, no doubt
through the causes referred to, the idea of having
a personal share in the soil has very nearly died out.
But if a way back were offered on practical and easy
conditions, the "land hunger " now latent would be seen
to exist, not only among those who still remain on the
soil, but among thousands of the former rural popula-
tion now dwelling in the towns.

In former times the yeoman farmer, the peasant
proprietor, and the commoner, lived side by side as

205

2o6 LAND REFORM

part of a system. The farmer mainly relied on the
other two classes for the labour required on his farm.
A letter written in 1785 by one of the class of
yeomanry — so numerous at the time — illustrates a
common practice. It states : —

" I have now several cottagers at my farm whom
I have constantly employed for some years past, and
who enjoy the rights of common in the manner I have
described. These labourers I take a pleasure in
encouraging. ... I have also an advantage in it,
because I can more safely rely on the industry and in-
tegrity of such as have some degree of prosperity and
character to lose, and who have some distant prospect
some time or other of becoming farmers themselves,
than the poor devil who is destitute of every kind
of property and whose only hope is to be able to work
and gain a subsistence from day to day as a slave as
long as he lives." ^

In later times, however, the farmer, being himself
reduced to a tenant and pressed by his necessities,
objected to the labourer owning land, but wanted all
his time and energy in return for a weekly wage.
The territorial classes, whatever may be said to the
contrary, as far as action goes, retain the same objec-
tion to the present day. This is shown by the luke-
warm manner in which legislative proposals for giving
land to the men are always met. The Allotment
Bill received scant support, and had been some years
before the House before it became law in 1887. It
required seven years of effort before the Small Hold-
ings Act of 1892 was passed. The objection referred
to is markedly shown by the manner in which this
Act has been treated by County Councils up to the

' "Observations on Enclosures of Waste Lands," 1785.

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 207

present time.^ The alleged failure of this measure is
continually quoted in support of the statement that
there is no demand for land.

The administration of the Act was placed in the
hands of County Councils, and no doubt the Govern-
ment, in doing so, intended the measure to be effective.
Lord Onslow, speaking at Glasgow, said : —

"We thought that if we placed it in the power of
the County Councils to hire land, and to create small
holdings, the result would be that there would be a
very large number of applications and a very con-
siderable increase. But if you look at the return to
Parliament you will see that what I might call the
small holdings movement, through the local authorities,
is conspicuous by its failure. I am certainly one of
those who, for many years past, have been very
desirous of seeing an increase in the number of small
holdings, both in this country and in England. I do
not think we have gone altogether the right way about
it in our well-meant endeavours to increase the number
of our small holdings." (Speech at a meeting of the
Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, 26 October, 1904.)

The County Councils — with some exceptions which
will be noticed — have practically ignored the duty
placed upon them. For the most part they have not
even appointed advisory committees to consider the

^ Under this Act County Councils are enabled to purchase land,
divide it into small holdings not exceeding fifty acres in extent, nor
exceeding £s° ^^ annual value, and to sell or let such holdings to
suitable persons who will themselves cultivate them. The purchaser is
required to pay down one-fifth of the purchase money and to pay
the balance by half-yearly instalments (including interest and sinking
fund) during a term of years not exceeding fifty. The County Council
may, if they think fit, allow one-fourth of the purchase money to remain
unpaid as a perpetual rent-charge on the holding. They may, in con-
sideration of permanent improvements made by the owner, postpone the
annual payment for any time not exceeding five years.

2o8 LAND REFORM

question, which, under the fifth clause of the Act, it
was made compulsory for them to do. The reasons
for this are not far to seek. Members of County
Councils, in the rural counties, do not in this respect
represent the agricultural labourers. They are mostly
of the territorial class — of the old quarter sessions
type. They are kindly disposed towards the labourers,
and would do what they think is good for them, but
always as labourers. They have not as yet accepted
the idea that the creation of a class of land-owning
peasants would be good for agriculture itself, as well
as for the community.

No one who knew the real labourers expected that,
on the passing of the Act, there would be a rush on
their part for the possession of land. The hope was,
that County Councils would, of their own motion,
have made inquiries into the subject as the Act
required them to do, have paid attention to petitions,
even to a single petition, as the Act enjoined, and
generally have shown a real desire to make the
measure a success.

In continental countries, measures for bettering the
position of the cultivating classes were adopted for
social, economic, and political reasons. But these
measures have always been (except in the case of
France) initiated and carried out, often under great
difficulties, by classes above those whom they were
designed to benefit. This must be the case in England,
and if schemes for repeopling the land are to be suc-
cessful, it is not enough to pass good Acts of Parlia-
ment for the benefit of the poorer classes of the rural
population, there must also be a determination to put
them into force by those whose duty it is to administer
them.

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 209

Agricultural labourers of the old type, of whom
happily there are many left — are for the most part still
under the influence of past times, when they were
regarded by their " betters " as a separate caste. They
are reserved, and often suspicious. Speak to them
about the provisions of the Small Holdings Act, and
they will listen with a quiet disbelief that anything is
really intended for their benefit in that direction.^ In
this feeling they are right ; for during the ten years
since the Act was passed — with the few exceptions to
be referred to — the measure has been practically
ignored by the authorities who were appointed to
administer it. And yet there is hardly a clergyman,
in any rural parish, who could not put his finger on
men who would make good use of a piece of land if
they had it as their own.

For the foregoing reasons the administration of
the Land Purchase Bill is placed in the hands of the
Board of Agriculture instead of those of Local Au-
thorities.

Among professional men and others of the non-
agricultural classes living in rural districts there is a
large amount of dissatisfaction, and even alarm, at the
state of things which there exists. But these feelings,
for obvious reasons, cannot in many instances be
openly expressed.

Among other communications bearing on this point,

' To quote one of many examples that could be given of this general
feeling. The writer a short time ago was speaking to a countryman
about the Act in question, and the following is the substance of the replies
he received. The man knew something of the Act. The county coun-
cillor of the district, whom he only knew by name, had never spoken about
it. "You see," said the man, "1 have managed to get a bit of land" (he
had four acres, at £s per acre), " and it is not for the like of us to make a
bother. I am only a yearly tenant, and if I had to leave the land there
would be a dozen men after it."

2IO LAND REFORM

which the present writer has received, is a letter
(7 June, 1904) from a solicitor Hving in a market
town, who has a large country practice. After ex-
pressing the pressing necessity for something to be
done for the rural districts, he says : —

" I am greatly interested in the Land Purchase Bill
now before Parliament, and I trust it will be passed.
I have no doubt that the first part of the Bill will be
largely adopted. . . . With regard to the second part
(peasant proprietary), I am sorry to say that I have no
confidence in the County Council being the advisory
committee under Clause 19. Every election of that
body must necessarily see it constituted more of men
of means — chiefly landowners (in rural districts) — and
they will, I fear, hinder every endeavour to make that
part of the Act an active force in the country. The
County Councils have each year more work to do,
and few but men of independent means can afford
to serve. They will soon cease to be representative.
. . . Excuse my going into all these details, but I feel
very strongly on the matter, and I only wish it were
enacted that no man should be capable of holding
in England more than 2000 acres of land other than
moorland or woodland."

It must also be admitted that there are difficul-
ties in the way of the administration of a peasant
proprietary Act by County Councils — difficulties
which would not affect a central authority. Numer-
ous applications are received from one, two, or
more persons in a locality for land, sometimes for
specified plots suitable to them as regards quality and
situation. But it is difficult for County Councils to
meet the requirements contained in these separate
applications. On the other hand, to purchase an
estate and divide it into small holdings, in the hope

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 211

that they will be taken up, is regarded by most
County Councils as a land speculation on which — out
of regard for the rates — they are not warranted to
enter.

This view of the case is put in a very clear and
practical manner by the Clerk to the East Sussex
County Council. He states : —

"The Small Holdings Act of 1892 contemplates
that a tract of agricultural land, suitable for small
holdings of from one to fifty acres, should be pur-
chased, placed on the Land Registry, divided into
lots, and disposed of at such prices as will recoup the
cost of purchase and adaptation. There are, prob-
ably, not many places where there is such an unsatis-
fied demand for small holdings, and where at the same
time there are estates in the market on such terms,
that the Council may with anything like safety pur-
chase an estate in reliance upon being able to part
with all the plots at cost prices, and therefore it is
scarcely surprising that the Act has not been much
resorted to."

He goes on to say that, unless purchasers for the
holdings can be secured in advance, the proceeding
contains an element of risk to which guardians of the
county rates are naturally slow to resort.

Reports of some of the County Councils show that
there is a g-enuine demand for land. In a memo-
randum of the Warwickshire County Council it is
stated : —

" The bulk of the petitioners were men who were
doing well with their allotments. . . . Some of the
more energetic of them desired, and would be able to
manage, large holdings. All the labourers contem-
plated ploughing the land and consuming the produce,

212 LAND REFORM

keeping pigs chiefly for manure-making purposes.
The demand for more allotment land has considerably
increased, owing to the agricultural depression, which
has seriously curtailed the employment of labour, and
has left the men with time on their hands, which
might profitably be employed in cultivating more land
on their own account."

All this goes to show that, while a local authority
is the best agency for supplying local demands for
small allotments, the provision of small holdings for
the creation of a peasant proprietary is a national
concern, which can best be carried out by a central
authority having funds at its command for that special
purpose.

The large portion — 20 per cent — of the purchase-
money required to be paid in a lump sum, neces-
sarily prevents poor men from buying a holding,
however suitable they may be as cultivators. Much
of the land, therefore, bought by County Councils
has been let instead of sold. This is the next best
thing to purchase, because a man renting under a
local authority is in quite a different position from
one renting under a private owner. The rent he pays
is, as a rule, a fair one, and is not likely to be raised
on his own improvements. Moreover, his tenure is
a fairly secure one so long as he cultivates the land
and pays his rent.

Taking into consideration all these adverse cir-
cumstances, the Small Holdings Act cannot fairly be
described as a failure. Up to the end of 1902,
eight County Councils in England and Wales had
put the Act into operation.^ They had, at that date,
acquired a total area of 569 acres of land for the

* See Parliamentary Paper No. 192, Session 1903.

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 213

purpose of small holdings. This is not a large result
from an Act which has been in existence ten years,
but it is sufficient to show what can be done under
it, and that it is a workable measure. It will also
be found, on examination, that it has been successful
in the places where men of the non-territorial class
have been on the Councils, men free from prejudice
and who, from social and political considerations, have
taken a wide view of the question.

This was the case in Worcestershire, where the
County Council have put the Act in force with un-
qualified success. Mr. Willis Bund (barrister-at-law),
Chairman of the County Council, took the wise and
public-spirited view that as Parliament had placed the
administration of the Act in the hands of local authori-
ties, it was the bounden duty of those authorities to
carry it out to the best of their ability ; and there is
no doubt that his view had great influence with the
Council. It was two members of the Council — Mr.
E. J. Bigwood and Mr. Frank Smith, both members of
firms of estate agents and auctioneers in Birmingham
— who suggested and pushed forward the purchase of
the land for the purpose of small holdings.^

It may safely be said, therefore, that but for the
presence of this class of men on the County Council,
the experiment of creating a peasant proprietary in
Worcestershire — if tried at all — would not have been
carried out with the same vigour and — what is all-
important — with the same personal belief in the prin-
ciple it contained.

* See " County Council Times," December, 1904. Mr. Frank Smith
is chairman of the Small Holdings Committee of the County Council, and
was for many years hon. secretary of the Rural Labourers' League, the
object of which is to promote all measures for the improvement of rural
life.

214 LAND REFORM

There can be no doubt that an Act which has been
so successful in one county could, if the same means
and the same spirit were adopted, be carried out with
equal success in other counties.

Some particulars of this small colony of peasant
proprietors are worthy of being noticed.^

On the passing of the Small Holdings Act of 1892
the Worcester County Council — mainly through the
influence of the members of the Council referred to —
bought the " Woodrow Farm," which is close to the
village of Catshill, in the parish of North Bromsgrove,
and about twelve miles from Birmingham. The farm
contains about 146 acres, and the purchase-price was
;^33 per acre, including the timber. The Council divi-
ded the land into thirty-two small holdings, ranging in
size from just over three acres to about nine. The
expense of dividing the land by fences, etc., amounting
to £28"/, was duly apportioned among the holdings.
There were numerous applicants for the plots, and
the Small Holdings Committee of the Council were
enabled to select suitable men. Some of the appli-
cants were men who had left the locality through
want of employment, but desired to come back when
there was a prospect of getting land to cultivate. The
selling price of each holding was settled, and the
purchaser was required to pay down one-fifth of the
amount. The sale was then completed, and the pur-
chaser became the registered freeholder of the land,
subject to the payment of an annual instalment for
a certain number of years.

^ The present writer is indebted to the courtesy of Mr. S. Thornely,
Clerk to the County Council, for photographs, together with the inform-
ation respecting the financial business arrangements connected with the
undertaking. Other particulars given are the result of repeated visits to
the colony, and of personal knowledge of the men.

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 215

It was found that some of the men, though very
suitable for the work, were not able to pay down
the required one-fifth of the purchase-money. To
meet these cases the Small Holdings Committee very
wisely allowed an extension of time — two or three
years — during which the fifth had to be paid. When
it was paid the purchase was completed and the land
legally transferred.

The terms of repayment are based on a 4 per cent
rate of interest, and the instalments, to be collected
half-yearly, are fixed at such an amount, including
interest and sinking fund, as will pay back the whole
of the money advanced by the County Council in
forty years.

Though the village of Catshill is hard by, it was
found that cottages on the estate were in many cases
necessary for the comfort of the men and their families.
But in the Act there are difficulties in the way of
providing cottages.^ But the Committee overcame
these difficulties, and the County Council finally
decided not to build themselves, but to advance three-
fourths of the cost of a cottage and outbuildings,
provided that the remaining fourth were paid by the
holder and that the plans were approved by the county
surveyor and the medical officer of health.

The amount of the instalments, interest (4 per cent),
and sinking fund, is so calculated that the advances
for the cottages — regardless of the time they were
built — shall be all repaid at the same date as the
repayments for the land are completed. Up to the
present time nine cottages have been built, which,

' By an amending Bill now before Parliament — if passed — the above
difficulties would be removed. Local authorities would be able, if they
thought fit, to advance to suitable men the whole uf the purchase-money.

2i6 LAND REFORM

with the land around them, form comfortable and
attractive little homesteads.

Mr. S. Thornely (clerk to the County Council), re-
ferring to these buildings, states : —

" Very good houses, consisting of a good kitchen
and living-room, with back kitchen and larder and
three good bedrooms, with necessary outbuildings,
including stable, tool-house, copper for boiling pig
food, and generally two pigsties, have been erected,
and the contracted price has averaged ;f 286, excluding
hauling."*

The men engage their own architects and, no doubt,
examine the contracts and watch the progress of the
building of their own homes. This in itself is a useful
training in business affairs. The advisers of the
County Council seem to be careful men, and to have
taken ample precautions that the ratepayers should
not lose by "land speculation." The interest charged
and the amount of instalments are, in the words of
Mr. Thornely, "worked out with a view to leave a
fair profit to the county ratepayers."

It may be stated, roughly, that the men pay, on an
average, ^40 per acre for the land — exclusive of the
buildings — and that their annual payments (reckoning
4 per cent on the fifth paid down) are about £2 per
acre.

These are full prices for land that was, when
bought, of an indifferent, if not a poor quality. But
the annual payment per acre is much less than the
men would have to pay as tenants under private
persons, besides which, they are owners of the soil,
and at the end of forty years all payments will cease.

^ See " County Council Times," December, 1904. Article by Mr.
Thornely.

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 217

It is evident, however, that the Board of Agricul-
ture, basing their charges on 2f per cent, instead of
4 per cent, could supply land at a much lower cost
than local authorities (for the reasons given) are able
or disposed to do. But, after some years' experience
of the experiment, the clerk of the County Council is
able to say : —

"Hitherto it has been an all-round success, and
there are no arrears whatever in the payment of the
half-yearly instalments. . . . The men are thrifty,
sober, and industrious as a class, and the women are,
if anything, better than the men." ^

This is not the only effort which the Worcester
local authorities have made to retain working'-men
on the land. Some years ago the North Bromsgrove
Urban District Council, of which Mr. Frank Smith is
a member, acting under the Allotments Act, 1887,
acquired a field of forty-three acres (the Horse Course).
This field, which adjoins the Woodrow Farm above re-
ferred to, was divided into allotments of from a quarter
of an acre to one acre each, which were let at reasonable
rents. Several of the tenants, who subsequently be-
came peasant proprietors on the Woodrow Farm, were
enabled to pay down the required fifth of the purchase
price by money made (in addition to other earnings)
out of these allotments. The allotment was, in fact,
a stepping-stone to the larger holding. Further,
some land, situate in Perryfields, consisting of forty-
seven acres, had for some years been let on lease as
allotments by a private owner. These fields were
recently offered for sale, and the men, fearing that

' One of the holders has already repaid the County Council the whole
of the money advanced, although forty years is the time allowed for re-
payment.

2i8 LAND REFORM

by a change of ownership they would lose the land,
applied to the County Council to secure it for them.
The Council thereupon bought the land, at a cost of
;^3000, and when the lease has expired — in two or
three years — it will be sold to applicants under the
provisions of the Small Holdings Act, 1892. About
ten years ago, in another part of the county, the
Council took, on a lease of twenty-one years, forty-
eight acres of glebe land, which they have also let in
allotments.

But the benefits conferred on the peasants and
others at Catshill are not confined to them. They
extend to the shopkeepers, manufacturers, and others.
Take a homely illustration of the process. These
men before they were placed on the land came into a
town — say to Birmingham — to seek employment. The
reply of employers to their applications was : " We
don't want your labour ; we have no vacancies."
These same men now come into the same locality,
and their application is in a different form. " You did
not want our labour. Do you want our produce —
fruit, vegetables, flowers, etc.."*" The reply now is,
" Yes, we did not want your labour, but we are in daily
need of your produce, and will take as much as you
can bring," ^

To carry on the illustration, the men receive the
money for their produce, but do not put it into a
stocking. They straightway lay out most of it in
clothes, boots, groceries, spades, implements, and such
other requirements as their new position makes neces-
sary. Their horses have to be shod, carts and harness

* Of course, the men do not always sell direct to the consumer, but
to the middle-man or the retail dealer. This, however, does not affect
the principle of the illustration.

K

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 219

made and mended, and in some cases small luxuries,
and house and family adornments, are indulged in, and
as a consequence the tradesman, shopkeeper, and
manufacturer are directly benefited.

This is no fancy picture. Catshill is a place where the
decayed industry of nail-making was once carried on.
The men sought employment in the manner described,
and they were for a long time in a state of extreme
poverty for want of it. The present writer has for
years past known the locality and the decaying condi-
tion of the trade in it. He now knows personally
many of those who belong to the colony. They are
a fine lot of men, such as we want more of. They
work hard, some of them very hard, but they are inde-
pendent, well housed, have plenty of food, with good
digestions, and their minds are healthily occupied in
planning further improvements on their little freeholds.
Recently they have taken to flower-growing. At his
last visit the writer saw heaps of chrysanthemums tied
in bunches by the women and children ready for a very
early start in the morning for the market towns.

Further, the labour question is here being solved.
Instead of the distress and charges on the poor-rate,
which previously existed, there is not, at the present
time, the writer is informed, an able-bodied pauper in
the whole parish, while the rateable value of the land
is considerably increased. Formerly this Woodrow
Farm was occupied, with small success, by a single
tenant, and very few labourers employed. Now there
is on it a colony of families. One of these small
holders, who has bought additional land outside the
estate (but altogether under thirty acres), received
in a single year ;^6oo for produce raised on his
holdings. In the same year he paid ^^240 for labour,

220 LAND REFORM

in addition to that of his own family. There is no
mystery about this great yield of produce. It has
ever been the result, both in ancient and modern
times, of that intensive cultivation and heavy manuring
of the land almost invariably found in connection with
small farming and peasant proprietary.^

The men of this colony, with their own horses and
carts, draw manure from the towns, and the quantity
they place on their land is enormous. In a single year,
it is stated, above 500 tons were placed on the 43 acres
of allotments referred to (the Horse Course), and far
more in proportion on a six-acre holding on the
Woodrow Farm.

There is another feature connected with occupying
ownership which the political economist does not
reckon because it has no money value. Every man's
happiness in life depends largely on the interest and
pleasure he takes in his occupation. Nothing can
exceed the satisfaction a peasant proprietor gets from
his work. It is a pleasure to him to toil heavily in
order to make his holding — his own homestead — a
success.

It is evident that the 5 per cent duty which Mr.
Chamberlain proposes to levy on the imports of

^ "C. Furius Chrisimus, a freedman, gathered from a very small
farm far larger harvests than his neighbours reaped off large estates, and
so became an object of great ill-will, on the ground that he was attracting
their crops on to his land by witchcraft. W^hereupon he was cited for
trial before the Curule Aedile. When the time came for him to come up
for sentence, he brought his rustic implements into the Forum, leading in
with them his strong, healthy household, well cared for and clad, his
iron work excellently made, etc. Then he said : ' My sorceries, Romans,
are these, and yet I cannot display before you or bring into the Forum
my early watchings, vigils, and the sweat of my brow.' Whereupon he
was acquitted. For of a truth, cultivation depends on the amount of
work put into it."— Pliny, "Natural History," Book XVIII, Chap, vii,

VIII.

WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

LAND AT CATSHILL divideid into SMALL HOLDINGS

UNDER THE SMALL HOLDINGS ACT 1892.

To Halesou

From BrotTLSgrove

Front bfoinsgrove

From bromsgroue

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 221

foreign produce would be of great benefit to small
proprietors. This is not the place to discuss the
question whether an import duty falls on the foreign
importer or the home consumer, but in any case the
foreigner would have to pay a toll — which he ought to
pay — for access to our markets, which are at present
open to him free of all charge.

And here, at the risk of repetition, we must again
remind the reader that these small holders are not
competing with one another for a limited trade. Men
in the labour market — at the dock gates or elsewhere
— are waiting and strivino' to gfet some of the limited
number of jobs to be had. But the peasant proprietor
competes with none except the foreigner who is in the
same line. Looking at the demand, the supply from
Catshill is but as a drop in the bucket. Were there
some hundreds of colonies of small proprietors, in
different parts of the country, they could supply but a
small portion, comparatively, of those smaller articles
of food which are now obtained from abroad.

To further illustrate the "land hunger" which exists
in this country, the operations of the Small Hold-
ings Association may be quoted. This Association
was formed in 1902 and then bought an estate in
Surrey — the Cudworth Estate — comprising 376 acres.
The land was divided into holdings varying from three
to twenty-five acres, and cottages were built on many
of them. These holdings were offered for sale on such
terms as were calculated to yield a reasonable profit
on the whole outlay. The undertaking being worked
on commercial lines, the terms offered, both as to
price and repayment, were of course less favourable
than those contained in the second part of the Land
Purchase Bill.

222 LAND REFORM

The purchaser was required to pay down lo per
cent of the purchase-money, the balance with interest
to be repaid in twenty half-yearly instalments. Never-
theless, the directors, in answer to their advertisement,
received applications from 1200 persons, from whom
they selected twenty-five, the number then required.
At the end of last year all the land had been sold
with the exception of seventy-eight acres, fifteen acres
of which are wood and six acres retained for the
manor house. Sixteen cottages up to that time had
been built. ^

This experiment appears to be very promising, but
it is, as yet, too young to show how it will finally
succeed. It can hardly be expected that it will be so
successful — from a money point of view — as similar
experiments carried on on the more favourable terms
the State can offer. It is mentioned here mainly to
show the great demand which exists for ownerships of
small holdings of land.

It must be remembered that though such a vast
number of people have been driven from our country-
sides, they, or their sons or sons' sons, still exist in
the large centres of industry. Many of them have
acquired small means and — tired of the competition
and grind of town life — would willingly go back to
the land if the opportunities referred to were offered
to them.^

' The directors are Mr. James Tomkinson, M.P. (chairman), Mr. John
Spear, M.P., Mr. S. R. Whitley, and Mr. James Long. Mr. Long, whose
personal knowledge of small cultivation at home and in most continental
countries is probably unsurpassed, is the managing director.

- The mere report of the introduction of the Bill has brought numer-
ous inquiries from men of different classes, such as hauliers, small cab
proprietors, coachmen, gardeners, caretakers, etc., all of them brought
up on the land. These men have a knowledge of cultivation, they pos-
sess a little money, and would gladly return to country life on the condi-

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 223

Besides the labourers there are tradesmen, and
those with partial occupation, in our villages and small
country towns who would gladly become owners
under the terms named, and would be among the
best of cultivators.^

In short, the statement that there is no "land
hunger" in England is happily not borne out by facts.
If a government were to adopt — not in a perfunctory
manner, but as a national policy — measures for a
systematic supply of small holdings in different
districts, the demand (the land hunger) which exists
would be speedily revealed. In this way alone, grad-
ually, can that desirable element in our social life, a
peasant proprietary, be restored.

In the meantime, individual support given to any
movement (Garden Cities, Small Holdings Associa-
tions, or any other agency) which has for its object
to place families permanently on the soil, is a patriotic
act. A contribution to this object is of tenfold more
value than that given to many forms of relief of

tions named. Many of these applications are most interesting and con-
tain particulars which show their genuine character.

About twelve years ago a small company of three or four men hired
from Lord Carrington 650 acres of land in Lincolnshire on a 21 years'
lease, at a rental of ;^ioi8 a year. The company, of which Mr. R. Winfrey
is the chairman and leading member, divided the land into small holdings.
There was not only a demand, but an actual craving for the land on the
part of the labourers in the district. The holdings were all taken up, and
the men are doing well. The supply of land on fair terms, in this case
as it has done in other cases, disclosed the great demand that existed.
For particulars see "The Creation of Small Holdings in Lincolnshire
and Norfolk," by J. H. Diggle (Foster and Bird, King's Lynn).

' On the occasion of a visit of the present writer to a small place in
Gloucestershire a man spoke to him on this point. He said : " I am a
wheelwright, and trade is bad with me. One of my two sons has just
left for Gloucester to seek work. Had I a small holding of my own I
could have kept my family together. We could have filled up spare time
on the land and done very comfortably."

224 LAND REFORM

poverty. The one is too often a mere palliative, if not
an evil ; the other goes to the root of the distress.

There is another aspect of the question which, from
a social point of view especially, is well worthy of
consideration. Young women of the middle and of
what are called the " leisured " classes, have of late
years shown a praiseworthy desire to enter on a
career of their own in which they can be self-depen-
dent. With that aim they undertake literary, clerical,
commercial, and other work. Many of them are now
found in agricultural schools and colleges, qualifying
themselves by scientific and practical training to be-
come agriculturists. There is, in fact, a new profession
being created for women. This is very satisfactory,
for no calling can be more attractive, healthy, or
profitable than that of horticulture and the lighter
branches of agriculture. Women are well suited for
dairy work, for poultry- and bee-keeping, for fruit- and
flower-growing, and market gardening.

In a report of one of the agricultural schools, it is
stated that many of these girl-students had secured
" eood situations in connection with the home farms
of the nobility and gentry."^ But to fill situations is

* For particulars of the after-careers of young women who have
received practical training in agricultural subjects, see " Report of the
Horticultural College, Swanley," Kent, 1904.

Speaking of the work done at the Studley Castle College, Warwick-
shire, Lady Warwick said : " The record of past students since the
foundation in 1898 showed that of the total of the fully trained students
who had passed through the hostel, 50 per cent were earning their own
livelihood." ("The Woman's Agricultural Times," No. 3, 1905.)

Lady Warwick writes : " The many posts on our books waiting to be
filled by trained women prove that there is an outlet for educated women
in a life which to many accustomed to country surroundings is more
congenial than that in cities as clerks, typists, and teachers. ... A girl
can with proper training lead a sound healthy life, and make at least
enough money to live upon and keep a home for herself." ("Times,"
II September, 1905.)

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 225

not sufficient. By a system of small ownerships a
way would be opened up for women to carry on these
industries on their own account. Only a small capital
would be required for the purpose, there would be
small risk, while a home and a sound country life
would be secured. A large number of educated
women, settling on the land for a career, would form
a valuable social element in our rural life. The de-
mand for the produce of holdings large and small,
which could be managed by women, is practically un-
limited. Fruit and vegetables we import annually to
the value of about five millions sterling ; cheese above
seven millions. England, fitted by nature to be per-
haps the best butter-producing country in Europe,
pays to the foreigner the enormous sum of above
twenty million sterling each year for butter, half of
which comes from that country of small holders,
Denmark — a country only about half the size, and
with about half the population, of Ireland.

In poultry-farming — an occupation suitable for
women — there is almost an unbounded scope. In
1904 we imported poultry to the value of upwards of
one million sterling, and of eggs nearly seven millions.

It is difficult to grasp the extent of an industry when
expressed by such large sums. It might be realized
somewhat by a statement of the fact that our average
daily imports of eggs throughout the year (Sundays
included) are about six and a half millions in number.
When we remember that during some months in the
year English new-laid eggs realize in our cities as
much as two shillings per dozen, and that the prices
of poultry are fairly good, it seems evident that this
industry, if carried on in an improved and a scientific
Q

226 LAND REFORM

manner, could be made a profitable one, and certainly
it is one capable of almost indefinite extension/

The cultivation of tomatoes, which we import to
the value of above one million sterling per annum, is
also suitable for women. The same may also be said
with regard to the keeping and rearing of rabbits, the
annual imports of which are valued at more than three-
quarters of a million pounds.^

^ The average price of eggs throughout the year 1904 in the whole of
Ireland was 6s. 7^d. per great hundred (120). "Agricultural Statistics,"
Ireland, Cd. 2598, 1905.

2 An experienced agriculturist writes : " In my opinion the idea of
work (by women) on the farm being degrading is a bit of foolish senti-
mentality. . . . There is a good deal of light work on an allotment, and
even a woman who has two or three children can often find an hour or
two for weeding or gathering crops and benefit her health by outdoor
exercise. ... I do not hesitate to say that the success of the small hold-
ing system will be to a great extent dependent upon the co-operation of
labourers' wives and families." ("A Study of Small Holdings," by W. E.
Bear.) In connection with this point an interesting incident happened
during the visit of the British Dairy Farmers' Association to France in
1903. On visiting a creamery in the Department of Eure, a woman was
seen working in an adjoining field with a harrow and a fine pair of horses.
I was asked by the farmers present, " Would you like to see English
women toiling on the land in this way?" I rephed, "Let us make in-
quiries into the case." We found that the woman, a widow, was tilling
her own land (20 acres). The horses and implements were her own, as
well as the house she lived in. She was strong, healthy, and intelligent,
and evidently a good cultivator. We learnt from the manager of the
creamery that she was well-to-do, and had money in the funds. I then
answered the farmers' question to the effect that I wished we had many
in England working on the land under these conditions, instead of toiling
for wages in factories and workshops, to which many of the farmers
assented. These visits to other countries by practical men are the best
means of overcoming insular prejudices. An excursion of the same
Association was made in a previous year to Switzerland. During the
journey, peasant proprietary, " three acres and a cow," etc., were the
subjects of hostile criticism and much merriment. At the end of a week's
sojourn in the country a farmer, who farmed in England above iioo
acres, expressed to me his astonishment at what he had seen, and wound
up by saying, " I have come to the conclusion that I will never again
say a word against peasant proprietary."

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 227

It is a well-worn argument that the foreign peasant
proprietor succeeds because he is more thrifty and
fruo^al than our own labourers. But his thrift and
frugality are the result, not the cause, of his position.
Adam Smith remarks : " A person who can acquire no
property can have no other interest but to eat as much,
and to labour as little, as possible."

No doubt the continental peasant has a rooted habit
of thrift, which too often degenerates into the vice of
avarice. For the sake of adding to his savings he
very often practises an extreme penuriousness and
self-denial. The dilapidated condition of his working-
dress, with that of his family, is too often taken by the
casual traveller as a sign of poverty and want, which
it is not.

This superficial view is one of the causes of the
misunderstanding which, to a large extent, exists in
this country as to the condition of the peasantry on
the Continent. The present writer has, on some
occasions, accompanied these ill-clad peasants to their
homes, where a different state of things was found.
On Sundays and fete-days these same people appear
in their holiday clothes, the men in ill-fitting but sub-
stantial suits, and the women — in some parts of
Europe — in their picturesque native costumes, with
head-gear of silver ornaments, etc.

A few years ago he watched the proceedings in a
well-attended market in a small town in Switzerland.
Among the notes made on the spot he finds the
following: "These shabby -looking peasants are
buying and selling cows, sheep, goats, pigs, etc. etc.
When paying for their purchases they produce old,
well-worn pocket-books with rolls of bank-notes, and
shabby purses well filled with cash. This shows the

228 LAND REFORM

substantial position of men whom a casual observer
would pronounce to be not worth a penny."

On this aspect of the question John Stuart Mill
("Political Economy") states: "It (peasant proprie-
tary) is no less propitious to the moral virtue of
prudence, temperance, and self-control. Day labourers,
where the labouring class mainly consist of them, are
usually improvident. They spend carelessly to the full
extent of their means and let the future shift for itself.
. . . The tendency of peasant proprietors is to the
contrary extreme ; to take even too much thought for
to-morrow."

The late Lord Wantage, whose opinions on another
point have been already quoted, in his evidence before
the Small Holdings Committee, 1889, strongly advo-
cated "a large extension of freehold small holdings."
Even from an economic point of view he contended
they were good, because they yielded produce much
larger, and in some cases twice as much as that got
from large farms. But besides the economic, he
gave his opinion that "there were strong political
reasons why efforts should be made to multiply the
owners of land." In reply to Question 1834 he
said : —

" I may remind you of what M. Thiers said about
small holders. He said that ' every acre of land in
the hands of a small holder furnishes a musket for the
protection of property.' That was M. Thiers' view of
the advantages of small holders as you get them in
France. There is no more staunch and conservative
set of men than the present farmers of France, and I
have no doubt they have saved the country frequently,"

The evidence of Mr. Elias Squarey before the same
Committee is very valuable, not only on account of his

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 229

general experience, but of his close personal knowledge
of the class at present existing in considerable numbers
in the south of England. They were, he said, indus-
trious and flourishing men who passed through agri-
cultural depression better than the larger farmers did,
and, he added, *' they were good for every one." Mr.
Squarey, however, was not in favour of the creation
of this class by means of State aid, but his objection
was one of principle only. He told the Committee
that he would be happy to "see any experiment result
successfully," and said: "I should like to see the
creation of a million small holdinors in Enorland."

But it is hopeless to expect that, under our present
system of land tenure, there can be any considerable
increase in the number of peasant proprietors except
by the means of State aid. In cases where men hold
a few acres of land as tenants — and there are large
numbers who do — their rents are very heavy as com-
pared with those paid by large farmers. These high
rents can only be paid by extra produce got off the
soil through the untiring industry of the cultivators.
The men are, in fact, working for rent. There may be
cases where such men — under special circumstances —
are charged farmers' rents, plus any outlay made by
the owner, but the present writer, during a long ex-
perience, has found that, as a rule, these small holders
pay from twice to four times as much as the large
farmer pays, and in some cases still more. Some
time ago he visited two small holdings in a midland
county. One of them, about six acres, was rented by
two men at five pounds per acre. It was exceedingly
well cultivated, bearing crops of beans, peas, potatoes,
winter onions, and cabbages. As a contrast, on the
other side of the road, there was a field (part of a farm)

230 LAND REFORM

about twice the size, which was in a most foul con-
dition, beinor covered with thistles and other rubbish.
Now, supposing that the farmer paid one pound per
acre rent, and that he and the small holder each grew
one acre, say, of peas, the latter would be handicapped
to the extent of four pounds for a single acre, which is
a profit in itself. The other case was that of a man
who held three acres at three pounds per acre, while
a large farm practically adjoining was let at seven-
and-sixpence per acre. So that the small man in this
case was charged eight times the rent the farmer
paid.

The " land hungrer " must indeed be orreat to induce
men to pay such large rents and to think themselves
fortunate in being able to get land at all. No doubt
the six acres the two men rented at five pounds per
acre were worth five times as much per acre as the
adjoining field. But it was the industry and skill of
the men that made it so, and the question naturally
arises, Why should their industry and skill be taxed to
the extent of ^^24 per annum? The position is best
illustrated by thus stating individual cases, provided
that the cases are not solitary ones, but are representa-
tive of a large class which exists.

In any scheme for the re-creation of a peasant
proprietary such men as these should be sought out
and encouraged in every way. They should be dealt
with in the same spirit as recruiting and other means
of national defence are dealt with, not altogether for
the benefit of the men themselves, but for the good
and safety of the country. Were these cultivators
thus looked upon and their children properly educated
and had prospects connected with the soil provided
for them, there can be little doubt that migration to

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 231

the towns would cease and the current of migration
would be turned the other way.

Schemes for emigrating men and for placing them
on the land at a cost of ^300 per family are looked
upon with favour, but schemes for helping these quiet,
unobtrusive self-helpers receive scant attention.

Denmark is frequently quoted as an example of
what might be done in England in the way of small
cultivation, co-operation, etc. But it is impossible
to do in England what is carried out successfully in
Denmark, because the two systems are totally different.
In Denmark every encouragement and assistance is
given to small holders. Consolidation of holdings
into large farms is forbidden by law. A little under
5 per cent of the whole annual revenue of the country
is devoted to the improvement of agriculture. If the
same proportion of the annual revenue of the United
Kingdom were used for the same purpose, about seven
millions sterling would be placed at the disposal of the
Board of Agriculture, instead of the poor sum of about
^136,000.

Those who wish to see what can be done in the
way of intensive culture by small holders should visit
the Channel Islands and examine the farms there.
The islands are only seventy-five square miles in
area, but had a population at the last census of nearly
100,000 persons, being far more thickly populated
than any other country in Europe. The people are
prosperous, and their prosperity arises almost wholly
from the superior yield of the soil. From notes
taken on the spot a few years ago a typical Channel
Island farmer may be thus described : —

«' Mr. is a hale, cheery-looking man. His house

is a good one and comfortably furnished. In one

232 LAND REFORM

of the two sitting-rooms there is to be noticed an
ample supply of books. The farm is one of forty-five
acres, which is above the average size. The farmer
dresses as an ordinary labourer, works on the land,
and is assisted by his wife, son, and one hired man.
He has twenty-five head of stock and three horses.
He manures the land heavily, using large quantities
of seaweed, besides stable and artificial manure. Cow-
houses and outbuildings are plain and good, and great
care is taken of the liquid manure, which is all drawn
into a large tank underground, from which it is pumped
up as required. The cows when in the field are
tethered. This makes extra work, as they have to
be shifted two or three times a day ; but it is economi-
cal, as it prevents trampling down the grass and
obliges the cattle to eat the inferior grass as well
as the best, etc. Peasant proprietors here, as else-
where, know the meaning of the old Spanish proverb
that ' a cow has five mouths.' "

During a visit of the British Dairy Farmers' Asso-
ciation to the Channel Islands in May, 1905, an
address was given before the Association by Mr.
Collenette on the subject of cultivation in Guernsey.
In this interesting paper it is stated that the land
in the island capable of cultivation is less than twelve
thousand acres ; that this acreage is cultivated by
eighteen hundred persons, the average size of the
holdinors being- about six and a half acres. If the
average were equal to the average size of farms in
England, then the whole of the island would be in the
hands of about 200 farmers instead of 1800.

The high price of land is stated as a proof of the
success of agriculture in Guernsey. Inferior land is
worth £So per acre, and good farm land ;^ioo to

PEASANT PROPRIETARY 233

^150. The yield per acre of all produce is larger —
in some cases very much larger — than in England.
This is accounted for by the intensity of the culture
of the soil of Guernsey. After giving due weight to
the small difference in climate and to other considera-
tions, Mr. Collenette sums up his very exhaustive
treatment of the subject by saying : —

"The real reasons of Guernsey's success are to be
found in the smallness of the holdings and the energy
of the men."^

Taking the opinions of the most eminent writers in
every country on the subject, and the actual experience
and results of the different systems of cultivation
throughout the world, it is clear that if peasant farm-
ing is again to have sway in the rural economy of
England, it must be based on ownership. As Adam
Smith puts it: "A small proprietor, however, who
knows every part of his little territory, who views it
with all the affection which property, especially small
property, naturally inspires, and who upon that account
takes pleasure not only in cultivating but in adorning
it, is generally of all improvers the most industrious,
the most intelliorent, and the most successful." —
"Wealth of Nations " (Vol. II, p. 137, nth edition,
1805).

' These and other notes were taken at the meeting, but the whole
address, which is a lengthy one, is now printed and published in
pamphlet form — " Agriculture and Horticulture," by A. Collenette,
Consulting Agricultural Chemist. (Fredk. Clarke, Guernsey.)

CHAPTER XVI

RISKS TO THE STATE AND OTHER
OBJECTIONS

Having described the provisions of the two parts of
the Land Purchase Bill (Occupying Ownership and
Peasant Proprietary), it becomes necessary to see how
the provisions of the Bill, if put into operation, would
affect, not only the parties immediately concerned, but
the interests of the general community, and also to
consider some of the objections to the measure which
have been put forward.

It has recently been stated by a prominent member
of the present Ministry that the " Land Purchase Bill
would involve too great a risk to the State for the
Government to undertake." It can hardly be expected
that this statement will be regarded as satisfactory or
final. In dealing with the question of risk there is
one consideration which claims a foremost place,
namely, the position of the country in the time of war.
If it can be shown that the probable, or even the
possible result of the operation of the Bill would be
to increase the supply of home-grown food so that it
would be sufficient, without supplies from abroad, to
feed the people even for a few months, instead of
being exhausted, as under the present system it would
be, in as many weeks, then, from the point of view of
national defence alone it would be a wise policy for
the State to take any small money risk which may be
involved in carrying out the measure.

234

RISKS TO THE STATE 235

The State has already, in the case of Ireland,
undertaken a liability for an amount at least ten times
as great as that named in the Bill. It has done this,
not for the love of any one class, but in the public
interest, with the object of securing, or attempting to
secure, contentment and prosperity in Ireland. It
would seem but fair that the Eno-lish farmer should
have at least some of the advantages and opportuni-
ties so liberally conferred on the Irish tenant. A
Parliamentary Return states that the total estimated
purchase-money of estates sold or offered for sale to
the Irish Commissioners up to 18 March, 1905, was
^19,115,830.^ In order to quicken the sales of land
to tenants Mr. Walter Long has made such liberal
terms with the Treasury as will secure that at the end
of 1906 the British Government will have advanced
23 millions sterling for the purposes of the Irish Act
of 1903.' While this is being done for Ireland we
are told that to advance the comparatively small sum
named in the Land Purchase Bill for the benefit of
English tenants "would involve too great a risk to
the State."

Of course there are risks connected with every
undertaking, and in this, as in the Irish case, whatever
risks there are will rest with the State alone. But
experience shows that these risks are infinitesimal.
The many thousands of Irish tenants who have bought
their farms under the purchase clauses of the various
Irish Land Acts, have punctually paid their instal-
ments. After many years' experience, the loss to the
State up to now has been too trifling to be taken into
account. It is not for a moment to be held that the

' "Report of the Estates Commissioners" (1905), Cd. 2471.

2 See "Times." Letter to Sir John Colonib, 9 September, 1905.

236 LAND REFORM

British farmer is less able or less honest than the
Irish.

But take the worst possibility. Suppose that adver-
sity overtakes an occupying owner, and he is obliged
to sell his farm, and that, times being bad, the price
realized is low. The farm is bought by a purchaser,
no matter how low the price, subject to payment of
the instalments, and that is all the State is concerned
with. So long as the instalments are paid, the State
receives interest for capital advanced, and the sinking
fund is operating with the effect that every year's pay-
ment diminishes the amount owing-. The debt to the
State is lessening, while the security remains the same ;
that is, a first charge on the holding till every farthing
is paid off. It is not like advancing money on com-
mercial undertakings which are liable to a failure in-
volving total loss. The security here — with a yearly
increasing margin — is on the land, and that ever
remains.

Putting aside, therefore, the Irish precedent, it is
difficult to see how the argument that the Bill "would
involve too great a risk to the State " can be fairly
maintained.

With regard to the farmer, seeing that the whole of
the purchase-money is advanced, he risks none of his
capital. Every year's instalment which he pays, in-
stead of being mere rent, goes to increase the value (to
him) of the holding, and all the improvements he may
make are his own.

It is frequently urged that the State would be a
"harsh landlord," and could not, like an ordinary
landowner, postpone the payment of a year's rent on
account of bad seasons or other valid cause.

First of all, the State, under the Bill, would neither

RISKS TO THE STATE 237

be a landlord, nor have the powers and rights of a
landlord. The State would be simply the receiver,
for a limited time, of well-secured charges. These
charges may be called quit-rents, to which a large
number of freeholds are permanently subject. But
to meet the case referred to (which ought to be met),
the Bill names no definite number of years at the end
of which the repayment of the advance must be com-
pleted. To do so would be to make it imperative that
each year's instalment should be promptly paid. The
Board of Agriculture, therefore, could, and no doubt
would, on good cause being shown — such as an excep-
tionally bad season or a special outlay on improvements
— give the required relief, and would not incur the
slightest risk in doing; so.

The English farmer has so long been in the position
of a mere tenant, that he has become more or less
accustomed to the sort of feudatory subjection which
that position necessarily involves. He has learnt too
much to see eye to eye with the landlord, to be depen-
dent on his will, and to put up with the " good under-
standing " on which, as a yearly tenant, he has mainly
to rely.

Sir James Caird, in a sentence already quoted, de-
clared some years ago that this "good understanding"
could not remain for long a sufficient protection for
the British farmer. This opinion he gave " with the
responsibility of forty years and with a general know-
ledge, both personally and officially, of the agriculture
of the United Kingdom, and of the relations between
landlord and tenant."

It is evident that a mere *' understanding" must be
unsatisfactory as regards a business in which the inter-
ests of parties are so opposed and their powers so

238 LAND REFORM

unequal that real freedom of contract cannot exist.
There are, no doubt, numerous instances of tenants-at-
will of the same family having occupied farms for
several generations ; but that does not affect the
argument. It is the possibilities of the position that
have to be taken into account.

An understanding with a good landlord who has
plenty of money might work ever so well ; but it
affords no security against change of ownership, needs
of owners, revaluation of estates, and other circum-
stances, as many ruined and half-ruined farmers in the
past have found to their cost. Of course, during
years of continued depression the farmer, to a certain
extent, can have his own way ; but we are contem-
plating better times for agriculture, and with better
times the uncertainties and drawbacks referred to
would again become operative.

The Duke of Bedford makes some pertinent re-
marks on this point. He speaks of the owner who
"had squandered or stunted his inheritance," and goes
on to say: "Great estates may endure from genera-
tion to generation, provided always that the owner is
capable and the management sound. But with the
advent of a fool or a spendthrift comes bankruptcy and
sale."^

It has been pointed out as an objection to occupy-
ing ownership that repairs now done by the landlord
would have to be done by the farmer when he became
owner of the farm. No doubt a landlord in many
cases thinks himself fortunate if, after paying for
repairs and other farm outgoings, two-thirds of the
nominal rent finds its way into his pocket. But these

^ " The Story of a Great Agricultural Estate," by the Duke of Bedford.
(Murray.)

RISKS TO THE STATE 239

farm works are on quite a different scale when carried
out by a cultivating owner. Lord Harrowby^ estimates
that for estates, in a fairly good position to start with,
at least 20 per cent must be deducted from the gross
rental for general upkeep, including expenses of agent,
fire insurance, and dilapidations. But of course the
price which a purchaser would pay would be based on
the net rental. This difference between the gross and
net rentals would be for the benefit of the purchaser,
and his yearly instalment being less than his previous
rent, a margin would exist for the purpose of the up-
keep of his holding. Substantial improvements must
be considered separately, seeing that for the outlay
on these the tenant is charged as a rule 5 per cent,
and often more.

Small repairs the cultivating owner would get done
by his own staff; larger repairs he would get done as
cheaply as possible ; structural alterations or new
structures he would have carried out to his own plan,
exactly to suit his wants, and at a minimum cost.
Moreover, the product of his outlay, little or much,
would remain his own.

The late Lord Wantage, who was an ardent advo-
cate of the principle of men owning the land they
cultivate, said, with regard to this point : "In my own
case I am certain that the buildings I put up, which
are practically little better, would cost me twice as
much as the buildings that would be put up by a small
proprietor on his own land. Then, in the event of the
slightest repairs having to be made — if, for instance, a
tile falls off or a gate gets out of order — the tenant
sends for a carpenter at five shillings a day, whereas a

' If all the outgoings of large estates were reckoned it would probably
be found that the average was much higher than Lord Harrowby's estimate.

240 LAND REFORM

man on his own land would do the repairs himself for
nothing."^

The Duke of Bedford, in the extremely instructive
book referred to, gives for the year 1895 ^^^ difference
between the nominal amount of his farm rents and the
actual receipts : —

Nominal Rents. Actual Receipts.

The Beds and Bucks ;r s. d. £ s. d

estates 29,065 09 16,131 38

The Thorney estates . 26,196 o o 17,567 17 6

^55,261 o 9 ;^33,699 I 2

The following statement is added, which presum-
ably refers to the time of writing (1897) : " So far as
the Bedfordshire and Bucks estates are concerned, the
reduced rental is not now sufficient to meet the neces-
sary outgoings. . . . There is no net rent which can
reach my pocket."

The details given show only this — that a man with
other sources of income is enabled to carry out his
ideas of liberality, benevolence, and charity in the
management of his large estates. But only a few land-
lords, even if they had the will, can afford to act in a
like manner. Such management, moreover, is not in
accordance with business principles, and is not applic-
able, and ought not to be applicable, to the conduct of
what is by far the largest industry in the kingdom.

The Duke rightly complains of the ever-increasing
burdens imposed on the land, and especially of the

^ Evidence before the Select Committee on Small Holdings, 1889.

The writer has, on occasions, noted a proprietor on the Continent
doing things on his homestead which the tenant-farmer in England has
no inducement to do and would never dream of doing. The latter has
not that feeling of ownership which leads a man not only to improve, but
often to embellish, his home and surroundings.

RISKS TO THE STATE 241

increased rating that immediately follows any enter-
prise which results in improved production.^ He
hardly speaks too strongly when he says that both
local and imperial authorities " worry the land as
though its very presence was a nuisance." But this
is the natural outcome of the present system of land
tenure. A large party in the House of Commons do
not reflect on the connection which agriculture has
with the general welfare of the country. With them
the land interest is synonymous with what they call
"landlordism," and their policy is fashioned accord-
ingly. They oppose the Agricultural Ratings Act,
not from any intention of injuring the farmer, but
because they regard the measure as one for " landlord
relief." Further, for this opposition many of them

^ The general public do not realize how badly the farmer is treated in
this respect. The commercial classes would resist a proposal that they
should pay local rates on the capital invested in their undertakings. But
this is practically the principle on which the farmer, to a large extent, is
rated. If a manufacturer by skill and enterprise should increase the value
of his business without enlarging his premises, his local rates remain the
same. Should the farmer by the same qualities increase the value of his
land, he is liable, as the Duke of Bedford points out, to an increase of
rates. By the Agricultural Rates Act he is relieved from a part of the
imposition, but the Act is only a recognition — not an abolition — of the
injustice to which he is subject. The farmer, in common fairness, should
be rated on precisely the same principle as that on which the manufac-
turer, shopkeeper, and merchant are rated. As an example, roughly
stated, but which the general reader will understand, a tradesman carry-
ing on business in premises rated at ^50 per year pays rates on those
premises only, though his stock may be worth ;^iooo, and he enjoys all
the benefits accruing from the expenditure of the rates. A farmer in the
same parish whose premises may have a rental value of ^50, and whose
land apart from the premises is valued at ^300 a year, pays in rates about
four times as much as the tradesman. The injustice is keenly felt, now
that the county rates have increased so much and are increasing so fast.
The burdens on our agrarian industry — rates, taxes, tithes, land and
income tax, duties, etc. — form a considerable percentage on the output
of the land. They are far heavier, in most cases twice as heavy, as those
on the same industry in any other country in Europe.
R

242 LAND REFORM

will claim, and receive, credit from their constituencies.
Governments find that an agricultural question is a
negligible quantity. A Butter Bill, of the utmost
importance to the dairy farmer, has dawdled through
several sessions, and it is still uncertain when it will
become law. In the country the same apathy exists.
Among those who elect our county councils there are
so very few who have any direct and personal interest
in the land that the fortunes of agriculture are re-
garded with indifference.

But if on the great estate referred to there were
one hundred owners (yeomen) instead of one, if in
addition there were several hundreds of peasant pro-
prietors and a corresponding number of agricultural
labourers, owning — not renting — bits of land, and if
this change were introduced throughout the country —
as it easily might be — a different state of things would
be seen. There would then be a real agricultural
party, with a force behind it ; a party whose pockets
would be directly touched by the action either of
Parliament or of the local authority. They would
all be in the same boat, and pulling in the same
direction.

Those who have followed the discussions on agri-
cultural subjects in the French or German Parliament
know that the agrarian party there is powerful enough
even to be aorgrressive. It is inconceivable that a
Butter Bill introduced into the Rigsdag of Denmark,
in the interests of the Danish dairy farmer, would
be delayed a single day more than was absolutely
necessary. There are too many owners of farms with
too large a voting power, to allow any delay in a matter
which affects their interests.

From an economic point of view, any business man

RISKS TO THE STATE 243

would conclude that a farm in possession of an owner,
who knows every inch of his land, and whose eye
is on every operation connected with it, could be
managed at probably half the cost in proportion to
the expense of management of a huge estate. In
arguing this matter, it must be borne in mind that
there is no question of competing for trade among
British agriculturists. The demand for the produc-
tions of the soil is practically unlimited, and the sole
question is how to meet it. The only competition is
with the foreigner. A powerful agrarian party in
England, while knowing that it would be impossible
to get protection — in the old sense of the term — for
their industry, would very properly ask for — and would
probably secure — measures of defence against what-
ever is shown to be unfair and illegitimate in foreign
competition.

Every attempt to protect the tenant farmer by
legislation has more or less failed. In Ireland dual
ownership was tried, with disastrous effects on the
landlord, and with no ultimate good to the tenant.
The legal fixing of rents was almost equally unsatis-
factory. As far as Ireland is concerned, we have had
statesmen who — discarding the policy of tinkering —
were bold enough and wise enough, by the Irish Land
Purchase Act, 1903, to adopt the only possible solution
of the difficulty.

In England the various Agricultural Holdings Acts
1875-1900 have practically failed in their object.
Even the last Act (1900) is regarded by nearly all of
the best farmers as quite insufficient.^ These Acts

' The late Mr. Clare Sewell Read, a most competent authority on this
subject, wrote as follows : " I contend that the valuers of Norfolk, instead
of having carried out the Act as they ought to have done, have avoided

244 LAND REFORM

have such conditions attached to them — claims, notices,
counter-claims, valuations, arbitrations, reserve for
the "inherent quality of the soil," etc. — as to make
a prudent man hesitate, on account of expense and
uncertainty, before putting them into operation.

Nevertheless, this legislation is of great value, for
the reason that, whereas in former times the landlord
claimed practically everything placed on the land, the
tenant has now a recognized legal right to certain
things that belong to him, and he is thus enabled to
make terms on leaving his farm. At a recent meeting
of the Central Chamber of Agriculture the following
resolution was moved : " That the Agricultural Hold-
ings Act being the basis on which farming is con-
ducted, should be so amended that the capital which
the farmer invests in his holding is as safe as if the
holding belonged to him, and that nothing should
stand in the way of the tenant making the land
produce all it can." This resolution is well conceived,
but it is absolutely impossible to carry it into law.
The question is full of complications. A farmer may
be a man of good judgment or bad, and to enact that
he should receive compensation on leaving his farm
for all that he has done, without the consent of his
landlord, in the way of what he considers to be im-
provements would lead to difficulties and certainly to
litigation. Some of the outlay he had made might be
considered by an incoming tenant, as well as by the
landlord, as useless or of small value. Other work,
such as the planting of orchards, etc., would require

it as much as they could ; and when it is applied, the result is, that
instead of a tenant leaving his farm in the highest state of fertility, he is
bound in his own interest to leave it passably foul and miserably poor."
(" Mark Lane Express," 7 March, 1904.)

RISKS TO THE STATE 245

some years to show whether or not it was worth pay-
ing for at all. Such provisions as these are of the
nature of dual control over the farm, which is bad for
all concerned. It must be borne in mind also that
there are unfair tenants as well as unfair landlords.
In many districts there are men who do anything but
justice to the land they occupy, and though they might
be made liable for bad farming, yet it would be difficult
for a landlord to get any compensation from such men
at the end of the tenancy. After the most stringent
law had been made in favour of a yearly occupier, the
landlord would remain master of the position through
his power to raise the rent of an inconvenient tenant
or by giving him notice to quit. An examination of
the subject in all its bearings must inevitably lead to
the conclusion that it passes the wit of man to frame
a measure, under the landlord and tenant system, that
shall avoid injustice and loss either to landlord or
tenant. The Land Purchase Bill would effectually
dispose of all these difficulties. Indeed, under it, they
would not arise.

These difficulties are dealt with at length in the
recent Report of the Committee on the " Fruit
Industry of Great Britain."^ This Committee seems
to have spared no pains in carrying out its work.
The witnesses were carefully selected and gave

^ Cd. 2589, 1905. The Committee was appointed by Lord Onslow in
December, 1903. It was composed of Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, M.P.
(Chairman) ; Mr. Radcliffe-Cook ; Mr. J. M. Hodge ; Colonel Long, M.P. ;
Mr. G. Monro ; Mr. Pickering, M.A., F.R.s. ; Dr. W. Somerville ; Mr. E.
Veriton ; and the Rev. W. Wilkes, M.A. (Secretary of the Royal Horti.
cultural Society).

The reference to the Committee was "To report upon the present
condition of Fruit Culture in Great Britain, and to consider whether any
further measures might with advantage be taken for its promotion and
encouragement."

246 LAND REFORM

evidence of a most practical kind. The Committee
was not satisfied with receiving evidence, but its
members visited the principal fruit-growing centres
and saw for themselves the condition of the industry.

The present land tenure and its effect on the fruit
industry were subjects that received great attention
during the inquiry. Under the Market Gardeners'
Compensation Act a tenant of a holding, which he
rents, by agreement, for the purpose of a market
garden, may plant fruit and put up the necessary build-
ings without the consent of his landlord, and at the
end of his tenancy is entitled to compensation. Many
experienced fruit - growers, some of whom were
tenants, insisted that these Acts, instead of encourag-
ing the fruit trade, were a deterrent to it, because
landlords refused to let land for fruit-growing, so as
not to become liable for large sums in the form of
compensation. "On the other hand," the Report
points out, " in the case of a fruit plantation, the
tenant increases immensely the value of the land by
his skill, his enterprise, and the expenditure of large
sums of money, all of which would become the
property of the landlord unless there were a proper
scheme of compensation, while, if his consent to each
separate improvement had to be obtained the tenant
would be seriously hampered in the extension of his
business."

After carefully weighing the evidence, and fully
considering the various methods for adjusting, in a
satisfactory manner, the claims of both landlord and
tenant, the Committee came to the conclusion that
"The ideal solution of the difficulty would be that
every fruit-grower should be the owner of the soil,"
a conclusion in which they were abundantly supported

RISKS TO THE STATE 247

by the evidence placed before them. Accordingly the
Committee unanimously recommended " That a Bill
should be passed for facilitating the purchase of small
holdings by tenants with assistance from public funds,
somewhat on the lines of the measure brought in by
the Rt. Hon. Jesse Collings, m.p., in the session of
1904."

Now it may be presumed that the object of a
Government in appointing a committee to consider
and report upon a question, is to ascertain the kind
of legislation it is necessary to adopt in order to
remove admitted difficulties in connection with that
question. This Report contains a positive recom-
mendation stated in unqualified terms, and it remains
to be seen if it will be adopted and carried into law.

Objections to the Land Purchase Bill were raised
in the Central Chamber of Agriculture to the effect
that tenants will not wish to buy their farms so long
as they can rent them. But they would not be
obliged to do so, as, like the Irish Act, there is
nothing compulsory in the Bill. The man who farms
from "hand to mouth," getting all he can out of
the land and putting as little as possible into it,
would most likely decline to buy. So also would the
man who farms (if it can be called farming) as "a
lodger," keeping on as long as he can, exhausting the
land.^ But it is difficult to believe that the real farmer,

' I was visiting a farmer of this class some time ago, and remarked on
the foul condition of the land. The reply I got was, " We drop the seed
into the ground and take what happens to come." This kind of farming
is too frequently to be met with. I have watched for some years past a
special case of this bad husbandry, and seen the process of deterioration
of the land. A farm of about i6o acres in a midland county, which used
to be in the hands of a good farmer, who had always from 50 to 60 acres
under cultivation, was about five years ago taken by a man of the class
referred to. Gradually the land was laid down into grass, and at the

248 LAND REFORM

whose love of the soil is inborn, would not jump at
the opportunity of being able to feel that the farm he
cultivates was his own.

The best way, however, to deal with statements of
this kind is to bring forward typical cases wherewith
to refute them.

In September, 1905, an estate in Worcestershire
was sold by auction.^

The following letter shows that the tenants of the
lots sold were most anxious — as might be supposed
— to be able to buy their farms : —

" October 6, 1905.

" I now have much pleasure in enclosing you a copy
of the sale particulars, together with the prices realized
for the respective farms.

" The majority of the tenants had been in occupa-
tion of their holdings from twenty-five to fifty years,
and the rent they were paying was an exceedingly
moderate one, in consequence of which the prices
realized do not show much return as an investment.
Nearly every tenant on the Estate was anxious not to
leave his farm or to have his rent unduly raised ; and
I am quite convinced, from conversation I had with
nearly all of them, that if the same facilities were in
existence in England as there are in Ireland, whereby
they could borrow the purchase-money at a low rate
of interest, that nine out of ten of them would have

present time the farmer keeps one man, three horses, and a number of
cows. Last year a few acres badly cuUivated and poorly manured were
sown with wheat and oats, but the crops were so poor that some of them
were ploughed in, being not worth gathering. The large rick-yard which
used to be so well filled is now empty, and the staddles and other
appliances stand useless. In about two years more the holding will be
so far ruined that it will take some years to bring it into heart again.
Then, no doubt, the man will leave and take another farm.

^ I am indebted to the courtesy of the head of the firm to which the
sale was entrusted — Messrs. Ludlow & Briscoe, Birmingham — for par-
ticulars of the lots that were sold.

RISKS TO THE STATE

249

become owners as well as occupiers. I have had
dealings with a great many large estates in recent
years, and it has always been a source of great regret
to me to have to break up these large properties and
yet to give the tenants no opportunity of buying their
farms in consequence of their not being able to bor-
row the purchase-money and repay the same on easy
terms.

"Where a farm is in the occupation of the owner,
my experience is, generally speaking, that it is much
better worked and the land is made to produce more
than where the farm is simply rented and there is no
fixity of tenure. "(Signed) Walter Ludlow."

The following table contains the particulars re-

ferred to

: —

Present

Price sold at,

Area.

Renta

.

including timber

a.

r. p.

£

s.

d.

£

Lot No. 6

180

3 34

... 90

6

0

... 2576

>) )

, 10

38

I 20

■.. 34

5

6

... 736

» >

, 9

51

I 34

... 60

II

0

••• 1323

» I

, 12

115

3 35

... 67

10

0

... 2231

» )

, 14

28

2 31

... 32

0

0

... lOIO

>i )

, 15

138

3 8

... 90

II

0

... 2170

>> J

, 17

119

0 8

... 85

19

6

... 1570

n )

, 18

94

0 12

... 62

i8

6

••• 1573

i> >

. 30

7

I 8

... II

10

0

320

)) >

. 39

II

2 25

... 5

0

0

200

» )

, 31

20

I 9

... 10

0

0

■•• 359

» >

> 32

31

3 39

... 30

0

0

... 536

>» 1

. 38

5

2 30

••• 3

0

0

... 115

>i >

, 33

97

2 18

... 56

I

9

... 1200

» i

1 35

157

3 22

... 76

0

0

... 2000

II 1

1 36

113

2 4

... 66

3

6

... 1950

II I

, 40

14

I 28

... 7

0

0

... 315

II >

. 41

10

2 28

... 5

0

0

... 251

II 1

, 42

155
1392

3 25
5 8

... 72
;{:866

13
9

0
9

... 2200

;^22,635

250

LAND REFORM

As regards these farmers, had the Land Purchase
Bill been law, or had they been tenants in Ireland,
they would without difficulty have become owners of
the farms they had occupied for so long, and which,
presumably, they had well cultivated.

Another estate of a similar size was sold in Devon-
shire in 1903. Omitting the mansion, with land, parks,
etc., and other parts of the property not suitable for
occupying ownerships, the particulars of the holdings
sold are as follows : — ^

Lot N

0, 2

Area.

a. r. p.
565 2 8 .

Presen
Rental
£ s.
. 449 10

'd.
0

Price sold at,
including timber

£.
... 8150

, 3

182 3 0 .

. 206 0

0

... 4052

, 5

18 0 10 .

. 26 15

0

... 510

, 6

606.

• 7 5

0

189

, 7

24 3 22 .

• 58 5

0

... 1112

, II

263 I 32 .

. 165 0

0

... 3386

, 12

242 3 14 .

. 271 10

0

... 5045

, 15

36 2 15 .

• 33 5

0

... 689

, 18

8 I 17 .

• 9 5

0

204

, 19

293 2 20 .

. 306 10

6

... 6000

, 24

185 0 15 .

. 172 10

0

... 3200

, 20

27 0 17 .

• 39 5

0

... 823

> 21

4 0 36 .

1858 2 12 ,

. 6 0

0

... 144

^1751 0

0

;^33.504

These details are given to bring home to the
general reader the uncertainties to which the farmer

^ An account of this sale appeared in the Press, but the figures given
are from a copy of the " Sales Particulars," for which the writer is in-
debted to the courtesy of Messrs. J. and H. Drew, surveyors, Exeter. For
the present writer there is a special interest attached to this sale. One
of his parents was born on the estate, and all his very numerous relatives
worked on it (or on the adjoining one), either as labourers on the land or
in trades connected therewith. The wages of agricultural labourers in
those days were, for men, 8s. per week, women gd. per day, girls 6d. per
day, with, in all cases, an allowance of cider.

RISKS TO THE STATE 25!

is liable by changes of ownership such as are taking
place almost every day throughout England ; and to
illustrate the manner in which — under the provisions
of the Land Purchase Bill — land would gradually pass
into the hands of cultivating owners.

What is most striking about these sales is the low
price of the land. There is nothing like it in any
other country in Europe. It is in itself a complete
condemnation of our present land system. The land
itself is good ; on the farms sold there are suitable
dwelling-houses, large and commodious byres, out-
houses, and other farm buildings, on some of them
orchards of apples and other fruit, and yet the price of
the whole — above 3200 acres — works out at about
;^i7 an acre. These reductions in prices are gener-
ally regarded by the public as losses affecting land-
lords only. A shop or a house standing idle is a loss
to the private owner, but a derelict field or a half-
cultivated farm is surely a reduction of the assets
of the nation, affecting every man, woman, and child
in the kingdom. To work out the problem accurately
the idea must be kept in mind that land is different
from all other property, and that in it the whole people
have inalienable rights.^

Some objections have been made to the Land Pur-
chase Bill, on the grounds that it contains no com-
pulsory provisions. These objections, however, come
from politicians who look with small favour on legisla-

' " Last week an estate comprising 512 acres of arable and 87 acres
of pasture land, and residence and farm buildings, situate near Louth,
Lincolnshire, was offered by public auction, and the highest bid obtained
for it publicly was ^{^6750. In 1874 the late owner refused ^^36,000 for
the same estate. . . . About a year ago an estate in the well-known
Lincolnshire grazing district of Saltfleet came into the market. One lot
which made ^650 in 1872 went for £38$ ; another, which made ^1000

252 LAND REFORM

tion (such as Allotment and Small Holdings Acts)
unless it contains compulsion in some form or another.
This arises from the antagonistic feeling towards
" landlordism " already referred to — a feeling which
creates a desire to compel the landlord to do some-
thing. But there is no necessity for compulsion in
transactions which are in the interests of all parties
concerned in them. Those who read the advertise-
ments in newspapers and follow the proceedings in
Tokenhouse Yard will see that there is plenty of land
in the market. The numerous offers of estates for sale
— large and small — contain notices such as the follow-
ing: "All the farms are let," " Homesteads in good
condition," " To be sold at moderate price," " To pay a
good interest," " Rents low," etc. etc., and now and
then there is a significant suggestion that the " rentals
might be improved."^ In these advertisements "sport"

in the former year, went for £,^\o; another for ;^38o, which thirty-two
years before had made ^570; another for ;£5oo which in 1872 made
;^88o ; while only ^80 was bid for another which in the first-named year
made ;£6oo. . . . Two other lots were sold for ;^I95 and ;i^200 respectively,
which in 1861 and 1863 made ^450 and ^545. ... A farm at Binbrook
which in 1881 cost ^6000 was sold twenty years later for ;^3000 ; a small
holding at Moortown which in i860 cost ;£i65o was sold last year for
j^Soo ; another at Barlings, which cost ;^55oo, made ^2100," etc. —
"Standard" newspaper, 2 November, 1905.

' Pages of these advertisements appear every week. To quote one
or two examples : " Leicestershire. Three hundred acres first-rate
grazing land with farmhouses and premises in excellent order and let to
good tenants, to be sold to pay a fair rate of interest" ("The Field,"
27 February, 1904). " Wiltshire. An attractive estate of about six
hundred acres to be sold. It produces an income of nearly ;£i7oo and
would be sold to pay nearly five per cent. The land is at the present
time considerably underlet and the purchaser could easily obtain a larger
percentage on the purchase-money if wished" ("The County Gentle-
man," 27 February, 1904). " Three thousand acres in Norfolk. A grand
sporting domain . . . considered to be one of the best shooting properties
in the eastern counties. The estate is well let, and can be purchased to
pay a good rate of interest" (" County Gentleman," 24 June, 1905).

RISKS TO THE STATE 253

gets an undue prominence. Facilities for sport are
named, in numbers of cases, as the chief inducements
offered to purchasers. The foremost place is given to
such statements as the following : " Shooting good ;
hunting with several packs," ** Good shooting, hunting,
and fishing," "Choice sporting estate," " Shooting ex-
ceptional," etc. The yield of food and other agricul-
tural produce in which the general community has
such a large interest is quite a secondary matter.
This is another point well worth the farmer's con-
sideration. As a yeoman, owning his own land, he
would be a free man as regards sport ; as a tenant,
whatever he may enjoy legally or by way of favour,
his position is one of humiliation.

Many landlords, no doubt, object to the creation of
independent ownership, lest they should not, in the
matter of sport, have the same control over owners as
they now have over tenants. But this objection is a
groundless one so far as reasonable recreation goes.
The love of sport is inborn in the English people. It
is marked among farmers as a class, and exists among
the rural population generally.

There is a further matter that deserves attention.
Public lands are continually being sold by departments
of State and turned into private property. This is a
bad policy, and one opposed to the best interests of
the community.

Every year there is a quantity of land sold under
the Glebe Land Act, 1888. The number of sales
completed under this Act during the year 1903 was
102, comprising 2179 acres, the purchase-money paid
^^'"S ;^69,905. A considerable quantity of College
and University land is also sold every year.^ During

' Annual Report, Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, Cd. 2005, 1904.

254 LAND REFORM

the ten years 1895 to 1904 the Charity Commissioners
authorized the sale of real property to the value of
nearly four millions sterling, much of which no doubt
was agricultural land.^ The Commissioners of Woods
and Forests also sold by private contract a large
number of small pieces of land during the same year.^
All this land, so far as it is suitable, could be put
within the reach of small cultivating owners by the
purchase-money being provided by the State.

Farmers holding charity lands are liable to great
hardships through having their farms sold over their
heads. A farmer who is in this position, in a letter
to the present writer, states (6 June, 1905): "If my
farm were sold, it would be a very great loss to me,
as I have been on it all my life, and have much im-
proved it in many ways, and I should get little if any
compensation if I had to leave it. This is one of
the cases in which your Land Purchase Bill would be
a great boon were it passed into law, but I am afraid
it will be crowded out."

There is another class of farmers to whom the
Land Purchase Bill would be a o-reat boon. Sales

o

of farms, and even estates, are frequently taking place
by private contract. The tenants, however much they
may wish to buy, have not the money to do so.
Their farms are sold over their heads, and they have
to accept all that comes from a change of ownership.

A letter which the present writer has received from
a professional man, very well known in agricultural
circles, illustrates the hardship of the position of these
men. It states (10 March, 1904) : "There is a farm

^ Report of the Charity Commissioners, Cd. 2496, 1905.
2 For particulars of these sales, see Report of the Commissioners of
Woods and Forests, No. 221, 1905.

RISKS TO THE STATE 255

I know in which was a very poor property when

taken in hand by its present tenant, who in six years
has spent a considerable sum of money on it and
transformed it to its present condition, although he is
only a yearly tenant. He is most anxious to buy,
and would buy under your Bill, for he would be
enabled to do so. He keeps about sixty cows, and
has done wonders for the property. There is another

farm of 400 acres in , which has been thirty years

in the hands of the present tenant, who is a good
farmer. He pays los. per acre rent, which, when it
was let originally, was quite as much as it was worth.
He has brouo-ht it into grood condition, and it is now
clean and productive. The present landlord, who has
inherited the farm, wishes to sell, as he wants the
money, and would gladly take ^12 an acre for it ; but
I valued it, having been employed to do so, at nearer
;^20 an acre. The tenant would have gladly bought
it, because it would have paid him well to do so ; but
for want of such a medium as your Bill would provide,
the two men are kept apart, and outsiders do not
possess sufficient knowledge of the value of the farm
to buy it, for it is still in the market. I daresay I can
find twenty similar cases."

Let us take the second of these two cases. Under
the provisions of the Land Purchase Bill, the tenant
referred to would be enabled to buy his farm at ^12
per acre, the price asked by the landlord. He would
immediately become the owner of his farm, subject to
the payment, for a limited number of years, of an
annual instalment of 7s. lod. per acre, instead of los.
per acre, which he now pays in rent. As it is, the
farm will be sold. The tenant will have to leave or
pay an increased rent for his own improvements. Had

256 LAND REFORM

he been a slovenly farmer and kept the land in the
bad condition in which he found it, no increase of rent
could be demanded. This is one proof, among so
many, of the truth of the statement made by practical
men, that the present system is "a premium on bad
farming."

Any so-called compensation which this occupier
might receive is not worth consideration, in view of
the fact that the man is turned out of his home and
out of a holding where for so many years he has been
doing work profitable to himself and of great value
to the community. Were he a tenant in Ireland,
how different would be his position !

Further, there is reason to believe that, under the
system we are discussing, many landlords would be
willing to sell at least a portion of their land to tenants
who wished to buy. A most competent witness,
speaking on this point, says : " The landowners of
England, under the bitter experience of past years,
are as anxious as any men can be to part with a very
large area of their land." And again : " Landlords
were generally willing to sell their land, or even por-
tions of it, and to forego the territorial advantages
which attached to land in the past."^

A friend of the present writer, who is a wealthy
commercial man, and also a large landowner, in a
letter (5 October, 1904) expressing approval of the
Land Purchase Bill, states: "Things are going wrong
in England, and going wrong rapidly. ... If your
Bill should become law, I will do what I can to help
it forward. I have 2000 acres of good land in the
county of , let to nine farmers, who are satisfac-

' Mr. Elias Squarey. Evidence before the Select Committee on
Small Holdings, 1889.

RISKS TO THE STATE 257

tory men. The rent is, for the most of it, 15s. per
acre, for some of it less. I should be willing to offer
to sell the whole estate to the present tenants at ;^i5
per acre." Now if these nine tenants were to accept
this offer, they would, without having to find a farthing
of capital, become owners of the farms, subject to a
payment, for a limited time, of 9s. gd. per acre,
instead of the 15s. they are now paying in rent. It is
difficult to know what reasons, consistent with common
sense, can be advanced against legislation which would
allow such arrangements as these to be carried out.

The first necessary step in dealing with the Bill is
that the proposals made in it should be discussed and
understood. Aaricultural associations have had the
measure before them and have come to different con-
clusions respecting it. The Central Chamber of Agri-
culture is a body said to be composed of the pick of
Eng-lish farmers. At a meetino- of the Chamber held
2 February, 1904, the Land Purchase Bill was dis-
cussed. The resolution on which the discussion was
to hang was — somewhat unfairly — drafted in terms
hostile to the Bill. It ran : " This Council considers
that there is no necessity for Mr. Collings' Land Pur-
chase Bill for England and Wales."

The debate was instructive, and showed the neces-
sity of reading and understanding proposals before
discussing them. Some of the speakers evidently
thought that these preliminary steps were unneces-
sary.

Mr. H. Williams (Monmouthshire Chamber) moved
an amendment expressing approval of the Bill, and in
a short speech directly to the point, said : —

" The Bill was a very desirable one, for reasons
which would apply to those cases in which land was

258 LAND REFORM

up for sale absolutely and must be sold. If there was
anything like compulsion in the Bill, he for one would
not support it. If they looked at the newspapers, they
could not fail to see that there was a great deal of
agricultural land coming into the market every day.
Seeing that the Bill in question was drawn on the
lines of the Irish Land Bill, and that the State could
borrow money more cheaply than the individual, he
thought that they ought not to throw cold water upon
an effort to make it easy for tenants to buy their hold-
ings. He believed the Bill was desirable for many
reasons, because anybody who happened to know the
price of a farm which was sold, and the rent which
was being paid by the tenant, would see that under
the Bill the tenant would generally be able to buy for
something like 25 per cent less as annuity than he
was paying as rent. That was an element that ought
not to be lost sight of. The objections which he had
heard to the Bill were two. One was that those per-
sons who had approved of the Bill had overlooked the
cost of repairs. He thought that it could not fail to be
known to every practical man in the room that when a
man did his own repairs he could do them very much
more to the occupier's personal liking and convenience.
Another objection was that it was absurd to imagine
that landowners got more than 2^ or 2f per cent on
their capital. He thought that that objection was
erroneous, for it was based on the estimated value of
land twenty-five years ago. In almost every instance
that he had seen of agricultural land coming into the
market, the land was being sold to-day to pay 4 per
cent, and if the tenant could borrow money at 2f per
cent he would be in a better position than before."

Professor Long (British Dairy Farmers' Associa-
tion), in seconding the amendment, said : —

*' What did the Bill propose? It gave the option to
the tenant, which he could accept or refuse, of agree-

RISKS TO THE STATE 259

ing with his landlord to buy his holding with the aid
of money from the public purse. . . . Many farmers
occupied farms which they would be glad to buy if
they could, but they were unable to buy through want
of money. . . . In all parts of the country farms would
be found for sale at low prices ; but still, a farm of five
hundred acres costing ^12 an acre would involve a
large sum of purchase-money, which many men were
unable to put down at once. A man who occupied a
farm could afford to give a better price for it than
could be obtained if it went to the Mart, and to give
such a man facilities for purchase would be better both
for the tenant and the landlord."

Mr. Christian (Fareham Farmers' Club) said that —

*' He had been sent to the meeting to oppose the
Bill, and the reason why that was the case was that
his Chamber did not understand the matter. He was
now going to support the Bill. ... He had not heard
a good argument against it."

Mr. Stanley (North Cotswold) and Mr. Gardner
(Worcestershire) supported the Bill on behalf of their
respective Chambers. Other members spoke in favour
of it, and there were four speakers against it. The
result was that the amendment was carried by a
majority of nearly two to one.

The course and result of these discussions, so far
as they have gone, are anything but disappointing.
Farmers move slowly, but as a rule they move surely ;
and the important question is, what will be their
ultimate decision with regard to the Bill ? If they as
a body decide that it is framed in their best interests,
and wish to have the benefits which it offers, they must
bestir themselves ; for a mere passive support is not
sufficient to secure that the measure shall become law.

26o LAND REFORM

Irish farmers get what they demand ; they accept it
without thanks, and straightway ask for more, which
as a rule they also get. English tenant farmers will
not get what they want without some combined effort
on their part. In the present state of agriculture they
may fairly and properly make a Government under-
stand that reasonable attention to their interests is a
condition of their support.

So far, the economic side of the question has been
considered ; but the social and political side is of still
more importance. Every man placed in the position
described would be an addition to that element of
strength and conservation in our national life, of
which we are getting so lamentably deficient. He
would represent one step towards restoring the old
landed classes, who, on occasions in our "rough island
story," served their country so well.

CHAPTER XVII

OTHER SCHEMES OF LAND REFORM

There are several schemes advocated by land re-
formers to remedy the evils of the present system.
The most practical among them, and the one receiving
most support among ardent land reformers, is that
known as " Free Trade in Land." Shortly stated,
the object of this reform is to make the sale and
transfer of land as easy and inexpensive as that of any
other property ; to abolish the laws and customs which
invite, encourage, and perpetuate the accumulation of
land in a few hands ; to destroy the power of the
" dead hand " ; to control the disposal of estates ; to
alter the law which allows a man to tie up land during
his lifetime, and for many years after his death ; to
abolish the law (primogeniture) which, if the land-
owner does not avail himself of his power to make
a deed or will, gives all his land, in one undivided
estate, to his heir ; in short, as described by a well-
known writer, to abolish the "old feudal system of
primogeniture, entails, long settlements, and intricate
devises of land, invented in order to keep great estates
together, and to preserve the great power of the feudal
aristocracy."^

Now, whatever may be the merits of these reforms,
it is difficult to see how they would facilitate the
creation of yeoman holdings or of a peasant pro-
prietary. At the best the process would be tedious

• " Free Trade in Land," by Joseph Kay, Q.c.
261

262 LAND REFORM

and slow. No doubt ** Free Trade in Land " would
result, eventually, in putting a large number of estates
on the market, but the cultivators would certainly be
in no better position than now, and probably in a far
worse position/

Seeing that tenant farmers, as a rule, have no spare
money to buy, and the peasants certainly have none,
the buyers would be of two classes : the first class
would consist of small capitalists, who would buy land
as an investment and let it at the highest rent they
could get. This would be a disadvantage, as small
owners — either from necessity or from the commercial
spirit — are generally the hardest of landlords. The
second class of buyers would be wealthy men desirous
of becoming " county " people, who would buy up any
estates offered, as indeed to a considerable extent they
are now doing.

There would be no gain in this ; for of the two, a
landed aristocracy is, as far as the tenants are con-
cerned, perhaps preferable to a landed plutocracy. So
that " free trade " in land, if realized to-morrow, unless
accompanied by a Land Purchase Bill, would simply
have the effect of locking up land in the hands of a
new set of owners. It would retard, rather than ad-
vance, the one object in view, which is to get the soil

^ The Irish "Encumbered Estates Act" of 1849 no doubt enabled
land of the value of many millions sterling to be sold, but the tenants
were not the purchasers. On the contrary, the land thus set " free " was
too frequently bought by capitalists who dealt in a commercial manner
with the property they had acquired. Many of them raised rents regard-
less of the tenants' position and rights, and the Irish farmers often found
themselves worse off than they were under the old squireens. The
present writer remembers the advertisements for the sale of these lands
and seeing frequently at the bottom of them, " These rentals are capable
of great improvement," etc.

OTHER SCHEMES OF LAND REFORM 263

of the country as far as possible permanently Into the
hands of occupying owners.

There is no doubt that in England in past times
large numbers of peasants' and yeomen's holdings
have been bought and consolidated into large estates
by wealthy men, who have offered such prices for the
holdings as the owners felt bound to accept. To this
cause mainly is due the disappearance, to such a large
extent, of that fine class of freeholders called "states-
men," for the loss of whom, from a national point of
view, no money can compensate. The following is
an extract from a very interesting account of these
hardy husbandmen and of their exit from the soil : —

" These independent farmers, with their well-marked
qualities of persistence, industry, and suspicion, due to
their retired position, are worth careful study. . . . We
are told that at the beginning of last century there
were about seven thousand statesmen in Cumberland.
. . . The lads and damsels saw no disgrace or degra-
dation in farmwork, and followed it with a due sense
of the social unity involved in it and with the native
pride of an independent community. For the farm
was a common duty and a common pleasure also."

The writer goes on to describe the falling prices of
produce and the heavier charges on the land which
caused these honest statesmen to drift slowly into diffi-
culties, and adds : —

" While there was less and less hope of making
a comfortable livelihood out of the land and the farmer's
heart failed him, the value of his freehold still tended
to rise, not to fall, as it should have done. So that as
the difficulties of living increased, the temptation to
throw the whole thing up and try some other way of
living increased also. There were rich people, iron-

264 LAND REFORM

men and others, who wished to create an estate and
were glad to tempt the poor farmer, often encumbered
with debts and mortgages incurred in the bringing up
of his family, to relieve himself of all present anxiety
by selling his land for a good round sum of ready
money."

The writer laments the disappearance of these men,
"driven out by the baleful power of wealth," but adds
that in the remaining statesmen much of the old quality
remains. '* The old stuff survives, and one wishes
that this conservative element of our race might return
to the land," etc.^

The provisions of the Land Purchase Bill would
prevent untoward transactions of this kind. The
object of the Bill is not only to get the soil of the
country as far as possible into the hands of occupying
owners, large and small, but to make these ownerships
permanent, and as they increase in number to become
an important, and ultimately the most important, factor
in our rural life.^

On this point — Free Trade in Land — it is impos-
sible to admire too much the foresight and patriotism

^ "The Statesmen of West Cumberland" (G. W. Kitchen), " Northern
Counties Magazine," Vol. II, 1901.

The following extract from a letter received by the present writer
some years ago from a firm of surveyors in Westmoreland, bears on this
point : " Economic law has swept away the aboriginal 'statesmen,' whose
acres have been absorbed by the wealthy. One Estate of ^15,000 a year
has been so aggregated by such purchases entirely within my own memory
in the last fifty years ; in many cases forty years' purchase, in some fifty,
having been paid. In fact, land got to be a luxury which only the wealthy
could afford to buy."

' On the Continent many legal and other means exist for benefiting
occupying owners which would not apply to tenants. Land banks are
established which offer protection to the proprietors from professional
money-lenders. Country bankers help these men, whom they know, in
ways that they would not think of doing with yearly tenants who may be
here to-day and gone to-morrow.

OTHER SCHEMES OF LAND REFORM 265

of the Prussian statesmen at the beginning of last
century.

Perhaps the best accounts in EngHsh of the land
legislation begun by Stein and Hardenberg is to be
found in the numerous parliamentary reports on land
tenure in other countries.^

The description of this German land legislation is a
complete model of the manner in which the land
question of England — of the same kind, but far less
complicated than it was in Germany — might have been
dealt with if there had been statesmen in this country
of the same fibre and foresight as those in Germany.
As soon as Stein took office he issued the celebrated
Edict of 1807, which was the basis of all subsequent
reforms. The edicts and laws which followed, extend-
ing over a period of fifty years, contained corrections
and improvements of that Edict, and provided mach-
inery for carrying it out.

The avowed objects of the legislation initiated in
1807 were — to free the peasantry from their servile
tenure and to fix them on the soil, in order "to invigor-
ate the State " ; to provide a national agriculture ; to
abolish the powers of lords of the manor, giving them
fair compensation, and thus to convert peasant lands
into independent ownerships ; to commute the real
charges resting upon private rights which were at-
tached to various kinds of landed property ; to com-
mute rights of common and inclosed common lands,

» "Reports respecting Land Tenure," C. 426, 1871 ; C. 271, 1870;
C. 66, 1869; C. 572, 1872; C. 75, 1869-70. See also "Land System of
France," T. E. Cliffe Leslie ; " Agrarian Legislation of Prussia," Sir
Robert Morier ; "English Land System," C. Wren Hoskins ; "Land
System of Belgium and Holland," ^L Emile de Laveleye.

266 LAND REFORM

and to consolidate outlying and intersected lands so as
to form compact holdings, etc.^

The enactment, however, which abolished all re-
strictions on the alienation of lands, that is, gave
absolute " Free Trade in Land," had to be altered, on
account of the danger that the peasant lands might be
absorbed into larger estates. Lords of the manor
were forbidden to annex peasant lands. These lands
were to be kept in the occupation of peasant cultiva-
tors. These arrangements were carried out by strik-
ing a balance between the obligations and rights of
one party and the obligations and rights of the other
party. This balance, which was usually against the
peasant, was commuted by a rent charge or by the
surrender of its equivalent in land. By a subsequent
law these rent charges were extinguished on the basis
of twenty-five years' purchase, the amount being
advanced by rent-charge banks guaranteed by the
State and repaid by the peasant by annual instalments
composed of interest and sinking-fund. The amount
of these instalments was based on 4^ per cent interest
and sinking-fund for repayment in fifty-six years ; or
5 per cent for repayment in forty-one years.

Stein would give the lords no compensation, except
in certain cases, for their alleged rights to the personal
services of the peasantry, or to inflict fines and to im-

1 It must be noted that in German legislation and in official reports of
that country the term "peasantry " is a very elastic one, and includes nearly
all classes of farmers. "A middle-class estate, viz. 7^ to 150 hectares,
is called in Germany a peasant's (Bauern) estate" (Sir Edward Malet's
Report, C. 6250, 1891). A hectare is about 2^ (2"47i) English acres, so
that so-called peasant holdings may be as big as 375 acres each. As
there are comparatively few tenant farmers in Germany, except on
Crown lands, it may be taken, therefore, that the legislation referred to
affected nearly all classes of cultivators.

OTHER SCHEMES OF LAND REFORM 267

pose other obligations upon them. He held that the
inalienable right of a man to freedom was a sufficient
and just ground for thus withholding compensation.

The spirit of the legislation throughout was, that in
matters affecting the land, the State, on behalf of the
community, can disregard, and, if necessary, override,
the prejudice and opposition of the individual. This
was done, but done on lines that were just to the
landed aristocracy, and, as events showed, much to
their advantage. Another notable principle in this
legislation was that of helping those who were helping
themselves. One illustration of this principle is that
the State, through the Board of Agriculture, grants
loans to cultivators for works of improvement. These
loans are at a low rate, usually at 3 per cent interest and
2 per cent sinking fund, with a free period of three or
five years. It is rightly held that public money, when
spent for improvements of the land, is spent in the
interests of the whole nation.

For those who have not time to study the lengthy
and detailed reports referred to, the short and clear
account given in Professor Seeley's excellent work is
sufficient to give a general idea of the land legislation,
of which, taken as a whole, and in connection with its
results, it is no exaggeration to say was an epoch —
a starting-point in the foundation by consolidation of
the present great German Empire.^

Seeley quotes the views of Stein as to the danger
to the cultivating classes of removing all restrictions
to the free sale of lands : " There is but one limita-
tion of free disposition of landed property which must
be allowed to remain. It is that which restrains the
covetousness of the rich and educated classes, and

^ Seeley's " Life and Times of Stein," University Press, Cambridge.

268 LAND REFORM

hinders the absorption of peasant land in manorial
farms. This will be the more necessary, because the free
trade in land allowed by Section i (of the Edict) will
multiply alterations with the change of ownership, and
the rise in the value of the land will more and more
tempt the new proprietor to seek his advantage."

Provisions were therefore made to protect the
peasantry from this serious danger of being driven off
the land by the unequal competition to which they
would be otherwise exposed. Professor Seeley's re-
marks on this point are well worth quoting (Vol. I,
p. 433) : " Now it might very plausibly be main-
tained that free trade in land would not create a
happy peasant class, but would simply substitute for
a peasantry, labouring under certain evils, that class
of famished drudges which we know in England, and
who, if they cannot be called serfs, can still less be
called peasants ; for a peasant properly so called must
have a personal interest in the land. . . . The intro-
duction of free trade in land created so manifest a
danger of the absorption of peasant-holdings by the
rich, that it was found in the end necessary to protect
these holdings by a special limitation." Accordingly,
he adds: "Sections 6 and 7" (of the Edict) "are intro-
duced to prevent the system of free trade in land
from bearing too hard on the peasant, and making
the proprietorship of land a monopoly of the richer
classes."

It may be noticed here for the benefit of our legis-
lators that the initiation of these reforms did not lie
with the rural population themselves. The German
peasantry at the time held their lands for the most
part under a servile tenure. After the defeat of their
armed revolts in the sixteenth century they were com-

OTHER SCHEMES OF LAND REFORM 269

pelled to submit to the miseries of their seemingly-
hopeless position. The land reforms were begun by
statesmen, and every obstacle in the way of their
being carried out effectively was resolutely removed.
These men did not act solely for the personal welfare
of the cultivators. They took a wider view, and con-
sidered that the creation of a multitude of free culti-
vating owners was absolutely necessary for the future
strength and welfare of the country as a whole. With
them the social and political aspects of the question
were the most grave, economic motives taking a
second place.

They treated the pleas "no demand," "no land
hunger," and other pretexts as simply irrelevant to
the objects they had in view. The opposition of the
landed aristocracy (short-sighted opposition as after-
events proved) was difficult to deal with, but was
overborne. Stein, referring afterwards to this diffi-
culty, wrote : " But the King stood firm, and God
maintained the ri^ht."^

The social and political condition of Prussia at that
time — the first decade of years of the nineteenth cen-
tury— was at its lowest ebb. From this legislation
gradually sprang a contented, loyal, and prosperous
population, with strong personal interests in the wel-
fare of the nation.

The political result need not be dwelt on here, but
it might be safely said that later events, which led to
the consolidation of the empire, were made possible
mainly by the land reforms referred to.

' By this legislation " Not only were all ranks in the realm — land-
lords, citizens, and peasants — most materially benefited, but the peasant
proprietors were raised to a much more important place in the economy
of the State." Mr. Harris Gastrell, British Consul, Berlin (Parliamentary
Paper, C. 66, 1870).

270 LAND REFORM

It is a distressing reflection that during the years
these reforms were being carried out in Germany our
own Parliament was actively legislating in quite an
opposite direction. The territorial party in England
were carrying out their policy — a policy which some
of our statesmen gravely questioned, though they
acquiesced in it — of depriving the rural population of
all personal interest in the soil they cultivated.

The contrast between the results which followed
these two opposite policies is sufficient of itself, with-
out further argument, to convince any impartial mind.
In the one country the cultivators steadily improved
in independence, contentment, and material pros-
perity; in the other country the same classes as
steadily sunk into a condition discreditable to its
national life.

William Howitt, speaking from observation of these
two conditions, states : —

"In Germany the peasants are the great and ever-
present objects of country life. They are the great
population of the country, because they themselves
are the possessors. . . . The peasants are not, as with
us, for the most part totally cut off from property in
the soil they cultivate, totally dependent on the
labour afforded by others ; they are themselves the
proprietors. It is perhaps from this cause that
they are probably the most industrious peasantry in
the world. They labour busily, early and late, be-
cause they feel that they are labouring for them-
selves. . . . The German peasants work hard, but
they have no actual want. Every man has his
house, his orchard, his roadside, fruit-trees, etc. . . ,
The English peasant is so cut off from the idea of
property that he comes habitually to look upon it as
a thing from which he is warned by the laws of the

OTHER SCHEMES OF LAND REFORM 271

large proprietors, and becomes, in consequence, spirit-
less and purposeless. . . . The German Bauer, on
the contrary, looks on the country as made for him
and his fellow-men. He feels himself a man ; he has
a stake in his country, as good as that of the bulk of
his neighbours. . . . He knows that when he dies he
shall not be buried between the vile boards of a
pauper's coffin."^

A little book recently published contains valuable
information and statistics which show, beyond doubt,
that the prosperity of the German cultivators is fully
maintained at the present time.^ Professor Ashley
shows that three-quarters of the agricultural surface
of Germany is tilled and owned by " peasants "
(Bauern), who are men farming from 2 to 100 hectares
(5 to 250 acres). It is rightly stated that "such
a class practically does not exist at all in England.
They can neither be compared to our farmers nor our
labourers."

Besides this class there is the large number of men
whom we should call peasants, that is, men owning
and cultivating holdings of less than five acres.

With regard to the agricultural labourers, the highest
authorities are quoted to show that during the past
twenty or thirty years wages have very largely in-
creased, with a corresponding improvement in housing,
clothing, food, etc.

Professor Ashley's figures are based on the last
statistics available — to wit, those contained in the
volume of the census of 1895, which deals with
agriculture. If we analyse these figures and reduce

* " Rural and Domestic Life in Germany," William Howitt.
2 " Progress of the German Working Classes in the Last Quarter of
a Century." W. J. Ashley. Longmans, 1904.

272 LAND REFORM

the areas given to their English equivalents, reckon-
inor two and a half acres to the hectare, the results are
as shown in the following table : —

Average sizes Percentage

Area occupied. of holdings. owned by

Acres. Acres. cultivators.

" Small " Peasants . 8,214,960 ... 5toi2|... 81*23%
"Middling" Peasants 24,304,687 ... I2| to 50 ... 90*55%
"Big" Peasants . 24,674,592 ... 5010250 ... 9r98 %

On this subject Dr. Meitzen, who was one of the
greatest authorities on German agricultural economy,
wrote: "The inclination of the German to establish
his family on his own plot is a blessed trait of the
greatest moral advantage. It has been sufficiently
shown that the possibility of acquiring land fosters
hope, encourages energy, and never lets useful activity
flag."

In reading these accounts there is one thought
which comes uppermost — one which should hold the
serious attention of all who are interested in the
political future of this country. The militant section
of the " Social Democratic Party," represented by
Karl Marx, are bent — as is shown by their writings —
on capturing the rural population. In this — so far as
Germany is concerned — they have utterly failed.
Whatever may be their success in towns, in the
country districts they have been met by the millions
who have something to lose, and have been defeated.
They have found that " collectivism " has no chance
where " individualism " is in such overwhelming force.

It is found, in fact, that the very class which forms
the strongest bulwark against communistic attacks is
largely increasing in Germany. During the period
1882 to 1895 the census shows that while the larger

OTHER SCHEMES OF LAND REFORM 273

farms slightly decreased in number, the smaller ones,
two to twenty hectares (five to fifty acres), greatly
increased.

But in England the case is totally different. We
have a proletariat such as does not exist in any other
country in Europe, and consequently are without the
only natural barrier to those socialistic doctrines which
are rapidly spreading among the people.

Some of the territorial party who are bemused by
the "splendid isolation" of the English land system
among the systems of Europe may pooh-pooh this
consideration. But they may find out, as time goes
on, that should the wage-receivers of this country,
who are the great mass of the people, become more
organized and their political power be more directly
exercised ; should domestic discontent increase and
should foreign troubles intervene, the offers for a
settlement of the land question will be of a sibylline
character.

There is another scheme of land reform which is
received with a great deal of favour in certain quarters
and which, there is reason to believe, is looked upon
as practical by certain persons in authority. It is that
the State should advance money to landlords for the
purpose of dividing large farms into smaller ones and
of cutting up other farms into small lots, and making
these lots suitable for small holdings, and for pro-
viding homesteads and other buildings suitable for
each class of holdings.

Before speaking of the objections to such a scheme
as this, it is well to recall the policy adopted by land-
lords in the past, which had for its object the creation
of the laro-e farms which now exist in Eng^land. The
practice of consolidation has already been referred to.

274 LAND REFORM

The raofe for larofe farms beo-an towards the end of
the eighteenth century and continued to about the
middle of last century.

Two or three, often as many as five or six, farms
were thrown into one. Extensive buildings were put
up for each large holding, and the old homesteads
were allowed to fall into decay or were let for other
purposes. The smaller farmers were thus driven from
their occupations and had to become labourers, bailiffs,
to go into towns, or to emigrate. The theory was that
on these extensive holdings, high farming could be
practised, scientific methods adopted, machinery more
largely used, and the labourers to a great extent dis-
pensed with. The high prices which ruled induced
farmers with capital to pay large competitive rents for
these farms. The application of this commercial spirit
to agriculture answered the purpose of the landowners,
whose rents thereby were enormously increased.
Events, however, have shown that the policy, though
highly profitable to the landlord for a time, was a
mistake in every way. Through the fall in prices in
the seventies of the last century and a succession of
bad harvests, farmers were ruined and the large farm
system collapsed.

The policy was pursued in spite of abundant warn-
ings from men of experience, whose opinions should
have had weight, but were of no avail in view of
increased rents and high profits. Of the many
warnings given at the time the following is an
example : —

"The landed gentlemen, in general, run into the
practice of laying out their estates in large farms,
which is attended with two consequences equally
pernicious to the public, a check to country population

OTHER SCHEMES OF LAND REFORM 275

and a less profit returned by the land. . . . That large
farms make a less proportional return than small ones
has been the opinion of all writers on the subject. . . .
That the real strength of every country depends on
the population is a well-known truth, and a little ac-
quaintance with the principles of a sound policy will
show that the only solid basis of a numerous popula-
tion is ag-riculture. . . . The resources of the earth
and the strength of the population can alone be looked
upon as the foundation of a sure and positive power,
and as the means by which a nation is enabled to
suffice for itself."

The writer groes on to utter warnino^s of the danofer
of "depopulating the country and annihilating by
degrees that essentially necessary class of men who
cultivate the earth." ^

For some time past there has been a great desire
to revert to the policy of smaller farms, but landowners
as a class have not the money to spare to restore the
old homesteads, to build new, and to incur other ex-
penses necessary for an alteration in the system.
Hence the proposals that aid should be given by the
State. It is not necessary perhaps to discuss these
proposals at any length, for the reason that it is not
likely that any Government will adopt them. Any
measure to carry them out would be regarded as one
for the benefit of a class, and would be generally
opposed. If State money is to be advanced for the
creation of smaller farms and holdings, it should go
directly to the cultivating owner, and through him to
the improvement of the land. To advance money to
landlords at a low rate of interest, without any check

' "Practical Husbandry," by John Mills, F.R.S., Member of the Agri-
cultural Societies of Paris and Berne, 1767, Vol. V, p. 7.

276 LAND REFORM

on rents, would be to extend and perpetuate the evils
of the present system.

Tenants would not be benefited ; they would have
to pay, not the small interest on outlay referred to, but
just as much total rent as the landlord chose to ask.
No advantage to either the large or small cultivator,
or to agriculture itself, could accrue from such a
plan.

There are further schemes of land reform of a social-
istic character. The advocates of these schemes, how-
ever we may wish to ignore them, are, under different
names, making considerable progress. The socialistic
section of the labour societies are for making the
State the "universal landlord," as well as sole pro-
prietor of all means of production, distribution, etc.
Resolutions passed at meetings in favour of these
principles are more and more frequent. Candidates
for Parliament are standing on this platform, and are
gaining such an increasing amount of support as to
make it more than probable that before long they will,
as members, become a distinct force in the House of
Commons.

There is also a separate organization, with members
drawn largely from the middle classes, which advo-
cates the "nationalization" of the land. Henry
George — in his remarkable book — calls this a
" more scientific " plan. He holds that it is not advis-
able for the State to become a "universal landlord,"
but advocates that an increasing tax should be placed
on land. This, he argues, would, by a self-acting
process, undo the evils of concentration, by gradually
making it impossible for a man (except a user) to hold
land at all. He would not "confiscate the land," but
would tax the rents till they disappeared altogether.

OTHER SCHEMES OF LAND REFORM 277

The user of the land is to be compensated for any
improvements made by him.

His scheme, which is supported by elaborate and
attractive arguments, is outlined by the following
quotation : '* To take rent for the common benefit it is
not necessary that the State should actually take pos-
session of the land and rent it out from year to year,
or from term to term. It can be done in a much more
simple and easy manner by concentrating taxation
upon the value of land. All it is necessary to do is to
abolish all other forms of taxation until the weight of
taxation rests on the value of land irrespective of
improvements, and takes rent for the public benefit
. . . ultimately the selling values of even the most
valuable land would entirely disappear and taxation
would become rental paid to the State. . . . Under
this system no one could afford to hold land he was
not using, and land not in use would be thrown open
to those who wished to use it, at once relieving the
labour market and giving an enormous stimulus to
production, while land in use would be paid for accord-
ing to its value, irrespective of the improvements the
user might make. On these he would not be taxed."
The part of the book most calculated to lay hold of
the popular mind is that in which the social evils
resulting from our present land system are vividly
described.^

The scheme of the veteran land reformer, Dr.
Wallace, greatly modifies that of Henry George.
Shortly stated, it is as follows : A complete valuation
of all the landed property of the kingdom is to be
made. The annual value or rental of each separate
holding is to be estimated and divided into two parts.

' "Social Problems," p. 274. Henry George.

278 LAND REFORM

The first part is the value of the mere soil, the
inherent worth of the land, apart from improvements
and additions. The rental of this part is to be capi-
talized and bought by the State. The methods of
payment are by a fixed sum, or by terminable
annuities, extending over a number of years, or the
duration of a certain number of lives. The State
thus becomes permanent owner — the ground landlord
— of the whole land of the kingdom. The second
part of the valuation is that represented by improve-
ments— building, draining, etc. — made by successive
owners and occupiers. This is called tenant-right, and
remains the property of the owner.

If these proposals became law the farmer would
become a tenant of the State, paying an annual quit-
rent for that part (the raw material) which belongs to
the State. He would have to purchase the tenant-
right, and so become absolute owner, subject to the
quit-rent named. If he is not able to purchase, means
are to be provided (not clearly defined) to enable him
to do so.^

These schemes, besides being of a confiscatory
character, are not practical. To advocate them would
be, in addition to the injustice involved, to delay a
question indefinitely which is now pressing for settle-
ment. Our land system, whatever its origin, must be
dealt with as it is. Landlords have inherited land,
have bought for value, and in the past have spent
large sums on their estates. The financial ramifica-
tions in connection with the land — settlements, annui-
ties, mortgages, through banks, workmen's associa-

1 For details see " Land Nationalization," by A. R. Russel Wallace,
LL.D., F.R.S., etc., President of the Land Nationalization Society.
(Triibner & Co.)

OTHER SCHEMES OF LAND REFORM 279

tions, assurance societies, etc. — are so vast that to deal
with the question in any way except by purchase
would cause widespread disaster among almost every
class of society.

There remains the scheme under consideration, that
contained in the Purchase of Land Bill, and which is
free from all the foregoing objections. There are
strong reasons why landlords themselves (unless they
are convinced that the present system can be main-
tained) should give favourable consideration to pro-
posals based on purchase at a fair price. They are
an extremely small number compared with the voting
population of the kingdom. The owners of the great
bulk of the land of Great Britain could be comfort-
ably seated in the Albert Hall. In the case of any
hostile agrarian movement arising from war, continued
depression in trade, or some other calamity, they are,
as an institution, too few to be safe. They were in
this position during the Corn Law agitation, 1838 to
1846. By their policy they had succeeded in getting
rid of their natural allies in the form of yeomen,
peasant owners, and others with personal interests in
the soil. They stood alone and were defeated.

In reading Cobden's speeches made to agriculturists,
it will be noticed that the arguments which he specially
used for showing the great benefits *'free imports"
would confer on agriculture, were nearly all of them
based on predictions confidently, and no doubt
sincerely, made, but which have never been realized.
He spoke, however, so continually in favour of general
land reforms in such directions as "entails," "primo-
geniture," "game-preserving," "granting leases," etc.,
that these reforms became associated in the minds of
the farmers as part and parcel of the great Free Trade

28o LAND REFORM

policy which was to do them so much good. Men
in distress are apt to listen readily to promises of
relief, and the farmers who were suffering from exces-
sive rents, which in so many cases they were paying
out of capital, became converts to the doctrine of free
trade.

The labourers had no political power, but their
depressed condition, due to other causes, as will be
shown later on, was held up as the effect of the
"iniquitous Corn Laws." Altogether the state of things
during the years 1843-6 was most favourable to the
spread of free-trade doctrines. Agriculture was de-
pressed, the great improvement in trade, which was to
become so remarkable, was only just beginning, and
the potato disease appeared in Ireland with its awful
consequences of famine and death. These and other
evils were shown up as the results of the Corn Laws,
and " repeal " was declared to be the remedy for all of
them.

But vigorous as was the Anti-Corn Law agitation,
there was no evidence that it was near success until
the Prime Minister of the day, who had been treating
the question largely in the spirit of opportunism,
decided to adopt the policy of the League.

Had Sir Robert Peel withheld his support for yet
another two or three years, when trade became good,
and employment abundant, the issue would probably
have been different.

If the wise suggestion of Lord John Russell of a
fixed duty had been adopted, it would have put an end
largely to the fluctuations of the sliding scale which
invited continual gambling in wheat, and was, after
all, the cause of half the trouble. In that case it is
questionable if total repeal would have been carried.

OTHER SCHEMES OF LAND REFORM 281

If we turn to France, we see that a different result
from a similar agitation was secured, solely because
the land tenure of that country differed from that of
ours. During the period of the Corn Law agitation
in England, a sliding scale of duties existed in France.
The French Cobden of the time, Bastiat, and his
school, preached the doctrine of free imports with an
earnestness equal to that of Cobden and his col-
leagues, but their preaching was vain before above
five millions of proprietors. From the same cause,
the able speeches of the modern " Free Trader," M.
Yves Guyot, are received with acclaim in England,
while his arguments fall on deaf ears in France.

There is nothing whatever surprising in all this.
The owner of ten acres of land is as keen on the
rights of property, and as watchful of the interests of
his industry, as the owner of ten thousand acres. We
see a landed aristocracy, in continental countries, which
is not exposed to the disfavour and hostile criticism
to which that order in England is subjected. The
reason is, that it is not a class apart, separated
from other classes of cultivators by a gulf which,
under our present system, is well-nigh impassable. In
these countries the landed aristocracy is intermingled
with a landed democracy, and the two interests are not
antagonistic, but identical. Hence it is that the rural
economy of these countries is in the hands of a body
diverse in character, but united in interest. Even the
comparatively few labourers who are simply wage-
receivers are in the same boat, because they can get
land if they like to save and strive in order to do so.
These classes, as a body, came to the conclusion that
it was necessary to defend agriculture from foreign
attacks, and for that purpose they not only proposed.

282 LAND REFORM

but were strong enough to carry, legislation which
imposed duties on imports of foreign corn.^ It must
be remembered, however, that these duties were not
put on, as they were with us in 1815, in the interests
of a small territorial class which was able to control
legislation. They were put on by the voting power
of the great mass of the people, urban and rural, a
majority of whom regarded agricultural prosperity as
synonymous with the prosperity of the nation.

For the foregoing reasons it would seem wise for
landlords to support the proposed reform. Agriculture
is in such a state of depression that capital is no longer
attracted to the land, but is leaving it for foreign and
other investments. The direct political power of land-
lords is mostly gone. The disposal of the tenant's
vote is no longer a condition of letting a farm.
Feudalism has passed away, though no doubt its
influence lingers to a large extent among the rural
population, with whom that influence is hereditary,
and will take a generation or two to die out. The
advent of the commercial classes into the ranks of
large landowners still further destroys the special
characteristics of the old system. These men, though
they may acquire lands, can never in the eyes of the
rural people acquire the same status as that of the
old school. The peculiar relationship, so attractive in
many ways, which existed between the owners of
estates and the dwellers thereon, was the outcome of
ages of habit and use, and cannot continue in the
same spirit under a new class of owners and under
modern conditions.

It would be well perhaps to conclude this chapter

^ These remarks specially apply to the action of the agrarian party in
Germany, with regard to the recent tariflf legislation of that country.

OTHER SCHEMES OF LAND REFORM 283

by quoting the weighty words of one who was among
the ablest members of the diplomatic service, whose
exhaustive and masterly reports on the Land Tenure
of Germany have been the source of the information
used by many who have written on the subject :
"The maintenance of agriculture," he writes, "must
ever be the solicitude of the statesmen, even of an
industrial country like England. Moreover, there are
not wanting signs, looming it might be on the far
horizon, that two great dangers are menacing England.
The one is the disproportionate unlanded or unpro-
pertied class. The statesman who shall pass measures
for removing that disproportion will indeed deserve
well of his country. The other is a possible decline
of manufacturing industry. If the possibility should
assume the portentous shape of a probability, the
statesman who shall pass measures to facilitate and
provide for the transfer to agriculture of any capital
which may be liberated from manufactures will indeed
deserve well of his country. The names of such
statesmen, and of him, too, who shall content the
discontented cultivators of Ireland, will be handed
down to posterity as household words and will be
passed from generation to generation with, if it be pos-
sible, a yet greater renown and yet greater national
gratitude, than the renown and gratitude with which
the names of Stein and Hardenberg are being passed
from generation to generation, as household words of
the great Prussian people."*

• The late J. P. Harris-Gastrell, Secretary to the British Embassy,
Berhn.

CHAPTER XVIII

THE HOME MARKET AND THE
INDUSTRIAL CLASSES

" The Home Market is first in order and paramount
in importance." Thus said Henry Clay when in 1844
he stood as candidate for the Presidency of the United
States and was beaten. At that time the Anti-Corn
Law agitation in England was at its height. Cobden,
always apt to enlist public occurrences into the service
of his cause, spoke of Clay's defeat as follows : —

"He stood as a candidate for that high honour at
the hands of three millions of citizens on the ground
of his being the author and father of the protective
system in America. . . . The speeches of Henry Clay
and Daniel Webster might have done credit to the
Dukes of Buckingham and Richmond themselves.
All the banners at their processions were inscribed
with such mottoes as, ' Protection to Native Industry,'
' Protection against the Pauper Labour of Europe,'
' Stand by the American System,' ' Henry Clay and
Protection to Native Industry.' Yes, all this was said
to the American democracy. And what said three
millions of the American people, voting in the ballot-
box } Why, they rejected Henry Clay and sent him
back to his retirement."^

Sixty years have passed away since then, and in
the light of this long experience it may well be asked,

1 "Cobden's Speeches." Edited by John Bright and J. Thorold
Rogers (Speech, 11 December, 1844).

4

THE HOME MARKET 285

Which of the two policies has been found to be right,
the policy of Cobden or that of Henry Clay? The
great patriotic man who is now President of the
United States, who presides over eighty millions of
people, mostly of the English race, has answered the
question. "Our present phenomenal prosperity," he
says, " was won under a tariff made in accordance
with certain fixed and definite principles, the most
important of which is our avowed determination to
protect the interests of the American producer, business
man, wage- worker, and farmer alike."

The manner in which British agriculture has been
treated during the past two generations may be aptly
likened, so far as folly and short-sightedness go, to
the action of the man in the fable who killed the
goose that laid the golden eggs. Commercialism has
for so long a time governed the policy of the country,
the people have for so long a time been used to look
to trade and manufactures for their livelihood, that
agriculture has gradually taken an inferior place, if it
has not dropped out of sight altogether.

It is simply astonishing to note the indifference
shown by the manufacturing and trading classes to
the condition of this the greatest of all industries.
The importation of a few steam-engines, or some tons
of iron girders, is noted with alarm by our Chambers of
Commerce and by trade journals; but the importation,
say, of cheese to the value of above seven millions
sterling per annum excites little or no attention. We
pay without a murmur this sum, which is about equal
to the value of our exports to Norway and Sweden
put together, for an article which this country is as
fitted to produce as it is to manufacture steam-engines
and girders.

286 LAND REFORM

The development of new markets abroad is care-
fully watched, while the increase or decrease of
the purchasing power of our own counties, as deter-
mined by the state of agriculture, is treated as a
matter of small moment.

If the land of this country were fully cultivated,
and were yielding to its full capacity, the case would
be different. But seeing that under a proper system
it would yield twice, or more than twice, its present
produce, this indifference of the manufacturing classes
is difficult to explain. The old saying about " making
two blades of grass grow where one grew before," is
always accepted as a sound one, but is never seriously
considered as applicable to our own fields. The poor
agricultural labourer is but a small customer of the
manufacturer, for he can afford to buy little beyond
food and raiment. But the peasant proprietor, by the
wealth created out of mother earth, buys tools, utensils,
carts, furniture, and a variety of other things, including
to a considerable extent even ornaments and luxuries.
The theory is that a ton of butter from Denmark, for
instance, is exchanged for British goods, and thus
employment is found for our workmen. The theory
is a doubtful one. But if the ton of butter were
raised at home — as it could be, seeing the men and
the land are available — the exchange between the
home producer and consumer would be certain to
take place. The illustration is a simple one, but it
contains the principle contended for.

Owing to the vast development of trade and com-
merce throughout the world, which began just before
the middle of last century, our manufacturers who
were prepared for the event (being unrivalled as
producers) had for many years a most prosperous

THE HOME MARKET 287

time. But this must have been the case, with or
without the legislation of 1846. With agriculture,
however, the position was reversed. By that legis-
lation it was brought into open competition with
other nations, who in their turn were unrivalled in
the production of the staple articles of the agricultural
industry.

The British farmer, having practically nothing to
export, was soon undersold in the only market open
to him — that is, the home market. Land speedily fell
in value, and the capital invested in it began rapidly
to disappear. Thus agriculture, the premier industry
of the world, the root of a nation's welfare, while
prosperous in every other country, became a fast-
decaying business in our own.

Thinors went well with the manufacturing- classes
for years, during which vast fortunes were made.
But other nations, ridiculing our policy, began to
protect their manufactures as well as their agriculture.
By the ever- increasing foreign tariffs, the manufactur-
ing classes of this country, in their turn, are being
brought face to face with a state of things quite
different from that which existed sixty years ago.

From the latter part of the eighteenth century to
the seventies of last century was the golden age of
the landlords. From about 1844 to 1880 was the
golden era of the manufacturer. It remains to be
seen whether or not our commercial classes did not
unnecessarily sacrifice a certain constant and — as it
micrht have been made — an ever-increasinor home
market, for a foreign trade which they would have
had without such sacrifice, and would have kept as
long as they are likely to keep it now. It remains
to be seen whether, as our fiscal policy caused the

288 LAND REFORM

cultivation of our fields to be abandoned, the foreign
fiscal policy will have a like disastrous effect on our
workshops and factories.

It is difficult to ascertain, exactly, the amount of loss
which traders and manufacturers have sustained by
the decline of agriculture, and the extent to which
they are still dependent for prosperity on that half-
ruined industry. Seve.ral practical men have given
much time and attention to these two points, and the
results of their calculations are such as should arrest
the attention of every commercial man in the kingdom.
Perhaps the most elaborate and complete of these
calculations are those made by Mr. R. E. Turnbull,^

The lines on which they are made, Mr. Turnbull
claims, are such as to make it impossible for a practical
man to make a mistake of any great importance.
Passing over the details of this exhaustive paper, a
few of the conclusions arrived at cannot fail to be
interesting to the general public.

Mr. Turnbull takes all the land in the United
Kingdom occupied for agricultural purposes, and treats
it as one large farm. His calculations cover a period
of twenty-five years, that is, from June, 1872, to June,
1 897. He estimates the average gross annual revenue
from this large farm during each of the five years
between these dates. The figures as regards revenue
refer solely to the value of the produce sold by farmers
to persons who do not occupy land, and to the value of
produce consumed in the houses of the farmers. Sales

* This valuable and carefully prepared contribution to the subject
is contained in a paper (73 pages) entitled, " Farm Capital and Revenue,"
by R. E. Turnbull, Claremont, Shrewsbury. It is published in the
Transactions (Vol. X, 1898) of the Highland and Agricultural Society of
Scotland. (Blackwood, Edinburgh.)

THE HOME MARKET 289

made by one farmer to another are left out of account,
as they do not affect the gross revenue of the whole
of what is described as the "nation's farm."

Mr. Turnbull puts the average gross annual revenue
for the first five years (1872-7) at 255 millions sterling,
and for the last five years of the twenty-five dealt
with (1892-7) at 175 millions, thus showing an average
falling off in the revenue of no less than 80 millions
per annum.^ As regards farmers' capital, he puts the
average amount of capital employed in farming during
the first five years (1872-7) at ^450,210,000, and
during the last five years (1892-7) at ^348,845,000,
being a loss of farmers' capital of ;!^ 10 1,365,000, or
about 2 2^^ per cent.

But in a shorter paper ^ published by Mr. W. J.
Harris, the subject is perhaps treated in a manner
more suitable for the trading and other non-agricultural
classes, and it is for them that the information is the
most necessary. Mr. Harris is a man of long ex-
perience in agrarian affairs, and has for years given
much attention to the economic side of the farming
industry in the United Kingdom. He adopts the
same periods for inquiry as those taken by Mr. Turn-
bull, and, for all practical purposes, shows the same
results.

The details of his calculation are arranged in a
simple and an orderly manner, and can be readily
followed and easily understood by a business man.
He gives a profit and loss account of the farming
industry, which shows that in the first five years

' Tliese great reductions, it must be borne in mind, represent an
annual decline of our home trade.

^ Addresses delivered to the Devon and Cornwall Chamber of Agri-
culture by the President of the Chamber, W. J. Harris, of Halwill
Manor. Devon.
U

290 LAND REFORM

(1872-7) farmers, as a body, made an annual average
profit of ;!^43, 286,000, equal to an average income per
farmer of ^^165 per annum. In the second five years
(1892-7) they, as a body, incurred an annual loss of
;^ 1, 694, 600, thus showing how fast their capital had
been disappearing.

But the calculations which directly affect the in-
dustrial classes — manufacturers and workmen — are
those which show the falling off of the gross output
of farms — the decline in the purchasing power of the
land. In the first five years (1872-7) Mr. Harris
estimates the gross value of the produce sold from
all the farms of the United Kingdom to average
;^249, 148,000 per annum. ^ We may reckon that the
bulk of this enormous sum was spent in our own
country in labour or commodities.^ Its relative im-
portance may be gauged by the fact that for the same
five years (1872-7) the total amount of our exports
of British and Irish products averaged less than 224
millions per annum, including coal (the nation's capital)
and raw material. This export trade, therefore, was
considerably less than the home trade as represented
by the purchasing power of our own soil.

1 Mr. Turnbull puts the sum at 255 millions.

^ Mr. Harris calculates that of this sum above 65 millions were spent
in labour and 12 millions with tradesmen. On this important point
Adam Smith remarks : " The capital employed in agriculture not only
puts in motion a greater quantity of productive labour than any equal
capital employed in manufactures, but in proportion, too, to the quantity
of productive labour which it employs, it adds a much greater value to
the annual produce, to the land and labour of the country, to the real
wealth and revenue of the inhabitants." Adam Smith goes on to describe
the cosmopolitan character of the capital employed in other industries.
The capital of the merchant has no fixed residence, but " may wander about
from place to place according as it can either buy cheap or sell dear."
The capital of the manufacturer must reside where the manufacture is
carried on, but that might be anywhere at home or abroad. But he adds,

THE HOME MARKET 291

But during the period of five years, twenty years
later, that is 1 892-7, Mr. Harris reckons the gross value
of the produce sold from the same farms to average
;^ 1 75,308,400 (instead of jC^49,^4^yOOo) per annum,
or a falling off of no less than ;^73, 839, 600 per
annum.^ The figures show, therefore, that during
the five years named the total decline was about
369 millions sterling, which may be held mainly to
be the loss to British trade during the five years.

What consternation there would be among the com-
mercial classes, if our foreign exports should show a
falling off during the next few years of an average of
74 millions sterling per annum, with every prospect
of the decline continuing !

But it is difficult to understand why there is such
virtue attached to the word " exports." Why are
sales (call them exports) to East Anglia, Devonshire,
Northumbria, etc., of less importance to the manu-
facturer than the sales to Germany, Belgium, or the
United States ? A steam-engine or a plough is not
less profitable to the maker if sold to a farmer in
England, who pays for it out of the produce of the
land, than if sent to a farmer in Argentina. Yet the

the capital employed in the agriculture of any society "must always
reside within that society." These statements directly support the argu-
ments used in these pages. If the 12 millions sterling named in the
Land Purchase Bill were spent by the State (society) in the improvement
of agriculture, any gains from that outlay would reside at home, but
under our present system would reside with a few persons, the landlords.
Under a system of occupying ownerships these gains would be widely
distributed among the inhabitants of the country, whose revenue would
be " in proportion to the value of the annual produce of their land and
labour." In these arguments of Adam Smith the functions of a true
political economy are seen, which are to deal with the distribution of
wealth instead of with its aggregation, to which that so-called science is
so often confined. (See "Wealth of Nations," Vol. II, book ii.)
' Mr. TurnbuU estimates this falling off at 80 millions per annum.

292 LAND REFORM

decline of our home trade is looked upon with un-
concern by manufacturers, while the working classes
do not seem, as yet, to realize the vast amount of
employment they are deprived of by the decay of

agriculture.

Landlords' rents during the periods under con-
sideration have been largely reduced, though, as we
have shown, these reductions are reductions from the
inflated scale of rents which ruled durino- the old
prosperous times. But this affords small consolation
to the present landlords. During the time of pros-
perity, settlements, mortgages, jointures were made,
establishments provided, etc., all on the presumption
that the good times would last. Now and again there
appeared an owner of the class whom the Duke of
Bedford describes as " the fool or the spendthrift,"
whose worthless career encumbered the estates more
or less permanently. Many landlords spent large sums,
in the form of improvements, buildings, homesteads,
etc., on their farms — sums larger, in many cases, than
the present value of the freehold of the holdings.
The result is that landlords who have inherited their
estates have, as a rule, no spare money to spend on
them. There is, therefore, no hope in that direction
for improvements in the cultivation of the land.

The remedy which Mr. Harris proposes is to put
a duty on imports of manufactured goods, on barley,
oats (not on wheat or maize), and on the smaller
articles of food. With the proceeds of these duties
he would give bounties for home-grown wheat, and
reduce, or remit, duties on other necessary articles of
living, including tea and tobacco. The weak point in
the scheme is that the proposed bounties would fail to
produce the desired effect so long as the farmer is a

THE HOME MARKET 293

tenant. Mr. Harris seems to recognize this, for he
suggests that the bounty "should be withheld from
any farm where the landlord attempts unduly to raise
the rent."

He proposes that the tenant should be enabled to
appeal to the County Council against any undue exac-
tion. But these safeguards involve the principles of
" fair rent " and the establishment of land-courts, and
are never likely to be adopted. Landlords, therefore,
in the case of bounties would act very much like other
people. The wealthy among them might possibly
allow the advantage to go to their tenants, but this
could hardly be expected from those holding an estate
for life, and others, who, when they have paid their
liabilities, have often little or nothing left for them-
selves. Under a system of occupying ownership the
case would be totally different. A bounty paid to the
cultivating owner, of sufficient amount to enable him
to grow wheat at a profit, would secure the object in
view. To the extent the operation was carried out,
to that extent the food supply would be increased
and good employment found for labourers, while the
social and political advantages to the community
would be well worth the cost.

As an example, take a limited area, say 200,000 acres,
which is about the acreage that went out of wheat
cultivation during the single cereal year 1903-4. If
wheat were grown in this comparatively small acreage
under the conditions named, there would be employ-
ment (allowing for machinery) for at least 6000
labourers.^ No doubt wages would be increased, but

' This is reckoning that three men are required for every loo acres in
wheat more than are required for the same area in grass. This is a
point on which there is great diflference of opinion. Many farmers put
the number at four, some at five. The Duke of Bedford reckons five

294 LAND REFORM

the yeoman farmer — no longer subject to having rent
raised — could afford to pay them.

If this were done, even on the small scale named, it
would mean that (reckoning the families) at least
25,000 persons would be restored to the land. The
yield from the acreage named — at 30 bushels an acre
— would be 6,000,000 bushels. So that this small
area, only the size of that which went out of wheat
cultivation in a single season, would produce wheat
enough to supply bread to 1,000,000 of our people for
a whole year.

It might be interesting to extend these calculations.
Roughly estimated, our total supply of wheat (includ-
ing flour expressed as wheat) from all sources for the

calendar year 1 903 was as follows : —

Quarters.
Home production . . . 7,000,000

Foreign imports . . . 20,000,000

Imports from India and the Colonies 7,000,000

Total . . 34,000,000^

To produce this total and enable us, so far as bread
is concerned, to become a self-feeding nation, would

extra men for every 200 acres. Of course, the presumption is that the
land would be tilled, not in the labour-starved manner in which so much
of it is now, but in a thoroughly good manner, as undoubtedly would be
the case by a farmer who owned the land.

^ These estimates are based on figures given in " Statistical Abstracts "
of the United Kingdom ; " Agricultural Returns," Board of Agriculture ;
"The Journal of the Board of Agriculture"; "The Com Trade Year
Book," Bromhall ; Vinton's " Agricultural Almanac." The returns some-
what vary on account of the difference between those given for the cereal
year (August to August) and those given for the calendar year. The
changes in the sources of supply of agricultural produce generally, and
qualifications of the estimates of the home supply of wheat, are fully dealt
with in an admirable report by Major Craigie : "Report on Agricultural
Returns, 1903," Board of Agriculture. The same subjects are discussed
in "The Journal of the Board of Agriculture," December, 1904.

THE HOME MARKET 295

require about 9 million acres to be cultivated in
wheat. But it might be thought that 9 million acres
in wheat would be too large a proportion of the culti-
vable land of the kingdom to be used for one article
of food ; besides which, no one wishes to stop imports
from India and the colonies. The quantities of wheat
received from the different sources of supply vary
from year to year, and therefore any apportionment
of them can be only approximate. But taking the
supplies of 1903 as a basis for the calculation, it would
require the yield (at 30 bushels the acre) of about
7 million acres, in addition to the imports from India
and the colonies, to provide bread for all the popula-
tion of the United Kingdom for a whole year, and if
from any cause all over-sea supplies were stopped,
this home produce would be enough for more than
nine months' supply.

Seven million acres out of nearly 48 millions under
crops of some kind in the United Kingdom is not
an undue proportion, seeing that before i860, without
bounties or protection, we had more than 4 million
acres so cultivated.^ Of course, to have 7 million
acres every year in wheat would require a much
larger acreage set aside for the purpose, as it is not
thought at present to be profitable or to be good
farming to grow wheat year after year in succession
on the same land. But this in itself would be a
further advantage to the community, because the
extra acreage, whatever it might be, would be under
the plough, producing crops of some kind, instead of
being kept in grass.'^

' McCuIloch estimated that the total quantity of wheat grown in the

United Kingdom in 1846 (seed being allowed for) was i 5,578,000 quarters.

* Good crops of wheat can be grown on the same land for several

296 LAND REFORM

The question is, how can this increased cultivation
of wheat be secured? It could be effectually secured
by a bounty of, say, thirty shillings per acre on
the 7 million acres named, which would mean an
annual outlay of loj millions sterling of public
money. On the question of bounties Adam Smith
makes the following important remarks, which directly
bear on the suggestion here made : " To encourage,"
he says, "the production of any commodity, a bounty
upon production, one would imagine, would have a
more direct operation than one upon exportation. It
would, besides, impose only one tax upon the people,
that which they must contribute in order to pay the
bounty. Instead of raising, it would tend to lower
the price of the commodity in the home market ; and
thereby instead of imposing a second tax upon the
people, it might, at least in part, repay them for what
they had contributed at first. Bounties upon pro-
duction, however, have been rarely granted. The
prejudices established by the commercial system have
taught us to believe that national wealth arises more
immediately from exportation than from production."^
One important result of this system would be that
the foreigner would no longer be able to rule our wheat

o o

markets. We should be free, as countries with fixed
duties are free, from sudden and rapid fluctuations in
price caused by speculation in grain. If the foreigner
came in at all, he would have to pay the duty out of
his own profits, because the prices here would be fixed
for him and not as at present by him. Further, no

years in succession, and some farmers do it. Mr. W. A. Prout, Chairman
of the Farmers' Club, has grown wheat on the same soil continuously for
above forty years. For the methods adopted see " Journal of the Farmers'
Club," October, 1905.

1 "Wealth of Nations," Vol. Ill, chap. v.

THE HOME MARKET 297

question could be raised of taxing bread, or of raising
the price of the loaf to the consumer, for the reason
that the bounties would always keep the price of
wheat steady and as low as possible. The cultivating
owner, by means of the bounty, would prosper, and the
land be restored to a high state of cultivation.^

If some political economist could work out the
financial results of this operation it would be interest-
ing. He would have to put on the one side the
amount of the bounties, loi^ millions sterling plus the
loss of the crops (whatever they may have been)
which the extra acreage bore before it was cultivated
in wheat, and also the additional cost of cultivation.
On the credit side there would be assets (reckoning
the yield at 30 bushels an acre and 30s. a quarter)
of about 39^- millions sterling for the wheat, about
9 millions (a low estimate) for straw,^ and a proportion-
ate sum for offal. The loss on offal in connection
with imported flour, is too often overlooked. At a
meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, a
table of calculations was presented by Mr. T. G. Read,

^ To make the calculation short and plain, the bounty is reckoned at
so much per acre. But it might equally well be given in the form of so
many shillings per quarter of wheat, so that it might be a premium on
good farming and increased production.

"^ Landlords frequently forbid the sale of straw, as it is considered
that the fertility of the farm is lessened thereby, which is no doubt the
case if no substitutes are used. All depends on the situation of the
farm. If it is within carting distance of a populous centre the farmer
can sell his straw at a much higher price than its manurial value, indeed,
at such a price as would enable him, even now, to grow wheat at a
profit. In any case the farmer who cultivated his own land could act as
he thought best in the matter.

Mr. Moreton Frewen states : "The French theory is that cheap food
is the resultant of a cheaply fertilized soil, in other words of cows and
straw stacks, . . . that with straw enough and cows enough you can have
endless cheap beef, mutton, and pork, cheap dairy produce, and cheap
poultry." — Letter to the "Times," March 4th, 1904.

298 LAND REFORM

of the Tendring Farmers' Club, Essex, which showed
that during eighteen years (1885- 1902) there had been
an average loss of ;^ 1,67 7, 139 per annum through im-
porting flour instead of its equivalent in wheat.

Besides these items, there is the question of employ-
ment to be considered. These 7 millions of acres
brought under wheat cultivation would provide em-
ployment for at least 175,000 men, who, with their
wives and children, would number at the lowest half
a million of persons, all fixed on the soil, and living
by means of employment on it.^ Besides this, if
Mr. Chamberlain's proposal to levy the small duty of
25. per quarter on foreign wheat and 5 per cent on
other imported food were adopted, not as " protection,"
but as a toll levied on the foreigner for the use of our
markets, the sum so realized, no matter how applied,

^ This is adopting the Duke of Bedford's opinion that five men are
required for every 200 acres in wheat more than are wanted for the same
area in grass; but it is certain that this estimate is far too low. Mr.
Alfred Mansell, than whom there is no better authority, stated in a paper
read before the United Service Institution (1903), that to cultivate an
extra 2,218,493 acres of wheat would give employment to 150,000 extra
labourers. This is about fourteen men to each 200 acres instead of the
five that I have given, or a total of about 490,000 labourers (instead of
175,000) required for the 7 million acres named. I wrote to Mr. Mansell
to ask if he had not overstated the number, and the following is his
reply: " I do not think, after giving the matter careful thought, that I
have overstated my case. The actual growing of this acreage of wheat
would not in itself give work to so many extra labourers, but to grow
this extra acreage of wheat a great deal more land than is actually
occupied annually by this cereal would have to come into cultivation, as
in the ordinary economy of the farm wheat could not be grown without
an increase in roots and other green crops. It would also necessitate
that a much larger acreage should be devoted to temporary pastures.
This would all mean a good deal of extra labour." According to Mr.
Mansell's calculation the cultivation of 7 million acres in wheat would
give employment to about 420,000 labourers. These and their wives
and families would number about i^ million persons all living on the
soil.

THE HOME MARKET 299

would materially lessen the cost of the operation to
the general public. And, above all, there would be a
vast reduction in the cost of pauperism and of the un-
employed, all of which, in some form or another, now
falls on the community. If all these savings could be
estimated and placed on the credit side of the sug-
gested account, it would undoubtedly be found that
even from an economic point of view the transaction
referred to would be a paying one for the nation.
From a social and political point of view the advan-
tages could not be estimated, they are incalculable.

Unfortunately, poverty and distress have become
so permanent in our midst that charitable agencies for
the relief of them are now a profession, paid and un-
paid. They form a prominent part of our social life,
and often a fashionable pastime. If a foreigner were
to visit the home of some public or wealthy man in
England, and could see the great number of appeals
for help which are received, coming in by almost
every post, he might fairly conclude that we were a
nation of paupers.

There are large numbers of the philanthropic public
who give willingly of their time and money in charit-
able directions, and by so doing are gratified with the
feeling that they are doing something, and sacrificing
something, for their fellow-creatures. They experience
the "luxury of doing good." But it is questionable if
they would take the same personal interest in legisla-
tive action, the course of which is impersonal and void
of sensation, but the certain effect of which would be
to replace charity, with its demoralization, by self-help
and independence.

In the calculations made, 30 bushels of wheat per
acre are taken as the average yield. But on farms

300 LAND REFORM

tilled by owners, who, by means of bounties, could
afford to employ sufficient well-paid labour, and be
enabled to highly cultivate the land, there would
doubtless be a far larger average yield, thus adding
many millions sterling to the credit side of the sug-
gested account. Indeed, it is difficult to name a limit
to what the kindly soil will yield, when fairly and
skilfully treated.

Arthur Young,^ in describing the best-cultivated
land he visited, gives an account, now and then, of
the labour and manure bestowed on it. The land, he
said, is ploughed three or four times for wheat, and
receives twenty to thirty loads (of 36 bushels) of farm-
yard dung per acre. One farm of 90 acres employed
4 men and i boy regularly, besides extra help during
harvest. A farm of 200 acres (60 in grass) had 8
horses, 6 regular servants and labourers, besides
occasional extra help. Another farm (in Surrey) of
300 acres (240 arable) employed 12 horses, 8 oxen, and
16 regular servants and labourers. In a number of
financial accounts which he gives of different farms,
an item of " 5 qrs. of wheat per acre " is almost in-
variably entered on the credit side. This refers only
to the best-cultivated land.

Young attaches far more importance to good cultiva-
tion than to the quality of the land. He goes on to
say how remarkable it is that the average quantity of
wheat, on rich land which he refers to, should not
exceed 6|- qrs. per acre ; while he is able " to state
as a fact, with good tillage and plentiful manuring
1 3 J qrs. of wheat have been produced from a statute
acre of land." He continues, " Very poor soils, and

1 u

■Tour through the Southern Counties of England and Wales."
Arthur Young, 1772.

THE HOME MARKET 301

even such as have been reputed barren, are made by
these means (good cultivation, abundant labour, and
manure) to exceed the naturally fertile ones in pro-
duce. . . . The richness of the land is not, therefore,
of so much importance to the cultivator, and, of
course, to the nation at large, as a lively, vigorous,
and judicious cultivation of it."^

Another experienced agriculturist speaks of 1 2 qrs.
an acre on well-cultivated land, and adds, " I have
known myself 8 qrs. to 10 qrs. "^ In a description of
farming in Berkshire, the following appears : " From
the averages of parishes in the different districts, it
appears that the Vale of the White Horse yields
about 4 qrs. an acre ; the best soils 5 qrs. . . . Stam-
ford, in the Vale of Kennet, produces about 5 qrs. to
the acre." ^

In short, it is difficult to find any writer on husbandry
who reckoned less than 5 qrs. per acre as the average
yield of best-cultivated land before the decay of agri-
culture set in. It is therefore not unreasonable to
expect that under a system of occupying ownership,
with a sufficient bounty on wheat-growing and the
consequent good cultivation, the average yield would
be at least 40 bushels per acre.

The present writer has recently received a letter
from one of the greatest authorities on the subject,

' The present writer was visiting a farmer in the south of England a
few years ago at harvest time. He remarked on the poorness of the
wheat crop, and pointed to a large field in the neighbourhood, the yield
of which, in the opinion of competent judges, was at least 50 bushels
an acre. The reply was, "That field is the property of a butcher in the
village, who spares neither labour nor manure ; he cultivates in a manner
that I cannot afford to do." This farmer, about two years afterwards,
having lost what capital he had, was obliged to leave the farm.

- "Practical Husbandry," J(;hn Mills, 1767.

" "The Agriculture of Berkshire," by William Mavor, LL.u., 1809.

302 LAND REFORM

which points out an economic advantage of great
importance connected with the proposal for giving
bounties. It states : —

" I consider that a bounty would have an enormous
effect on the increase in the production of wheat, and
that it would be an unmixed benefit to the poorer half
of the community, because it would keep the price of
wheat steady and low. The land that would be
brought into cultivation would be mostly old worn-out
pasture, not worth more than 1 5s. per acre now. The
proposals mean a great revolution in farming which at
the present time is to lay everything down into grass,
and let it remain till it is almost valueless except for a
small rental to the landowner. . . . The decrease in
the number of sheep in the kingdom during the past
forty years shows how little advantage the large
acreage of poor grass has been to the tenant. It
simply, in many cases, makes it easier for him to
do without employing labour, and he practically
depends for his living on spending as little as pos-
sible."

General calculations are always open to criticism,
and are often faulty in details ; but those here given
are obviously sufficiently accurate to support the ar-
guments advanced, and the conclusions drawn from
them. These arguments and conclusions are ad-
dressed to those of the industrial classes who may
not have thought much on the subject of agriculture
and the extent to which their own prosperity is
dependent on that great industry. They are ad-
dressed to the general public, with a view of giving
some insight into the problem of rural depopulation
with its attendant evils ; and they are further addressed
to the philanthropist and social reformer, with the

THE HOME MARKET 303

object of showing that it is to the land they must look
for the most hopeful remedy for the misery and desti-
tution which exist.

In addition to a revival in ordinary farming, there
is the question of '^ la petite culture'' — small farming
— which is a distinct branch of the agricultural in-
dustry. If it were restored on the lines suggested,
there seems to be no reason why a yearly increasing
part of the smaller articles of food now imported
should not be produced at home. Taken as a whole,
therefore, if the agrarian policy here advocated were
vigorously carried out, and Mr. Chamberlain's pro-
posals were adopted in connection with it, the whole
condition of English rural life would soon be changed.
Employment would be enormously increased, not only
for those immediately connected with the soil, but
also for those engaged in subsidiary trades, such as
the blacksmith, carpenter, miller, implement-maker,
saddler, wheelwright, etc. Our villages and market
towns, now in decay, would again become peopled and
prosperous.

This is pre-eminently a labour question. Thou-
sands of men who are now competing with their
fellows in an overstocked labour-market in towns
would be drawn off to the land, there to produce
wealth to be spent largely in the very localities they
had left.

The vast sums now spent with the foreigner for
food, and which go to enrich the workshops and retail
shops abroad, would, by the increased production of
our own mother earth, be largely devoted to the
benefit of similar concerns at home, and, what is of
great importance, the justifiable anxiety now felt as
to our food supply in time of war would be removed.

304 LAND REFORM

Touching the labour part of the question — during
the Corn Law agitation it was urged that Free Trade
meant " exchanging our manufactures for the corn of
other countries."^ The argument ever repeated
during the contest was that *' every bushel of corn
imported would be paid for by British manufactures."
But this prediction, like almost every other made at
the time, has never been realized. The exact con-
trary result has been seen.

Let us take the United States as an example.
Unfortunately the references to imports so far as
values are concerned cannot be carried further back
than 1854. But, taking quantities, we find that during
the first ten years (1847-56) after the repeal of the
Corn Laws the average yearly imports of wheat, wheat
meal, and flour from the United States were under
five million cwts. During the last ten years (1894-
1903) the average yearly imports of the same produce
were nearly fifty-six millions cwts. So that, accord-
ing to the Cobden theory — a theory which told so
effectively during the Corn Law agitation — our ex-
ports to the United States should have increased in
a like proportion.^ But the values of these exports
are available so far back as the years named, and
therefore a comparison can be made. We find that
during the first ten years (1847-56) our average yearly
exports of British and Irish produce to that country
were between 16 and 17 millions sterling, while during
the second period (i 894-1 903), nearly fifty years later,
the average yearly exports of the same kind of produce

^ Cobden's speech, House of Commons, 25 August, 1841.

^ In this comparison the imports of wheat and wheat flour only are
taken. If the imports of other grain and meal are brought into account,
the disparity is enormously increased.

THE HOME MARKET 305

were only about 2o|- millions, showing a comparatively
small increase. The average yearly imports from the
United States during the same ten years (1894- 1903)
were no less than 117 millions.

Leaving averages and taking the year in each of
the decades of years named, in which our exports of
British and Irish products to the United States were
the highest, we find that in 1853 they were above
23|- millions sterling, while in 1902 they were about
23f millions, or practically the same. So that instead
of every bushel of the enormously increased imports
of corn being "paid for by British manufactures," facts
show that the exports of British products to the
United States are about the same now as they were
fifty years ago.^

The full significance of this comparison can only
be seen by looking at the increase of population in
the two countries. The United States in 1853, with
a population of less than 30 millions, bought about
as much in value of British products as that country
did fifty years later (in 1903), with a population of
about 80 millions. In the same way our working
classes got as much employment through working for
the United States in 1853, when our population was
about 28 millions, and the imports of grain were so
small, as they got in 1903, when the population had in-
creased to about 42 millions and the imports of grain
were so vast. To put the case in another way, the ex-
ports to the United States in 1853 were 17s. per head
of our population ; in 1903 they were about los. 8d.

' The returns for last year (1904) have just been issued. They show
that the value of our exports to the United States of British and Irish
produce was still lower, being less than 20J millions sterling, while that
of our imports from that country the same year were 119^ millions.
X

3o6 LAND REFORM

The subject will be referred to in detail later on,
but in the meantime it may be noted that the great
increase in our exports to America in the middle of last
century had nothing to do with free imports of corn.
In fact, it began before the repeal of the Corn Laws
came into operation, and was caused solely by the
pressing and increasing need which America had for
goods and capital which this country alone could
supply. As Cobden himself pointed out in 1845,
" manufactures and commerce are thriving, and the
revenue is flourishing."^ Indeed, looking at the
history of the time, there are strong grounds for
believing that if the legislation of 1846 had been
delayed for a single year, the total repeal of the Corn
Laws would not have taken place, so great was the
increase of prosperity and the consequent increase in
employment.

Mr, Morley, writing of the state of things in
1845, says : "In spite of the activity which was in-
volved in those profuse supplies (subscriptions) the
outlook of the cause (repeal of the Corn Laws) was,
perhaps, never less hopeful and encouraging. The
terrible depression which had given so poignant an
impulse to the agitation had vanished, and trade and
commerce were thriving-. The revenue was flourish-
ing, pauperism had declined." (Life of Cobden,
chap. XIV.)

In spite of experience, another argument is still
used on political platforms, to the effect that if we
lessen imports by protecting our home production,
our exports will fall off. It is strange that any one
with experience of the foreign trade can really believe
in such a fallacy. Our sales to a foreign country are

1 Speech in London, 15 January, 1845.

THE HOME MARKET 307

not made in a lump quantity, in one large indent, but
are made to a great number of individual buyers in
that country, each one of whom will, in any circum-
stances, take our goods if it suits him to do so, and in
no circumstances will he take them if it does not.
France, Germany, and other nations have been
effectually defending and protecting their agricultural
interests, and at the same time their exports of manu-
factured goods have been increasing by leaps and
bounds.

If we turn to the future, the outlook for agriculture,
and consequently for the British home trade, is a
gloomy one, if the present system is continued. Small
as our home supply of cereals is at the present time,
there is every prospect that it will become less and
less. There is evidence that farmers will act more
freely on what is termed the " wise advice to rely on
cattle," and on the assurance that ** live stock will
prove to be the sheet-anchor of farming."

But even this branch of the industry is threatened.
In former times, cattle from over-sea could be im-
ported into this country and sold on arrival as fat or
store animals. The Diseases of Animals Acts, passed
some years ago, put an end to this practice by pro-
viding that cattle must be slaughtered at the ports
within a few days after they have been landed.^ But
a powerful and wealthy organization has been formed
with the object of securing the repeal of these Acts.
This organization includes graziers, representatives of
railway and shipping companies, co-operative societies,

' The efficacy of these Acts is shown by the following report : —
" With the close of the year 1904, I am again able to report that the live
stock of Great Britain remains free from all the more serious contagious
diseases legislated for in this country." (Report of the Chief Veterinary
Officer, Board of Agriculture, Cd. 2454, 1905.)

3o8 LAND REFORM

chambers of commerce, harbour authorities, butchers'
associations, etc. A strong deputation representing
these bodies waited on the President of the Board of
Agriculture (October, 1903), and in support of their
views used the old hack argument of the free im-
porter. Imports of store cattle should be unrestricted
because *' they were raw material " ; they would *' make
food cheaper," and be in the " interests of the con-
sumer," etc. The present law was generally denounced
as " protection."

The safety of the herds of the British farmer, and
the welfare of agriculture, were of secondary, if of
any, consideration in the prospect of getting meat
a farthing per pound cheaper, and extra traffic for
railways and steamships.

The President of the Board, Lord Onslow, acting
in the true interests of the country, declined, in no
uncertain terms, to interfere with the Acts. But there
is no guarantee that, with future governments, the
commercial and urban influence will not, as usual,
override the interests of agriculture. The spurious
cry of "cheap food" will be used — as the equally
spurious cry of the "cheap loaf" is being used now —
as a political means to secure the end in view. Should
the Acts be repealed the results will be that some time
or another disease will be imported, and once imported
will spread throughout the country ; that the vast
amount of public money that has been spent in success-
fully stamping out cattle disease will be thrown away,
and that the long and difficult work will have to be
done over again. But besides the question, so im-
portant to the community, of having healthy cattle, it
is difficult to see, should the Acts be repealed, how the
smaller and middle-class farmer will be able to breed

THE HOME MARKET 309

and rear stock at a profit. The large grazing farmer,
no doubt, will find it profitable in preparing imported
store cattle — the "raw material" — for the markets.
Grass land is more profitable and less troublesome to
manage than tillage, and fewer labourers are required
on it.

Looked at from any point of view, it seems prob-
able that the land of England, so far as the great
bulk of it is concerned, will soon become practically a
ranch, on which few will be employed besides the
herdsman, and, as Bishop Latimer said, the "shepherd
and his dogge."

It is often asked, why should State assistance be
given to agriculture any more than to the iron, cotton,
or any other industry ? The present writer will have
failed in one of his main objects if he has not shown
that agriculture is different from all other industries,
that it is the basis of all others. The land is Nature's
great factory in which the work never ceases by night
or day, producing everything we eat, use, wear, or
handle. "In agriculture Nature labours along with
man ; and though her labour costs no expense, its
produce has its value, as well as that of the most
expensive workmen."^

Every man, woman, and child in the country is
affected by the prosperity or depression of agriculture.
In the proposed land reform the yeoman farmer is
regarded as the nation's instrument to secure national
gains, comforts, and safety ; the fact that he shares
the general advantages of that reform is but an
incident in its operation.

The question is a too comprehensive one to be

» "Wealth of Nations," Vol. II, p. 55 (nth edition, 1905).

3IO LAND REFORM

looked at only from the point of view of the agricul-
turist. It is, in a sentence, whether — looking at the
moral, social, and political, as well as the economical
considerations involved — it is wise to make a vigorous
attempt to develop the splendid capacity of our own
fields, or to leave agriculture to its fate, and continue
to rely on the produce of foreign countries for food.

If the former course is thought the wiser, then all
experience proves that the system of cultivating
ownership is the only one to attain the object. The
system is the same in principle as that which so
largely obtained in this country " ere England's woes
began," and which forms the basis of land-tenure in
almost every other civilized nation in the world.

CHAPTER XIX

OUR FOOD SUPPLY IN THE TIME
OF WAR

There is another view of the case worthy of the
serious attention of the commercial and wealthier
classes of the country. Lord Selborne, when First
Lord of the Admiralty, in the debate on Naval
Administration, said : " No other Admiralty in the
world has to consider, besides safeguarding the
country from invasion, the fact that on the Navy
depends the supply of food for the people."^ He
might have added — so far as the food supply is con-
cerned— that this is an untried position for this
country, and that in case of a great war the Navy
would be charged with this vital duty for the first
time in our nation's history. During the great wars
of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the
nineteenth, this country was so nearly a self-feeding
one, that no anxiety existed as to supplies from
without.

Lord Selborne was one of the ablest men that has
ever filled that post. He would be the last man to
indulge in mere alarmist rhetoric for the purpose
of passing his enormous Navy estimates through
Parliament. We have, therefore, seriously to con-
sider our position in the event of a great struggle. It
appears that almost everything may now be declared
by a belligerent to be contraband of war, and it is

' "Times," lo August, 1904.
311

312 LAND REFORM

possible that food might be so declared^ No doubt
our Navy would effectively discharge the duty pre-
scribed by the First Lord of "seeking the enemy's
ships and destroying them wherever they could be
found." But suppose the enemy had a dozen or so
of swift, lightly armed cruisers of the "commerce-
destroyer" class, whose duties would be not to fight,
but to run away from our ships of war, and to scour
the ocean in search of grain-laden ships. In such a
case the security of our food supply would be greatly
endangered.

It has been urged that neutral powers, who are so
financially interested in supplying this country with
grain, would not allow it to be declared contraband of
war. But this argument disappears on an examina-
tion of our sources of supply. Russia might be one
of the belligerents. Argentina is too weak to interfere.
India and the Colonies are parts of the British Empire,
and would be treated by our foes as such. There
remains America. The United States would no doubt
be at least a neutral, because the ties of friendship
and race between the two countries have happily
become so strong, that a war with our kinsmen across
the Atlantic may be placed in the region of the im-
possible. But there are signs that we shall receive
less and less grain from America. Her rapid increase
in population and prosperity indicates that the time is
not far distant when America will require all or most

^ " In February, 1885, it was announced on the part of France that in
the circumstance of her war with China she would treat rice as contra-
band of war by virtue of the right of a belHgerent to issue occasional
prohibitions of the trade in things which, though not contraband by
nature like arms and ammunition of war, are of a particular utility to his
enemy." (Memorandum by Professor J. Westlake, K.C., Appendix 29,
Vol. Ill, Report of Royal Commission on Food Supply, etc. Cd. 2645.)

OUR FOOD SUPPLY IN TIME OF WAR 313

of her produce for consumption at home, and conse-
quently will have small financial or commercial interest
in the matter of grain being declared contraband of
war.^

War, as a rule, breaks out suddenly, and for the
unprepared there is no time for preparation. In the
matter of food we are absolutely unprepared, and
the question would immediately become one affecting
the daily existence of the people. Careful calculations
have been made, which show the disquieting fact that
"during the last ten years, at no period have we had
in the United Kingdom sufficient stocks of wheat and
flour for more than seven weeks' consumption, and at
times the stocks have fallen as low as two weeks'
consumption."^

^ The returns for 1904 are now available. They show that from one
cause and another our supplies of wheat and flour from the United
States were less than one-half of what they were in 1903. On the other
hand, the imports from Argentina, India, and Australia had largely
increased. The returns show the great fluctuations in the over-sea
sources of our wheat supply.

2 " Our Food Supply in the Time of War," by T. V. S. Angier, F.R.S.S.,
14 May, 1903.

According to the Report of the Royal Commission on "Food Supply
in the Time of War," our stock of wheat in hand varies between a
maximum of seventeen weeks' supply and a minimum of six-and-a-half
weeks.

We have to go back to Roman history for a parallel to this dangerous
state of things. Egypt was the granary on which Rome depended for
wheat supplies. We are told that Vespasian, after the victory of his
forces at Cremona, " committed to the still tempestuous sea some of the
swiftest of his ships laden with corn, and well it was he did so, for the
City was then tottering under a state of things so critical that the corn
in the granaries was sufficient for no more than ten days' supply when
the stores from Vespasian came in to their aid." — Tacitus, Vol. II, book 4,
chap. LI 1 1 (Bohn's translation).

Again the same lesson is taught by the story of the buccaneers : —
"They held complete possession of the Italian waters. Rome, depending
on Sicily, Sardinia, and Africa for her supplies of com, was starving for
want of food."— Froude's "Caesar" (Longmans).

314 LAND REFORM

Modern warfare is so different from warfare of
former times that few sound conclusions can be drawn
from the past. Ships have increased in size and
might, but, as we have seen by the war in the East,
the means of destruction have increased with equal
rapidity. No one can forecast what would happen,
even to our Navy, however strong, in the event of a
war with a European power or combination of powers.
In any case, our enemies would be bad generals in-
deed if they did not concentrate their efforts on the
one vulnerable point in our defence which has never
before existed.

In 1903 a Royal Commission was appointed to
inquire into the question of the supply of food
and raw material in the time of war. The evidence
given before the Commission by competent witnesses
contains the most valuable information, and fully re-
veals the dangers connected with our present position
as a nation. But the report of the Commission, so far
as remedies go, is vague and unsatisfactory. Perhaps
there never was a commission which received more
valuable evidence and information than that of Lord
Balfour's, and also never one whose report was more
disappointing.^

A large part of the evidence refers to the commer-
cial side of the question, to the manner in which the
corn trade, shipping trade, and other industries would
be affected by war. But several witnesses closely
touch what, after all, is the main part of the problem,
namely, to what extent and in what manner the great
mass of the people would be affected by the contin-

1 Report of the Royal Commission on " Supply of Food and Raw
Material in Time of War," 1905. Lord Balfour of Burleigh chairman.

OUR FOOD SUPPLY IN TIME OF WAR 315

gency under notice. One witness, who speaks with
authority for the working classes, when asked what
would be the general results of a war to the working
classes in the present condition of our food supply,
replied : —

"When you are giving the matter serious thought,
it is almost too terrible to think of what would be the
result. If our food supply, for which we have to
depend upon other countries so very largely, were
prevented coming into this country, that must increase
prices to a terrible extent, and I am quite sure of this,
that a very large number of workers would see starva-
tion at once. . . ."

As to the dangers arising from conditions of war
(Q. 181 7), he stated: "When you get men into a
destitute condition, and starvation is facing them, men
will not be too particular. . . . Men will not starve
quietly so long as there is food to be obtained, honestly
or dishonestly. That follows as a matter of course."

To the further question as to whether the people
would put pressure on the Government to end the
war, the witness replied : "I am sure they would.
Men who are starving would not have any compunc-
tions about putting the utmost pressure upon the
Government to stop the war under any conditions
when they are starving." ^

One witness touches the root of the matter by say-
ing : " I think the best and cheapest way to provide
our food supplies in time of war would be to provide
for them in times of peace " ; and when questioned as
to the best methods of doing this, he replied : —

' George D. Kelly, secretary of the Manchester and Salford Trades
and Labour Council. See evidence. Vol. II, p. 312.

3i6 LAND REFORM

" I think the most economical thing for the country
to do would be to make the small farmer, the small
holder, as numerous as possible, and to do it as soon
as possible. ... I think we ought, as far as we can,
to increase in every way the small holdings in the
country and get the agriculturist to be his own master
. . . same as they do in France and Germany, and
then we should have a certain supply at home more
than we have now." *

As if to complete these answers and to point out
their practical character, another witness, an experi-
enced agriculturist, stated : —

" Thousands of acres now practically producing
nothing, which with wheat at a paying price would
come again under the plough. ... A great deal of
land has never been laid down, it has simply tumbled
down, and has been left to assume its own pasture. I
have walked over hundreds of farms I may say in the
last twenty years, and I cannot call it anything but
moss and poor herbage . . . and notwithstanding this,
the aggregate number of sheep, cattle, and pigs is
about two and a half million less than it was about
thirty years ago. This shows what we have lost in
grain has not been made up in animal food." ^

It is to be regretted that the Commissioners did not
consider the question from the standpoint of such
evidence as this and give us their conclusions respect-
ing it. To do so, no doubt, would be to face the
fiscal question, but that question should have been
considered quite apart from the opinions of individual
members on the merits of free imports. It would be
satisfactory to the public if they had been told by the

• Evidence of Sir Alfred Jones. Vol. II, p. 206.
'•* Evidence of Alfred Mansell. Vol. II, p. 308.

OUR FOOD SUPPLY IN TIME OF WAR 317

Commissioners whether or not in their opinion a
modification — and what modification — of our present
fiscal system would give a key to the solution of the
problem of feeding the people in times of war.

As it is, a report is presented covering sixty-three
pages of a Blue Book, signed by all the members of the
Commission, and followed by about a dozen minority
statements, containing reservations, qualifications, and
supplementary reports — making altogether a very
inconclusive and confusing document. The corn
trade, shipping trade, and commercialism gener-
ally, appear to have governed the inquiry, and the
question as to whether or not a sufficient stock of
wheat in war time could be secured by the improve-
ment of agriculture seems to have received no con-
sideration. To ordinary men it seems incredible that
during such a long inquiry, conducted by able and
painstaking men, not one glance should have been
cast in the direction in which it is most likely a
remedy could be found for the evils they were con-
sidering— a remedy natural, commonplace, and effec-
tive : that of increasing the yield of our own fields.

The largest section of the Commission reports in
favour of some system of national indemnity which
would provide that the State should indemnify ship-
owners and merchants for the capture or destruction
of their ships and freights. The necessity for a
scheme of this kind is fully dealt with in a letter
written by Mr. Leverton Harris. Mr. Harris states: —

" It is sufficient to point out that every British
vessel will be liable to be sunk, burnt, or captured by
any enemy's cruiser. . . . No one doubts that all our
opponent's energies will be directed against our over-
sea trade ; it will not be by invasion but by starvation

3i8 LAND REFORM

that our enemy will seek to reduce us. . . . For this
purpose no money will be spared and no opportunity
neglected."

Mr. Harris shows that the United States, before the
Civil War, had a just pre-eminence among maritime
nations, second only to England in the amount of
their tonnage, and that at the end of the war their
fleet, through being sold, transferred to neutral flags,
or captured, had ceased to exist, and that "this de-
struction of their mercantile marine was brought about
by a mere handful of Confederate cruisers."

It is argued in the letter that shipowners, if insured
under a scheme of national indemnity, would run risks
that it would be ruin for them to run without, and so
a continual supply of grain would reach our shores,
while the nation would be paying only the actual net
losses that might happen. The cost of the scheme,
Mr. Harris says, it is impossible to estimate ; it might,
he states, be " five millions ; it might be twenty millions
or more"; but he adds, "it is far better to pay for
the loss of a few vessels and a few cargoes, than that
this country should lose her shipping supremacy and
inflict grave sufferings on her working classes."^

With regard to Lord Selborne's statement that
" on the Navy depends the supply of food for the
people," in 1903 a very able paper was read on
the subject.^ The discussion which followed showed
the opinions of men who are qualified above all others
to speak on the question of the navy in connection with
the food supply in the time of war. Those opinions

^ "Times," 12 September, 1905.

^ See "Journal of the Royal United Service Institution," December,
1903 : a paper read by Mr. Alfred Mansell on " Food Stuffs in the Time
of V^^ar."

OUR FOOD SUPPLY IN TIME OF WAR 319

are decided and unqualified, and ought to carry the
greatest weight with the outside pubHc. Sir Nowell
Salmon, admiral of the fleet, said on that occasion :
" We may hope to a certain extent, but not at the be-
ginning of a war, the trade routes may be kept free ;
at the commencement of a war I have no doubt they
would be very much interfered with." He goes on to
quote the opinion of the secretary of Lloyd's to the
following effect : "No form of insurance was practical
except keeping up a strong navy and army, and also,
as a second line of defence, a reserve of wheat."

Admiral Harding Close said on the same subject : —

"We spend 31 millions a year on the Navy. You
might as well chuck that money into the sea for all
the oood it will do, for what is the use of our ofoingf to
sea and wmnmg battles of Trafalgar if we leave a
starving population behind ? ... It is no use your
boasting that we have a powerful navy, and that
therefore, having command of the sea, our food supply
is safe. You cannot get a naval officer to say so.
We never had command of the sea, so far as the
protection of our merchant ships is concerned. If
there was a period in the history of this country when
we might say we had command of the sea, surely it
was after the battle of Trafalgar, when there was not
an enemy left on the sea. Yet after that battle,
hundreds of our merchant ships were captured ; and
it will be so again. We cannot protect our merchant
ships ; the thing is impossible. But I believe this also,
that a blockade of our ports is impossible. The true
blockade will be the impossibility of our ten thousand
slow merchant ships obtaining any insurance and being
laid up as useless, as the United States merchant ships
were laid up when the ' Alabama ' was about. This
will prevent the weekly arrival of the four hundred
merchant ships which bring us our food, and cause

320 LAND REFORM

panic on the corn-market, the enemy having made
food contraband of war."

In the face of these strong opinions, and having
regard to the evidence given before the Royal Com-
mission, it would be a bold course for any First Lord
to tell the country that he is satisfied that a strong
navy is sufficient to secure a supply of food for the
people in the time of war.

In warfare, it has often happened that towns and
strongholds have been starved into surrender, but
probably no case in history can be found in which
a whole nation has been subjected to that fate. But,
though difficult to realize, it is useless to deny that
that is the danger to which this country would be
exposed in the event of war.

Such a crisis might never arise, but it is possible,
and the possibility is actually advanced by the Govern-
ment as a prime reason for spending the vast sum
of above 36 millions sterling on our Navy in a single
year. Should it arise, it must end in national disaster
and humiliation. Unlike other nations, the great bulk
of our population has been reduced to a proletariat, on
whom, with their wives and children, the suffering
would fall. Food, if it could be got at all, would be
at famine prices. Our foreign trade, through dearness
and scarcity of raw material, with freights and insur-
ance at war rates, would speedily pass into other
hands, and — having so largely destroyed our home
trade — there would be no employment for the people.
Enforced idleness and starvation, together, form a
dangerous situation. It might be taken for granted
that the great mass of the people would not for long
quietly endure their sufferings. Why should they ?

OUR FOOD SUPPLY IN TIME OF WAR -,21

o^

They would demand — and perhaps enforce the demand
by methods that would have to be heeded — a peace
and settlement on any terms, and at any price, how-
ever costly and humiliating.

Mr. J. Macdonald (Secretary of the London Trades
Council), who spoke at the meeting referred to,
said : —

" Mills and factories would either be shut up or be
running on short time, and wages not obtainable by
the working-man. . . . You will see hundreds, nay,
thousands of men, able and willing to work, parading
your streets, and not being able to work cannot get
food."

He goes on to say that these men will ask the
Government why no provisions were made to meet
these conditions, and will resolve that " if there is
food in the country we mean to have it, or our share
of it." Mr. Macdonald adds : —

"That is what you have to face ; and frankly I say
that, did such a condition arise, I should be one of the
very first to advise the working-men, who have pro-
duced the food, to go and take it if they are hungry,
and not allow it to be stored up."

One other thing would be certain to happen. Men's
eyes would be turned on the millions of acres of idle
land which, had they been properly cultivated, would
have been the means of averting the disaster. All
classes would then see the extent to which a nation is
dependent on agriculture for its safety and very exist-
ence.

Another proposal which, so far as can be gathered
from the various reports, is supported by a majority
of the Commissioners, is to provide huge granaries,

322 LAND REFORM

public and private, and in them to store wheat sufficient
for so many months' consumption.

The practice of storing wheat to provide against
famine years is as old as the time of the Pharaohs.
Rome had her public granaries, but the wheat stored
in them was the hard, dry kinds grown in hot climates,
mainly in Egypt. ^ Wheat is stored for many months
in our fortresses in the Mediterranean and elsewhere.
But that is a small undertaking compared with an
attempt to store enough grain for forty-two millions of
people. Besides, in our climate wheat, however dry
it might seem, contains moisture that makes it liable
to turn sour and mouldy if kept for any length of
time. The question of storing grain has been the
subject of volumes of agricultural literature in this
country for generations past, but it never received
much favour.

One of the very best authorities on the subject, who
was in favour of storing wheat, if it could be done,
in order to equalize prices and provide against scarcity,
concludes that it can only be stored in private hands.
He writes : —

"Neither can that care be taken to preserve corn
from corruption, decay, or being diminished or de-
stroyed by vermin, in such public magazines, as in
private hands, and consequently the goodness of the
quality cannot be so well preserved ; for they will
seldom be emptied more than once a year ; and all
who know the corn-trade know how difficult it is, in
this climate, to preserve corn sweet, after it is out of
the straw, for the whole year round. "^

1 Pliny, in his " Natural History," describes various methods which
the Romans adopted for storing grain. Book XVIII (Bohn's translation).

2 "Tracts on the Corn Trade," by Charles Smith, 1804.

Jethro TuU — a noted pioneer in the improvement of agriculture—

OUR FOOD SUPPLY IN TIME OF WAR 323

Besides, it is not bread stuffs only, but other articles
of food would have to be stored, for we are as a
nation in the same unhappy position with regard to
them as we are with regard to wheat. The cost of
doinor this would be enormous. The building- or rent-
ing of granaries, the deterioration of the food, the
cost of administration, the vast amount of capital
employed, of which perhaps neither principal nor
interest might be ultimately realized, or only partly
realized : these and other considerations might fairly
make any Government hesitate before adopting a
scheme of storage as a permanent and settled policy,
whatever it might do as a temporary expedient, while
a better, cheaper, and a more effective system is grow-
ing to completion.

These various proposals and recommendations
serve to illustrate in a striking way our unique posi-
tion among nations of having to import five-sixths
of our food stuffs, while at the same time millions of
acres of our own land are uncultivated. We turn
from them with the strengthened conviction that
the stackyard of the farmer is the only natural and
proper place to store wheat for a nation, but under
our present system the stackyard must remain empty.^

speaks of a farmer who made it a practice to buy wheat when it was
cheap ; to dry it and keep it till the price was high. His method was to
dry it upon a hair cloth in a malt kiln with no other fuel than clean white
straw, never suffering it to have a stronger heat than that of the sun.
After this process the wheat would keep sweet for many years. This man
had occasionally in his granaries as much as five thousand quarters
of dried wheat. " He was a most sincere and honest yeoman, who
from a small substance he began with, left behind him about forty
thousand pounds, the greatest part whereof was acquired by this drying
method." (The " Horse Hoeing Husbandry," by Jethro Tull, 1822.)

' Up towards the end of the eighteenth century England was a wheat-
exporting country. Ancient writers speak of the "fertile soil of Britain
bearing heavy crops of corn," of the large exports of wheat, "of tioo

324 LAND REFORM

Another suggestion, known as " private storage," is
of a more reasonable kind, and is looked upon with
favour by a large number of persons. The scheme
is to make grants of public money to farmers to enable
them to keep wheat in the stack for a considerable
time, so that any contingency that might arise would
find us with a good stock on hand.

Perhaps the most practical plan for private storage
is that proposed by Sir R. P. Cooper.^

Sir Robert Cooper, besides being one of the largest
manufacturers in the kingdom, is a large owner of
land both at home and abroad, and has close connec-
tions with all the corn-growing countries in the world.
The question of food supply in time of war, he says,
"is one of vital importance to every Briton, and
cannot be over-rated, for our very existence as a
Nation, and our continuance as an Empire, may depend
upon it."

The scheme he proposes, shortly stated, is to put
a small duty on all imported grain, 2s. per quarter
on colonial, 4s. on foreign, and to place a duty of 4s.
on colonial flour and 8s. on foreign.

The proceeds of these duties are to be given to the
British farmer who grows wheat, and keeps it in
stacks for certain periods. The following scale is sug-
gested : if kept in stack till Christmas, 4s. per quarter;
if till Lady Day, 6s. ; and if till Midsummer, 8s. Sir
Robert argues, with great force, that these sums
would come out of the pockets of those who supply us

vessels, more than mere boats, employed in going backwards and for-
wards bringing over British corn (to the Rhine), thus proving the extent
of British agriculture." " The English Village Community," Seebohm.

* " Paper read before the Staffordshire Chamber of Agriculture," by
R. P. Cooper, Shenstone Court, Lichfield, 30 January, 1904.

OUR FOOD SUPPLY IN TIME OF WAR 325

from abroad, and would affect the consumer at home
to a very slight degree, if at all.

This would be a workable scheme, and would secure
its object under a system of occupying ownership, be-
cause the farmer would then be quite sure that if
he grew wheat and kept it till Midsummer, the 8s. per
quarter premium would go into his own pocket. As
a tenant, however, the chances are that it would not,
but would go to pay an increased rent. Consequently
the inducement to grow wheat, much less to store it,
would not exist. Sir Robert Cooper contends that
this would not be the case. It would probably not be
with him, and with many other landlords ; but, speak-
ing generally, there can be but little doubt that it
would be so,

Mr. Mansell, a farmer and land-agent, in his evidence
before the Royal Commission, when asked (O. 8656)
if landlords would be likely to take an unfair advantage
in case a bonus were given, replied : " I do not think
so ; that is a bogey which is largely put forward.
There may be some landlords who would, but I think
the majority of the landlords are certainly too patriotic
to do that. I think the better class of landlords would
not, but there may be some men who would."

It is frequently stated that even the relief given by
the Agricultural Rating Act will find its way ultimately
into the pocket of the landlord, but there is no evidence
whatever that this is likely to be the case ; the relief
is too small and indirect to warrant any rise in rents.
But Sir Robert Cooper's proposals are of quite a
different kind. They involve the continual payment
of very large sums to the tenant farmer, sums large
enough to enable him to grow corn, and to store it, at
a profit to himself. This would inevitably lead to a

326 LAND REFORM

readjustment of rents. There is no need to attach blame
to landlords, or to call them " bad landlords," for doing
what most business men would do in their place ; but,
in judging the merits of any scheme for the avoidance
of the great national danger under consideration, it
would be folly to ignore the invariable experience of
past times, and the guidance of common sense.

Under our present system of land-tenure, therefore,
the scheme referred to would, in all probability, fail in
its purpose. But with cultivating ownership these
difficulties would not exist. Public money given,
whether for wheat-growing or wheat-storing, would go
direct to its object without being liable to have a toll
levied on it during transit, and would make every
yeoman-owner eager to grow as much wheat as he
possibly could.

But why resort to these costly, doubtful schemes
when a cheaper, simpler, and an absolutely effective
method is available ? In a previous chapter it is shown
that by an expenditure in the form of bounties to culti-
vating owners of a comparatively small sum — less than
a few weeks' general expenditure in time of war —
wheat could be grown at home in such quantities as,
when added to the imports from India and the colonies,
would be sufficient to supply all the bread we need.
Supposing, even, that in the time of war the whole of
the supplies from over-sea were cut off, the home
produce — which nothing could cut off — would be
sufficient to provide bread for the whole population
for a period of at least eight or nine months.^

^ This is reckoned on the present rate of consumption, that is, about
six bushels per annum per head. By the exercise of economy the supply
would last much longer, as there is no doubt that, in the majority of
households, the waste of bread, on account of its cheapness, is enormous.

OUR FOOD SUPPLY IN TIME OF WAR 327

Gambling in wheat, which would surely take place
in the case of uncertain supplies from abroad, would
be largely checked, and what is important, the know-
ledge that this store of food was safe within our shores
would stave off panic among the people with all its
serious effects.^

Now this is of the greatest importance, as it is
considered by all naval authorities that the danger
connected with our food supply would be greatest
during the first few months of a war. Admiral Close,
speaking at the meeting referred to, said : —

" The struofsle and danger will be in the first month
or six weeks of war. If we can tide over that, you
may then talk about convoys ; but during that period
the whole strength of the Admiralty will be strained
to dispatch our ships to sea ; for to engage and defeat
the enemy must be the first consideration, and the
protection of our merchant ships the second considera-
tion.

Our Navy and Army estimates for the financial year
(1904-5) amount to the vast sum of ^65,789,500. It
would seem but a common act of prudence on the
part of a government to take the few millions required
from that sum, or to provide them by a separate vote
— the issue is so vital it is immaterial which — for the
purpose of mere insurance against famine and panic
during the first few months of a war.

In any case, those classes now so indifferent to
agriculture — from the man in the slum to the greatest
capitalist — should see how closely their interests are
connected with the state of that industry.

Adam Smith, in his advocacy of free trade, makes

* Leiter's gamble in wheat, though it failed, caused a rise in price in
this country which we could not prevent.

328 LAND REFORM

an exception " when some particular sort of industry
is necessary for the defence of the country." He
strongly held that "defence is of much more im-
portance than opulence." Looked at in this light,
governments should seriously consider whether or not
they are fatally neglecting the industry of agriculture,
which, in a country so singularly situated as ours,
might be truly described as the "first line of defence."
Lord Selborne, in the speech already referred to,
remarks: "I would say that the navy and our national
credit are the two pillars on which, in every material
sense, the safety of the Empire depends." This is
the old story of absolute reliance on wealth, but in
times of stress it will surely be found that a third
pillar is necessary — that of a thriving agriculture —
without which no country is permanently safe, and our
country is in actual danger.^

^ A writer who was perhaps the highest authority of his day on the
subject of the Corn Laws, made the following remarks on the question
of war in connection with wealth : " There may be politicians indeed
who, considering money as the chief end of all policy, may think that
forcing the cottagers into towns and the villagers into cities is a good
to be desired rather than an evil to be deplored. Yes, we have had
statesmen who laid it down as a maxim that modern war is merely a
matter of expense. The wealthiest nation, it was naturally presumed,
would ultimately be the most triumphant, and final victory was supposed
to be appended to the weightiest purse. We have lived, however, to see
a nation arise (France) who could make conquests without money ; as
indeed history had already recorded the conquest of poverty over riches.
Europe has already seen that our wealth could not obtain warriors. . . .
Where is that illustrious regiment which overthrew the invincible phalanx
to find recruits if sheep be driven into our northern glens as a more valu-
able animal than the human race ? Where shall our armies obtain levies if
villagers be forced into cities ? We may now perceive that money cannot
buy men ; that men are of more value than money : the policy then which
regards riches as the chief good must end in the ruin of the state : and
that statesman who should consider the exchequer as the only object of
his care, would soon be without an exchequer to care for." (" Tracts on
the Corn Trade and Corn Laws," Charles Smith, edition 1804.)

CHAPTER XX

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE

It is not the intention in these pages to discuss the
general policy of so-called " free trade," except as far
as it affects the agricultural interests, and through
them the interests of the whole country.

In order to discuss the question fully, with any gain,
it is necessary to begin by referring to the opinions
and arguments of those who were practically the foun-
ders of the doctrine of free trade, namely, the great
French economists of the eighteenth century, of whom
Quesnay was the head, Turgot and other great think-
ers were the disciples, and Adam Smith was, in the
main, a follower. It is necessary to know and keep in
mind exactly what this school meant by free trade.
Mr. John Morley, speaking of Quesnay, says: "It was
no small proof of originality and enlightenment to
precede Adam Smith ten years in the doctrine of free
trade, of free industry, of loans on interest, of the
effects of the division of labour, of the processes of
formation of capital, etc. etc."^

But no one knows better than Mr. Morley that the
doctrine advocated by the school to which he refers,
and generally adopted by Adam Smith, was that of uni-
versal free trade. All their arguments were of a cos-
mopolitan, and not of a national kind, and were based
on the supposal of a freedom of exchange among
nations. They claimed, not to have set up a theorem,

' See "Critical Miscellanies," first and second series.
329

330 LAND REFORM

but to have discovered a natural law for the regula-
tion of the trade and commerce of the world. Fol-
lowing the same line, Adam Smith's inquiry was into
the causes of the wealth of nations, not of a single
nation. In his great work^ he refers at some length
(book IV.) to the system of the above school (Physio-
crats)— a system which represents the produce of the
land as the sole source of revenue and wealth of every
country, and the work of all classes other than agri-
cultural to be altogether unproductive. With this
extreme view Adam Smith does not agree. He puts
labour in the first place, and holds it to be, together
with the produce of the land, the source of wealth —
the source whence all the necessaries and conveniences
of life are universally supplied (Vol. I, " Introduc-
tion "). " Both productive and unproductive labourers,
and those who do not labour at all," he says, "are
equally maintained by the annual produce of the land
and labour of the country" (Vol. II, book ii.). Adam
Smith speaks highly of the French economists, as
" men of great learning and ingenuity," and of Quesnay
himself as the "very ingenious and profound author"
of their system. "This system," he adds, "with all
its imperfections, is perhaps the nearest approxima-
tion to the truth that has yet been published upon the
subject of political economy, and is upon that account
worth the consideration of every man who wishes to
examine with attention that very important science."
He goes on to speak of the good these economists
had done by bringing under discussion many subjects
that had never been examined before, and by influ-

^ "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations."
First pubUshed in 1776. The doctrines of the French school of econo-
mists were published more than ten years before this date.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 331

eiicing the public administration in favour of agri-
culture. Throuorh setting aside or beinor ianorant of
the historical side of the question, modern speakers
and writers in their arguments in favour of what they
call "free trade" are confusing and contradictory.
They first vitally alter the premises of the old masters
of the subject, and then try in a narrow-witted way to
come to the same conclusions as they did. Let any
unbiassed student keep the idea of universal free
exchange amongst nations in his mind and go through
the writings of the French economists and of Adam
Smith, he will find their arguments on the subject of
free trade intelligible, attractive, and such as command
deep attention and general assent. But let him go
through the same course keeping in mind the fact that
one nation alone has adopted the policy of free imports
and that the other nations have set up strong artificial
barriers against free exchange, and he will find the
same arguments, for the most part, inapplicable, and
the very names and terms used false or misleading.
"Free trade," "reciprocity," "free exchange," "leav-
ing trade to take its natural course," " natural rights of
peoples to exchange products freely with one another,"
"freedom of competition," "international equality,"
etc., are the conditions which form the base and cope-
stone of the free-trade structure set up by the econo-
mists of the eighteenth century, but they are condi-
tions that at present do not exist. If the student
happens to belong to the one solitary nation referred
to, he would probably conclude that though the pre-
sent arrangements are good for other countries, yet
from a national and patriotic point of view they are too
openly altruistic for him to adopt. Cobden's argu-
ments in favour of the repeal of the Corn Laws were

332 LAND REFORM

from the point of view of the Manchester school, the
objects of which school were to get cheap food, with
consequent cheap labour, and increased trade for
Lancashire.

Those who read Cobden s speeches will find, when
he leaves the comparatively narrow issue involved in
the question of the Corn Laws and deals with the sub-
ject of general free trade, that his arguments are stinted
and superficial. He evidently feels the weakness of
his reasoning in favour of free imports for one nation
alone, and in order to be somewhat logical and con-
sistent he feels bound to state confidently that we were
within a very few years of the advent of universal
free trade.

We can of course only guess as to the part the old
writers referred to, if alive, would take in the present
fiscal controversy ; but one thing is sure : they would
fail to recognize in the present state of things any
semblance to free trade as they understood it, and it is
likely that, while holding firmly to their principles,
they would conclude that tariff reform was an urgent
matter in England, seeing that all other countries had
denied free trade and, further, that it was the only
means by which they were likely to get their ends.
In the same way there are men who, rightly holding
that peace is the highest of all national interests,
advocate a policy of general disarmament ; but these
men, without giving up their opinions, would shrink
from placing their country in a defenceless state so
long as the nations around are armed to the teeth.
But it is not necessary for the present purpose to
pursue the general subject of free trade. Supposing
the policy of each country to remain as it is, or that uni-
versal free trade were established, in either case the

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 333

arguments in favour of securing prosperity to agricul-
ture, by some effective means, would remain un-
touched, because that industry, unlike any other, is a
vital element in the economy of a nation, the one on
which a country must depend for defence, health,
strength, and permanence.

But the fiscal question has a close relationship to
that of cultivating ownership, both large and small,
and no scheme of tariff reform would have, or ought
to have, any chance of success which left our largest
industry — that of agriculture — out of account. Un-
fortunately, under our system of party politics, most
of the proposals, good or bad, of any Government,
are used by the Opposition to discredit and, if possible,
to defeat that Government. Accordingly Mr. Cham-
berlain's scheme for a review of our whole fiscal
system, which should have been treated as a great
national concern, has degenerated into a fierce party
question.

The stock arguments, and the most popular ones,
used by those who are opposed to any form of protec-
tion for agriculture, are, that the policy of 1 846 made
the food of the people cheaper, and that any interfer-
ence with that policy would bring back the dearth and
scarcity which it is falsely alleged then existed. These
so-called "free-traders" offer no explanation of the
fact, which they admit to the full, that notwithstanding
the " beneficent legislation " adopted more than half
a century ago, misery and want, to an appalling ex-
tent, exist in our midst at the present day. For
party purposes cries are adopted, such as " the big
loaf and the little loaf," " free food," etc., which, look-
ing at the impression they are certain to convey to

334 LAND REFORM

the minds of the poorer classes, are as artful as they
are truthless, serving only to obscure the issue, and
reflecting but small credit on the educated men who
use them.

But in political contests statements, however untrue,
if backed by a taking " cry," are apt, by continual
repetition, to gain widespread credence until the facts
are known.

Now we purpose to show — First, that, whatever
benefits may have resulted from the policy of free
imports, cheaper food was not one of them ; secondly,
that the distress which existed sixty years and more
ago, was not caused by dearness of food ; and lastly,
that the relief of that distress was brought about by
causes other than free imports.

Statistics show what many of the labouring class
and others, who are old enough, can by personal
experience confirm, that during the early forties of
last century, when distress was so acute, most of the
necessary articles of living were cheaper throughout
the rural districts than they were after the repeal of
the Corn Laws or than they are at the present time.
Tea, sugar, rice, and certain other groceries were
certainly dearer ; but meat, cheese, fruits, vegetables
of all kinds, and other necessaries, including rent and
fuel, were much lower in price. Butter was from 6d.
to Qd. per lb., and fowls is. to is. 3d. each. Eggs
were twenty, often thirty, for a shilling, and were
regularly eaten as a cheap food by the rural labouring
class.

Most important of all, milk, the best of food, was
very cheap, and easily obtained by the labouring
classes. In most poor families where, through want

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 335

of employment, solid food was scanty, milk was
generally found for the children.^

Looking at the value of this article for the proper
nurture of children and at the milkless diet of the
present day, this fact should weigh heavily in any
consideration of the price of food. In a recent return
it is estimated that among the agricultural labourers in
England the average consumption per week is only
4J pints of new milk, or 8f pints of skim per family
of six persons." This shows that milk has practically
ceased to be an article of food for the labourer's family.^

1 The present writer remembers as a lad — in accordance with a
common custom — going in the early morning to a neighbouring farm
with a large pitcher which, for a penny, in the summer for a halfpenny,
was filled to the brim with good skim (not separated) milk. New milk
was correspondingly cheap. This, with home-made bread, home-fed
bacon, eggs, cheese, an occasional fowl or rabbit, with plenty of vege-
tables, formed a wholesome diet. The cost was small, the labour con-
nected with the produce being done by the family. When this diet is
compared with that of the poorer classes of the present day, which is
largely composed of tea, white bread, salt fish, tinned meats, etc., with
few, if any, vegetables, physical deterioration is largely accounted for.

2 " Statistical Tables," 1903, Cd. 1761. This refers to milk thoroughly
separated by machinery. By the old method of hand-skimming a good
portion of butter-fat was left in the milk. Prof. Long, referring to the
fact that milk is not regarded by the public as a food because it is a fluid,
states that it contains all the materials necessary for the nourishment of
the body. In comparing milk with meat he states that a sample of lean
beef without bone contains 72 parts of water, 3^ lb. of fat, 19!^ lb. of
albuminoids, or muscle-forming matter, and 5 lb. of salts per 100 lb. A
sample of rich milk contains 4 lb. of fat (superior to that of beef), 5 lb.
of sugar, 4 lb. of albuminoids, and | lb. of salts. The beef would cost
at least five times as much as the milk, while on the basis of " unit " value
it would be worth just double.

' Speaking of milk recalls an incident which illustrates the difference
between the old and the new. Twenty years ago the present writer was in
a cottage in Wiltshire where a little child, one of a large family, was ailing.
The mother, with loving hands, was vainly trying to tempt the child's appe-
tite with sweet, milkless tea and bread with a scrape of butter on it. In
the olden times referred to, milk and eggs would have been given to the
little one, not as luxuries, but as the cheapest food the mother could get.

336 LAND REFORM

With regard to butcher's meat, the average price
paid at St. Thomas's Hospital during the years 1840
to 1849 — the so-called "hungry forties" — was for
beef, 3s. 3f d. ; for mutton, 3s. 9f d. per stone of 8 lb.
In 1843, the year when the greatest distress existed,
the prices were, beef, 2s. 8d. ; mutton, 3s. per stone of
8 Ib.^ In 1902 beef in London was 9'5d. per lb.
(foreign 8*3d.) ; mutton, 77d. per lb. (foreign 4*9d;
and pork 8'5d. per Ib.^ At Stamford, in 1851, beef
was 5jd. per lb.; mutton, 5d. In 1863, after fourteen
years of free imports, beef in the same locality was
8d. to 9d., mutton 6jd. to lod. per Ib.^

Mr. Villiers in 1843 moved a resolution that "The
House resolve itself into a Committee to consider the
import duties on foreign corn, with a view to their
immediate abolition."

One of the main arguments — an argument not dis-
puted— of Mr. Gladstone, in opposing the motion, was
"the existing cheapness of provisions." He quoted the
prices of the principal articles of food, and showed how
exceedingly low they were. He compared favourably
"the prices of the present year (1843) with those of
1835, the cheapest of the generation." ^

If we turn to the prices of bread, the facts are still
more striking. There is a sentiment about the " staff

* These averages are based on the detailed prices given in Tooke's
" History of Prices," Vol. VI. It must be borne in mind, however, that
the market prices for meat and other produce were always higher in large
towns, for some articles much higher, than the prices which ruled in
country places. The present writer well remembers that the labourers
always expected to get — and did get when they had the money to buy —
at least a pound of beef, a pound of mutton, and a pound of pork, for a
shilling.

2 Board of Trade Statistics, 1903, Cd. 1761.

3 Noble's "Fiscal Legislation," 1867.

* "Annual Register," 1843, p. 112.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 337

of life" which attaches to no other kind of food.
" Earning one's bread " is a figurative expression,
including in it other necessaries of human existence.
In the popular mind, therefore, the cry of dear bread
is connected intuitively with the idea of dear living.

During the Corn Law agitation the question of
bread was ever to the front. A general impression
was given that, by the repeal of the Corn Laws, bread
was to be more plentiful and much cheaper ; but it is
a noticeable fact that the a.ctua.\ price of bread which
ruled during the contest, was rarely, if ever, alluded
to. The cry of "Cheap bread! "was used for political
purposes then, just as the cry of the " big and little
loaf" is being used now, and was equally false.

The prices of bread varied then, as they vary now,
at different times and in different parts of the country,
and the variations seemed to be then, as they have
been since, largely independent of the price of corn.

As far as the rural districts are concerned, there is
no continuous record of prices of bread extending
over a number of years before and after the repeal of
the Corn Laws. But there are isolated quotations
and references to price to be found in different years
and in different localities, which abundantly prove the
point for which we are contending.

At a Free Trade meeting held at Aylesbury in
1843, Mr, Cobden was asked by one of the audience :
" Did the members of the Leas^ue think the existing
price of the quartern loaf, which was then 5d., too
high for either producer or consumer ? ' Cobden
answered with his usual dexterity," etc. (Morley's
" Life of Cobden.")^

1 The present writer was in daily association with the poorer classes
during the "hungry forties." He witnessed one or two of the bread

338 LAND REFORM

Twelve years later, and after seven years' experi-
ence of free imports, Cobden describes the miserable
condition of the labourers at Midhurst "with bread
at 2^d. per lb.," that is, lod. per quartern, or just
double the price quoted at Aylesbury in the time of
protection. (Letter to Mr. H. Ashworth, 19 Decem-
ber, 1855.)

Fortunately, however, there exists a continuous
yearly record of the price of bread in the city of
Edinburgh from 1824 to the present time. No doubt
the prices given in this record are considerably higher
than those which ruled in the country districts. But
the special value of the Edinburgh tables is that the
fluctuations of prices, for the same quality of bread
(the best quality), can be readily traced continuously
through a long series of years. If we analyse these
Edinburgh prices of bread and the official prices of
wheat during corresponding years and periods, the
actual fluctuations in prices of both articles will be seen
at a glance. The following table shows the relative
average prices of wheat and bread for a period of
years immediately preceding and directly following
the beginning of free imports : — wheat Best quality

per quarter. Bread per loaf.

Average price for 7 years, 1842-48 ... S4/iof ... 7fd.

1850-56 ... 5s/6f ... 7|d.

This comparison shows a very slight increase in
prices during the second period named. But during
the year when distress was the greatest (1843), the
prices of wheat and bread were actually lower than

riots and raids on bakers' shops ; but he cannot remember a single
occasion when the price of bread was the subject of complaint. The
cause of the distress was not the price of the loaf, but the want of money
wherewith to buy it.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 339

the average, being 6fd. per loaf, and 50/1 per quarter
of corn.

Taking decades of years the average prices for the
same articles work out as follows : —

The " Hungry Forties."

1840-49 1850-59

1860-69

1870-79

1880-89

1890-99

Wheat per "\ , ,
quarter | 54/i 53/3

51/8

51/4

36/11

2S/9

Bread per \ ,, ,,
quartern loaf/ '* ' '•* "

8d.

8|d.

7d.

5l<i.

This table shows that for thirty years after the
beginning of free imports the average price of bread
was higher than it was during the " hungry forties " ;
and for fifty years after free imports (including the
years when wheat was specially low) the average price
was only about one farthing a loaf lower. Moreover,
in the earlier years the weight of the loaf was 4 lb.
5^oz. It was afterwards gradually lowered to 4 lb.,
and in comparing prices this difference in weight
should be reckoned.

The period 1890-99 was the worst time for the
farmer. The following table shows the average prices
of bread and corn for each of these years : —

1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899

^q^uT/te^r^' ]^'''' 37/io 30/3 26/4 22/10 23/1 26/2 30/2 34/10 25/8
qranemToaf } ^i^- ^^'^^ ^^- 5'«d. rA 4'A 5|d. 6d. 61d. sid.

One other thing is revealed by a study of prices,
namely, the irregular and limited influence which the
price of wheat has on the cost of bread. This may
be caused partly through the baker's fixed charges
being the same in the making of a loaf, whatever the
selling price of it might be, and partly through com-
petition among the foreign countries which send us

340 LAND REFORM

corn — in other words, the supply and demand. But
whatever the cause, the fact remains that the changes
in the price of bread have never talHed with the
fluctuations in the price of wheat.

During the three years, 1877, 1878, 1879, the price
of wheat averaged 49s. per quarter, and the price
of household bread in London averaged about y^d.
the 4-lb. loaf. In the three years, 1893, 1894, 1895,
the average price of wheat fell to 24s. id., or to less
than one half, but the price of bread in London fell,
not one half, but only to 5|d.

Even in September of the present year (1905), with
wheat about 30s. per quarter, the mean price of bread
throughout Great Britain was 5 '43d. (say 5^d.) for
the 4-lb. loaf, while in 1867 and 1868, when wheat
averaged 64s. 7d. per quarter, or just double, the
price was only 7fd. in London, and no doubt less
throughout the country. In Edinburgh, in March of
the present year, the price was 6^d. per quartern loaf,
as against 6f d. (or about the same) in the bad year of
1843, when wheat was 50s. per quarter.^

When the Corn Laws were abolished a duty of one
shilling per quarter on imported grain was retained.
There was no objection raised to this provision ; it
was regarded simply as a small fee to pay the expenses
of registration. In 1869 the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer (Mr. Lowe, afterwards Lord Sherbrooke) took
off this duty. Its abolition was not asked for and was
not wanted by anybody ; it was simply a sacrifice of
what was called the " last rag of protection " to the

* The calculations here made and the averages stated are based on
figures given in Tooke's " History of Prices," Vols. IV. and V. ; "Whole-
sale and Retail Prices," 321, 1903 ; "Statistical Tables," Cd. 2337, 1904 ;
" Board of Trade Labour Gazette," 1905.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 341

idol of free trade. It had no effect whatever on the
price of corn or bread. The yield of the tax was a
pure gift, a bounty, to the over-sea producer of grain.
The amount of the gift at the time was about one
million sterling a year. In 1902 the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, reimposed
the duty.

When Mr. Ritchie, in March, 1903, took the ill-
advised step of abolishing the shilling duty on the
imports of wheat, he deliberately sacrificed a revenue
of about ^2,500,000 sterling, without lowering, in the
least, the price of bread. Indeed, within a few
months (in August) after the duty was taken off, the
price of bread went up. The only real effect of the
abolition of this small tax was to transfer any advan-
tage which micrht belong to it from the British farmer
to his over-sea competitor, and thus to increase the
profits of the latter by a quarter of a million sterling
a year, which had to be made good by the taxpayer
at home.

But supposing that the price of bread were influenced
by Mr. Chamberlain's proposed duty of 2s. per quarter
on foreign corn, and that the consumer had to pay the
whole of the extra price, that extra price would be so
small that there is no coin of the realm small enouorh
to represent it. The " man in the street " can make
the calculation for himself. Six and a half bushels of
wheat, on which the proposed import duty would be
IS. 7^d., produces one sack (280 lb.) of flour. A sack
of flour produces on an average about ninety-four
quartern loaves, so that the is. 7%^d. duty, divided by
ninety-four, gives the additional cost of the 4-lb. loaf.^

* The exact number of loaves depends on the quality of wheat used
and the weight of the bushel, which varies in different jKirts of the country.

342 LAND REFORM

The following table gives the weekly budget of 133
labourers, so far as the items of wages, bread, tea, and
tobacco are concerned : —

Average
Wages.

Average
number

of
family.

Average
number
of 4 lb.
loaves.

Average

price

per

loaf.

Average

quantity

of

tea.

Average
quantity

of
tobacco.

33 labourers .

16/10 ,

... 5 .

.. 8i .

■• sh ••

. 10 OZ. .

.. —

76 of these"
were smokers.

[16/6 .

- 5i •

.. 81 .

•• 5i ••

. 9f OZ. ..

.. 2| OZ.

From the above it will be seen that if a reduction
were made on the duty of tobacco say of id, per oz.,
and on tea of 4d. per lb., there would be a considerable
weekly saving on the items named taken as a whole.^

It would be a waste of time to pursue this subject
were it not for the fact that large placards have been
widely distributed in the rural districts and throughout
the country generally, illustrated with two loaves, one
of them about half the size of the other. The infer-
ence to be drawn from these pictures is that if a
25. duty on foreign wheat were imposed, the present
price of the loaf would be raised accordingly. It is
stated that this placard has had more effect than any
other electioneering device, especially on rural voters,
who, being deceived by the imposture, naturally
shrink from the prospect of having the price of
bread nearly doubled. The proceeding is a low one,
for whatever might be its motive, its certain effect is
to deceive the poorer and less instructed classes of
our fellow-men, whose condition ought to command

^ The above returns I have obtained direct from labourers themselves
who live in different districts throughout England and Wales — districts
selected with a view to get a fair average return. Mr. Wilson Fox, in his
interesting report, gives the average rate of wages for England and Wales
at 17s. 6d. (instead of i6s. lod). "Earnings of Agricultural Labourers,"
Wilson Fox. Cd. 2376. 1905. In both cases the value of allowances in
kind is included.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 343

greater respect and more honest treatment at the
hands of those in a happier position in life.

The object in deaHng with the incident here is
a poHtical one — to protect the labourers from fraud.
Misstatements repeated and repeated, unless dis-
proved, are apt to become current among the people,
and in time, if unchecked, to be believed even by
those who are the authors of them. The ques-
tions touched by these misstatements do not affect
Mr. Chamberlain's great scheme of tariff reform.
Without discussing that scheme, it might be described
as one that has for its basis employmeyit — enough well-
paid employment, and for its acme increased powers
of money-getting and money-spending on the part of
the people. The interests of the working-class pro-
ducer are put before those of the general consumer.
The success of the scheme would reduce to a second-
ary place any slight rise in the price of commodities ;
for, after all, " cheapness " is a minor matter to the
person who has money with which to buy, and is no
benefit at all to the penniless man.

The statements about the dearth and dearness of
the necessaries of life before the repeal of the Corn
Laws could not be made, and were not made, a
generation ago. There were then too many persons
living who remembered the facts. The "cry" that
food was "dear" in those times is of recent date —
a modern invention for political ends.

Free -trade writers of thirty and forty years ago
fully admit the increase in the price of food which
followed free imports. An economist, referring to this
increase, states : " Notwithstanding the extraordinary
increase in the importation of butter, cheese, and eggs,
consequent on their admission free of duty, these

344 LAND REFORM

articles form no exception to the general rule." Among
other examples of this general increase of prices he
names cheese, which, with a duty of los. 6d., was sold
in 1845 3-t -^2. los. per cwt. In 1865, with no duty,
the price was £2. 17s. 8d. Eggs, the price of which
in 1845, with a duty of lod., was 4s. lod. the great
hundred, had risen in 1865, when duty free, to 6s. id.

The same writer goes on to refer to the great
increase which had taken place in the price of meat
and other articles. " Milk," he says, "had doubled in
price, and bread, which in 1851 was 5d. for the quar-
tern loaf, had risen in price to 8d. in 1867."^

As regards fuel, the prices paid by the Bethlehem
Hospital for coals was, in 1845, i8s. ; 1846, i6s. 8d. ;
1850, i6s. 5d. The price steadily rose till in 1874,
the last year quoted, it reached 30s. id. per ton.^

A distinguished political economist, writing nearly
thirty years after the repeal of the Corn Laws,
states : —

" In some branches of industry there has been no
doubt a very considerable rise in wages ; many classes
of workmen, however, have only been able to obtain
so slight an increase in their wages as barely to com-
pensate them for the greater cost of living consequent
on the rise in price of so many articles of general
consumption. ... As there has been a not less marked
rise in the price of coal, meat, milk, butter, cheese,
and many other commodities which compose the items
of a labourer's ordinary expenditure, it would seem
that, even in the trades where the advance of wages
has been the greatest, a large portion of the additional
wages has been absorbed by the increased dearness of
commodities."

^ "Fiscal Legislation, 1842 to 1865." John Noble (Longmans, 1867)-
"^ "National Finance," John Noble, 1875.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 345

He goes on to refer to the position of a class which
includes the agricultural labourers, and says : —

"In other trades where wages have remained
almost stationary, the condition must have deterior-
ated in proportion to the increase in the cost of living
consequent on the greater dearness of commodities."^

Many other writers might be quoted to the same
effect. Professor Thorold Rogers, writing after nearly
thirty years' experience of free imports, while admitting
the increased prosperity of the towns and other centres
of industry, declares that " the mass of agricultural
labourers, and many among the unskilled and under-
paid occupations," had not benefited by the changes
in our fiscal system.

" I am persuaded," he says, "that with the solitary
exception of house-rent — though that has also risen —
the cost of living in country districts has doubled
within the last thirty years, and that some articles of
food, once within the reach of all, are now practically
unattainable by country people." '

Clothes, after free imports, were lower in price, but
on account of their shoddy character were not so cheap
in the long run. The old smock frock, so generally
worn up to the middle of last century, was a hand-
some and durable garment. The present writer had
many labourer friends who wore their Sunday suits of
clothes for twenty to thirty years. The village-made,
well-nailed boots merited the name of "everlastings,"
by which they were called.

The price of shoes supplied to the inmates of

' "Wealth and Increase of Wages," Prof. Fawcett ("Fortnightly
Review," January, 1874).

* "Cobden and Modern Political Opinion," Thorold Rogers, 1873.

346 LAND REFORM

Greenwich Hospital during the years 1830 to 1837
varied from 3s. T,^d. to 3s. 6d. per pair. The price of
those supplied to the officers of Chelsea Hospital
during the same period was from 4s. 6jd. to 5s. per
pair. (Porter's " Progress of the Nation.")

"Free Importers" may claim that the increase in
prices was caused by increased consumption on the
part of the people, and was therefore a proof of the
soundness of their policy. So far as the manufactur-
ing and other classes of skilled workmen were con-
cerned, there is no doubt that better employment and
higher wages added to their purchasing power, and
consequently the average consumption of the principal
articles of food by the population, taken as a whole,
was largely increased. But the increased demand
for foodstuffs in the large towns and the improved
facilities for transit and distribution, while they in-
creased the profits of the dealer, placed the rural
labourers — and it is their case we are considering —
in a far worse position. They found, not only that
all kinds of necessaries were dearer, but that im-
portant articles of food — abundant in former times —
were no longer within their reach. The increase of
wages which took place was but a small and totally
inadequate compensation for these adverse changes.
All things considered, there is no doubt that Professor
Rogers' description of their reduced circumstances,
after the fiscal changes referred to, comes very near
the truth.

These views are abundantly confirmed by the re-
ports of the various Royal Commissions which deal
with the state of the rural population. These reports
are more fully dealt with in other chapters. They
show that during the forty years or more which

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 347

immediately followed free trade the condition of the
agricultural labourers was deplorable in the extreme.
The manner in which they fared during these years
became a national scandal in the eyes of those who
contrasted it with the vast and unprecedented increase
in wealth, luxury, and expenditure of the well-to-do
classes. Relief from their hopeless position was only
found in a continuous and ever-increasing "exodus"
from the land. Whatever advantages, therefore, may
be claimed as the result of the change in our fiscal

o

policy, such advantages were undoubtedly accom-
panied by the greatest calamity that can befall a
nation — namely, the destruction of its peasant classes.

But as we have stated, it is not the intention here
to discuss fully the general question of so-called free
trade, but mainly to disprove the ever-repeated state-
ment that the price of food and the general cost of
the labourer's living were less after the free-trade era
than before, and to show that the exact contrary was
the case.

Facts prove beyond dispute that the want and dis-
tress which existed in the so-called "hungry forties,"
and specially in the years 1840 to 1843, were not
caused by dearness or scarcity of food, but by the
want of money wherewith to buy it. Trade was
bad, employment scarce, and wages universally low.
This distress and want were immensely aggravated
by the practice of inclosures already described. So
long as the labourer had a bit of land, he could
generally get from it something to eat for himself
and family. Deprived of that, he became totally
dependent on wages. If he could not work he had
to starve, or go on the parish. As the purely wage-
earning class increased, so the competition for work

348 LAND REFORM

became more keen, and wages, both in town and
country, were kept low. Employment, in short, was
then, as it is now, and must ever be, the governing
factor in the welfare of the working classes.

For several years, up to the beginning of 1843,
every branch of trade and manufacture was in a most
depressed condition, but towards the end of that year
a general improvement set in — an improvement which
continued, and steadily increased, for a great number
of years.

The Queen's Speech, at the opening of the Session
of 1844, referred to the revival of trade. Her
Majesty's words were : "I congratulate you on the
improved condition of several important branches of
the trade and manufacture of the country."

The improvement was so marked and rapid that in
1845, to repeat the words already quoted: "The
terrible depression which had at first given so poig-
nant an impulse to the agitation (Anti-Corn law) had
vanished. . . . Trade and commerce were thriving.
The revenue was flourishing. Pauperism had de-
clined." (Morley's " Life of Cobden.")

The Queen's Speech, at the opening of the Session
of that year, stated : " I rejoice that I am enabled to
congratulate you on the improved condition of the
country. Increased activity pervades almost every
branch of manufacture ; trade and commerce have
been extended at home and abroad ; and among all
classes of my people there is generally prevalent a
spirit of loyalty and cheerful obedience to the law."

Again, Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the
following Session (1846) referred with satisfaction to
"the prosperous state of the revenue, the increased
demand for labour, and the general improvement

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 349

which has taken place in the internal condition of the
country."

The most eminent economists of the time — strong
free-traders — were emphatic in attributing to want of
employment the suffering and destitution which had
previously prevailed. They were equally clear in
showing that the improvement in the condition of the
people was secured by the general increase of trade
which began long before the policy of free imports
was adopted, and was the result of causes quite inde-
pendent of that policy.

Mr. Tooke, writing of the state of things which
existed during the years 1839 to 1847, refers to the
"transition from distress and despondency pervading
all branches of industry in the years 1841, 1842, and
part of 1843 to 3, state of extraordinary prosperity
and activity which prevailed through the three follow-
ing years. "^

It is directly contrary to the facts, and therefore
simply absurd, to ascribe this improvement to the
repeal of the Corn Laws, which did not come into
operation till six years later.

Steam-vessels, built and registered in the United
Kingdom and the colonies, " doubled in tonnage
between 1839 and 1849." With regard to railways,
"the sums authorized by Parliament to be raised for
the construction of railways averaged ;!^2 1,966,860
per annum for the four years 1842-5, and ;^4 7,567, 355
per annum for the four years 1846-9." (Porter's "Pro-
gress of the Nation.")

Mr. Tooke also refers at length to this rapid de-
velopment of our railway system, and says : " The
direct consequences of railway expenditure of the

' Tooke's " History of Prices," Vol. IV.

350 LAND REFORM

years 1848, 1849, 1850 were that the working classes
were provided with fair employment during a period
of uninterrupted trade, . . . they were able to com-
mand, by means of wages, a larger amount of comfort
and sustenance than probably in any previous part
of the century. ... It appears that in 1848 the
number of men actually employed as navvies, and in
other capacities, on the sites of the various lines of
railways in course of construction, was 188,000. Be-
sides this army of persons directly employed on the
works, there were the further large number of
artisans engaged in different workshops of the
country in preparing iron rails, building locomotives,
carriages, and other processes indispensable to the
work. . . . During the years 1847-8 the railway
expenditure may be safely assumed to have given
employment to at least 300,000 workmen, and that as
a general result hardly less than a million of persons
(men, women, and children) were dependent during
these two years on employment flowing from railway
works in progress."^

In addition to the rapid development of the under-
takings named, both at home and abroad, there was
the discovery of gold in California in 1848. The
effect of that discovery was almost immediately felt in
this country by an increased general demand for
goods, and specially by a rapid increase in our export
trade with the United States. The discovery of gold
in Australia in 1851 had the same striking results.
Our exports to that colony of all kinds of commodities
increased in a remarkable manner. The demand for

1 Tooke's "History of Prices," Vol. V. The population of England
and Wales at this time may be estimated at about 165 millions.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 351

shipping was enormous. Employment became abun-
dant, and the scale of wages rose.

All economic writers are as^reed as to the Qriaantic
impulse which these discoveries gave to trade and
manufactures, and to the development of the coal,
iron, and other industries in this country. Indeed, Mr.
Tooke seems to place them in the first rank among
the causes of the increased demand for labour, and of
the commercial and manufacturing prosperity that
existed. Referring to the state of things in 1848 to
1856, he writes : " But the production year by year of
large and increasing quantities of new gold, not only
in California, but since 185 1 in Australia, has so
changed the aspect of nearly every question relating to
the supply of, and the demand for, commodities — and
relating to the demand for, and the wages obtained
by, labourers, skilled and unskilled — that to have at-
tempted any systematic investigation of prices during
the past nine years without assigning a prominent
place to an examination of the facts connected with
the New Gold — and without attempting to trace the
more important consequence arising from the Influx —
would have been to misconceive wholly the nature of
the task which had been undertaken." (" History of
Prices," Vol. V.)

Again, in the sixth volume of his work on the same
subject, he states : "The wages of labour, particularly
of unskilled labour, have risen in proportion of 15 to
20 per cent, and since 1850 the social and commercial
phenomena which have been most conspicuous in this
country have been the effects produced by the gold
discoveries in doubling the export trade, and in direct-
ing to useful purposes pauper and surplus labour."

Those who hold the doctrine of free imports as an

352 LAND REFORM

article of faith, not to be criticized or inquired into,
invariably ascribe this prosperity to the policy adopted
in 1846. But the legislation of that year did not
come into operation till 1849, when the trade and
manufactures of the country, as well as the demand
for labour, were, and had been for several years, in-
creasing by "leaps and bounds."

England was practically the "workshop of the
world." Foreign nations in all their industrial under-
takings had, regardless of corn laws or any other con-
ditions, to send to this country for materials and other
requirements, for the sufficient reason that nowhere else
could they get them so quickly and cheaply. During
this long period of industrial prosperity a vast amount
of British capital was invested in various undertak-
ings in foreign countries, all adding to the volume of
trade and manufactures. " It was not money," as
Mr. Porter observes, " in the usual acceptation of the
word that thus found its way abroad for investment,
but products and manufactures, the results of British
industry."^

The unique position which in those days England
held among the nations of the world must be continu-
ally borne in mind in discussing the state of things at
the present time. The writer just quoted describes
that position as follows : " Placed beyond all com-
parison at the head of civilization as regards manu-
facturing skill, with capital far more ample than that
possessed by any other people, with cheap and in-
exhaustible supplies of iron and fuel, and with

^ It is to be feared that we are now receiving the interest on these
investments (" dead men's profits " as they have been called) in the form
of foreign imports, a kind of payment which affords no employment to
the British workman, but rather deprives him of it.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 353

institutions in every way favourable to the utmost
development of the industry and ingenuity of her
citizens, she must be able at least to maintain her
superiority of position where (an important proviso)
circumstances are in other respects equal."

It is not the intention here to discuss the conditions
under which England has risen to the manufacturing
supremacy described. " Down to 1820, manufacturers
probably enjoyed as ample a share of legislative pro-
tection as the growers of corn." ^ But protection was
continued for years after that ; for though much store
is placed by free importers on the reduction of the
excessive duties on foreign imports by Huskisson's
legislation (1823 to 1825), yet after these reductions
were made the English industries remained sufficiently
protected, and the Navigation Laws remained in full
force till 1849.

Protection may be right or wrong, but it cannot be
denied that the old trading supremacy of England
grew up under it : nor can it be disputed that the
manufacturing prosperity of Germany, the United
States, and other countries, has been since secured by
the same means.

The free-traders of the day, arguing from the state
of things which then existed, had grounds for believ-
ing that our manufacturing position was an impregnable
one, and that foreign countries would continue to take
our goods in exchange for their " corn, cattle, timber,"
and other productions. It was pardonable for them
to believe that England had had too great a start in
manufacturing to be caught up by the puny efforts
of other nations. They are, perhaps, hardly to be
blamed for not foreseeing what has since taken place,

' Morley's " Life of Cobden," p. 105.

2 A

354 LAND REFORM

and which would have seemed to them incredible,
because it would be a total denial of their doctrines.

So with Cobden. He could not foresee the later
commercial policy of other nations ; he believed that
if we adopted free trade "there will not be a tariff in
Europe that will not be changed in less than five years
to follow your example." (Speech 15 Jan., 1846.)

Free-trade writers, adopting Cobden's opinion, ad-
hered to the faith that other nations, following our
example, would become free-traders. In face of
all evidence to the contrary, they persevered in this
belief up to the point of infatuation. They regretted
the fact that France, though receiving the benefits
resulting from the repeal of our Navigation Laws,
was still adhering to her policy of protection. They
could, however, "afford to smile at such a policy,"
being assured that the time would come when "our
neighbours would open their eyes to their own good."

The French commercial treaty was hailed by these
men with triumph, as the beginning of a realization of
their views. One well-known economist, referring to
the treaty, writes: "Such a day has at last come.
The Emperor, alive to the best interests of France,
has emancipated himself from the thraldom of the
producers and manufacturers and has entered boldly
into a career of reform."^

Later on, however. Sir Louis Mallet, who was one
of the greatest authorities on fiscal questions, and was
also the colleague of Cobden in negotiating the French
treaty, seemed to be less satisfied with the condition
of the people generally under the one-sided system
which was called " Free Trade." In a preface to the
" Political Opinions of Richard Cobden," he writes :
^ Leone Levi, "On Taxation," i860.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 355

" We have obtained enough Free Trade to enable
our upper and middle classes to acquire more wealth
than, with their present education, they can either
employ wisely or spend innocently, and to stimulate
unproductive consumption in vulgar luxury and waste-
ful charity ; but we have not obtained enough Free
Trade to feed, and clothe, and house our people, or to
inspire confidence in other countries, and to establish
those international relations without which all hope of
internal progress is a foolish and idle dream." ^

With regard to agriculture, Cobden calculated on
the continuance of the " natural protection " to the
British farmer in the form of freight and other ex-
penses connected with foreign imports. This protec-
tion he reckoned at from eight to ten shillings per
quarter of grain. His confidence in the later pros-

1 Free importers forget that the French treaty itself was a refutation
of their pohcy. Cobden was enabled to make the treaty simply because
he had something to give, some duties to surrender. No treaty is possible
now, because we have made the foreigner free of our market by abolish-
ing all duties except the few which we are obliged to keep for the purpose
of revenue. At the expiration of the treaty France— with good reason from
her point of view — refused to renew it on the same terms. Instead of doing
so, she steadily increased her tariffs against British goods. In essence we
are a highly protectionist nation, but our protection is for the foreign work-
man and producer against the British workman and producer. The farmer
in this country has to pay probably ten per cent on the value of his output
in the form of rates, taxes, and other charges, which must all be added
to the cost of production. It is true that the foreigner has to pay similar
charges in his own country, but that only affects the question in a small
degree. Those charges, besides being much lighter, are for his home
trade, in which he is well protected by tariffs and often by bounties and
drawbacks. England is for him an extra free market for his regular and
his surplus productions. He has practically two markets at the cost of
one, seeing that to the expenses of the English Government, whether
national or local, he contributes not a farthing. The British farmer,
while not seeking for protection in any form, might fairly ask to be put
on the same level as his foreign competitor by means of an import duty
equal in amount tu that of the burdens levied on his own produce.

356 LAND REFORM

perity of the agricultural industry was unbounded.
Read by the light of experience, the following short-
sighted assertions and predictions appear amazing :
" We do not contemplate deriving one quarter less
corn from the soil of this country." " Not an acre of
land would go out of cultivation." "So far from
throwing land out of use, and injuring the cultivation
of the poorer soils, free trade in corn is the very way
to increase the production at home." These, and other
sayings of a like kind, led up to the following rhetorical
climax : " I believe that when the future historian
writes the history of agriculture he will say, ' In such
a year there was a stringent Corn Law passed for the
protection of agriculture. From that time agriculture
slumbered in England, and it was not until, by the
aid of the Anti-Corn Law League, the Corn Law was
abolished, that agriculture sprang up to the full vigour
of existence in England, to become what it is now,
like her manufactures, unrivalled in the world.'"

Political economists of the time shared Cobden's
views. The great authority referred to, speaking of
agriculture, says : " It would be absurd to suppose
that in a state of things such as has been here con-
templated, with a constantly increasing number of
customers, our agriculture must not share in the
general prosperity, and that they should, under any
circumstances, fail to obtain a return for their capital
equal to that realized by all other classes in the com-
munity ; beyond this they can have no right to claim
any advantage." ^

For a number of years after the Corn Laws were
abolished there seemed to be some ground for these
views. A distinguished writer, so late as 1878,

1 "Progress of the Nation," 3rd edition, 1851.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 357

states : "During the thirty years the Corn Laws were
in operation five ParHamentary committees were ap-
pointed to inquire into the causes of agricultural depres-
sion. During the thirty years since 1845, agriculture
has had no protection, and though they have had bad
seasons, causing losses to the farmer, yet on no single
occasion has the condition of agriculture been such as
to call for a Parliamentary inquiry. . . . The value of
land has been maintained, and rents have not fallen.
It appears, therefore, that the owners of land, the only
class that can be benefited by protection, need not
necessarily be injured by its abolition."^

But Mr. Fawcett wrote just at the end of the period
of prosperity to which he referred. In the very
next year (1879) a Royal Commission was appointed
to inquire into the causes of the bad condition of
agriculture. The fact is, the natural effect on the
industry of the repeal of the Corn Laws had, from
various causes, been delayed for some years.

A succession of wars and other foreign disturbances
combined had kept up the prices of grain.^ After
these ceased, prices fell, and this, coupled with some
years of bad harvests, culminating in the harvest of
1879, the "most disastrous on record," caused the
full and normal effect of free imports of corn to
be felt.

In addition to this, freights were falling to almost
nominal rates, and the " natural protection " to the
farming industry had disappeared. In the late seventies
of last century, therefore, from these causes, the severe

1 "Free Trade and Protection," Henry Fawcett. Macmillan, 1879.

^ The Crimean War, 1854-6 ; the Indian Mutiny, 1857 ; Civil War in
the United States, 1861-65 ; Franco-German War, 1870; Russo-Turkish
War, 1877.

358 LAND REFORM

agricultural distress set in which has lasted to the
present time.^

Even the advantages to the trading and manufac-
turing classes, which were the set-off against the
sacrifice of agriculture, have of late been fast dis-
appearing. Foreign Governments, by their fiscal
policy, have been the nursing mothers of manufactur-
ing concerns in their respective countries. By high
tariffs, which more and more exclude British goods,
their infant industries were nursed up and protected
till they have become strong enough, not only to sup-
plant the " workshop of the world " in the supply of
their own home needs, but even to dump vast quanti-
ties of goods into our own market, which by our
policy was made as free to them as their own.

Cobden, unfortunately, did not live long enough to
see this development. To the last he believed that,

^ In considering the causes that led to the repeal of the Corn Laws,
this " natural protection " argument must not be left out of account, as it
was largely used by Cobden and other repealers. One of the most in-
fluential writers of the day gave the cost, based on the sums actually paid,
of the transit of a quarter of wheat from Dantzig to England, Dantzig
being then the chief continental market and source of supply. The total
cost in the form of freight, dues, insurance, handling, warehousing,
brokerage, etc., is put at i8s. 3d. per quarter. "Influence of the Corn
Laws," James Wilson. Longmans, 1840.

In 1868 the cost of transit of wheat from Chicago to Liverpool was
IIS. 6|d. per quarter. In 1902 it had fallen to 2s. lo^d. "British and
Foreign Trade," Cd. 1761. 1903.

McCulloch assured the agriculturists that " they had little reason to
fear from the downfall of the protective system," that "there were no
grounds for thinking that the average price of corn in this country will
sink under the free system about to be established to less than from 42s.
to 48s. a quarter." But he adds, '* At the same time we should have pre-
ferred seeing this question settled by imposing a low fixed duty of 5s.,
6s., or 7s. a quarter. ... In scarce times (when importation is necessary)
a duty of this description would fall wholly on the foreigner without
affecting prices or narrowing importation." (" Principles of Political
Economy," 4th edition, 1849.)

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 359

ultimately, other countries would adopt our policy,
and that the advent of free trade among nations was
only a question of time. He himself was a sincere
and an earnest man. With no selfish aims, and under
personal trials and difficulties that command our
sympathy and respect, he pursued a course which he
firmly held was for the good of the country. What he
said about agriculture he believed. But had he sur-
vived to see the result of his policy, and especially its
effect on our greatest and most important industry,
the probability is that he would have reversed his
position. Indeed, there is evidence to show that,
had he lived to see the policy of other countries
towards us, and the utter failure of all his predictions
and hopes, he would have been among the most
ardent of tariff reformers. The very character of the
man sustains this contention. With the Manchester
school of the day the case was different. The spring
of their action — as a body — in the free-trade agitation
was their own commercial interests. Agriculture with
them was a minor consideration, and its subsequent
decay, so long as their own trade kept up, excited no
concern.

In the later years of his life, Cobden himself seems
to have recognized this position. In a letter to John
Bright, 24 September, 1857, he says : " To confess my
honest belief, I regard the Manchester constituency,
now that their gross pocket question is settled, as a
very unsound and, to us, a very unsafe body."

In the same year he writes, somewhat bitterly, in
the same strain (Letter to J. Parkes, 9 August,
1857): "The great capitalist class formed an excellent
basis for the anti-Corn Law movement, for they had
inexhaustible purses, which they opened trccly in a

36o LAND REFORM

contest where not only their pecuniary interests, but
their pride as an order was at stake." ^

But the Cobden school of the present day seems to
have inherited that quality so freely attributed to the
old Tory party when it existed — namely, an inability
to learn anything from experience. They stand on
the platform of 1846, and do not see, or will not
admit, the changes which sixty years have wrought.
They use the same arguments as their predecessors,
who "identified political economy with free trade, and
thought that all difficulties would be solved by the
free use of the sacred words 'supply and demand.'"^

The members of this school, so long as they can
see our exports not lessening in value, and especially
so long as they see our imports increasing, will con-
tinue the worship of their fetish. The fact that agri-
culture has been half ruined by what they falsely call
"free trade" is nothing to them. Its condition as a
separate industry is no more important to them than
it was to most of the founders of their school. Even
those amono- them who look with some decree of
favour on " retaliation " as being likely to benefit the
manufacturer stop short at the idea of "preferential
tariffs," which propose to confer some small benefit on
the agriculturist.

Outside this party, however, there are signs that
a rapidly increasing number among the manufacturing
classes generally are "waking up" to the position.
They are no longer so certain of the hackneyed
doctrine: "Take care of your imports and your exports
will take care of themselves." The idol of " Free
Trade" is being examined, a process usually fatal to

1 Morley's " Life of Cobden."

^ "English Utilitarians," Vol. Ill, Leslie Stephen.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 361

idols. It is being found out that, even where trade is
not actually lessening, the profits are reduced almost
to a vanishing point, and that unconditional free im-
ports are having the same ruinous effect on trade as
they have had on agriculture. The great " pocket "
interest, so potent during the Corn Law agitation, is
again becoming a moving force, but in an opposite
direction.

It cannot be denied that there is ample cause for
this unrest amonor those of the manufacturing classes
who are looking into the subject. The home market
is a steady one, but the foreign market, from its
nature, must be subject to great fluctuations. Now
and again there is a great wave of prosperity, and new
factories are built and new plant put down to meet the
increased demand ; but the ebb-tide surely comes, and
the result is that the capitalists have added largely to
their wealth during the "boom," but the industrial
workers are left stranded. The only scientific way of
getting at the facts of the situation is to trace the
course of trade and commerce through a number of
years. The statistics given in the different censuses
are a safe guide, and an analysis of these statistics
shows clearly the way our national affairs are tending.

The commercial classes have largely increased dur-
ing the last three decades of years. Bankers, mer-
chants, agents, insurance companies, clerks, brokers,
and other handlers of products, and dealers in wealth,
have been largely and steadily growing in numbers.
In house-building and all the trades connected with it
a similar extension is shown. The numbers of those
employed in providing for the wants of the well-to-do
also show a great increase. The workers in precious
metals, jewels, and other articles of luxury, have enor-

362 LAND REFORM

mously gained in numbers. Gamekeepers have in-
creased above 20 per cent during the last ten years,
and there are now nearly 17,000 men engaged in that
non-productive calling.

If, however, we turn to the industrial — manufactur-
ing and producing — classes, we find that the returns
tell a different tale. Up to 1891 these producing
classes were increasing in numbers, or at least holding
their own. But the census of 1901 shows that they
have since been losing ground considerably. The
numbers employed in the several branches of the
great textile industry show a falling-off during the ten
years from 3 per cent to 45 per cent.^

The number of persons employed in the cotton
manufacture, which is more than half of the whole
number engaged in the textile industries, had lessened
by 3'i per cent during the same period. On this
reduction the Registrar-General in his Report remarks :
"The decline here shown of yi per cent in the
number employed in an industry of such magnitude is
unquestionably a matter of serious concern."

The number of persons engaged in the carpet and
felt manufacture in 1901 was i2'i per cent less than
in 1891 ; in the wool and worsted, 13 "5 per cent; in
the hosiery i '5 per cent ; in the silk manufacture,
28'6 per cent; in the fustian manufacture, 31*4 per
cent ; in the flax and linen, 45 per cent. In all the
branches of the textile industry there are but two that
show an increase in the number of persons employed.
One is the lace manufacture, which shows an increase
of 4 '9 per cent ; the other is the coarse textile group

' All these statistics must be read in connection with the great increase
of population during the same period.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 363

(jute, hemp, cocoa-fibre, etc.), which had increased
1 1 per cent.

These large reductions in the number of workers,
when given in percentages, are apt to be insufficiently
realized by the working classes and the public gene-
rally. It will be well, therefore, to give the actual
number of persons affected. Following the classifica-
tion adopted in the Census report, and putting the
figures referring to the different branches together,
the following results are shown : —

Number Number

employed employed Decrease. Increase,

in i8gi. in 1901.

Cotton Manufacture . . . 546,015 ... 529,131 ... 16,884
Fustian Manufacture . . 8,182 ... 5,612 ... 2,570
Flax (Linen Manufacture) . 8,166... 4,493... 3,673
Wool and Worsted Manu-
facture 242,334 ... 209,740 ... 32,594

Silk Manufacture. . . . 48,797 ... 34,847 ... 13,950

Hosiery Manufacture . . 49,087 ... 48,374 ... 713

Lace Manufacture . . . 34,746 ... 36,439 ... — ... 1,693
Hemp, Jute, Cocoa-fibre,

Rope, Mat, etc. . . . 21,923... 24,336... — ...2,413
Carpet, Rug, Felt Manu-
facture 16,843 ... 14,802 ... 2,041

976,093 ... 907,774 ... 72,425 ... 4,106

It appears, therefore, that the net decrease in the
number of persons engaged in the textile industry
during the ten years ending in 1901, was 68,319.^
These reductions in the industrial ranks must be
taken in connection with the fact that, during the

' For particulars and details on which these calculations are based see
"General Report," Census 1901, Cd. 2174. In reading these statistics
it must be borne in mind that persons returned as "occupied" or
"employed" in an industry are not necessarily at work. A carpet-
weaver, for example, who is out of work, or on short time, is returned as
"occupied" or "einpluycd" in the carpet trade.

364 LAND REFORM

same decade of years, the general population of Eng-
land and Wales had increased by 3,525,318, or 12*17
per cent.

A Government Report on the changes in the rates
of wages has just been issued. It shows that the
decline in prosperity of the chief industries still con-
tinues. The Report deals with the United Kingdom,
and refers to above 800,000 workpeople belonging to
the principal groups of trades from which definite
returns are regularly received. Agricultural labourers,
seamen, and railway servants are excluded. The total
net decrease in rates of wages in last year (1904)
was ;^39,200 per week. This followed a net decrease
of ^38,300 per week in 1903, which followed a net
decrease of ;^72,595 per week in 1902, which in its
turn followed a net weekly decrease of ;^ 76, 5 87 in
1 90 1. The cumulative character of the falling-off
must be considered in order to realize the enormous
decrease in the rates of wages since the last Census
(1901).

Two only of the groups of occupations show an
increase in the rates of wages in the year 1904,
namely, in respect of those engaged in the clothing
trade and those employed by public authorities. The
Report gives only the rates of wages which workers
would receive for the time they were in work. The
actual earnings, of course, depend on the amount of
employment available.^

Another Government Report, just issued, deals with
the actual state of employment. It shows that, in all
the trade unions making returns, the yearly mean
percentage out of employment for the year 1901 (date

1 " Report on Changes in Rates of Wages, etc.," Labour Department,
Board of Trade, Cd. 2674, 1905.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 365

of the Census) was 3*8 per cent; in 1902, 4*4 per
cent; in 1903, 5*1 per cent; and last year, 1904, it
had risen to 6.5 per cent. This does not show the
worst of the case, as a man though he might be
working short time is returned as "employed."^

In previous chapters^ it has been pointed out that
the decHne in our home market is due to the decay
of agriculture — to the yearly diminishing purchasing
power derived from the productiveness of our own
fields. This fact, and the consequent rural depopula-
tion, have the closest connection with the unfavourable
industrial statistics quoted. Together they are in the
position of cause and effect. Our over-sea trade — to
which agriculture was sacrificed — however valuable,
must of necessity, under present conditions, be an
uncertain quantity, liable to attack from all quarters.
But our home trade, if wisely and properly safe-
guarded, would be under our own control.^

Had the industrial and manufacturing classes of this
country in the past been more far-sighted with regard
to agriculture, they would now be in the possession of an
increased home trade, to be reckoned by millions per
annum, and would still retain the over-sea trade, or so
much of it as hostile tariffs allow them to keep.

* " Abstract of Labour Statistics," Board of Trade (Labour Depart-
ment), 1905, Cd. 2491.

- "The Home Market and the Industrial Classes," chapter xviii.

' In Germany the home trade is well protected, but the increase in the
exports from that country of many kinds of manufactures is very remark-
able. During the past decade of years the total value of machinery of
all descriptions exported from Germany has increased very nearly three-
fold ; for whilst in the year 1894 the total exports of these goods amounted
to ;^3,97o,ooo, their value in 1903 rose to ;^i 1,600,000. ("Diplomatic and
Consular Reports," Germany, 1904, No. 622.)

CHAPTER XXI
FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE {continued)

The results of our fiscal and agrarian policy on the
rural population are still more marked. It is to be
regretted that in the controversy on tariff reform
attempts are made to use the agricultural labourers
for party purposes. The advocates of free imports,
in addressing county audiences, make statements
which too often secure the end in view, but the truth
of which will not bear examination. Labourers are
told how much their position has been improved
in every way, and are assured that the improvement
is the result of so-called free trade. They are warned
against going back to the "bad old days of protec-
tion," though of course the intelliorent amongr these
speakers know well that nobody has made the faintest
suggestion of going back to what was then known
as protection.

The advantages obtained through the progress of
science, through better sanitation, through labour and
other social legislation, through the facilities for transit,
through discoveries of various kinds, are all held up as
the direct results of free trade.^

The policy of unrestricted free imports of foreign
grain having, through the ruin of agriculture, driven

^ As instances, the present writer remembers that candles were an
important item in the weekly budget of the labourer. He remembers
spending many an hour by the gloomy light of a slender dip, which had
to serve for all in the room. Now, through the discovery of petroleum, a
splendid light is secured at less cost. The manufacture of margarine,
equal as an article of food to butter itself, was a saving to the poor. Free
education is a further saving of from threepence to a shilling a week.
These and a variety of other things — results of general progress — make
the people to a certain extent better off, but are not due to free trade.

366

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 367

the bulk of a class from their employment, it seems
ludicrous to hold up any slight improvement in the
condition of the remnant which still remains on the
land as a proof of the success of that policy. But set-
ting aside the argument of the party politician, there
is a vital view of the question which all thoughtful
and patriotic men might be fairly asked to consider.
Admit, for the sake of argument, all the advantages
claimed for the policy of 1846, add to them, multiply
them manyfold, and then consider whether or not
these advantages are a sufficient set-off against the

o o

great national calamity involved in the destruction of
a class of the community which is generally admitted
to be the stay and strength of a nation.

The only sound way of dealing with the question is
to trace the condition of the men during the years
which followed the legislation of 1846 up to, say,
1897 — t^G ^^te of the final report of the Royal Com-
mission on Agriculture. A period of fifty years is
surely long enough to show the effect of a policy on a
class of men whose position — for good or evil — was
necessarily affected by that policy.

Following this course, comparing like with like —
comparing the condition of labourers who had employ-
ment before the day of free imports with the condition
of those with employment during fifty years afterwards,
it will be found that the former were much better off,
or, to put it more aptly, many degrees less miserable
than the latter.

Cobden himself, writing to Mr. Ashworth nine years
after the repeal of the Corn Laws, says : " It is sad to
see the bewilderment of the poor people about the
price of bread " (bread had gone up instead of down),
" but we ought to be tolerant with them, seeing how

368 LAND REFORM

much ignorance we meet with among their betters.
... I assure you I never saw more distress among
this class. They are generally employed, but their
wages here never exceed twelve shillings a week, and
are often ten. The labourer's wife and three or four
children live upon this sum, with bread at 2-|d. per
pound ; dry bread is all they can get. The pigs have
disappeared from the sties. They and their children
are looking haggard and pale and ragged ; and this is
agricultural prosperity." (Morley's *' Life of Cobden.")

If we take the state of things ten years later than
when Cobden wrote — twenty years after free im-
ports— we find the condition of the labourers, if any-
thing, still more deplorable. The reader must study
the numerous volumes which contain the reports and
evidence of the several Royal Commissions, to know
the almost incredible hardships which the rural labour-
ers were suffering. They seem to have reached the
depths of misery. "Children must work because the
poor people could not get along without it, ... It
was the children that kept the wolf from the door.
. . . Gangers supplied children (often as young as six
or seven) to farmers at 14s. per score, paying them 4d.
to yd. per day," etc.

Mr. Fraser (afterwards Bishop of Manchester), one
of the sub-commissioners, describing the social con-
dition, dwellings, etc., of the labourers, says : " It is a
hideous picture, and the picture is drawn from real
life. It is impossible," he adds, "to exaggerate the
ill effects of the state of things in every respect, physi-
cal, social, and moral. "^

^ " Royal Commission on the Employment of Women and Children in
Agriculture, 1867" (First Report, 1868). See also " Children's Employ-
ment Commission, 1862" (Sixth Report, 1867).

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 369

It is natural to suppose that the rapid lessening of
the number of men employed on the soil would tend
to increase the wages and improve the position of
those who remained. In the preceding pages it is
argued from facts that, from causes altogether apart
from free imports, the condition of those who mi-
grated to the towns was greatly improved. But that
improvement did not reach the labourers who remained
on the soil to any extent worth considering, and cer-
tainly not to be compared with the progress made by
operatives in other industries. The statements, in
fact, with regard to the increase of wages of the agri-
cultural labourers are grossly exaggerated. Mr. Caird
(afterwards Sir James Caird), referring to the time
when free imports came into operation, states that
after a careful inquiry into the question of wages in
thirty-three out of the forty counties in England, "he
finds that 9s. 6d. per week will be found the correct
average."^ About ten years afterwards a return,
moved for by Mr. Villiers, was presented to the House
of Commons. By that return it was shown that
labourers' wages ranged from 8s. to 15s. per week
generally: in Sussex, iis. to 12s.; Berkshire, 9s. to
15s., and in winter 9s. to lis.; Herts, 9s. 6d. to
los. 6d. ; Cambridgeshire, los. to 12s. ; Norfolk, los.
to IIS.; Wilts and Dorset, 9s. to los. ; Devonshire,
8s. to I2s. ; Somersetshire, Gloucestershire, Hereford-
shire, Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Warwickshire,
9s. to IIS. ; Yorkshire, 8s. to i6s., etc,"

A few years later (1866) the Earl of Leicester
uttered some pregnant words on the subject. After

' Caird's "English Agriculture," 1850-1.

^ For full details see "Average Rate of Weekly Wages of Agricultural
Labourers" (Villiers' Return, 20 August, i860).
2 B

370 LAND REFORM

referring at some length to the wages and housing of
the labourers, he urged the necessity for improving
their condition in order, as he said, to "retain for us
that greatest source of our wealth, the muscle and
sinew of the agricultural labourer."

The Final Report of the Royal Commission so
late as 1897 deals fully with the question of wages in
all parts of the country, and shows how small the
advance had been.

" In Norfolk," the Report states, "the general rate
of wages in 1894 was los. per week, while the average
earnings throughout the year were 13s. to 14s. . . .
In Suffolk the weekly wages of ordinary labourers
were 12s., in many cases los., and in a few exceptional
cases 8s." Mr. Wilson Fox, in his Report just issued,
gives the average earnings (including the value of all
allowances in kind) of the ordinary farm labourers at
17s. 5d. for England and 17s. 7d. for Wales, being an
increase of 4*0 and 6*6 per cent, respectively since
1898.^

As to the purchasing power of wages, about which
so many misstatements are made, it has been shown
in a previous chapter, from facts that can hardly be
disputed even by political partisans, that most of the
necessaries of life, victuals, covering, and shelter (and
the labourer had nothing to spare for anything else),
were cheaper before the time of free imports than
they were afterwards, so that a miserable increase
of a shillingf or two in wacres did not cover the
increase in cost of living. The labourer's earnings
at the best of times were always within the starvation
circle.

^ " Earnings of Agricultural Labourers." Wilson Fox, Board of
Trade. Cd. 2376. 1905.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 371

A personal experiment in this matter would be
instructive, and show what the improved condition of
the labourer meant. Let the head of a household of
six or eight persons have the highest rate of wages
(say about 14s.) that ruled for fifty years after free
imports placed in her hands to supply all the wants
of the family. She would have to provide food,
clothes, boots, sundries, and to pay rent ; to provide
for the incidents of sickness, loss of work, child-birth
and death. And further, with one pair of hands
she would have to do all the cleaning, washing, cook-
ing, nursing, mending, etc. After this experience
of domestic economy — not carried on throughout a
lifetime, but only for a few weeks — there would be no
more talk of " the improved condition of the labourer "
as the result of free imports.

The present writer was among those who signed
the petition to Parliament in favour of the repeal of
the Corn Laws. He remembers the extravagant state-
ments and promises made to the country folk by those
in charge of the petition. Wages were to go up,
victuals were to be cheaper and more abundant, and
the condition of the labourer and his family was to be
improved in every way. These statements were
believed, and the petition was eagerly signed by the
village people. Mr. W. J. F'ox, one of the ablest,
certainly one of the most eloquent and persuasive of
Cobden's colleagues, gave assurances which reached
the ears of the rural population, and were believed
by them. He declared that the abolition of pro-
tection would exterminate pauperism, and that in
a few years the ruins of the workhouses would mark
the extinction of protection in the same way as the

372 LAND REFORM

ruins of the baronial castles mark the destruction of
feudalism.^

The following extracts from a paper, written by the
present writer just forty years afterwards, show how
these alluring foretellings had been falsified and the
sad condition to which a class of men whom we love to
call the backbone of the nation had been reduced : —

" When the working classes are spoken of, the rural
labourer is, as a matter of course, excluded from the
term. In Blue Books, agricultural newspapers, and
at farmers' meetings, the position and standing of the
labourer are described and descanted on by his masters.
The description of his flourishing condition evokes
astonishment in the minds of those who know his
actual status. Any attempt to reveal to the general
public the real condition of the labourer is resented
with indignation by the agricultural interest.

"It is true he is often treated with condescending
kindness, and as a deserving object of charity so long
— and only so long — as he is docile and subservient,
but any attempt at self-assertion or independence is
punished and put down by many forms of social perse-
cution which are in the hands of his superiors.
Propertyless, and with no security for house or home,
he has no means of helping himself, and any attempt
of others to help him — except by social or benevolent
means — is felt to be, and is frequently described as,
a criminal attempt to unsettle the minds of happy and
contented men, and to set class against class. For his
wrong-doings he is judged by a rural magistracy who
feel themselves set in authority over him, and who
now and then award punishments so severe and un-

* Speech in Covent Garden Theatre, quoted in " Pauperism." Henry
Fawcett. Macmillan, 1876. Mr. Fox, by pen and speech, was one of
the most prominent and best known among the workers in the cause
of repeal. He wrote the Anti-Corn Law League's " Address to the
Nation."

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 373

reasonable as to attract the attention of the Press, and
the passing condemnation of the public." (Illustrative
cases are here quoted.) "In the Report of the Royal
Commission issued in 1882, the general conclusions
arrived at are that 'the labourers were never in a better
position,' that 'they have better cottages, higher wages,
and less work,' that 'during the recent depression the
labourer has been best off,' that there has been 'con-
siderable deterioration in the quality of labour,' that
' there is not the same sympathy and not the same in-
clination to do anything he is not obliged to do for his
employer,' and that 'labourers' unions have not only
succeeded in disturbing, but have destroyed the good
feeling which once existed.'

" These favourable conclusions, however, are hardly
warranted by the facts given in the evidence on which
they are founded. Though the sources of information
are landowners, tenant farmers, factors, land survey-
ors, and employers of labour generally, yet a close
examination of the mass of evidence given reveals a
state of things of a painful character, and which, if
studied by the general public, could not fail to awaken
feelings of pity and sympathy. It is shown that the
labourers are badly housed, their wages insufficient to
keep a family or provide for bodily wants, to say
nothing of sickness and loss of work. The hard lot of
our peasantry is, as a rule, accepted by them patiently
and in silence, and their sufferings are but little known
outside their circle. The life of a labourer may be
said to be one long grind of human toil, even when
he escapes sickness and loss of work. With no plea-
sure in the present, and the horizon of his future
bounded only by the workhouse and the grave, he
works on to the end, to escape the ' parish ' which he
dreads. Strength, however, fails at last, and then he
has to rely on a scanty outdoor relief, or he goes into
the ' House.' In due time he is reported dead, and
so ends a life of toil, in which he has added (who shall

374 LAND REFORM

say how much ?) to that stock of national wealth so
small a portion of which has fallen to his share."

In many parts of rural England this description still
holds good so far as the regular labourers who cannot
leave the land are concerned. The following letter
received this year (1905) from the wife of a clergy-
man in a country parish states : " The wages here are
I2S. and 13s. a week, or 15s. to shepherds (who never
get a Sunday free at all), rent is. a week ; but when a
man and wife and seven or eight children have to live
on that, they are literally so underfed that they have
neither strength nor thought for anything but how to
be fed or covered. What they need is not kindness
merely, or charity, but a living wage ; and that they
have not got in these parts. The agricultural labour-
ers are such splendid fellows when they have any
chance, but all who can are going away ; and if pro-
tection of some sort does not come soon to rural
England, there will be nothing and no one left to pro-
tect. It is scandalous that home interests which affect
the very root of the well-being of the nation should be
so persistently ignored."^

At the same time we are assured by a certain class
of economists, generally well-to-do men, that all is
well. Exports and imports are growing greater : the
aggregate wealth has been increasing by leaps and
bounds, till, according to the best authority, the na-
tion's capital has reached the almost incredible sum of

^ In the many visits made to rural districts for political and other
purposes I have been continually struck with the good work done by the
wives and daughters of parish clergymen. They give their womanly
sympathy, and often material aid out of their scanty means, to poor
parishioners in times of family troubles, while the games, entertainments,
etc., which they promote form the only relief to the monotony and the
uneventful character of village life.

FISCAL POLICY AND AGRICULTURE 375

15,000 millions sterling, and its income 1,750 millions
a year. But there are thoughtful persons, happily-
growing in number, who have serious misgivings as
to the economy of the national household. They think
they hear "a noise downstairs," and, with the Scottish
national poet, they find it difficult "to keep at times
frae being sour, to see how things are shar'd." They
are beginning to see that nostrums and palliatives
cannot cope with the deep and widespread destitution
that exists, and that some scientific methods are
necessary to hasten the time when those who are the
main producers shall have a larger share in the pro-
ducts, the time

" When wealth no more shall rust in mounded heaps.
But, smit with freer hand, shall slowly melt
In many streams to fatten lower lands."

CHAPTER XXII

DEPOPULATION OF RURAL ENGLAND

The cry of " Rural Depopulation " is on every one's
lips, but few know the extent to which it has been
going on, fewer still realize fully what it means. The
admirable manner in which the Census Reports are
compiled is worthy of all praise, but of necessity
the work is so full, elaborate, and complicated, that
much study is required in order to draw from it such
condensed information as will be of use to the general
public — especially to busy persons. The headings
and areas vary almost in every Census, and it is there-
fore very difficult to secure strict accuracy in com-
paring particulars under separate headings in the
Report of 1901 with the particulars under similar
headings in previous Censuses. But no pains have
been spared to make the analysis of the returns, as it
appears in the following pages, as correct as possible.

The term " Urban population " means the in-
habitants of London, County boroughs, Municipal
boroughs, and Urban districts. The term " Rural
population" comprises the inhabitants of the remaining
parts of the country except a very small population
which is neither Rural nor Urban.

The total area of England and Wales is 37,327,479
statute acres, and the population in 1901 was
32,527,843. Of these totals the Urban districts have
an area of 3,848,987 acres, containing a population in
1901 of 25,058,355, while the Rural districts, with an

376

DEPOPULATION OF RURAL ENGLAND 377

area of 33,478,492 acres, had a population in the same
year of less than 7,500,000.

The last Census, like the previous ones, reveals a
startling state of things. While the population of
England and Wales has increased in the ten years by
12*17 P^"" cent, no less than "]"] per cent of the whole
are resident in Urban districts which comprise little
more than one-tenth of the total area. Taking the
Urban areas, it will be found that practically btil the
smaller boroughs, market towns, and other Urban
districts which are in the midst of Rural surroundings,
and rely more or less on agriculture for their trade
and support, are either stationary, or have fallen off
in population during the ten years (1891-1901), many
of them to a serious extent.

As examples of the kind of places that show an
actual decrease in population may be quoted : —

Ashburton, Abingdon, Bicester, Bishop's Castle,
Bewdley, Buckingham, Blandford, Bridport, Bury
St. Edmunds, Chipping Norton, Crediton, Daventry,
Diss, Downham Market, Eye, Great Torrington,
Glastonbury, Horncastle, Huntingdon, Hay, Ivy-
bridge, Louth, Lyme Regis, Lymington, Market
Rasen, Malmesbury, Marlborough, Ottery St. Mary,
Ross, Shaftesbury, Saffron Walden, Sowerby, South-
molton, Stowmarket, Tavistock, Tetbury, Tiverton,
Totnes, Wareham, Wallingford, Warminster, War-
wick, etc.^

The " Rural districts," of which the towns named
below are the centres, show a still more alarming
decay during the same decade of years. Out of 674

' There are above 200 places of this class that show a decrease, and
many others that are either stationary or have slightly increased in
numbers. For details see Summary Tables, Census 1901, Cd. 1523,
Table XI, pp. 45-7^5.

378 LAND REFORM

Rural districts in England and Wales, no less than
408 have declined in population. In many of them
the decrease is very considerable. Many of the rest
are about stationary, or show a very slight increase.

As examples of those which show a decrease may
be named : —

Andover, Aylesbury, Abingdon, Axminster, Barn-
staple, Basingstoke, Battle, Berkhampstead, Beverley,
Braintree, Blandford, Banbury, Bideford, Bridgnorth,
Bicester, Brackley, Chipping Norton, Chard, Crediton,
Daventry, Devizes, Hungerford, Holsworthy, Honiton,
Huntingdon, Hertford, Hitchin, Dulverton, Dursley,
Frome, Hereford, Leominster, Louth, Midhurst,
Nuneaton, Newbury, Northleach, Oundle, Okehamp-
ton, Pershore, Romsey, Malmesbury, Pewsey, Stur-
minster. Wantage, Warminster, Swaffham, Spalding,
Southmolton, Stow -on -the -Wold, Shepton Mallet,
Sherbourne, Sleaford, Towcester, Yeovil, Tiverton,
Torrington, Tewkesbury, Horncastle, Saffron Walden,
Wincanton, Woodstock, etc.^

These are the places and districts, many of them
historical, where, in former times, the robust English
race increased and multiplied, where country life was
vigorous, where village sports abounded, and the
recruiting - sergeant was continually seen. All are
now more or less in a state of decay, in some cases
with grass growing in the streets.

Taking the Administrative counties, which are wholly
or mainly agricultural, no less than fourteen show an
actual decrease in population, while some others are
practically at a standstill or show only a small in-
crease. But the decline in the number of those
engaged in agriculture is seen in every county in

^ See Table XII in the same Census Paper, pp. 79-99-

DEPOPULATION OF RURAL ENGLAND 379

England and Wales except one. The following table
shows the counties in which the decrease is most
marked.

NUMBER OF MALE PERSONS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE.

Decrease

County.

1891.

1901.

per cent.

Westmoreland

6,295 •

.. 5,847 .

.. 7-1

Lancashire

43,228 .

.. 40,124 .

.. 7-2

Cornwall

23793 •

.. 22,008 .

•• 7-5

Merionethshire

6,445 •

.. 5,962 .

•• 7-5

Derbyshire .

13,640 .

.. 12,590 .

.. 77

Lincolnshire .

56,185 .

.. 51,625 .

.. 81

Denbighshire.

8,680

.. 7,861

.. 9-4

Nottingham .

17,933

.. 16,174 .

.. 9-8

Devonshire .

39,234 •

.. 35408

.. 9-8

Dorsetshire .

17,218 .

.. 15,427 .

.. 10-4

Somersetshire

32,810

.. 29,230

.. io*9

Durham

11,712

•• 10,373

.. 11-4

Worcestershire

15,870

.. 14,039

.. 11-5

Kent .

44,107

•■ 38,997

.. 11-6

Norfolk

48,872 .

•• 43,151

.. 117

Cambridgeshire

26,506

•• 23,248

.. 12-3

Suffolk

41,137

•• 35,977

.. 12-5

Middlesex

6,508

.. 5,644

•• 13-3

Warwickshire

19,664

.. 17,003

•• 135

Leicestershire

15,660

•• 13,479

.. 13-9

Gloucestershire

21,238

.. 18,239

.. 141

Hampshire

■ 28,797

... 24,530

.. 148

Rutlandshire.

2,789

•• 2,374

.. 14-9

Huntingdonshire

8,085

... 6,862

.. 151

Surrey

. 15.035

... 12,740

.. 15-3

Wiltshire

24,921

... 20,982

... 15-8

Sussex

32,674

••• 27,437

... 160

Essex

. 40,352

•• 33.591

... i6-8

Hertfordshire

. 18,611

... 15,326

... 177

Northamptonshire

. 21,015

... 17,279

... 17-8

Oxfordshire .

. 18,353

... 14,925

... 187

Berkshire

• 19,735

... 15,886

... 195

Buckinghamshire

15,337

... 12,244

.. 20-2

Bedfordshire .

. 15,510

... 11,815

... 23-8

?8o

LAND REFORM

With regard to agricultural labourers, the classifica-
tion of their different kinds of work adopted in the
Census of 1901 differs from that of previous Reports.
For this reason, the Report states, " it is obviously
futile to compare the numbers under separate head-
ings with those under similar headings at previous
Censuses. The total numbers of workers may, how-
ever, be fairly compared after excluding farmers' sons
under fifteen years of age and female relations of
farmers, for reasons stated on a previous page. With
this necessary modification, the aggregate of such
workers at the last six Censuses were as shown in the
following table " : —

NUMBER OF WORKERS ON FARMS.

Census year.

Male persons.

Female persons.

Total.

185I

1,232,576

... 143.475 ••

1,376,051

1861

1,206,280

... 90,525 ..

1,296,805

I87I

1,014,428

... 58,656 ..

1,073,084

188I

924,871

... 40,346 ..

965,217

I89I

841,884

... 24,150 ..

866,034

I9OI

715,138

12,002 ..

727,1301

If we take these figures in connection with the fact
that in 1851 the population was about 18 millions,
and in 1901 about 32 J millions, or nearly double, the
extent and rapidity of the decline in the number of

* For minute particulars of the manner in which agricultural work is
divided under different headings, see General Report, Census 1901,
Table XXXIV, p. 259, and Table XXXV, p. 274. These particulars are
somewhat complicated, but very interesting. They relate to farmers,
graziers, bailiffs, woodmen, gardeners, nurserymen, and all others con-
nected with agriculture. These tables put the number of farm servants,
men and women (including shepherds, stockmen, horsemen, and ordinary
labourers), at 621,068, instead of the number 727,130 given in the above
table. The former seems the more correct. For the changes in classifica-
tion see Table XXXIII, pp. 245-55. Page 247 refers to agriculture.

DEPOPULATION OF RURAL ENGLAND 381

farm workers will be seen. In 1851, of every 100
male persons over ten years of age 19 were workers
on farms, while in 1901 the proportion was only 6 in
100. Between 1881 and 1891 the decline was 9 per
cent, and between 1891 and 1901 it was 15 per cent.
In no other important industry in this or any other
country at any time has such a falling off been seen.
It is a just gauge of the effect which our fiscal and
agrarian policy has had on the rural population.
Whether or not a compensation has been found in the
direction of trade and manufacture let the state of
our towns bear witness.

In contrast to the decay of the agricultural population
is the enormous rapidity with which the inhabitants of
Urban districts have increased during the ten years.
Those Administrative counties which contain residen-
tial, mining, or manufacturing centres show a large
growth of population, varying up to as much as 40 per
cent. In the large towns the increase has been very
striking, and the larger the town the more rapid the
increase in proportion.

Among the 1122 Urban districts are 75, each of
which had in 1901 a population of above 50,000.
These 75 towns had grown in numbers during the ten
years at the rate of 14 per cent. In some of them
the rate of increase is almost incredible. West Ham
increased by over 30 per cent ; Willesden, 87 per
cent; East Ham, 193 per cent; Walthamstow, 105
per cent ; King's Norton and Northfield, loi per
cent ; Handsworth, 61 per cent ; Cardiff, 27 per
cent; Gateshead, 28 per cent; Plymouth, 21 per
cent; Southampton, 27 per cent; Smethwick, 51 per
cent ; Middlesbrough, 20 per cent ; West Hartle-
pool, 46 per cent ; and Walsall, 20 per cent, etc.

382 LAND REFORM

"Greater London," which is ever attracting to it
people of all sorts and conditions, has now a popula-
tion of 6^ millions. It increased by nearly one million
in the ten years, that is by a number about equal to
the inhabitants of Birmingham and Manchester put
together.

These Census returns, as far as they relate to agri-
culture, become more and more doleful the more they
are dissected and examined. In 1901, exclusive of
gardeners, there were in all England and Wales only
195,141 persons (men-kind and women-kind) under
twenty years of age who were engaged in agriculture.
It is still more alarming to note that there were only
about 50,000 boys and girls under fifteen who were so
enoraored. This shows that rural children on leaving^
school drift into other occupations, and that very few
of them stay on the land. We are therefore brought
face to face with the fact that few besides the middle-
aged and the old remain on the soil ; and as these
die out, the grand old craft of the working agri-
culturist will die out with them.^

1 It is a common error to place an efficient rural labourer in the class
of "unskilled" workers. In no other industry than that of agriculture
does the workman require more skill, and in few other industries is such
a variety of knowledge needed. The straight furrow, the well-laid hedge,
the thatched roof, the well-built, comely rick, etc., require training and
skill on the part of the workman. A labourer of the old type knew the
ways and wants of horses and cattle, and could talk to them so as to be
understood. His powers of observation were wonderful. With no know-
ledge of chemistry he knew the nature of soils. With no knowledge of
meteorology, by looking at the way of the wind, its action on trees and
animals, and by other signs, he could forecast the weather with a fair
amount of accuracy. In these days, when almost everything is done by
machinery, the agriculturist, if schooled in the scientific reasons — the
" why and the wherefore " — of the things he sees and does, would be the
grandest craftsman of all manual workmen, engaged, as he would be, in
one of the few crafts left that require thought on the part of the worker
and give him a personal interest and a pleasure in his work.

DEPOPULATION OF RURAL ENGLAND 383

The present writer has recently received a letter
from a farmer friend — a good cultivator and a liberal
employer — which dwells on the serious difficulty
farmers generally are in for want of these skilled men.
The letter states: "We cannot get labour enough,
and it is not efficient what we do o'et." He sends
a newspaper ("Stamford Mercury") which contains
eighty-three advertisements for waggoners, cowmen,
shepherds, labourers with good knowledge of farm
work, etc. Increased wages are offered, with cottages,
gardens, and other perquisites.^

The fact is, this class no longer exists in the country
districts in sufficient numbers, though they are to be
found in thousands in our towns and other industrial
centres. No mere wages, that the farmer can at
present afford to pay, will bring them back. These
country-bred men, on account of their special quali-
ties, generally get employment in towns if there is
any to be had, and begin to earn wages which they
regard as good when compared with what they had
been previously earning on the land. In spite of
their reputed dullness, they show a great aptitude in
adapting themselves to new conditions. They are
tractable, towardly, strong, and industrious — and,
generally, they demean themselves well. They almost
invariably "get on," and many of them become
thriving men and important citizens."

' In a Suffolk paper — "The Lowestoft Journal" — 23 September, 1905,
there were advertisements for 112 farm labourers— horsemen, shepherds,
milkmen, plou^'hmen, stockmen, all-round men, thatchers, etc. Good
wages were offered with continuous employment, and in many cases
cottages and gardens free.

- I was speaking a short time ago to a man of this type who was at
work on the roads in Birmingham. I told him of the great demand
which existed in the neighbouring counties for such men as he. His
reply was to the effect that he did not like the work he was at, but that

384 LAND REFORM

Successive governments are indifferent to the state
of things as regards agriculture revealed by the Census
Reports, and they are equally careless of the findings
of Commissions specially appointed by themselves to
inquire into the subject. The Report of the last of
the Commissions so appointed may be said to contain
the latest official utterance on the effect of our fiscal
and agrarian policies on the rural population. At
the date of that Report (1897) the exodus from the
land of the old type of labourers was, as a class, well-
nigh completed, leaving few but middle-aged or old
men and casual labourers behind them. The Com-
missioners express alarm at the exodus, which, as they
state, has been going on for many years simultane-
ously with a rapid increase in population. They add :
" The total population of Great Britain rose from
26,072,284 in 1871 to 33,028,172 in 1891, and, as we
have shown, the number of the agricultural labourers
in Great Britain fell during those years from 1,161,738
to 919,685. In other words, while in twenty years the
British population increased by 6,955,888, the agricul-
tural labourers of Great Britain decreased by 242,053.
It is unnecessary for us to enlarge on the significance
of these figures from the point of view either of the
national physique or of the interests of the working
classes engaged in other than agricultural industries."^

he was getting continuous employment under the Corporation at 23s. per
week, and was " able to save a shilling or two for a rainy day." " But,"
I said, " suppose you had five or six acres of land of your own, could
you manage it?" He replied that he should like to try, but " there was
no chance of that " ; if there were he " could chuck this to-morrow."
Here was a skilled man who could plough, sow, reap, lay and mend
hedges — a skilled labourer, for whose services the land of this country
is " crying out," engaged in cleaning streets which any one of the
numerous unemployed could do as well as he could.

1 " Final Report of the Royal Commission on Agricultural Depres-
sion" (C. 8540), issued in 1897.

DEPOPULATION OF RURAL ENGLAND -,8

o^:>

The reference to the " national physique " contains
an anxious portent in connection with this process of
migration. These masses of rural folk, starved out
of their natural dwelling-place — the country-sides —
become, as it were, invaders of the towns and centres
of industry. No doubt they better themselves, not
by filling places that could not be filled by others on
the spot, but by supplanting other, older, and perhaps
less capable workers. These supplanted ones sink
into lower grades of employment, or become casuals,
doing anything they can get to do, and at last many
of them, after a bitter struggle, sink into the ranks of
the submerged or fall on the rates. It is thoughtless
and unjust to reproach this human wreckage with
being "undeserving," "unemployable," etc., because
few besides themselves know the odds they had to
contend with in their downward course before they
finally gave in. The offspring of the invading class
deteriorate in their turn under the bad conditions of
an overcrowded town life, but fresh relays continually
arrive to take their places. Every thousand acres of
land that goes out of cultivation of necessity swells
the number of the human migrants.

Some writers on the subject console themselves
with the statements that there is a " natural tendency"
— as it is termed — towards migration, and that it is
characteristic of every other nation as well as our
own. " Migration is humorously described as the
tendency of the rural population towards large towns,
being really the tendency of water to fiow uphill when
forced by machinery."^ The tattle about "natural
tendency " becomes futile and evasive when the real
condition of the labourer is considered. " The rest-

' "Tess," Thomas Hardy.
2 C

386 LAND REFORM

lessness generated by pressure against the conditions
of existence perpetually prompt the desire to try a
new position." ^

For the unmarried labourer there is no inducement
whatever to remain on the land, while there is every
motive for a change. Transit is easy ; he has only
to throw his little fardel on his back, and in an hour,
for a few pence, he is in a large town with all its
novelties and attractions. But there is no comparison
whatever between the migf ration in E norland and that
in other countries. First of all, the migration in other
countries is comparatively small — in some cases in-
significant— and is satisfactorily accounted for. In
Germany, for instance, the enormous increase in
manufacturing industries has caused a natural demand
for workers from the — if anything — over-populated
rural districts. There is all the difference in the
world between migration in countries whose rural
population is from 40 to 60 per cent of the whole,
and whose commercial prosperity is increasing, and
migration in a country whose rural population is
already depleted, and whose town industries are
practically at a standstill. But in other countries this
migration, however small, is regarded as a misfortune
to be actively counteracted as much as possible. In
England, on the contrary, we do little but talk
about it.

In the new German Tariff Bill the interests of agri-
culture are intentionally safeguarded on the grounds
that "agriculture is the sheet-anchor of the ship of
state." In his speech on that Bill the German Home
Secretary said : " Police measures would be of no
avail to keep the rural population attached to the

' Introduction to " A Plea for Liberty," Herbert Spencer.

DEPOPULATION OF RURAL ENGLAND 387

land. If it were to be kept there, it could only be
done by encouraging agriculture, and by adopting
measures which secured conditions favourable to a^ri-

o

culture. Side by side with agrarian policy, however,
the Government would continue to promote legislation
for the benefit of the working classes." At a recent
agricultural meeting held in Paris the " 24 million
agriculturists" were spoken of as "the ballast of the
vessel that carries the fortunes of France."^

Another great cause of the depopulation of our
rural districts is emigration. The general public are
consoled with the theory that emigration is a means
of relieving our congested population, and that by
sending labourers and others abroad they are dis-
posing of surplus people not wanted at home. It is
presumed that emigrants, by tilling their own land in
a new country, would benefit themselves, and at the
same time raise food and create fresh trade for the
Motherland.

Rural England, however, is not a congested country,
but the very opposite, large areas being almost a desert,
or fast becoming one. But for the evidence contained
in the Census Papers, no one would believe the extent
to which many of the country districts have been
stripped of their population. If we take the rural
districts in all the counties of England and Wales, we
find that in no less than forty-two of them the popula-
tion (men, women, and children) is less than 200 to
the square mile ; in twelve of them less than 100 to
the square mile ; and in three less than 50. The
details are given in the following table : —

' Speech of M. Gomot, President de la Socidtd Nationale d'Encourage-
ment 5. I'Agriculture ("La Semaine Agricole," 2 July, 1905). At that
meeting the French Minister of Agriculture, in proposing the toast of
the Society, coupled with it that of "The Peasantry of France."

388

LAND REFORM

AVERAGE POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE.

For the Administrative For Rural Districts

County as a whole.

only.

Bedfordshire

. 363

171

Berkshire .

350

180

Buckinghamshire

. 263

184

Cambridgeshire .

214

103

Cheshire

. 808

197

Cornwall

238

151

Cumberland

176

71

Derbyshire .

. 599

292

Devonshire .

• 254

93

Dorsetshire .

207

107

Durham

1171

379

Essex .

708

178

Gloucestershire .

563

195

Hampshire .

486

147

Herefordshire

136

94

Hertfordshire

409

185

Huntingdonshire

148

112

Kent .

630

226

Lancashire .

2346

204

Leicestershire

526

181

Lincolnshire

189

97

Middlesex .

3410

540

Monmouthshire .

546

113

Norfolk

232

131

Northamptonshire

336

141

Northumberland .

299

65

Nottinghamshire .

610

165

Oxfordshire

248

13s

Rutlandshire

130

130

Shropshire .

178

107

Somersetshire

268

158

Staffordshire

1063

234

Suffolk

252

141

Surrey-

906

330

Sussex

413

149

Warwickshire

1037

182

DEPOPULATION OF RURAL ENGLAND 389

AVERAGE POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE.

For the Administrative For Rural Districts

County as a whole.

only.

Westmoreland

82

52

Wiltshire

201

121

Worcestershire .

605

247

Yorkshire .

591

IIO

Anglesey

183

131

Brecknockshire .

74

52

Cardiganshire

88

67

Carmarthenshire .

. 147

103

Carnarvonshire .

220

129

Denbighshire

198

144

Flintshire .

320

218

Glamorganshire .

1061

302

Merionethshire .

74

46

Montgomeryshire

69

47

Pembrokeshire .

143

89

Radnorshire

49

39^

The conclusion to be drawn from these facts — a
conclusion that can hardly be disputed — is that there
is room and profitable employment on the agricultural
land of England and Wales, and in industries con-
nected with it, for at least a million families.

Emigration became a regular system during the
first half of the last century. It was an outlet for the
peasantry who had been driven from the soil by the
land legislation and the proceedings already described.
The mere loss in the form of money and goods which
these emigrants carry with them is considerable. On
this point an economist writes : " Taking the esti-

' In the Census Reports the rural and urban population are given
separately, but the areas are given in statute acres. The particulars in
the above table have been ascertained by turning the acreage of each
county as a whole into square miles and doing the same in respect of the
acreage of the rural districts in that county, and then reckoning the
population per square mile in each of the two areas.

390 LAND REFORM

mate of Mr. Buchanan, Agent of the British Govern-
ment in Canada, the amount of capital taken with
them by emigrants during the twenty-five years named
(1820 to 1849) must be equal to 40 millions sterling."^
In a paper published by the Labourer's Friends
Society, an influential association formed for the pur-
pose of restoring labourers to the land by voluntary
agencies, appears the following: — "We shall continue,
from time to time, to bring forward facts to show that
an effectual remedy for all this mass of misery is not
only in our power, but at our very doors, and that it
would be a deplorable waste of public money to trans-
port the labourer to foreign climes when by proper
arrangement he might be made happy and comfort-
able at home."^ Coming down to recent times, an
American statesman, the late Mr. Blaine, stated some
years ago that in the form of emigrants — "able-bodied
humanity" — we more than paid for all the products
which they (the Americans) sent to us.^

In the face of these facts there are serious proposals
made for a wholesale assisted emigration of the work-
ing classes of this country — proposals for sending to
the colonies from 10,000 to 20,000 families "carefully
selected," and who "belong chiefly to agriculture."

Great cost is involved in carrying out the scheme —
cost in the form of supervision, organization, and the
necessary capital to be given to start the settlers in
their new careers, a part of which cost it is hoped will
eventually be recouped. These proposals do not affect

^ Porter's " Progress of the Nation."

"^ "The Labourer's Friend." This society, which had the King and
Queen as patrons, is described on page 71.

^ Various writers put the value of adult emigrants at ;{^200 each and
upwards. Mr. Blaine reckoned the value of an English able-bodied
emigrant at ^300.

DEPOPULATION OF RURAL ENGLAND 391

the undesirables, the " riff-raff," the weak and incom-
petent. If any of these are sent they will be promptly
rejected and sent back.^ The number of emigrants
sent back by the United States in 1904 was: British
and Irish, 366; foreigners, 1198; total, 1566. The
number rejected by the Colonial authorities in the
same year was: British and Irish, 39; foreigners, 197;
total, 236. Nearly all these emigrants were rejected
for reasons stated under two headings — "Disease " and
"Paupers or likely to become a public charge."^ It is
only the strong, the physically sound, the " fit and care-
fully selected " — in other words, those who constitute
the real strength of the nation — who are eligible.

The regulations which have been gazetted in New
South Wales with regard to immigration assisted by
the Government of that colony are that immigrants
must be in sound mental and bodily health and of
good moral character, and must not be over fifty years
of age. They must be selected mainly from the classes
skilled in rural industry, and each individual must
possess at least ^10 on landing at Sydney.

We spend immense sums of money in educating,
training, and otherwise caring for the children of our
rural population; and when they arrive at manhood or
womanhood we are asked to spend further large sums
in order to get rid of them.

No doubt the capitalist classes are exporting their
money for the development of undertakings in other
countries ; but that is a secondary matter, though, for
obvious reasons, an important one. Money so ex-
ported can, as a rule, be got back again, often increased

^ " Emigration and Immigration Reports," Board of Trade, 1905,
No. 137. The number of liritish and Irish male agricultural labourers
(excluding women, and children under age) who emigrated in 1904 was
21,028, of whom 10,778 went to the United States.

392 LAND REFORM

in amount ; and if lost, being only money, it is not of
vital concern. But to export "carefully selected"
able-bodied persons — shiploads of English sinew,
muscle, and lustihood — is a suicidal proceeding, It is
to send away the real wealth of the nation, which,
once gone, can never be recovered.

This proposal for wholesale assisted emigration is
an object-lesson for foreign countries, especially for
those who protect their agricultural industries. It
shows the humiliating position to which the " richest
country in Europe " has been reduced by its fiscal and
agrarian policy. But where is the necessity for this
big, complicated, and costly scheme ? Is it because
something sensational is needed to arrest the attention
of the general public to a crying evil and so induce
them to deal with it ?

The object of the foregoing pages is to show that
a remedy, commonplace perhaps in its character, but
cheap, natural, and effective, lies at our doors. It
is for the State — for the State alone can do it on the
required scale — to provide machinery for the purpose
of repeopling our own sparsely peopled villages and
country places, and for the cultivation of the great
areas of land now lying idle, or akin to idle, and which
are "crying out" for the very kind of labour it is
proposed to send abroad. There is room in Rural
England not only for the " 20,000 carefully selected
families," but for at least fifty times that number.
Each family thus settled, instead of being a burden
on the rates, would become ratepayers and be an
additional stay of the nation.

The enduring character of the benefits, social,
economic, and political, which a repeopling of our
country-sides would secure to the general community

DEPOPULATION OF RURAL ENGLAND 393

— who after all are the State — has been dealt with
in previous chapters, and should cause the public to
hesitate before they give sanction or support to a
proposal for the wholesale deportation of the choicest
of our working classes. For a Government to support
the scheme would be an act little short of criminal in
its character.

Two arguments are often used in favour of this
emigration, first, that it will increase the ties between
the colonies and the motherland, and, secondly, that
it will develop and strengthen our empire over-sea ;
but our great empire will remain sound, strong, and
undiminished in size so long, and only so long, as
its heart and centre abide strong and sound. That
strength and soundness can be retained not by the
riches of this country, but only by the quality of its
manhood.

In the eighteenth century there was a far-seeing
French statesman, of whom it is stated that his
reforms, if they had been carried out and not been
frustrated by the " classes," would have either hindered
the great revolution altogether, or at least made it
less violent and ungovernable. Bearing on the ques-
tion under consideration this eminent man wrote : —

" Is it not evident that the only real wealth of the
State being the yearly productiveness of its land and
the industry of its inhabitants, its wealth will be at
its greatest when the produce of each acre of land
and the industry of each individual shall be carried
to the highest possible point ? And is it not evident
that each proprietor has more interest than any other
person to draw from his land the greatest possible
return ? " ^

' " Life and Writings of Turgot," by W. W. Stephens. Longmans,
1895.

CHAPTER XXIII

CONCLUSION

Land Reform Is a hackneyed subject. Legislative
and other attempts to deal with It have been, as a
rule, attempts to graft improvements on the present
system of landlord and tenant with a view to better
the condition of the agriculturists as a class ; conse-
quently they have had little or no interest for the
public at large. In these pages the subject has been
treated, however imperfectly, as a national one, with
the object of bringing home to the minds of all
members of the community, whatever their position
and whatever their occupation, the fact that they have
a living interest in agriculture, and that their happiness
and well-being depend upon It. The farmer is put in
a secondary place, and regarded only as a necessary
agent through which the general welfare is to be
secured. Agriculture (in its widest sense) Is held up
as the parent industry of the world, of which trade and
commerce are but the offspring and handmaids.^

The ancients regarded that Industry as the basis of
civilization. They had their goddesses of agriculture,
to whom temples were built and splendid offerings
made. Our harvest thanksgivings, feasts, and other
rural festivals, so real even up to recent times, were

^ "The Earth, which having a divine and everlasting youth bestowed
upon it, is called the common parent of all things." (''Husbandry,"
Columella, Book i.)

" The land is mother of us all ; nourishes, shelters, gladdens, lovingly
enriches us all." (Carlyle.)

394

CONCLUSION 395

also offerinors of oratitude for the fruits of the earth on
which human Hfe and welfare depend/

Amongst the ancient writings which exalt agricul-
ture the Pastorals and Georgics of Virgil may be said
to take the first place. Though written about two
thousand years ago they are fresh and living to-day.
With the exception of some errors, which have been
corrected by later discoveries, they are wonderfully
applicable to the agricultural industry of the present
time. The advice oriven to cultivators has never been

O

bettered. The poetic treatment, to which no other
calling lends itself, glorifies the common incidents of
country life. " The plough-share glitters by the furrow
worn." "The earth herself, solicited by none, freely
each want supplied." "All things are full of Jove.
He gives to earth her fruitfulness." The peasant's
homestead is called "his little realm." Honey, no
doubt a more important article of food than it is now,
is "a gift from heaven."

Virgil, himself a practical farmer, deals with every
operation and phenomenon connected with agriculture :
ploughing, planting, improving the land, horses, flocks,
cattle, implements, the seasons, the animal and vege-
table world, nature of soils, etc. etc. Apart from their
practical value to the agriculturist, the teachings ot
Virgil, through the beautiful language in which they
are given, create a universal interest in the calling
they exalt, and impress on the general reader a sense
of the paramount moment of the cultivator's art.

' In olden times the prayers " For Rain," " For Fair Weather," " For
Plenty," that " Our Land may yield us her fruits of Increase," etc., were
not mere forms. But the harvest thanksgiving of the present day seems
almost an irreverent act, and the wheat-sheaf in the church a mockery,
in a country the policy of which is to lessen and destroy the harvest and
to spoil the husbandman.

396 LAND REFORM

" Where moisture sweet
Gladdens an unctuous loam, and where the glade
Is full of grass, with fruitful riches stor'd,
On which from lofty rocks glide falling streams,
And from them draw a fertilizing slime."

. " But in a hilly tract
The hungry gravel scarce yields humble plants
Of casia and of rosemary for bees."

. " Too happy they, the tillers of the fields.
If their own bliss they knew. To whom herself,
Far from the strife of arms, the grateful Earth
Yields from her lap an easy sustenance."

. " Still with his crooked plough the husbandman
Goes on to cleave the ground. His labour hence
In annual course returns. Hence he sustains
His country's weal, and his own household small,
Hence herds of kine, and the deserving steers.
Nor finds he in the welcom'd tasks a pause ;
For each advancing season still abounds
With fruits, or new born flocks or harvest sheaves,
And loads from furrows more than fill his barns."

After invoking the gods of agriculture and pouring
out libations to them, the husbandmen indulge in re-
creations : —

" Erects a mark, at which the herdsmen aim
Swift rival javelins. Then their sturdy frames
Are stripp'd for wrestling in the rustic ring."

The leading ideas through these charming pages
are that agriculture is a divine calling, and that on it
and on nothing else the strength and glory of nations
depend :

" This life of yore the ancient Sabines led.
This Remus and his brother. So in strength
Etruria grew. So Rome herself became
The beauty and the glory of the world." ^

' The "Georgics" of Virgil (Rann Kennedy's Translation, 1849).

CONCLUSION 397

However the scheme of land reform (including rural
education) which has been propounded in these pages
may be criticized, it cannot be disputed that it is both
complete and practicable. If the agricultural part of
Mr. Chamberlain's proposals were added to it, its
success would be more speedy and assured. The two
sets of proposals hang together, each the complement
of the other. If anyone not let by party views, or
not so bound by traditional bonds as to be incapable
of original thought, were seriously to consider these
proposals as a whole, he would become convinced that
by them, and by no other means, can a solution be
found for the anxious problems that afflict the life of
our country, and which, if let alone, or dealt with in a
piecemeal and haphazard way, will grow into an un-
manageable national danger. To that end it would
be useful to examine the nature of some of these
problems.

Taking "National Defence" as the first in order,
for we are told on high authority that " Defence is of
more importance than Opulence," we have seen that
on this subject a veteran soldier whom the nation
trusts has been sounding grave notes of warning,^
Lord Roberts and other eminent men, while not
lessening the importance of the navy, seem to regard
the doctrine of the "Blue- water" school as being
founded on theory, and they are not content to trust
to a theory — however well supported — for the defence
of our coasts.

Lord Roberts has sketched out a scheme for train-

' Sec the following by Lord Roberts : Letter to the " Daily Tele-
graph," June I2th, 1905 ; Speech in the House of Lords, July loth, 1905 ;
Address to the Drill Association, "Standard," July 20th, 1905 ; Speech
to the London Chamber of Commerce, August ist, 1905.

398 LAND REFORM

ing the youth of the country in physical fitness and in
the use of the rifle. He urges that rifle-shooting
should be made a national pursuit, so that skill in the
use of the rifle may be got in the same way as skill
in the long-bow was gotten in the olden days in
England.

With this view he suoraests that rifle clubs should be

oo

formed and means of practising rifle-shooting provided
in towns and villages. He makes the important and
assuring assertion that a system such as he has
sketched " would not only place the country in abso-
lute safety against invasion, but would render any
attempt at invasion out of the question." Lord
Roberts refers to the fact that one hundred years ago,
with a population much less than half of that of the
present time, our military force was much greater in
numbers than it is now. But he must remember that
one hundred years ago our villages and country towns
were still teeming with people, while now they are
deserted. It is for Lord Roberts (and the country)
to consider whether or not his patriotic aims would not
be more naturally and effectually secured by the
advocacy of a scheme of Land Reform that would
surely have the effect of repeopling our country-sides,
for "it is the plough that yieldeth the best souldiers "
(Lord Bacon). If these conditions were restored,
Lord Roberts's task would be an easy one. He could
say with effect of the rifle what Roger Ascham said of
the weapon of his day, the deadly long-bow, " Youth
should use it for the most honest pastime in peace, that
men might handle it as a most sure weapon in war."^

^ This is another instance of the gain we should get by a study of the
wisdom of our forefathers. Roger Ascham Hved and wrote in the
sixteenth century. He was a great scholar, but being weak in body he

CONCLUSION 399

Bishop Latimer, a yeoman's son, following the old-
time vogue, now unhappily abandoned, of dealing in
the pulpit with things affecting the daily life of the
people, exhorted the folk to practise shooting. "In
my tyme," he said, " my poore father was as diligent
to teach me to shote as to learne anye other thynge, &
so I thynke other menne dyd theyr children. He
taughte me how to drawe, how to laye my bodye in
my bowe, and not to drawe wyth strength of armes as
other nacions do, but with strength of the bodye. I
had my bowe boughte me accordyng to my age and
strength, as I increased in them, so my bowes were
made bigger and bigger, for men shal never shot well,
excepte they be boughte up in it. It is a goodly art,
a holsome kynde of exercise and much commended
in phisike."^

The next question in order and one nearest akin to

took to archery as a healthsome pastime. His treatise on shooting,
'' Toxophilus," is a most interesting book for the modern reader. Those
who wish to promote the practice of rifle-shooting would find that a cheap
edition largely circulated would be useful for their purpose, as most of
the hints, maxims, and directions are applicable to shooting generally.
" By shootinge," he says, " is the mynde honestlye exercised and of all
other is the most honestepastyme (not lurking in holes and corners) . . .
whereof followeth healthe of bodye, quickness of witte, habilitye to defend
(jur country as our enemyes can bear record, everye body should learne
to shoote when they be younge," so that they may defend the country
when they are older. But he says, "these things cannot be done
inightclye except they learn it perfectly when they be boys . . . for
much use maketh men shoote both strong and well." The eye, he urges,
must be well trained, because it is the "guide and succourer of all other
l)arts . . . for having a man's eye always on his mark is the onlye way
to shoote streighte." The footing, standing, and setting of the limbs and
body of the shooter must be " comely to the eye and to the most advan-
tage," while the instruments and tackle should be clean, in good order,
and ready for use. — "Toxophilus," or " Schole of Shootinge," Roger
Ascham (Bennett's edition, 1761).

' "Sixth Sermon." Preached before King Edward VI (Arber's Re-
prints).

400 LAND REFORM

National Defence is that of " Physical Deterioration."
According to the "Army Medical Department Report"
for the year 1903 (Cd. 2434, 1905), the number of
recruits inspected during the year was 69,553. Of
these 22,382, or 321*80 per 1000, were rejected as
unfit, and 47,171, or 678 "20 per 1000, passed fit for
service ; 1022 of the latter, however, were discharged
within three months of enlistment as unfit for service,
thus making the total number of rejections equal to
23,404, or a ratio of 336*49 per 1000. Compared with
the corresponding ratios of the previous year (1902), an
increase of 14*61 occurred in the ratio of rejection on
inspection, but a decrease of 3*54 is shown in those
rejected within three months of enlistment. The total
ratio of rejection therefore increased by 11 '07, the
ratio of men found fit having decreased in the year by
the same proportion.

But recruits come mainly from those classes which,
from their condition in life, may be expected to be low
down in the scale of physical strength. There are
grounds, therefore, for hoping that the enormous per-
centage of young men rejected as unfit for the public
service does not accurately represent the actual state
of the health of the people, and at present there are no
tests by which this information can be got.

In 1903 the Duke of Devonshire appointed a Com-
mittee to inquire into the subject.^ With regard to the

' The Terms of Reference to the Committee were : (i) To determine
with the aid of such counsel as the medical profession are able to give,
the steps that should be taken to furnish the Government and the nation
at large with periodical data for an accurate comparative estimate of the
health and physique of the people ; (2) To indicate generally the causes of
such physical deterioration as does exist in certain classes ; and (3) To
point out the means by which it can be most effectually diminished.
For Report and Evidence see Cd. 2175, Cd. 2210, Cd. 2186, 1904.

CONCLUSION 401

first part of the reference, the recommendations of the
Committee are very valuable, and would, if carried
out, furnish trustworthy information from time to time
as to the actual physical condition of the people. With
regard to remedies for "those evils the existence of
which is admitted " the Committee offer suggestions
rather than recommendations. In this respect their
Report is disappointing. In face of the evidence
placed before them their reference to rural depopula-
tion is halting, insufficient, and lacks decision. "With
a view," they say, "to combating the evils resulting
from the constant influx from country to town, the
Committee recommend that every effort should be
made by those charged with the conduct and control
of rural schools to open the minds of the children to
the resources and opportunities of rural existence."
But at present there are no "resources and oppor-
tunities of rural existence," and the Committee do
not suggest any scheme by which these inducements
might be created, but content themselves with giving
advice to the local authorities to put the Housing
Acts into operation, and with the statement that "It
should also be seriously considered whether the ex-
periment, for which there are legislative facilities, of
dividing land into small holdings, might not be tried
more frequently."

The chief worth of this inquiry is the great amount
of evidence that it has brought forth, and which is
of exceptional value. That evidence is given by
eminent persons who have deeply studied the subjects
on which they speak. Their testimony unfortunately
lies buried in Blue Books instead of being, as it should
be in a reduced and popular form, in the hands of the
public generally, who would then know on authority

402 LAND REFORM

the appalling conditions under which masses of the
people of this country are living. It should then be
the duty of those who feel responsibility in connection
with the subject to seek for the cause of the evils of
which these conditions are but symptoms. Let the
perplexed philanthropist read the dismaying accounts
of low vitality, overcrowding, underfeeding, infant-
mortality, diminishing birth-rate, anaemic and neurotic
disease, caused by coarse diet, and of physical decay
generally ; let him read them in connection with the
arguments and proposals contained in the foregoing
chapters, and then judge for himself whether or not
these proposals are the fittest and only effective solu-
tion of the problem. In the evidence referred to
there are a few hopeful opinions given by those who
are best qualified to give them. We are told that 80
to 85 per cent of children are born physically healthy,
"whatever the condition of the mothers may be
antecedently," and that deterioration sets in later. ^
Another eminent witness, after referring to the influx
of the rural population into towns as being detrimental
to national physique, states that those bodily defects
which are the result of poverty and not of vice are
not transmissible from one generation to another, and
adds : —

" To restore therefore the classes in which this
inferiority exists to the mean standard of national
physique, all that is required is to improve the con-

1 Evidence of Dr. Edward Malins, President of the Obstetrical
Society of London, and Professor of Midwifery in the University of Bir-
mingham. Bearing on this question is the fact of the steady decrease
in the birth-rate during the past thirty years. According to the reports
of the Registrar-General the births in 1874 were 36 to every 1000 persons
living. In 1904 they were but 27 to every 1000 persons.

CONCLUSION 403

ditions of living, and in one or two generations the
ground that has been lost will be recovered."^

In an eloquent appeal for funds to form a " National
League for Physical Education and Improvement"
Sir Lauder Brunton refers to the causes of physical
deterioration and states: "Amongst the first may be
placed the gradual withdrawal of the peasantry from
the country and their aggregation in towns."

At the inauorural meetingf of this Association, held
in June of the present year (1905) important speeches
were delivered by the Bishop of Ripon, the Lord
Chief Justice, Sir William Broadbent, Mr. Haldane,
Sir James Crichton-Browne, and others. These
speeches, which should be read by every one interested
in the subject, reveal the grave state of things that
exists, and show also that the self-denying efforts made
by so many earnest men and women to mitigate the
evils "have only touched the fringe of the question."^

The next subject to be considered is that which is
the root cause of most of the social evils that exist.
Poverty is not the right word for it ; that is a relative
term, and what is poverty for one would be plenty for
another. It is indigence — a hopeless destitution —
which exists in England to an extent that can be found
in few other countries in Europe.

' Dr. D. J. Cunningham, F.U.S., Professor of Anatomy of the Univer-
sity of Edinburgh. Dr. Cunningham states (Q. 3307) : " I do not think
it would be possible, even under the very best forms of town life, to pro-
duce conditions which the poor could live in which would equal those of
the country."

- Froude speaks of the effect on the children of our overcrowded
towns, " where the whole of the life of the vast majority of the inhabitants
from infancy to the grave would be a drearj' routine of soulless mechanical
labour. Such an England as this," he says, "would not be described by
any future poet as 'a precious gem set in the silver sea'; still less would

404 LAND REFORM

An alleged decline in pauperism is frequently put
forward as a proof of an improvement in the position
of the poorer classes ; but pauperism, whether increas-
ing or decreasing, is not a trustworthy gauge of the
actual condition of the mass of the people of this
country. As a matter of fact, the decrease in the
number of paupers is too small to allow any useful
argument to be founded on it.

The returns of the Local Government Board deal-
ing with pauperism are compiled in an admirable and
exhaustive manner. It can hardly be expected, how-
ever, that the ordinary ratepayer can devote the
necessary time to examine the large number of tables
in which the information given is contained. A few
facts, obtained by condensing and dissecting the
figures given in the Report, might be instructive.^

During the past 25 parochial years (i 881-1905)
the mean number of paupers returned in each
year varied between 30*8 and 24'3 per 1000 of the
estimated population. In 1881 the ratio was 30*8 per
1000. In 1 90 1 (the lowest in the 25 years) it was
24*3 per 1000. Since 1901 the rate has been rising,
till the present year (1905) it was 26"2. In the same
period of years the ratio of able-bodied adults, exclud-
ing casual paupers, varied between 4*1 per 1000 of the
estimated population in 1881 (in 1882 it was 3*9) and
3*4 per 1000 in 1905.

But if we turn to the money cost of pauperism we
find that the demands on the ratepayers are ever
increasing. In the year 1881 the total expenditure on

the race, hereafter to grow there, maintain either the strength of limb, or
the energy of heart which raised their fathers to the lofty eminence which
they achieved and bequeathed." — " Oceana," J. A. Froude (Longmans).

1 "Thirty-fourth Annual Report," Local Government Board, Cd. 2661,
1904-5. The figures in all cases relate to England and Wales.

CONCLUSION 405

relief of the poor was, in round numbers, 8 millions
sterling, and the mean number of paupers in that year
was 790,937. This expenditure rose steadily, till
last year (1904) it was above 13^ millions, the mean
number of paupers for that year being 837,680, or
46,743 more than in 188 1. Of this total cost the
amount of " salaries and superannuation allowances
of Union officers, etc.," was in 1881 just over one
million sterling. Last year (1904) it was considerably
over 2^ millions.

In 1 88 1 the "principal of loans repaid and interest
on loans" amounted to ;!^338,4i9. This item also
rose, year by year, till in 1904 it was over one million
sterling.

" The cost per pauper," calculated on mean numbers
of paupers of all classes and total expenditure on
relief," was /^lo. 4s. lod. in 1881. Last year (1904)
it was ;!^I5. 19s. 2d.

" The State Children Association " (the term " State
Children " is significant) in its fifth report refers to the
enormous sums sanctioned by the Local Government
Board for the " building of village communities and
blocks " for pauper children. The buildings erected
by one Board of Guardians, buildings "which include
several blocks for 50 boys in each, entailed the ex-
penditure of ;^28o per bed for 800 children." The
upkeep of these children communities seems to be
equally costly. One Board of Guardians reports that
" for the half-year ending Lady Day, 1903, each child
cost the ratepayers, inclusive of all charges, 23s. a
week."

Dealing with the increase and cost of vagrancy,
the Report states, "apart from the loss to the nation
in life, morality, and wealth, entailed by vagrancy, the

4o6 LAND REFORM

system of relief at present in force entailed in 1901
the expenditure of over ^80,000 in erecting casual
wards alone." '* I have known," says a provincial
workhouse master, "a tramp and his wife with two or
three children come into the casual wards, and a few
years later the eldest girl of the family come in with
her husband and an infant. I have known several
cases like this." Another master reports: "This
autumn four babies were born in our tramp wards."^

In addition to rates paid for relief of paupers, there
is the cost of criminals, beggars, workless people, and
non-producers generally, all of which cost, in some
form or another, falls on the community. If the
yearly sums paid for legal pauperism alone, during
the past twenty-five years, had been invested say at
3 per cent interest and compound interest, the amount
standing to the credit of the account at the end of the
period would be the enormous sum of above 340
millions sterling, or not much less than one-half of
the national debt. It must be remembered that a
very large proportion of those who have to pay these
rates are themselves poorly off, many of them hover-
ing on the brink of pauperism.

The ratepayers as a body grumble at what they call
the "heavy rates," but they pay them without caring to

1 Fifth Report of The State Children's Association for the years igor,
1902, 1903. Viscount Peel, Chairman ; Lord Herschell, Earl Grey, and the
Earl of Crewe, past Chairmen. The chief object of the Association is :
"To obtain the dissolution of large aggregated schools, so that the chil-
dren may be brought up when possible in families or in small groups,
where they will be in daily touch with the varied interests and activities
of social life."

The Report of a Committee appointed by the Council of the Charity
Organization Society to consider measures of relief for the unemployed
states : " Both pauperism and vagrancy have grown with the accommo-
dation provided for paupers and vagrants."

CONCLUSION 407

make any intelligent inquiry into the reason why such
a load of taxation is placed upon them. In previous
chapters it is claimed that the reforms, definitely
described therein, are the chief means, if not the only
means, by which this vast waste of national substance
can be checked. Let ratepayers of the working class,
and especially those of the struggling shopkeeping class,
fairly examine the proposals made, and they will come
to the conclusion that by them not only would their
heavy rates be lessened, but their general prosperity
— their paying power — be greatly increased.

In considering the cost to the State which the pro-
posed scheme of land reform might involve, the vast
expenditure detailed above must be taken into account.
From an economic point of view the balance would be
in favour of the scheme, while from the social point of
view no further argument in its favour is needed.

To the cost of legal pauperism must be added the
enormous sums spent annually in what is called — to a
large extent miscalled — charity. One might say that
the two arch-evils of English economy are " cheap-
ness " and so-called "charity." The keen rivalry in
trade caused by the competitive system makes cheap-
ness the chief aim of the trader. Hence the adultera-
tion of food, the lowering of the quality of products,
and other hurtful results. It is worth considering
whether or not these mischiefs arise from putting the
supposed interests of the consumer before the in-
terests of the producer and of the nation as a whole.
It is true that after the abolition of the duty on im-
ported silks a woman could buy silk dresses at a much
lower price than before, but by the cheapening pro-
cess many thousands of silk- workers were thrown out
of employment. To take a more humble example, by

4o8 LAND REFORM

free import of matches six boxes of these articles can
be bought for a penny. The so-called " free trader "
may regard this as a triumph of his policy, and the
housewife as a gain in domestic economy, but this
cheapness is secured at a cost of human suffering and
want such as the following case, by no means a rare
one, reveals, " One of the women, Sarah Ann Young,
aged seventy, of Shoreditch, died, and at the inquest
yesterday her daughter, who was a widow with three
little children, said she and her mother had worked
together at home at match-box making. They earned
IS. 3fd. for seven gross of match-boxes. For some
work they were paid 2:|d. a gross and for other 2d. a
gross, and had to find their own paste. The post-
mortem examination showed there was not a particle
of fat about the body. Death was due to exhaustion,
consequent on disease and want of food," (" Daily
Express," February 4th, 1904.)

Passing from the question of " cheapness " we come
to that of " charity." The name is a beautiful one,
but the nature and attributes, of which the name is a
symbol, are more beautiful still. "Charity is the
desire to do your neighbour grace, the one source of all
human glory, power, and material blessing." (Ruskin.)^
To deal effectively with the horrors of the rookeries
of town life, the evils resulting from " unemployment,"
the state of things revealed in Blue Books and in the

o

^ In this connection the word "charity" is altogether degraded and
misapplied ; we want some other name properly to represent the point
under discussion. " Eleemosynary" is too long and pompous for com-
mon folk. " Dole-giving " and the scriptural word " alms-deeds " are
perhaps more apt ; but these, in fact, amount to little more than doling
out to the poor the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table. At all
times and in all grades of society the need for the exercise of " charity "
— in its true sense — will ever remain.

CONCLUSION 409

works of Mr. Charles Booth and others, is not within
the domain and the power of private charity. It is the
work of the State. It is legislation that has caused
the hideous pass ; it is only by legislation, carried
out on some definite principle, that a remedy can be
provided. Many thoughtful men have come to the
conclusion that the results of private charity are but
palliatives at the best ; that such charity is to a very
large extent an aggravation of the evils it seeks to
remedy, and, like the Poor Laws, is sapping the
foundation of self-reliance and self-respect among the
people.

It is tiresome to listen to the perpetual talk about
the " deserving " and " undeserving " poor. No one
can justly judge of what the poor deserve unless he
knows the circumstances of their lives, unless he knows
how hard and how long were their struggles against
poverty, disease, temptation, and trouble before the
yielding point was reached.

" What's done we partly may compute,
But know not what's resisted."

Poverty may be caused by drunkenness, but drunken-
ness is equally or more largely caused by poverty.

After all, the condition of the individual is mainly
the outcome of the economic and social systems of the
nation. As a great thinker puts it : " Making due
allowance for differences in kinds and degrees of temp-
tations to which they are exposed, the respective
grades of society are tolerably uniform in their
morals." ^

There are thousands of "Humphry Clinkers" in
the country, poor wretches who suffer punishments

' " Essays," rarliamentary Reform. Herbert Spencer.

4IO LAND REFORM

which in justice should be laid on society. " Hark
ye, Clinker, you are a most notorious offender. You
stand convicted of sickness, hunger, wretchedness and
want."^

There is not another civilized country in Europe in
which the contrast between penury and wealth is so
marked as it is in England. As the Bishop of Liver-
pool said in his sermon at Oxford (see Introduction),
" vast wealth and hideous squalor, shameful luxury and
gaunt hunger, lived side by side." The West End
with its vast superabundance abuts on the East End
with its appalling want : 15,500 guineas are given in
the sale-rooms for a small rock crystal ornament,^
while there were forty-two deaths from starvation last
year in London alone.^

It is far from the wish of the present writer to in-

J Smollett's " Humphry Clinker."

* Reckoning 3 per cent, this represents ^465 a year, or about /g a
week, or 25s. 6d. a day, for the possession of a single luxury. At this
sale, and similar sales, the unsuccessful bidders are numerous, which
shows that the scale of wealth is not confined to the actual buyer.

^ See "Deaths from Starvation or Accelerated by Privation (London),"
No. 285, 1905. It is not the actual deaths that are to be considered, as
each sufferer could have got relief at the workhouse, so much as the
circumstances attending each case and which are fully given in the
Report. " Found dying in a room of starvation, removed to the work-
house and died there" ; "found dying in the street" ; "exposure, desti-
tution, and self-neglect "; " syncope, caused by want of food and clothes
and exposure to cold," etc. etc. The particulars given in the Report show
the widespread destitution that exists among the poor.

A few years ago, under the guidance of a well-known Socialist leader,
I spent a night (9 p.m. to 3 a.m.) in the East End of London, and visited
the shelters, doss-houses, work-rooms, tenement-houses, lodging-houses,
public-houses, houses of amusement (!) and other places. I shall not
readily forget the strange ugly conditions of existence, and the hard hand-
to-hand struggles with life which are to be found there. As " brighter
the light, deeper the shadow," so the shadow of penury and misery there
is deeper from its nearness (within cannon-shot to another part of London,
where boundless wealth and luxury reside.

CONCLUSION 411

dulge in anything of a sensational kind, but the cases
reported, almost daily, in the Press would be recognized
by those who work among the poor and minister to
them, as truthful examples of the suffering and indi-
gence that exist. One or two among large numbers
of these cases might be quoted.

" Evidence was given at an inquest held yesterday
at the ' Walsall Arms,' Walsall, relative to the death of
Clara Anderson, aged 43 years. Charles Anderson,
the husband, stated that for eight months he had
been out of work. His society allowed him 6s. per
week. With this he had to keep his wife, who was ill
in bed with paralysis, and two children. The children
were taken away to the workhouse, and his wife be-
came very depressed in consequence. A verdict of
'Death from natural causes' was returned." ("Bir-
mingham Gazette," April 29th, 1905.)

" At an inquest in Shoreditch on a widow named
Emily Higgins, it was stated that she and her three
children lived in a room for which 4s. per week was
paid. The mother's earnings at ' wood-bundling '
amounted to 6s. per week, and the eldest daughter,
aged 15, received 3s. 2d., leaving 5s. 2d. for the keep
of five persons after the rent had been paid. The
room was almost destitute of furniture, and Mrs.
Higgins had to borrow some clothing from a kind-
hearted neighbour before a doctor could see her."
("Clarion," September 29th, 1905.)

"At the Mansion House, before Alderman Burnett,
Rebecca Nowell, 32, was charged with begging and
exposing her two children in Gracechurch Street in
such a manner as to cause injury to their health. The
police-constable stated that on the previous evening
he saw the prisoner standing on the kerb begging
with her two children. The weather was bitterly
cold, and when he asked the prisoner why she was

412 LAND REFORM

exposing her two children, who were 5 and 9 years,
she said she was not begging. The Alderman :
Where does she live? Witness: In Pearl Street,
Spitalfields, sir. The prisoner, her husband, a girl of
19, and four boys of the ages of 17, 9, 5, and 2 years,
all live in one room, for which they pay 7s. The
Alderman: Is the husband a drunkard, officer?
Police-constable : No, sir ; he's a dock labourer, but
unfortunately cannot get work. He has done half a
day's work this week. The Alderman : Well, Mrs.
Nowell, I shall discharge you, but we shall take
charge of the children for you. Prisoner : Oh, sir,
don't take them away from me. I should not like to
part with them. The Alderman : I shall give you
I OS. out of the poor-box. The prisoner left the court
weeping, and the children were sent to the workhouse
until the court decides what is the best course for
their good." (" Daily Telegraph," January 22nd,
1904.)

" At West Ham, William Ashworth, 43, a labourer,
of 4 Rendel Road, was charged with stealing a coat
and vest. The prisoner was seen to take the clothes
from a stall outside the shop, and when given into
custody he said to Constable Shipway, ' I took the
things because my wife and children are starving.'
Mr. Fowler (the clerk) : Have you made inquiries
about that ? The constable : Yes, it is quite true
what he says. He is a dock-labourer out of work.
Mr. Fowler : Things are very bad for them now. Is
he a respectable man ? The constable : Yes, sir, but
he cannot find work. Mr. Gillespie (to the prisoner) :
Well, I shall bind you over, but if you are in trouble
again, you should go to the workhouse and get relief.
The prisoner : I have been to the relieving officer,
and he told me to go into the workhouse, but I did
not want to break my home up." ("Times," Novem-
ber 15th, 1904.)

CONCLUSION 413

" An inquest was held at Stoke Newington on
Minnie Porter, 27, who hanged herself. Her little
daughter was examined. Coroner : Had you any
dinner that day ? No ; we only had some tea in the
morning. I had a bit of bread and dripping, but
mother had only tea. The jury came to the conclu-
sion that this woman had become insane through
poverty." (" Birmingham Daily Post," September ist,
1904.)

" At Marylebone Police Court on Saturday a sad
case of poverty was brought to light during the hear-
ing of a prosecution in which a respectably dressed
young man of smart appearance, named Frank Porter,
27, was charged with stealing a purse containing 12s.
Police-constable Gale said he caught the prisoner
as he was running away with the purse in his hand.
He at once began to sob bitterly, and in reply to the
charge he said, * I have been out of work three
months, and I was hungry. I went to the house to
see a cook I once knew, and seeing the purse on the
chest of drawers, the temptation was too much for me,
and I took it.' Asked what he had to say in his
defence, the prisoner burst into tears. For three
months, he said, he had walked about and done
everything he could think of to get work, but all his
efforts had proved of no avail, and he felt ashamed to
go home. ' I would have done anything,' he added ;
' I would have even picked the roads if only I could
have earned enough to provide food for my wife and
our two poor little children. A man at a coffee-house
has kindly sent us bones and bits of meat, and I'd
have sold the home up, but it's all on hire. I have
written dozens of letters for situations, and I have
had to pawn my coat to get the stamps to post them,
but nothing comes of it all. All the clothes I have
are what I stand in.' His wife, who also appeared
greatly distressed, said he had never been in trouble
before, and she bore out his statement that he had

414 LAND REFORM

done all in his power to get work. For several weeks
he had been laid up with an injured foot. The
prisoner : ' I have always been careful and saved, and
I don't drink, but all my savings have gone, and now
we have none.' Mr. Curtis-Bennett was evidently
moved by his story, and remanded him on bail for
inquiries." (" Birmingham Daily Post," August 24th,
1904.)

" A sorrowful story was told in the Stepney
Coroner's Court on Saturday, where Mary Ann
Arnold, wan, pinched, pitiable-looking, gave evidence
as to the death of her husband, Charles Arnold, aged
65. Her husband, who formerly did odd jobs at
Billingsgate, had been ' very queer,' but they had no
money for a doctor. After leaving him half an hour
while she went in search of some cleaning work, she
found him dead in bed. Coroner : Did he drink ?
Oh no, sir, we had no money for drink. I have been
a teetotaller twenty-six years. Had he food enough ?
Oh no, sir (weeping bitterly). I had to sell a picture
off the wall to buy our last meal (sensation).
Coroner : Here is 5s. to buy yourself food. Oh
thank you, sir, thank you. Why did you not seek
parish help ? I would sooner sell all I had and pray
to Almighty God to restore him. Another witness
deposed, amid renewed sensation, that the picture (for
which Mrs. Arnold got sixpence) was about ' the last
thing she had in the house.' Dr. Habbijam said it
was undoubtedly a case of starvation, and the verdict
was ' Death from want of food and attention.' " (" Bir-
mingham Gazette," August 27th, 1904.)

"A frail-looking woman, named Sarah Woodfield,
was charged at the Birmingham Police Court to-day
with attempting to commit suicide. An officer of the
D Division explained that prisoner had tried to
strangle herself with a piece of tape, and when
charged with the offence she made no reply. To-day,

CONCLUSION 415

however, she said she had been out of work three
months, and could not get any. She was a widow
and Hved with her sister in Great Brook Street. The
woman added that she was now very sorry for what
she had done, and declared that she would not repeat
the offence. Prisoner's sister came forward, and said
Woodheld's story was true. She remarked that the
woman had slept on her sofa for the last thirteen
weeks. Prisoner was discharged, the Stipendiary ad-
vising her to go to the workhouse." (" Birmingham
Daily Mail," September 20th, 1904.)^

It is difficult for those of us who have warm beds
and regular meals, and who look upon these and other
comforts as matters of course, almost as natural phe-
nomena, to realize the state of things which the fore-
going circumstances indicate. The ignorance (not
want of sympathy) which prompted the question,
" Why don't they eat cakes ? " is not confined to the
French princess, but is shared by large numbers of
the two or three million persons who constitute the
wealthy classes in the kingdom. But it is a state
of things that cannot last. It is an ostrich-like pro-
ceeding to icjnore the social revolution — the war
among classes — now actively going on. The centre
of political power has been shifting during recent years.
The Tory and Whig parties with their honestly held
doctrines and convictions have all disappeared. The
laisscr-faire (let alone) tenet, once held as an article
of faith by the old Manchester school, is no longer
heard of State interference with all trades, from

' At the same time, in the churches in and around our slums, that
beautiful prayer, "A General Thanks;<iving," is offered up: "We bless
Thee for our creation, preserv-ation, and all the blessings of this life."
Truly we love to whiten our sepulchres, and to put face-cloths on our
dead !

4i6 LAND REFORM

the costermonger to the biggest mill-owner, is now
the rule. State inspection of some kind escorts
almost every one from cradle to grave. The working
classes have become more and more organized, and
are in fact becoming the governing power.

We have a proletariat such as does not exist in any
other country in Europe. In a confidential document
issued some years ago by a leader of the " Inter-
national Society " it was urged that the head-quarters
of the Society should be removed to London because
" England is the only country in which a real socialist
revolution can be made." England, the writer states,
is the one country in which the landed property has
fallen into the fewest hands. " It is the one country
in which a vast majority consists of people paid by
wages. It is the one country where the war of classes
and the organization of trades-unions have acquired
a certain degree of maturity."^

But it is not from trade unions that any social
danger is to be feared. These organizations are
formed for certain definite, legitimate objects, such
as common protection against the power of capital,
common help, when needed, among their members,
the promotion of all measures for the improvement
of the conditions of labour, etc. Though represent-
ing probably less than a tenth of the total number of
workers in the country, they have become powerful
by combination. It is not their business to look
after the great mass of unorganized workers further
than to induce them to join the unions. While the
policy of trade unions is to resist the encroachments
of capital, it in no way interferes with the principle

' " Secret History of the International." Onslow Yorke.

CONCLUSION 417

of employers and employed — of capital and labour —
on which our industrial system is now based.

It is with the Socialist party that the nation has to
reckon. That party alone has a definite programme,
which it contends is a practical one, and one that, if
carried out, would realize an ideal, which, it cannot be
denied, is of an attractive kind. It is not the inten-
tion here to deal fully with the socialistic creed, but it
is necessary to refer to it, as it bears directly on the
main question treated in these pages. ^

The doctrine of Socialism appeals, not only to the
working classes, but to nearly all sections of the com-
munity, and among these sections it is noiselessly
making rapid strides. Large numbers — increasing
numbers — of professional and other educated men,
taking to heart the social condition of the people, are
leaning towards the doctrine. They may not take the
name of Socialist or quite approve of the creed, but
they adopt it out of despair of finding an alternative
remedy for the evils that exist. Some among the
clergy and other ministers of religion for the same
reasons are taking the same course.

Socialist writers and speakers, by well-reasoned
arguments, assure the working classes that under the
present system they receive in return for their labour a
bare sum for the necessaries of life ; that the surplus
value of their day's work goes into the pocket of the
capitalist ; that the " large-capital system of to-day

' For those who wish to know what the principles of Socialism really
are, it will be sufficient to read "Das Kapital," Karl Marx; "The
Quintessence of Socialism" (a short and clear account), by Dr. A.
Schaffle, translated by M. Bosanquet, M.A. ; " Fabian Essays on Social-
ism," published by the Fabian Society ; "Historical Basis of Socialism,"
H. M. Hyndman ; and the writings of Sidney and Beatrice Webb and of
the late William Morris.

2 E

4i8 LAND REFORM

arose out of the destruction of small owners," etc. They
further assure them that the evils now endured can be
cured only by the abolition of the present competitive
system ; by the common possession of land and all
other means of production, and by (in this manner)
securing the distribution among all of the common
produce of all. A party with a definite programme of
this kind must ultimately gather into its ranks the
bulk of trade-unionists and of the members of other
working-class combinations.

As to the practicability of their scheme, the Social-
ists declare that that has been proved by the advances
already made in the socialistic path. They point out
that the State is now by far the largest employer of
labour in the kingdom. They refer to the under-
takings successfully carried on by municipalities — gas,
water, tramways, manufactures, public parks, baths,
libraries, etc. They point further to the vast under-
takings carried on by the State, such as the post and
telegraph office, army, navy, shipbuilding, factories of
different kinds, education, etc. The Socialists claim,
as a proof of the soundness of their policy, the ever-
increasing extent to which small businesses are
absorbed into large ones, and large trades joined
together and converted into huge trusts. They assert
that " the destruction of the small industries has broken
down most of the gradations which used to exist
between the large employer and the hired labourer, and
has left in their place a gulf across which a few
capitalists and a huge and hungry proletariat face each
other." "Everything," they say, "which has been
organized into a trust, and has been worked for a time
in trust fashion, is ripe for appropriation by the com-
munity. . . . The trusts have taught us how to drive

CONCLUSION 419

competing capitals out of the market by associated
capitals." ^

Able members of the Socialist party are urging
governments to adopt measures which contain the
socialistic principle, and actual legislation is tending
step by step in that direction. It is urged that "when
distress was reported in any locality the central
authority should see at once what work could be
undertaken and decide how far it should be a local and
how far an imperial charge."^

An influential committee appointed by the Council
of the Charity Organization Society to consider
measures of relief for the unemployed, etc., reports on
the scheme of the Local Government Board that "it
represents the acceptance on the part of the State of
an obligation of providing work for all comers."^

Free meals for children, partly free dwellings, and
partly free travelling for the working classes, are
already within the range of practical politics, and when
once the principle of State responsibility for such
matters is conceded, there is no logical limit to the
demands for State help. It must be borne in mind
that not only have we a proletariat such as is not to be
found in any other country in Europe, but that it is a
proletariat with votes. Should the time come when
the social democracy, by union and organization, and
by legitimate action through the ballot-box, has

■ " Fabian Essays on Socialism." Fifth Essay.

- Speech at a conference with the Local Government Board (October
14th, 1904) by Mr. Crooks, M.P., Chairman of the Poplar Board of
Guardians.

^ Mr. Loch, the able secretary of this Society, in his letters to the
I'ress shows a great insight into the general subject of the unemployed,
and plainly points out the direction in which legislation with respect to it
is tending.

420 LAND REFORM

secured a majority in Parliament, there would be no
limits to its power so far as financial matters are con-
cerned. " Redress of grievances " must precede supply,
and unless grievances, real or alleged, are redressed,
supply might be stopped and the whole national
economy be thus deranged.

These statements may be regarded by a certain
class as too pessimistic, as mere Cassandra utterances ;
but it cannot be denied that they only scantily describe
the facts connected with the social and political con-
dition of England at the present time. They describe
the problems which will have to be solved, and unless
they are solved, and that speedily, it is the wealthy
classes upon whom the consequences will fall. They
recall the old fable of the Sphinx, who sat by the way-
side propounding her riddle to the passers-by, and if
they could not answer she destroyed them. " Answer
her riddle, it is well with thee. Answer it not, pass on
regarding it not, it will answer itself ; the solution of it
is a thing of teeth and claws." (Carlyle, "Past and
Present.")

Fortunately the riddle contained in the sad contrasts
in our social life, contrasts that shock and puzzle
thoughtful men and lead them to favour any nostrum
or palliative that promises a remedy, is capable of
being solved in a surer and a more speedy way than that
proffered in the socialistic creed. We have not space
to answer the leaders and ministers of Socialism,
whose arguments in favour of their doctrines are of a
highly intellectual order, and such as cannot be met by
airy, flippant, and casual replies. But the case of the
mass of the people which is being leavened with these
doctrines is quite different. To adopt the figurative
language of an able labour leader. Socialism with them

CONCLUSION 421

"is an affair of the stomach." The key of the social
riddle is the providing of good, continuous, well-paid
employment. In this direction alone can the curative
principle be found, for the circumstances of good em-
ployment are such as bar the advance of Socialism.

The sociologist, as he pursues his study, will more
and more find that poverty is the main cause of all the
evils, physical and moral, that exist in our midst.
Poverty, without doubt, in its true meaning, and in its
actual working, has a degrading effect on the individual
of any class, as well as on the people generally. It
lowers character, saps independence, destroys energy,
and handicaps careers. " Poverty," the Russian pro-
verb says, "is not a crime, it is ten times worse."
Socialism, however, is not the remedy for the evils
that confront us. If adopted it would, in its course,
break down in every way. National workshops, where
established, have turned out to be failures. Co-opera-
tive industrial societies have to a large extent abandoned
the communistic principle laid down by Robert Owen,
who may be regarded as the father of co-operative
effort. Speaking generally, the marvellous progress
and success of co-operative societies have not been
achieved by the principle of collective ownership.
Many of them are simply trading societies, joint-stock
companies, with modifications favourable to the share-
holders.^

Socialism wars against " individualism," which is
the chief motive power of human action. It sets at
naught the desire " to own " something, which is an

' One of the principal of the trade unions, the council of which is
composed of men favourable to Socialism, has wisely but inconsistently
adopted a scheme which enables members to become on easy terms
private owners of their dwellings.

422 LAND REFORM

instinctive principle in human nature manifested daily
and hourly in the actions of both child and man. It
ignores the infinite variety that exists among men.
Do what we will, the competitive race in life will con-
tinue : what we want is to revise the rules of the
running. Private property — the "magic of owner-
ship " — whether of field, farm, wife, child, or any other
possession, will ever remain the natural and the best
means to disclose a man's capacity and to spur his
activity. There will always be those who are inclined
to an even tenor of life, averse from speculation or
exertion, and content with a moderate guerdon for their
services. On the other hand, there are many with
whom the desire for a more strenuous life is inborn.
It is part of their nature to attempt to achieve distinc-
tion in some one of the many careers that life offers.
A desire to succeed in their careers is with these men
the great dynamic of existence, a force so strong that
it waxes with opposition and does not wane even with
defeat. This is a legitimate ambition, bred of no un-
worthy motives, and its usual product is something
which is good for the community. The pleasure of
such men as these is more often in the fight than in the
victory, if the victory comes at all.^

Socialism attempts to deny the exercise of this
splendid diversity of aims, powers, and character by
reducing all the functions of life to a dead level. The

^ The qualities here described exist among the agricultural labourers
as well as among other classes. Fribblers criticize and doubt the
capacity of the labourers, but the individual cases in which these men
strive to better their condition are — considering their poor pollarded
lives — both remarkable and conclusive. To give one case out of many
cases that I could give : A labourer began life at nine years of age by
working on a farm at 4d. a day. At fifteen he went into farm service,
where he remained four years at wages from los. to 13s. a week. At the
end of the four years he had saved £,^,0. Later on he rented a small

CONCLUSION 423

whole case of the Socialists is well summed up by an
historian as follows : " Their scheme utterly ignores
liberty. The individual man is no more than a me-
chanical part of the whole community ; he has no free-
will, no independence of thought or action. Each act
of his life is prescribed for him. Individual liberty is
surrendered to the State. Everything that men prize
most in their life is taken out of their hands, their
education, their property, their industry, their earnings
are dictated by ruling powers . . . they are required
to prostrate themselves before their equals among
men for the sake of an arbitrary scheme of govern-
ment in which all are called on to sacrifice their liberty
for the remote and speculative good of the community.
. . . The natural effect of such theories would be to
repress the energies of mankind . . . proscribe all the
more elevated aims and faculties of individuals, and
all the arts and accomplishments of life."^

It is with some humility but with firm conviction
that the present writer claims that the scheme set
forth in these pages, especially if coupled with Mr.
Chamberlain's fiscal proposals, would gradually but
surely provide a cure for the evils described. lie

holding of 12 acres, the rent of which, with house, was ^45. He stayed
there six years and saved ;^icx). He left this holding because he would
not submit to a rise in rent, and then took a farm of about 60 acres at a
rent, with outgoings, of / 175 a year. He stayed there about three years
and lost money. He is now renting about 1 5 acres and, with a wife and
six children, is making a living. If he could get 30 or 40 acres he would
do well and save money. There are very many men of this class who
are growing ordinary farm crops. They are doing fairly well, and would
do very well if they could get enough land — say 50 acres. This they
cannot do, though there are large— sometimes very large— holdings
around them. The large farmers, as a rule, will not spare an acre of
land, and landlords generally give these striving men but little sympathy
or help.

' "Democracy in Europe," Sir Thomas Erskine May (Longmans).

424 LAND REFORM

claims further that in no other direction that has
hitherto been indicated can a permanent remedy be
found. What is wanted is a man able to place the
scheme as a whole before the country and urge its
acceptance as a national policy. He need not be an
agriculturist, but he must be a statesman. Stein and
Hardenberg did not act as agriculturists, but as pat-
riotic foresighted men, who sought and found in the
land reforms they adopted a remedy for their country's
distress.

In discussing in these pages the general question of
land reform, the writer has tried (how feebly he well
knows) to revive a public interest in agriculture, to
place that industry in the foremost place now occu-
pied by commercialism, and especially to recall the
parts played in our history by those grand classes,
the "small landed gentry," the "yeoman," and the
" peasant proprietor." These classes, though ruined,
were not destroyed. Their offspring were scattered
in many directions at home and abroad. Of this stock
came the Raleighs, the Clives, the Drakes, and other
empire-makers ; many of the great inventors, masters
of arts, science, and literature, as well as brilliant
lawyers, soldiers and sailors.^ Labourers still on the

^ It is interesting to notice the distinguished men who have sprung
from the peasant and yeoman classes. Thackeray was descended from
a yeoman family. The father and mother of Telford, the great engineer,
worked as labourers in the field. Sir William Cubitt was the son of a
miller. Compton, the inventor of the spinning mule ; Chantrey, the great
sculptor; Scoresby, the Arctic navigator; John Forbes Watson, the
physician; George Smith, the historian; James Beattie, the poet; Bewick,
the wood engraver, and Samuel Butler were all sons of small farmers.
W. G. Fox, the free trade writer and preacher; Clark, the antiquary;
William Cobbett; Harvey, the discoverer of the circulation of the blood;
Richard Baxter ; De Foe, and many others were of the peasant or yeo-
man class. John Nicoll, the poet; John Mole, the mathematician;
Montgomery, the poet; Ferguson, the astronomer; Sir Edward Banks,

CONCLUSION 425

soil could be rooted there, others who have left it
could be sent " back to the land " by methods such as
have been described. No matter how poor and
deteriorated these latter may be now, we are assured
on good authority that a generation spent in agricul-
tural pursuits would restore what has been lost.
These men (and women), if placed on the land with
the same tenures and conditions under which their
forefathers lived, would, by an atavistic law, quickly
reproduce the same strength, health, and other quali-
ties which then existed, and which are inherent in the
race.^

Here this book ends as far as its subject-matter is
concerned, but an after-word might be spoken, and
possibly be of some use. Past centuries are foolishly
called the "dark ages," but the doings and writings
of those who lived therein must be studied if the
problems of present-day life are to be understood, and
if future action with regard to them is to be rightly
guided. Young men — and it is with them the future
lies — would be fortunate were they to receive a sys-
tematic training in the knowledge of our priceless old
English literature, the rich storehouse of wisdom.
They would be assured of a full measure of the
pleasure, not to say profit, of which the present writer
has secured but a small share by his desultory and
self-helped study. The thought-breeding utterances
of the old writers, from earliest times, who had ever

the engineer ; Captain Cook, the naval discoverer, and Alexander Balfour,
the novelist, were all either farm labourers or the sons of farm labourers.
These are but a few examples of the great number of eminent men who
have sprung from the classes named ; indeed it may be said that the
greatest men in art, literature, and science came from the lower and not
from the so-called "upper" classes.

' See pp. 401-2. Evidence given by Dr. Cunningham and Dr. Malins.

426 LAND REFORM

something weighty to say and knew so well how to
say it, are still the source whence most of what is best
in modern writings is usually drawn.

If we turn to the actors in those days, great lessons
are to be learnt from them, not from their methods —
their methods were peculiar to the age in which they
lived — but from the spirit that moved them, which was
true for all time. The good and glory of our old
country (old in the sense of endearment and not of
decay) were their great objects. On them the spirit
of cosmopolitanism — too common now — had not
dawned. With them " God and country " was not a
sentiment on the lips, but a living cause for which
they were willing to be spent.

Lord Beaconsfield, with his alert mind, in the most
charming of his books, sets out the case. " It is the
past alone," he says, "that can explain the present,
and it is youth alone that can mould the remedial
future. The written history of our country for the
last ten reigns has been a mere phantasma, giving to
the origin and consequence of public transactions a
character and colour in every respect dissimilar to
their natural form and hue. In this mighty mystery
all thoughts and things have assumed an aspect and
title contrary to their real quality and style. . . . We
live in an age when to be young and to be indifferent
can no longer be synonymous. We must prepare for
the coming hour. The claims of the Future are repre-
sented by suffering millions, and the Youth of a Nation
are the trustees of Posterity."

THE END

BKuUniEmBKB*

•HARVEST TIME'

APPENDIX I

Reclamation of land is a question quite apart from that of
inclosure of land. The statements in Chapters VII-XI with
regard to inclosures do not apply to reclamation. Land-
lords and others who have spent money in reclaiming useless
land are public benefactors. Whatever advantages they may
have gained were not gained by injuring other persons. The
first Earl of Leicester, a great practical agriculturist, re-
claimed large tracts of land near Holkham, and the present
Earl, also a noted agriculturist, has in his turn reclaimed
hundreds of acres.^ The greatest work in England of this
kind was that of the " Bedford Level," where from two to three
hundred thousand acres were " won from the sea and the
swamps by patriotic enterprise, hard work, and lavish expen-
diture." An interesting account of this great undertaking is
given in " The Story of a Great Agricultural Estate," by the
Duke of Bedford (Murray).

On the loth of February, 1777, a petition was presented
to the House of Commons on this subject. The petition
" sheweth that the Great Level of the Fens, called the Bed-
ford Level, is a part of that Great Plain which extends into,
and is bounded by the counties of Northampton, Norfolk,
Suffolk, Lincoln, Cambridge, and Huntingdon, containing
upwards of 300,000 acres of land." The Petition states that
the drainage from these counties and the downfall in the
Plain itself had for ages overflowed and drowned the land,
" insomuch that no advantage redounded therefrom to man-
kind, but river fish, waterfowl, and reeds," that " Francis,
Earl of Bedford, after many fruitless attempts by others,

' For a short and interesting account of the Coke family (sprung from real
yeoman stock) see "Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society," Vol. VI,
I'arl I, 1895.

427

428 LAND REFORM

actuated by the principle of public spirit, did in the sixth
year of King Charles the First, undertake the great and
public work of draining the same . . . that, the said Earl
and his adventurers made a good progress therein with the
expense of vast sums of money." The Petition goes on to
show that William, Duke of Bedford (son of Francis), in 1649
continued the work, and prays for further parliamentary
powers in order to complete it. According to evidence given
before a Committee of the House of Commons (1821), some
crops of oats were the only grain produced in the fens before
this great enterprise was carried out. It is impossible to
estimate the value of the splendid corn crops which these
districts have since produced and added to the wealth of the
county.^

Many reclamations of different kinds have been made in
continental countries. In 1856 a company was formed to
reclaim from the sea a large area of land on the Channel
coast of Normandy, near Pontorson, in France. In 1896 I
visited the land under reclamation, provided with a letter of
introduction to the manager of the works, kindly given me
by the late Sir Edward Blount, who was Chairman of the
Company. The manager, M. Deval, most courteously placed
at my disposal the plans, estimates of cost, and all other par-
ticulars of the undertaking. The concession to the Company
granted by the French Government was for the reclamation
of 3800 hectares (about 9500 acres) of land in the Bays of
Mont St. Michel and Des Veys. At the time of my visit
the work was being carried on with the greatest activity. As
fast as the land was reclaimed it was divided into small
farms and small holdings, and either sold or let and put im-
mediately under cultivation. Much of it had been sold at an
average price (reckoning 25 francs to the pound sterling) of
;^48 an acre, and a great deal had been let on nine and

^ The above particulars are from an old volume (167 pp.). dated February,
1777, which I met with accidentally in an old bookseller's shop. It was evidently
published by the promoters of the work, and contains, in addition to the petition,
a most interesting history of the great undertaking. Some idea is given of the
extent of the work by one statement to the effect that the length of the banks
within the middle and south levels alone was upwards of 170 miles. In some
places the bed of the river was four feet above the level of the adjacent land.

APPENDIX I 429

twelve years' leases at an average rental of £2. i6s. an acre.
The undertaking gave, for many years, good healthy produc-
tive employment for a large number of persons whose wages
varied from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a day. For these labourers and
their families a temporary village of comfortable dwellings
had been built, with a garden attached to each cottage. The
wages spent for manual labour only were about ;^200 a week.
Besides this the machines, materials, and other things
required for the work provided a great deal of outside
employment.

In the Bay of Mont St. Michel alone at the time of my
visit, in addition to sales, 3500 acres divided into 50 lots had
been let to 43 holders, on leases from 9 to 12 years, at an
average rental of ;^2. 5 s. an acre. I noticed that the smallest
holding was 2.\ acres and the largest 365 acres, the average
size being 70 acres.

It was estimated that on the completion of the enterprise
the total value of the reclaimed land — " Good land added to
the national territory " — would be no less than about half a
million sterling. This undertaking is another instance of the
importance which French Governments have always attached
to agriculture. I noticed that the reason given in the decree
for granting the concession to the Company was " that to
favour the reclamation of land from the sea and make it
valuable is in the best interests of the community." Honours
were conferred on the Managing Director of the Company,
M. Maridor, " for important services to the country by the re-
clamation of land in the Bays of St. Michel and Des Veys
and by putting into cultivation vast stretches of land con-
quered from the sea."

Most of the smaller holdings are used for the cultivation
of vegetables. M. Touzard, one of the largest holders, has
written an interesting pamphlet on the cultivation of the re-
claimed land in the Bay of Mont St. Michel. He speaks of
the special fitness of the soil for culture maratchere (market
gardening) and the very large profits which are made by
vegetables of all kinds when cultivated with care and skill.
As an instance, he planted about 3I acres with asparagus, and
the fourth year after planting he realized, after paying carriage

430 LAND REFORM

to market, a net sum of ;6^28o for the crop. Encouraged by
this result, he increased the acreage until he had 22 acres
planted with asparagus. Thanks to the splendid agricultural
schools of all grades (see Chapter VI) which exist in France,
the French peasantry as a rule are well trained in the best
methods of cultivation. M. Touzard gives many useful
examples of these methods as applied to the growing of
such produce as onions, radishes, cauliflowers, artichokes,
rhubarb (for the London market), etc. He speaks of the
light implements of the systhne Howard^ and especially of
Howard's light harrows, as most suitable for the land.

In answer to an inquiry as to the present position of the
undertaking, I received (in the present year 1905) a letter
from the Managing Director which states : " The prosperity
that you saw in 1896 has continued. All the land which is
now the property of the Company, including 152 hectares
(380 acres) reclaimed since 1896, is let. The average rent is
160 francs per hectare (about £2. lis. 6d. an acre). Since
1896 about 580 hectares (1450 acres) have been sold at an
average price of 2340 francs per hectare (about £'^'J. los.
an acre); but we have decided, with good reason, that no
more sales shall be effected at less than 3000 to 3800
francs per hectare (^48 to £60. i6s. per acre)."

No doubt, in several parts of England, similar work might
be done by the State (Board of Agriculture). Such under-
takings would give productive employment to a large number
of men, and the land when reclaimed could be readily sold
to occupying owners and peasant proprietors on the terms
named in the Land Purchase Bill.

APPENDIX II

Referring to the cost of the agricultural training in rural
schools proposed in Chapter V, it is evident that — looking
at the enormous sum now spent on elementary education —
there ought to be no extra cost to the ratepayer, or taxpayer,
by the adoption of these proposals. It is not easy to ascertain
exactly what that sum really is. The Reports of the Board
of Education are carefully prepared with a desire to give
every information, but they are of necessity so complicated
that it is difficult for the ordinary reader to draw exact con-
clusions from them. An estimate for the year 1904-5 may
be given, though elementary education is now in a transition
state, involving changes which will no doubt add largely to
the expenditure in later years.

The following figures are given only as approximately
correct, but they are sufficient to show the ratepayers and
taxpayers what they are paying for education, and to enable
them to judge whether or not they have " value received "
for the large sums expended. Roughly stated, the total cost
of elementary education in England and Wales for the year
1904-5 is at least about 19 millions sterling, of which amount
not much less than one-half is raised from rates and other
local sources.

The total amount works out at about £;^. 12s. yd. per child
of the children in average attendance (about 5J millions, or
87 per cent of the number on the books). Of the total cost
the rural ratepayers and taxpayers, nearly all of whom are
farmers or others connected with the land, pay at a rough
estimate about 4I millions sterling for an education absolutely
unfitted for country life. Worse than that — for an education

43'

432 LAND REFORM

most calculated to encourage young persons to leave the soil
(see Chapter VI).

These figures supply food for reflection for all those who
are interested in rural life. In marked contrast with this
expenditure is the small sum of £it,6,ooo granted for the
promotion of agriculture. I have referred (Chapter VI) to
the large grants made for that purpose by almost every other
Government in Europe. If we take America we find that
the appropriations for the Department of Agriculture of the
United States for the year 1904 were (including the expenses
of the weather bureau) no less than 5,428,160 dollars, or much
above one million sterling. This is in addition to the sums
voted for the support of agriculture by the Legislatures of the
different States of America. Further than this, Congress has
authorized an expenditure of ;^300,ooo for a new building
at Washington for the Department of Agriculture. This
building, the plans of which are approved, is to stand in forty
acres of ground, to be most complete for experimental and
administrative purposes, and is " designed to combine dignity
with beauty and utility." The Annual Report of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture justifies this great expenditure in terms
that might be useful to bring to the notice of the British
public, to whom, mainly, the arguments in this book are
addressed.

Under the heading " Agriculture as a Source of National
Wealth " the Report states : " Favoured with continued
prosperity in 1904, the farming element of the people had
laid broader, deeper, and more substantial the foundation of
a magnificent agriculture. . . . Thus it has happened the
farms of the nation have been that sustaining power upon
which a basic dependence must be placed in all stresses by a
people endeavouring to maintain economic self-sufficiency.
. . . An occupation that has produced such an unthinkable
value as one aggregating 5000 million dollars (about 1000
millions sterling) within a year may be better measured by
some comparisons. All of the gold mines of the entire
world have not produced, since Columbus discovered
America, a greater wealth of gold than the farmers of this
country have produced in wealth in two years ; this year's

APPENDIX II 433

product is over six times the amount of capital stock of all
national banks ... it is two and a half times the gross
earnings from the operation of the railways ; it is three and
a half times the value of all minerals produced in the
country, including coal, iron ore, gold, silver, and quarried
stone " (Year Book of the United States Department of
Agriculture, 1904). These utterances breathe a recognition
of the paramount importance of agriculture, a recognition
that in our country has decayed almost to extinction, but
which in these pages I have made a feeble attempt to
revive.

In Chapter VI the methods of giving agricultural educa-
tion in France are described. The description applies with
equal force to Germany. There is no other country perhaps
in Europe that is better equipped than our own for higher
agricultural education. The training given in our higher
agricultural institutions is perhaps somewhat less practical
than that given in similar places abroad, but the main
difference is in the cost. Our higher schools, through lack
of State aid, or any worthy of the name, are compelled to
charge higher fees. For example, in the great agricultural
school of Hohenheim, near Stuttgart, with which I am well
acquainted, a pupil pays much less than one half of what he
would have to pay in a similar institution in this country.
But the State comes forward to supply any deficiency
that may annually accrue. That deficiency for Hohenheim
alone in 1901 was no less than ^9700.^

It is in the lower grades of agricultural education that we
are so deficient. The theory of the German Government,
like that of the French, is that in the present day agriculture,
to be at its best, must be based on scientific training, and
knowing the important part the industry plays in the
economy of a country, these Governments do not hesitate to
supply that training to all classes. Hence the numerous
lower-class schools, where the education given is good and

' I should here like to acknowledge the courtesy and assistance I received from
Prof, von Vossler, the Principal, and Dr. Behrens during the two visits I have
paid to Hohenheim. A letter written from Stuttgart giving a full description of
this institution appeared in "The Times," October nth, 1894.
2 F

434 LAND REFORM

practical and low in price. There are hundreds of these
lower-grade schools scattered throughout Germany, all care-
fully adapted to meet the different needs. For peasants'
sons who have left the elementary schools and cannot, during
the summer, be spared from the work of their fathers'
holdings, there are winter schools established in which the
fees are as low as 25s. the term. Farming schools are also
set up in which the pupils pay no fees at all, but receive
board and lodging in return for their labour. In all these
schools the deficiencies are covered by grants from the State.
In the instruction given in all of them theory and practice
go together — learning by doing being the rule.

A few months ago I visited a typical agricultural school in
the village of Zwatzen, near Jena, in the Grand Duchy of
Weimar. It is a school for children of small farmers and of
peasant proprietors. Most of the pupils come direct from
the common schools. Through the kindness and courtesy of
Dr. Otte, the Principal, and of Dr. Elsassen, one of the pro-
fessors, I was enabled to examine the whole economy of the
schools, and perhaps it might be interesting to quote from a
few notes made on the spot. The farm, forty acres, and the
buildings belong to the State. The instruction given
comprises botany, geology, chemistry, and other sciences ;
butter and cheese making, land surveying, mechanics, etc.
There are seventy lads in the school, strong, robust-looking
youths, a few of them apparently as much as eighteen years
old or more. Their working hours are divided between labour
on the farm and lessons in the class-rooms. The stock of
the farm consists of twelve cows and two bulls. There is
also a number of horses, pigs, poultry, etc. The cows and
bulls are worked about six hours a day (cows in calf are
worked very little). It is held that cows when worked yield
milk less in quantity than usual, but better in quality. The
pigs are kept very clean and have fresh straw every day, it
being recognized that the pig is naturally a very cleanly
animal. There are no hired permanent labourers except one
man to teach milking, the whole work of the farm being
done by the pupils. During the holidays temporary men
are employed to do what is necessary. The buildings are

APPENDIX II 435

plain, almost to bareness, and the rooms, class-rooms, bed-
rooms, etc. — are well arranged and adapted for their purposes.
The stables, byres, outhouses, storehouses, etc., are clean and
well kept. A well-furnished museum is an important part
of the establishment. For teaching purposes there are —
skeletons of horses and other animals ; plaster models of
cattle made to a scale of one-sixth of the natural size, and
coloured to show the prevailing colour of the animals them-
selves. The red Devon, the English Shorthorn, the small
Jersey, the big Swiss Semmenthaler, and all other well-known
breeds are brought together. Different breeds of sheep and
pigs are presented in the same way. There is a collection of
agricultural implements. There are samples of honey and
other produce, and of all kinds of grain ; wax models of
fruit, flowers, mushrooms, etc., and also of the organs and
intestines of animals.

There is a good collection of stuffed birds, with descriptions
of the habits of birds, whether good or hurtful for the farmer.
The owl, so often destroyed in England, is held here to be
very useful to the cultivator. There are large plaster casts,
showing the configuration of the land, nature of soils, etc.,
for miles around. These objects are common to the agricul-
tural institutions of the country. The models of cattle, for
instance, are regularly made and sold in Berlin for the use of
schools (cost 50s. each). One model was new to me, that of
a grain of wheat enlarged to the size of a loaf. It was so
made that it could be taken to pieces. The outside — the
bran — first stripped off, then the next coat — the sharps — and
so on to the white flour within. Altogether these object-
lessons illustrate the boundless interest with which the life of
the cultivator of the soil can be infused if he is trained in
the " why and the wherefore " of the things he does. The
fees for board, lodging, teaching, and service in this school
are ;^i8. 5 s. a year for those who belong to the Grand Duchy,
and ;{i^2i. los. for outsiders. There are no extras except that
each pupil has to provide his own bedding and to pay a
small sum — a few shillings — for which he gets medical
attendance when needed and insurance against loss by fire
of his clothes and other belongings.

436 LAND REFORM

The foregoing remarks are not intended to cast any reflec-
tion on our own Board of Agriculture. That Board does its
very best with the money it has to spend. Out of an
appropriation account of above 140 millions sterling there is
the niggardly sum of ;^ 136,000 placed at the disposal of the
Board for all purposes, and out of this amount there is less
than ;£'io,ooo given for Agricultural and Dairy Education in
all England and Wales. This is the money sign — a trust-
worthy sign — of the small importance attached to agriculture
by successive Governments in this country.

APPENDIX III

In Chapter XIX attention is drawn to the dangers to which
this country is subjected by having to rely on foreign sources
for supplies of food, and a passing reference is made to
ancient Rome when she was in a similar position. Historical
parallels are difficult to draw and are often misleading,
because the conditions existing in the two countries com-
pared are so different. But there are certain principles
which are applicable to all time and certain actions that, by
a natural law, are bound to produce similar results, no matter
when or where they are carried out.

If some abler pen than mine were to trace the proceedings,
legal and illegal, connected with land in old Rome, it would
be found that these proceedings both in kind and effect were
curiously alike to those which have been carried out in our
own country. Popular histories of Rome, like those of
England, deal too much with wars, foreign conquests, revo-
lutions, party strife, changes of the constitution, etc. They
too often treat effects as causes and ignore the root reasons
of both the evil and the good. The solid qualities and
virtues of the Romans were dominant while Rome was a
nation of farmers. From the yeoman and other agricultural
classes came the warriors who conquered Italy and after-
wards the world. Weakness and decline of the Empire ac-
companied step by step the gradual destruction of these
classes. The vast provinces, the great limbs of the Empire,
dropped off" when the centre and heart became rotten and
nerveless through the decay of agriculture. As the effect of
the change in her land system Rome had to abandon Britain
after four centuries of beneficent occupation. From the
same cause a landless proletariat appeared ; a class with vast

437

438 LAND REFORM

wealth and a class with miserable poverty were created, with
a great gulf between them ; and social disorders and national
instability became permanent. As time went on the dis-
possessed and impoverished classes demanded the "cheap
loaf," free meals, free corn, free amusements, etc., demands
which had to be reckoned with by the ruling classes as a part
of the national economy. In spite of the appearance from
time to time of rulers with brilliant powers, of foreboding
writers, and sage philosophers, Roman society dropped into
the almost incredible conditions of luxury, wealth, idleness,
and vice described in the pages of Gibbon.^

A brilliant writer, referring to the time when the broad
acres were still the staple of wealth in Italy, states : " It was
not, however, the wealth of the moderate homestead which
was to be won from a careful tillage of the field," but it was
the wealth of the owners of vast slave-cultivated estates, a
cultivation associated with a " belief in the superior value of
pasturage to tillage which was to turn many a populous and
fertile plain into a wilderness of danger and desolation."
" The Latifundium " (a large estate), he says, " acquired, as it
was believed, in many cases by force, fraud, and shameless
violation of the law — was becoming the standard of cultiva-
tion throughout Italy."'- The large estates in England corre-
sponded with the latifundia in Italy. They were acquired
by the same methods, and the accumulation of land into iew
hands had the same effect here as it had in Italy. They were,
like the latifundia, cultivated by men whom the system had
reduced to slavery in all but the name. The financial results
of a system might be good for the few, but the social effects
of that system might at the same time spread ruin among
the people generally. It was the large estates in England
and the way in which they were acquired, that, like the lati-
fundia in Italy, "turned many a populous and fertile plain
into a wilderness of danger and desolation."

If the circumstances connected with the Roman land
system were put side by side, in parallel columns, with those

^ For a further description of these conditions see " Roman Society from Nero
to Marcus Aurelius," by Samuel Dill, m.a. (Macmillan, 1904).
* "A History of Rome," Dr. Greenidge, 1904, Vol. I, p. 36 onwards.

APPENDIX III 439

connected with the English land system, it would be seen
how striking was the likeness between the two. " From a
very early period the Roman economy was based on two
factors — always in quest of each other and always at variance
— the husbandry of the small farmers and the money of the
capitalist. The latter, in the closest alliance with landholding
on a great scale, had already for centuries waged against the
farmer-class, a war which seemed as though it could not but
terminate in the destruction first of the farmer and there-
after of the whole Commonwealth." The issue was delayed
by great wars and other events ; " but the ultimate result
was in both cases the same — the depreciation of the Italian
farmers, the supplanting of the petty husbandry, first in the
large provinces and then in Italy, by the farming of large
estates. . . . The capitalist continued to buy out the small
landholders, or, indeed, if they remained obstinate, to seize
their fields without title or purchase." " Desolation advanced
with gigantic steps over the flourishing land of Italy where
countless numbers of free men had lately rejoiced in moderate
and merited prosperity." ^

These records refer to a time when Rome was at the
height of her glory and renown. It took her between seven
and eight hundred years to attain that position. (It has
taken England about eight hundred years to gain a similar
eminence.) Wealth and luxury were abounding. Money-
dealing and commerce were progressing by " leaps and
bounds," and the accumulation of capital into few hands
was "daily increasing." As to the men reared under the
old state of things, " death called one after another away,
till at length the name of the last of them, the veteran
Cato, ceased to be heard in the senate-house or the Forum."
(Momrasen.)

In the midst of the vast wealth and prosperity which
existed, it would at the time have been deemed madness to
foretell disaster. Nevertheless the seeds of decay had been
sown, and with the destruction of agriculture began the

' Mommscn's " History of Rome," see especially Vol. II, p. 393 onwartls,
and Vol. Ill, [>. 77 onwards.

440 LAND REFORM

decline of Roman greatness. The austere virtues and sim-
plicity of life of rural Rome were dying out. The country
proletariat was flocking into the towns, leaving the country-
sides deserted, and the old military spirit and discipline were
disappearing. The army became an army of mercenaries
and proletariats, and even slaves were enlisted under the
promise of freedom.

Throughout the centuries there were patriotic and far-
sighted men in Rome, as there were men of the same class
in England, who saw the cause of the evils that were
shadowing their country and sought to remove it. But in
both countries these men shared the same fate at the hands
of an infuriated landed aristocracy.

The Agrarian Law of Spurius Cassius probably was the
first notable attempt to save the old order of things, but
though his law contained nothing but what was just and
moderate, yet " Cassius had to die." The territorial magnates
thought that by destroying the reformer the demand for
reform could be stayed. " His law was buried along with
him, but its spectre henceforth incessantly haunted the eyes
of the rich, and again and again it rose from the tomb
against them till the conflicts to which it led destroyed the
commonwealth."^ Later on Marcus Manlius, who, from
accounts given of him, was among the noblest citizens of
Rome, was condemned to death by the great patrician land-
owners for an attempt to revive this agrarian law. After
him came a still greater man who adopted the same policy
and shared the same fate. "A youth without achievements
had the boldness to give himself forth as the saviour of
Italy. . . . War was declared against the great landlords."
(Mommsen.) There is a pathos in the account given by
the elder of the Gracchi of the condition to which the rural
districts had been reduced. As he was " passing through
Tuscany and found the country almost depopulated, there
being scarce any husbandmen or shepherds, except slaves
from foreign and barbarous nations," he decided on his great
project for land reform. It is stated that " there never was

^ Mommsen's " History of Rome," Vol, I.

APPENDIX III 441

a milder law made against so much injustice and oppres-
sion. For they who deserved to have been punished for
their infringement on the rights of the community and fined
for holding the lands contrary to the law were to have a con-
sideration for giving up their groundless claims. . . . But
though the reformation was conducted with so much tender-
ness the people were satisfied, they were willing to overlook
what was passed, on condition that they might guard against
future usurpation. On the other hand, persons of great pro-
perty opposed the law out of avarice, and the law-giver out
of a spirit of resentment and malignity."^ By his appeals to
the people this great land reformer bore down all open op-
position. The people listened with eagerness to schemes for
the recovery of lands of which they had been unjustly
deprived. Dr. Greenidge describes their attitude : " The
voiceless Roman people was seeking its only mode of utter-
ance, a tribune who should be what the tribunes had been
of old, the servants of the many, not the creatures of the
few." This great Tribune, Tiberius Gracchus, declared that
it was the interests of Italy, not merely of the Roman prole-
tariat, that were at stake. He pointed out "how the Italian
peasantry had dwindled in numbers and how that portion that
still survived had been reduced to a poverty that was irremedi-
able by their own efforts." (Greenidge.) " The wild beasts of
Italy," he said," have their caves to retire to, but the brave men
who spill their blood in her cause have nothing left but air and
light. . . . The private soldiers fight and die to advance the
wealth and luxury of the great, and they are called masters
of the world, while they have not a foot of ground in their
possession."^ Notwithstanding what is described as the
"inherent reasonableness" of the Tribune's proposals, these
proposals received the most deadly opposition. The terri-
torial magnates thought that the " cause would perish with
the demagogue," and accordingly by intrigue and treachery
they accomplished his death. Referring to this event, the
eminent writer already quoted states : " The murder of a
young man who was under thirty at the time of his death

^ " Plutarch's Lives," Tiberius Gracchus.
' Ibid.
2 F2

442 LAND REFORM

and the slaughter of a few hundreds of his adherents may
not seem to be an act of very great significance in the
history of a mighty empire, yet ancient historians regarded
the event as epoch-marking, as the turning-point in the
history of Rome, as the beginning of the period of civil
wars."i

If some scholar, in sympathy with the subject, who could
consult, in their own language, the many ancient writers on
agriculture and note their statements and forebodings, would
deal with the subject, he would find an almost complete
analogy between the growth of the Roman land system and
that of our own. He would find a similarity even in details,
the methods employed and the spirit that animated the con-
tending parties. The final issue with the Roman people was
that they were conquered and humiliated mainly by the hardy
races from the North.

What the final issue with England will be remains to be
seen. It would be seen should we unhappily be involved in
a great war. The conditions of a struggle between England
and a first-class power (or perhaps two powers) would be
such as have never yet been seen. On the one side there is
a nation with JJ per cent of its population urban, and the
great bulk of its people propertyless men who have little
or no personal stake in the country. A nation dependent
month by month on outside sources for its supply of food,
and — what is almost as bad for a country that relies on com-
mercialism— dependent on the same sources for raw material.
On the other side there is a self-feeding nation (or nations)
with a teeming rural population owning the land it tills ; a
nation which, being thus self-contained and secure of the
industry on which it mainly depends, could afford to carry
on a waiting contest.

Giving full weight to the fact that we have the finest navy
and the finest income-tax payer in the world, is there a
responsible statesman, soldier, or sailor who holds that a
country, against such odds, could come out of a great war with
success, or even without humiliation ? If there be such he has

^ Dr. Greenidge, "A History of Rome," 1904, Vol. I, p. 143.

APPENDIX III 443

not yet spoken. A strong Royal Commission has considered
the question and practically avoided any conclusions with
regard to it.

In times of wealth and prosperity men are apt to turn
their thumbs downwards at the appearance of foreboders
of ill, and probably the views here expressed will be re-
garded as foolish and pessimistic in a country where, as a
rule, opinions do not much avail unless backed by rank and
authority. But the question is, can the views be disputed —
are the warnings ill-based ? If not — well — a capitol was
once saved by a meaner agency. In any case the experience
of history — ancient and modern — seems to show that there
is a natural law under which no nation can remain perman-
ently in the front rank unless its economy is based on agri-
culture. If this be so, we know that natural laws go, slowly
perhaps but directly to their ends. They cannot be turned
aside by palliatives, regrets or entreaties. Their action is
passionless and inexorable, knowing " neither wrath nor
pardon."

INDEX

Absolute ownership of land unknown

to English law, 43
Acts against Inclosures —
4 Hen. VII c. 19: 58I
An Act of 1534 : 59
31 Eliz. c. 7 : 60
See also 59 n.
Advantages of cultivating-ownership,

a yeoman farmer on, 17 n.
Advisory Committees, 12
Aglionby, Mr. , on common rights, 77-8
Agrarian grievances the cause of the

peasant revolts, xvi, 145
Agricultural Education in Elementary

Schools Bill, 1905 : 19-22

Bill of 1893 : 22 n.

authorities quoted on, 20; grants

in aid, comparison between England

and France, 31
Agricultural labourers, an examination

into the condition of, during the

years 1846-97 : 367-75

— training, methods and cost of, 431-6

— depression, xi

— labourer, the, his position in olden
and modern times compared, xvii,
xviii

Agriculture and horticulture, new pro-
fessions for women, 224-6

— how regarded by the ancients, 394-6

— in France, its prosperity due to "the
omnipotent principle of ownership,"
203

— male persons engaged in, table
showing decrease in numbers of, 379

— our chief national concern, x

— the one industry that never dies, 38

— the teaching of, in French rural
schools, 34

— why it should be assisted by the
State, 309-10

— why it has decayed in England, 287
Agriculturists, how regarded in France,

387
Allotments, early efforts on behalf of,

176-86
Allotments and Small Holdings Act of

1887: 183-4

Allotments Extension Act of 1882 : 179

-80
Arch, Joseph, the leader of the last

peasants' revolt, 164-70
Ascham, Roger, on physical training,

398 n.
Ashley, Professor, on the German

peasantry, 271
Average population per square mile,

table showing the, 388-9

Bad farming, 247

Ball, John, one of the leaders of Wat
Tyler's insurrection, 104, 120, 123,
125-8 ; the death-knell of slavery
sounded by, 136

Ballads of fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries, quotations from, depicting
the miserable condition of the pea-
santry, IIO-II

Bastiat, the French Cobden, 281

Beaconsfield, Lord, on the restoration
of the peasantry, 175

— on the past, present, and future, 426
Bedford, Duke of, on great estates,

238, 240
"Black Death," the, 48, 107
Blomefield, "History of Norfolk,"

quoted as to agricultural prices in

the fourteenth century, 118
Board of Agriculture, purchase by, of

land for small holdings, 11
Bounties on wheat production, 296 ;

would keep the price of wheat low,

and therefore benefit the poorer

classes, 302
Bramshot, the manor of, displacement

of small holders, 65
Bread, how we could provide sufficient,

in time of war, 326

— comparative prices of, 337-8
British agriculture, short-sighted treat-
ment of, 285

Brodrick, Mr. George, his analysis of
the New Domesday Book, 86

Brunton, Sir Lauder, on the causes of
physical deterioration, 403

Butter Bill, a, 242

445

446

LAND REFORM

Cade, Jack, his character misrepre-
sented, amongst others Ijy Shake-
speare, 138-9; his Bill of Requisites,
139-41 ; his death, 142

Caird, Sir James, on grants from the
Treasury for purchase of land, 5

— on security of possession, 2

— on partially productive cultivated
land, 6

— on rent of arable land, 70
Camden on the Domesday Book, 83
Carrington, Lord, small holdings on his

estate, 223 n.

Carroll, Professor, on the teaching of
agriculture, 24-5

Catshill, colony of peasant proprietors
at, 214-20

Cavendish, Sir John de, a too zealous
justice, 130

Census of 1901, statistics as to area
and population of England and
Wales, 376-84

Central Chamber of Agriculture, ob-
jections of to the Land Purchase Bill,
247 ; the Bill discussed by, 257-9

Chamberlain, Mr., his 5 per cent duty
on imports of foreign produce a
benefit to small proprietors, 220-1,
298-9

— his fiscal proposals, together with
the scheme set forth in this book, a
cure for the evils described, 423

Channel Islands, description of a typical
farmer, 232

Chantries, suppression of, 99

Charter of Henry III on the tenure of
land, 44

Cheap food not the result of free trade,
334-45

" Cheapness" and "charity," two arch-
evils of English economy, 407-9

Chivalry, its evil influence, 132

Chronicles of Walsingham, the, on
Wat Tyler's insurrection, 1 19-21,

123-5
Church lands, how they were con-
fiscated, and into whose hands they

came, 97-100
Class legislation, the peasant divorced

from the soil by, 16
Clay, Henry, and Cobden — whose

policy was right ? 284-5
Cobbett, William, against inclosures,

76-7, 92
Cobden, his predictions as to benefits

of "free imports" not realized, 279

— and free trade, 332

— and the commercial policy of other
nations, 354-6

Cobden, predictions of, that have not
been realized, 356

— had he lived to the present day
would probably have been an ardent
tariff reformer, 359

— school, the, of the present day, 360
Commercial treaty with France, the,

354, 355 n- . .

— interest, the, in Parliament, xi
Committee on the Fruit Industry of

Great Britain, 245-7.
Common rights, a farmer on, 74-5
Compensation for common rights, to

whom paid, 78 n.

— for improvements, 244
Compulsory provisions, absence of,

from Land Purchase Bill, 251
Continental peasantry, their condition

misunderstood by travellers, 227
Cooper, Sir Robert, on our food-supply

in time of war, 224-5
Copyholders, position of, 48, 49, 136
Corn, average yield per acre in Great

Britain compared with that of the

Continent, 6 n.
Corn Law agitation, the, 279-81
County Councils, their attitude towards

the Small Holdings Act, 206-8
purchase of land by, for small

holdings, 207 n.
difficulties in the administration

of a peasant proprietary Act, 210-11
Cowper, Mr. (Lord Mount Temple),

his Field Gardens Bill, 177
Cultivating classes, condition of, at the

time of Wat Tyler's revolt, 105-13
" Cultivating-ownership," 5

— advantages of, 8

— a yeoman farmer on the advantages
of, 17 n.

Davies, Rev., on evils of inclosures, 71
Day labourers, their improvidence

compared with the thrift of peasant

proprietors, 228
Demands of the rebels in Wat Tyler's

insurrection, 117
Denmark an example to England for

small cultivation, co-operation, etc.,

230
Depopulation of rural England, 376-93

— and inclosures, 93-4
Discontent of the peasantry in the

fourteenth century, 113
Disfranchisement for receiving medical

relief, Bill to remove, 180-I
Distinguished men who have sprung

from the peasant and yeoman classes,

424 n.

INDEX

447

Distress, the, before the repeal of the
Corn Laws not caused by the clear-
ness of food, and its relief brought
about by causes other than free im-
ports, 334-46

Domesday Book, S3-4

Domesday Book, The New (1876), 85

Domestic legislation, beneficial, in so-
called Dark Ages, 84 n.

Duke of Devonshire's Committee, the,
on the evils of the influx from country
to town, 401-2

Duty of 2s. per quarter on foreign corn,
what its effect would be, 341-2

Early education in farm work, 37
Ecoles Pratiques d'Agriculture, system

of, 32
Economic side of inclosures question.

Electioneering device of the big and

little loaf, 342
Emigrants as a payment for American

produce, 390
Emigration, a cause of depopulation

of our rural districts, 387-93

— means sending away the real wealth
of the nation, 392

Employment, how it would be increased

by extending the cultivation of wheat,

298
England " the only country where a real

socialist revolution can take place,"

416

— what is her position as a producing
country? xix

English land laws, the, authorities on,

43 n-

— land system, the, 40-102

— literature, our old, the value of a
knowledge of, 425

— rural life, how it could be changed,

303

Exodus of the rural population, 3S4

Exports and imports, their relative
value, 290-1

Extracts from a paper by the author,
forty years after the repeal of the
Corn Laws, showing the sad con-
dition of the rural labourer, 372-4

Explanatory note, xxiv

Famine, serious danger of, in case of

war, xiv
Farm labourers, efficient, scarcity of,

383
Farmers, hardships to, through having

farms sold over their heads, 254-5
— serious condition of, xiii

Farms, tableshowingnumber of workers

on, 3S0
Fealty, holding of land in, 46
Feudalism, the principle of, 45
" First line of defence," our, 328
Fiscal policy and agriculture, 329-75

— question, the, and its relationship
to cultivating-ownership, 333

Food, imports of small articles of, 13-

15

— unprofitable to produce under present
system, 15

— from foreign sources, historical
parallels, 437

— in time of war, best way to provide,
315-16

— as contraband of war, 311-12

— supply, our, in time of war, 311-2S
Foreign produce, enormous importation

of articles which could be produced
at home, 225
France, small holdings in, how they
have benefited the peasantry, 189-91

— condition of agriculture before the
Revolution, compared with that of
the present day, 192-204

Free imports and cheap food, a fallacy
exposed, 343-6

Free trade, the founders of the doctrine
of, and what they meant by it, 329-32

arguments, the, fallacy of, 304,

306-7

in land, 261-9 ; of no advantage

to tenant farmers or to peasants,
262 ; danger of removing all restric-
tions on, 267-8

Freeholders, vast number of, in olden
times, 47

French and English rural schools, the
classes of children attending them
compared, 35

— Minister of Agriculture, Report of,

33

— peasant, unique position of the, 200

— peasantry, terrible condition of, be-
fore the Revolution, 197-9

— Revolution, what it did for the
French peasantry, 200

Froissart, his "Chronicles of England"
misrepresents the real state of the
country, 131-2

Froude, the historian, on the appro-
priation of Church lands, 98, 101-2 ;
on the condition of the people prior
to Kelt's rebellion, 150-1

Future outlook for agriculture, the, 307

George, Henry, his scheme of land re-
form, 276-7

448

LAND REFORM

Gilpin, Bernard, his sermon on the
oppression of the rural population,

144-5

Goldsmith, Oliver, his " Deserted Vil-
lage," 161-2

"Good understanding" between land-
lord and tenant, 237-8

Green, " History of the English
People," quoted on inclosures, 54-5;
on appropriation of Church lands, 99

Grindcobbe, one of the leaders in Wat
Tyler's insurrection, 124-5

Guernsey, average size of holdings,
and high price of land, 232-3

Guyot, M. Yves, French " Free Trader,"
281

Hallam, the historian, on the sup-
pression of chantries, 99

Hardenberg. See Stein.

Harris, Mr. W. J., his estimate of the
losses to the farming industry by the
decline of agriculture ; remedy pro-
posed by, 292-3

Harris, Mr. Leverton, on indemnity to
shipowners in time of war, 317-18

Harris-Gastrell, J. P., on two great
dangers that menace England, 283

High prices of little benefit to tenant
farmers, 8

Home market, the, and the industrial
classes, 284-310

Home trade, indifference to, by our
manufacturers, 292

How the poor live, 411-15

Howitt, Wm. , on the German peasan-
try, 270-1

" Hungry forties," cause of the distress
in the, 347-8

Hunter, Sir Robert, his works on
common rights cited, 90 n.

Importation of cattle from abroad,

307-9
Imported corn, why duties are imposed

on, in France, 282
Imports of small articles of food, 13-15
Inclosure Act (1710), the first, 62
Inclosure Bill, an, that did not pass ;

opposed by William Cobbett, 76
Inclosure Bill of 1845 : introduced by

Lord Lincoln (Duke of Newcastle) ;

quotations from speeches against, by

Mr. Sharman Crawford and Mr.

Hume, 79-80
Inclosures, policy of, and its results,

52-82
— total amount of land inclosed from

1 7 10 to 1867 under Inclosure Acts, 63

Inclosures, illegal, the method adopted,

63

— Parliamentary Return of, of 1 869 : 8 1

— arguments used in justification of,
87-8

— and depopulation, 93-4
Indigence and suffering in England,

striking examples of, 411-15
Individualism, the chief motive power

of human action, 421-3
Intensive culture in the Channel

Islands, 230
Ireland, sales of land in, under the

Land Purchase Act, 235

Kelvin, Lord, on rural education, 25
Kett, Robert, and the revolt under his

leadership, 150-5
King, the, the theoretical owner of the

soil of England, 43

Labourer's Friends Society, report on

inclosures, 71-3, 390
" Labouring poor," illiberal treatment

of, under Inclosure Acts, 81
Labour statistics of the Board of Trade,

no guide as to the actual condition

of the majority of our population,

XX, xxi
Landed aristocracy, policy adopted by,

in early times, 51

— classes, interests of, identical in con-
tinental countries, but antagonistic
in England, 281

— interest, the, in Parliament, xi. ;
necessity of increasing the power of,
xii

Land going out of cultivation, xiii

— hunger and peasant proprietary, 205-

33

— laws of England, the, authorities
on, 43 n.

— legislation, the two opposite policies
of England and Germany contrasted,
270

— question, the history of, xv

Land Purchase Bill, the, illustrations
of the benefits that would be con-
ferred by, 255-7

Land reform, pre-eminently a labour
question, 303

reasons why landlords should

support it, 282

various schemes for, 261, 273,

276, 277, 279

— tenure in England, the causes
which have led up to the present
system, 40 et seq.

INDEX

449

Land values, statistics showing how they
have fallen in recent years, 251 n.

" Landlord, tenant, and labourer
system," 5

Landlords' rents, large reductions in,
and the results, 292

Large and small farms, 187-8

Large farms, failure of the policy of,

Latimer, Bishop, on inclosures, 57

on shooting, 399

Laveleye, M. de, on peasant pro-
prietary, 16

Lawes, Sir J. B. , dictum that the land
of this country could support the
population, 9

Local Government Act, 1894, its re-
lation to labourers and the land,
184-5

Lodge, Sir Oliver, on rural education,
25

Macaulay, Lord, on the state of Eng-
land in 1865 : 61

— on inclosures, 88

Mallet, Sir L. , on Free Trade, 354-5
Mansell, Mr., on the amount of em-
ployment required for the cultivation
of wheat, 298 n.
McCulloch, Mr. , on large farms, 69
Meat, comparative prices of, 336
" Merrie England," village life in, 38
Migration from the country to the
towns, xxiii

— so-called "natural tendency" to-
wards, 385

— a comparison between England and
Germany, 386

Milk, its value as a food, and its

present dearness, 195-6, 334-5
Mill, John Stuart, on common rights

and robbery of the poor, 89-90
Monasteries, the suppression of, its

connection with the ruin of the

peasantry, 95-102
Morley, Mr., on the repeal of the Corn

Laws, 306
Morris, William, one of the few writers

who has shown sympathy with the

peasantry in their revolt, 133

National defence, 397

— strength dependent on a numerous
rural population, x

National Union of Agricultural
Labourers, formation of, 166-8 ;
opix)sed by the territorial party, 1 70;
its end, 171

Nationalization of the land, as advo-
cated by Mr. Henry George, 276-7 ;
by Dr. Wallace, 277-8

Naval authorities on our command of
the sea in its relation to our food-
supply in time of war, 319-20

Nelson, Earl, his proposal to prevent
depopulation of the rural districts, 1 75

Onslow, Lord, on County Councils and

small holdings, 207
Oppression of the peasant, a modern

instance of the old feeling, 174
Owners of land, number of, in 1876: 85
Ownership must be the basis of peasant

farming, 233

Passy, M., on large and small farms,
187 n.

Pauperism, how it could be reduced,
299

— what it costs us, 404-8

Peasant, the, how he fared after he
ceased to be a real peasant and be-
came a mere wage-receiving labourer,
161-75

Peasant proprietary, authorities quoted
on, 10

a lost art in England, 16

the creation of, a national con-
cern, 212

Peasant Revolts —

Under Wat Tyler and John Ball,
105, 113-37
,, Jack Cade, 138-42
,, Robert Kett, 150-55
,, Joseph Arch, 163-73

Peasant wars of the sixteenth century,
56

Peasantry, the English, their struggles
and sufferings, too much neglected
by historians, 130

Peasants' Revolt, the first, what good
results came from it, 134-7

Peel, Sir Robert, on common rights, 78

Penury and wealth, the contrast be-
tween, in England, 410

Permanent pasture, increase of, 6

Petition to Parliament to repeal the
Corn Laws, how it was got up, 371

Petitions against inclosure, 73-4

Physical deterioration, report of the
Army Medical Department on, 400

Physique, national, deterioration in,

38s
"Pipe Rolls," the, 47-8 n.
Political economy, what is it? 182 n.
Political state of farm labourers, changed

by Franchise Act of 1884 : 180

450

LAND REFORM

Pollock, Sir Frederick, on the Land

Laws, 82 n.
Poor Law Act of 1601 : 60

institution, our, xxi, xxii

Poor-rate, origin of the impost, 60
Population, decrease of, in rural dis-
tricts, 377
Porter, Mr., on advantages of large

farms, 70
Poverty the main cause of all our evils,

421
" Prayer for Landlords," from Prayer

Book of 1552 : 56-7 n.
Present system of tenancy a premium
on bad farming, two letters there-
on, 7
Private storage of wheat, 324
Proletariat, the, in England, 419
"Prosperity," what is meant by the

term, xix
Protection, England's trading supre-
macy established under, 353

— in France, its influence on the pro-
gress of agriculture, 202

Prussia, its policy in relation to peasant

proprietary, 16
Public granaries, 322-3

— lands, sale of, 253-4

Purchase of freehold by tenant : advance
of money for, by Board of Agricul-
ture ; rate of interest and terms of
repayment, 3, 4

Purchase of Land (England and Wales)
Bill, 1905 : Part L Occupying Owner-
ship, 3 ; Part II, Peasant Proprie-
tary, II

Purchase of land for small holdings, by
Board of Agriculture, 1 1

Purchase, the basis of the proposals
made in this book, 41

Rates of wages, enormous decrease in

recent years, 364
Rates, unfair treatment of the farmer

in the imposition of, 241
Reclamation of land, 427-30
Rents, excessive, charged for small

holdings, 229-30
Repairs, farm, cost of, 239-40
Repeal of the Corn Laws not the cause

of the era of prosperity that followed ;

the real causes stated, 348-52
Repeopling of our country districts, the,

392
Richardson, Mr. George Gibson, on

present condition of agriculture in

France, 192-204
Risks to the State of the Land Pur-
chase Bill, 234-60

Ritchie, Mr., and the abolition of the

shilling duty on imported wheat, 341
Roberts, Lord, his scheme for training

the youth of the country, 397-8
Rogers, Prof. Thorold, on the increased

cost of living under Free Trade, 345
Royal Commission on Supply of Food

in Time of War, evidence taken by,

314-16 ; its report, 317
Rural districts where population has

decreased, 377-8

— Education, 23 ; reports of Inspectors
on, 27-8 ; reports of teachers on, 29

— labourer, the, classed as an " un-
skilled" worker — a common error,
382 n.

— labourers, lamentable condition of,
after the repeal of the Corn Laws,
367-71

present condition of, 374

— schools in England and France, a
comparison between the classes of
children attending them, 35

Russell, Lord John, his proposal of a
fixed duty on corn, 280

Sales of land, prices realized at auction,

249-51

Selborne, Lord, on the Navy as a pro-
tection for our food-supply, 311- 12

Select Committee of Waste Lands, Re-
port of, 1795 : 91

Self-feeding nation, how England could
become a, 294-5

Sheep farming, lOl, 138

Sinclair, Sir John, President of Board
of Agriculture, his arguments in
favour of inclosures, 67

Sismondi, M. de, on common rights,
89

Small farms, tendency to revert to the
policy of, 275

Small holders and peasant proprietors,
how they disappeared, 64

Small holdings, excessive rents charged
for, 229-30

a means of keeping rural families

together, 223

Small Holdings Association, the, what
it has done, 221-2

Small Holdings Act, the, not altogether
a failure ; illustrations of its applica-
tion, 212-22

Smith, Adam, on comparative positions
of farmer and proprietor, 2

on cornfields v. pasture, 6

on small proprietors, 233

on capital employed in agri-
culture, 290 n.

INDEX

451

Smith, Adam, on bounties, 296

Smith, Mr. Augustus, his successful
opposition to inclosure of Berkhamp-
stead common, 63-4

Social revolution, the, 415

Socialism in Germany, peasantry op-
posed to, 272

— its attitude towards the land ques-
tion, 276

— its growing influence in England,

417-23
Soil and climate of France and other

countries compared with those of

England, 201-2
Somerset, Duke of, the Protector, his

sympathy with the peasantry, 145-50
Sport, in its relation to the farmer, 253
Squarey, Mr. Elias, on small holdings,

229
Stackyard of the farmer the proper

place to store wheat, 323
State aid to tenant farmers, S
State assistance to agriculture, why it

should be given, 309-10
State Children Association, the, and

pauper children, 405-6
"Statesmen," a class of freeholders,

disappearance of, 263-4
Statute of Edward II, a, on the tenure

of land, 44
Statute of Labourers, 107-9
Statute of Merton, 52
Statute of Westminster, 52
Stealing a goose from the common a

capital offence ; stealing the common

not illegal, 53-4
Stein and Hardenberg, land legislation

of, in Germany, 265-9
Stow's "Chronicles" quoted, on the

beginning of Wat Tyler's insurrec-
tion, 114
Straw, Jack, one of the leaders of Wat

Tyler's insurrection, 121
Straw, the value of, 297 n.
Stubbs, "Constitutional History," on

freeholders, 47, 48

— on Wat Tyler's insurrection, 116
"Swing Riots," the, 71 n.

Tariff reform, Mr. Chamberlain's great
scheme, 343

how made use of by its opponents

for party purposes, 366

Teachers in rural schools, the difficulty
of obtaining competent men, 35

Tenure, all land in England the subject
of, not of Ownership, 43

Textile industries, table showing de-
crease of cmploynu'iU in, 363

Theory of exchanging British goods
for foreign agricultural produce a
doubtful one, 286

"Theory of Rent" — and the practice,
69

Thornton, Mr., on peasant proprietary,
16

"Three acres and a cow," origin of
the phrase, 180 n.

Tisserand, M., on French agriculture,
I 90- I, 204

Tomatoes, cultivation of, 226

Town population, remarkable increase
in the growth of, in contrast to the
decay of the rural population, 381

Towns and villages where population
has decreased, 377

Trade, ruinous effect on, of free im-
ports, 361

Trade Unions, 164-5

and their policy, 416

Tresilian, Sir Robert, Chief Justice, 122

Turgot, M., on the real wealth of the
State, 393

Turnbull, Mr. R. E., his estimate of
the losses to the farming industry by
the decline of agriculture, 288-9

United States, our import and export
trade with, statistics which confute
the Free Trade argument, 304-5

Virgil and agriculture, 395

" Vision of Piers the Plowman," 104

Wallace, Dr., his scheme of land

reform, 277-8
Walworth, Lord Mayor of London, his

assassination of Wat Tyler, 116-17
Wantage, Lord, on the advantages of

freehold small holdings, 22S
War, our unpreparedness in the matter

of food, 313
Warner, Rev, R., on the decadence of

the peasantry, 72-3
Warwick, Lady, on agriculture as an

occupation for women, 224 n.
Warwickshire Agricultural Labourers'

Union, formation of, 166
Wat Tyler, leader of the Peasants'

Revolt, 113; an estimate of his

character, 124
Wheat, our total supply of, in 1903 :

294 ; how it could be produced at

home, 295

— how increased cultivation of, can be
secured, 296-7

— labour required in the cultivation
of, 298 n.

452

LAND REFORM

Wheat, the quantity that can be pro-
duced per acre, 300-1

— our ordinary stock of, 313

— comparative prices of, 340
Williams, Joshua, on the legal principle

of land tenure in England, 47
Willis, Mr. J. A., on rural education,

26
Wolsey, Cardinal, his decree against

inclosures, 59 n.
Women as farm workers, 225, 226 n.
Worcester County Council, operations

of, under Small Holdings Act, 214-20

Yeoman farmer, a, on the advantages
of cultivating-ownership, 17 n.

Yeoman proprietary, or occupying-
ownership, 187-204

Young, Arthur, on security of posses-
sion, 2; "omnipotent principle"
of ownership, 9 ; in favour of in-
closures, 67-8 ; on condition of agri-
culture in France before the Revolu-
tion, 192 ; on the yield of wheat per
acre, 300

PLYMOUTH
W. DRENDON AND SON, LTD., PRINTERS

Date Due

I

1

PRINTED IN u. 3. A CAT. NO. 24 161 m

000 529

666