Skip to main content

Full text of "An agricultural faggot. A collection of papers on agricultural subjects"

See other formats 


mil 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

0¥  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


ir^ff/f 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2008  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/agriculturalfaggOOrewr 


AN  AGRICULTURAL 
FAGGOT. 

A    COLLECTION   OF  PAPERS  ON 
AGRICULTURAL   SUBJECTS. 


BY 

R.  H.  REW,  C.B. 


WESTMINSTER  : 
P.  S.  KING  &  SON 
ORCHARD  HOUSE. 

1913- 


jEai921 


INTRODUCTION. 


^  This  is  a  bundle  of  sticks — slightly  trimmed  to 
'^   lie    more    conveniently    in   the    faggot — gathered 
^    from  various  hedgerows,  where  many  of  them  have 
S2    long  remained   undisturbed.     In  plainer  phrase, 
this   book   contains  a   selection   from   papers  on 
agricultural  subjects  written  at  varying  intervals 
during  the  past  five  and  twenty  years  and  pub- 
lished in  the  transactions  of  the   associations  to 
whose  members  they  were  primarily  addressed. 
Some  carry  the  marks  of  their  date  and  already 
^  have  a  flavour  of  antiquity,  but  the  subjects  with 
l£>  which  they  deal  are  perennial,  and  even  the  late- 
^  Victorian  aspect  oi  them  is  not  quite  out  of  date, 
o  It  is  hoped,  at  any  rate,  that  they  still  possess 
some   interest    for  those  who  are  concerned   for 
the  well-being  of  Agriculture — a  category  which 
happily    includes   many    more    than    those  who 
actually  live  by  the  land. 

Glancing  back  over  the  period  covered  by  the 

contents   of   this   book — the   earliest   paper   was 

written  in  1888— the  superficial  impression  is  one 

g  of  changing  times.     The  last  quarter  of  the  nine- 

§  teenth  century  comprised  years  of  tribulation  for 

owners  and  occupiers  of  land.     Farmers  who  in 


iv  INTRODUCTION. 

the  later  "  eighties  "  were  recovering  a  Httle  from 
the  staggering  blows  of  the  early  years  of  the 
decade  were  confronted  with  still  heavier  buffet- 
ing in  the  "  nineties."  To  many  a  man  who  had 
struggled  through  the  "  eighties,"  the  "  nineties  " 
gave  the  coup  de  grace.  In  reporting  on  the  state 
of  agriculture  in  Norfolk  in  1894,  I  stated  : 
"  At  the  date  of  the  Richmond  Commission 
(1880-82)  the  '  good  times  '  had  been  left  behind 
for  some  years,  but  ever  since  then  matters  have 
gone  from  bad  to  worse,  and  in  spite  of  transient 
gleams  of  hopefulness  the  dark  cloud  of  depression 
has  become  blacker  and  blacker,  until  a  positive 
gloom  has  fallen  over  the  face  of  the  country. 
Old  families  are  gone,  old  houses  are  shut  up  or 
let  to  strangers,  old  acres  are  abandoned,  or  are 
owned  or  occupied  by  new  men.  Steadily,  relent- 
lessly, the  depression  deepened  and  spread,  until 
the  season  of  1893  and  1894  aggravated  and 
accentuated  the  trouble  with  startling  sudden- 
ness."^ What  was  true  of  Norfolk  was  true  in 
more  or  less  degree  of  many  other  districts  of 
England.  Like  vessels  on  a  long  voyage,  farmers 
who  had  survived  the  earlier  gales,  with  strained 
timbers  and  torn  canvas,  were  unable  to  weather 
the  later  hurricane.  But  though  storms  arise 
and  vessels  founder,  the  sea  remains  always 
changeful  yet  always  the  same,  and  the  tides  ebb 
and  flow  in  eternal  sequence.     So  also,  through 

'  Report  on  Norfolk  to  the  Royal  Commission  on  Agriculture. 
C.  7915. 


INTRODUCTION.  v 

the  fluctuations  of  the  years  prosperity  and 
adversity  come  to  the  farmers,  some  succeed  and 
others  fail,  but  from  one  generation  to  another 
seed  time  and  harvest,  summer  and  winter,  con- 
tinue, and  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  goes  on. 
The  land  remains,  and  those  who  till  it,  though 
outwardly  different,  are  kindred  in  spirit  with 
their  forefathers.  Endurance  is  the  badge  of 
all  their  tribe. 

It  is  well  that  the  community  should  have  a 
sympathetic  regard  for  those  who  till  the  soil, 
and   that    the    State   should    anxiously   consider 
the  welfare  of  agriculturalists.       But  beyond  the 
interests  of  individuals,  above  even  the  interests 
of  the  present  generation,  is  the  interest  of  the 
Land  itself.     There    is   much   in    the   history  of 
agriculture  in  this  country  which  may  be  criticised  i 
its  progress  has  not  been  achieved  without  hard- 
ship, and  oftentimes  injustice,  to  individuals,  but, 
whatever  may  have  been  the  defects  in  our  land 
system,  it  has  on  the  whole  been  successful  in 
making  and  maintaining  the  fertility  of  the  land. 
A  similar  result  might  no  doubt  have  been  attained 
under  another  system,  but  it  is  undeniable  that 
the  restrictions  devised  by  owners  to  prevent  the 
deterioration  of  the  land — hardly  as  they  pressed 
on  enterprising  and  competent  tenants  who  were 
wilhng  to  farm  fairly — had  on  the  whole  the  effect 
of  preserving  soil  fertility.     Freedom  of  cultiva- 
tion is  admirable  when  every  occupier  is  skilled 
and  conscientious,  but,  without  reflecting  on  the 


vi  INTRODUCTION. 

present  generation,  it  must  be  admitted  that  all 
farmers  could  not  at  all  times  be  so  described. 
Landowners,  like  other  men,  were  actuated  by 
self-interest  in  devising  safeguards  for  the  pro- 
tection of  their  property  from  injury,  and  these 
safeguards,  formulated  in  many  cases  by  persons 
having  more  legal  than  agricultural  knowledge, 
were  often  needlessly,  and  in  some  instances 
grotesquely,  irksome.  But  the  point  is  that, 
while  they  frequently  hampered  an  improving 
farmer  and  hindered  progressive  farming,  they 
also  served  to  preserve  the  land  from  being 
pilfered  of  its  fertility.  The  old  restrictive 
covenants  have  gone,  and  the  principle  of  freedom 
of  cultivation  has  been  adopted  by  Act  of  Par- 
liament. But  whether  its  ownership  remains  in 
private  hands,  is  vested  in  the  State  or  in  local 
authorities,  or  is  transferred  to  the  occupiers,  the 
land  must  be  fairly  dealt  by,  and  the  maintenance 
of  its  fertility  should,  in  the  national  interest,  be 
the  paramount  consideration.  Warnings  are  not 
lacking  from  new  countries  that  the  self-interest 
of  the  occupier  is  not  always  a  sufficient  protection 
for  the  land.  Under  whatever  conditions  the  land 
may  be  farmed,  no  system  can,  from  the  national 
point  of  view,  be  satisfactory  which  allows  the 
economic  exigencies  of  the  present  generation  to 
endanger  the  nation's  wealth. 

It  is  not  a  simple  problem  to  reconcile  free  scope 
for  the  enterprise  of  the  occupier  with  protection 
for  the  land,  but  its  solution  is  facilitated  in  this 


INTRODUCTION.  vii 

country  by  the  fact  that  the  land,  as  a  great 
abstraction  above  all  temporary  interests,  is 
loved,  and  one  might  almost  say  worshipped,  by 
those  who  live  by  it.  The  service  of  the  land 
seems  to  engender  a  personal  devotion,  especially 
among  those  whose  roots  in  the  soil  go  far  into 
the  centuries.  Among  the  agricultural  labourers 
this  passion  for  the  land  is  often  most  marked. 
In  a  recent  book^  containing  interviews  with  a 
number  of  agricultural  labourers  it  is  remarked  : — 

"  Again  and  again  one  is  struck  by  the  intimate 
feeling  of  the  labourer  towards  the  soil. 

"  '  They  ought  to  look  after  the  land.  Ain't 
she  the  mother  of  us  all  ?  '  said  one  man." 

And  from  the  farmer's  point  of  view  an  old 
friend  of  mine,  who  has  occupied  the  same  farm 
for  over  half  a  century,  voices  the  same  affection : — 

"  Born  and  bred  on  the  land,  the  land  has 
always  called  me.  I  hear  the  call  now,  although 
it  reaches  me  too  often  within  walls  and  not  in 
the  open  field. 

"  Love  of  the  land  makes  me  ask  the  readers 
of  this  little  book"  to  stick  to  the  land,  because 
Mother  Earth  is  kind  to  all  her  children,  whose 
zeal  is  according  to  knowledge." 

Where  the  land  is  cultivated  by  men  inspired 
by  this  devotion  it  is  in  no  danger  of  unfair  treat- 
ment. 


1  "How  the  Labourer  Lives,"  by  B.  Seebohm  Rowntree  and 
May  Kendall,  191 3. 

'^  "  Story  of  a  Staffordshire  Farm,"  by  T.  Carrington  Smith, 
1913- 


viii  INTRODUCTION. 

The  present  generation  owes  much  to  its  for- 
bears who  have  made  the  land.  This  Httle 
island  in  the  mists  of  the  northern  sea  cannot 
as  a  whole  be  described  as  a  naturally  fertile 
country,  though  its  soil  for  the  most  part 
responds  generously  to  generous  treatment.  The 
present  fertility  of  large  parts  of  it  is  the  result  of 
the  lavish  outlay  of  labour  and  capital.  Milhons 
of  money,  generations  of  men,  have  gone  to  the 
making  of  EngHsh  land.  It  is  a  goodly  heritage  : 
let  us  cherish  it  ! 

Even  on  the  surface  of  agricultural  affairs, 
where,  as  observed  above,  movement  and  dis- 
turbance are  apparent,  a  reference  to  the  subjects 
dealt  with  in  these  papers  justifies  the  saying  that 
the  more  things  change  the  more  they  remain  the 
same.  In  summarising  the  history  of  British 
agriculture  during  the  half  century  which  had 
elapsed  since  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws 
(Chapter  IL),  an  allusion  to  the  public  discussion  of 
protective  duties  in  1897  was  made  :  in  1913  the 
discussion  is  unfinished.  The  "  rural  exodus " 
(Chapter  IV.)  aroused  great  interest  twenty  years 
ago  :  the  consideration  of  its  causes  and  effects 
is  equally  insistent  now.  The  conditions  under 
which  agricultural  produce  can  best  be  brought 
to  the  consumer — the  need  for  effective  market 
facihties  (Chapter  III.)— are  still  of  vital  import. 
Even  in  the  comparatively  minor  matter  of  the 
method  of  selling  five  stock  (Chapter  IX.),  the 
inertia    of   the  agricultural   mind  is  exemplified. 


INTRODUCTION.  ix 

Three  of  the  papers  (Chapters  V.  to  VII.)  deal 
with  the  subject  of  agricultural  co-operation  and 
the  reduction  of  the  middle  profits  which,  largely 
in  consequence  of  their  unorganised  state,  handicap 
the  producers  of  food.  At  the  time  when  these 
were  written  the  gospel  of  co-operation  had,  by 
Sir  Horace  Plunkett's  persistence,  begun  to  find 
acceptance  in  Ireland,  but,  except  in  rare  instances, 
it  fell  on  deaf  ears  in  the  English  rural  districts. 
Since  then  the  patient  work  of  the  Agricultural 
Organisation  Society  has  slowly  fructified,  the 
State  has  lent  assistance,  and  progress  in  this 
direction,  at  any  rate,  may  be  reported. 

Memory,  in  reviewing  the  associations  of  these 
papers,  conjures  phantoms.  Many  "  agricultural 
worthies  " — to  use  the  old-fashioned  term — who 
have  passed  away  are  recalled.  Clare  Sewell 
Read,  mordant  and  pessimistic,  who  possessed  as 
perhaps  no  one  before  or  since  has  done  the  confi- 
dence of  his  fellow-farmers  ;  Albert  Pell,  witty  and 
incisive  in  his  speech  and  writings  ;  Jasper  More, 
whose  casual  manner  veiled  an  intimate  knowledge 
of  rustic  psychology;  Thomas  Duckham,  whose 
courage  in  the  advocacy  of  cattle  disease  legislation 
was  perhaps  insufficiently  appreciated  ;  Charles 
Howard,  sound  of  judgment  and  kindly  of  heart  ; 
John  Tread  well,  shrewd  and  practical,  with  his 
proud  reminiscences  of  "  Dizzy  "  ;  Samuel 
Rowlandson,  the  embodiment  of  caution  in  spite 
of    his    "  advanced  "    political    views  ;     Wilham 


X  INTRODUCTION. 

Little,  a  born  statistician  and  model  compiler  of 
official  reports  ;  Lord  Winchilsea,  whose  ardent 
spirit  glowed  with  too  fierce  a  fire  for  his  physical 
powers  ;  Sir  John  Lawes,  sturdily  tramping  round 
his  well-loved  fields  at  Rothamsted  ;  Ben  Druce, 
happier  by  the  fireside  of  the  Farmers'  Club  than 
in  his  chambers  at  Lincoln's  Inn  ;  Wilson  Fox, 
eager  and  strenuous,  whose  zeal  for  the  public 
service  too  literally  consumed  him.  These,  and 
many  others  who  are  brought  to  the  mind's  eye 
in  their  habit  as  they  lived,  are  still  well  remem- 
bered on  the  countryside  and  in  places  where 
farmers  foregather.  To  those  who  knew  them, 
and  worked  with  them  for  the  "  good  old  cause," 
and  to  all  who  love  the  land,  this  little  book  is 
submitted. 

I  have  to  thank  the  Royal  Agricultural  Society 
and  the  Bath  and  West  of  England  Society  for 
permission  to  republish  the  articles  which  have 
appeared  in  their  respective  journals. 

R.  H    R. 

September,  1913. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAP.  PAGE 

Introduction iii 


I.  Farming  in  Olden  Times      .         .         ,         . 

II.  Agriculture  under  Free  Trade 

III.  English  Markets  and  Fairs 

IV.  The  Migration  of  Agricultural  Labourers 
V.  The  Middleman  in  Agriculture 

VI.  Combination  among  Farmers 

VII.  Co-operation  for  the  Sale  of  Farm  Produce 

VIII.  The  Nation's  Food  Supply  .... 

IX.  Selling  Stock  by  Live  Weight  . 

X.  British  and   French  Agriculture 

Index       .         .         


I 

21 
42 

63 
78 

95 

114 

129 
Z40 
159 
185 


AN 

AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 


CHAPTER    I. 

FARMING   IN   OLDEN  TIMES.i 

The  agricultural  history  of  this  country  before  the  coming 
of  the  English  is  mainly  a  matter  of  guesses  and  infer- 
ences. Of  the  English  invaders — a  race  of  countrymen 
and  farmers  who  detested  the  towns,  and  preferred  the 
lands  of  the  Britons  to  the  towns  of  the  Romans — we 
have  a  little  more  knowledge;  but  until  William  the 
Conqueror  issued  the  first  Royal  Commission  on  Agri- 
culture, and  collected  the  first  Agricultural  Returns,  our 
knowledge  of  English  rural  life  is  scanty.  What  we  find 
when  these  records  begin  is — over  the  greater  part  of 
England,  at  any  rate — an  organisation  of  rural  life  in  self- 
contained  village  units  which,  as  the  manorial  system, 
formed  the  structural  basis  of  English  rural  economy  for 
centuries.  Indeed,  the  skeleton  of  that  system  still 
remains,  although  its  substance  has  been  changed  and 
its  spirit  transformed. 

The  Domesday  Survey  covered  thirty-four  counties, 
excluding  Northumberland,  Durham,  Cumberland,  West- 
morland, Lancashire  and  Monmouth.  The  actual  extent 
of  agricultural  land  included  is  a  matter  about  which 
competent   authorities  differ  considerably.     One  writer 

'  Read  before  the  Farmers'  Club,  May,  1913.    (Abridged.) 
A.F.  B 


2  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

says  :  "  The  evidence  of  the  Domesday  Survey  seems 
therefore  to  show  that  at  its  date  about  five  milHon  acres 
were  under  the  plough."  ^  Another  says  that  there  was 
"  a  grand  total  of  6,060,000  acres  sown  with  corn  every 
year."  ^  As  it  is  certain  that  at  least  one-third  of  the 
arable  land  was  in  bare  fallow  each  year,  this  esti- 
mate would  imply  a  total  area  of  about  9,000,000  acres 
under  the  plough.  This,  indeed,  appears  to  be  the  figure 
adopted  by  another  writer,  who  estimates,  however,  that 
of  the  9,000,000  acres  only  5,000,000  were  sown  each  year.^ 
I  cannot  profess  to  be  able  to  decide  between  these  varying 
estimates,  but  I  may  observe  that  in  the  same  counties  in 
1912  the  total  extent  of  arable  land  was  9,728,000  acres, 
of  which  262,000  acres  were  in  bare  fallow.  Considering 
the  vast  areas  which  during  the  past  eight  centuries  have 
been  reclaimed  from  the  waste  and  fen,  it  is  somewhat 
difficult  to  believe  that  there  is  no  more  land  under  arable 
cultivation  now  than  in  1086. 

All  land  in  England  is  described  in  Domesday  as  belonging 
either  immediately  to  the  King  or  to  his  vassals  of  different 
degree,  or  to  churches,  which  held  it  by  direct  grant  from 
Kings  and  from  persons  whose  grants  have  been  confirmed  by 
Kings,  or  to  burgesses,  whose  tenure,  though  peculiar,  still 
appears  as  a  tenure — a  form  of  conditional  ownership.^ 

The  unit  of  ownership  was  the  manor,  and  was  as  a 
general  rule  coterminous  with  the  "  vill,"  which  was  the 
fiscal  unit — for  it  must  be  remembered  that  Domesday 
was  primarily  a  valuation  list,  and  that  an  anxiety  for 
taxation  rather  than  a  thirst  for  knowledge  was  the  Royal 
motive  for  the  great  Survey.  In  some  cases  the  vill  con- 
tained several  manors,  traces  of  which  still  remain  in  such 
cases  as  Great  Tew,  Little  Tew  and  Dun's  Tew,  in  Oxford- 
shire.^   A  manor  was,  in  fact,  an  estate,  and,  of  course, 

1  Seebohm,  "  The  English  Village  Community,"  p.  103. 

2  Ballard,  "  The  Domesday  Inquest,"  p.  212. 

^  Maitland,  "  Domesday  Book  and  Beyond,"  p.  437. 
*  Vinogradoff,  "  The  Growth  of  the  Manor,"  p.  293. 
fi  "  The  Domesday  Inquest/'  p.  48, 


FARMING   IN   OLDEN   TIMES.  3 

one  man  might  be  lord  of  many  manors.  Let  us  very 
briefly  try  to  realise  the  conditions  of  an  agricultural 
estate — i.e.,  a  manor — in  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century. 

The  conspicuous  buildings  on  a  manorial  estate  were 
only  the  church,  the  manor-house,  and  perhaps  the  mill ; 
the  remaining  buildings  were  the  homes  of  the  cultivators 
of  the  soil,  clustered  together,  as  a  rule,  in  a  street.  The 
ground  plan,  indeed,  remains  in  hundreds  of  villages 
to-day,  but  the  detached,  isolated  farmhouses  are  mostly  of 
later  date.  The  manor-house,  with  its  outbuildings,  garden 
and  fishponds,  was  built  either  of  timber  and  clay  or  of 
stone,  for  brickmaking  was  still  a  forgotten  art.  It  often 
consisted  of  a  single  hall,  open  to  the  roof  and  earth- 
floored,  which  served  as  a  court  of  justice,  dining-room 
and  bedchamber.  At  one  end  of  the  hall  was  a  stable,  at 
the  other  a  kitchen,  or  larder.  Below  one  part  of  the  hall 
was  a  cellar,  and  above  another  part  was  a  parlour, 
approached  by  an  outside  staircase.  There  might  also  be 
a  detached  building  for  the  farm  servants  and  a  chamber 
for  the  bailiff.  The  outbuildings  comprised  bakehouse, 
dairy,  cattle  and  poultry  houses,  granary  and  dovecot.^ 

Beyond  the  lord's  household  the  population  of  a  manor 
consisted  of  three  main  classes,  who  in  modern  language 
may  be  described  as  tenant  farmers  [villani] ,  smallholders 
(cottarii)  and  labourers  {servi).  (There  were  also,  mostly 
in  the  Eastern  counties,  a  number  of  "  free  tenants  "  and 
"  sokemen,"  who  were  perhaps  more  analogous  to  the 
modern  tenant  farmer.)  These  three  main  classes  com- 
prised 79  per  cent,  of  the  total  population  of  England, 
tenant  farmers  representing  32  per  cent.,  smallholders 
38  per  cent.,  and  labourers,  or  serfs,  9  per  cent.^  The 
last-named  class  held  no  land,  and  seem,  in  fact,  to  have 
been  household  thralls  of  the  lord  ;  but  there  was,  even  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  a  certain  amount  of  casual  labour, 
the  inhabitants  of  the  towns  migrating  into  the  neigh- 

'  Prothcro,  "  Enp;lish  Farming,  Past  and  Present,"  pp.  5  et  seq. 
'  "  The  English  Village  Community,"  p.  go. 

B  2 


4  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

bouring  villages  during  the  autumn  for  the  harvesting.^ 
Again  roughly  generalising,  a  tenant  farmer  {villanus) 
held  from  30  to  120  acres,  the  normal  holding  being  of  the 
smaller  amount,  and  the  smallholder  five  acres.  One 
main  distinction  between  the  two  classes  appears  to  have 
been  that  the  one  usually  possessed  an  ox  or  oxen,  and  the 
other  did  not.  Both  classes  held  of  the  lord  at  what  may 
be  called  customary  rents.  These  "  rents  "  were  made 
up  in  the  most  varied  manner,  partly  in  kind,  partly  (in 
some  cases)  in  money,  and  in  all  cases  largely  of  personal 
service.  The  one  obligation  common  to  all  was  service  on 
the  lord's  demesne.  The  gradual  reduction  and  eventual 
disappearance  of  the  servile  element  in  the  "  rent  "  and 
the  commutation  of  produce  and  service  rents  into  money 
— a  process  extending  over  centuries — marked  the 
emergence  of  the  tenant  into  independence.  At  the  time 
we  are  now  considering  he  had,  at  any  rate,  "  fixity  of 
tenure,"  for  he  was  tied  to  the  soil,  and  indeed  to  the  lord, 
by  bonds  which  it  was  almost  impossible  to  break. 

The  land  of  the  manor  was  divided  into  three  main 
parts — (i)  the  lord's  demesne,  which  surrounded  the 
manor-house,  and  was  cultivated,  by  the  service  of  the 
tenants  of  the  manor,  as  a  "  home  farm,"  though  it 
might  be,  and  in  later  times  was,  let  ;  (2)  the  common 
arable  field  ;  (3)  the  common  pastures  and  waste.  The 
common  arable  field  was  divided  into  acre  or  half-acre 
strips,  with  "  balks  "  of  turf  between.  The  tenant  or 
the  smallholder  had  his  120  or  30  or  5  acres,  or  whatever 
his  holding  might  be,  scattered  all  over  the  great  common 
field,  but  with  an  equal  number  of  strips  in  each  division, 
according  to  the  rotation  of  crops  adopted.  The  whole 
field  was  cultivated  on  a  co-operative  or  communal  plan,  a 
two  or,  more  usually,  a  three-course  system  being  adopted, 
and  the  field  divided  into  two  or  three  parts  accordingly. 
The  usual  rotation  was   (i)  wheat   or  rye  ;     (2)  spring 

1  Thorold  Rogers,  "  A  History  of  Agriculture  and  Prices," 
Vol.  I.,  p.  252. 


FARMING   IN   OLDEN  TIMES.  5 

crops,  such  as  barley,  oats,  beans  or  peas  ;  (3)  fallow. 
The  arable  fields  were  fenced  against  stock  from  seed- 
time to  harvest,  and  the  strips  were  cultivated  for  the 
separate  use  of  individuals,  subject  to  the  compulsory 
cropping.  A  large  tenant,  apparently,  might  have  his 
own  plough,  with  a  team  of  eight  or  ten  oxen,  the 
majority  (each  owning,  perhaps,  not  more  than  one  or  two 
oxen)  would  combine  for  the  joint  use  of  a  plough.  On 
Lammas  Day  the  fences  were  removed,  and  the  live- 
stock wandered  over  all  the  arable  land  under  the  charge 
of  the  common  herdsman,  shepherd  or  swineherd.  The 
best  meadowland  was  annually  allotted  in  doles  and  put 
up  for  hay.  These  doles  were  fenced  off,  to  be  mown  for 
the  separate  use  of  individuals  from  Candlemas  or  St. 
Gregory's  Day  to  midsummer,  after  which  they  were 
common  pasturage.  On  the  waste  of  the  manor  the  stock 
of  the  community  grazed  in  common  at  all  times,  every 
occupier  of  land  in  the  open  field  having  his  right  of 
pasturage.  The  waste  also  provided  fern  and  heather 
for  htter,  bedding  or  thatch,  wood  for  hurdles,  turves 
for  fuel,  etc. 

On  the  outskirts  of  the  arable  fields  nearest  the  village 
lay  one  or  more  "  hams,"  or  stinted  pastures,  in  which  a 
fixed  number  of  stock  might  graze.  Brandersham, 
Smithsham,  Wontnersham,  Herdsham,  Tinker's  field, 
Sexton's  mead,  suggest  that  special  allotments  were 
sometimes  made  to  those  who  practised  trades  of  such 
general  importance  to  the  village  community  as  the 
stock-brander,  the  blacksmith,  the  mole-catcher,  the  cow- 
herd, the  tinker  and  the  sexton,  while  Parson's  close  and 
Parson's  acre  denote  a  similar  recognition  of  ecclesias- 
tical claims.^ 

This  brief  account  of  the  typical  manor  may  be  con- 
cluded with  a  sketch  of  one  of  the  many  which  were  in 
the  hands  of  the  Church.  The  village,  which  at  the  time 
of  Domesday  nestled  round  the  new  minster  just  com- 
'  "  English  Farming,  Past  and  Present,"  p.  26. 


6  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

pleted  by  Edward  the  Confessor  (now  known  as  West- 
minster), was  on  the  manor  of  an  abbot. 

It  consisted  of  25  houses  of  the  abbot's  immediate  followers, 
19  homesteads  of  villani,  42  cottagers  with  their  little  gardens, 
and  one  of  them  with  5  acres  of  land.  There  was  also  the 
larger  homestead  of  the  sub-manor  of  the  abbot's  under-tenant, 
with  a  single  cottage  and  a  vineyard  of  four  half-acres  newly 
planted.  There  was  meadow  enough  by  the  riverside  to  make 
hay  for  the  herd  of  oxen  belonging  to  the  dozen  plough-teams 
of  the  village,  and  pasture  for  them  and  other  cattle.  Further 
round  the  village  in  open  fields  were  about  1,000  acres  of  arable 
land  mostly  in  acre  strips,  lying  no  doubt  in  their  shots  or 
furlongs,  and  divided  by  green  turf  balks  and  field-ways. 
Lastly,  surrounding  the  whole  on  the  land  side  were  the  woods, 
where  the  swineherd  found  mast  for  the  200  pigs  of  the  place. ^ 

This  was  the  structure  of  English  rural  life,  which, 
except  for  a  gradual  tendency  to  commute  personal 
service  into  more  definite  and  less  irksome  forms  of  rent, 
and  a  tendency  also  to  relax  the  rigidity  of  the  bonds 
which  held  tenant  and  serf  alike  bound  to  the  manor, 
remained  practically  universal  and  unchanged  until  the 
fourteenth  century.  The  manor  was  not  only  the 
agricultural  unit,  self-contained  and  self-sufficient,  but 
also  the  social  unit  holding  the  community  together,  by 
economic  interests  as  well  as  by  semi-patriarchal  rules. 
But  while  the  power  of  the  lord  was  great,  his  authority 
was  not  altogether  despotic.  There  were  customs  of  the 
manor  which  regulated  and  circumscribed  his  rights, 
while  in  the  common  life  of  the  village,  the  community 
was,  subject  to  the  lord's  rights,  self-governing. 

In  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century  we  come  to 
the  "  great  watershed  of  English  economic  history  " — 
the  Black  Death  (1348-9),  which  destroyed  from  one- 
third  to  one-half  the  total  population.  It  was  no 
respecter  of  persons.  The  King's  daughter  was  a  victim, 
and  three  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  perished  in  the 
same  year. 

'  "  The  English  Village  Community,"  p.  98. 


FARMING  IN  OLDEN  TIMES.  7 

Persons  of  all  degrees  were  carried  off  .  .  .  servants  and 
labourers  working  on  the  demesne  ;  farmers  and  freemen 
paying  rent  only ;  freemen  bound  to  boon-works  in  addition 
to  their  money  payments ;  virgaters  and  cottiers  whose 
services  had  been  commuted  ;  others  whose  lords  had  ten- 
tatively introduced  the  new  fashion  of  money  payments  ;  and 
finally  yet  others  who  continued  to  perform  their  services  or 
some  of  them.^ 

The  economic  effects  of  this  catastrophe  were  immediate 
and  inevitable.  The  people  perished,  but  the  land 
remained,  and  it  had  to  be  cultivated  by  a  depleted 
population. 

Those  tenants  who  remained  on  the  manor  found  in  the 
landlord's  difficulty  their  opportunity  of  demanding  increased 
wages,  of  commuting  labour  services  for  money  payments,  of 
enlarging  the  size  of  their  holdings,  of  establishing  the  prin- 
ciple of  competitive  rents.  .  .  .  There  was  a  fall  in  rents  and 
a  rise  in  wages,  because  the  supply  of  land  exceeded  the 
demand,  and  the  demand  for  labour  was  greater  than  the 
supply.- 

The  Legislature,  not  for  the  first  or  last  time,  tried  to 
stem  the  economic  tide  with  Parliamentary  mops,  but 
the  effects  of  its  labours  were  transient.  There  were, 
indeed,  from  this  time  onward  innumerable  Acts  of 
Parliament  regulating  the  wages  of  labourers  and  their 
hours  of  work,  the  prices  of  corn  and  other  produce,  and 
the  channels  of  trade  therein,  forbidding  now  exports 
and  now  imports,  while  a  whole  array  of  enactments 
was  directed  against  the  machinations  of  dealers  in  corn, 
live-stock,  etc.  Even  the  depopulation  of  the  rural 
districts  (an  old  story)  was  legislated  against  in  various 
ways,  one  Act  of  Richard  II.  forbidding  those  who  had 
served  in  agriculture  until  twelve  years  of  age  to  be 
apprenticed  in  the  towns,  but  "  to  abide  in  husbandry." 
In  the  sixteenth,  as  in  the  twentieth  century,  the  undue 
slaughter  of  calves  attracted  attention,  and  a  statute  of 

1  Hasbach,  "  A  History  of  the  English  Agricultural  Labourer," 
p.  21. 

2  "  English  Farming,  Past  and  Present,"  p.  41. 


8  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

Henry  VI IL  forbade,  for  three  years,  the  killing  of  calves 
between  January  ist  and  May  ist,  because  so  many  had 
been  killed  by  "  covetous  persons."^  But  the  economic 
progress  of  English  agriculture  pursued  its  course,  and 
possibly  might  have  pursued  much  the  same  course  had 
the  Legislature  left  it  alone.  By  the  Black  Death  and 
by  recurrent  pestilences,  attended  by  bad  seasons,  the 
manorial  system,  as  a  semi-servile,  semi-communal 
organisation  for  cultivating  the  land  received  its  death- 
blow, though  it  was,  like  Charles  II.,  an  unconscionably 
long  time  a-dying,  and  its  outward  form  was  visible  over 
wide  areas  of  the  country  until  the  completion  of  the 
Inclosures,  in  the  early  part  of  last  century. 

From  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  to  the  latter  part 
of  the  sixteenth  century  were  troublous  times  for  the 
countryside.  In  1455  the  thirty  years'  War  of  the  Roses 
began,  and  even  allowing  for  the  view  that  the  bulk  of 
the  people  took  no  part  in  the  fighting,  it  seems  clear  that 
the  ravages  of  the  combatants,  in  the  days  when  the 
rule  of  war  was  to  live  on  the  country,  must  have  ruined 
many  an  agriculturist.  It  is  said  that  a  tenth  of  the 
whole  population  were  killed  in  battle  or  died  of  wounds 
or  disease  during  the  war.  Later,  the  dissolution  of  the 
monasteries  was  a  severe  blow  to  agriculture,  for,  by 
general  consent,  the  monks  were  good  landlords  and 
farmers.  But  the  main  cause  of  tribulation  was  the 
wholesale  inclosure  and  conversion  of  arable  land  to 
grass. 

On  the  subject  of  inclosure  there  is  a  whole  library 
of  literature — most  of  it  polemical.  It  is  hardly  necessary 
to  say  that  inclosure — in  the  sense  of  apportioning  the 
land  in  compact  holdings  for  exclusive  occupation — is 
inevitable  in  all  settled  countries  if  agriculture  is  to  be 
pursued  as  a  commercial  undertaking.  The  old  communal 
cultivation  was  possible  only  to  a  self-contained  com- 
munity which  mainly  aimed  at  growing  sufficient  for  its 
1  Curtler,  "  Short  History  of  English  Agriculture,"  p.  86. 


FARMING  IN   OLDEN  TIMES.  9 

own  requirements.  Under  the  manorial  system  crops  of 
three  or  four  fold  the  seed  ^  might  and  did  suffice,  the 
object  being  not  to  grow  for  a  market  (which,  indeed, 
scarcely  existed),  but  only  to  feed  the  resident  popu- 
lation. But  from  an  economic  point  of  view,  such  results 
for  the  labour  expended  were  obviously  unremunerative. 
The  social  revolution  of  the  Black  Death  practically 
synchronised  with  the  beginning  of  a  general  impulse 
towards  the  exploitation  of  the  land  on  a  commercial 
basis.  Unfortunately  for  the  social  welfare,  two  causes 
combined  to  direct  the  movement  in  a  direction  which  was 
disastrous  to  the  countryside.  These  were  the  scarcity 
of  labour — caused  by  the  sudden  death  of  an  enormous 
proportion  of  the  tillers  of  the  soil — and  the  demand  for 
English  wool. 

Wool  was  the  chief  source  of  the  wealth  of  the  traders  and 
of  the  revenues  of  the  Crown.  It  controlled  the  foreign  policy 
of  England,  supplied  the  sinews  of  our  wars,  built  and  adorned 
our  churches  and  private  houses.  The  foreign  trade  con- 
sisted partly  in  raw  material,  partly  in  semi-manufactured 
exports  such  as  worsted  yarns,  partly  in  wholly  manufactured 
broadcloth.  ...  In  long-wool,  or  combing  wool,  England 
had  practically  a  monopoly  of  the  markets,  and  to  it  the  export 
trade  of  the  raw  material  was  almost  exclusively  confined. 
Short  wool,  on  the  other  hand,  was  used  for  broadcloth.  .  .  . 
In  the  long-wooUed  class  Cotswold  wool  held  the  supremacy, 
with  Cirencester  as  its  centre,  though  the  "  lustres  "  of  Lincoln- 
shire always  commanded  their  price.  Among  short-wools 
Ryeland  had  the  pre-eminence,  with  Leominster  as  the  centre 
of  its  trade. 2 

When,  therefore,  farming  for  profit,  as  distinguished 
from  farming  for  subsistence,  began,  it  was  natural  that 
landowners  should  turn  to  sheep.  And,  as  in  those 
days,  long  before  the  turnip  was  introduced,  sheep  meant 
pasture,  the  old  arable  common  fields  were  in  many 
cases  inclosed  and  turned  to  grass,  and  the  busy  com- 
munities subsisting  upon  them  were  replaced  by  a  few 

^  "  History  of  Agriculture  and  Prices,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  51. 
2  "  English  Farming,  Past  and  Present,"  pp.  80,  81. 


10 


AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 


shepherds.  This,  of  course,  was  not  done  without 
strenuous  opposition,  and  the  common-field  farmers 
were  in  a  strong  position  to  resist,  and  frequently  did 
so  successfully.  Innumerable  laws  were  passed  to  restrain 
the  movement  and  mitigate  its  evils.  But  the  statute- 
book  is  a  very  imperfect  history  of  actual  events.  There 
is  even  in  these  days  a  difference  between  the  law  and 
its  administration,  and  we  may  be  quite  sure  that  in  the 
fifteenth  or  sixteenth  centuries  law-breakers  and  law- 
evaders  had  even  greater  immunity  than  in  the  twentieth. 
Of  the  progress  of  inclosure  since  1700  we  have  an 
imperfect  record  in  the  Inclosure  Acts  passed  since  that 
date.  The  area  dealt  with  in  them  can  only  be  estimated, 
but,  according  to  the  calculations  of  a  recent  writer,  the 
extent  of  common-field — i.e.,  arable — ^land  inclosed  under 
them  was  nearly  4,500,000  acres. ^  From  a  still  more 
recent  writer  ^  I  take  the  following  figures,  showing  the 
percentage  of  the  total  area  of  each  county  inclosed  by 
Act  of  Parliament  up  to  1870.  (Both  common  field  and 
waste  are  included  in  these  figures.) 

Bedford      .  .  .44-1  Middlesex  .  .  .  26*7 

Berkshire    .  .  .      34"  i  Norfolk      .  .  .  26' i 

Bucks          .  .  •      35'8  Northumberland  .  12  "5 

Cambridge.  .  .      38-4  Notts          .  .  .  32-0 

Cheshire      .  .  .         3*4  Northampton  .  .  54*3 

Cornwall     .  .  .        o-8  Oxford       .  .  .  43*8 

Cumberland  .  .      23-9  Rutland     .  .  .  46*4 

Derby         .  .  .21*3  Salop          .  .  .  6"4 

Devon         .  .  .         1-7  Somerset   .  .  .  12-7 

Dorset         .  .  .       I3'3  Stafford     .  .  .  i2'4 

Durham      .  .  .       i7"8  Suffolk       .  .  .  6*i 

Essex          .  .  .         3'i  Surrey        .  .  .  lo'i 

Gloucester .  .  .       i8"7  Sussex        .  .  .  3"6 

Hants  .  .  .       ii*i  Warwick    .  .  .25-2 

Hereford     .  .  .        4*8  Westmorland  .  .  i6'3 

Herts           .  .  .       15-2  Wilts          .  .  .  26-2 

Hunts         .  .  .      55-8  Worcester  .  .  i8-i 

Kent.          .  .  .0-5  York,  E.R.  .  .  38-3 

Lancashire.  .  .        5*7              ,,       W.R.  .  .  24*2 

Leicester     .  .  .      47*9              ,,       N.R.  .  .  16-3 

Lincoln       .  .  .37-1 

'  Slater,  "  The  English  Peasantry  and  the  Inclosure  of  Common 
Fields,"  pp.  140  et  seq. 

2  Conner,  "  Common  Land  and  Inclosure,"  p.  279. 


FARMING   IN   OLDEN  TIMES.  ii 

These  calculations,  as  already  stated,  cannot  be  more 
than  approximate,  but  they  show  that  the  extent  of 
Parliamentary  inclosure  accounts  in  no  county  for  much 
more  than  half  its  area,  and  in  some  counties  for  a  very 
small  proportion.  The  extent  of  land  now  remaining 
uninclosed — i.e.,  subject  to  rights  of  commons — in 
England  and  Wales  is  not  known  with  any  degree  of 
accuracy,  but  it  is  only  a  small  proportion  of  the  whole 
area  of  the  country.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  a 
much  larger  area  must  have  been  inclosed  prior  to  the 
date — about  1700 — when  Parliamentary  sanction  became 
necessary,  than  since  that  time.  It  is  probable  that 
greater  hardships  were  endured  and  greater  injustice  done 
by  the  earlier  inclosures,  but  men  were  then  less  articulate 
and  their  woes  are  farther  removed  from  us.  It  is  about 
the  inclosures  of  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  the 
beginning  of  the  nineteenth  centuries  that  the  fiercest 
controversy  arose.  It  may  be  observed  that  the  great 
inclosure  movement,  which  set  in  about  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  synchronised  with  the  period  in  which 
other  influences  were  at  work,  which,  taken  together, 
revolutionised  English  farming  and,  to  put  it  shortly, 
established  modern  agriculture. 

Before  jumping  from  Tudor  to  Hanoverian  times 
allusion  may  be  made  to  the  two  authors  who  in  the 
sixteenth  century  formed  the  vanguard  of  the  long  array 
of  agricultural  writers.  In  the  thirteenth  century  Walter 
of  Henley  was  their  forerunner,  but  Fitzherbert's  "  Book 
of  Surveying  "  and  "  Book  of  Husbandry,"  both  first 
printed  in  1523,^  and  Tusser's  "  Five  Hundreth  Pointes 
of  Good  Husbandrie  "  (1573)  niay  fairly  be  regarded  as 
the  beginning  of  English  agricultural  literature.  Tusser's 
doggerel  rhymes  were  very  popular,   and  form   a  rich 

'  There  were  two  Fitzherberts — brothers — and  the  authorship 
has  been  variously  ascribed  to  both,  but  it  seems  now  to  be 
attributed  to  John  Fitzherbert  (see  "  English  Farming,  Past  and 
Present,"  p.  90). 


12  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

storehouse  of  proverbial  wisdom  and  of  information 
respecting  the  rural  life,  domestic  economy  and  agricul- 
tural practices  of  our  Elizabethan  ancestors.  He  appears 
to  have  been  a  versatile  but  not  altogether  a  successful 
man,  as  is  suggested  by  the  following  lines  pubhshed  in 
1608  :— 

Tusser,  they  tell  me,  when  thou  wert  alive, 
Thou,  teaching  thrift,  thyself  couldst  never  thrive  ; 
So,  like  the  whetstone,  many  men  are  wont 
To  sharpen  others  when  themselves  are  blunt. 

He  had  a  reputation  for  piety,  but  his  standard  of  com- 
mercial morality  might  have  been  higher  if,  as  I  gather, 
he  recommended  that  measled  pigs  should  be  killed, 
salted  and  shipped  to  the  Flemings. ^ 

The  foundations  of  modern  farm  practice  were  laid,  as 
has  been  said,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and  Jethro  Tull's 
"  Horse-hoeing  Husbandry,"  pubhshed  in  1733,  may  be 
said  to  be  the  corner-stone.  Born  in  1674,  at  Basildon, 
he  farmed  first  at  Crowmarsh,  then  at  Shalbourn,  where 
he  died  in  1740.  He  invented  the  first  practicable  drill, 
but  his  many  mechanical  inventions  were  less  valuable 
than  the  reasons  which  he  gave  for  their  employment. 
The  main  principles  he  inculcated  were  clean  farming, 
economy  in  seeding,  drilling,  and  thorough  cultivation. 
His  principles  were  put  in  practice  by  large  landowners, 
such  as  Lord  Townshend,  Lord  Ducie,  Lord  Hahfax  and 
Lord  Cathcart.  To  "  Turnip "  Townshend,  who  was 
born  in  the  same  year  as  TuU,  more  perhaps  than  to  any, 
is  due  the  credit  for  vigorous  and  enlightened  apphcation 
of  TuU's  principles,  on  which  he  estabhshed  the  Norfolk, 
or  four-course,  system  of  cropping. 

The  turnip  and  the  four-course  system  not  only  intro- 
duced a  new  era  for  arable  farming,  but  opened  up  the 
way  for  the  improvement  of  live-stock.  There  was  ample 
need  for  it.  Some  attention  had  been  given  to  the  pro- 
duction of  wool,  but  from  the  grazier's  point  of  view  sheep 
*  "  History  of  Agriculture  and  Prices,"  Vol.  IV.,  p.  56. 


FARMING  IN  OLDEN  TIMES.  13 

had  been  neglected.  If  any  care  was  shown  in  the 
selection  of  rams  and  ewes  the  choice  was  guided  by 
fanciful  points,  which  possessed  no  practical  value.  For 
cattle  no  standard  of  shape  existed,  size  being  the  only 
criterion  of  merit.  A  writer  in  the  early  part  of  the 
eighteenth  century  divided  the  cattle  of  England  into 
three  sorts — black,  white  and  red,  but  almost  every  county 
had  its  local  variety.  Some  attention  was  paid  to  milking 
qualities,  and  still  more  to  capacity  for  draught,  but 
propensity  to  fatten  was  disregarded.  Then  came  Robert 
Bakewell — born  in  1725,  and  succeeding  to  his  father's 
farm  at  Dishley  in  1760 — and  by  his  extraordinary  talent 
established  the  principles  on  which  British  stock-breeders 
have  developed  the  breeds  which  have  made  this  country 
the  "  stud-farm  of  the  world."  His  system  of  breeding — 
secretive  as  he  was  about  his  methods — speedily  spread, 
and  in  the  hands  of  the  Culleys  and  the  Collings,  of  John 
Ellman,  and  other  pioneers,  the  example  of  Bakewell  was 
bettered.  The  Dishley  Leicesters  spread  throughout  the 
country,  and  most  of  our  present  breeds  of  sheep  bear 
their  impress,  but  Bakewell's  Longhorns  were  soon 
supplanted  by  the  Shorthorns.  In  other  districts  disciples 
of  Bakewell  applied  his  principles  to  the  improvement  of 
local  breeds.  Throughout  the  land  a  new  spirit  spread 
among  farmers.  Already,  not  only  among  progressive 
landowners,  bjat  among  their  tenants,  men  arose  who  were 
able  to  apply  intelhgence,  judgment  and  ability  to  the 
cultivation  of  the  soil  and  the  breeding  and  feeding  of 
stock.  The  daily  life  of  a  farmer  in  the  early  part  of  the 
seventeenth  century  was  epitomised  by  Gervase  Markham 
thus  ; — 

He  is  to  rise  at  four  in  the  morning,  feed  his  cattle,  and  clean 
his  stable.  While  they  are  feeding  he  is  to  get  his  harness 
ready,  which  will  take  him  two  hours.  Then  he  is  to  have  his 
breakfast,  for  which  half  an  hour  is  allowed.  Getting  the 
harness  on  his  horses  or  cattle,  he  is  to  start  by  seven  to  his 
work  and  keep  at  it  till  between  two  and  three  in  the  afternoon. 
Then  he  shall  bring  his  team  home,  clean  them  and  give  them 


14  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

their  food,  dine  himself,  and  at  four  go  back  to  his  cattle  and 
give  them  more  fodder,  and  getting  into  his  barn  make  ready 
their  food  for  next  day,  not  forgetting  to  see  them  again 
before  going  to  his  own  supper  at  six.  After  supper  he  is  to 
mend  his  shoes  by  the  fireside  for  himself  and  his  family,  or 
beat  and  knock  hemp  and  flax,  or  pitch  and  stamp  apples  or 
crabs  for  cider  or  verjuice,  or  else  grind  malt,  pick  candle- 
rushes,  or  "  do  some  husbandry  office  within  doors  till  it  befall 
eight  o'clock."  Then  he  shall  take  his  lantern,  visit  his  cattle 
once  more,  and  go  with  all  his  household  to  rest. 

There  had  been  little  change  among  the  rank  and  file 
of  farmers  until  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
Farmers  then  lived,  thought  and  farmed  like  farmers 
of  the  thirteenth  century.  They  were  suspicious  of  new 
methods  and  distrusted  a  young  man  who  disobeyed 
the  saws  and  maxims  of  their  forefathers.  Farmers  like 
Bakewell  began  to  impress  them  with  the  possibility  that 
"  new-fangled  notions  "  might  have  some  good  in  them, 
and  great  landowners  began  to  devote  themselves  to 
agricultural  education  in  its  practical  sense.  Coke  of 
Holkham  was  the  most  influential  of  these  teachers,  and 
his  annual  sheep  shearings  provided  the  earliest  course 
of  agricultural  instruction.  Nor  was  the  written  word 
wanting.  Arthur  Young  and  Marshall  spread  the  light 
far  and  wide,  and  their  descriptions  of  what  was  done  by 
the  more  progressive  farmers  appealed  even  more  forcibly 
than  their  injunctions  of  what  should  be  done.  The 
new  race  of  farmers  were  better  educated,  and  more 
enterprising  than  their  predecessors.  Holdings  became 
larger  and  offered  greater  scope  for  energy  and  experi- 
ment. Of  the  Lincolnshire  farmers  Arthur  Young,  who 
was  not  addicted  to  needless  compliment,  wrote  in 
1799  :— 

Industrious,  active,  enlightened,  free  from  all  foolish  and 
expensive  show.  .  .  ,  They  live  comfortably  and  hospitably, 
as  good  farmers  ought  to  live  ;  and,  in  my  opinion,  are 
remarkably  free  from  those  rooted  prejudices  which  sometimes 
are  reasonably  objected  to  this  race  of  men. 


FARMING   IN   OLDEN  TIMES.  15 

As  enterprise,  capital  and  ability  were  applied  to 
farming,  and  as  the  art  and  practice  of  the  cultivation 
of  the  soil  and  the  management  of  stock  were  improved, 
so  agriculture  became  organised  more  and  more  on 
commercial  lines.  The  stimulus  came  from  without. 
A  hungry  people  required  food,  and  looked  to  the  land 
of  their  own  country  to  supply  it.  Population,  which 
had  increased  slowly  and  irregularly,  began  to  multiply 
with  unprecedented  rapidity.  Under  any  circumstances 
reliance  on  extraneous  supplies  was  practically  impossible, 
for  other  countries  had  little  surplus  for  export  except 
in  specially  plentiful  years,  and  as  supplies  came  chiefly 
from  Northern  and  Western  Europe  a  surplus  abroad  was 
most  likely  to  coincide  with  a  good  harvest  at  home,  and 
vice  versa.  During  the  long  warfare  with  Napoleon  the 
chance  of  supplies  coming  from  abroad  was  still  further 
reduced.  Notwithstanding  the  progress  of  agriculture  and 
the  greatly  increased  productivity  of  the  land,  wheat 
rose  to  famine  prices,  the  average  per  quarter  during  the 
ten  years  1805-14  being  93s. 

Under  the  stimulus  of  insistent  demand  landowners 
and  farmers  were  spurred  to  expend  capital  on  extending 
the  cultivated  area  and  increasing  its  productiveness. 
Much  pasture  was  ploughed  up  to  grow  wheat,  and  land 
which  might  never  have  been  brought  into  cultivation 
was  "  forced  into  productiveness  by  the  sheer  weight  of 
the  metal  that  was  poured  into  it."  Money  made  by 
farming  was  eagerly  invested  in  the  improvement  of 
land.  Wastes  were  brought  under  cultivation,  large 
areas  were  cleared  of  stones  to  give  an  arable  surface, 
heaths  were  cleared,  bogs  drained,  buildings  erected, 
roads  constructed.  War  prices,  therefore,  did  more 
than  enrich  the  agriculturist ;  they  led  to  much  permanent 
improvement  of  the  land.  When  the  crash  came,  as  it 
did  with  startling  suddenness  in  1814-16,  widespread 
ruin  overtook  the  agriculturists,  but  their  work  to  a 
large  degree  remained,  though  much  of  the  land  which 


i6  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

had  lately  been  so  profitable  became  for  a  time  derelict. 
For  twenty-five  years  the  depression  continued.  Distress 
was  general,  and  fell  with  great  severity  on  the  labouring 
classes,  who  were  goaded  to  riot  and  revolt  in  town  and 
country  alike.  The  Luddites  broke  up  machinery,  while 
gangs  of  rural  labourers  destroyed  threshing  machines, 
or  avenged  their  grievances  against  farmers  by  burning 
farmhouses  and  ricks,  or  wrecking  the  shops  of  butchers 
and  bakers.  In  the  riots  of  1830-31,  agrarian  fires  blazed 
from  Dorsetshire  to  Lincolnshire.  This  revolt  of  the 
labourers — "  the  event  which  never  happened  at  all — 
the  English  Revolution  on  the  lines  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion," as  a  recent  writer  paradoxically  describes  it,^  was, 
like  the  French  Revolution,  though  in  a  less  degree,  the 
culmination  of  a  period  of  misery.  Through  times  of 
agricultural  prosperity  and  adversity  alike  the  labourers 
had  suffered.  High  prices  had  not  benefited  them,  and 
low,  or  comparatively  low,  prices  had  brought  them  no 
relief.  The  causes  were  complex.  Some  historians  seem 
to  attribute  all  the  woes  of  the  poor  to  the  callousness 
and  brutality  of  the  ruling  classes.  If  this  were  so  it  is 
difficult  to  explain — except  on  the  hypothesis  of  cruel 
hypocrisy — the  immense  amount  of  inquiry  and  discus- 
sion, the  innumerable  schemes  for  the  alleviation  of  the 
distress,  which  fill  the  proceedings  of  Parliament  and  the 
literature  of  the  time.  It  seems  more  reasonable  to 
believe  that  attempts  to  deal  with  the  distress  were 
well-intentioned,  but  mistaken.  Unfortunately,  good 
intentions,  though  they  may,  as  the  old  saying  has  it, 
be  adapted  for  road  material,  are  an  inadequate  equipment 
for  social  reformers.  No  single  cause,  perhaps,  was 
more  potent  in  demoralising  and  pauperising  the  poor 
than  the  Speenhamland  system,  the  outcome  of  a  meeting 
of  magistrates  in  1795,  which  started  with  a  resolution 
"  that  the  present  state  of  the  poor  does  require  further 
assistance  than  has  generally  been  given  them,"  and 
*  Chesterton,  "  The  Victorian  Age  in  Literature,"  p.  17. 


FARMING  IN   OLDEN  TIMES.  17 

"  very  earnestly  recommended  to  the  farmers  and  others 
throughout  the  country  to  increase  the  pay  of  their 
labourers  in  proportion  to  the  present  price  of  provisions."  ^ 
The  scheme  adopted  was  in  fact  devised  to  provide  for 
every  agricultural  labourer  a  living  or  minimum  wage, 
an  allowance  in  supplement  of  earnings  being  given  in 
proportion  to  the  price  of  bread.  The  object  was  laud- 
able ;  the  scheme,  on  paper,  plausible  ;  the  results  may 
be  found  recorded  in  all  their  horror  in  the  Report  of 
the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  of  1834.  The  revolt  of 
1830,  while  largely  attributable  to  this  and  other  long- 
continued  causes,  found  its  immediate  incentive  in  the 
antagonism  to  labour-saving  machinery. 

The  destruction  of  machinery  was  to  be  a  prominent  feature 
of  this  social  war.  This  was  not  merely  an  instinct  of  violence  ; 
there  was  method  and  reason  in  it.  Threshing  was  one  of  the 
few  kinds  of  work  left  that  provided  the  labourer  with  a  means 
of  existence  above  starvation  level. ^ 

The  revolt  was  suppressed  with  the  severity  of  an  age 
when  flogging  was  regarded  as  necessary  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  discipline,  and  hanging  was  the  penalty  for  almost 
any  serious  crime.  But  reform  followed  quickly.  The  new 
Poor  Law  of  1834  struck  at  the  root  of  the  evil.  It  could 
not  undo  the  past  or  remove  the  consequences  of  a 
disastrous  policy — the  effects  of  which  scar  the  country- 
side still — but,  at  any  rate,  it  lifted  an  incubus  which  was 
crushing  farmer  and  labourer  alike,  and  assisted  agri- 
culture to  recover  from  the  long-drawn  depression.  The 
Tithe  Commutation  Act  of  1836  removed  another  obstacle 
to  farming  progress  by  abolishing  almost  the  last  relic 
of  the  old  payment-in-kind  system. 

Perhaps  the  most  significant  and  far-reaching  effect  of 

this  long  period  of  agricultural  depression  was  the  decline 

of  the  yeoman  or  small  freeholder  class.     This  is  commonly 

,  attributed  to  inclosure,  but  it  may  plausibly  be  regarded 

as  the  result  of  the  bad  times. 

1  Hammond,  "  The  Village  Labourer,"  1 760-1832,  p.  162. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  245. 

*        A.F.  C 


i8  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

The  conclusion  to  which  all  evidence  that  we  have  points  is, 
that  during  the  period  1785  to  1802  there  was  an  increase 
rather  than  a  decrease  of  the  yeomen  proper.  .  .  .  When  we 
pass  to  the  next  period — that  is,  from  1802  to  1832 — there  is 
a  different  tale  to  tell.^ 

This  class  had  been  for  generations  the  backbone  of 
rural  England,  and  their  political  influence,  based  on 
their  sturdy  independence  and  self-respect,  was  great. 
On  them  fell  the  main  burden  of  those  public  duties  the 
cheerful  fulfilment  of  which  forms  the  secret  of  that 
genius  for  self-government  which  is  the  pride  of  the  race. 
From  them  Hampden  and  Cromwell  drew  their  power. 

Compared  with  the  bulk  of  the  population  they  were  a 
privileged  class,  and  stood  by  their  own  ;  it  was  they  who 
restored  the  franchise  to  the  40s.  freeholders  in  1654,  and 
refused  to  extend  it  to  the  copyholders.  But  the  tenure  of 
much  of  the  land  of  England  by  men  with  whom,  however 
poor,  no  landlord  or  employer  could  interfere,  set  a  limit  to  the 
power  of  wealth,  and  made  rural  society  at  once  more  alert 
and  more  stubborn,  a  field  where  great  ideas  could  grow  and 
great  causes  find  adherents.^ 

There  is  general  agreement  that  there  was  at  one  time 
a  very  considerable  proportion  of  the  land  occupied  by 
men  who  owned  the  land  they  cultivated,  although  it 
seems  clear  that  the  "  yeomen  of  England  "  included 
large  numbers  who  were  not  freeholders,  but  held  by 
different  forms  of  tenure — as,  for  example,  leases  for 
lives  and  copyhold — which  were,  as  regards  security  of 
individual  possession  during  lifetime,  almost  equivalent 
to  freehold.  There  is  no  sufficient  evidence  to  show  what 
proportion  they  bore  to  the  total  number  of  cultivators 
of  the  soil.  It  appears  however,  that  there  was  a  shrink- 
ing in  the  number  of  the  smaller  owners  somewhere  between 
the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century  and  the  year 
1785,  and  again  during  tl  <  period  of  depression  at  the 

1  Johnson,   "  The   Disappearance   of  the   Small   Landowner," 
p.  144. 

2  Tawney,  "  The  Agrarian  Problem  in  the  Sixteenth  Century," 

P-  39- 


FARMING   IN   OLDEN   TIMES.  19 

beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century.  In  any  case,  we 
know  that  in  1912  only  13  per  cent,  of  the  agricultural 
holdings  of  England  and  Wales  were  owned  by  their 
occupiers,  a  proportion  which  is  probably  very  much  less 
than  it  was  a  century  ago. 

In  the  "thirties,"  at  the  beginning  of  what  we  have 
come  to  term  the  "  Victorian  age,"  rural  England  re- 
covered from  its  depression,  shook  itself  free  from  ancient 
shackles,  and  began  to  feel  the  full  impulse  of  the  modern 
spirit. 

There  are  proofs  on  all  sides  (wrote  Philip  Pusey  in  1839,  in 
the  opening  paper  of  the  Journal  of  the  Royal  Agricultural 
Society) ,  whether  in  the  local  societies  which  are  springing  up 
in  every  country,  in  the  farmers'  clubs  which  are  being  formed, 
the  new  machines  which  are  invented,  new  manures,  and  new 
varieties  of  seed  which  are  announced — above  all,  and  prac- 
tically, in  the  improving  face  of  the  country,  which  show  that 
the  British  farmer  is  not  liable  to  the  charge  of  being  blindly 
attached  to  ancient  practice,  but  is  ready,  with  the  caution, 
however,  which  befits  a  man  whose  livelihood  is  in  agriculture, 
as  well  as  his  pleasure,  to  adopt  improvements  in  his  art,  and 
even  to  seek  for  them — that  the  spirit  of  inquiry  is  afloat.^ 

The  reign  of  Queen  Victoria  began  in  the  midst  of  a 
transition  stage  from  one  state  of  social  and  industrial 
development  to  another. 

Roughly  speaking,  the  first  thirty-seven  years  of  the  new 
reign  formed  an  era  of  advancing  prosperity  and  progress,  of 
rising  rents  and  profits,  of  the  rapid  multiplication  of  fer- 
tilising agencies,  of  an  expanding  area  of  corn  cultivation,  of 
more  numerous,  better-bred,  better-fed,  better-housed  stock, 
of  varied  improvements  in  every  kind  of  implements  and 
machinery,  of  growing  expenditure  on  the  making  of  the  land 
by  drainage,  the  construction  of  roads,  the  erection  of  farm 
buildings,  and  the  division  into  fields  of  convenient  size.  So 
far  as  the  standard  of  the  highest  farming  is  concerned, 
agriculture  has  made  but  little  advance  since  the  "  fifties."  2 

Some  years  ago  ^  I  laid  before  the  Farmers'  Club  a 

'  "  On   the   Present   State   of  the   Science   of   Agriculture   in 
England,"  Journal  R.A.S.E.,  Vol.  I.,  1839,  p.  21. 
2  "  English  Farming,  Past  and  Present,"  p.  346. 
^  See  "  Agriculture  under  Free  Trade,"  p.  21, 

C  2 


20  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

brief  sketch  of  the  progress  of  British  agriculture  during 
the  fifty  years  1846-96,  and  I  will  not  attempt  to  go  over 
the  same  ground  again.  It  was  a  period  starting  with  the 
most  gloomy  forebodings,  for  the  Repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws 
was  commonly  believed  to  be  the  end  of  all  things  agri- 
cultural. In  looking  back  we  can  see  that  it  was  an 
event  which  falsified  the  predictions  both  of  those  who 
supported  and  those  who  opposed  it,  for  it  neither  ruined 
agriculture  nor  immediately  reduced  the  price  of  wheat. 
The  real  blow  to  agriculture  came  not  by  legislation,  but 
by  the  resistless  march  of  the  world's  progress — the 
steamship,  the  railway,  the  refrigerating  chamber — 
which  abolished  for  many  of  his  products  the  preferential 
advantage,  which  the  British  farmer  had  up  to  the 
"  seventies,"  of  proximity  to  his  markets.  And  the 
period  closed,  in  the  mid-  "  nineties,"  in  depression 
almost  as  deep  as  that  which  marked  the  "  twenties." 
Since  then  the  tune  of  British  agriculture  has  been 
pitched  in  a  lower  key.  We  have  heard  no  more  of 
"  high  farming,"  the  flow  of  capital  into  the  land  has  been 
reduced,  the  fine  fervour  of  improvement  has  been 
moderated,  and  farmers  have  adopted,  so  far  as  possible 
in  the  conduct  of  their  business,  the  motto  of  "  small 
profits  and  quick  returns."  No  farmer  can  read  the 
story  of  the  last  three-quarters  of  a  century  without  a 
feeling  of  pride.  On  the  whole,  it  forms  the  best  vindica- 
tion of  the  farming  class  against  the  aspersions  some- 
times made  upon  them,  for  it  demonstrates  the  enter- 
prise, the  intelligence,  the  technical  skill,  and  the  pluck 
with  which  British  farmers  have  made  the  most  of  good 
times  and  the  best  of  bad  ones. 


S   DEDMf 

CHAPTER    II. 

AGRICULTURE  UNDER  FREE   TRADE,   1846-96.1 

The  Repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  was  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant events  recorded  in  the  history  of  British  agriculture. 
In  the  full  sense  of  the  term  it  marked  an  epoch,  and  the 
year  1846,  in  which  it  occurred,  forms  a  dividing  line  on  this 
side  of  which  a  new  set  of  conditions  arose  which  diffe- 
rentiate the  subsequent  period  from  certain  periods,  and 
may  be  said  to  have  permeated  the  whole  of  the  rural 
economy  of  these  islands  since  that  day. 

The  famous  Corn  Importation  Act  (9  &  10  Vict.  c.  22), 
introduced  by  Sir  Robert  Peel,  received  the  Royal  Assent 
on  June  26th,  1846,  and  it  is  from  that  memorable  day 
that  the  period  of  Free  Trade  is  commonly  dated.  It  is 
true  that  Sir  Robert  Peel's  Act  contained  provisions  which 
continued  a  duty  on  imported  wheat  ranging  from  4s.  to 
los.  per  quarter,  according  to  price,  until  February  ist, 
1849,  and  that  for  twenty  years  afterwards  a  duty  of  is. 
per  quarter  was  imposed,  but  substantially,  of  course,  it 
is  correct  to  say  that  the  Corn  Laws  were  repealed  in 
June,  1846.     But  what  were  the  Corn  Laws  ? 

For  centuries  the  regulations  with  respect  to  the  corn 
trade  were  principally  intended  to  promote  abundance 
and  low  prices.  From  the  Norman  Conquest  down  to  the 
reign  of  Henry  VI.  the  exportation  of  corn  was  prohibited, 
and  its  importation  was  substantially  free.  The  first  record 
of  the  importation  of  com  which  I  have  found  was  in 
1347  i  exportation  had  in  early  days  been  common,  and 
Britain  was  during  the  Roman  occupation  "  one  of  the 
great  corn-exporting  countries  of  the  world  "  (J.  R.  Green). 

*  Read  before  the  Farmers'  Club,  December,  1897. 


22  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

In  1436  an  Act  was  passed  authorising  the  exportation  of 
wheat  whenever  the  home  price  did  not  exceed  6s.  8d.  per 
quarter,  and  of  barley  when  the  price  did  not  exceed 
2s.  4d.  In  1463  the  importation  of  corn  was  prohibited 
until  the  price  exceeded  that  at  which  exportation  ceased. 
These  enactments  continued  in  force  until  1562,  when  the 
prices  at  which  exportation  was  allowed  were  extended, 
and  in  1570  a  new  principle  was  introduced,  viz.,  that  of 
imposing  a  duty  on  the  exportation  of  corn.  During  the 
following  100  years  various  minor  alterations  were  made, 
and  in  1670  the  exportation  price  was  raised  to  53s.  4^.  per 
quarter  for  wheat  and  other  grain  in  proportion,  and  at 
the  same  time  a  duty  of  16s.  per  quarter  was  imposed  on 
the  importation  of  wheat  until  the  price  rose  to  53s.  4d.,  a 
duty  of  8s.  between  that  price  and  80s.,  and  poundage 
of  4.d.  when  the  price  exceeded  80s. 

At  the  accession  of  William  III.  (1689)  another  new 
system  was  adopted  by  the  grant  of  a  bounty  of  5s.  on 
every  quarter  of  wheat  exported  when  the  price  was  not 
above  48s.,  and  on  oats,  barley  and  rye  proportionately. 
This  combined  system  of  duties  on  imports  and  bounties 
on  exports  under  the  Acts  of  1670  and  1689  continued, 
except  for  temporary  suspensions  and  modifications  for 
short  periods,  for  nearly  a  century.  In  1774  an  Act  was 
passed  which  stated  that  the  several  Acts  heretofore  made 
concerning  the  duties  and  bounties  on  the  importation  and 
exportation  of  corn  had  greatly  tended  to  the  advance- 
ment of  tillage  and  navigation  ;  yet,  nevertheless,  it 
having  been  of  late  years  found  necessary,  on  account  of 
the  small  quantity  of  corn  in  hand  and  of  the  shortness 
of  the  crops,  to  suspend  the  operation  of  these  laws  by 
temporary  measures,  it  was  desirable  that  a  permanent 
law  should  be  passed,  to  render  such  temporary  expedients 
unnecessary.  This  Act  permitted  wheat  to  be  imported 
at  a  nominal  duty  of  6d.  per  quarter,  whenever  the  price 
reached  48s.  Exportation  was  forbidden  unless  the  price 
was  below  44s.,  and  then  a  bounty  of  5s.  per  quarter  was 


AGRICULTURE   UNDER  FREE  TRADE,    1846-96.    23 

granted  on  exports  in  British  ships.     There  were  corre- 
sponding duties  and  bounties  for  other  corn. 

I  digress  for  a  moment  to  notice  a  branch  of  the  Com 
Laws  which,  though  somewhat  outside  our  immediate 
object,  is  not  without  interest,  and  to  do  so  I  quote  from 
McCuUoch's  "  Commercial  Dictionary." 

Besides  attempting  to  lower  prices  by  prohibiting  exporta- 
tion, our  ancestors  attempted  to  lower  them  by  proscribing  the 
trade  carried  on  by  corn  dealers.  This  most  useful  class  of 
persons  were  looked  upon  with  suspicion  by  everyone.  The 
agriculturists  concluded  that  they  would  be  able  to  sell  their 
produce  at  higher  prices  to  the  consumers  were  the  corn  dealers 
out  of  the  way,  while  the  consumers  concluded  that  the  profits 
of  the  dealers  were  made  at  their  expense  ;  and  ascribed  the 
dearths,  that  were  then  very  prevalent,  entirely  to  the  practices 
of  the  dealers,  or  to  their  buying  up  corn  and  withholding  it  from 
market.  These  notions,  which  have  still  a  considerable  degree 
of  influence,  led  to  various  enactments,  particularly  in  the 
reign  of  Edward  VL,  by  which  the  freedom  of  the  internal  corn 
trade  was  entirely  suppressed.  The  "  engrossing  "  of  corn,  or 
the  buying  of  it  in  one  market  with  intent  to  sell  it  again  in 
another,  was  made  an  offence  punishable  by  imprisonment  and 
the  pillory  ;  and  no  one  was  allowed  to  carry  corn  from  one 
part  to  another  without  a  licence,  the  privilege  of  granting 
which  was  confided  by  a  statute  of  Elizabeth  to  the  quarter 
sessions. 

These  laws  were  considerably  modified  in  1624,  and  in 
1663  the  "  engrossing  "  of  corn  was  declared  to  be  legal  as 
long  as  the  price  did  not  exceed  48s,  per  quarter.  In  1773 
the  last  remnant  of  the  statutory  enactments  restraining 
the  freedom  of  com  dealers  was  repealed,  but  notwith- 
standing this  the  "  engrossing  "  of  corn  was  subsequently 
held  to  be  an  offence  at  common  law,  and  as  late  as  1800 
a  corn  dealer  was  convicted  of  it  though  he  was  not 
brought  up  for  judgment. 

To  return  to  the  laws  affecting  the  importation  and 
exportation  of  corn,  the  next  important  Act  was  passed  in 
1791,  The  price  when  importation  of  wheat  at  the  duty 
of  6d.  per  quarter  was  permitted  was  raised  from  48s.  to 
54s.  ;  under  54s.  and  above  50s.  a  duty  of  2s.  6d.  per  quarter 
was  imposed,  and  under  50s.  there  was  a  prohibitive  duty 


24  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

of  24s.  3^.  The  bounty  on  exportation  was  continued  when 
wheat  was  under  44s.,  and  exportation  was  prohibited  when 
it  rose  above  46s.  In  1804  a  new  Corn  Law  was  passed, 
by  which  the  prohibitive  duty  came  into  force  whenever 
wheat  was  below  63s.,  the  2s.  6d.  duty  being  charged 
between  63s.  and  66s.,  and  the  6d.  duty  above  66s.  The 
bounty  on  exportation  was  granted  at  50s.,  and  exporta- 
tion prohibited  when  the  price  was  above  54s.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  I  am  only  mentioning  the  chief  enact- 
ments, and  that  scarcely  a  year,  or  at  most  two  or  three 
years,  passed  during  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  and 
the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  without  an  Act 
or  an  Order  in  Council  modifying,  or  suspending  for  short 
periods,  the  duties  or  bounties,  or  both. 

In  1806  free  trade  in  corn  between  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland  was  established.  Hitherto  it  had  been  subject  to 
various  restraints.  I  may  mention  that  there  was  both 
importation  and  exportation  of  corn  to  Ireland  every  year, 
and  sometimes  the  one  and  sometimes  the  other  pre- 
dominated. In  1807,  as  an  instance,  the  imports  from 
Ireland  were  23,048  quarters  and  the  exports  524  quarters  ; 
in  1810  the  imports  were  8,321  quarters  and  the  exports 
18,432  quarters. 

We  now  come  to  what  may  be  termed  the  Corn  Law — 
the  Act  of  1815.  By  this  Act  (55  Geo.  Ill,  c.  26),  com- 
mencing March  23rd,  foreign  corn,  meal  or  flour  might  at 
all  times  be  imported  and  warehoused  without  payment 
of  duty  ;  but  could  only  be  taken  out  of  warehouse  for 
home  consumption,  or  entered  for  the  like  purpose  on 
importation,  whenever  the  prices  of  British  corn  should  be 
at  or  above  the  following  sums,  and  then  duty  free  : — 

For  Corn  not  of  the         For  Corn  of  the 
British  Colonies  in       British  Colonies  in 
North  America.  North  America. 

Wheat     .  .  .  80s.  per  quarter.  67s.  per  quarter. 

Rye,  peas  &  beans    .  53s.         ,,  44s.         ,, 

Barley,  bere  or  bigg  .  40s.         ,,  33s.         ,, 

Oats        .  .  .  27s.         „  22s,         „ 


AGRICULTURE   UNDER  FREE  TRADE,   1846-96.    25 


It  will  be  seen  that  the  principle  of  this  measure  was  the 
entire  prohibition  of  the  sale  of  all  imported  wheat  except 
Canadian  until  the  price  reached  80s.,  but  there  was  no 
duty  charged  upon  it.  The  preferential  treatment  of 
Canada  in  the  Corn  Laws  is  noteworthy.  Canadian 
imports  of  wheat,  I  may  observe,  amounted  in  1801  to 
67,595  quarters,  in  1807  to  249,713  quarters,  and  in  1812 
to  10,797  quarters.  Under  the  Act  of  1815  they  amounted 
in  one  year,  1817,  to  311,436  quarters. 

Probably  no  one  nowadays  will  contend  that  the  Corn 
Law  passed  in  1815  was  a  prudent  or  even  a  justifiable 
measure.  The  nation  had  just  concluded  its  long  and 
terrible  struggle  with  Napoleon,  and  although,  thanks 
to  our  command  of  the  sea,  trade  and  commerce  had 
flourished  to  an  extraordinary  degree  in  spite  of,  and  indeed 
to  some  extent  in  consequence  of,  the  war,  yet  the  canker 
of  discontent  was  present  among  the  masses,  on  whom 
the  burden  of  high  prices  had  fallen,  and  to  those  who 
looked  below  the  surface  the  reaction  from  the  stress  of 
the  long  war  had  threatening  possibilities.  Food  had 
been  at  famine  prices  and  wheat  had  been  sold  at  £^  and 
upwards  per  quarter.  Yet  this  was  the  time  chosen  by 
Parliament  to  pass  a  law  which  prohibited  the  sale  of 
imported  wheat  altogether  until  the  price  reached  67s.  per 
quarter,  and  from  aU  sources  but  one  until  it  reached 
80s.  per  quarter. 

Now,  the  price  of  wheat  had  ranged  as  follows  during 
the  thirty-five  preceding  years,  taking  quinquennial 
averages  : — 

1781-85  . 
1786-90  , 

1791-95  • 
I 796-1 800 
1801-5    . 
1806-10  . 
1811-15  . 

Practically,  therefore,  what  the  Corn  Law  of  18 15  pro- 
posed to  do  was  to  maintain  prices  in  time  of  peace  at 


s. 

d. 

48 

7 

47 

3 

53 

8 

73 

5 

80 

0 

87  II 

94     3 


26  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

the  level  at  which  they  stood  in  time  of  war,  and  indeed 
this  was  its  avowed  aim.  Even  a  firm  believer  in  the 
necessity  for  some  measure  of  protection  might  admit 
that  such  a  measure  as  this  was  unjustifiable.  It  was 
doomed  to  certain  failure,  and  in  fact  it  began  at  once  to 
break  down.  To  begin  with  it  failed  to  keep  up  prices. 
In  1817,  it  is  true,  the  average  price  of  wheat  was  96s.  11^., 
but  in  only  one  other  year  did  it  ever  subsequently  reach 
80s.  So  little  good  did  it  do  to  farmers,  that  five  years 
afterwards  (in  1821)  a  Committee  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons was  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  the 
depressed  state  of  agriculture.  At  the  same  time  it 
exasperated  the  masses  of  the  population  almost  to  the 
verge  of  revolution,  and  aroused  a  prejudice  in  their 
minds  against  landowners  and  farmers  the  effects  of  which 
remain  even  to  this  day. 

In  1822  an  Act  was  passed  which  provided  that  when 
the  price  of  wheat  should  have  risen  to  the  level  at  which 
free  importation  was  allowed  by  the  Act  of  1815,  the 
provisions  of  that  Act  should  cease,  and  the  prices  above 
which  wheat  should  be  admitted  should  be  lowered  to 
70s.  for  foreign,  and  59s.  for  Canadian  wheat.  Duties 
were,  however,  imposed  on  corn  so  admitted.  This  Act 
need  not  detain  us,  for  it  never  came  into  force  except 
for  Canadian  wheat,  as  prices  did  not  subsequently  reach 
the  level  of  80s. 

In  1828  a  "  sliding-scale  "  Act  was  passed,  which 
allowed  wheat  to  be  imported  on  payment  of  a  duty  of 
20s.  8d.  whenever  the  price  was  under  67s.  per  quarter, 
and  falling  gradually  to  is.  when  the  price  was  73s.  and 
upwards.  In  1842  Sir  Robert  Peel  introduced  and  passed 
a  "  sliding-scale  "  Act  which  imposed  a  duty  of  il.  on 
imported  corn  when  the  price  was  less  than  51s.,  falling, 
shilling  by  shilling,  to  a  shilling  duty  when  wheat  was  at 
73s.  and  upwards. 

The  following  figures  give  the  quinquennial  average 
prices  of  wheat  during  the  period  1816-45  : — 


AGRICULTURE   UNDER  FREE  TRADE,   1846-96.    27 


1816-20 
1821-25 
1826-30 

1831-35 
1836-40 
1841-45 


5. 

d. 

.    80 

10 

•     57 

3 

.     61 

7 

•     52 

8 

.     61 

2 

•      54 

9 

I  may  mention  that  wool  had  been  imported  free  of 
duty  down  to  1802.  A  duty  of  5s.  2>d.  per  cwt.  was  then 
imposed ;  in  1813  it  was  raised  to  6s.  8^.,  and  in  1819  to 
56s.  per  cwt.,  or  M.  per  lb.  In  1824  it  was  reduced  to 
id.  per  lb.  of  is.  value,  and  \d.  per  lb.  under  is.  value, 
colonial  wool  being  admitted  free.  In  1844  the  duties  on 
wool  were  abolished.  From  1660  to  1825  the  export  of 
wool  was  prohibited. 

Of  the  Anti-Corn-Law  agitation  and  the  oft-told  story 
of  Repeal,  I  need  hardly  speak.  It  may  be  noted,  how- 
ever, that,  as  so  often  happens,  the  actual  event  was 
precipitated  by  an  accidental  cause.  Cobden  and  Bright 
had  conducted  their  famous  campaign  for  seven  years 
without  appearing  to  get  appreciably  nearer  success  in 
Parliament.  Mr.  Villiers,  who  was  the  leader  of  the  small 
Free-Trade  party  in  the  House  of  Commons,  had  for 
several  sessions  brought  forward  motions  in  favour  of 
the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws,  but  without  the  remotest 
chance  of  securing  a  majority.  Of  the  two  great  parties 
neither  had  accepted  the  policy.  The  leaders  on  both 
sides,  viz.,  Lord  John  Russell  and  Sir  Robert  Peel,  had 
both  admitted  the  general  principle  of  Free  Trade  as  an 
abstract  proposition,  but  neither  believed  that  the  free 
importation  of  corn  was  practicable.  No  doubt  the  end 
was  inevitable,  but  it  might  have  been  some  years  longer 
in  coming  if  a  catastrophe  had  not  suddenly  occurred 
which  upset  all  the  calculations  of  politicians.  As 
Mr.  Bright  many  years  afterwards  said,  "  Famine  itself, 
against  which  we  warred,  joined  us."  In  the  autumn  of 
1845  the  potato  crop  utterly  failed  in  Ireland,  with  the 
result  that  the  gaunt  spectre  of  famine  smote  the  nation 


28  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

with  a  dreadful  fear.  A  great  cry  arose  on  both  sides  of 
St.  George's  Channel  for  the  opening  of  the  ports,  and  a 
letter  from  Lord  John  Russell  to  his  constituents  publicly 
committed  his  party  to  that  proposal.  The  result  is 
well  known.  Sir  Robert  Peel  bowed  to  what  he  deemed 
to  be  the  necessities  of  the  case,  and  boldly  went  to  the 
root  of  the  matter  by  accepting  the  policy  of  the  repeal 
of  the  Corn  Laws,  and  introducing  the  measure  to  which  I 
have  previously  referred.  By  the  abolition  of  the  duty 
on  corn  and  of  the  duties  on  the  importation  of  foreign 
cattle  and  wool.  Protection,  so  far  as  it  affected  agricul- 
ture, was  swept  away. 

The  extraordinary  changes  in  the  condition  of  the 
country,  and  of  all  the  circumstances  under  which  every 
kind  of  industry  is  carried  on,  which  have  taken  place 
during  the  last  half  century,  have  been  so  lately  recalled 
to  us  in  connection  with  the  Diamond  Jubilee,  that  1  need 
not  allude  to  them  at  length.  I  will  only  remind  you  of 
one  or  two  pregnant  figures.  In  184 1  the  population  of 
the  United  Kingdom  was  26,700,000  ;  in  1891  it  was 
37,800,000.  The  number  of  consumers  of  agricultural 
produce,  therefore,  has  increased  by  over  42  per  cent. 
The  trade  of  the  country  has  increased  enormously. 
Going  back  only  to  1854,  the  first  year  for  which 
we  have  comparable  figures,  I  find  the  total  net  imports 
amounted  to  £133,000,000,  and  the  total  exports  of 
British  and  Irish  produce  to  £97,000,000.  In  1896  the  cor- 
responding figures  were  :  imports,  £442,000,000  ;  exports, 
£240,000,000.  Again,  in  1855  (in  which  year  the  official 
returns  commence),  the  total  annual  value  of  property  and 
profits  assessed  to  income  tax  was  £317,000,000  ;  in  1896 
it  was  £710,000,000.  Under  Schedule  A  the  figures  are  : 
1855,  £125,000,000  ;  1896,  £210,000,000.  Under  Sche- 
dule D  :  1855,  £91,000,000,  1896,  £351,000,000.  These 
facts  alone  suffice  to  indicate  the  extent  of  the  progress  of 
the  nation  commercially  and  industrially. 

Let  us  take  now  a  few  agricultural  figures,  and  here  we 


AGRICULTURE   UNDER  FREE  TRADE,   1846-96.    29 

are  confronted  with  the  difficulty  that  official  returns  of 
crops  and  stock  only  commenced  in  1866  and  of  production 
not  until  twenty  years  later.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
the  returns  nowadays  are  reliable,  and  probably  the 
most  trustworthy  in  the  world,  but  it  is  difficult  to  say 
as  much  of  the  earlier  estimates  which  I  shall  mention,  not 
because  those  who  made  them  were  not  careful,  but 
because  the  data  at  their  command  were  incomplete. 
With  this  general  observation  I  will  not  (as  this  is  not  a 
statistical  paper)  give  details,  but  will  simply  state  the 
figures  as  they  stand. 

According  to  McCulloch,  the  area  under  crops — i.e., 
arable  land — in  the  United  Kingdom  was,  in  1846, 
21,930,000  acres.  In  1867,  according  to  the  Agricultural 
Returns,  it  was  over  23,000,000  acres,  and  in  1896  it  was 
under  20,000,000  acres.  It  will  be  observed  that  twenty 
years  after  the  adoption  of  Free  Trade  the  land  under  the 
plough  had  increased  by  1,000,000  acres,  while  within  the 
last  thirty  years  it  has  decreased  by  3,000,000  acres.  As 
this  fact  runs  counter  to  what  is  probably  the  common 
belief,  viz.,  that  there  was  more  land  under  the  plough 
during  the  existence  of  the  Corn  Laws  than  there  has  been 
since,  I  quote,  in  support  of  it,  some  figures  recorded  in  a 
paper  read  by  Major  Craigie  before  the  Royal  vStatistical 
Society  in  1883.  He  there  refers  to  an  estimate  laid  by 
Mr,  William  Couling  before  a  Parliamentary  Committee  on 
Emigration,  which,  he  says,  "  we  are  told  was  the  result  of 
personal  researches  conducted  both  between  1796  and 
1816,  and  again  in  1824-27,  involving  journics  of  over 
50,000  miles  in  106  counties  of  the  United  Kingdom." 
The  result  was  an  estimate  of  the  "  arable  and 
garden  land  "  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  19,137,000 
acres. 

The  acreage  of  the  principal  crops  in  England  and  Wales 
in  1846,  as  stated  by  McCulloch,  is  given  as  follows,  and  I 
have  added  for  comparison  the  official  figures  for  1867 
and  1896  : — 


30 


AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 


1846. 

1867. 

1896. 

Wheat 
Oats  . 
Barley,  etc. 
Roots 
Clover 
Fallow 

Acres. 

3,800,000 
2,500,000 
1,500,000 
2,700,000 
1,300,000 
1,500,000 

Acres. 

3,100,000 
1,500,000 
2,800,000 
2,700,000 
2,500,000 
800,000 

Acres. 

1,600,000 
1,800,000 
2,300,000 
2,600,000 
2,700,000 
400,000 

13,300,000 

13,400,000 

11,400,000 

Here  again  we  see  no  diminution  in  the  first  twenty  years, 
but  the  whole  decrease  taking  place  in  the  last  thirty  years. 
Turning  to  live-stock  of  the  United  Kingdom,  we  find  a 
different  story.  I  take  for  comparison  the  figures  for  the 
nearest  year  I  have  available,  viz.,  1855,  and  in  this  case 
again  the  estimate  is  McCuUoch's  : — 


1855- 


1867. 


1896. 


Horses 
Cattle 
Sheep 
Pigs 


2,050,000 

7,955,000 

27,972,000 

3,686,000 


Not  returned 

8,731,000 

33,818,000 

4,221,000 


2,116,000 
10,942,000 
30,854,000 

4,301,000 


One  other  point,  i.e.,  the  average  yield  per  acre  of  the 
principal  crops.  Of  these  I  give  estimates  for  wheat  and 
barley  tor  the  three  years  1837,  1850,  and  1896.  That 
for  the  first  year  is  the  mean  of  figures  taken  by  McCuUoch 
from  the  old  Board  of  Agriculture  reports,  and  really 
refers  to  a  somewhat  earlier  period  than  the  date  men- 
tioned ;  the  second  is  an  estimate  carefully  made  by  the 
late  Sir  James  Caird,  and  the  third  is  the  official  average 
for  1886-95  given  in  the  Produce  Returns  of  the  Board 
of  Agriculture  : — 


AGRICULTURE  UNDER  FREE  TRADE,   1846-96.    31 

1837.  1850.  1886-95. 

Bushels.         Bushels.         Bushels. 

Wheat       .  .  21  26^  29 

Barley       .  .  32  38  32 

The  increase  in  the  average  yield  of  wheat  is  no  doubt 
partly  the  result  of  the  decreased  acreage,  as  the  crop  is 
now  grown  mainly  on  the  soils  most  suited  to  it,  and  in 
the  same  way  probably  the  decreased  yield  of  barley  since 
1850  may  be  partly  due  to  an  extension  of  area  involving 
the  growth  of  the  crop  on  somewhat  less  suitable  land. 

If  I  were  going  into  statistical  details  I  might  show 
exactly  when  the  maximum  area  was  reached  in  the  case 
of  various  crops,  and  when  the  decline  took  place,  and  I 
might  also  show  how  during  the  past  thirty  years  the 
numbers  of  live-stock — and  particularly  of  sheep — have 
fluctuated  from  temporary  causes  such  as  outbreaks  of 
disease.  The  year  1867  has  been  taken  for  no  other 
reason  except  that  it  is  the  first  for  which  we  have  reliable 
official  returns.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  both  the  breadth 
of  land  under  wheat  and  the  total  arable  area  were 
greater  in  the  period  1871-75  than  in  1867.  A  fair  index, 
in  a  general  way,  of  the  agricultural  position  is  to  be 
found  in  the  annual  value  of  lands  in  the  United  Kingdom 
assessed  to  Schedule  A  of  the  income  tax.  In  1862,  the 
first  year  for  which  it  can  be  given,  it  was  £60,300,000, 
and  in  the  next  two  years  it  was  slightly  less,  viz., 
£60,100,000.  From  1864  the  amount  annually  and 
steadily  increased  until,  in  1880,  it  reached  its  maximum, 
£69,500,000.  From  that  point  the  value  of  lands  fell 
year  by  year  until  in  1896  it  reached  £55,000,000. 

It  seems  difficult  from  these  facts  to  draw  any  general 
conclusion  as  to  the  influence  of  Free  Trade  on  agriculture. 
It  appears  that  for  over  a  quarter  of  a  century,  farming,  as 
shown  by  all  the  tests  we  can  apply,  was  prosperous.  The 
plough  was  kept  going  to  the  same  extent  as  under  the 
Com  Laws,  the  number  of  live-stock  increased,  and  the 
value  of  agricultural  land  also  increased.    These  con- 


32  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

elusions,  which  are  revealed  by  the  dry  light  of  statistics, 
coincide,  I  believe,  with  the  facts  as  agreed  to  by  what 
is  termed  general  knowledge.  I  confess,  therefore,  that 
I  do  not  see  how  it  is  possible  with  any  show  of  reason 
to  refer  back  to  1846  for  the  cause  of  depression  which 
did  not  show  itself  for  thirty  years  afterwards.  It  might, 
of  course,  be  argued  that  the  depression  would  have  been 
prevented  or  mitigated  if  Protection  had  been  continued  ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  might  also  be  argued  that  if 
Protection  had  continued  the  prosperity  of  the  earlier 
period  would  have  been  less.  But  neither  argument 
affects  the  historical  facts. 

Whether  or  no  it  was  possible  or  desirable  to  continue 
measures  limiting  in  any  way  the  importation  of  foreign 
food  supplies,  there  is,  at  any  rate,  no  question  about 
the  enormous  extent  to  which  they  have  increased.  The 
figures  given  on  p.  33  for  1854  and  1896  respectively 
show  the  extent  of  the  increase  in  the  case  of  the 
principal  agricultural  products. 

This  table  speaks  for  itself.  Without  professing  to  be 
exhaustive,  it  shows  for  the  chief  articles  competing 
with  British  farm  products  an  increase,  measured  by 
value,  of  over  £100,000,000.  Of  course,  owing  to  the  fall 
in  prices  the  measure  by  value  does  not  represent  the 
full  facts.  Thus  in  the  case  of  wheat  the  increase  has 
been  five-fold  in  quantity  but  only  double  in  value. 
One  exception  to  this  rule — which  is  in  some  respects 
ominous — is  noticeable  in  the  case  of  cattle  and  sheep, 
the  value  of  which  per  head  is  much  higher  now  than  in 
1854,  in  consequence,  of  course,  of  the  great  improvement 
in  their  quality. 

The  keynote  of  farming  during  the  last  half-century, 
apart  from  economic  conditions,  has,  I  think,  been  the 
application  of  science  to  practice.  It  was  not  long  before 
1846  that  the  Royal  Agricultural  Society  had  been 
started  with  its  admirable  motto  of  "  Practice  with 
Science,"  and  earlier  still  the  Bath  and  West  of  England 


AGRICULTURE  UNDER  FREE  TRADE,  1846-96.  33 


185 

4- 

1S96. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

No. 

£ 

No. 

£, 

Live  Cattle 

&  Sheep. 
Bacon    and 

297.774 
cwts. 

1,434,621 

1,332,145 
cwts. 

10,438,689 

Hams     . 
Beef 

433.510 

892,462 

6,008,938 

10,990,604 

192,274 

377.809 

2,907,236 

5.332,528 

Butter 

482,514 

2,171,194 

3.037.718 

15.344.364 

Cheese 
Corn — ■ 

388,714 

906,078 

2.244.525 

4,900,342 

Wheat    . 

14,868,650 

11.693.737 

70,025,980 

21,678,989 

Barley    . 

1,974.900 

836,798 

22,477,322 

5.709-531 

Oats 

2,791,110 

1,377,226 

17,586,730 

4,226,317 

Maize      . 
Other 

5,784,420 

2,748,606 

51,772,100 

9,422,539 

kinds  . 



1,102,499 

7,240,903 

1,961,717 

Wheat 

Flour. 
Other 

3,646,505 

3.970,549 

21,320,200 

9,227,873 

Meal  . 

No. 

30,868 

1,459,497 

No. 

573.117 

Eggs 

121,946,801 
cwts. 

228,650 

1,589,401,000 

cwts. 

4,184,656 

Lamb 

274.595 

707,082 

1,739.463 

2,268,693 

Pork 

160,898 

379,135 

554.750 

979.207 

Potatoes    . 

16,446 

17.467 

2,244,627 

907,975 

Wool 

947.518 

6,499,004 

6,371,207 

25.342,330 

Hops 

119,040 

1,033,649 

207,041 

591,582 

Mutton 

2,895,158 

4.718,546 

36,407,434 

138,799,599 

Society  had  been  carrying  out  the  spirit  of  its  Saxon 
equivalent,  "  Work  and  learn."  Rothamsted,  though 
it  originated  as  far  back  as  1834,  '^^'S^s  not  started  with 
its  present  scope  until  1843.  The  effect  of  the  careful 
and  patient  labours  of  Sir  John  Lawes  and  Sir  Henry 
Gilbert  upon  British  Agriculture  is  beyond  estimation. 
Their  work  has  permeated  farm  practice  and  has  influenced 
every  phase  of  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  and  the  treat- 
ment of  live  stock.  It  would  be  impossible  to  attempt 
to  summarise  the  results  of  the  Rothamsted  experiments. 
The  simple  fact  that  the  first  original  paper  emanating 
from   Rothamsted   appeared  in   1847,   and   that  in   the 

A.F.  D 


34  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

following  forty  years,  to  come  no  later,  there  were  pub- 
lished as  many  as  104  separate  papers  and  memoirs, 
will  siifhciently  justify  my  hesitation. 

Contemporaneous  with  the  foundation  of  Rothamsted 
as  an  agricultural  experiment  station,  the  address  by 
Baron  Liebig  to  the  British  Association,  in  1840,  on 
"  Chemistry  in  its  Relation  to  Agriculture  and  Physio- 
logy," materially  assisted  in  directing  attention  to  the 
importance  of  scientific  discoveries  to  the  cultivation  of 
the  soil. 

One  immediate  result  was  a  great  stimulus  to  the  use  of 
artificial  fertilisers.  Bones  had  been  used  as  a  fertiliser 
since  1774,  but  it  was  not  until  1840  that  guano  was 
introduced.  In  1842,  Sir  John  Lawes  introduced  super- 
phosphate. Nitrate  of  soda  was  first  imported  from 
Chili  as  far  back  as  1830,  but  it  was  some  time  before  it 
came  into  general  use.  Sulphate  of  ammonia,  a  sub- 
stance which  is  obtained  as  a  by-product  in  the  manu- 
facture of  coal-gas  and  in  some  other  industries,  was 
introduced,  I  believe,  about  1851,  and  basic  slag  about 
fifteen  years  ago. 

I  should  be  afraid  to  guess  how  many  millions  of  money 
have  been  put  into  the  land  in  the  form  of  artificial 
manures,  and  still  more  fearful  of  speculating  how  many 
of  them  have  been  recovered.  In  the  chronicles  of  agri- 
culture, we  seldom  nowadays  meet  with  the  phrase 
"  high  farming,"  which  peppered  the  pages  of  Wren 
Hoskyns  and  Mechi,  and  other  writers  of  thirty  or  forty 
years  ago.  But  if  "  high  farming  "  in  the  old  sense  has 
gone,  or  been  forced,  out  of  fashion,  I  fancy  that  artificial 
manures  have  settled  down,  so  to  speak,  more  into 
their  proper  place  as  valuable  aids  to  agriculture  than 
when  in  their  earlier  days  enthusiasts  appear  to  have 
anticipated  that  they  would  establish  an  agricultural 
millennium. 

Geology  has  contributed  much,  and  botany  even  more, 
to  agricultural  progress,  but  I  am  inclined  to  think  that 


AGRICULTURE  UNDER  FREE  TRADE,   1846-96.    35 

in  these  latter  days,  at  any  rate,  the  science  to  which 
farmers  have  been  most  indebted  is  entomology.  If 
this  is  so,  it  is  largely  due  to  the  assiduous  labours  of 
Miss  Ormerod,  who  may  almost  be  said  to  have  dis- 
covered the  science  of  agricultural  entomology,  and  who 
certainly  has  done  more  than  any  other  person  to  popu- 
larise it.  The  newest  science  to  come  to  the  aid  of  the 
perplexed  farmer  is  bacteriology,  which  appears  to  have 
great  possibilities  of  usefulness,  especially  to  the  makers 
of  cheese  and  butter. 

Turning  from  the  scientific  to  the  practical  side  of  the 
subject,  the  first  point  which  naturally  strikes  one  as 
characteristic  of  the  past  half  century  is  the  improvement 
in  and  the  extended  use  of  machinery  on  the  farm.  At 
the  commencement  of  the  period  a  large  part  of  the 
arable  land  was  ploughed  by  oxen,  and  the  greater  part 
of  the  corn  was  sown  broadcast,  and  threshed  out  with 
the  flail.  But  with  the  outburst  of  energy  which  marked 
the  period  of  the  Exhibition  of  1851  a  great  impetus 
was  given  to  the  application  of  mechanics  to  agriculture. 
Steam  was  regarded  by  many  as  being  certainly  destined 
to  supplant  both  oxen  and  horses  for  the  cultivation  of 
the  land,  and  to  be  applicable  to  all  farm  operations. 
Improvements  were  made  in  the  old  forms  of  implements, 
and  new  ones  were  invented.  Among  the  latter  may  be 
mentioned  the  self-binding  reaper,  first  invented  in  1851, 
introduced  as  a  wire  binder  in  this  country  in  1873,  and 
as  a  string  binder  in  1878.  The  reaper,  in  substantially 
its  present  form,  was  invented  in  1826,  but  its  use  in  this 
country  comes  within  the  last  half  century.  The  mower 
in  its  present  form  dates  from  1852.  Haymakers, 
though  first  patented  as  long  ago  as  1814,  have  only 
come  into  general  use  within  the  last  thirty  years  or  so. 
The  horse  rake  was  first  patented  in  1841,  but  was  not 
perfected  for  many  years  afterwards.  The  Crosskill 
roller  dates  from  1841,  and  the  chain  harrow  from  1842. 
The  threshing  machine  had  its  birth  in  the  eighteenth 

D 


36  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

century,  but  its  common  use  and  its  perfected  form  come 
within  the  period  under  review.  The  elevator  was  first 
patented  in  1853,  but  did  not  come  into  general  use  for 
another  decade  or  more.  In  1883  a  sheaf-binding  appa- 
ratus was  applied  to  the  threshing  machine.  The  exhaust 
fan  was  introduced  for  dressing  corn  after  1853,  and  the 
improvements  which  have  been  made  in  this  branch 
alone  would  take  a  book  to  describe.  I  need  only  mention 
the  substitution  of  rollers  for  stones  in  milling  to  indicate 
a  revolution  which  ruined  hundreds  of  country  millers, 
and,  as  some  think,  has  been  a  questionable  boon  to 
bread  eaters.  The  turnip  cutter  was  introduced,  I 
believe,  about  fifty  years  ago,  the  chaff  cutter  in  1847, 
and  the  corn-grinding  mill  in  1857.  I^  the  department 
of  the  dairy,  mechanical  ingenuity  has  been  very  active 
during  the  past  twenty  years.  All  kinds  of  improvements, 
or  alterations,  have  been  made  in  churns.  The  most 
remarkable  invention  was  the  centrifugal  cream  separator 
introduced  in  this  country  at  the  Kilburn  Show  in  1879. 
Its  principle  has  been  applied  in  various  ways,  and  latterly 
a  machine  has  been  devised  in  which  the  milk  goes 
in  at  one  end,  and  the  butter  issues  at  the  other.  A 
mechanical  milking  machine  is  also  one  of  the  latest 
inventions. 

The  change  which  has  taken  place  during  the  past  half- 
century  might  perhaps  be  concisely  summed  up  by  saying 
that  the  balance  of  power  has  shifted  from  the  com 
grower  to  the  stock  breeder  and  the  dairy  farmer.  In 
some  calculations  which  I  made  in  1895  I  estimated  the 
annual  receipts  for  the  farm  crops  of  the  United  Kingdom 
at  £64,000,000,  for  meat  and  live  stock  at  ;^89,ooo,ooo, 
and  for  dairy  products  and  eggs  at  £41,000,000.  The 
development  of  stock-breeding  has  been  very  great,  in 
spite  of  the  disastrous  and  discouraging  effects  of  out- 
breaks of  rinderpest,  foot-and-mouth  disease,  pleuro- 
pneumonia and  other  diseases.  The  increase  in  the 
national  herds  and  flocks  has  been  already  noted,  but 


AGRICULTURE  UNDER  FREE  TRADE.   1846-96.      37 

still  more  remarkable  has  been  the  improvement  in  their 
general  character.  Among  the  sciences  to  which  agri- 
culture has  been  indebted  mention  should  be  made  of 
physiology  and,  particularly,  veterinary  science.  To  a 
fuller  grasp  of  scientific  principles  is  probably  attributable 
the  great  development  of  early  maturity,  and  conse- 
quently of  economical  meat  production.  It  is  sometimes 
doubted  whether  a  knowledge  of  the  principles  of  breeding 
farm  stock  has  really  advanced  greatly  beyond  what  was 
known  and  practised  by  CoUings,  Bakewell,  and  other 
heroes  of  the  last  century,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt 
whatever  that  there  has  been  a  wide  diffusion  of 
knowledge  and  a  general  levelling-up  of  the  character  of 
the  farm  stock  of  the  country.  One  striking  fact — at 
once  a  cause  and  an  effect  of  this  tendency — is  the  multi- 
plication of  societies  for  the  publication  of  breed  registers 
and  the  protection  of  the  interests  of  particular  breeds. 
The  Shorthorn  Herd  Book  dates  from  1822  and  the 
Hereford  Herd  Book  from  1845,  but  with  these  exceptions 
and  that  of  the  Thoroughbred  Stud  Book,  I  believe  all  the 
present  breed-register  societies  have  come  into  existence 
since  1846,  and  most  of  them  within  the  last  twenty 
years. 

The  extension  of  dairying  has  been  alluded  to,  but 
mention  might  also  be  made  of  the  equally  remarkable 
development  of  other  branches  of  farming,  which  fifty 
years  ago  would  hardly  have  been  recognised  as  coming 
within  the  scope  of  agriculture,  such  as  the  cultivation 
of  fruit  and  vegetables,  and  the  keeping  of  poultry. 

Time  fails  to  refer  to  other  points,  such,  for  instance, 
as  the  crowding-out  of  the  class  of  yeoman  farmers,  and 
still  more  the  wholesale  migration  of  labourers  from  the 
land.  Both  these  facts,  and  all  they  imply,  the  historian 
of  the  period  cannot  overlook.  The  dominant  fact  of 
the  latter  half  of  the  period  has  been  the  steadily 
continuous  fall  of  prices.  I  complete  the  figures  which  I 
have  previously  given  of  the  price  of  wheat : — 


38 


AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 


s. 

d. 

51 

10 

55 

II 

53 

4 

47 

6 

54 

7 

54 

8 

47 

6 

40 

I 

31 

5 

27 

II 

26 

2 

1846-50 

1851-55 

I 85 6-60 
1861-65 

1866-70 

1871-75 
1876-80 
1881-85 
1886-90 
1891-95 
1896 

During  the  disastrous  period  of  depression  the  fall  in 
prices  of  corn  and  meat  has  been,  comparing  1876-78 
with  1894-96,  wheat  52  per  cent.,  barley  40  per  cent., 
oats  40  per  cent.,  cattle  33  per  cent.,  sheep  23  per  cent. 
Wool  has  fallen  about  50  per  cent.,  dairy  produce  nearly 
30  per  cent.,  and  potatoes  20  to  30  per  cent. 

I  am  conscious  of  the  inadequacy  of  my  attempt  to 
deal  with  this  large  subject,  and  I  can  claim  to  have  done 
no  more  than  select  a  few  facts  which  may  perhaps  be 
suggestive  of  discussion.  In  doing  this  I  may  have  failed 
in  many  ways,  but  at  least  I  have  tried  to  do  so 
impartially.  But  it  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  ignore  the 
controversial  aspect  of  the  subject. 

I  have  endeavoured  to  sketch  British  agriculture  under 
Free  Trade.  The  question  naturally  presents  itself, 
what  would  the  history  of  British  agriculture  during  the 
past  half-century  have  been  under  Protection  ?  Or,  to 
put  it  another  way,  to  what  extent  has  the  condition  of 
agriculture  been  affected  by  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  ? 
I  honestly  confess  that  I  cannot  supply  a  fair  and  complete 
answer  to  the  question.  So  many  diverse  influences  have 
affected  the  economic  conditions  that  I  am  quite  unable 
to  disentangle  consequence  from  coincidence,  or  distinguish 
between  post  hoc  and  propter  hoc. 

It  is  quite  clear  that  Free  Trade  alone  is  not  accountable 
for  the  depression  of  prices  which  has  especially  charac- 
terised the  past  fifteen  or  twenty  years.  Setting  aside 
the   consideration  of  changes  in  the  currency  laws — a 


AGRICULTURE  UNDER  FREE  TRADE,   1846-96.    39 

subject  into  which  I  will  not  enter — the  great 
development  of  the  means,  and  the  cheapening  of  the 
cost,  of  transport  from  the  uttermost  ends  of  the  earth, 
have  obviously  been  a  potent  factor  in  bringing  food 
supplies  to  compete  with  the  products  of  British  land. 
We  know  also  that  in  neighbouring  countries  where  agri- 
culture is  protected  prices  have  fallen,  and  depression 
has  been  keenly  felt. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  also  clear  that  if  import  duties 
on  corn  had  been  continued  they  would,  to  the  extent 
of  the  duties,  have  kept  prices  for  corn  higher,  and  if  they 
had  been  sufficiently  high  they  would  have  prevented  a 
large  breadth  of  arable  land  from  being  laid  down  to 
pasture.  But  just  as  we  know  that  in  the  United  States 
the  tariff  on  wool  has  been  a  very  doubtful  boon  to 
farmers,  by  diverting  their  attention  from  other  branches 
of  production,  and  even  checking  efforts  to  improve 
the  mutton  qualities  of  their  sheep,  so  it  might  have  been 
that  the  live  stock  and  dairying  interests  of  this  country 
would  have  been  stunted  in  their  development  by  the 
existence  of  Protection  on  corn-growing.  And  of  course 
it  must  be  remembered  that  if  import  duties  had  been 
continued  on  wheat  they  would  certainly  have  been 
continued  on  articles  which  farmers  buy,  and  we  can 
only  speculate  about  the  precise  effects  upon  a  particular 
industry  if  this  country  had  never  adopted  Free  Trade. 

If  I  refrain  from  dogmatising  about  the  past,  still  more 
do  I  hesitate  to  forecast  the  future. 

Twenty  or  thirty  years  ago  it  was  hardly  possible  to 
discuss  Protection.  Free  Trade  was  elevated  upon  a 
kind  of  pinnacle,  as  if  it  were  a  fetish  which  it  was  impious 
to  examine.  We  have,  happily  as  I  think,  outgrown 
that  stage.  It  is  now  generally  recognised  that  Free 
Trade  is  not  a  divine  revelation  but  a  human  device, 
possessing  obvious  advantages,  but  having  also  certain 
imperfections  and  limitations.  Events  of  late  years  have 
seemed  to  indicate  that  the  working  classes — who  in  the 


40  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

long  run,  right  or  wrong,  will  have  their  will — do  not 
shrink  from  Protection  as  at  any  rate  a  possible  expedient. 
The  claim  set  up  in  certain  industries  f or  a  "  living  wage  " 
— i.e.,  a  fixed  minimum  remuneration  for  workers — 
appears  to  involve,  in  the  long  run,  protective  duties.  It 
seems  clear  that  no  industry  can  fix  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction— or  any  material  part  of  it — and  allow  un- 
restricted competition  from  countries  where  the  cost  is 
lower.  A  return  to  Protection  in  some  form  by  this 
country,  whether  for  good  or  ill,  may  well  be  within  the 
possibilities  of  the  twentieth  century. 

I  will  not,  at  the  end  of  a  dissertation  already  too  long, 
discuss  the  merits  of  Protection  for  agriculture.  When  I 
served  on  the  Royal  Commission  on  Agriculture  I  had 
the  privilege  of  personally  interviewing  some  hundreds 
of  farmers  in  the  different  districts  to  which  I  was  sent, 
and  very  many  of  them  insisted  on  advancing  arguments 
to  demonstrate  to  me  that  a  duty  on  foreign  corn  would 
be  a  benefit  to  British  corn-growers.  It  was  my  duty  to 
listen,  and  I  listened.  But,  if  I  may  be  pardoned  for 
saying  so,  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove  a  truism.  It  is 
self-evident  that  an  import  duty  on  a  particular  article 
is,  so  far  as  it  goes,  an  advantage  to  the  home  producers 
of  that  article.  People  sometimes  assert,  with  an  air  of 
surprise,  that  the  majority  of  farmers  are  Protectionists, 
and  everyone  will  remember  the  outburst  of  indignation 
which  was  aroused  at  the  declaration  of  opinion  made  by 
the  Agricultural  Conference,  at  St.  James's  Hall,  in  1892. 
But,  as  I  have  always  maintained,  that  declaration  only 
proved  that  the  Conference  was  representative.  I 
venture  to  say  that  four-fifths  of  British  farmers  are 
Protectionists,  but  I  also  allege  that  not  one-fifth  of  them 
believe  in  the  present  probability  of  obtaining  protective 
duties  on  food.  Even  those  who  do  not  think  that  it  is 
hopeless  to  expect  Protection  some  day  admit  that  it  is 
in  the  dim  and  distant  future. 

I  will  conclude  with  a  point  which  cannot  too  often  be 


AGRICULTURE  UNDER  FREE  TRADE,  1846-96.  41 

insisted  on.  The  Repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  took  away  an 
advantage  which  farmers  had  long  possessed.  They  were 
an  hereditary  benefit.  The  nation  incurred  a  debt  to 
agriculture,  which  has  not  yet  been  paid.  It  seems  to 
me  that  on  this  ground  Protectionists  and  Free  Traders 
may  harmoniously  meet.  If  the  nation  demands  cheap 
food  let  it  compensate  in  some  measure  those  at  whose 
expense  it  obtains  it.  Let  it  at  least  give  fair  play,  if  not 
favour,  to  what  is  after  all  its  oldest  and  its  greatest 
industry. 


CHAPTER     III. 

ENGLISH  MARKETS   AND  FAIRS.i 

In  these  days  of  the  telephone,  the  telegraph,  and  the  train 
we  are  perhaps  apt  to  underestimate  the  supreme  im- 
portance which  in  a  less  advanced  stage  of  civilisation 
attached  to  the  provision  of  local  facilities  for  the  disposal 
of  the  produce  of  the  soil.  In  a  sense  the  farmer  is  still, 
and  inevitably  must  be,  the  slave  of  his  market,  but  in  the 
olden  days  he  was  so  in  a  much  narrower  and  more  absolute 
sense  than  now.  When  buying  and  selling  were  entirely 
matters  of  personal  intercourse,  the  market  or  fair  afforded 
practically  the  only  means  by  which  the  producer  and 
consumer  came  into  contact.  Consequently,  all  such 
institutions  were  of  vital  importance,  alike  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  towns  and  to  the  tillers  of  the  land. 

The  distinction  between  a  market  and  a  fair  is  well 
understood,  though  it  is  not  very  clearly  defined.  A 
market,  viewed  in  its  strictly  legal  aspect,  is  an  authorised 
public  concourse  of  buyers  and  sellers  of  commodities, 
meeting  at  a  place,  more  or  less  strictly  limited  or  defined, 
at  an  appointed  time.  A  fair  is  a  large  market  held  less 
frequently,  and  commonly  extending  over  a  longer  period. 
"  Every  fair,"  says  Lord  Coke,  "  is  a  market,  but  every 
market  is  not  a  fair."  But  though  markets  are  now  the 
most  numerous,  the  fair  is  the  older  institution.  The 
word  "  fair  "  signifies  a  gathering  at  the  time  of  one  of  the 
annual  religious  feasts,  and  is  derived,  according  to  Messrs. 
C.  I.  Elton  and  B.  F.  C.  Costelloe,^  irom/eria,  which  is  the 

1  Journal  Royal  Agricultural  Society,  Vol.  III.,  3rd  series,  1892. 

2  Report  to  the  Royal  Commission  on  Market  Rights  and  Tolls 
on  Charters  and  Records  relating  to  the  History  of  Fairs  and 
Markets  in  the  United  Kingdom. 


ENGLISH   MARKETS  AND  FAIRS.  43 

proper  ecclesiastical  term  for  a  saint's  day.  These  feasts 
were  no  doubt  frequently  a  continuation  of  still  older 
pagan  festivals,  which,  in  addition  to  their  character  as 
religious  functions,  were  from  the  earliest  times  utilised 
for  purposes  of  trade  and  commerce  as  well  as  for  pleasure. 
It  appears  to  be  impossible  to  dissociate  the  fair  from  the 
festival  in  early  English  history,  and  there  is  no  doubt 
that,  in  their  original  form,  the  gatherings  were  held  on 
those  great  occasions  when  the  national  sacrifices  were 
offered  and  the  public  assemblies  held. 

There  is  very  little  reference  to  fairs  either  in  the  collection 
of  laws  or  other  authorities  relating  to  the  period  of  English 
history  preceding  the  Norman  Conquest,  although  there  is  no 
doubt  that  such  annual  gatherings  took  place  in  many  parts 
of  England  throughout  the  whole  period  between  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Teutonic  kingdoms  in  England  and  the  imposition 
of  the  Norman  constitution.^ 

Domesday  Book  only  mentions  two  fairs,  and  gives  no 
complete  list  of  existing  markets.  After  the  Norman 
Conquest  the  native  British  fair  seems  to  have  been 
reconstituted  on  the  continental  model,  and  it  was 
recognised  as  a  valuable  source  of  revenue  to  the  Crown. 
As  foreign  trade  developed  in  the  time  of  the  Plantagenets, 
the  institution  of  the  annual  fair  rose  in  importance,  and 
during  several  centuries  it  filled  a  not  inconsiderable 
position  in  the  commercial  life  of  the  country.  The  fairs 
were  only  shorn  of  their  serious  importance — except  for 
special  purposes — by  the  progress  of  the  world,  and  by 
the  discovery  of  swift  means  of  intercommunication. 
When  the  growth  of  trade  progressed  faster  than  the 
improvement  of  the  means  of  communication,  the  value 
of  fixed  centres  of  periodical  exchange  was  great ;  but, 
as  the  means  of  communication  improved,  the  great  marts 
of  Plantagenet,  Tudor,  and  Stuart  times  have,  as  Professor 
Rogers   observes,    "  degenerated   into   scenes   of   coarse 

'  Ibid.,  p.  3. 


44  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

amusement,  and  after  having  been  granted  and  protected 
as  the  highest  and  most  necessary  franchises,  have  been 
tolerated  for  the  sake  of  their  traditions,  and  are  now 
being  generally  suppressed  as  nuisances."  Mr.  A.  J. 
Ashton,  one  of  the  Assistant  Commissioners  on  Market 
Rights  and  Tolls,  after  holding  thirty-four  public  inquiries 
in  the  south  and  west  of  England,  reported  that  the  fairs 
are  decaying  all  through  that  part  of  the  country.  The 
cattle  fairs,  he  observed,  are  being  spoilt  by  the  cattle 
markets,  and  the  pleasure  fairs  are  decaying  and  ought  to 
be  stopped. 

The  extent  to  which  fairs  have  died  out  within  the 
present  century  is  indicated  by  a  return  given  as  an 
appendix  to  the  report  of  Messrs.  Elton  and  Costelloe, 
which  has  been  already  referred  to.  This  gives  a  com- 
plete list  of  fairs  existing  in  England  and  Wales  in  1792, 
according  to  "  Owen's  New  Book  of  Fairs,"  arranged  in 
counties,  and  compared  in  parallel  columns  with  the  list 
of  fairs  published  for  the  year  1888.  The  summary 
on  p.  45  compiled  from  this  list,  may  be  interesting  as 
showing  the  relative  number  of  fairs  existing  in  each 
county  at  the  respective  dates. 

The  extent  to  which  the  fairs  have  died  out  in  some 
counties  is  startling,  as,  for  instance,  in  Kent,  where  130 
have  dwindled  to  thirteen.  But  it  is,  perhaps,  even  more 
surprising  to  observe  that  in  other  counties — though  they 
are  not  many — the  number  of  fairs  has  actually  increased. 
Lancashire,  Cheshire,  Cumberland,  and  Cornwall,  and  one 
or  two  of  the  Welsh  counties  are  chiefly  noteworthy  in 
this  respect.  It  should  be  mentioned  that  the  bare 
figures  do  not  show  the  whole  of  the  changes  which  have 
taken  place.  In  several  instances  where  little  alteration 
is  shown  in  the  number  of  fairs  existing  in  the  county, 
some  have  been  extinguished,  and  others  have  sprung  up 
in  different  places.  There  is  no  doubt  that  a  goodly  number 
of  the  defunct  fairs  owe  their  decease  to  the  operation  of 
the  Fairs  Act  of  1871,  which  enables  a  local  authority. 


ENGLISH  MARKETS  AND   FAIRS. 


45 


with  the  sanction  of  the  Home  Secretary,  to  abolish  any 
fair. 


Counties. 

1792. 

188S. 

Counties. 

1792. 

18S8. 

Anglesea  . 

8 

8 

Lancashire 

43 

52 

Bedfordshire 

16 

14 

Leicestersliire    . 

15 

14 

Berkshire 

25 

14 

Lincoln    . 

52 

39 

Brecknock 

6 

5 

Merioneth 

14 

II 

Bucks 

24 

20 

Middlesex 

13 

5 

Cambridge 

12 

8 

Monmouth 

12 

18 

Cardigan  . 

13 

8 

Montgomery     . 

6 

II 

Carmarthen 

29 

21 

Norfolk    . 

76 

27 

Carnarvon 

18 

9 

Northampton    . 

21 

18 

Cheshire    . 

15 

21 

Northumberland 

20 

19 

Cornwall  . 

36 

42 

Oxon 

19 

18 

Cumberland 

18 

24 

Pembroke 

12 

23 

Denbigh   . 

24 

6 

Radnor    . 

7 

9 

Derby 

24 

24 

Rutland  . 

2 

I 

Devon 

72 

37 

Shropshire 

27 

19 

Dorset 

43 

26 

Somerset 

97 

52 

Durham    . 

10 

16 

Stafford   . 

29 

24 

Essex 

95 

15 

Suffolk     . 

69 

13 

Flintshire . 

II 

5 

Surrey 

35 

17 

Glamorgan 

16 

16 

Sussex 

119 

41 

Gloucestershire  . 

37 

32 

Warwick 

16 

18 

Hampshire 

56 

24 

Westmorland    . 

10 

14 

Hereford  . 

15 

14 

Wilts 

43 

28 

Hertfordshire     . 

31 

10 

Worcester 

20 

12 

Hunts 

13 

6 

Yorkshire 

lOI 

84 

Isle  of  Man 
Kent 

130 

I  I 

13 

Totals 

1,691 

1.055 

Much  has  been  said  in  condemnation — and,  indeed, 
little  can  be  said  in  defence — of  the  "  pleasure  fair  "  as  it 
now  survives.  Those  who  have  had  the  opportunity  of 
observing  a  big  pleasure  fair,  such  as  that  of  St.  Giles  at 
Oxford,  will  probably  agree  that,  if  it  possesses  redeeming 
features,  they  are,  to  say  the  least,  not  very  conspicuous. 
But  it  would  be  unfair  to  include  all  in  one  anathema. 
No  doubt  a  legitimate  excuse  for  the  survival  of  a  fair  often 
exists  when  it  is  made  an  occasion  for  selling  live  stock. 

There  is,  and  always  has  been,  generally  speaking, 
more  direct  agricultural  interest  in  markets  than  in  fairs. 
Obviously,  the  regular  weekly  or  bi-weekly  market  must 


46  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

primarily  have  been  intended  for  the  sale  of  food,  while 
the  periodical  fair  would  naturally  be  devoted  rather  to 
the  provision  of  commodities  in  less  frequent  use. 

The  English  market  system  grew  up  by  means  of 
Royal  grants  ;  and,  generally  speaking,  the  ordinary 
means,  up  to  a  recent  period,  by  which  a  market  was 
estabhshed  was  by  soUciting  and  obtaining  a  concession 
from  the  Crown  of  the  franchise  or  privilege  to  hold  a 
market.  This  prerogative  of  the  sovereign  dates  in  this 
country  from  the  earliest  times,  and  is  stated  by  Messrs. 
Elton  and  Costelloe  to  be  of  Frankish  origin.  At  any 
rate,  in  the  early  Enghsh  kingdoms  the  right  of  holding 
markets  was  among  the  jura  regalia,  which  might  be  made 
matter  of  grant  and  transferred  as  a  franchise  into  the 
possession  of  a  subject.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  market 
right  was  always  granted  in  England  to  individuals  ; 
even  when  the  franchise  was  enjoyed  by  a  corporation,  its 
origin  was,  in  theory,  independent  of  the  ordinary  muni- 
cipal privileges.  In  Scotland,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
right  of  market  appears  as  one  of  the  ordinary  privileges 
of  a  trading  town. 

The  extent  to  which,  when  the  country  commenced 
to  become  developed,  this  prerogative  of  the  Crown 
was  invoked  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact  that  from 
1199  to  1483  over  2,800  grants  of  markets  and  fairs 
were  made,  and  more  than  half  of  these  were  made 
during  the  first  seventy-four  years  of  that  period.  It 
may  be  of  interest  to  add,  for  comparison  with  a  much 
later  time,  that  during  the  period  1700  to  1846  the 
number  of  grants  was  ninety-three.  Since  the  abolition 
of  the  system  of  Royal  grants,  many  markets  have  been 
established  under  Act  of  Parhament,  and  subject  to  the 
supervision  of  the  Local  Government  Board,  which, 
however,  only  deals  with  markets  in  the  hands  of  local 
authorities.  The  following  table  shows  concisely  the 
various  authorities  under  which  market  rights  are  now 
exercised  in  England  and  Wales,  and  the  different  owners 


ENGLISH  MARKETS  AND  FAIRS. 


47 


to  whom  these  rights  belong.  As  regards  the  thirty- 
three  instances  where  no  rights  are  claimed  and  no  markets 
are  held  it  may  be  explained  that  they  appear  in  this 
table  because,  in  a  return  presented  to  Parhament  in 
),  they  were  specified  as  places  where  "  a  resemblance 


of  a  market  was  at  that  time  to  be  found." 


Owners. 

Bodies 

of 
persons 
other 

than 
trading 

com- 
panies. 

Quasi 
markets 
held 
under 
ques- 
tionable 
rights, 

or 
inform- 
ation 
defec- 
tive. 

Places 
where  no 

markets 

are  now 

held. 

Alleged  title  or  authority 
for  markets. 

Local 
autho- 
rities. 

Trading 

com- 
panies. 

Private 
persons. 

Total. 

1.  By  Royal  grant, 

charter,  letters 
patent,  etc. 

2.  By  prescription . 

3.  By    charter     or 

prescription, 
confirmed       or 
regulated       by 
statute    , 

4.  By            statute 

(general) 

5.  By            statute 

(special),    local 
and         private 
Acts 

6.  By  purchase  or 

grant 

7.  Particulars     not 

ascertained 

8.  No            market 

rights  claimed 

90 
17 

41 
40 

42 

79 
I 

3 

6 

8 

20 

14 
16 

no 

43 

4 

5 

97 
15 

18 

6 

I 

7 

I 

3 
3 

4 
18 

8 

2 

14 
33 

232 
76 

46 
40 

74 
80 

133 

88 

313 

64 

274 

39 

22 

51 

769 

Of  the  769  markets,  or  vestiges  of  markets,  enumerated, 
it  appears  that  261  were  in  boroughs,  266  in  other  urban 
districts,  and  242  in  rural  districts. 

On  the  amount  of  the  income  which  the  various  market 
owners  obtain  by  virtue  of  the  rights  granted  to  tbem. 


48  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

the  Reports  of  the  Inland  Revenue  Commissioners  throw 
some  hght.  In  the  year  ending  April  5th,  1890,  the 
following  was  the  amount  of  the  gross  assessment  to 
Schedule  D  of  the  income  tax  under  the  head  of  "  Markets, 
Tolls,  etc."  : — 

England 528,441 

Scotland 25,413 

Ireland 47.867 

United  Kingdom  .  .  .  .  .601,721 

There  has  been  no  great  variation  in  the  amount 
during  the  last  ten  years  at  least.  Thus,  in  1880-81, 
the  total  amount  was  £601,577. 

Closely  connected  with  the  right  of  holding  a  market 
was  that  of  keeping  standard  weights  and  measures  ; 
and  it  may  be  added  that  the  market  owners  in  some  cases 
at  least  provided  sworn  meters  for  measuring  cloth, 
corn,  salt,  etc.  Possibly  to  this  cause — in  part  at  least — 
is  due  the  remarkable  diversity  of  local  weights  and 
measures,  each  being  recognised  as  a  standard  in  its 
particular  district.  So  far  as  the  regulation  of  markets 
was  concerned,  the  main  object  of  all  the  ancient  laws 
and  usages  was  to  promote  fair  dealing,  and  to  prevent 
and  punish  chicanery.  The  following  passage  quoted 
from  the  Liher  Albus  of  the  city  of  London  is  a  good 
instance  both  of  the  "  tricks  of  the  trade  "  current  in 
mediaeval  times,  and  of  the  soHcitude  with  which  the 
authorities  sought  to  defeat  them  : — ^ 

And  whereas  some  buyers  and  brokers  of  corn  do  buy  corn 
in  the  city  of  country  folks  who  bring  it  to  the  city  to  sell,  and 
give,  on  the  bargain  being  made,  a  penny  or  halfpenny  by  way 
of  earnest  ;  and  tell  the  peasants  to  take  the  corn  to  their 
house,  and  that  there  they  shall  receive  their  pay.  And  when 
they  come  and  think  to  have  their  payment  directly,  the  buyer 
says  that  his  wife  at  his  house  has  gone  out  and  has  taken  the 
key  of  the  room,  so  that  he  cannot  get  at  his  money  ;  but  that 
the  other  must  go  away,  and  come  again  soon  and  receive  his 

I  First  Report  of  Market  Rights  and  Tolls  Commission,  Vol.  I., 
p.  47- 


ENGLISH  MARKETS  AND   FAIRS.  49 

pay.  And  when  he  comes  back  the  second  time,  then  the 
buyer  is  not  to  be  found  ;  or  else  if  he  is  found,  he  feigns  some- 
thing else,  by  reason  whereof  the  poor  men  cannot  have  their 
pay.  And,  sometimes,  while  the  poor  men  are  waiting  for 
their  pay  the  buyer  causes  the  corn  to  be  wetted  ;  and  then, 
when  they  come  to  ask  for  their  pay  which  was  agreed  upon, 
[they  are  told]  to  wait  until  such  a  day  as  the  buyer  shall 
choose  to  name,  or  else  to  take  off  a  part  of  the  price  ;  which 
if  they  will  not  do,  they  may  take  their  corn  and  carry  it 
away ;  a  thing  which  they  cannot  do,  because  it  is  wetted, 
[and]  in  another  state  than  it  was  when  they  sold  it. 

Any  person  "  towards  whom  such  knavishness  "  as 
this  is  committed  is  to  complain  to  the  mayor,  and  the 
shifty  buyer,  on  conviction,  is  to  pay  "  double  the  value 
and  full  damages  as  well,"  or,  in  default,  to  stand  in  the 
pillory. 

Another  of  these  enactments — which  probably  refers 
to  the  time  of  Edward  I.,  and  no  doubt  then  merely 
codified  long-established  custom — states  that  two  loaves 
of  bread  are  to  be  made  for  id.,  and  that  no  loaf  is  to  be 
baked  of  bran.  The  bakers  generally  were  under  severe 
restrictions,  and  it  was  provided  that  if  "  any  default  " 
were  found  in  the  bread  of  a  baker  of  the  city,  he  was, 
for  the  first  offence,  to  be  drawn  on  a  hurdle  from  the 
Guildhall  to  his  own  house  "  through  the  great  streets 
where  there  may  be  most  people  assembled,  and  through 
the  great  streets  that  are  most  dirty,  with  the  faulty  loaf 
hanging  from  his  neck." 

The  necessity  for  guarding  against  dishonest  dealing 
lies  at  the  very  root  of  the  market  system.  One  main 
object  wliich  the  market  served  was  to  secure  publicity 
of  sale,  so  that  there  might  be  credible  witnesses  to  the 
transfer  of  property.  In  the  tenth  century  an  effort 
appears  to  have  been  made  to  prevent  all  buying  and 
selling,  even  of  cattle,  except  in  a  market  town.  According 
to  the  laws  attributed  to  William  the  Conqueror,  sales 
were  only  allowed  to  take  place  in  cities,  walled  tow^ns, 
castles,  and  other  safe  places  where  there  was  sufficient 
good  government  and  security  to  insure  respect  for  the 

A.F.  E 


50  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

authority  of  the  common  law  and  the  maintenance  of 
the  rights  of  the  Crown.  These  reasons,  however,  say 
Messrs.  Elton  and  Costelloe,  may  have  been  due  to  "an 
after-thought  of  the  Norman  lawyers,"  the  principle  of 
the  English  laws  on  the  subject  having  been  based  on 
the  expediency  of  having  a  special  class  of  witnesses  for 
the  transfer  of  property.  The  notion  that  only  a  class 
of  persons  of  exceptional  credibility  should  be  allowed  to 
attest  sales  runs  through  the  whole  of  the  enactments. 
In  most  of  the  English  towns  there  was  a  class  of  persons 
who  were  the  "  good  "  or  "  credible  "  or  "  lawful  "  men 
of  the  town.  These  were  regarded  as  an  official  class, 
and  were  gradually  organised  into  an  official  body. 

The  chief  officer  of  the  trading  town  in  Anglo- 
Saxon  times  was  the  "  port  reeve  " — London,  Canterbury, 
Bath,  and  Bodmin  being  instances  of  towns  where  records 
of  such  an  official  exist.  All  transactions  in  the  market 
were  made  before  the  port  reeve,  or  some  person  appointed 
by  him,  or  in  the  presence  of  two  or  three  "  credible 
witnesses."  Such  a  sale  in  "  market  overt  "  gave  the 
buyer  a  title  against  all  comers.  Mr.  G.  Prior  Goldney, 
the  City  Remembrancer,  in  evidence  before  the  Market 
Rights  and  Tolls  Commission,  referred  to  this  as  one  of 
the  early  advantages  of  the  establishment  of  markets. 
Whereas,  in  the  private  sale  of  goods,  the  vendor  could 
give  no  better  title  to  the  goods  than  he  himself  possessed, 
and  therefore  the  purchaser  would  by  law  be  compelled 
to  restore  them  to  anyone  who  could  prove  a  better  title, 
by  sale  in  "  market  overt  "  the  purchaser  acquired  a 
perfectly  good  title — of  course,  direct  fraud  being  supposed 
to  be  absent.  Thus,  if  a  man  stole  a  bullock  and  sold  it 
in  "  market  overt,"  the  purchaser  became  the  lawful 
proprietor,  and  could  hold  it  against  all  claimants  ;  but 
there  was  a  rather  odd  exception  to  this  rule  made  in  the 
case  of  horses,  which  did  not  come  under  the  law  of 
"  market  overt."  To  constitute  a  sale  in  "  market  overt  " 
the   commodity  sold  must  be   actually  in   the  market 


ENGLISH  MARKETS   AND  FAIRS.  51 

during  the  whole  of  the  transaction  from  the  making  of 
the  contract  to  the  delivery. 

In  close  connection  with  these  customs  and  regulations 
may  be  mentioned  the  Court  of  Pie  Poudre,  which  is 
described  in  Blackstone's  "  Commentaries  "  as  being 

a  court  of  record,  incident  to  every  fair  and  market  of  which 
the  steward  of  him  who  owns  or  has  the  toll  of  the  market  is 
the  judge,  and  its  jurisdiction  extends  to  administer  justice 
for  al]  commercial  injuries  done  in  that  very  fair  or  market  and 
not  in  any  preceding  one,  so  that  the  injury  must  be  done, 
complained  of,  heard,  and  determined  within  the  compass  of 
one  and  the  same  day,  unless  the  fair  continues  longer. 

The  officer  of  this  court  was  above  all  judges  and 
justices,  and  could  settle  all  disputes  in  a  summary  way, 
"  like  an  oriental  cadi." 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  Pie  Poudre  Court  now 
survives  in  any  place,  though  in  Bristol  it  existed  in  form 
up  to  a  comparatively  recent  date.  In  the  "  Dictionary 
of  Bristol  "  it  is  stated  that,  until  about  the  year  1874, 
under  the  porch  of  the  ancient  hostelry  known  as  the 
"  Stag  and  Hounds,"  Old  Market  Street,  a  solemn  farce 
was  performed  annually  on  September  30th,  by  the  formal 
opening  of  this  court.  It  is  said  to  have  originated  in 
the  reign  of  Alfred,  and  was  established  for  the  settlement 
of  disputes  which  arose  during  the  Bristol  fair.  The 
opening  ceremony  was  as  follows  :  A  procession  walked 
from  the  Council  House  to  Old  Market  Street,  consisting 
of  the  sheriffs,  a  seneschal,  sergeant-at-mace,  and  other 
officers  ;  on  arrival  at  the  "  Stag  and  Hounds,"  toasted 
cheese,  cider,  and  metheglin — a  Saxon  wine  peculiar  to 
the  western  counties — were  distributed  amongst  the 
parties  doing  business  at  the  court.  This  latter  custom 
was  abolished  some  years  before  the  extinction  of  the 
court,  because  the  people  used  to  tilt  the  bowl,  and  upset 
the  liquor  over  one  another  ;  consequently,  fees  were 
substituted  for  refreshments.  The  court  having  been 
duly  opened,  the  business  was  conducted  at  the  "  Tolzey 
Court   Office,"   from   September  30th   to   October   15th 

E  2 


52  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

inclusive.  The  Pie  Poudre  Court  is  now  incorporated 
with  the  "  Tolzey  Court,"  which  is  a  tribunal  of  equal 
antiquity,  being  the  "  most  ancient  Court  of  Record  by 
prescription."  When  the  castle  of  Bristol  became  a 
Royal  residence,  the  old  court  of  the  Hundred  became 
united  to  the  Palace  Court,  in  which  the  King's  seneschal 
was  assisted  by  the  bailiff.  The  court  was  held  at  the 
"  Tolzey,"  a  place  where  the  King's  tolls  and  duties  were 
collected,  and  it  was  called  the  Court  of  Tolzey — the  word 
being  said  to  be  derived  from  "  toll."  In  this  court  all 
actions  of  debt,  covenant,  trespass,  and  other  civil  actions 
arising  within  the  city  could  be  prosecuted  by  action  or 
by  foreign  attachment,  and  its  jurisdiction  extended  to 
the  whole  of  the  county  of  the  city  on  land,  and  by  water 
to  the  Flat  and  Steep  Holmes.^ 

It  goes  almost  without  saying  that,  during  the  long 
history  of  market  rights,  abuses  had  crept  in  and  disad- 
vantages had  been  developed.  Naturally,  these  were 
chiefly  in  connection  with  the  tolls  levied  by  market 
owners.  Toll,  it  may  be  mentioned,  was  not  incident  to 
a  fair  or  market  without  a  special  grant,  though  it  is 
probable  that  all  market  owners  possess  the  right  to  levy 
it.  In  many  cases — if  not  originally  in  all  as  regards 
produce — the  toll  was  in  kind,  and  this  antiquated  form 
of  payment  still  continues  in  a  few  instances.  Thus, 
at  Berwick,  one  egg  from  every  thirty  is  taken  ;  at 
Guildford,  a  pint  of  corn  is  taken  from  every  sack  ;  at 
Devizes,  two  quarts  of  corn  are  taken  from  each  lot ;  and 
at  Penzance,  two  quarts  are  taken  from  every  bushel 
of  corn. 

The  customs  anciently  payable  in  the  city  of  London, 
according  to  the  Liher  Albus,  were  in  many  cases  tolls 
in  kind.     Thus  : — 

The  cart  that  brings  planks  of  oak  shall  give  one  plank. 
Every  cart  that  brings  leeks  in  Lent  shall  pay  one  penny  and 
one  fesselet  of  leeks. 

*  Two  islands  in  the  Bristol  Channel. 


ENGLISH  MARKETS  AND  FAIRS. 


53 


The  vessel  that  brings  mackerel  shall  give  six  and  twenty 
mackerel,  the  franchise  excepted. 

In  "  Smythefelde  "  the  customary  charges  were  one 
penny  for  every  full-grown  cow  or  ox,  and  for  every  dozen 
sheep  sold. 

It  is  difficult  to  give  in  a  brief  space  any  fair  idea  of 
the  range  of  tolls  in  the  various  markets  throughout 
the  kingdom.  As  regards  cattle  markets,  however,  the 
following  table  may  be  of  interest  as  showing  the  present 
tolls  charged  in  a  few  representative  markets  : — 


Market. 

Cattle. 

Sheep. 

Pigs. 

Horses. 

Pens  for 
animals. 

Per  head. 

Per  head. 

Per  head. 

Per  head. 

d. 

s.    d. 

s.    d. 

s.    d. 

Islington 

6 

o      Ij 

o     li 

o     7i 

Barnstaple     | 

3^.  if  sold 

) 

id.  if  un- 

o    oi 

O       I 

o     6 

sold. 

) 

Guildford 

6 

O        I 

O       I 

o     6 

Leeds 

2 

Id.  to  Id. 

Id.  to  Id. 

o     3 

Liverpool 

6 

O       I 

O       I 

I      o 

Oxford 

2 

O       I 

O       I 

o     3 

Norwich 

6 

O       I 

per  score. 

O       I 

per  score. 

I      o 

Reading 

6 

I     8 

I     8 

o     6 

Taunton 

3 

I     8 

I     8 

I      o 

••1 

15. for  7 

sq. feet 

Barnsley 

2 

O    lO 

O    lO 

in  addi- 

tion  to 

( 

toll. 

Rochdale 

6 

I     4 

I     4 

o     6» 

Generally  speaking,  it  is  chiefly  in  regard  to  animals 
that  tolls  are  taken  upon  the  "  quantity  "  exposed  for 
sale.  In  the  case  of  corn,  vegetables,  meat,  fish,  etc., 
the  more  usual  practice  nowadays  seems  to  be  to  charge 
a  certain  amount  of  rent  for  the  occupation  of  a  stall  or 
situation  in  the  market.  There  is  an  increasing  tendency 
to  substitute  "  stallage,"  or  rents  for  space,  for  tolls  on 
goods  brought  into  the  market.     One  evident  advantage 

'  Stallions,  15. 


54  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

is  that  the  trouble  of  enumerating  and  checking  the 
entries  of  articles,  of  examining  the  dimensions  of  baskets, 
etc.,  is  avoided,  and  fewer  disputes  are  likely  to  arise. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  substitution  of  a  system  of  stallage 
in  place  of  toll  tends  to  suppress  the  small  producer  and 
to  drive  all  the  trade  into  the  hands  of  the  middlemen. 
The  cottager  with  his  basket  of  eggs,  or  the  small  farmer 
or  gardener  with  his  load  of  vegetables,  cannot  afford 
to  rent  a  stall,  and  is  consequently  compelled — under 
a  uniform  system  of  stallage — to  reach  the  consumer 
through  the  stall-holder. 

Tolls  and  stallage  are  quite  distinct,  and  may  both  be 
charged  in  the  same  market.  In  fact,  the  proceeds  of 
each  might  belong  to  a  different  person.  There  is  no 
reason,  therefore,  either  historically  or  practically — so 
far  as  appears — why  both  systems  should  not  continue, 
as  in  many  cases  they  do,  side  by  side  in  the  same  market. 

An  attempt  has  been  made,  though  with  very  partial 
success,  to  ascertain  the  ratio  which  tolls  bear  to  the 
prices  of  commodities  sold  in  the  markets.  Most  of  the 
market  owners  from  whom  information  was  sought 
either  ignored  that  particular  inquiry,  or,  if  they 
attempted  an  answer,  replied  "  infinitesimal  "  or  "  im- 
possible to  say."  A  little  information  is  forthcoming 
with  regard  to  some  of  the  chief  London  markets,  from 
which  it  appears  that,  at  the  Central  Meat  Market,  the 
toll  amounts  to  ^^  of  the  price.  At  Deptford  Foreign 
Cattle  Market  the  toll  ranges  from  ^^g-  in  the  case  of 
calves  to  -^^  in  the  case  of  bullocks.  At  the  Metropolitan 
Cattle  Market  the  ratio  is  very  much  less,  ranging  from 
5^(j  for  calves  to  y^-^  for  bullocks.  At  Birmingham  the 
toU  on  potatoes  is  ^^  of  the  price  (or  8^.  in  the  £), 
and  on  butter  -^q.  Generally  speaking,  on  high-priced 
articles  sold  in  considerable  bulk  the  toll  is  inappreciable  ; 
but  on  others,  such  as  baskets  of  vegetables,  eggs,  butter, 
etc.,  it  bears  a  more  serious  proportion. 

The  rights  under  which  markets  are  held  being,  to  say 


ENGLISH  MARKETS  AND  FAIRS.  55 

the  least,  in  many  cases  rather  obscure,  it  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at  that  instances  are  discoverable  where  the 
powers  exercised  exceed  the  limits  laid  down  by  charter 
or  statute.  The  most  frequent  instance  of  this  tendency 
is  to  charge  tolls  on  other  days  than  those  authorised. 
Thus,  for  example,  at  Bridgwater,  the  market  is  authorised 
by  Act  of  Parliament  for  three  days  in  the  week,  but  tolls 
are — or  were  in  1888 — taken  every  day.  In  Ireland, 
the  Royal  Commission  reported  that  in  many  cases  the 
market  charges  are  "  wholly  unauthorised,"  but  they 
observed  that  it  would  be  somewhat  hazardous,  in  the 
face  of  the  enormous  number  of  grants,  to  say  with  regard 
to  any  town  of  importance  that  a  market  had  not  been 
sanctioned  for  every  day  of  the  week  except  Sunday. 
In  some  cases  two  or  three  different  charges  appear  to 
be  imposed  on  the  same  commodity.  Thus,  at  Carlisle, 
butter  purchased  in  the  market  by  a  trader  whose  shop 
was  in  the  suburbs  paid  four  tolls,  viz.,  (i)  the  in-gate 
toll,  (2)  the  market  toll,  (3)  a  packing  toll,  and  (4)  the 
out-gate  toll.  At  Dorchester  an  instance  was  given,  at 
a  public  inquiry  held  there,  in  which  five  separate  tolls, 
amounting  to  2s.  2d.,  had  been  paid  on  one  load  of  fish. 
Naturally,  these  reiterated  charges  give  rise  to  much 
complaint — not  always  because  their  gross  amount  is 
excessive,  but  because  of  the  annoyance  and  trouble 
which  they  occasion.  A  good  many  markets  existed, 
no  doubt,  where,  with  a  cheerful  indifference  to  any  Act 
of  Parliament,  the  authorities  had  not  published  a  list 
of  tolls,  and  in  some  cases,  indeed,  had  not  even  fixed 
them,  the  collector  being  allowed  practically  to  follow 
the  principle  laid  down  by  railway  managers,  and  to 
"  charge  what  the  traffic  will  bear."  The  visits  of  the 
Assistant  Commissioners,  no  doubt,  did  much  to  call  the 
attention  of  market  authorities  to  their  liabilities  and 
duties.  A  characteristic  incident  was  reported  from 
Ireland.  For  many  years,  at  a  place  called  Gart,  no  toll 
board    had    been    exposed    on    market    and    fair    days, 


56  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

"  because  it  was  lost."  On  the  very  day  on  which  the 
Assistant  Commissioner  held  his  public  inquiry  in  that 
town,  the  missing  board  was  found  and  produced  before 
him. 

In  some  market  towns  the  inhabitants,  the  freemen, 
the  burgesses,  or  some  other  privileged  class  are  allowed 
certain  advantages  in  regard  to  the  market  charges.  In 
many  instances  auctioneers  are  charged  an  extra  toll  on 
all  animals  sold  by  them.  At  Leicester,  Northampton, 
and  Cambridge,  for  instance,  they  paid  a  triple  toll.  At 
Leeds  they  were  still  more  discouraged,  for  no  auctioneers 
were  allowed  to  sell  cattle  either  within  or  outside  of 
the  cattle  market. 

Among  other  anomalies  the  exemption  from  toll  of 
certain  commodities  in  some  markets  is  curious.  Thus, 
at  Blackpool,  butter,  eggs,  fresh  fish  and  shell  fish  are 
specially  excepted  by  statute.  At  Hastings,  fish  landed 
on  the  beach  is  toll  free,  while  that  brought  by  land  pays 
toll — a  very  intelhgible  distinction.  At  Knaresboro', 
Northallerton,  and  other  places,  butter  and  eggs  are  toll- 
free  by  custom.  At  Londonderry,  the  corporation  charge 
2d.  for  each  cart  with  buttermilk  entering  the  city, 
whether  taken  to  the  market  or  not ;  but  no  toll  is  levied 
on  carts  with  sweet  milk.  The  explanation  given  of  this 
remarkable  distinction  is  that,  when  the  Act  was  obtained, 
the  members  of  the  corporation  of  that  day  were  the 
principal  vendors  of  sweet  milk  through  the  town,  and 
they  did  not  wish  to  tax  themselves. 

It  is  a  little  surprising  to  find  that,  in  at  least  two  towns 
— Newcastle-on-Tyne  and  Carlisle — there  exists  a  charge 
which  is  substantially  the  same  as  the  octroi  of  the 
Continent,  being,  in  fact,  a  toll  levied  on  all  goods, 
cattle,  carts,  waggons,  etc.,  passing  into  the  towns  from 
the  adjacent  districts.  They  are  known  as  "  through  " 
or  "  gate  "  tolls,  and  traces  of  similar  charges  under  the 
name  of  street  toll  and  passage  toll  are  to  be  found  at 
Cambridge  and  Dorchester.     At  Carlisle,  in  addition  to 


ENGLISH  MARKETS  AND  FAIRS.  57 

the  market  tolls  and  stallages,  the  corporation  is  entitled 
to  what  are  known  as  "  shire  "  and  "  gates  "  tolls  leviable 
upon  all  goods  taken  into  or  out  of  the  city  of  Carlisle  or 
the  county  of  Cumberland.  The  latter  is  now  represented 
by  a  lump  sum  of  £615  paid  by  way  of  commutation  by 
the  railway  companies,  and  from  the  former  a  sum  of 
about  £1,400  is  obtained  annually.  At  Newcastle,  the 
through  toll  is  very  similar,  the  main  difference  as 
compared  with  Carlisle  being  that  its  proceeds  are  much 
more  valuable.  The  amount  received  at  Newcastle  for 
through  toll  in  the  year  1887  was  £6,784,  and  the  cost  of 
its  collection  and  other  charges  came  to  £1,243,  leaving  a 
balance  of  £5,541,  which  went  in  aid  of  the  general  rate 
of  the  city. 

But,  apart  from  the  burden,  or  assumed  burden,  of 
the  tolls  and  charges,  there  are  other  grievances  of  which 
many  complaints  have  been  made  more  or  less  articulately 
and  vehemently.  Injury  done  to  the  community  by  a 
market  monopoly  could  scarcely  arise  very  grievously 
out  of  London  ;  but,  at  any  rate,  one  well-known  case 
has  occurred  in  the  metropolis  where  the  owners  of  an 
East-end  market  successfully  resisted  the  right  of  any 
other  persons  to  open  a  new  market  for  the  sale  of  fruit 
and  vegetables  within  seven  miles  of  the  existing  market. 
In  some  cases  the  insufficiency  of  market  accommodation 
vexes  the  souls  of  sellers,  if  not  of  buyers.  This,  perhaps, 
is  also  especially  a  metropolitan  grievance.  At  Billings- 
gate, for  instance,  the  superintendent  is  pestered  for 
more  space,  and  could  let  double  the  area  if  it  were 
available.  There  are  some  who  think  that  the  concentra- 
tion of  the  food  supply  in  a  few  great  markets  is  not 
advantageous  either  to  producers  or  consumers,  and  that 
its  chief  result  has  been  the  aggrandisement  of  a  compara- 
tively small  number  of  middlemen. 

Without  attempting  to  present  anything  like  what 
may  be  termed  the  "case"  against  the  market  owners, 
we  have  touched  upon  a  few  of  the  points  which  had 


58  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

engendered  a  certain  amount  of  discontent  in  various  parts 
of  the  country.  With  the  view  of  inquiring  into  the 
reasons  of  that  discontent,  a  Royal  Commission  on  Market 
Rights  and  Tolls  was  issued  in  July,  1887,  to  inquire  into 
the  whole  subject,  and  to  report  as  to  the  alterations 
which  might  be  desirable  in  the  existing  law  relating  to 
markets,  having  due  regard  to  the  interests  of  those 
concerned. 

Among  the  conclusions  at  which  the  Royal  Commission 
arrived,  were  two  which  were  at  once  passed  into  law, 
and  of  which  special  mention  should  be  made. 

The  first  of  these  recommendations  (which  was  the 
twenty-fourth  made  by  the  Commission)  ran  as  follows  : — 

That  it  is  desirable  that  markets  which  are  now  required 
to  be  provided  with  machines  for  weighing  cattle  should  be 
furnished  with  sufficient  and  suitable  accommodation  for  the 
same ;  the  question  of  sufficiency  and  suitability  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  Board  of  Agriculture,  after  inspection. 

It  will  be  remembered  that,  by  the  Markets  and  Fairs 
(Weighing  of  Cattle)  Act  of  1887,  all  authorities  of  cattle 
markets  were  directed  to  provide  "  weighing  machines 
and  weights  for  the  purpose  of  weighing  cattle,"  and, 
accordingly,  machines  were  erected  at  the  various  markets 
throughout  the  kingdom.  But  the  market  authorities, 
compelled  to  incur  an  outlay  for  which  they  failed  to 
see  the  need,  complied  in  many  instances  only  with  the 
letter  of  the  law,  and  ignored,  or  set  themselves  to  defeat, 
its  spirit.  For  instance,  one  of  the  Assistant  Commis- 
sioners who  visited  a  large  number  of  the  English  markets 
reported  to  the  Royal  Commission  that  weighbridges 
were  not  generally  placed  in  convenient  situations.  He 
observed  that  "  Wherever  you  have  an  important 
market — as  you  have  at  Wakefield — for  cattle,  it  struck 
me  as  being  almost  ridiculous  to  have  a  small  weighbridge 
upon  which  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  get  a  fat  beast 
to   stand."     He  remarked,   further,   that   though   some 


ENGLISH  MARKETS  AND  FAIRS.  59 

market  authorities  had  done  their  best  to  erect  suitable 
weighbridges  in  convenient  situations,  others  had  not 
seemed  to  care  about  the  efficiency  of  the  machines. 
Other  evidence  bearing  out  this  opinion  might  be  cited, 
but  it  may  be  said  that  market  authorities  had  taken,  as 
a  rule,  no  trouble  to  do  more  than  the  Act  absolutely 
commanded,  and,  unfortunately,  no  provision  had  been 
made  for  seeing  that  the  facilities  provided  were  sufficient 
for,  or  suitable  to,  the  requirements  of  the  markets. 
Hence  arose  the  recommendation  of  the  Royal  Commis- 
sion on  the  subject. 

The  other  recommendation  referred  to  was  the  twenty- 
sixth,  which  was  as  follows  : — 

That  it  is  desirable  to  collect  statistics  of  the  market  prices 
of  meat,  and,  in  particular,  that  the  prices  of  cattle  at  per  stone, 
live  weight,  should  be  collected  (in  the  same  manner  as  the 
prices  of  corn  are  now  returned)  in  such  markets  as  may  be 
selected  for  the  purpose  by  the  Board  of  Trade. 

The  official  record  of  the  live-weight  prices  of  stock  is  a 
corollary  of  the  practice  of  weighing  cattle  at  markets. 
Nothing,  it  will  be  admitted,  can  be  more  unsatisfactory 
than  a  system  under  which  the  seller  does  not  know — 
and  has  no  means,  other  than  personal  observation,  of 
knowing — what  price  his  animals  fetch.  Yet,  under  the 
common  system,  no  farmer  who  sends  his  beasts  to  a 
saleman  is  able  to  check  any  statement  which  is  made  to 
him  as  to  the  prices  current  for  the  class  of  animals  which 
he  sold.  Thus,  to  quote  from  evidence  given  by  Sir  John 
Lawes  before  the  Royal  Commission,  it  is  possible  to 
know  with  considerable  accuracy,  by  weighing  them  alive, 
what  animals  will  weigh  when  dead  ;  but,  said  Sir  John 
Lawes,  "  If  I  send  to  the  London  market  and  look  at  the 
quoted  prices  for  that  meat  in  the  paper,  I  fmd  that 
instead  of  my  animals  weighing,  when  killed,  55,  56,  or 
58  per  cent.,  as  I  know  they  ought  to  weigh,  they  only 
weigh,  perhaps,  50  or  51  per  cent.    I  know  with  absolute 


6o  AN   AGRICULTURAL    FAGGOT. 

certainty  that  the  figures  are  misleading  and  incorrect." 
It  is  true  that  some  attempt  was  made  to  pubhsh  the 
prices  in  the  newspapers,  and  more  recently,  in  The  Times 
and  other  papers,  live-weight  prices  have  also  been 
periodically  given.  The  latter  are,  so  far  as  they  go, 
useful,  but  other  prices  were  either  so  indefinite  as  to  be 
meaningless  or  so  inaccurate  as  to  be  misleading.  As  a 
rule  the  papers  report  the  prices  in  the  vaguest  terms. 
Their  value  was  illustrated  by  Mr.  Pell  in  his  evidence 
before  the  Royal  Commission.  The  newspaper  reports, 
in  relation  to  the  market  at  Liecester,  week  after  week 
described  the  market  as  being  "  better,"  and  stated  that 
prices  had  risen  a  halfpenny  per  pound  ;  so  that,  observed 
Mr.  Pell,  "  If  those  reports  were  worth  anything,  beef 
would  be  standing  now  at  something  like  30s.  a  pound. 
I  looked  at  the  report  yesterday,  and  I  found  just  the 
same  thing — that  prices  were  about  a  halfpenny  per 
pound  better." 

The  advantage  of  accurate  price  records  is  two-fold  : 
market  reports,  if  inaccurate,  may  mislead  farmers  and 
producers  in  sending  forward  their  supplies  to  market ; 
again,  inaccurate  or  incomplete  market  reports  are  mis- 
leading to  the  consumer,  as  showing  the  wholesale  prices 
to  be  on  a  different  level  from  that  on  which  they 
really  stand,  preventing  fair  comparison  with  what  is 
charged  in  the  retail  trade  for  commodities,  and  generally 
hindering  business.  They  would  be  an  advantage  to 
agriculturists  and  statisticians  and  to  the  public  generally, 
and  they  would  have  the  effect  of  equalising  prices,  and 
perhaps  preventing  "  gluts  "  by  drawing  supplies  to  the 
markets  where  the  quotations  were  high. 

These  two  recommendations  of  the  Commission,  viz., 
for  the  better  provision  of  facilities  for  weighing  cattle,  and 
for  the  collection  of  live-weight  prices  at  markets,  were 
given  effect  to  by  the  Markets  and  Fairs  (Weighing  of 
Cattle)  Act  of  1891.  This  measure  provides  that  market 
authorities  having  to  erect  weighbridges  shall  provide  and 


ENGLISH  MARKETS  AND  FAIRS.  6i 

maintain  "  sufficient  and  suitable  accommodation  "  for 
weighing  cattle  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Board  of  Agri- 
culture. Consequently,  where  insufficient  or  unsuitable 
facilities  are  given,  farmers  will  be  able  to  appeal  to  the 
Board  of  Agriculture  to  insist  on  their  provision. 

As  regards  the  collection  of  live-weight  prices,  the  Act 
compels  the  authorities  of  certain  selected  markets  to  send 
to  the  Board  of  Agriculture,  in  such  a  form  as  the  Board 
may  prescribe,  returns  showing  the  number  of  cattle 
entering,  the  number  and  weight  of  the  cattle  weighed, 
and  the  price  of  those  sold.  The  market  authority  is 
given  power,  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  return,  to  cause 
any  cattle  to  be  weighed.  The  Act  further  provides  that 
auctioneers,  unless  exempted  by  the  Board  of  Agriculture, 
are  to  erect  weighbridges  in  their  saleyards  and  marts, 
and  all  auctioneers  having  marts  in  the  towns  from  which 
returns  of  prices  are  made  are  also  to  make  returns  to  the 
Board  of  Agriculture. 

One  other  recommendation  made  by  the  Royal  Commis- 
sion may  be  said  specially  to  affect  agriculture.  This  was 
the  twenty-fifth  recommendation,  which  ran  : — 

That  it  is  desirable  to  collect  statistics  of  market  prices  of 
commodities,  through  the  agency  of  market  owners,  as  far  as 
may  be  possible. 

As  regards  grain  and  live  stock,  certain  machinery  now 
exists  for  the  collection  of  prices.  In  reference  to  the 
former,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  at  the  beginning  of 
February,  1892,  the  responsibility  for  the  issue  of  the 
weekly  corn  returns  was  transferred  from  the  Board  of 
Trade  to  the  Board  of  Agriculture.  But  the  twenty-fifth 
recommendation  of  the  Commission  had  reference  to  pro- 
duce other  than  corn  and  cattle— such,  for  instance,  as 
cheese,  butter,  vegetables,  meat,  fish,  etc.  The  statistical 
and  commercial  advantages  of  a  rehable  record  of  prices 
are  practically  the  same  in  reference  to  every  consumable 
commodity.     As  yet  no  steps  have  been  taken  to  give 


62  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

effect  to  this  recommendation,  and  no  doubt  it  is  a  rather 
difficult  problem  to  solve  ;  but  we  may  hope  that,  before 
long,  farmers  will  be  placed  in  a  position  to  know  with 
practical  certainty  what  are  the  real  prices  current  in  the 
markets  of  the  country  for  everything  which  they 
produce.^ 

1  A  weekly  return   of  market   prices   was  established  by  the 
Board  of  Agriculture  and  Fisheries  in  1902. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE  MIGRATION  OF  AGRICULTURAL  LABOURERS.i 

Having  briefly  considered  the  bare  facts  of  the  case,*^  and 
having  indicated  that  though  there  is  a  migration  of 
agricultural  labourers  to  the  towns  it  is  no  novel  or  sudden 
movement,  and,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  is  not  at  present 
proceeding  at  any  exceptional  rate  as  compared  with 
previous  years,  or  with  other  countries,  I  may  call  your 
attention  to  a  few  of  the  causes  which  have  been  alleged 
and  the  remedies  which  have  been  proposed  for  it. 

To  no  class  in  the  community  can  the  question  of  retain- 
ing the  agricultural  labourer  on  the  land  be  of  more  direct 
interest  than  to  farmers.  It  must  be  obvious  that,  even 
on  the  narrow  grounds  of  self-interest,  they  have  every 
incentive  to  favour  any  practical  means  of  improving  the 
lot  and  of  brightening  the  prospects  of  the  agricultural 
labourer.  I  venture  to  say  that  the  agricultural  labourer 
will  receive  in  all  fair  and  legitimate  aspirations  more 
real  sympathy  from  the  farmers  of  the  country,  who  know 
him  well,  than  from  many  of  those  new-found  friends 
whose  affection  for  him  has  curiously  coincided  with 
political  exigencies. 

Perhaps  the  commonest  reason  for  labourers  leaving  the 
land  is  the  prospect  of  higher  wages  in  the  towns.  No 
doubt  the  wages  even  of  unskilled  labour  are,  and  must 
inevitably  be,  nominally  higher  in  the  towns  than  in  the 
country,  but  the  question  is  whether  they  have  a  relatively 
greater  purchasing  power.  The  net  monetary  difference 
is  in  reality  very  much  less  than  it  appears  to  the  eyes  of 

>  Read  before  the  Farmers'  Club,  February,  1892. 
2  The  earlier  part  of  the  paper  dealt  with  the   statistics  of 
rural  migration  at  that  period. 


64  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

the  countryman,  ignorant,  until  he  learns  from  experience, 
of  the  much  larger  outlay  required  in  the  town  to  attain 
the  same  standard  of  comfort.  But  the  standard  of 
remuneration  for  labour  is  naturally  less  in  the  country 
than  in  the  town,  on  the  principle  which  Adam  Smith  long 
ago  laid  down  that  wages  vary  according  to  the  agreeable- 
ness  or  disagreeableness  of  the  employment.  Work  in  the 
fields  is,  at  any  rate,  more  healthy,  and  one  would  think 
more  agreeable,  than  work  in  the  factory,  the  workshop 
or  the  streets. 

Life  here  (eloquently  wrote  the  special  commissioner  of  the 
Daily  News  from  Essex  last  August),  as  we  drive  along  looks 
so  placid,  so  pleasant,  so  easy,  that,  by  comparison,  the  life 
of  those  who  are  crowding  our  dock  gates,  or  are  pent  up  in 
gas  factories,  or  slaving  at  our  great  railway  stations,  conduct- 
ing omnibuses,  tramping  the  dull  streets  at  night  as  policemen, 
or  going  through  the  drudgery  of  a  city  warehouse — such  life 
seems  a  sort  of  nightmare.  .  .  .  These  Essex  villagers  have 
fresh  air,  and  flowers  and  fruit  in  their  season.  ...  If  their 
wages  are  low,  so  are  their  expenses,  and  though  they  get  none 
of  the  excitements  and  stir  of  town  life,  they  know  nothing  of 
its  struggle  or  strain  either. 

If  to  these  advantages  in  favour  of  the  country  it  were 
possible — as  in  the  nature  of  things  it  cannot  be  possible 
— to  add  equal  pecuniary  prospects,  we  might  expect  a 
depopulation  of  the  towns. 

I  cannot  attempt  to  dwell  on  the  large  subject  comprised 
in  the  word  "  wages."  It  was  exhaustively  treated  three 
years  ago  in  a  paper  by  Major  Craigie,  and  the  careful 
figures  then  placed  before  the  Farmers'  Club  remain  sub- 
stantially unaltered  now.  Tracing  the  range  of  farm 
wages  over  a  period  of  some  twenty  years,  Major  Craigie 
summed  up  the  result  as  follows  : — 

In  the  East  (of  England)  the  entire  rise  since  i860  in  the 
mean  wage  of  an  ordinary  labourer  has  disappeared,  and  the 
mean  rate  is  little,  if  at  all,  over  iis.  In  the  belt  of  thirteen 
counties  surrounding  the  immediate  home  of  wheat-growing 
on  the  West  and  South,  and  approaching  it  in  arable  character, 
the  process  has  been  exactly  similar,  but  the  level  from  which 
the  start  was  made  and  to  which  wages  have  now  returned  was 


MIGRATION  OF  AGRICULTURAL  LABOURERS.  65 

higher,  or  nearly  12s.  Next,  the  West  and  South-west  of 
England— the  traditional  region  of  low  weekly  wages — starting 
from  the  lowest  point  of  all,  9s.  lod.,  has,  after  a  rise  of  nearly 
30  per  cent.,  seen  wages  fall  certainly,  but  only  by  about  12  per 
cent.  Lastly,  in  the  very  opposite  region  of  the  high-waged 
North,  the  process  has  been  somewhat  akin  to  this — a  consider- 
ably greater  rise  in  the  periods  1860-80  than  has  since  been 
lost,  and  a  wage  level  now  perhaps  12  per  cent,  below  the  ante- 
depression  figure,  or  15s.  per  week.  A  more  considerable  drop 
would  seem  to  have  taken  place  close  to  the  manufacturing 
towns  of  the  North,  round  which,  when  business  was  good  some 
years  ago,  it  was  occasionally  hard  to  get  men. 

Assuming  these  figures  to  hold  good  now,  we  have  to 
admit  that  during  the  past  decade  the  wages  of  agricultural 
labourers  have  fallen  to  an  extent  which,  for  the  whole 
country,  may  be  put  at  about  14  per  cent.  But  if  the 
remuneration  of  the  labourer  has  diminished  during  the 
past  ten  years,  the  farmer's  profits  have  not  only  decreased, 
but,  in  too  many  cases,  practically  vanished.  It  is  obvious, 
too,  that  even  the  same  number  of  shilHngs  per  week  would 
represent — both  to  the  employer  and  to  the  labourer — 
something  very  different  now  to  that  which  it  did  in 
i860  ;  to  the  former,  because  his  margin  of  profit  has  been 
so  greatly  cut  down,  and  to  the  latter  because  the  price  of 
all  the  necessaries  of  life  has  so  much  decreased. 

It  is  almost  superfluous  to  refer  to  the  truism  that  the 
quoted  weekly  wage  is  misleading  as  to  the  actual  amount 
of  the  remuneration  of  an  agricultural  labourer.  Mr. 
W.  E.  Bear  has  recently  protested  (in  the  Nineteenth 
Century)  against  the  customary  misrepresentation  of  the 
amount  which  farm  labourers  earn.  He  remarks — very 
forcibly—"  Thousands  of  labourers  and  their  children 
living  at  home  together  earn  more  than  half  the  curates 
in  the  country."  In  this  connection  I  would  only  observe 
that  it  seems  highly  desirable  that  employers  of  labour  on 
the  farm  should  remunerate  their  employes  on  as  strict  a 
cash  basis  as  do  employers  of  labour  in  a  factory. 

In  comparing  rates  of  wages  at  different  periods  it 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  they  may  not  represent  the 

A.F.  F 


66  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

same  amount  of  work.  To  some  extent  and  in  some 
districts  the  number  of  hours  worked  in  the  week  seems  to 
be  less  now  than  it  used  to  be.  In  a  Parhamentary  Return 
issued  in  1890  some  particulars  were  given  for  certain 
counties  of  the  average  number  of  hours  worked  by 
agricultural  labourers  as  a  week's  work  in  the  years  1850, 
i860,  1870,  1880,  and  1890.  The  return  is  on  the  face  of 
it  not  exhaustive,  but  so  far  as  it  goes  it  shows  that  in 
twelve  out  of  forty-one  different  districts  the  week's  work 
had  been  reduced  during  the  preceding  thirty  years.  In 
two  instances — South  Devon  and  East  Suffolk — the 
reduction  was  reported  to  have  taken  place  within  the 
past  ten  years. 

There  has  lately  been  issued  by  the  Board  of  Trade  a 
report  by  Mr.  T.  H.  Elliott  ^  on  the  relation  of  wages  in 
certain  industries  to  the  cost  of  production.  This  contains 
a  summary  of  fifty-six  farmers'  balance  sheets  submitted 
to  the  Royal  Commission  on  Agriculture,*^  from  which  has 
been  calculated  in  each  case  the  proportion  which  the  cost 
of  labour  bears  to  the  total  value  of  the  produce  of  the 
farm  and  to  the  total  expenditure.  Most  of  the  accounts 
relate  to  only  one  year,  and  these  figures  might  be  so 
greatly  affected  by  the  season  that  they  would  not  give 
reliable  data  on  this  point.  In  nine  cases,  however — 
comprising  eight  different  counties — particulars  are  given 
for  a  series  of  years  covering  the  greater  part  of  the 
"  seventies,"  and  including  in  one  or  two  instances  some 
of  the  "  sixties  "  as  well.  Taking  the  mean  of  these  nine 
cases,  it  appears  that  the  percentage  of  the  cost  of  labour 
to  the  value  of  produce  was  27*0,  and  the  percentage  of 
cost  of  labour  to  total  expenditure  was  28*5.  Roughly, 
therefore,  the  labourer  took  rather  more  than  one-fourth 
of  the  whole  of  the  produce  of  the  farm  as  his  share. 

It  would  take  far  too  much  time  to  go  into  these  figures 
at  length  or  to  compare  them  with  those  given  for  other 

»  Now  Sir  T.  H.  Elliott.  K.C.B. 

*  The  "Richmond"  Commission  of  1880-2. 


MIGRATION  OF  AGRICULTURAL  LABOURERS.  67 

industries.  Taking  as  illustrations  one  or  two  of  the  most 
important  of  the  other  industries,  it  would  appear  that 
roughly  the  proportion  of  wages  to  total  value  of  product 
is  in  iron  mining  about  60  per  cent.,  in  the  manufacture 
of  pig  iron  nearly  25  per  cent.,  and  in  obtaining  steel  from 
pig  iron  about  15  per  cent.  In  shipbuilding  the  propor- 
tion of  wages  to  total  expenditure  is  about  40  per  cent., 
and  in  the  coal  industry  about  55  per  cent.  In  the  cotton 
industry  the  percentage  which  labour  bears  to  the  total 
value  of  the  product  is  put  at  about  27*8  per  cent. 

With  regard  to  the  share  of  the  produce  taken  by  the 
agricultural  labourer,  the  total  amount  for  the  United 
Kingdom  has  been  variously  estimated.  Major  Craigie 
puts  it  (in  the  paper  already  referred  to)  at  ;^5o,ooo,ooo, 
but  Mr.  Elliott,  in  his  report  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  thinks 
that  it  cannot  be  placed  lower  than  £55,000,000  to 
£56,000,000.  If  we  take  the  gross  annual  value  of  the  farm 
produce  of  the  United  Kingdom  at  the  amount  estimated 
by  Mr.  James  Howard,  viz.,  £207,000,000,  it  will  be  seen 
that  we  arrive  at  practically  the  same  conclusion  as  was 
reached  by  another  set  of  figures,  i.e.,  that  the  labourer's 
share  is  rather  more  than  one-fourth  of  the  produce. 

Another  natural  cause,  so  to  speak,  which  is  assigned 
for  the  decrease  of  agricultural  labourers  is  that  fewer  of 
them  are  needed  under  the  altered  circumstances  of  farm- 
ing. The  chief  of  these  circumstances  are  the  increased 
use  of  machinery  and  the  decrease  of  arable  land. 

No  doubt  in  agriculture,  as  in  all  other  industries, 
manual  labour  has  been  to  some  extent  displaced  by 
machinery,  though  I  think  it  must  be  added  that  agri- 
culture differs  from  other  industries  in  the  extent  to  which 
the  use  of  machinery  increases  the  output.  Speaking 
broadly,  it  might  be  true  to  say  that  in  agriculture  the  use 
of  machinery  tends  rather  to  cheapen  production  than  to 
increase  it. 

The  returns  of  the  census  of  1881  gave  some  indication 
of  the  extended  use  of  machinery  in  the  fact  that  "  the 

F  2 


68  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

proprietors  of  and  attendants  on  agricultural  machines," 
who  only  numbered  2,160  in  1871,  had  increased  to  4,260 
in  1881 — that  is  to  say,  they  had  doubled  in  number  in 
the  course  of  ten  years. 

The  other  reason  given  for  the  diminished  demand  for 
labour  in  agriculture  is  the  laying  down  of  land  to  grass. 
During  the  past  twenty  years,  the  land  under  plough  in 
Great  Britain  has  decreased  by  nearly  2,000,000  acres, 
and  on  the  face  of  it,  this  must  be  assumed  to  have 
displaced  a  certain  amount  of  labour.  Rather  curiously, 
however,  Mr.  Druce  in  his  examination  of  the  figures  of 
the  1 881  census  found  that  the  decrease  in  the  number  of 
farm  labourers  in  a  particular  county  did  not  seem  to  bear 
any  relation  to  the  increase  of  permanent  pasture.  It  is 
possible  that  the  extension  of  the  practice  of  milk-selling, 
and  the  increase  of  the  number  of  stock  in  the  country, 
may  have  tended  to  counterbalance  in  some  degree  and 
in  some  districts  the  decline  of  arable  land  as  affecting 
the  demand  for  labour. 

One  cause  sometimes  alleged  for  labourers  leaving  the 
country  districts  is  the  insanitary  or  dilapidated  condition 
of  their  cottages.  No  one  would  wish  to  say  a  word  in 
extenuation  of  the  existence  of  bad  cottages.  The 
agricultural  labourer  has  the  common  right  of  every  man 
to  protection  against  preventable  risks  to  health  in  con- 
nection with  his  dwelling.  Generally  speaking,  it  seems 
to  be  admitted  that  for  many  years  past  there  has  been 
steady  progress  in  this  respect,  and  that  there  is  nowhere 
now  existing  any  such  a  state  of  things  as  that  of  which 
Charles  Kingsley,  for  example,  wrote  forty  years  ago 
with  so  much  vigour.  If  in  any  district  unhealthy 
dwellings  exist,  a  remedy  has  now  been  provided  by  the 
Housing  of  the  Working  Classes  Act  of  1890,  which  confers 
large  powers  on  urban  and  rural  sanitary  authorities  for 
the  purpose  of  enabling  them  to  improve  the  sanitary 
condition  of  the  dwellings  of  the  poor.  It  is  expressly 
declared  to  be  the  duty  of  the  local  authorities  to  cause 


MIGRATION  OF  AGRICULTURAL  LABOURERS.  69 

their  districts  to  be  inspected  with  a  view  to  ascertain 
whether  any  dweUing-house  therein  is  in  a  state  so 
dangerous  or  injurious  to  health  as  to  be  unfit  for  human 
habitation,  and  in  the  case  of  any  dwelhng-house  which 
appears  to  them  to  be  in  such  a  state,  forthwith  to  take 
proceedings  for  closing  it.  They  are  also  empowered, 
when  necessary,  to  take  steps  to  secure  the  demolition  of 
the  houses.  In  the  event  of  default  by  the  rural  sanitary 
authorities,  the  county  councils  are  authorised  to  take 
the  matter  in  hand,  and  to  institute,  at  the  cost  of  the 
authority,  the  necessary  proceedings  for  the  closing  and 
demolition  of  insanitary  dwelHngs. 

Any  person  aggrieved,  or  any  two  inhabitant  house- 
holders, may  give  information  of  a  nuisance  to  the  sanitary 
authority  ;  or  an  aggrieved  person,  or  any  inhabitant, 
may  go  direct  to  a  magistrate.  If  the  local  authority 
should  make  default,  any  person  may  complain  to  the 
Local  Government  Board,  which  Board  may  either  set 
in  motion  a  local  officer  of  police,  or  make  an  order  com- 
pelling the  local  authority  to  act,  or  finally,  may  act  for 
them,  and  send  in  the  bill  to  them. 

Further,  any  four  householders,  by  making  a  written 
complaint,  may  put  in  action  the  law  against  houses  unfit 
for  habitation  ;  apparently  also  any  person  may  give 
"  information  "  to  the  local  authority  of  any  such  house. 

And  in  every  new  letting  of  a  dwelling-house  to  any  of 
the  working  classes  there  is  implied  a  condition  that  at 
the  beginning  of  the  hire  the  house  is,  in  all  respects, 
reasonably  fit  for  human  habitation. 

It  is  difficult  to  believe,  even  if  all  the  "  fearful  ex- 
amples," which  from  time  to  time  are  exhibited  to  pubhc 
view  in  the  press,  were  accurately  described,  that  the 
risk  of  an  insanitary  or  dilapidated  dwelling  is  so  much 
greater  in  the  country  than  in  the  towns  as  to  afford  any 
reason  for  an  agricultural  labourer,  however  sensitive  on 
the  subject  of  drains,  to  migrate.  Two  blacks,  notoriously, 
do  not  make  a  white  ;  but,  bearing  in  mind  what  is  well 


70  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

known  of  the  slums  of  large  towns  (where  the  farm 
labourer  would  probably  have  to  live),  I  do  not  under- 
stand how,  on  this  ground,  there  is  any  adequate  reason 
for  preferring  urban  to  rural  life. 

There  is  one  other  cause  frequently  assigned  for  the 
migration  of  farm  labourers,  which  demands  notice.  We 
hear  much  nowadays  of  what  is  variously  termed  "  the 
lack  of  incentive,"  "  the  want  of  a  career,"  or  the  "  hope- 
lessness "  which  are  said  to  enfeeble  the  energies  and 
depress  the  life  of  the  agricultural  labourer.  Substantially 
it  amounts  very  much  to  this,  that  a  man  has  more 
"  scope,"  more  opportunities  for,  and  aids  to,  advance- 
ment in  life  in  the  town  than  he  has  in  the  country, 
which  is  in  fact  a  platitude.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
inaccurate  to  assert  that  the  young  farm  labourer  may 
not  by  the  aid  of  intelligence,  hard  work,  and  thrift  (the 
same  qualities  by  which  his  fellows  in  other  callings  rise) , 
become  an  occupier,  and  even  an  owner,  of  land,  and  an 
employer  of  labour.  No  doubt,  members  of  this  club 
could  cite  many  instances  from  their  own  knowledge  in 
which  this  has  been  accomphshed. 

Still,  though  there  is  in  the  country,  no  more  than  in  the 
towns,  no  bar  to  abihty,  no  difficulties  which  energy  and 
perseverance  cannot  overcome,  there  is,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed, one  cloud  which  overshadows  the  life  of  the  rank 
and  file,  so  to  speak,  of  the  agricultural  labourers.  This 
is  the  seeming  inevitableness  of  the  workhouse  when  their 
wage-earning  life  is  done.  In  too  many  cases — except 
where  private  charity  steps  in — the  last  days  of  a  farm 
labourer  are  days  of  pauperism.  It  may  be  said  that  the 
working  man,  and  especially  the  unskilled  labourer,  in 
the  town  very  frequently  ends  his  days  in  the  workhouse, 
and  no  doubt  this  is  true.  It  would  seem,  however,  that 
pauperism  is  more  common  in  the  rural  districts  than  in 
the  towns  (excluding  London),  as  appears  by  the 
following  table,  which  I  have  compiled  from  recent 
returns  : — 


MIGRATION  OF  AGRICULTURAL  LABOURERS.  71 

Number  of  Indoor  and  Outdoor  Paupers  per  1,000  of  population  in 
15  agricultural  counties  of  England,  and  in  the  remainder  of 
the  country,  on  January  1st  and  July  1st,  1891  : — 


Indoor 

Outdoor 

County. 

Paupers, 

Paupers, 

ratio  per  1,000 

ratio  per  1,000 

of  Population. 

of  Population. 

January. 

July. 

January. 

July. 

Bedford 

5-9 

3'9 

37-5 

31-5 

Bucks     . 

5'4 

3-9 

377 

33-1 

Berks      . 

8-8 

7-1 

28-1 

24-3 

Cambs    . 

67 

5-2 

38-2 

33-9 

Dorset    . 

5-6 

4"4 

44-8 

42-0 

Hereford 

6-3 

5-0 

41-5 

39-3 

Herts      . 

77 

6-0 

42-1 

37-3 

Huntingdon 

7-0 

5'o 

29-0 

26-6 

Lincoln  . 

4-6 

3-9 

32-9 

34-1 

Norfolk  . 

r5 

6-4 

45-8 

45-1 

Oxon 

6-8 

6-0 

38-9 

35-8 

Rutland 

5-8 

5"3 

33-8 

33-8 

Suffolk   . 

6-5 

6-4 

38-3 

45-1 

Westmorland 

5'9 

4-2 

23"3 

20-0 

Wilts      . 

7-4 

5"9 

4i"3 

387 

Mean  of  15  agricu^ 
tural  counties 

:)    -3 

5-2 

36-9 

347 

Mean    of    remainin 

counties    of    Eng 
land     (excludin 

4-8 

26-9 

25"3 

London) 

Taking  the  fifteen  typical  agricultural  counties,  it 
appears  that  their  mean  pauperism  was  in  January  6-5, 
and  in  July  5-2  of  indoor  paupers,  and  in  January  36-9, 
and  in  July  34-7  of  outdoor  paupers,  per  1,000  of  popula- 
tion, while  the  mean  of  all  other  counties  of  England  was, 
in  both  months,  less  for  indoor,  and  considerably  less  for 
outdoor,  pauperism. 

It  is  only  possible — perhaps  it  is  only  necessary — to 
make  a  very  brief  reference  to  some  of  the  many  sugges- 
tions which  have  been  made,  more  or  less  authoritatively, 


72  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

with  the  view  of  checking  the  exodus  of  agricultural 
labourers  from  the  land. 

First  on  the  list  of  what  we  may  call  "  remedies,"  is 
the  provision  of  facilities  for  obtaining  allotments.  The 
Allotments  Acts  of  1887  and  1890  were  intended  to 
remove  the  difficulty,  which  was  said  to  exist  in  some 
districts,  of  obtaining  land  for  allotments.  The  labourers 
have  now  the  power  of  obtaining  land,  by  compulsion  if 
necessary,  for  the  purpose  ;  though  only  in  two  cases,  I 
believe,  has  it  been  found  necessary  to  put  the  compulsory 
powers  in  force,  the  demand  having  in  most  cases  been 
supplied  without  difficulty. 

There  is  nothing  particularly  novel  in  the  idea  of  allot- 
ments. Many  a  farm  labourer  had  an  allotment  for  long 
years  before  he  had  the  franchise.  Whether  it — the 
allotment,  not  the  franchise — was,  or  is,  invariably  an 
unmitigated  boon  is  a  point  on  which  some  difference  of 
opinion  exists,  even  among  the  labourers  themselves. 
There  is,  I  think,  a  prevalent  opinion  among  the  labourers 
themselves  that  good  gardens  attached  to  their  cottages 
are  more  desirable  than  allotments. 

An  authority  from  whom  I  have  already  quoted —  the 
Daily  News  commissioner — gives  some  interesting  but 
rather  conflicting  testimony  on  this  point.  He  commenced 
one  of  his  letters  with  the  round  assertion  that  the 
Allotments  Act  has  proved  "  a  wretched  failure,"  although 
a  few  lines  lower  down  he  declared  that  in  moving  about 
the  country  he  was  struck  "  by  the  extent  to  which  allot- 
ments are  being  provided."  Then  he  referred  to  the  case 
of  a  man  in  Oxfordshire,  who  was  just  getting  up  his 
potatoes  on  his  allotment  "  between  the  showers,"  when 
his  master  sent  for  him  ;  "his  crop  was  spoiling,  and  he 
thought  he  would  finish  the  job.  For  that  very  excusable 
act  of  insubordination,  he  found  himself  discharged." 
Surely  it  might  have  occurred  to  the  commissioner  that 
probably  the  farmer's  crop  was  spoiling  too,  and  that  it 
was  precisely  "  between  the  showers  "  that  the  man  was 


MIGRATION  OF  AGRICULTURAL  LABOURERS.  73 

wanted  at  the  farm.  It  can  scarcely  be  expected  that 
men  should  work  on  their  allotments  in  fine  weather,  and 
on  the  farm  in  wet  weather. 

The  economic  fact  that  the  tendency  of  allotments  is 
to  lower  wages,  or  at  any  rate  to  prevent  them  from 
rising,  cannot  be  overlooked.  In  the  village  where  the 
Daily  News  commissioner  found  "  the  most  thriving 
allotments  "  he  found  also  the  lowest  wages. 

The  Select  Committee  on  Small  Holdings  reported  in 
favour  of  the  creation,  by  the  advance  of  a  sum  not 
exceeding  £5,000,000  to  local  authorities,  of  a  class  of 
State-aided  peasant  proprietors.  This  proposal,  if  acted 
upon,  would  be  presumably  intended  to  provide  for  farm 
labourers  the  "  career  "  which  was  alluded  to  above.  The 
subject  was  brought  before  the  Farmers'  Club  last  year  by 
Mr.  Druce,  and  I  need  not  therefore  do  more  than  mention 
it  in  passing,  especially  as  no  definite  scheme  is  at  present 
before  the  country.  I  would  only  venture  to  observe  that 
in  the  proposals  which  I  have  seen,  it  is  a  condition 
precedent  that  the  man  wishing  to  acquire  a  small  holding 
should  possess  a  not  inconsiderable  amount  of  capital 
to  provide  not  only  the  stock  for  the  farm,  but  also  a 
proportion  of  the  purchase  money.  It  appears  that 
such  a  scheme  would  only  avail  to  help  the  farm  labourer 
who  by  thrift  and  industry  has  accumulated  considerable 
savings  ;  and  it  occurs  to  me  that  this  is  just  the  man 
who  at  the  present  time  is  best  able  to  help  himself. 

In  this  connection  attention  may  be  directed  to  the  sug- 
gestion made  by  Lord  Thring  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  for 
January,  1892.  He  suggests  that  succession  duty  should  be 
paid  in  land — by  an  actual  slice  out  of  the  estate — and 
that  the  same  system  should  be  adopted  with  respect  to 
the  redemption  of  the  land  tax.  By  this  means  the 
State  would  come  into  possession  of  a  number  of  small 
parcels  of  land  all  over  the  country.  Lord  Thring 
further  suggests  that  for  the  sale  of  these  small  estates 
recourse  should  be  had  to  the  Land  Registry  Act  of  1875, 


74  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

and  that  every  county  court  should  be  made  a  land- 
registry  office ;  and  further  that  the  post-office  officials 
in  every  village  should  be  made  agents,  at  "a  liberal 
commission,"  for  the  sale  of  these  parcels  of  Government 
land. 

The  establishment  of  parish  or  village  councils  is  another 
remedy  which  has  been  widely  advertised — if  I  may  be 
allowed  the  expression.  It  is  an  essential  part  of  this 
scheme  that  the  proposed  council  should  meet  in  the 
evening.  Some  agricultural  labourers,  with  a  taste  for 
administration,  now  gratify  it  at  a  self-elected  Parish 
Council  which  meets  de  die  in  diem — or  rather  night  after 
night — at  the  "  Blue  Boar  "  or  the  "  Spotted  Dog,"  and 
there  settles — to  its  own  satisfaction — the  affairs  of  the 
Empire,  as  well  as  of  the  district.  Parish  councils, 
formally  established  by  Act  of  Parliament,  would,  no 
doubt,  gratify  some  of  the  politicians  whose  oratory  is 
now  wasted  on  the  tap-room  air,  though  it  is  to  be  feared 
that  they  would  not  entirely  sweep  away  their  earlier 
and  more  informal  rivals.  It  is  not  yet  quite  clear  in 
what  way  parish  councils  are  to  be  made  so  much  more 
attractive  than  vestry  meetings,  which  do  not,  as  a  rule, 
thrill  with  excitement.  It  is  true  that  a  parish  council 
would  probably  enjoy  the  delight  of  electing  its  own 
chairman,  but  even  that  exhilarating  function  seems 
scarcely  sufficient  to  provide  interest  for  any  great  length 
of  time.  Whatever  the  merits  of  parish  councils  may  be, 
it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  they  would  add  such  a  charm 
to  country  life  as  to  form  any  substantial  inducement 
to  a  farm  labourer  to  remain  in  the  parish,  if  he  wished 
from  any  cause  to  remove  to  a  town. 

The  proposal  to  establish  a  universal  State-subsidised 
system  of  pensions  for  old  age  is  one  which  specially 
affects  agricultural  labourers  as  the  class  who  would  per- 
haps most  obviously  benefit  by  it.  Perhaps  it  is  scarcely 
ripe  for  definite  discussion,  but  there  are  signs  that  it 
will  be  pressed  to  the  front,  and  may  very  shortly  come 


MIGRATION  OF  AGRICULTURAL  LABOURERS.  75 

within  the  range  of  practical  politics.  According  to 
Mr.  Charles  Booth — who  dealt  with  the  subject  in  a  paper 
recently  read  before  the  Royal  Statistical  Society — a 
"  universal  pension  list/'  which  would  provide  an  annuity 
of  £13  per  annum  (5s.  per  week)  for  every  person  over 
the  age  of  sixty-five  years,  would  amount  to  £13,000,000, 
and  he  estimates  that  an  ultimate  saving  of  £3,000,000  in 
poor  relief  might  be  set  off  against  it,  thus  making  the 
net  extra  cost  to  the  nation  a  round  £10,000,000. 

I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  this  scheme,  but  there  is 
one  point  bearing  slightly  upon  it  to  which  I  would  refer, 
as  it  is  brought  out  in  a  recent  Parliamentary  return.  It 
is  said  that  old-age  pensions  would  tend  to  discourage 
thrift,  though  Mr.  Booth — whose  opinion  certainly  carries 
weight — thinks  otherwise.  But  there  is  one  thing  which 
certainly  does  discourage  thrift,  and  that  is  the  insecurity  of 
some  benefit  societies.  In  a  return  made  by  the  Local 
Government  Board  to  an  order  of  the  House  of  Commons 
in  1 89 1,  details  are  given  for  every  union  in  the  kingdom 
of  the  number  of  indoor  paupers  who  had  been  members 
of  benefit  societies.  The  total  number  was  14,808,  and 
of  these  no  less  than  4,593  had  ceased  to  be  members 
owing  to  the  breaking-up  of  the  society.  Presumably, 
in  most  of  these  cases  they  had  lost  part,  at  any  rate,  of 
their  savings,  and  it  is  scarcely  surprising  if  in  districts 
where  this  has  occurred  the  virtue  of  thrift  should  be 
rather  discounted. 

Attention  has  lately  been  directed  to  the  possibilities 
of  the  profit-sharing,  or  co-operative  principle,  as  applied 
to  farming.  There  are  far  abler  and  keener  critics 
than  I  can  claim  to  be  of  the  details  and  results 
attained  by  Mr.  Albert  Grey  ^  during  his  five  years' 
experiment.  Generally  speaking,  I  believe,  it  is  fair  to 
say  that  though,  as  a  landlord  farming  his  own  land,  his 
enterprise  was  sulficiently  successful,  it  does  not  appear 

'^Now  Earl  Grey. 


76  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

to  show  that  a  farmer  would  have  obtained  any  adequate 
profit  from  a  holding  of  over  800  acres. 

Apart  from  this  particular  instance,  however,  I 
venture  to  remark  that  the  profit-sharing  principle 
deserves  at  any  rate  as  much  consideration  as  some 
other  loudly  vaunted  ideas.  It  at  least  differs  from 
some  other  schemes  by  reason  of  being  economically 
sound  from  a  theoretical  point  of  view.  The  carelessness 
and  lack  of  interest  in  their  work  of  many  farm  labourers 
are  a  common  cause  of  complaint,  and  no  doubt 
also  the  source  of  annual  waste  and  loss.  If  it  were  possible 
to  devise  some  practical  means  by  which  the  labourer 
could  be  financially  interested  in  the  success  of  the 
year's  operations,  no  one,  probably,  would  dispute  its 
desirability.  In  commercial  undertakings  we  have  seen 
of  late  years  a  very  wide  recognition  of  the  principle  of 
associating  employes  with  employers,  and  I  submit  that 
the  principle  is  at  any  rate  worthy  of  the  careful  con- 
sideration of  owners  and  occupiers  of  land. 

It  is  not  possible  to  conclude  without  one  more  word 
about  wages,  because  it  is  frequently  suggested  as  a 
"  remedy  "  that  farm  labourers  should  be  paid  higher 
wages.  It  would  be  just  as  true — and  equally  practical 
— to  say  that  the  remedy  for  agricultural  depression  is 
better  prices.  There  is  one  way — and  apparently  only 
one  way — in  which  the  level  of  wages  can  rise,  and 
that  is  by  increasing  the  efficiency  of  the  labourer. 
This  might  be  illustrated  by  a  reference  to  the  difference 
in  the  wages  paid  in  the  North  of  England  and 
those  paid  in  the  East  or  South.  The  average  weekly 
wage  in  the  North  is  perhaps  20  to  30  per  cent,  higher 
than  in  the  East  or  South,  and  why  ?  Mainly  because 
the  work  is  more  efficient.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  the  payment  per  acre  for  wages  is,  on  the  whole, 
no  higher  in  the  North  than  in  other  districts.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  those  who  wish  to  improve  the 
lot  of  the  agricultural  labourer  can  effectively  do  so  by 


MIGRATION  OF  AGRICULTURAL  LABOURERS.  77 

helping  him  to  become  more  skilful  and  expert.  Happily, 
the  means  are  at  hand  through  the  funds  now  available 
to  county  councils  for  technical  education,  and,  if  by 
the  judicious  use  of  a  share  of  this  money,  assistance  can 
be  given  to  agricultural  labourers  to  become  more  efficient, 
something  at  least  may  have  been  done  in  the  direction 
of  preventing  their  migration  to  the  towns. 


CHAPTER    V. 

THE  MIDDLEMAN  IN  AGRICULTURE.^ 

In  a  primitive  state  of  society  the  tiller  of  the  ground  may 
find  a  direct  and  immediate  market  for  his  produce  ;  but 
where  the  consumers  are  aggregated  in  cities  it  is 
obvious  that  there  must  be  some  machinery  for  bringing 
the  products  of  the  soil  to  them  from  greater  or  less 
distances.  So  soon  as  agricultural  produce  leaves  the 
farm  on  its  way  to  the  ultimate  consumer  it  begins  to  incur 
costs  of  distribution,  but  the  term  "  costs  of  distribution  " 
bears  a  wide  meaning,  and  consequently  it  is  not  so  easy 
as  it  may  at  first  sight  appear  to  define  strictly  who  may 
be  included  under  the  designation  of  "  middlemen  "  in 
agriculture. 

The  expense  oi  conveyance  from  the  farm  to  the  market 
no  doubt  comes  primarily  under  the  head  of  cost  of  dis- 
tribution, and  it  is  fair  to  class  railway  companies  and 
others  who  control  the  carrying  agencies  of  the  country 
among  middlemen. 

But  setting  aside  the  carrying  agencies,  and  treating 
the  term  "  middlemen  "  as  applying  mainly  to  a  person 
who  actually  handles  and  obtains  a  profit  from  the  hand- 
ling of  the  produce,  it  is  noteworthy  to  how  small  an 
extent  the  average  farmer  comes  into  direct  contact  with 
the  consumer  for  any  class  of  produce  which  he  has  to 
dispose  of.  No  doubt  the  smaller  occupiers,  especially 
where  they  live  in  contiguity  to  centres  of  population,  do  to 
a  considerable  extent  even  now  dispose  of  such  products 
as  poultry,  butter,  and  eggs,  without  the  intervention  of 
any  distributor.     In  such  a  town,  for  instance,  as  Preston, 

1  Journal  Royal  Agricultural  Society,  Vol.  IV.,  3rd  series,  1893. 


THE  MIDDLEMAN   IN  AGRICULTURE.  79 

on  the  market  day  rows  of  small  farmers  or  their  wives 
may  be  seen  in  the  market,  each  with  a  basket  full  of 
produce,  brought  direct  from  the  farm,  which  is  purchased 
directly  from  them  by  the  consumers.  In  other  cases 
farmers  occupying  a  considerable  acreage,  and  conducting 
a  large  business,  have  "  gone  into  "  the  milk  trade,  and 
have  sent  out  their  milk  from  house  to  house  in  their  own 
carts.  But  while  other  instances  might  no  doubt  be 
found  in  different  localities,  speaking  generally  it  is  true 
to  say  that  the  average  farmer  does  not  dispose  of  any 
appreciable  part  of  the  produce  grown  on  the  land  without 
the  intervention  of  one  or  more  persons  as  distributors. 

Perhaps  the  only  branch  of  agricultural  industry  which 
is  usually  conducted  on  the  principle  of  direct  supply  is 
the  trade  in  pedigree  stock.  Whether  the  breeder  holds  a 
sale  on  his  own  farm,  or  sends  his  animals  to  a  market  or 
fair,  he  does  no  doubt  dispose  of  them  practically  direct 
to  the  persons  who  use  them.  It  is  true  that  the  middle- 
men has,  especially  of  late  years,  crept  into  these  trans- 
actions in  the  shape  of  the  auctioneer,  and  it  is  a  rather 
curious  fact  that  in  spite  of  agricultural  depression 
farmers  should  have  found  it  necessary  to  rely  to  so  very 
great  an  extent  on  the  auction  system  instead  of  upon  the 
old  plan  of  sale  by  private  contract.  Still,  the  auction 
system  is  unquestionably  a  convenient  means  of  arriving 
at  the  result  of  the  higgling  of  the  market ;  and,  at  any 
rate,  though  one  might  be  inclined  on  some  grounds  to 
regret  the  supremacy  which  it  has  attained,  it  would  not 
be  fair  to  say  that  farmers  suffer  any  special  detriment,  or 
pay  any  extravagant  amount,  for  the  advantages  which 
they  obtain  from  its  adoption. 

One  word  may  be  ventured,  in  passing,  on  this  subject, 
and  that  is  that  farmers  have  an  undoubted  right  to 
resent  any  attempt,  such  as  is  alleged  to  have  been  made 
in  some  localities  by  the  auctioneers,  to  dictate  to  them  the 
way  in  which  they  shall  sell  their  stock.  It  has  been  said 
that  considerable  opposition  has  been  more  or  less  overtly 


8o  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

displayed  to  the  introduction  of  the  system  of  selling 
stock  by  live  weight.  This  practice,  of  course,  is  one  which 
may  be  fairly  argued  upon  its  merits  ;  but,  whatever 
view  may  be  taken  of  the  desirability  of  its  general 
adoption,  no  one  will  deny  that  every  owner  of  stock 
ought  to  have  the  power,  if  he  so  desires,  of  selling  his 
animals  in  such  a  way  as  he  deems  best. 

Just  as  wheat  is  the  typical  farm  crop  of  the  kingdom, 
so  bread  is  the  typical  food  of  the  people.  It  is,  perhaps, 
for  this  reason  that,  although  nowadays  the  item  of  bread 
is  by  no  means  the  most  important  in  the  cost  of  living 
of  the  average  inhabitant,^  yet  the  market  price  of  that 
commodity  excites  a  degree  of  interest  which  is  far 
greater  than  is  displayed  with  regard  to  other  articles 
of  food. 

The  millers  and  bakers  are  perhaps  to  some  extent  to  be 
commiserated  on  their  occupancy  of  so  prominent  a  posi- 
tion. It  seems  sometimes  as  if  the  butcher  might  charge 
50  and  the  greengrocer  100  per  cent,  profit  without 
exciting  any  particular  amount  of  public  indignation, 
while  the  baker  brings  down  upon  his  devoted  head  a 
torrent  of  indignation  if  he  gets  as  much  as  a  modest 
25  or  30  per  cent. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  on  the  face  of  it  the  bakers 
seem  to  stand  in  need  of  vindication.  At  the  very  least 
the  prices  at  which  bread  is  sold  involve  what  appear  to 
be  anomalies.     It  seems  curious  that  the  4-lb.  loaf  should 

^  The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  received  from  a 
working  man  :  "  When  I  went  to  school  in  1842  we  had  a  4-lb. 
loaf  for  6d.,  and  at  the  present  time  I  am  paying  5^.  We  use 
eight  loaves,  which  is  3s.  ^d.,  but  we  got  good  beef  at  ^d.  Now  I 
have  to  give  M.,  which  would  be  : — 

In  1842.  In  1892. 

s.  d.  s.  d. 

8  loaves  at  6d.       .  .408  loaves  at  ^d.        .  .34 

Beef,  6  lbs.  at  ^d.  .     2     o     Beef,  6  lbs.  at  8*^.  .  .40 


7     4 


So  I  am  IS.  4d.  out." 


THE  MIDDLEMAN   IN   AGRICULTURE.  8i 

be  selling  in  different  parts  of  London  at  the  same  time  at 
prices  ranging  from  ^^d.  to  yd.  ;  nor  is  this  anomaly 
confined  to  the  metropolis,  for  it  appears  that  at  the  same 
time  the  4-lb.  loaf  was  being  sold  at  Hampstead  for  yd., 
at  Kingston-on-Thames  for  6|^.,  at  Birmingham  for  6d., 
at  Shrewsbury  for  4ld.,  and  at  Wolverhampton  at  a  rate 
varying  from  ^^d.  to  $ld.  Again,  the  quotation  given  for 
certain  Lancashire  towns  was  3|rt^.  and  that  for  some  other 
English  towns  at  from  4^.  to  6|^.  In  the  ante-railway 
days  these  divergences  might  have  been  easily  explicable, 
but  in  these  times,  when  wheat  is  practically  of  the  same 
value  in  any  part  of  the  country,  it  would  certainly  seem 
that  a  range  of  100  per  cent,  in  the  price  for  the  same 
article,  at  the  same  time,  is  a  circumstance  which  the 
public  may  regard  with  a  pardonable  amount  of  natural 
curiosity. 

An  interesting  statement  was  published  in  September 
last  showing  the  relation  of  the  price  of  bread  to  the  price 
of  wheat  during  a  period  of  about  eighteen  months,  the 
retail  price  of  household  bread  being  that  prevailing  in  a 
large  Wiltshire  village.  The  dates  at  which  the  price  of 
bread  changed  were  as  follows,  the  official  average  price 
of  English  wheat,  as  recorded  at  the  same  dates,  being 
added  : — 


Bread 

Wheat 

Date. 

per  4-lb.  loaf. 

per  quarter 

s.    d. 

s.    d. 

April  1 8th,  1891 

•     0     5^ 

39     0 

April  25th,  1891 

.      0     6 

40     I 

May  23rd,  1 891    . 

•     0     5i 

39     6 

August  2ist,  1891 

.     0     6 

40     3 

February  loth,  1892 

.     0     5^ 

32     3 

April  30th,  1892 

•     0     5 

31     3 

September  3rd,  1892 

•     0     5 

29     I 

It  may  fairly  be  assumed  that  bakers  do  not  sell  bread 
at  a  loss,  and  that  when  they  charge  6d.  per  4-lb.  loaf  for 
bread,  with  wheat  at  40s.  per  quarter,  they  arc  making  a 
profit.  It  is  seen  that  from  August,  1891,  to  February, 
1892,  the  price  of  bread  was  maintained  at  6d.  per  4-lb. 
loaf.     In  the  first  week  of  September,  1891,  wheat  rose  to 

A.F.  G 


82  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

an  average  price  of  41s.  8d.,  which  was  the  highest  average 

of  1891.     But  it  immediately  declined,  and  before  the  close 

of  September  it  had  fallen  by  ys.     During  the  last  three 

months  of  the  year  (October  to  December)  the  average 

price  of  English  wheat  was  returned  at  36s.  8^.     In  1892 

the  average  receded  from  36s.  4^.  at  the  beginning  of 

January  to  32s.  3^.  at  the  middle  of  February.     Whilst, 

therefore,    the   average   price   of   wheat   was   gradually 

declining  from  41s.  8d.  to  32s.  3^.,  a  fall  of  nearly  los.  per 

quarter,  the  price  of  bread  was  maintained  throughout 

the  period  of  six  months  at  6d.  per  4-lb.  loaf.     A  ^d.  was 

then  taken  off  the  price,  which  stood  at  5|^.  per  4-lb.  loaf 

for  the  next  twelve  weeks,  during  which  the  average 

Gazette  price  of  English  wheat  was  exactly  32s.  per  quarter, 

the  extremes  being  33s.   3^.   and  30s.   yd.     Bread  was 

reduced  to  $d.  at  the  end  of  April,  and  has  remained  at 

that  price  since.     During  the  same  period  the  average 

price  of  wheat  has  been  29s.  iid.,  and  the  extremes  have 

been  31s.  yd.  and  29s.  id.     If  it  paid  the  baker  to  sell  a 

quartern  loaf   of  bread   for  6d.   when  wheat   averaged 

40S.  per  quarter,  it  would  seem  to  have  paid  him  better 

during  the  last  five  months  (April  to  September)  to  be 

selling  bread  at  $d.  while  wheat  has  averaged  less  than  30s. 

Whilst  the  price  of  wheat  fell  one-fourth  the  price  of 

bread  fell  only  one-sixth. 

Mr.  David  Chadwick,  who  has  given  special  attention 

to  the  subject,  states  that  the  following  has  been  and  is 

the   current   average   price   of   bread   of   good   quality, 

delivered  over  the  counter  for  cash,  in  the  years  specified, 

and  I  have  added  thereto  for  reference  the  average  price 

of  wheat  in  the  same  years  : — 

Price  of  Wheat 

Year.                                     Bread  per  4  lbs.  per  quarter. 

d.  s.     d. 

H  70     8 

6  44     3 

5i  43     9 

4f  32     6 

5*  26     4 


1839 . 

s. 
0 

1849 . 

0 

1859 . 

0 

1887 . 

.  0 

1893 . 

0 

THE   MIDDLEMAN   IN   AGRICULTURE.  83 

This  statement  is  of  interest  in  more  than  one  way. 
Firstly,  it  gives  a  standard  price  (sld.)  of  the  4-lb.  loaf 
at  the  present  time.  The  figures  which  have  already 
been  cited  of  the  quotations  of  bread  in  various  parts 
of  the  country  show  that  this  is  not  a  very  simple  matter. 
Mr.  Chadwick  states  that "  the  price  to-day  (February  21st, 
1893)  of  the  best  household  bread  at  the  counter  in  100 
of  the  best  bread-shops  in  London  is  S^d.  per  4  lb." 
More  striking  than  this,  however,  is  the  evidence  given 
by  Mr.  Chadwick's  figures  of  the  lack  of  relationship 
between  the  price  of  bread  and  the  price  of  wheat. 
The  current  average  price  of  wheat  at  the  time  of  writing 
is  25s.,  while  the  price  of  bread  is  ^^d.  But  in  1859 
the  price  of  bread  was  the  same,  while  the  price  of  wheat 
was  66  per  cent,  higher.  In  1887,  when  the  price  of  wheat 
was  6s.  per  quarter  more  than  now,  the  price  of  bread 
was  ^d.  less  ;  and,  again,  in  1849,  when  wheat  was 
practically  at  the  same  price  as  in  1859,  bread  sold  for 
Id.  more.  But  the  most  startling  comparison  is  that 
between  1839  and  1893 ;  for  we  find  that,  whereas 
wheat  has  fallen  during  the  interval  63  per  cent,  in  value, 
bread  has  fallen  only  38  per  cent.  In  fact,  relatively 
to  wheat,  bread  was  cheaper  in  1839  than  in  any  other 
of  the  years  mentioned. 

It  ought  perhaps  to  be  mentioned  that  the  fact  that 
the  price  of  bread  has  not  fallen  with  the  fall  in  wheat  is 
denied.  A  correspondent  of  The  Times,  writing  as  "  the 
chairman  of  one  of  the  leading  bread  companies,"  stated, 
"  from  the  experience  of  a  close  connection  with  the  trade, 
that  the  price  of  best  bread  at  this  time  last  year  was 
6ld.  per  4-lb.  loaf,  against  5^^.  at  the  present  time  " 
(February,  1893).     He  added  that 

this  reduction  of  id.  is  equal  to  ys.  gd.  per  sack  of  flour, 
whereas  the  average  price  of  the  latter  is  only  7s.  3^.  less  than 
it  was  at  the  same  time  last  year.  This  (he  continues)  will 
clearly  prove  that  the  reduction  in  the  price  of  bread  is  even 
greater  than    the   reduction  in   the  price  of  flour  ;    and  this 

G  2 


84  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

is  the  case  with  all  the  principal  producers  of  bread  in  the 
metropolis. 

The  remarkable  range  in  the  price  of  bread  at  any 
given  time  is  explained  with  some  plausibility  by  the 
allegation  that  it  is  due  to  the  different  qualities  of  flour 
used.  Thus  the  commonest  flour  may  be  sold  at  15s. 
per  sack,  while  the  finest  flour  may  make  30s.  or  more. 

Accusations  are  not  infrequently  made  in  the  columns 
of  the  press  that  bakers  use  rice  and  potatoes  and  other 
adulterants  in  making  bread.  It  is  possible  that  such 
nefarious  practices  may  still  prevail  in  certain  localities, 
and  that 

"  Chalk  and  alum  and  plaster  are  sold  to  the  poor  as  bread." 

But  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  this  is  common. 
On  the  contrary,  so  far  as  the  reports  of  public  analysts 
go,  bread  and  flour  would  seem  to  be  almost  the  least 
adulterated  articles  of  food.  Thus  in  1891  there  were 
799  samples  of  bread  taken  and  only  eight  were  found 
to  be  adulterated  ;  while  out  of  437  samples  of  flour 
taken  only  one  was  condemned.  It  is  true  that  the 
taking  of  samples  is  done  in  a  very  partial  manner. 
In  several  counties  not  a  single  sample  was  taken  through- 
out the  year,  and  in  others  the  number  taken  was  so  few 
as  to  be  practically  useless.  This,  however,  is  the  fault 
of  the  local  authorities  for  not  more  stringently  carrying 
out  the  law  against  adulteration,  and  on  the  evidence 
given  it  is  fair  to  say  that  no  general  indictment 
would  lie  against  the  trade  in  this  respect. 

A  striking  fact  which  has  done  duty  in  many  quarters 
during  the  past  two  or  three  months  will  bear  repetition 
because  of  its  obvious  force.  The  Aerated  Bread  Com- 
pany does  an  enormous  business  in  London  and  its 
suburbs,  as  all  who  are  familiar  with  the  metropolis  are 
aware.  At  its  last  annual  meeting  of  shareholders  held 
on  October  31st,   1892,  the  chairman  of  the  company 


THE  MIDDLEMAN   IN   AGRICULTURE.  85 

announced  a  dividend  of  30  per  cent.,  in  addition  to  an 
interim  dividend  of  7I  per  cent.,  while  an  additional 
profit  of  £5,000  was  put  by.  These  remarkable  results 
were  attained,  according  to  the  explanation  offtcially 
given  by  the  chairman,  "  not  by  speculation,  but  by 
continuous  and  constant  labour,"  a  creditable  fact  which 
everyone  will  readily  believe.  But  there  was  a  further 
cause,  which  was  thus  explained  by  the  chairman.  He 
said  : —  . 

They  had  had  a  great  fall  in  prices  this  year.  A  collapse  in 
prices  took  place  last  year  at  the  beginning  of  the  company's 
financial  year,  and  therefore  they,  as  merchants,  manufac- 
turers, and  retailers,  had  reaped  the  full  benefit  of  that  great 
reduction,  while  on  the  other  hand  it  had  been  ruin  to  the 
importers  and  producers. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  in  such  a  case  as  this  these 
large  profits  have  been  amassed  simply  because  the 
cheapening  of  produce  has  benefited,  not  the  consumer, 
but  the  middleman. 

It  is  stated  that  it  takes  about  400  lbs.  of  wheat  to 
produce  by  the  roller  process  280  lbs.,  or  one  sack,  of  flour. 
Thus  a  quarter  of  wheat  of  496  lbs.  will  produce  347  lbs. 
of  flour.  In  the  case  of  wheat  ground  into  flour  by  the 
old  system  of  stones,  it  takes  only  about  388  lbs.  to  produce 
280  lbs.,  or  one  sack,  of  flour,  and  a  quarter  of  wheat 
will  produce  362  lbs.  of  flour.  A  sack  of  flour  of  280  lbs. 
will  produce  at  least  390  lbs.  of  bread,  or  ninety-seven 
and  a  half  loaves  of  4  lbs.  each,  while  the  produce  of  a 
quarter  of  wheat  ground  by  the  rollers  will  be  347  lbs. 
of  flour,  or  483  lbs.  of  bread,  or  say  120  loaves  of  4  lbs. 
each. 

I  have  received  from  Mr.  G.  E.  Francis,  of  Oxford, 
particulars  of  a  bread-making  test  made  by  himself 
in  his  own  kitchen  in  April  last  year  which  are  of  interest 
in  this  connection.  The  ingredients  of  a  4-lb.  loaf,  and 
their  cost,  were  as  follows  : — 


5. 

d. 

O 

4 

O 

I 

O 

oi 

86  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

3  lbs.  of  best  seconds  flour      ..... 

1  oz.  of  German  yeast    ...... 

2  teaspoonfuls  of  salt  mixed  with  the  yeast  | 
i^  pints  of  tepid  water  .  .  .     j      •      ^^^ 

Total  .  .  •     o     si 

The  resultant  quantity  of  dough  weighed  4  lbs.  12  ozs. 
This,  when  made  into  two  loaves  of  bread  baked  and 
brought  out  of  the  oven  and  set  two  or  three  hours  to 
cool,  weighed  4  lb.  3  ozs.,  but  when  made  into  one  loaf 
only  it  weighed  4  lbs.  6  ozs.  The  flour  from  which  this 
bread  was  made  cost  6s.  dd.  per  bushel,  delivered  at  the 
house  by  the  corn  dealer.  This  would  be  32s.  ()d.  per 
sack  of  live  bushels  of  280  lbs.  weight  at  a  time  when  the 
average  price  of  foreign  and  home  wheat  ranged  from 
about  34s.  to  36s.  per  quarter.  The  flour  presumably 
was  composed  of  about  two  parts  of  foreign  and  one  part 
of  home-grown  wheat.  The  baker  would  probably  get 
it  at  about  28s.  6d.  per  sack,  or,  if  he  paid  within  seven 
days,  at  a  net  price  of  say  27s.  ()d. 

The  cost  of  this  home-made  4-lb.  loaf  of  bread,  supposing 
it  to  have  weighed  only  4  lbs.  and  not  4  lbs.  6  ozs.,  was 
^\d.,  or  say  5^.  The  baker  who,  according  to  custom, 
allows  5s.  per  sack,  or  is.  per  bushel,  to  cover  all  expenses, 
including  the  cost  of  yeast,  making,  baking,  delivering, 
etc.,  would  produce  the  4-lb.  loaf  quite  |i.,  if  not  id. 
cheaper,  or  say  at  4^.,  whereas  he  was  at  that  time 
charging  ^\d.  for  it.  He  would,  therefore,  have  been 
making  a  profit  of  nearly  i.\d.  upon  every  4-lb.  loaf,  or 
something  like  27  per  cent. 

The  case  as  regards  wheat  and  bread  is  obviously 
capable  of  being  presented  in  more  detail  than  that  with 
regard  to  any  other  commodity,  one  reason  being  that 
in  this  instance  we  have  an  official  record  of  prices  to 
work  from.  It  is  not  so  easy  in  respect  to  other  produce 
to  obtain  an  idea,  except  very  generally,  of  the  margin 
between  the  price  paid  to  the  producer  and  that  paid 


THE   MIDDLEMAN   IN   AGRICULTURE.  87 

by  the  consumer.  That  the  margin,  however,  is  very 
wide  in  many  cases  there  is  no  doubt.  Take  the  case  of 
milk,  which  is  a  simple  one.  It  will  be  admitted  by  all 
who  know  anything  of  the  trade,  and  might  be  proved, 
if  need  were,  from  many  contracts,  that  an  average  of 
from  7^.  to  8d.  per  imperial  gallon  is  as  much  as  the 
ordinary  dairy  farmer  obtains  for  his  milk,  taking  the 
year  through.  The  retail  price  in  the  towns  is,  as  a  rule, 
IS.  4d.  per  imperial  gallon.  In  some  cases  it  may  be 
IS.  and  in  a  few  others  is.  8d.,  but  is.  4d.  is  probably  the 
most  usual  price.  Assuming  that  the  price  paid  to  the 
farmer  is  8^.,  and  the  price  paid  by  the  consumer  is 
IS.  4d.,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  "  margin  "  for  cost  of 
distribution  is  100  per  cent.  No  doubt  milk  is  an 
exceptionally  expensive  commodity  to  "  handle  "  and 
deliver  in  small  quantities,  but  it  must  be  confessed  that 
an  addition  of  100  per  cent,  to  its  price  seems  prima  facie 
rather  a  large  allowance  for  the  "  middle  profit." 

Vegetables  and  fruit  frequently  supply  remarkable 
instances  of  an  almost  ridiculous  discrepancy  between 
the  prices  paid  to  the  grower  and  those  current  to  retail 
purchasers.  Cases  have  often  occurred  where  the  produce 
has  been  left  on  the  land  to  rot,  because  it  would  not 
bear  the  charges  of  distribution,  while  at  the  same  time 
probably  in  some  not  far  distant  town  similar  produce  was 
making  a  fair  price. 

With  regard  to  meat,  the  difficulty  of  arriving  at 
accurate  figures  is  considerable,  and  it  is  practically 
impossible  to  say  what  share  the  dealer  and  butcher 
obtain,  but  this  brings  up  a  question  which  has  a  very 
direct  bearing  on  the  subject  of  the  middleman's  share 
in  the  meat  trade.  There  were  last  year  (1892)  51,630 
tons — or  2,140,000  carcases — of  frozen  and  fresh  mutton 
imported  into  this  country,  almost  all  of  it  coming  from 
New  Zealand  and  Australia.  Now  this  was  sold  at  the 
London  wholesale  market  at  from  40  to  50  per  cent, 
below  the  price  of  British  meat.     What    it    would    be 


88  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

especially  interesting  to  know  is  whether  these  51,000 
tons  were  sold  over  the  counter  to  consumers  at  this 
reduction.  There  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  a 
large  part  of  it  was  sold,  not  at  a  price  40  or  50  per 
cent,  below  British  meat,  but  at  the  same  price  and  under 
the  same  name.  This  is  a  strong  charge,  but  the  evidence 
in  support  of  it — though  entirely  circumstantial — is 
practically  overwhelming. 

Another  instance  of  a  frequent  fraud  upon  producers, 
consumers,  and  honest  traders  alike,  is  the  sale  of 
margarine,  or  "  blends,"  as  butter.  The  continued 
existence  of  this  practice  forms  one  of  the  disappointments 
of  legislation.  It  is  not,  perhaps,  singular  in  this  respect, 
for  the  farmer  has  had  more  than  one  warning  against 
putting  his  trust  in  Acts  of  Parliament.  But  it  is  certainly 
discouraging  to  find  that,  notwithstanding  the  existence 
of  at  least  two  distinct  statutes  prohibiting  it  under 
penalties,  the  ingenious  industry  of  butter  adulteration 
goes  on  almost  as  busily  as  ever.  There  are  three  main 
reasons  for  the  practical  failure  of  the  law.  One  is  the 
laxity  and  indifference  of  those  who  have  been  charged 
with  its  administration,  another  is  the  clever  adaptability 
of  those  whose  interest  it  is  to  evade  it,  and  the  third 
is  the  lack  of  any  deterrent  effect  in  the  penalties  imposed 
on  those  who  break  it. 

There  are  three  categories,  under  one  of  which  the 
middleman's  profits  may  fall.  They  may  be  :  (i)  fair, 
(2)  exorbitant,  or  (3)  fraudulent.  As  regards  the  first 
we  have  nothing  to  say.  Granting,  as  we  must  do, 
the  necessary  continuance  of  the  middleman,  it  follows 
that  he  is  entitled  to  a  fair  and  reasonable  remu- 
neration for  his  work  and  skill.  As  regards  exorbi- 
tant profits,  it  must  at  once  be  admitted  that  they  have 
in  the  nature  of  things  a  tendency  to  be  decreased  by 
competition.  If  in  any  business  excessive  profits  are 
being  made,  there  will  be  a  natural  tendency  among 
persons  outside  it  to  take  it  up.     But  the  potency  of 


THE  MIDDLEMAN  IN  AGRICULTURE.  89 

competition  only  holds  good  so  long  as  it  is  unchecked. 
There  are  artificial  barriers  in  most  cases  against  too 
great  an  inundation  of  new  blood  in  the  ranks  of  any 
business,  while  the  existence  of  "  rings  "  to  maintain 
prices  above  their  normal  level  is  a  disturbing  factor  in 
the  situation.  There  is,  however,  one  highly  effective 
weapon,  and  that  is  co-operation. 

The  principle  underlying  co-operation  is  the  union 
of  producers  or  consumers  for  the  purpose  of  saving  the 
middle  profits.  Combinations  of  consumers  have  been 
immensely  successful,  as  the  case  of  the  great  "  stores  " 
in  London  testifies.  The  system  has,  however,  found  its 
greatest  success  among  the  working  classes.  Started  in 
a  very  modest  way  by  the  "  Rochdale  Pioneers,"  the 
co-operative  movement  has  now  reached  enormous 
proportions.  There  are  at  present  1,744  industrial 
co-operative  societies  throughout  the  United  Kingdom, 
including  over  1,100,000  members.  Taking  each  member 
to  represent  a  family,  we  have  5,500,000  of  the  population 
whose  daily  food  is  mainly  purchased  on  the  co-operative 
principle. 

A  suggestion  has  lately  been  made — which  has  not, 
perhaps,  obtained  so  much  consideration  as  it  deserves 
— that  English  farmers  should  make  an  attempt  to 
secure  for  themselves  the  supply  of  this  vast  organised 
demand,  so  to  speak.  Such  an  idea,  however, 
predicates  an  organisation  of  producers  large  enough 
and  solid  enough  to  be  in  a  position  to  make  terms. 
At  present,  the  co-operative  societies  buy,  of  course, 
in  the  cheapest  and  most  convenient  markets,  which 
in  many  instances  are  foreign,  even  in  the  case  of 
articles  which  are  largely  produced  in  this  country. 
Whether  they  would  be  disposed  to  give  any  preference 
to  the  home  supply — presuming  that  there  were  farmers' 
organisations  in  a  position  to  deal  with  them  on  a  large 
scale — is  an  obvious  clement  of  doubt  in  the  matter. 
The  idea  is  evidently  very  much  in  the  air,  and  possibly 


90  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

Utopian  altogether,  but  it  certainly  possesses  fascination. 
One  would  say  that  combinations,  of  producers  on  the 
one  hand  and  of  consumers  on  the  other,  contracting 
on  either  side  for  the  sale  and  purchase  of  produce, 
formed  an  almost  ideal  method  of  dealing  with  the 
"  middleman "  question.  Whether  such  an  ideal  is 
realisable  is  another  matter. 

That  the  present  methods  of  distributing  English  farm 
produce  are  to  a  large  extent  careless,  clumsy,  and  costly 
is  self-evident.  The  case  of  the  meat  trade  in  London 
may  be  cited  in  proof.  The  4,000,000  inhabitants  of 
the  metropolis  are  supplied  with  meat  through  three 
main  channels — viz.  :  the  Islington  Cattle  Market,  the 
Deptford  foreign  animals  wharf,  and  the  Central  Meat 
Market.     The  supply  in  1891  was  as  follows  : — 

Islington  Cattle  Market. 

No. 
Home  supply :    Cattle     .  .      107,188 

Sheep     .  .      727,370 

Pigs        .  .  6,176 


Foreign  :    Cattle     . 

14,222 

^^^,/3^ 

Sheep     . 

48,960 

63,182 

903,916 

Central  Meat  Market. 

Cwt. 

Country-killed  meat  ^  "^ 

. 

2,345.960 

Town-killed  meat  ^ 

.          . 

1,333.320 

General  foreign-killed  meat  ^ 

. 

501,140 

American-killed  fresh  meat 

, 

1,162,560 

Australian-  and  New  Zealand-killed  fresh 

meat     .... 

• 

813,720 

6,156,700 

We  may  put  aside  the  Deptford  supply,  as  this  would 
lead  to  considerations  outside  the  scope  of  this  article. 

1  This  includes  meat,  poultry,  and  provisions. 

"  The  weight  of  American  cattle  slaughtered  at  Deptford  is 
included  in  town-killed,  and  the  weight  of  those  slaughtered  at 
Liverpool  in  country-killed. 


THE  MIDDLEMAN   IN   AGRICULTURE.  91 

Practically  all  the  beef  and  mutton  grown  in  Britain  and 
sent  to  London  passes  through  Ishngton  or  the  Central 
Meat  Market.  The  figures  quoted  above  show  the 
extent  of  the  carcass  trade  and  the  comparatively  small 
proportion  of  the  town-killed  meat.  The  question  arises 
why  animals  are  sent  to  London  for  slaughter  at  all. 
Four-fifths  of  the  butchers  in  the  metropolis  are  said  to 
buy  dead  meat  only  ;  why  should  not  the  other  fifth  do 
the  same  ?  There  is  no  doubt  an  enormous  waste 
annually  entailed  by  the  conveyance  of  live  cattle  to 
market.  A  finished  beast  is  the  worst  possible  traveller, 
and  is  bound  to  deteriorate  every  hour  he  is  on  the  railway. 
The  improved  methods  of  carrying  meat  have  really 
made  the  old  system  obsolete,  a  fact  which  our  foreign 
competitors  in  many  cases  recognise.  It  would  be 
absurd  to  suggest  that  the  practice — which  has  been 
tried  in  a  few  instances  in  the  north — of  slaughtering  on 
the  farm  can  be  generally  adopted,  but  it  would  certainly 
seem  that  farmers  might  by  some  means  of  combination 
slaughter  their  beasts  nearer  home,  and  sell  them  in 
carcass  instead  of  "on  the  hoof."  They  would  thus 
avoid  the  deterioration  and  waste  necessarily  incidental 
to  a  railway  journey,  they  would  know  exactly  how  much 
dressed  meat  they  had  to  sell,  and  the  "  fifth  quarter  " 
would  more  than  pay  the  cost  of  slaughtering. 

Farmers  are  buyers  as  well  as  sellers,  and  they  are 
interested  therefore  in  reducing,  if  possible,  the  middle 
profits  on  farm  requisites,  such  as  manures  and  feeding 
stuffs.  A  committee  of  the  Central  Chamber  of  Agri- 
culture has  just  presented  a  report  on  the  subject  of 
Co-operation  for  Purchase,  which  is  based  on  a  consider- 
able amount  of  evidence  collected  by  them.  They  state 
that  there  are  in  the  kingdom  about  thirty  co-operative 
societies  for  supplying  farm  requisites.  Some  of  them, 
however,  like  the  well-known  Lincolnshire  Association, 
deal  only  in  one  commodity,  while  at  least  half  do  not 
deal  in  more  than  two  or  three  articles.     The  report 


92  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

gives  brief  particulars  of  a  few  typical  associations. 
The  following  may  be  taken  as  representing  a  strictly 
local  one  of  good  standing  : — 

South  Durham  and  North  Yorkshire  Association  (estab- 
Hshed  1878),  headquarters  Darhngton,  has  from  forty  to  fifty 
members,  who  pay  an  entrance  fee  of  2d.  per  acre,  and  2s.  per 
ton  registration  fee  on  all  manures  ordered.  Only  manures  are 
dealt  in  at  present.  The  secretary  sends  in  January  to  each 
member  a  list  of  manures,  which  is  returned  marked  with  the 
number  of  tons  of  each  kind  required,  and  the  month  in  which 
it  is  wanted.  All  the  requisitions  having  been  scheduled,  the 
secretary  advertises  for  tenders  from  manufacturers,  stating 
the  quantity  of  each  manure  required,  and  the  station  at  which 
it  is  to  be  delivered. 

The  committee  reported  that  they  were  strongly 
impressed,  from  the  information  laid  before  them,  with 
the  advantages  which  may  accrue  to  farmers  by  the 
adoption  of  the  principle  of  co-operation.  With  careful 
management  the  risk  of  failure  is  small,  as  is  proved  by 
the  fact  that,  so  far  as  they  had  been  informed,  no 
agricultural  co-operative  association  formed  for  the 
purpose  of  purchasing  farm  requisites  had  failed. 

This  fact,  viz.,  that  there  is  no  instance  on  record  of 
a  co-operative  purchasing  society  having  failed,  is  very 
noteworthy.  Candour  compels  the  admission  that  this 
is  by  no  means  the  case  with  regard  to  co-operative 
societies  for  the  sale  of  farm  produce.  More  than  one 
is  known  to  have  come  to  financial  grief.  It  would  be 
of  Uttle  avail  to  speculate  on  the  causes  of  their  failure, 
but  it  may  be  observed  that  not  all  who  take  the  name 
of  "  co-operation  "  really  adopt  its  principles.  A  real 
co-operative  association  of  producers,  dealing  only — or, 
at  any  rate,  mainly — in  the  products  grown  by  its 
members,  and  dividing  all  profits  fairly  among  the 
producers,  has  seldom,  if  ever,  been  tried  on  such  a  large 
and  well-organised  scale  as  to  afford  a  complete  test  of 
the  principle.  Theoretically,  the  idea  seems  unassailable, 
but  there  are  considerable  practical  difficulties,  on  the 
dealing  with  which  success  or  failure  depends. 


THE  MIDDLEMAN   IN   AGRICULTURE.  93 

The  most  successful  application  of  the  co-operative 
principle,  hitherto,  in  agricultural  production  has  been 
in  cheese  factories  and  creameries.  The  former  have  in  a 
few  cases  been  established  for  some  time,  but  they  have 
not  been  multiplied  ;  the  latter  have  never  become  very- 
popular  in  Great  Britain,  but  in  Ireland  a  large  number 
have  been  started  and  appear  to  be  flourishing. 

Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  fraudulent 
profits  which  are  still  obtained  by  some  unscrupulous 
middlemen  in  the  case  of  margarine  and  meat.  As 
regards  the  former  commodity,  two  suggestions  have 
been  made  for  the  amendment  of  the  law.  One  is  that 
all  margarine,  or  butter  containing  an  admixture  of  it, 
shall  be  sold  uncoloured,  or  coloured  in  a  distinctive 
manner  ;  and  the  other  is  that  travelling  inspectors  shall 
be  appointed  by  a  central  authority  to  carry  out  the  law 
against  adulteration. 

As  regards  meat,  the  figures  given  of  the  supply  at  the 
Central  Market  showed  that  nearly  half  of  it  was  foreign. 
When  we  see  in  the  London  butchers'  shops  anything 
like  that  proportion  of  foreign  meat  we  shall  believe 
that  it  is  all  sold  openly  and  honestly,  but  until  then  it 
is  justifiable  to  assert  that  a  fraudulent  profit  is  frequently 
made  by  selling  foreign  meat  as  English. 

In  summing  up  these  rather  disjointed  observations  on 
a  subject  of  which  it  may  be  said  that  age  does  not 
wither,  nor  custom  stale — but  indeed  increase — its 
infinite  variety,  let  it  be  admitted  that  to  talk  of  elimi- 
nating the  middleman,  in  a  country  such  as  this,  is  absurd. 
He  is  at  once  the  product  and  the  organiser  of  civilisation. 

Even  in  modern  England  we  find  now  and  then  a  village 
artisan  who  adheres  to  primitive  methods,  and  makes  things 
on  his  own  account  for  sale  to  his  neighbours,  managing  his 
own  business  and  undertaking  all  risks.  But  such  cases  are 
rare  ;  and  in  the  greater  part  of  the  business  of  the  modern 
world  the  task  of  so  directing  production  that  a  given  effort 
may  be  most  effective  in  supplying  human  wants  has  to  be 
broken  up  and  given  into  the  hands  of  a  specialised  body  of 


94  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

employers,  or,  to  use  a  more  general  term,  of  business  men. 
They  "  adventure  "  or  "  undertake  "  its  risks,  they  bring  the 
capital  and  the  labour  required  for  the  work  ;  they  arrange  or 
"  engineer  "  its  general  plan,  and  superintend  its  minor  details. 
Looking  at  business  men  from  one  point  of  view  we  may  regard 
them  as  a  highly  skilled  industrial  grade,  from  another  as 
middlemen  intervening  between  the  manual  worker  and  the 
consumer.^ 

The  difficulty  of  definition  which  even  the  scientific 
economist  finds  may  easily  perplex  common  folk.  The 
farmer  has  of  late  been  clamouring — not  without  cause — 
against  the  "  middleman,"  yet  he  is,  in  fact,  a  middleman 
himself.  It  is  well,  therefore,  to  recognise  frankly  that 
the  middleman  in  agriculture  is,  to  some  extent  at  least, 
a  necessity.  But  enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  he 
is  apt  when  unchecked  to  presume  upon  his  intermediate 
position,  and  to  use  it  without  due  regard  to  the  interests 
of  either  the  consumer  or  the  producer.  This  fact 
naturally  disposes  both  consumers  and  producers  to 
regard  with  favour  any  scheme  for  rendering  them  less 
dependent  upon  the  generosity  and  goodwill  of  the 
intermediaries.  It  is  also  a  matter  for  grave  consideration 
whether  in  the  distribution  of  some  articles  of  produce, 
especially  those  of  a  perishable  nature  which  must  go  into 
consumption  immediately,  there  are  not  too  many 
"  dealers  "  and  "  handlers,"  and  it  is,  further,  not  a  matter 
for  consideration  but  one  of  certainty  that  where  the 
middleman  debases  his  calling  by  adulterating  or  wrongly 
describing  the  articles  passing  through  his  hands, 
stringent  measures  should  be  adopted  to  compel  his 
honesty. 

1  Marshall,  "  Elements  of  Economics,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  192. 


CHAPTER    VI  . 

COMBINATION  AMONG  FARMERS.^ 

The  subject  may  be  divided  under  the  traditional 
three  heads.  The  objects  for  which  agriculturists  may 
combine  may  be  classed  as — 

1.  Political. 

2.  Social  and  Educational. 

3.  Commercial. 

The  idea  of  this  division  may  perhaps  be  put  before 
many  minds  in  a  concrete  form  by  remarking  that,  for 
the  first  object,  a  chamber  of  agriculture,  for  the  second 
a  farmers'  club,  and  for  the  third  an  agricultural  co- 
operative association,  would  be  respectively  the  typical 
form  of  combination.  There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of 
things  to  prevent  any  chamber,  club,  or  association 
taking  up  any  two,  or,  in  fact,  all  three  of  these  objects, 
and  cases  might  be  quoted  where  this  has  been  done 
effectively,  and  with  economy  of  machinery  and  effort. 
But  the  popular  distinction  between  the  three  classes 
of  bodies  mentioned  runs  very  much  on  the  allocation 
of  objects  which  I  have  set  forth. 

As  regards  political  objects — giving  the  word,  of  course, 
its  broad  and  true  meaning — the  necessity  for  combi- 
nation need  hardly  be  argued.  It  is  a  truism  that,  if 
agriculturists  wish  for  alterations  in  the  laws  or  in  their 
administration,  whether  imperially  or  locally,  the  only 
means  of  giving  effect  to  their  wishes  is  by  combination. 
And,  in  these  democratic  days,  it  is  equally  self-evident 
that  the  stronger  their  combination  the  greater  their 

Journal  Bath  and  West  of  England  Society,  Vol.  IX.,  4th  series, 
1899. 


96  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

chance  of  success.  I  do  not  propose  to  labour  this 
point,  nor  to  enter  upon  the  field  of  controversial  subjects 
which  it  suggests.  The  political  combination  of  agri- 
culturists in  this  country  has  never  attained  the  formidable 
character  which  may  be  seen  in  some  other  countries. 
But,  in  spite  of  this,  a  good  deal  has  been  done  by  such 
combination  as  has  existed,  and,  in  proof,  one  illustration, 
which  has  now  been  practically  removed  from  the  category 
of  debatable  subjects,  may  be  cited,  viz.,  the  statutes 
preventing  the  importation  of  diseases  of  cattle,  and 
enabling  effective  measures  to  be  adopted  for  suppressing 
outbreaks  of  disease  if  they  occur  at  home.  It  will  not 
be  denied  that  the  satisfactory  security  for  the  health 
of  the  flocks  and  herds  of  this  country  which  farmers 
now  enjoy  has  been  obtained  by  combination,  and  would 
not  have  been  obtained  without  it.  Ex  uno  disce  omnes. 
What  apphes,  unquestionably,  to  cattle  disease  may  be 
appHed,  at  the  reader's  good  pleasure,  to  other  political 
matters  affecting  agriculture. 

One  enters  perhaps  on  somewhat  dehcate  ground  in 
referring  to  combination  for  social  objects — in  other 
words,  to  farmers'  clubs,  in  the  "  club  "  sense.  It  would 
be  idle  to  ignore  the  fact  that  in  olden  days,  and  possibly 
to  some  extent  now,  the  market-day  club  was  not 
altogether  a  desirable  institution.  But  the  club,  in  the 
sense  not  of  a  mere  arrangement  for  eating  and  drinking, 
but  in  its  more  civihsed  modem  form,  has,  in  my  judgment, 
many  advantages.  Some  remarks  made  by  Mr.  Clare 
Sewell  Read,  in  the  course  of  a  discussion  on  a  paper 
which  I  read  before  the  Farmers'  Club  in  1896,  impressed 
me,  because  they  confirmed  on  the  highest  authority  a 
notion  which  I  had  gathered  in  the  course  of  my  travels 
among  farmers.     He  said  : — 

Farmers,  of  course,  are  the  very  worst  men  to  combine  about 
anything.  Their  isolation  is  the  chief  cause  of  it,  I  believe,  and 
there  is  also  that  dogged  independence  which  always  has 
stuck  to  the  British  farmer.     I  beUeve  our  social  intercourse 


COMBINATION   AMONG   FARMERS.  97 

with  each  other  does  not  exist  now  in  the  same  way  as  it  did 
years  ago.  There  is  another  drawback  to  combination  and 
confederation,  and  that  is  the  loss  entirely  of  our  market 
dinners  and  teas.  A  man  at  market  perhaps  may  snap  up  a 
chop  somewhere,  but  he  is  more  likely  to  get  a  glass  of  beer 
and  a  bun  at  a  pastrycook's  shop,  and  go  home  by  train.  I 
can  remember  when  fifty  or  sixty  farmers  used  to  sit  down  at  a 
hotel  in  Norwich,  at  three  o'clock,  and  never  think  of  getting 
up  until  five.  The  result  was  that  during  those  two  hours 
there  was  an  immense  amount  of  information  imparted,  and  a 
confederation  and  co-operation  resulted  among  those  jolly 
men  which  really  does  not  exist  now. 

A  visitor  to  a  market  ordinary  nowadays  is  sure  to  be 
confronted  by  a  lament  over  its  decay  from  the  few 
farmers  who  still  remain  faithful  to  it.  Perhaps  in  some 
cases  the  candid  observer  may  mingle  other  feelings  with 
regret,  but  at  the  same  time  there  is  indisputably  very 
much  shrewdness — as  indeed  there  always  is — in  Mr. 
Read's  observations.  It  is  not  good  for  man  to  be  alone, 
and  the  farmer,  by  the  nature  of  his  calling,  is  too  much 
alone — too  constantly  isolated.  The  plan  admirably 
conceived  and  carried  out  by  the  Newcastle  Farmers' 
Club — to  quote  the  best  within  my  knowledge  in  the  pro- 
vinces, the  London  Farmers'  Club  being  of  course 
exceptional — might  well  be  adopted  more  generally. 
In  that  case  a  club  room  is  provided  which  is  not  only 
well  furnished  with  facilities  for  writing,  reading,  tran- 
sacting business,  or  conversation,  but  has  also  a  very 
useful  library  of  agricultural  books.  This  no  doubt 
means  expense,  and  can  only  be  justified  by  a  considerable 
membership.  But  the  more  common  plan  of  reserving 
a  suitable  room,  for  use  as  a  club  room  for  members  to 
meet  in  on  market  days,  is,  if  properly  managed,  a  good 
one.  Some  may  perhaps  object  to  this  on  the  ground 
that  the  room  is  almost  of  necessity  at  a  hotel  or  public 
house,  and  if  other  suitable  accommodation  were  available 
it  might  be  better  to  obtain  it.  But  the  man  who  abuses 
the  fact  that  he  meets  his  neighbours  on  licensed  premises 
will  certainly  possess  no  more  self-restraint  if  he  does 

A.F.  H 


98  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

not  belong  to  the  club.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  there 
should  be,  I  will  not  say  abuse,  but  even  use,  of  the 
facilities  for  obtaining  intoxicating  liquors.  I  have  more 
than  once  attended  meetings  of  the  Blandford  Farmers' 
Club  when  from  thirty  to  fifty  members  were  present, 
and  not  one  of  them  indulged  in  anything  stronger  than 
tea  or  coffee.  At  other  clubs  also  I  have  noted  that  if 
there  has  not  been  the  same  remarkable  unanimity,  there 
has  been  at  any  rate  a  proportion  present  who  have  either 
abstained  altogether  or  have  indulged  only  in  non-intoxi- 
cating beverages.  My  experience,  therefore,  impels  me 
to  deny  as  a  libel  the  insinuation  sometimes  made  that 
a  farmers'  club  in  its  social  aspect  necessarily  involves 
anything  that  the  most  austere  critic  could  object  to, 
while  I  am  sure  that  it  has  possibilities  which,  though 
often  treated  as  trivial,  are  nevertheless  of  substantial 
advantage. 

In  considering  the  objects  of  an  educational  character 
for  which  farmers  may  combine  we  approach,  in  the  first 
instance,  the  typical  farmers'  club  from  its  graver  side. 
Papers  and  addresses  on  practical  subjects,  followed  by 
discussion,  form  the  more  serious  side  of  its  functions. 
It  is  to  be  regretted  that  in  this  direction  also  there  appears 
to  be  degeneration.  The  problems  and  difficulties  of 
practical  farming  have  increased  enormously  during  the 
latter  half  of  the  present  century,  partly  because  circum- 
stances have  compelled  closer  attention  to  detail,  but 
mainly  because  the  application  of  science  in  its  various 
branches  has  thrown  new  light  upon  the  cultivation  of 
the  soil  and  the  management  of  stock.  Forty  or  fifty 
years  ago  farmers'  clubs  discussed  with  vigour  and  anima- 
tion the  actual  work  of  the  farm.  As  I  write  I  take  down 
at  hazard  a  volume  of  the  Farmers'  Magazine,  and  I  find 
papers  and  discussions  on  the  "  Draining  of  Land,"  at 
the  monthly  meeting  of  the  Durham  Farmers'  Club  ; 
on  "  Growing  Potatoes,"  and  on  "  Growing  Swede 
Turnips  "  at  the  Wortley  Farmers'  Club  ;  on  "  Manures," 


COMBINATION   AMONG  FARMERS.  99 

at  the  Bromsgrove  Farmers'  Club  ;  on  "  Economy  in  the 
Production  of  Farmyard  Manure,"  at  the  Ecclesfield 
Farmers'  Club  ;  on  "  Steam-power  and  Horse-power  in 
Farming,"  at  the  Wakefield  Farmers'  Club  ;  on  "  Guano," 
at  the  Ecclesfield  Farmers'  Club,  and  so  forth.  This  was 
in  1845.  No  doubt  siniilar  instances  might  be  found  now, 
but  comparatively  the  farmers  of  to-day  do  not  appear  to 
discuss  these  practical  subjects  to  the  same  extent  as 
formerly.  It  may  be  that  the  wider  diffusion  of  informa- 
tion in  periodicals  and  newspapers  may  partly  account 
for  this,  although  there  is  no  doubt  that  to  many  persons, 
but  especially  to  those  who  are  not  students  by  training 
or  habit,  word  of  mouth  is  more  useful  and  instructive 
than  the  printed  page.  It  might  be  well  worth  considera- 
tion whether  such  practical  addresses  and  discussions 
could  not  be  advantageously  multiplied  at  meetings  of 
chambers  of  agriculture  and  farmers'  clubs  without 
interfering  with  their  other  functions. 

Another  and  still  more  effective  kind  of  educational 
work  for  which  farmers  may,  and  to  some  extent  do, 
combine,  is  the  arrangement  and  organisation  of  field 
experiments.  The  Bath  and  West  and  Southern  Counties 
Society  has  set  an  admirable  example  in  this  direction  ; 
but  the  very  magnitude  of  its  operations  tends  perhaps  to 
obscure  the  element  of  agricultural  combination  on  which 
it  is  based.  This  is  more  evident  in  such  a  case  as  the 
field  experiments  carried  out  year  after  year  by  the 
Norfolk  Chamber  of  Agriculture.  It  cannot  be  too  often 
insisted  that  a  useful  scheme  of  field  experiments,  or  more 
properly  perhaps  demonstrations,  can  be  conducted  in  a 
very  simple  way  and  without  heavy  outlay  if  farmers 
themselves  co-operate.  Every  thoughtful  farmer  will  be 
frequently  making  experiments  for  himself,  and  it  needs 
only  a  certain  amount  of  organisation  and  co-operation  to 
enable  a  number  of  farmers  in  a  particular  district  to 
agree  on  some  definite  method,  and  thus  secure  results 
which  may  be  helpful  to  all.     Nor  need  this  be  restricted 

H  2 


100  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

to  field  experiments,  although  these  are  in  the  nature  of 
things  easiest  to  arrange.  Feeding  experiments  on  animals 
may  be  also  undertaken,  as  has  notably  been  the  case  in 
Norfolk.  Experiments  or  tests  carried  out  in  this  com- 
paratively simple  way  are,  like  mercy,  doubly  blest.  Not 
only  may  the  general  results  be  enlightening  to  those  who 
have  never  even  seen  the  process  by  which  they  are 
reached,  but  the  act  of  conducting  a  trial  under  specified 
conditions  is  in  itself  educational,  even  if  the  final  results 
should  turn  out  to  be  valueless. 

The  educational  objects  for  which  co-operation  is 
desirable  should  strictly,  perhaps,  be  limited  to  those 
which  are  educational  to  the  co-operators.  But  I  am 
tempted  to  include  under  this  heading  the  combination 
of  farmers  for  the  technical  education  of  their  labourers. 
Complaints  of  the  lack  of  skill  among  labourers  are  very 
prevalent,  but  it  is  sometimes  forgotten  that  in  the  "  good 
old  days"  inducements,  which  are  often  now  lacking,  were 
commonly  offered  to  labourers  to  take  an  honest  pride  in 
their  efhciency.  Take,  for  example,  the  ploughing- 
matches  and  the  sheep-shearing  competitions  which  a 
generation  or  two  ago  were  so  popular.  Not  only  did 
they  embellish  rural  life  with  a  picturesqueness 
nowadays  too  often  lacking,  but  they  certainly 
fostered  among  the  labourers  a  sense  of  the  dignity  and 
importance  of  operations  which  demand  quite  as  much 
intelligence  and  deftness  of  hand  as  many  of  those  carried 
out  by  skilled  artizans.  The  late  Mr.  W.  C.  Little — 
whose  death  deprived  British  agriculture  of  one  of 
the  most  devoted  and  able  men  who  have  ever  spent 
themselves  in  its  service — put  this  point  admirably  in 
that  general  report  on  the  agricultural  labourer  to  the 
Royal  Commission  on  Labour,  which  may  be  justly 
described  as  a  classic.     He  wrote  : — 

The  general  impression  respecting  the  ordinary  agricultural 
labourer  is  that  of  a  man  engaged  in  work  which  requires  little 
intelligence,  skill,  or  training,  but  in  reality  there  are  few  duties 


COMBINATION   AMONG  FARMERS.  loi 

which  he  has  to  perform  which  do  not  call  for  a  certain  amount 
of  judgment,  dexterity,  and  practice  ;  and  the  training  and 
management  of  horses,  the  art  of  ploughing,  mowing,  or  sowing, 
the  use  of  a  spade  or  fork,  must  be  learned  ;  and  the  labourer 
who  had  not  learned  to  economise  his  forces,  and  attack  his 
work  at  the  point  of  least  resistance,  would  be  worn  out  very 
quickly. 

In  the  same  connection  Mr.  Little  quoted  with  approval 
from  a  paper  read  in  1868,  in  which  after  saying  that  an 
agricultural  labourer  is  "  a  variously  skilled  workman," 
it  was  observed  : — 

It  takes  more  varied  qualities  of  mind  and  body  to  be  a  good 
labourer  than  to  be  a  good  carpenter,  whose  tools  keep  him 
square  by  line  and  by  rule,  etc.,  while  the  other  makes  parallel 
lines  in  a  field  with  an  awkward  thing  called  a  plough,  and  still 
more  awkward  things  called  horses. 

It  may  be  said  that  technical  education  in  agriculture 
is  now  under  the  care  of  the  county  councils,  but  that 
consideration,  with  all  that  hangs  thereby,  lies  outside 
our  present  scope.  Co-operative  education,  so  to  speak, 
and  subsidised  education  are  two  different  things. 
Each  may  well  supplement  the  other,  and  both  may  be 
joined  in  one  enterprise.  But  the  essence  of  what  is  here 
set  forth  is  the  combination  of  those  who  seek  knowledge 
for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  that  knowledge  for  them- 
selves. 

By  combination  for  commercial  objects  is  meant  that 
which  is  commonly  called  "  co-operation  "  in  the  conven- 
tional acceptation  of  the  term.  And  here  we  come  to  that 
branch  of  the  subject  which  perhaps  is  naturally 
suggested  by  the  heading  of  this  paper. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  agricultural  co-operation  is  a 
popular  prescription  for  the  ills  of  agriculture.  It  is  the 
common  panacea  of  the  man  in  the  street.  Two  facts 
have  impressed  themselves  upon  the  public  mind — two 
concrete  facts — the  first  is  Brittany  butter,  and  the  second 
is  Danish  butter.  The  magnitude  of  the  supply,  its 
persistent  growth,  and  it  must  also  be  said  the  excellence 


102  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

of  these  articles,  have  combined  to  persuade  the  average 
Briton  that  the  French  and  Danish  farmers  are  very 
clever  folk,  and  that  if  farmers  in  this  country  would  only 
imitate  them  they  would  be  wise.  The  said  average 
Briton  is  also  persuaded  that  the  secret  of  the  Frenchman 
and  the  Dane's  success  is  co-operation,  and  consequently 
that  it  is  co-operation  which  will  save  British  agriculture. 
This  is  very  simple  and  plausible,  but  it  is  not  the  whole 
of  the  case.  We  may  put  aside  the  point  that  the  trade 
in  Brittany  butter — most  of  which  comes  from  Normandy 
— has  been  built  up  mainly  by  the  commercial  organisa- 
tion of  capitalist  middlemen.  In  Denmark,  although  there 
has  been  some  assistance  from  the  State,  it  is  in  the  main 
correct  to  say  that  the  system  of  production  and  exporta- 
tion is  based  on  co-operative  principles.  One  odd  fact  is 
the  concentration  of  public  interest  on  butter.  The 
average  Briton  clamours  for  English  butter  most  zealously, 
and  when  he  gets  it  frequently  refuses  to  eat  it.  But  why 
this  insistence  upon  butter-making  ?  Butter  is  only  one 
of  the  products  which  we  import.  We  import,  for  example, 
far  more  meat  of  all  kinds  (reckoning  by  value)  than 
butter,  and  we  make  nearly  as  much  butter  as  we  import. 
It  is  necessary  to  protest  against  the  idea  which  seems 
prevalent  that  co-operation  means  butter-making,  or 
otherwise  we  cannot  make  much  progress  with  co-operation. 
The  parrot  cry  "  make  butter  like  the  Danes  "  becomes 
monotonous  to  the  dairy  farmers  of  this  country,  who 
know  perfectly  well  that  in  many  cases  they  would  be 
foolish  to  do  so.  Mr.  W.  J.  Harris,  who  is  a  practical 
agriculturist  and  also  a  man  of  business,  put  the  case 
clearly  from  a  Devonshire  point  of  view  in  a  recent 
address.  His  object  was  to  show  "  why  it  does  not  suit 
the  farmers  here  to  follow  the  advice  of  our  critics,  and 
lay  themselves  out  for  butter-making  on  a  large  scale." 
The  passage  is  so  pertinent  that  I  quote  it  : — 

In  the  first  place  we  have  very  little  female  labour,  unless 
we  pay  an  exorbitant  price  for  it.     In  the  second  place,  we 


COMBINATION  AMONG   FARMERS.  103 

have  but  few  small  farms.  .  .  ,  Where  small  holdings  exist, 
with  the  female  labour  always  present  in  the  shape  of  a  wife  or 
a  daughter,  there  butter  is  nearly  always  made.  On  my  own 
property  I  have  made  many  such  holdings,  and  the  small 
tenants  all  produce  butter,  and  I  believe  they  make  it  pay  to 
do  so.  The  dairy  enables  them  to  keep  pigs,  and  the  woman's 
time  is  given  up  to  the  dairy,  the  pigs,  the  poultry,  and  the 
calves.  We  have  no  factory  within  reach.  The  necessary 
condition  of  having  as  many  as  400  cows  within  easy  reach 
could  not  be  fulfilled  on  my  estate,  but  we  do  not  want  a 
factory.  We  make  our  butter  on  the  old  scalding  process,  and 
whether  the  quality  is  better  than  the  French  or  not,  I  know 
not,  but  I  do  know  that  although  we  sell  it  at  home,  and  thus 
have  no  expense  of  carriage,  we  make  a  better  price  than  good 
foreign  butter  is  worth  in  London  wholesale,  taking  the  year 
round.  Before  coming  here  I  took  out  the  prices  I  had  made 
for  butter  during  the  last  twelve  months,  and  I  found  that  I 
had  made  over  13W.  per  lb.  for  all  I  had  to  sell.  I  am  aware 
of  all  the  complaints  that  are  made  about  us,  namely,  that  no 
butter  dealer  in  London  would  take  the  make  of  half-a-dozen 
farms  in  Devon  and  Cornwall  all  the  year  round  on  account  of 
its  varying  in  colour  and  quality.  We  really  do  not  care 
whether  the  Londoner  takes  it  or  not.  We  should  probably 
lose  2d.  per  lb.  by  sending  it  to  him.  There  are  people  nearer 
home  who  know  the  flavour  of  well-made  English  grass  butter, 
and  they  take  all  we  have  to  spare.  Butter  made  on  the 
scalding  process,  whether  a  separator  be  used  or  not  is,  more- 
over, much  wholesomer,  in  my  opinion,  than  that  made  by  any 
other  process,  and  I  expect  we  shall  hold  our  price.  If  we 
adopted  the  advice  of  the  Press,  and  sent  all  the  butter  after  it 
is  made  to  a  factory  to  be  made  into  one  uniform  quality  and 
shape,  I  fail  to  see  how  we  could  do  any  better  than  the 
Frenchman,  the  Dane,  or  the  Irishman.  ...  I  think  I  have 
shown  that  the  conditions  under  which  we  farm  are  so  different 
to  those  of  the  Danes,  the  French,  and  the  Irish,  that  we  do 
very  wisely  to  choose  not  to  make  butter  in  any  large  quantity. 

Let  us  therefore  disabuse  our  minds  of  the  notion 
that  universal  butter-making  is  a  necessary,  or  desirable, 
consequence  of  co-operation  as  applied  to  agriculture. 
Butter-making  is  a  mere  branch,  and  not  perhaps  the 
most  important  branch,  of  a  wide  subject. 

If,  as  I  venture  to  think,  the  popular  advocacy  of  co- 
operation for  farmers  is  founded,  to  some  extent  at  least, 
on  misconception,  the  opposition  of  farmers  to  the  idea 


104  AN   AGRICULTURAL    FAGGOT. 

has,  on  the  other  hand,  its  tap-root  in  prejudice.  The 
British  farmer  has  the  defects  of  his  qualities.  He  is,  by 
breeding,  training,  and  habit,  conservative,  reticent,  and, 
above  all,  egotistical.  He  forms  in  this  age  of  socialist 
ideas  the  last  bulwark  of  individualism.  His  jealousy  of 
his  neighbour  is  almost  as  strong  as  his  jealousy  of  foreign 
competitors.  To  combine  with  his  neighbours  for  any 
purpose  whatever  is  irksome,  and  to  combine  for  business 
purposes  is  repugnant.  Nor  should  superior  persons 
condemn  him  hastily.  Let  them  reflect  that  thirty  years 
ago  his  individualism  would  have  been  accounted  for 
righteousness.  We  were  all  individualists  then,  as  we  are 
"  all  socialists  now  "  ;  but  the  agricultural  mind  is  not 
nimble  enough  to  keep  pace  with  the  somersaults  of  our 
political  economy. 

If  he  were  pressed  for  something  more  tangible  than  a 
general  objection  to  co-operation,  the  farmer  might 
possibly  confess  that  he  did  not  clearly  understand  what 
it  meant.  Here,  again,  let  us  not  be  too  quick  to  con- 
demn. Are  we  quite  sure  what  we  mean  by  co-operation 
generally,  and  by  agricultural  co-operation  particularly  ? 
If  we  look  for  a  definition  of  co-operation  this  is  the  sort 
of  thing  we  find  : — 

The  essential  characteristic  of  co-operation  is  a  union  of 
capital  and  labour — a  certain  number  of  labourers  form  them- 
selves into  a  society,  and  they  supply  the  capital  which  their 
labour  requires.  Co-operation  may  thus  be  regarded  as  a 
modified  form  of  socialism  ;  but  as  in  a  co-operative  society 
each  member's  share  of  the  aggregate  wealth  produced  is  appor- 
tioned to  the  amount  of  capital  he  subscribes  to  the  common 
fund,  as  well  as  the  quantity  and  quality  of  the  labour  he 
supplies,  it  is  evident  that  an  influence  is  thus  brought  into 
operation  to  stimulate  each  individual's  energy.^ 

Or  again  : — 

English  co-operation  is  a  system  of  commerce  and  industry, 
consisting  of  societies  of  working  people  in  which  the  business 
profits  of  a  store  are  given  to  the  purchasers,  and  the  profits 

1  Fawcett,  "  Manual  of  Political  Economy,"  6th  edition,  p.  103. 


COMBINATION  AMONG   FARMERS.  105 

of  the  workshop  to  the  workers.  The  division  of  profit  in  the 
store  is  made  according  to  the  amount  of  custom,  and  in  the 
workshop  according  to  the  amount  of  wages.  The  original 
object  of  co-operation  was  to  estabhsh  self-supporting  com- 
munities distinguished  by  common  labour,  common  property, 
common  means  of  intelligence,  and  recreation.  They  were 
to  be  examples  of  industrialism,  freed  from  competition.^ 

It  is  evident  that,  so  far,  the  farmer  is  not  very  much 
helped  to  understand  the  meaning  of  the  application  of 
co-operation  to  agriculture. 

A  better  definition  for  our  purpose  is  one  given  by 

M.   Georges  Michel,  which  is  quoted  by  Le  Comte  de 

Rocquigny  in  his  interesting  book,  "  La  Co-operation  de 

Production  dans  1' Agriculture,"  published  in  1896.     It  is 

as  follows  : — 

La  co-operation  est  une  entente  entre  des  personnes  qui 
reunissent  leurs  forces  pour  lutter  avec  succes  contre  les 
obstacles  qui  s'opposent  aux  individus  et  pour  etre  capables 
d'offrir  ou  d'obtenir  des  avantages  superieurs  a  ceux  qu'elles 
pourraient  offrir  ou  obtenir  si  elles  restaient  isolees. 

We  get  here  the  principle — combination  for  such 
objects  as  can  be  more  advantageously  achieved  by 
mutual  agreement  than  by  isolated  effort.  What  are 
those  objects  ? 

No  one  can  dogmatise  for  the  country  as  a  whole.  One 
cannot  say  that  this  or  that  object  will  everywhere  be 
better  achieved  by  co-operation  than  by  individual  enter- 
prise. The  nearest  approach  one  might  get  to  such 
generalisation  would  probably  be  in  regard  to  the  purchase 
of  artificial  manures,  feeding  stuffs,  and  other  articles 
required  in  farming.  Putting  aside  possibly  the  farmer- 
princes — to  coin  a  word — the  men  occupying  very  large 
farms  and  having  ample  capital  (although  I  know  some 
who  are  members  of  local  manure-purchasing  co- 
operative associations),  it  is  almost,  if  not  quite,  in- 
variably true  to  say  that  farmers  would  gain  by  combina- 
tion for  such  a  purpose.  The  difficulty,  of  course,  or  at 
any  rate  one  of  the  difficulties,  is  that,  while  the  smaller 

•  Holyoake,  "  The  Co-operative  Movement  of  To-day,"  p.  i. 


io6  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

occupiers  are  those  who  would  most  benefit,  they  are  the 
last  to  find  it  available,  on  account  of  the  necessity  for  the 
adoption  of  a  cash  basis.  There  are  a  good  many  associa- 
tions of  this  character  in  Great  Britain,  and,  without 
exception,  I  believe,  all  are  doing  useful  and  successful 
work. 

This  side  of  agricultural  co-operation  has  been  greatly 
developed  in  France  by  the  organisation  of  the 
Syndicats  Agricoles,  of  which  there  were  in  1897  no 
less  than  1,371,  with  a  total  membership  of  about  600,000. 
A  brief  description  of  these  associations  may  be  of  interest. 
The  administrative  staff  of  an  agricultural  syndicate 
consists  nearly  always  of  a  president,  vice-president, 
secretary,  and  a  treasurer.  Some  of  the  larger  bodies — 
for  they  range  in  size  from  a  membership  of  twenty  to 
one  of  10,000 — have  two  or  even  three  vice-presidents, 
and  sometimes  a  secretary-general  with  two  or  three 
assistants.  These  officers  form  the  executive  bureau  or 
council.  In  cases  where  the  membership  exceeds  100 
there  is  usually  also  a  syndical  chamber  or  directorate, 
with  duties  of  a  consultative  character,  but  nevertheless 
exercising  more  or  less  control  over  the  council  of  manage- 
ment. A  salaried  manager  is  employed  in  a  few  instances, 
but  it  more  frequently  happens  that  the  whole  of  the 
work  is  performed  by  the  president  and  other  officials, 
who  receive  no  remuneration  for  their  services.  The 
members  of  the  council  are  elected  for  a  term  of  years, 
either  by  votes  at  the  general  meeting,  or,  where  there  is 
a  directorate,  by  the  directors  from  amongst  themselves. 
The  directors  are  always  elected  at  the  general  meetings 
for  a  period  varying  from  two  to  nine  years.  When  the 
operations  of  a  syndicate  extend  over  a  considerable  area 
it  is  usual  to  select  a  director  for  certain  districts  or 
divisions.  Thus,  in  the  large  departmental  syndicates  a 
director  is  elected  for  each  arrondissement.  Smaller  bodies, 
having  members  resident  in  several  communes  or  villages, 
generally  arrange  that  the  syndical   chamber  shall  be 


COMBINATION   AMONG  FARMERS.  107 

comprised  of  delegates  representing  each,  village  or  com- 
mune in  which  not  less  than  ten  members  reside.     In 
both  cases  the  director  or  delegate  acts,  as  a  rule,  as  the 
administrative  agent  for  his  district,  and  conducts  the 
necessary  correspondence  with  the  central  office.     The 
syndicates  derive  their  resources  mainly  from  the  members' 
subscriptions,  and  from  a  small  commission  levied  on  the 
sales  and  purchases  effected.     Some  of  the  more  fortunate 
among  them  have  been  the  recipients  of  gifts  and  legacies, 
while    others    are    subsidised    by    the    conseils-generaux 
and  by  the  agricultural  societies.     Usually  the  subscrip- 
tion ranges  from  2s.  6d.  to  5s.  per  annum,  though  in  a  few 
cases  it  is  less  than  half  the  smaller  sum  mentioned. 
Sometimes  there  is  a  graduated  scale  of  subscriptions 
arranged   to   meet   the   circumstances    of   the   different 
classes  of  members,  so  that  a  poor  peasant  farmer  pays 
less  than  his  richer  neighbour,  while  the  labourer's  con- 
tribution is  merely  nominal.     Another  system  has  been 
adopted  by  three  or  four  associations  whereby  the  ordi- 
nary members'  subscriptions  are  proportional  to  the  area 
of  land  they  own  or  occupy,  or  to  the  amount  of  land  tax 
to  which  they  are  assessed.     Then,  too,  in  many  syndi- 
cates there  are,  in  addition  to  the  ordinary  members, 
"  founders  "  and  "  honorary  members,"  chiefly  country 
squires,  retired  officers,  and  other  local  magnates,  who  are 
candidates  for  the  more  prominent  positions  in  the  syndi- 
cates, and  whose  subscriptions  always  exceed  those  of  the 
ordinary  members.     It  is  an  almost  general  practice  to 
charge  a  small  commission  on  the  transactions  under- 
taken on  behalf  of  the  members,  especially  in  respect  to 
the  purchase  of  manures.     This  goes  to  defray  the  ex- 
penses of  analysis  and  distribution,  and  is  usually  fixed 
at  I  per  cent,  or  2  per  cent,  on  the  invoice  prices  ;    it 
seldom  exceeds  4  per  cent. 

Nearly  all  the  syndicates  were  originally  formed  for 
the  purchase  of  artificial  manures  and  for  the  suppression 
of  fraud  in  the  manure  trade,  two  objects  which  still 


io8  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

constitute  the  main  feature  of  their  work.  Co-operation 
in  purchase  has  in  recent  years  been  extended  to  feeding 
stuffs,  seeds,  insecticides,  machines,  implements,  and  other 
requisites.  The  procedure  is  practically  the  same  in  all 
cases.  Invoices  are  checked  and  passed  by  the  council 
of  the  syndicate,  and  bills,  payable  at  one,  two,  or  three 
months,  are  drawn  by  the  manufacturers  and  tradesmen 
on  the  individual  members  for  the  goods  supplied.  Few 
of  the  associations  undertake  responsibility  in  respect  of 
payment  of  goods  ordered  on  behalf  of  members.  But 
although  the  syndicates  offer  no  material  security  to  the 
traders,  their  reputation  for  soundness  in  business  affairs 
is  in  itself  a  moral  guarantee.  It  very  rarely  happens 
that  a  member  fails  to  meet  an  engagement  contracted 
through  his  syndicate,  for  default  invariably  entails 
expulsion. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  principles  on  which  these 
syndicates  are  conducted  differ  from  those  generally 
adopted  by  similar  local  associations  in  this  country. 
We  may  take  for  instance  a  north-country  association  of 
twenty  years'  standing  which  has  from  forty  to  fifty 
members,  who  pay  an  entrance  fee  of  2d.  per  acre,  and 
2s.  per  ton  registration  fee  on  all  manures  ordered.  Only 
manures  are  dealt  in,  but  the  inclusion  of  seeds, 
foods,  and  implements  is  contemplated.  The  secre- 
tary sends  in  January  to  each  member  a  list  of 
manures,  which  is  returned  marked  with  the  number  of 
tons  of  each  kind  required,  and  the  month  in  which  it  is 
wanted.  All  the  requisitions  having  been  scheduled,  the 
secretary  advertises  for  tenders  from  manufacturers,  stat- 
ing the  maximum  and  minimum  quantity  of  each  manure 
required,  and  the  station  at  which  it  is  to  be  delivered. 
Contracts  are  settled  by  the  committee  (of  nine  members), 
elected  annually.  The  secretary  then  informs  each 
purchasing  member  of  the  price  of  the  manure,  and  the 
amount  due  from  him  must  be  sent  before  goods  are 
delivered.     After  a  certain  quantity  has  been  delivered. 


COMBINATION   AMONG  FARMERS.  109 

the  committee  ballot  for  the  farms  where  the  samples  shall 
be  taken  for  analysis,  and  the  secretary,  accompanied  by 
a  representative  of  the  manufacturer,  goes  round  and 
takes  samples.  All  manures  are  bought  on  stated  values 
per  unit,  and  for  excess  up  to  los.  per  ton  above  the  agreed 
standard.  Deficiency  below  standard  is  charged  for  on 
the  same  basis,  with  25  per  cent,  in  addition  as  a  penalty. 

In  England  the  cash  basis  is,  I  believe,  invariably 
adopted,  while  in  France,  as  we  have  seen,  credit  is  given. 
No  doubt  credit  must  be  paid  for  in  some  way,  but  if 
membership  of  the  association  is  considered  to  be  a  moral 
guarantee  against  bad  debts — as  is  stated  to  be  the  case 
in  France — no  doubt  the  additional  charge  for,  say,  two 
or  three  months'  credit  would  be  very  small. 

The  development  of  agricultural  co-operation  has  been 
even  more  remarkable  in  Germany  and  Denmark  than 
in  France.  In  Germany  there  are  no  less  than  7,762 
registered  agricultural  co-operative  associations,  com- 
prising 5,382  agricultural  credit  societies  ;  894  societies 
for  the  purchase  of  fertilisers,  seeds,  and  implements  ; 
1,262  co-operative  dairies,  and  224  other  co-operative 
societies.  A  full  account  of  the  development  and  organisa- 
tion of  the  co-operative  dairies  in  various  parts  of  Germany 
appears  in  the  Report  on  Dairy  Farming  in  Denmark, 
Germany,  and  Sweden  (C.  7,019),  published  by  the  Board 
of  Agriculture  in  1892.  They  may  be  divided  into  three 
classes,  viz.,  dairies  which  manufacture  butter  and  skim- 
milk  cheeses,  and  thus  utilise  the  skim-milk;  dairies  in 
which  only  the  cream  is  used,  the  skim-milk  and  butter- 
milk being  returned  to  the  members ;  and  dairy  stores  in 
which  fresh  milk  is  sold  on  behalf  of  the  members,  and  only 
the  surplus  converted  into  butter  and  cheese.  Dairies  of 
the  second  class  are  the  most  popular,  as  the  skim-milk 
and  butter-milk  can  generally  be  more  profitably  used  for 
rearing  calves  and  fattening  pigs  than  by  its  conversion 
into  cheese.  Taking  the  accounts  for  1892  of  288  of  these 
co-operative  dairy  societies,  it  appears  that  the  average 


no  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

number  of  members  in  each  society  was  forty-four,  the 
smallest  number  returned  being  ten,  and  the  largest  ninety. 
The  average  quantity  of  milk  dealt  with  in  the  year  by 
each  society  was  210,000  gallons.  The  average  working 
capital  was  £2,550,  and  the  average  reserve  fund  £189. 
The  average  net  profits  of  seventy  of  the  dairies  on  the 
year's  working  was  £168,  and  fourteen  of  them  returned 
an  average  loss  of  £60. 

Denmark  has  a  large  number  of  agricultural  co-opera- 
tive societies  which  may  be  classified  as  follows  : — 

(a)  For  the  breeding  and  rearing  of  cattle,  horses,  and 
pigs. 

(b)  For  the  manufacture  of  butter  and  cheese.  There  are 
from  1,100  to  1,200  of  these,  and  roughly  it  may  be  said 
that  there  is  a  co-operative  dairy  society  for  every  parish. 

(c)  For  bacon-curing  or  pig-killing.  There  are  about 
eighteen  of  these. 

(d)  For  collecting  and  exporting  eggs.  These  are  now 
federated  in  a  large  central  association. 

{e)  For  bee-keeping. 

(/)  For  fruit-gardening  and  horticulture. 

To  sum  up  on  this  point  :  the  general  advantage  of 
co-operation  among  farmers  for  the  purchase  of  artificial 
manures,  feeding  stuffs,  etc.,  seems,  as  already  noted,  to 
be  unquestionable,  while  as  to  the  desirability  of  co- 
operation for  the  sale  of  farm  produce,  it  is  impossible 
to  assert  more  than  that,  under  certain  conditions,  it 
has  proved  highly  successful,  although  it  must  also  be 
added  that  success  has  been  by  no  means  uniform.  I 
venture  to  think  that  the  conclusion  arrived  at,  after 
much  consideration  and  inquiry,  and  drawn  up  in  very 
measured  terms,  by  a  Committee  of  the  Central  Chamber 
of  Agriculture,  is  sound  : — 

Nothing  which  has  come  before  the  Committee  has  led  them 
to  believe  that  the  profits  of  all  English  farmers  could  be 
straightway  increased  by  the  adoption  of  any  universal 
system  of  co-operation,  even  supposing  that  the  establishment 


COMBINATION  AMONG  FARMERS.  iii 

of  such  a  system  were  possible.  Some  farmers  are  producers 
on  a  sufficiently  large  scale  to  be  able  to  make  practically  as 
good  terms  as  they  would  be  likely  to  obtain  through  an  associa- 
tion, while  many  of  the  smaller  farmers — especially  near  large 
centres  of  population — dispose  of  their  produce  direct  to  the 
consumers.  Nor  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  in  a  country 
like  England  the  producers  of  any  class  of  commodities  can  in 
every  case  be  their  own  salesmen  and  distributors,  even  by 
means  of  co-operation. 

But  the  Committee  nevertheless  consider  that  the  associa- 
tion of  producers  in  particular  districts  for  the  joint  disposal  of 
certain  classes  of  produce  would  be  in  many  cases  advan- 
tageous. The  advantage  appears  to  be  most  marked  in  the 
case  of  produce  which  is  subjected  to  a  process  of  manufac- 
ture ;  as,  for  example,  in  the  conversion  of  milk  into  butter  or 
cheese,  in  the  curing  of  bacon,  or  in  the  making  of  jam.  In 
such  cases  there  is  an  obvious  economy  of  labour  in  dealing 
with  large  quantities  of  produce,  and  there  is  no  reason,  on 
the  face  of  it,  that  the  benefit  of  such  economy  should  not  be 
secured  by  the  producers  themselves  in  an  association  for  the 
purpose,  provided  they  are  willing  to  find  the  necessary 
capital.  It  is  further  shown  by  the  experience  of  the  Farmers' 
Auction  Mart  at  Darlington  that  combination  for  the  sale  of 
stock  may  be  distinctly  beneficial,  and  the  same  principle  has 
been  successfully  applied  to  the  sale  of  milk  in  bulk — an 
industry  which  entails  special  risks  and  difficulties  upon 
individuals,  and  in  which  also  the  ordinary  distributive 
agencies  are  very  powerful  and  apt  to  be  autocratic  in  their 
dealings  with  isolated  producers.  Such  attempts  as  have  been 
made  to  co-operate  for  the  disposal  of  ordinary  crops,  as,  for 
instance,  corn,  hay,  straw,  potatoes,  etc.,  have  not  as  yet 
been  sufficiently  long  continued  to  enable  any  reliable  opinion 
to  be  formed  as  to  their  ultimate  success.  In  the  case  of 
small  producers — when  a  number  are  to  be  found  in  one 
district — the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  co-operation  may  be 
considerable.  Poultry-keeping  in  such  hands  loses  much  of 
its  benefits  without  some  kind  of  organisation  for  collecting  eggs 
or  chickens.  This  is  supplied  in  certain  districts,  in  a  rough- 
and-ready  way,  by  a  system  of  intermediaries  generally  known 
as  "  higglers."  This  is  an  industry  in  which  the  co-operation 
of  producers  might  be  highly  beneficial,  and  the  establishment 
of  poultry-fattening  stations  on  co-operative  principles  in 
suitable  districts  seems  a  specially  hopeful  development.^ 

'  Report  of  a  Committee  of  the  Central  and  Associated  Chambers 
of  Agriculture  on  Co-operation  for  the  sale  of  Agricultural  Produce, 
May,  1898. 


112  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

This  forms  a  fairly  complete  summary  of  the  results 
of  the  inquiries  of  the  Committee  with  regard  to  such 
attempts  as  have  been  made  in  England,  and  they  are 
not  many,  to  co-operate  for  the  sale  of  produce ;  and  they 
go  on  to  express  their  belief  that  co-operation  for  sale 
might  advantageously  be  adopted  in  England  in  particular 
districts   for  particular   products.     They  continue  : — 

A  district  where  co-operation  for  the  disposal  of  produce 
might  be  tried  with  the  greatest  probability  of  immediate 
success  would  be  one  where  a  considerable  number  of  com- 
paratively small  occupiers  of  land,  all  engaged  in  the  same 
class  of  farming,  are  clustered  together.  The  products  to 
which  the  principle  of  co-operation  may  be  most  usefully 
applied  appear  to  be  butter,  bacon,  milk,  poultry,  and  eggs. 
In  making  this  statement  the  Committee  must  not  be  under- 
stood as  limiting  the  possibilities  of  co-operation,  but  only  as 
indicating  the  direction  in  which  from  past  experience  they 
see  most  immediate  hope  of  its  successful  application  in  this 
country. 

In  conclusion,  the  Committee  express  their  conviction  of 

the  soundness  of  the  view  strenuously  urged  by  Mr.  Plunkett 
that  associations  of  producers  must  be  really  co-operative. 
In  other  words,  they  must  consist  of  and  be  managed  by  the 
producers  themselves,  who  must  risk  their  own  money  and 
give  their  own  time  to  make  the  enterprise. 

These  conclusions  were  signed  by  Mr.  W.  Lipscomb 
(chairman),  Lord  Wenlock,  the  Right  Hon.  Horace 
Plunkett,  M.P.,1  the  Right  Hon.  J.  L.  Wharton,  M.P., 
Mr.  Yerburgh,  M.P.,  Mr.  D'Arcy  Wyvill,  M.P.,  Mr.  Clare 
Sewell  Read,  Mr.  S.  Rowlandson,  Professor  Long,  Mr.  J, 
Bowen-Jones,  Captain  Stuart- Wortley,  Mr.  F.  E.  Muntz, 
Mr.  T.  Latham,  Mr.  Barfoot-Saunt,  and  myself. 

It  is  quite  evident  that  the  wide  subject  set  forth  at 
the  heading  of  this  article  has  only  been  incompletely 
and  imperfectly  dealt  with.  To  exhaust  it  would  need  a 
volume.  It  is  a  well-worn  theme — the  desirability  of 
greater  combination  among  farmers — and  I  make  no 
pretension  to  have  anything  very  new  to  say  upon  it. 
All  I  have  hoped  to  do  is  to  touch  upon  one  or  two  points 
1  Now  The  Right.  Hon.  Sir  Horace  Plunkett,  K.C.V.O. 


COMBINATION   AMONG  FARMERS.  113 

which  might  lead  to  further  reflection  and  inquiry  from 
those  with  whom  lies  the  opportunity  of  giving  practical 
effect  to  ideas.  The  power  which  in  these  days  lies  in 
effective  combination  is  in  many  directions  incalculable, 
and  if  that  power  can  be  more  strenuously  employed  for 
helping  the  wagon  of  British  agriculture  out  of  the  ruts 
among  which  it  has  lately  laboured,  more  immediate 
benefit  may  result  than  from  the  most  vigorous  supplica- 
tions for  extraneous  assistance. 


A.V, 


CHAPTER    VII. 

CO-OPERATION  FOR  THE  SALE  OF  FARM  PRODUCE.i 

The  British  farmer  has  more  critics  than  admirers.  This, 
perhaps,  is  natural,  because  the  quaHfications  of  the  former 
are  more  common  than  those  of  the  latter.  You  cannot 
well  admire  a  man  without  knowing  something  about  him, 
but  you  can  criticise  him  quite  brilliantly  without  any 
such  necessity.  Those  who  criticise  the  British  farmer  so 
readily  might  at  least  remember  that,  judged  by  results, 
he  still  holds  the  foremost  place  among  the  cultivators  of 
the  soil  and  the  breeders  of  stock  in  the  world.  He  still 
grows  the  heaviest  crops  per  acre  and  he  still  produces  the 
finest  animals.  Even  his  competitors,  whether  in  foreign 
countries  or  the  colonies,  have  for  the  most  part  acquired 
their  skill  from  him. 

Professor  Marshall,  in  his  "  Economics  of  Industry," 
observes  : — 

England  has  learnt  lessons  in  agriculture  from  many 
countries  and  especially  the  Netherlands,  but  on  the  whole 
she  has  taught  far  more  than  she  has  learnt,  and  there  is  now 
no  country  except  the  Netherlands  which  can  compare  with 
her  in  the  amount  of  produce  per  acre  of  fertile  land,  and  no 
country  in  Europe  which  obtains  nearly  so  high  returns  in 
proportion  to  the  labour  expended  in  getting  them. 

In  view  of  unbiassed  testimony  such  as  this — which  it 
would  be  easy  to  support  by  official  statistics,  if  necessary 
— the  British  farmer  might  at  least  be  spared  accusations 
of  incompetence.  If  it  be  true  that  in  certain  products 
he  is  to  some  extent  beaten  in  his  own  markets,  do  not  the 
British  manufacturer  and  the  British  mechanic  lie  under 
the  same  reproach  ? 

1  Read  before  the  Farmers'  Club,  February,  1896. 


CO-OPERATION  FOR  SALE  OF  FARM  PRODUCE.    115 

But  the  staunchest  admirer  of  the  British  farmer  will 
admit  that  he  is  intensely  individualist.  Forty  or  fifty 
years  ago  this  would  have  been  a  term  of  eulogy.  Now  it 
will  hardly  be  denied  in  any  quarter  that  a  fundamental 
fault  in  the  economics  of  British  agriculture  is  that  the 
whole  structure  rests  on  a  basis  of  individualism.  It  was 
not  always  so,  for  under  the  old  common-field  system 
there  was  a  considerable  amount  of  co-operation  among 
the  cultivators,  and  it  is  only  since  inclosure  transformed 
the  face  of  the  country  that  agriculture  has  been  on  a 
purely  individualist  basis. 

We  take,  then,  as  a  starting  point  the  fact  that  the 
British  farmer  is  by  habit  and  prejudice  averse  to  co- 
operation. What  we  have  to  consider  is  whether  co-opera- 
tion would  improve  his  position,  and  if  so,  whether  it  is 
possible  for  him. 

There  are  three  distinct  forms  which  the  co-operative 
principle  may  and  does  take,  or  more  correctly,  perhaps, 
three  branches  of  co-operation  : — 

1.  Co-operative  production. 

2.  Co-operative  purchase. 

3.  Co-operative  distribution  and  sale. 

The  title  chosen  for  this  paper  involves  the  considera- 
tion of  only  the  third  of  these  subjects,  viz.,  co-operation 
for  distribution  and  sale.  We  may,  however,  glance 
briefly  in  passing  at  the  first  and  second  of  these 
subjects. 

Co-operative  production  as  applied  to  agriculture 
practically  means  the  hiring  of  a  farm  by  a  number  of 
labourers  who  agree  among  themselves  to  take  the  risks 
and  share  the  profits.  As  long  ago  as  1829  Mr.  John 
Gurdon,  of  Assington  Hall,  Suffolk,  adopted  this  plan,  as 
also  did  Mr.  Vandeleur  in  Ireland  in  1831,  in  both  instances 
with  some  success.  Two  other  more  recent  instances  are 
on  record.  One  commenced  in  1883  on  the  estate  of 
Mr.  Bolton  King,  in  Warvvickshire,  where  the  labourers 
formed  themselves  into  the  "  Radbourne  Manor  Farming 

I  2 


ii6  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

Association,"  and  hired  the  Radbourne  Manor  Farm  on  a 
lease,  hiring  stock  and  implements  to  the  value  of  ;£3,304 
from  Mr,  King,  and  borrowing  from  him  £200.  They 
agreed  to  pay  interest  at  6  per  cent.,  and  the  surplus  profits 
were  to  be  distributed  among  the  persons  employed,  who 
numbered  sixteen.  At  the  end  of  the  first  year  the 
accounts  showed  a  profit  sufficient  to  enable  a  bonus  to  be 
paid  at  the  rate  of  5-8  per  cent,  on  wages,  but  Mr.  King 
stated  that  it  was  doubtful  whether  the  accounts  were 
properly  made  up,  and  the  profit  really  earned.  In  the 
following  year  there  was  a  heavy  loss.  In  1884  Mr.  King 
rented  a  second  farm  and  re-let  it  to  the  labourers,  who 
formed  themselves  into  a  separate  association,  but  with  the 
same  manager.  In  1887  a  new  manager  was  appointed 
and  a  fresh  start  made,  Mr.  King  writing  off  all  losses  and 
reducing  the  rate  of  interest  to  5  per  cent.  In  1890  both 
undertakings  came  to  an  end,  no  bonus  having  been  paid 
in  either  case  except  in  the  doubtful  instance  already 
mentioned.  Mr.  King  stated  that  the  loss  on  the  two 
farms  "  mounted  into  thousands,"  and  that  the  general 
result  of  the  experiment  was  not  satisfactory. 

In  1886,  Earl  Spencer  let  the  glebe  farm  of  296  acres  at 
Harleston  to  eight  labourers,  associated  as  the  "  Harleston 
Co-operative  Farming  Association."  The  men  elected 
two  of  their  number  to  form  a  committee  of  consultation. 
By  the  scheme  it  is  provided  that  after  the  payment  of 
rent  and  interest  on  capital  (£3,000)  at  4  per  cent.,  75  per 
cent,  of  the  surplus  profits  was  to  go  to  reserve  funds  for 
the  repayment  of  capital  and  the  creation  of  a  reserve 
of  j^i.ooo  for  contingencies,  the  balance  to  be  divided 
annually  among  the  co-operators  (including  the  manager) 
in  proportion  to  wages  earned. 

The  yearly  accounts  of  this  undertaking  for  the  seven 
years  1887-93  are  published  in  Mr.  Hunter  Pringle's 
Report  on  Northampton  to  the  Royal  Commission  on 
Agriculture.  They  show  that  in  the  year  1888-9  there 
was  a  profit  of  £33,  but  that  in  every  other  year  there  was 


CO-OPERATION  FOR  SALE  OF  FARM  PRODUCE.    117 

a  heavy  loss,  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  £1,851.     Con- 
sequently no  bonuses  have  been  divided. 

In  the  cases  just  referred  to,  the  men  to  a  certain  extent 
manage  the  farm,  though  in  each  case  there  was  a  manager 
appointed  by  the  landlord.  A  more  common  form  of 
co-operative  production  is  the  establishment  of  a  system 
of  profit-sharing  among  the  labourers,  who,  however,  have 
no  share  in  the  management  ;  and  the  experiments  of 
Earl  Grey  and  Lord  Wantage  in  this  direction  are  well 
known.  Lord  Grey's  interesting  scheme  was  described 
by  himself  in  the  Journal  of  the  Royal  Agricultural 
Society,  and  again  in  Mr.  Wilson  Fox's  Report  on  the 
Glendale  district  of  Northumberland.  It  is,  of  course, 
only  fair  to  remember  that  recent  years  have  been 
particularly  unfavourable  for  making  experiments  in 
faiTn  management,  but  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  attempts 
at  co-operative  production  have  been  marked  by  very 
great  success  financially. 

Passing  on  to  the  second  branch  of  the  subject,  viz., 
co-operative  purchase,  it  may  be  noted  that  the  practica- 
bility and  desirabihty  of  schemes  by  which  consumers  of 
particular  commodities  combine  for  the  purpose  of  buying 
in  large  quantities,  and  thus  saving  the  retailers'  profits, 
are  well  recognised.  The  great  movement  which  started 
in  1844  with  the  Rochdale  pioneers  is  now  widespread 
throughout  the  kingdom.  There  were  at  the  end  of  1894 
in  the  United  Kingdom  1,674  societies,  with  a  total  mem- 
bership of  1,343,518,  a  capital  of  £15,006,663,  and  a  turn- 
over of  £49,985,065.  This  is  a  remarkable  result  in  fifty 
years.  I  should  add  that  of  the  1,674  societies  1,484  are 
described  as  "  distributive,"  that  is  ordinary  stores,  in 
which  the  customers  share  the  profits  ;  175  are  "  pro- 
ductive," 12  are  called  "  supply  associations,"  and  there 
are  English  and  Scottish  wholesale  associations. 

I  need  hardly  refer  to  the  success  of  the  great  co-opera- 
tive stores  of  the  metropolis.     The  late  Mr.  H.  M.  Jenkins 
in  a  paper  read  before  the  Farmers'  Club  in  February, 


ii8  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

1886,  gave  an  account  in  some  detail  of  their  establish- 
ment and  progress.  I  need  only  mention  one  or  two  facts 
in  connection  with  the  oldest  of  them,  which  have  been 
given  me  by  a  gentleman  who  is  well  acquainted  with  its 
history.  The  Civil  Service  Supply  Association  started  in 
1866  at  Monkwell  Street,  E.C.,  for  the  sale  of  groceries. 
In  the  first  year  its  takings  amounted  to  £27,000,  and  in 
the  second  year  to  £56,000.  Soon  afterwards  it  removed 
to  more  commodious  premises,  and  in  its  twentieth  year  its 
takings  were  £1,759,000.  There  were  5,000  shareholders, 
the  shares  being  £1,  of  which  10s.  was  paid,  the  remainder 
being  paid  by  the  Association  out  of  surplus  profits,  which 
were  then  indivisible.  The  shares,  I  believe,  are  now 
divided  into  eighths,  and  an  eighth  is  worth  about  £26. 
A  dividend  of  12s.  for  each  eighth  is  paid  every  half-year. 

Co-operation  for  purchase  has  been  adopted  among 
farmers  to  a  considerable  extent,  the  articles  which  they 
combine  to  procure  being  chiefly  artificial  manures,  feeding 
stuffs,  seeds,  and  implements. 

In  1893  a  committee  appointed  by  the  Central  Chamber 
of  Agriculture  to  consider  and  report  upon  the  question 
of  co-operation  for  the  purchase  of  farming  requisites 
stated  that  there  were  then  in  existence  about  thirty 
co-operative  societies  for  supplying  farm  requisites,  some 
of  them,  like  the  Lincolnshire  Association,  dealing  in  only 
one  article,  and  about  half  dealing  in  not  more  than  two 
or  three  articles.  They  gave  particulars  in  their  report 
of  eight  typical  societies  in  different  districts. 

In  some  parts  of  the  country,  and  notably  in  Yorkshire, 
farmers'  clubs  and  chambers  of  agriculture  have  made 
arrangements  for  the  supply  of  farming  requisites  to 
their  members,  and  there  seems  no  reason  why  the  obvious 
advantages  of  this  plan  should  not  be  more  generally 
adopted. 

In  France,  the  agricultural  syndicates,  which  are 
analogous  to  our  chambers  of  agriculture  and  farmers' 
clubs,  have,  in  the  course  of  ten  years,  covered  the  country. 


CO-OPERATION  FOR  SALE  OF  FARM  PRODUCE.    119 

There  were  in  1885  only  thirty-nine ;  now  there  are 
1,500,  and  their  total  membership  is  estimated  at  600,000. 
The  purchase  of  artificial  manures  was  their  first,  as  it 
remains  their  most  important,  object,  and  it  is  estimated 
that  since  they  commenced  operations  the  yearly  con- 
sumption of  manures  in  France  has  increased  from 
60,000,000  to  120,000,000  francs,  while  if  the  value  has 
doubled,  the  quantity  used  has  probably  trebled,  owing 
to  the  fall  in  prices.  The  syndicates  also  buy  feeding 
stuffs  and  fodder  very  largely,  and  to  some  extent  imple- 
ments. In  some  cases  they  have  undertaken  co-operative 
production  and  sale  of  produce. 

We  now  come  to  our  immediate  subject — co-operative 
distribution  and  sale. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  that  the  ordinary 
methods  of  bringing  agricultural  produce  from  the  farm 
to  the  consumer  are  often  clumsy,  complicated  and  costh^ 
There  is  great  waste  of  money  and  time  attendant 
upon  the  system — or  lack  of  system — which  prevails. 
Generally  speaking,  there  is  a  large — and  sometimes  an 
extravagantly  large — margin  between  the  price  realised 
by  the  farmer  and  that  paid  by  the  consumer.  In  a 
paper  which  appeared  last  year  in  the  Journal  of  the 
Royal  Agricultural  Society  I  attempted  to  estimate  the 
total  annual  revenue  from  the  produce  sold  off  the  agri- 
cultural land  of  the  United  Kingdom,  treating  it  as  one 
farm,  and  I  arrived  at  the  following  figures  : — 

i 
Crops  of  all  kinds  ....         64,000,000 

Meat,  including  poultry  and  rabbits  .         74,000,000 

Horses  and  other  live  stock    .  .  .  6,500,000 

Dairy  produce,  eggs,  wool,  etc.        .  .         49,000,000 


;£i93,ooo,ooo 


It  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  say  with  any  accuracy 
what  amount  is  added  before  the  produce  finally  reaches 
the  consumer,  but  I  venture  to  guess  that  the  cost  of 


120  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

conveyance,  distribution  and  sale  probably  amounts  to 
something  like  £50,000,000  per  annum.  Whatever  the 
figures  may  be,  we  are  all  agreed  that  a  considerable 
reduction — to  the  advantage  mainly  of  the  producer — 
might  be  made  by  an  improvement  in  the  existing  methods 
of  distribution  and  sale. 

The  first  essential  to  improvement  is  organisation. 
Co-operation,  of  course,  includes  organisation,  though 
organisation  does  not  necessarily  involve  co-operation. 
Two  instances  may  be  quoted  which  happen  to  have 
come  under  my  personal  observation,  of  successful 
organisation  without  co-operation.  One  is  the  French 
butter  trade.  This  has  been  built  up  by  the  merchants 
in  Normandy  and  Brittany — some  of  whom  are  English- 
men— who  purchase  the  butter  at  the  local  markets  from 
the  individual  farmers,  and  work  it  up  in  their  blending 
houses.  Another  instance  is  the  poultry  trade  in  the 
Heathfield  district  of  Sussex.  There  the  system  is 
that  the  fatteners,  or  "higglers"  as  they  are  termed, 
purchase  and  collect  the  chickens  from  those  who  rear 
them  ;  they  are  then  duly  fattened,  killed  and  prepared 
for  market,  and  again  collected  by  the  carrier  or  railway 
agent,  by  whom  they  are  forwarded  to  London  and  other 
markets.  Both  these  are  instances  of  complete  organisa- 
tion without  co-operation.  The  producer  in  each  case 
sells  his  produce  outright,  and  has  no  interest  in  it  subse- 
quently ;  and  the  organisation,  it  is  well  to  note,  is  a 
system  arranged  for  the  producer,  in  a  sense,  but  not  by 
him. 

Co-operation  with  its  attendant  organisation  has  already 
been  partially  adopted  in  the  United  Kingdom  among 
farmers.  The  most  notable  example  is  that  which  Irish 
farmers  owe  to  the  energy  and  constructive  ability  of 
Mr.  Horace  Plunkett.  According  to  a  statement  published 
in  June  last  in  the  Journal  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture,  no 
less  than  fifty  co-operative  dairy  societies  were  then  opened, 
and  this  number  is  now,  I  believe,  considerably  exceeded. 


CO-OPERATION  FOR  SALE  OF  FARM  PRODUCE.    121 

The  shares  in  the  creameries  are  owned  for  the  most 
part  by  the  members.  In  some  cases  persons  who  do 
not  keep  cows  hold  shares,  but  they  have  become  share- 
holders to  help  the  associations  as  local  institutions 
rather  than  for  the  purpose  of  investment.  Shares  are 
usually  taken  up  by  farmers  in  proportion  to  the  number 
of  cows  they  keep,  at  the  rate  of  £1  for  each  animal. 
This  arrangement,  however,  is  not  uniform  in  all  the 
societies.  It  is  the  practice  to  pay  for  the  shares  by 
instalments,  generally  of  five  shillings  at  a  time.  After 
the  creamery  has  been  started  these  instalments  are 
frequently  paid  in  milk,  either  by  way  of  a  reduced  price 
being  allowed  for  the  whole  of  the  milk  delivered  or  by 
the  member  delivering  a  certain  quantity  free  of  charge 
until  the  call  on  the  share  is  paid  up.  The  liability  on 
the  farmers  is,  in  all  cases,  limited  to  the  amount  of  their 
shares. 

The  dairy  societies  are  registered  under  the  Industrial 
and  Provident  Societies  Act,  and  their  operations  are 
conducted  under  rules  drawn  up  in  conformity  with  the 
provisions  of  that  Act.  When  they  were  first  started 
the  claim  to  a  share  of  the  profits  of  non-members  supply- 
ing milk  to  the  creameries  was  ignored.  Most  of  the 
societies  have  now  adopted  special  rules,  which  provide, 
after  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  share  capital  of  5  per 
cent,  per  annum,  and  after  provision  has  been  made  for 
certain  charges  and  for  the  reduction  in  value  of  the 
fixed  stock  and  plant,  that  not  less  than  10  per  cent,  of 
the  profits  shall  be  allotted  to  the  employes  of  the  creamery 
in  proportion  to  the  wages  earned  by  them  respectively 
during  the  period  to  which  the  division  of  the  profits 
relates.  The  remaining  profits  are  appropriated  to  the 
individuals  from  whom  the  society  has  purchased  milk, 
in  proportion  to  the  value  of  the  milk  supplied  by  each 
during  the  same  period,  but  an  individual  who  is  not  a 
member  receives  a  sum  equal  to  only  one-half  the  amount 
to  which  he  would  have  been  entitled  as  a  member.     The 


122  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

difference  between  the  half  and  full  value  of  the  dividend 
is  placed  to  the  reserve  fund.  It  should  be  noted,  how- 
ever, that  all  payments  of  profits  to  individuals  who 
supply  milk  are  made  by  shares,  or  payments  on  account 
of  shares,  which  are  appropriated  to  the  persons  respec- 
tively entitled  thereto,  so  that  in  this  way  every  person 
supplying  milk  to  the  creamery  eventually  becomes 
automatically  a  member  of  the  co-operative  society. 
The  share  of  profits  falling  to  the  employes  is  not  paid 
in  cash — it  is  accumulated  as  a  loan  in  the  society,  bearing 
such  interest  as  may  be  determined  at  the  general 
meeting,  and  can  be  withdrawn  only  in  case  of  distress 
or  on  leaving  the  employment  of  the  society. 

In  Great  Britain  several  butter  and  cheese  factories 
have  been  established — I  believe  the  first  was  the  Long- 
ford Cheese  Factory,  started  in  Derbyshire  in  1869.  I 
find,  on  reference  to  the  records  of  the  Farmers'  Club, 
that  in  March,  1868,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Club,  Mr.  C.  S. 
Read  being  in  the  chair,  Mr.  G.  Jackson,  of  Tattenhall, 
Chester,  read  a  paper  advocating  the  establishment  of 
cheese  factories  in  this  country,  in  view  of  the  success 
which  had  attended  them  in  America. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  attempt  to  describe  in  detail  the 
various  undertakings  of  this  character.  There  are  three 
classes  of  establishment  for  dealing  with  butter,  all  of 
which  have  been  tried  with  more  or  less  success,  local 
conditions  and  management  being  apparently  the  con- 
trolling factors  which  determine  success  or  failure. 
These  may  be  described  as  the  butter  factory,  the  creamery 
and  the  blending  house.  In  the  first  case  the  farmer  sends 
milk,  in  the  second  case  he  sends  cream,  and  in  the  third 
case  he  sends  butter.  At  the  butter  factory  the  milk  is 
taken  and  separated,  the  cream  churned,  and  the  butter 
made  up  and  marketed,  the  skim-milk  being  either 
returned  to  the  farmer  or  used  by  the  factory  in  its  own 
piggery.  At  the  creamery  no  milk  is  received,  but  it  is 
separated  at  the  farm  and  the  cream  only  forwarded  to 


CO-OPERATION  FOR  SALE  OF  FARM  PRODUCE.    123 

be  churned  and  made  up  in  bulk.  At  the  blending  house 
the  butter  is  received  in  lumps  from  the  farmers,  and 
worked  up,  salted,  graded,  packed  and  marketed. 

A  comparatively  new  but  fairly  typical  cheese  factory 
is  described  in  my  Report  on  Dorset  to  the  Royal  Com- 
mission. It  was  started  in  1891  by  a  limited  liability 
company,  with  a  capital  of  £5,000.  The  two  completed 
years  of  working  showed  that  the  milk  purchased  averaged 
£4,478,  and  the  cheese  sold  realised  £5,885.  A  high 
quality  Cheddar  cheese  was  made,  many  prizes  having 
been  won  at  the  leading  shows.  Cheese-making  starts 
in  March  and  goes  on  to  November,  and  in  the  winter 
months  the  milk  is  sent  to  London.  The  enterprise  met 
with  some  misfortune  at  starting,  but  now  appears  to  be 
fairly  successful. 

Co-operative  bacon  factories  have  been  established  in 
a  few  districts,  but  not  always  with  success.  In  Denmark 
they  have,  since  the  year  1887,  sprung  up  rapidly,  and 
there  are  now  thirty-four  in  that  country,  seventeen 
of  them  having  been  erected  by  co-operative  associations 
of  farmers.  As  one  result  has  been  a  great  increase  in 
the  quantity  of  bacon  sent  from  Denmark  to  this  country, 
a  few  particulars  may  be  of  interest.  In  the  case  of  the 
factories  established  by  the  farmers'  associations,  the 
funds  for  the  erection  of  the  necessary  buildings  were 
generally  derived  from  a  loan  effected  on  the  security 
of  the  founders,  each  member  being  expected  to  become 
a  guarantor  for  an  amount  not  exceeding  £50,  the  sum 
guaranteed  by  each  individual  determining  the  extent 
of  his  ownership  in  the  concern.  The  administration  of 
the  association  is  vested  in  a  council  elected  by  the 
members.  The  employes  usually  consist  of  a  manager, 
a  bookkeeper  and  a  cashier. 

The  regulations  of  the  different  co-operative  bacon 
factories  agree  very  much  in  their  general  principles. 
It  is  usually  stipulated  that  the  members  of  the 
association  shall  deliver  all   their  saleable  pigs  to  the 


124  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

factory  for  a  period  of  seven  years,  unless  in  the  meantime 
they  remove  from  the  district.  This  stipulation,  however, 
does  not  apply  to  boars,  to  sows  in  farrow,  or  to  young 
pigs  under  56  lbs.  (in  some  cases  112  lbs.)  live  weight, 
nor  does  it  extend  to  pigs  sold  by  a  member  to  his 
labourers,  or  consumed  in  his  own  house.  A  corre- 
sponding obligation  is  nearly  always  imposed  on  the 
association  to  accept  all  the  healthy  swine  consigned  by 
a  member  of  the  factory. 

A  member  may  purchase  any  number  of  pigs  from 
another  member  of  the  association,  and  send  them  to  the 
factory,  provided  he  has  fattened  them  for  a  period 
varying  from  twenty  to  thirty  days  before  delivery.  But 
he  is  not  allowed  to  send  in  one  year  more  than  ten  pigs 
purchased  from  non-members.  The  association  usually 
defrays  the  expenses  incurred  in  conveying  the  swine 
from  the  nearest  railway  station  to  the  factory  ;  all 
other  charges  for  carriage  being  paid  by  the  consignors. 
On  removal  to  the  factory,  the  pigs  are  graded  according 
to  quality,  the  values  of  the  different  classes  being  fixed 
weekly  by  the  council  on  the  advice  of  the  manager.  In 
some  cases  the  prices  are  paid  by  dead  weight,  but  in  the 
older  establishments,  payment  by  live  weight  is  still  the 
practice.  The  offal  is  generally  sold  to  the  members  of 
the  association,  or  to  the  general  public  at  the  current 
prices  of  the  day. 

The  regulations  do  not,  as  a  rule,  contain  any 
restrictions  on  the  methods  of  feeding  swine  intended  for 
the  factories.  Sometimes,  however,  the  employment  of 
fish  and  fish  cake  is  prohibited,  as  is  also  the  use  of  a 
ration  containing  more  than  50  per  cent,  of  maize. 

Whenever  it  is  found  that  the  supply  of  swine  is  falling 
off,  the  manager  of  the  factory  is  empowered  to  purchase 
pigs  from  non-members  of  the  association  at  a  price 
fixed  weekly  by  the  council,  and  posted  up  for  the 
information  of  members. 

At  the  close  of  the  year  the  profits  arising  from  the 


CO-OPERATION  FOR  SALE  OF  FARM  PRODUCE.    125 

operations  of  the  association  are  distributed  amongst 
the  members,  after  provision  has  been  made  for  the 
payment  of  the  working  expenses,  the  allocation  of  a 
certain  sum  to  the  reserve  fund,  and  the  part  repayment 
of  loans.  Each  member  receives  a  share  of  the  profits 
in  proportion  to  the  weight  of  pork  he  has  delivered 
during  the  year.  The  amount  carried  to  the  reserve 
fund  is  determined  annually  by  the  council. 

Returning  to  this  country,  it  may  be  observed  that 
among  the  articles  of  consumption  in  which  the  margin 
between  farm  price  and  retail  price  is  largest,  are  bread, 
vegetables,  milk  and  meat.  In  reference  to  the  latter, 
Mr.  Druce,  in  a  paper  read  at  a  conference  held  in 
connection  with  the  Health  Exhibition  in  1884,  pointed 
out,  that  between  the  time  of  the  birth  of  the  beast  and 
the  placing  of  the  joint  on  the  table  there  are  six,  and 
commonly  seven,  profits  to  be  made.  First,  there  is  the 
breeder  ;  second,  the  drover  ;  third,  the  grazier  ;  fourth, 
the  railway  company  ;  fifth,  the  cattle  salesman  ;  sixth, 
the  wholesale-meat  salesman ;  seventh,  the  retail 
butcher.  This  represents  the  state  of  affairs  under  the 
system  of  sending  live  animals  to  be  slaughtered  in  London. 
The  more  economical  method  of  slaughtering  in  the 
country  and  sending  the  meat  in  the  carcass  to  London 
is  gaining  ground.  In  1880  the  quantity  of  town-killed 
meat  sold  at  the  Central  Market  was  1,618,100  cwts.  ; 
in  1893  it  was  1,227,220  cwts.  A  few  attempts  have 
been  made  to  establish  abattoirs  in  country  districts,  but 
these  have  been  as  a  rule  private  ventures,  and  I  am  not 
aware  of  any  instance  in  which  very  notable  success  has 
yet  been  attained. 

At  Darlington,  the  farmers  of  the  district  recently 
combined  to  establish  an  auction  mart  for  live  stock, 
which  has  been  very  successful.  The  capital  is  ;^2,ooo, 
in  £1  fully-paid  shares,  and  only  farmers  and  butchers 
are  allowed  to  hold  shares,  and  no  one  person  may  hold 
more   than   twenty  shares.     The  company   manage  the 


126  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

mart  themselves,  having  the  advantage  of  a  very  energetic 
secretary  in  Mr.  Pearce,  secretary  of  the  Darlington 
Chamber  of  Agriculture.  They  appoint  their  own 
auctioneers,  taking  the  commission  themselves.  During 
last  year,  £130,000  was  turned  over  without  a  single  bad 
debt,  and  a  dividend  of  10  per  cent,  was  paid  to  the 
shareholders. 

I  have  already  referred  incidentally  to  the  paper  read, 
just  ten  years  ago,  by  the  late  Mr.  H.  M.  Jenkins.  His 
subject  was  "  Co-operation  between  Producers  and  Con- 
sumers of  Meat,"  and  he  suggested  the  formation  of 
a  farmers'  co-operative  society,  which  was  to  commence 
with  meat,  but  should  in  due  course  take  in  other 
produce.     To  quote  his  words  : — 

The  number  and  variety  of  commodities  dealt  with  would 
continually  increase,  and  would  include  dairy-fed  pork  and 
every  other  description  of  dairy  produce.  In  the  course  of 
time  it  is  to  be  hoped  (he  continued)  through  such  an  agency 
better  and  more  direct  markets  might  be  found  for  cereals, 
especially  for  oats,  in  large  towns,  as  well  as  for  hay  and  straw, 
hops,  fruit,  and  vegetables. 

Mr.  Jenkins  went  into  detail  as  to  the  formation  and 
organisation  of  such  a  society.  He  suggested  that 
everyone  proposing  to  send  meat  should  be  compelled 
to  be  a  shareholder,  and  also  "  that  a  limited  number  of 
consumers  should  be  allowed  to  take  shares  and  to  be 
represented  on  the  board  of  directors."  He  proposed 
to  limit  the  dividend  on  capital  to  5  per  cent.,  and  divide 
surplus  profits,  if  any,  among  consignors,  being  of  course 
shareholders,  as  a  bonus  of  so  much  money  per  cwt. 
sent. 

It  may  be  worth  remark  that  a  considerable  proportion 
of  farm  produce — especially  small  produce — is  now  sold 
direct.  Anyone  who  will  go  into  the  market  hall  of 
Barnstaple,  for  instance,  will  see  there  precisely  the  same 
system  which  prevails  in  a  market  town  in  Normandy, 
i.e.,  the  farmer  or  the  farmer's  wife  or  dairy  woman 
selling  butter,  eggs,  cream,  vegetables,  poultry,  rabbits. 


CO-OPERATION  FOR  SALE  OF  FARM  PRODUCE.    127 

and  other  articles  direct  to  the  consumer.  There  is,  it 
is  true,  an  absence  of  the  large  wholesale  buyer  of  butter, 
who  is  so  much  in  evidence  at  many  markets  in 
Normandy,  but  with  this  exception  the  system  is  the 
same.  I  understand  that  in  some  districts  in  the  North 
a  system  of  buying  up  butter  by  large  wholesale  houses 
at  the  local  markets  prevails. 

But,  admitting  that  the  middleman  cannot  be  entirely 
abolished  where  he  exists,  and  that  to  a  certain  extent 
he  does  not  now  exist,  there  still  remains  ample  reason  to 
consider  whether  no  improvement  is  necessary,  and  if 
necessary,  practicable.  I  venture  to  think  that  the 
problem  is  at  once  more  pressing  and  more  hopeful  than 
it  was  ten  years  ago.  It  is  more  pressing  because  the 
returns  from  farming  were  never  less  able  than  they  are 
now  to  admit  of  unnecessary  outgoings,  and  further, 
because  the  increased  organisation  of  foreign  competition 
renders  it  less  easy  than  ever  for  the  farmer  as  an 
individual  to  hold  his  own  in  the  great  markets.  I 
think,  too,  that  it  is  more  hopeful — first,  because  of  what 
seems  to  me  an  awakening  sense  on  the  part  of  the  public 
generally  of  the  necessity  of  encouraging  home  produce  ; 
secondly,  because  of  a  somewhat  greater  readiness  on 
the  part  of  farmers  to  work  together ;  and  thirdly, 
because  the  railway  companies  appear  at  last  willing  to 
give  English  producers  the  same  facilities,  under  the 
same  conditions,  as  they  have  so  long  granted  only  to 
foreigners. 

It  is  common  knowledge  that  Lord  Winchilsea  has, 
with  characteristic  pluck,  attempted  to  grapple  with  this 
most  difficult  question.  It  does  not  come  within  my 
province  to  anticipate  the  details  of  any  scheme  which 
he  has  prepared.  But  I  may  be  allowed  to  suggest  one 
or  two  points  which  are  essential  to  a  successful  experiment 
in  this  direction.  It  should,  while  starting  experimentally 
and  to  some  extent  tentatively,  be  sufficiently  compre- 
hensive in  scope  to  cover  in  due  course  the  whole  field 


128  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

of  agricultural  production.  It  should  aim  at  enlisting 
the  co-operation  of,  and  federating  so  far  as  possible, 
any  local  enterprises  (and  they  are  numerous  throughout 
the  country)  established  on  co-operative  lines — such  as 
butter  and  cheese  factories,  bacon  factories,  abattoirs, 
etc.  It  should  be  as  far  as  possible  an  association  of 
producers,  and  the  benefits  should — whether  by  bonuses 
or  dividends  or  increased  prices— go  primarily  to  the 
producers.  It  follows  that  the  producers  should  form,  at 
any  rate,  a  large  proportion  of  the  shareholders.  It  should 
endeavour  to  collect  produce  at  local  centres  and  to  send 
it  in  large  quantities  to  the  great  markets,  so  as  to  save 
cost  of  carriage.  I  have  already  mentioned  that  the 
Irish  Co-operative  Agency  act  as  salesmen  for  their 
creameries,  charging  2^  per  cent,  commission.  The  same 
kind  of  work  might  be  done  in  this  country,  but  it  must 
be  supplemented  by  providing  an  outlet  for  all  the  produce 
of  its  shareholders  and  by  endeavouring  to  sell  as  much 
as  possible  direct  to  consumers.  These  are  one  or  two 
of  the  principles  on  which  such  a  scheme  might  be 
worked.  But,  above  all,  for  its  success  it  requires  the 
cordial  assistance  of  those  primarily  interested.  Without 
this  it  is  impossible,  but  with  this  it  seems  to  me  that 
something  may  be  accomplished  to  lessen  the  wide 
distance  which  separates  the  farmers  in  many  districts 
from  those  great  centres  of  population  where  their  produce 
may  most  advantageously  be  sold.  If  this  be  so,  British 
agriculture  may  well  be  benefited  by  an  application  of 
those  sound  principles  of  combination  and  organisation 
which  are  properly  involved  in  the  word  co-operation. 


CHAPTER     VIII. 

THE  NATION'S  FOOD   SUPPLY.i 

Early  in  1816  the  old  Board  of  Agriculture  (with  which 
the  name  of  Sir  John  Sinclair  is  so  intimately  associated), 
considering  it  "  an  incumbent  duty  to  the  public  to  take 
the  necessary  measures  for  ascertaining  the  real  state  of 
the  kingdom,  in  whatever  most  intimately  concerned  its 
agricultural  resources,"  sent  out  a  circular  letter  of  inquiry 
"  to  every  part  of  England,  Wales  and  Scotland."  The 
replies  received  presented  a  doleful  picture  of  agricultural 
calamity,  and  among  the  causes  which  had  contributed  to 
disaster  was  what  a  Scottish  correspondent  termed  "  an 
excessive  glut  of  agricultural  produce  beyond  the  wants 
of  the  country."  The  imports  of  wheat  and  flour  in  1815 
were  less  than  500,000  cwts.,  of  butter  125,000  cwts.,  and 
of  cheese  107,000  cwts.,  while  imports  of  meat  were 
prohibited.  The  average  price  of  wheat  was  65s.  yd.  in 
1815,  and  78s.  6d.  in  1816,  and  the  wholesale  price  of  beef 
and  mutton  was  from  yd.  to  8^.  per  lb.  in  1815,  and  from 
6d.  to  yd.  per  lb.  in  1816. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  speculate  as  to  the  terms  in 
which  the  Scottish  pessimist  of  a  century  ago  would 
describe  the  quantity  of  agricultural  produce  now  annually 
supplied  to  meet  the  wants  of  the  country. 

In  these  days  of  popular  statistics  it  may  perhaps  be 
thought  that  anyone  who  has  access  to  the  ordinary 
sources  of  information  can,  with  a  very  trifling  arith- 
metical effort,  state  at  once  the  total  quantity  of  food 
consumed  by  the  nation.     As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  figure 

1  Read  before  Section  M  of  the  British  Association  at  Dundee, 
September,  1912. 

A.F.  K 


130  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

is  not  known,  and  indeed  in  a  literal  sense  cannot  be 
known.  In  the  last  resort  it  can  only  be  an  estimate,  and 
an  estimate  which,  however  carefully  compiled,  must  be 
very  approximate.  The  reason  is  apparent.  Statistics 
are  collected  at  the  ports  of  all  our  oversea  supplies,  but 
for  the  food  supplies  produced  at  home  there  are  no 
complete  returns.  Estimates  of  a  very  large  part  of  the 
home  supplies  have  recently  been  made  in  the  Report  on 
the  Agricultural  Output  issued  by  the  Board  of  Agriculture 
and  Fisheries,  but  these  cannot  in  the  nature  of  things  be 
exhaustive.  Until  we  can  calculate  the  amount  of  food 
grown  or  produced  on  private  premises  and  consumed  in 
the  households  of  the  producers,  we  cannot  claim  to  make 
an  accurate  or  complete  statement  of  the  food  of  the 
nation. 

At  the  outset,  it  is  necessary  to  define  what  we  mean 
by  food.  In  the  Trade  Returns  one  of  the  main  groups 
in  which  imports  and  exports  are  classified  is  "  Food, 
drink  and  tobacco."  There  is  little  difficulty  in  excluding 
the  last  item,  for  the  most  ardent  devotee  of  My  Lady 
Nicotine  will  shrink  from  contending  seriously  that 
tobacco  can  be  classed  as  a  food.  At  first  sight  it  may 
also  seem  easy  to  exclude  drink,  but  it  is  not  quite  simple. 
We  may  perhaps  avoid  controversy  by  excluding  at  once 
all  alcoholic  liquors,  but  are  cocoa,  coffee  and  tea  also  to 
be  excluded  ?  Even  if  we  were  to  exclude  them  as 
doubtful,  we  are  still  left  with  one  drink  to  which  none 
can  deny  the  claim  to  be  classed  as  food,  viz.,  milk.  In 
the  Trade  Returns  grouping,  the  term  food  includes  not 
only  human  food,  but  the  imports  of  such  grains  as  barley, 
oats,  buckwheat,  maize,  &c.,  which  are  only  to  a  very 
small  extent  used  directly  for  human  food.  It  is  evident 
that  there  is  no  ready-made  definition  by  which  we  can 
make  an  unchallengeable  list  of  articles  of  food,  and  we 
must,  therefore,  for  the  purpose  of  discussion,  define  the 
term  for  ourselves. 

I  propose  to  deal  in  this  paper  only  with  such  commo- 


THE  NATION'S   FOOD   SUPPLY.  131 

dities  as  are  directly  consumed  as  food  by  man,  excluding 
alcoholic  liquors  (with  substances  such  as  malt,  hops  and 
yeast,  which  are  mainly  or  solely  used  in  their  preparation), 
but  including  cocoa,  coffee,  tea  and  milk. 

To  confine  the  subject  within  reasonable  limits  we  must 
deal  with  only  the  main  groups  of  commodities,  and  ignore 
for  the  most  part  details  of  separate  articles.  But  there 
is  one  commodity,  at  any  rate,  which  must  stand  by  itself. 
It  is  that  which  represents  the  staff  of  life  and  is  often 
spoken  of  as  though  it  were  the  sole  food  of  the  people. 
The  average  annual  expenditure  on  imported  wheat  and 
flour  during  the  past  five  years  was  £46,500,000,  or  rather 
more  than  20s.  per  head  of  the  population.  Fifty  years 
ago  the  corresponding  expenditure  per  head  was  12s.  6d. 
In  191 1  the  total  cost  of  imported  wheat  and  flour  was 
£44,187,000,  and  if  to  this  be  added  the  value  of  the 
home  crop,  or  at  least  that  part  of  it  which  is  made  into 
bread,  the  total  value  of  the  wheat  supply  was  over 
£55,000,000,  or,  deducting  about  £1,000,000  for  exports, 
an  expenditure  of  £54, 000, 000,  or  say  alittleover£i, 000, 000 
per  week.  This  represents  a  total  quantity  of  138,670,000 
cwts.,  or  about  343  lbs.  per  head  of  the  population,  assum- 
ing that  all  imports  are  used  as  breadstuffs,  but  allowing 
a  deduction  for  seed  and  tail  corn  from  the  home  crop. 
The  supplies  come  mainly  from  seven  sources  outside  the 
United  Kingdom,  and  the  quantity  and  proportion  from 
each  are  summarised  in  the  table  on  p.  132.  I  have  added 
to  the  figures  for  last  year  the  average  figures  for  the  five 
years  1907-11. 

The  variations  in  the  sources  of  wheat  supply  from  year 
to  year  are  often  considerable,  and  it  is,  therefore,  in- 
advisable to  draw  conclusions  from  one  year's  figures. 
India  is  perhaps  the  most  uncertain,  and  the  supply  from 
thence,  which  amounted  to  over  20,000,000  cwts.  last 
year,  was  in  1908  less  than  3,000,000.  From  Russia, 
which  sent  18,000,000  cwts.  last  year  and  nearly  29,000,000 
cwts.  in  the  previous  year,  we  received  in   1908  only 

K  2 


132 


AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 


19 

II. 

Average, 

1907-11. 

Million 

Per  cent. 

MilUon 

Per  cent. 

cwts. 

of  total. 

cwts. 

of  total. 

United  Kingdom    . 

29-29 

20-7 

26-83 

19-1 

Australia 

i4'53 

10-3 

10-59 

7-5 

Canada 

18-91 

I3'4 

18-37 

13-1 

India    .... 

20-23 

i4'3 

14-81 

10-5 

Other  British  possessions 

073 

0-5 

0-42 

0-3 

Argentina 

14-87 

10-5 

20-82 

14-8 

Roumania 

2-o6 

i'5 

i'5i 

i"i 

Russia 

I8-II 

12-8 

16-30 

II-6 

United  States 

20-05 

14-2 

27-26 

19-4 

Other  foreign  countries  . 

2-55 

x-8 

373 

2-6 

Total  . 

141-33 

lOQ-O 

140-64 

loo-o 

5,000,000  cwts.  The  supply  from  Argentina  ranged  from 
nearly  32,000,000  cwts.  in  1908  to  less  than  15,000,000  in 
191 1,  while  from  the  United  States  the  supply  fell  from 
nearly  40,000,000  cwts.  in  1908  to  18,000,000  cwts.  in 
1910.  The  United  States,  indeed,  must  be  regarded  as  a 
diminishing  exporter  of  wheat.  The  most  trustworthy 
of  our  present  sources  of  wheat  supply  is  Canada.  During 
the  five  years  1 907-11  the  quantity  sent  from  the  Dominion 
ranged  from  15,000,000  to  20,000,000  cwts.  and,  on  the 
whole,  it  tends  steadily  to  increase.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  during  the  twelve  months  ending  July,  1912  (the 
"  cereal  year  "  1911-12),  Canada  exported  more  wheat 
than  any  other  country  in  the  world,  and  it  was  further 
noted  in  the  Corn  Trade  News  that  the  combined  exports 
of  the  British  Empire,  viz.,  from  Canada,  Australasia  and 
India,  during  that  period  would  have  been  more  than 
sufficient  to  supply  the  United  Kingdom  with  all  its 
requirements  of  imported  wheat  had  it  all  been  sent  here. 
As  it  was,  we  received  38 '5  per  cent,  of  our  total  supplies 
in  1911  from  British  possessions,  so  that,  if  we  include  our 
home  supply,  about  three-fifths  of  our  breadstuffs  came 
from  within  the  Empire. 


THE  NATION'S  FOOD  SUPPLY.      133 

Of  the  imports  which  are  classed  in  the  Trade  Returns  as 
"  grain  and  flour,"  amounting  in  all  to  nearly  £76,000,000, 
when  we  have  dealt  with  wheat  and  flour  (£44,000,000)  not 
very  much  of  the  remainder  comes  under  our  definition 
of  food.  Including  rice,  farinaceous  preparations,  oat- 
meal, and  one  or  two  smaller  items,  I  think  that,  allowing 
for  exports,  £4,000,000  will  cover  all  that  we  need  take 
into  account. 

In  quantity  bread  is  much  the  largest  item  of  our  food 
bill,  but  in  value  meat  greatly  exceeds  it.  Our  carni- 
vorous tastes  are  fairly  catholic,  though  for  some  not 
very  logical  reason  we  reject  horseflesh,  but  we  retain 
our  traditional  predilection  for  beef,  which  (including  veal) 
constitutes  about  44  per  cent,  of  our  total  meat  consump- 
tion ;  mutton  and  lamb  constituting  about  23  per  cent., 
and  pig-meat  about  33  per  cent.  Imports  comprise  live 
animals  from  Canada  and  the  United  States,  and  dead 
meat  from  various  sources,  the  principal  being  Argentina, 
Denmark,  Holland,  the  United  States,  Austraha,  Canada, 
and  New  Zealand.  The  home  production  of  beef,  veal, 
mutton,  lamb,  and  pig-meat  I  estimate  at  about  28,000,000 
cwts.  This  includes  the  output  of  farms  in  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  with  an  estimate  for  the  amount  of  pig-meat 
produced  by  allotment  holders,  cottagers  and  private 
persons  whose  pigs  are  not  included  in  the  agricultural 
returns.  The  chief  sources  of  our  meat  supply,  and  the 
quantities  forthcoming  in  1911  and  in  the  quinquennium 
1907-11,  are  shown  in  the  table  on  p.  134. 

In  terms  of  value  the  proportions  would  be  considerably 
altered.  The  total  imports  of  meat,  including  lard, 
amounted  in  1911  to  £52,000,000,  of  which  £40,500,000 
came  from  foreign  countries  and  £11,500,000  from  British 
possessions.  This  sum  is  made  up  partly  of  the  value  of 
animals  landed  alive  and  partly  of  meat  imported  in  the 
carcass.  Exports  of  meat  amount  to  about  £2,000,000. 
The  valuation  of  the  home  meat  supply  is  a  difficult  matter. 
On  the  whole,  the  most  satisfactory  method  is  to  take  the 


134 


AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 


19 

II. 

Average, 

I907-II. 

Country. 

MiUions 

Per  cent. 

Millions 

Per  cent. 

of  cwts. 

of  total. 

of  cwts. 

of  total. 

United  Kingdom    . 

29*00 

54"5 

29-26 

55'7 

Australia 

2-39 

4'5 

1-69 

3-2 

Canada 

i-oo 

i-g 

1-31 

2-5 

New  Zealand 

2-30 

4'3 

2-41 

4-6 

Argentina 

8-45 

15-9 

6'i7 

II-8 

Denmark 

2-42 

4-6 

2-20 

4-2 

Netherlands  . 

077 

1-5 

0-90 

1-7 

United  States 

6-04 

II-3 

7-94 

15-1 

Other  countries 

o-8i 

1-5 

0-63 

1-2 

Total  . 

53-18 

loo-o 

52-51 

lOO'O 

value  of  the  animals  at  the  markets  before  slaughter, 
and  this  deducting  exports  and  allowing  for  hides,  wool, 
etc.,  amounts  to  about  £76,000,000.  Reckoning  by 
value,  therefore,  the  home  supply  would  represent  about 
61  per  cent,  of  our  total  consumption.  The  total  average 
consumption  of  meat  is  130  lbs.  per  head. 

Poultry,  eggs,  rabbits  and  game  may  be  regarded  as 
part  of  the  meat  supply,  and  of  these  our  total  imports 
amounted  in  1911  to  nearly  £10,000,000.  The  value  of 
poultry  and  eggs  sold  from  the  farms  of  Great  Britain  is 
estimated  at  £5,000,000,  and  to  this  must  be  added  the 
large  Irish  production.  There  is  obviously  a  very  large 
production  of  poultry  and  eggs  by  private  persons  for 
their  own  consumption,  and  a  considerable  quantity  of 
the  farm  production  is  consumed  on  the  farms.  On  the 
whole,  with  some  allowance  for  the  value  of  rabbits  and 
game,  I  estimate  the  total  home  production  under  this 
head  at  £15,000,000,  or  about  60  per  cent,  of  the  total 
consumption. 

Of  fish  the  total  value  landed  in  the  United  Kingdom 
by  British  vessels — v/hich  may  be  treated  as  the  "  home 
production,"  although  the  supplies  are  drawn  from  seas 


THE  NATION'S   FOOD   SUPPLY.  135 

as  distant  as  the  White  Sea  in  the  North  and  the  Morocco 
coast  in  the  South — was  nearly  £12,000,000,  and  in  addition 
fish  to  the  value  of  nearly  £4,000,000  were  imported, 
i.e.,  landed  by  foreign  vessels  at  British  ports.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  exports  of  fish  are  valued  at  £7,650,000, 
leaving  apparently  a  little  more  than  half  the  total  supply 
for  home  consumption.  But  the  exports  mainly  consist 
of  dried  or  cured  fish  (herrings  largely  predominating), 
and  it  would  probably  be  reasonable  to  assume  that  if 
they  were  expressed  in  terms  of  fresh  fish  the  value 
would  not  exceed  £4,000,000,  so  that  the  net  value  of  the 
home  consumption  may  be  placed  at  £12,000,000,  of 
which  one-fourth  is  imported. 

Next  in  importance  to  bread  and  meat  comes  dairy 
produce.  The  total  value  of  butter  and  margarine 
imported  in  1911  was  £27,062,000,  of  cheese  £7,140,000, 
and  of  milk  (mostly  condensed)  £2,071,000.  After 
deducting  exports  the  value  of  dairy  produce  retained 
for  home  consumption  was  £35,211,000. 

The  value  of  butter  sold  by  British  farmers  is  not  more 
than  £3,000,000,  but  if  we  add  the  output  of  butter 
factories  in  Great  Britain  and  the  production  in  Ireland, 
and  make  a  rough  estimate  of  the  quantity  made  and 
consumed  by  British  farmers  and  private  persons,  the 
total  home  production  probably  amounts  to  over 
£13,000,000,  or  about  30  per  cent,  of  the  total  consump- 
tion. Denmark  supplies  about  23  per  cent.,  Holland  about 
13  per  cent,  (mostly  margarine),  Australia  about  12  per 
cent.,  Russia  about  8  per  cent.,  and  New  Zealand  about 
4  per  cent. 

It  appears  probable  that  the  consumption  of  cheese  in 
this  country  has  been  materially  reduced  in  recent  years. 
The  imports  per  head  of  population  in  1911  were  smaller 
than  in  the  previous  year,  and  about  i  lb.  per  head 
smaller  than  they  were  ten  years  ago,  but  the  reduction 
of  the  home  supply  has  probably  been  even  greater.  The 
output  of  cheese  by  British  farmers  is  calculated  at  not 


136  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

more  than  500,000  cwts.,  and  as  there  is  practically  no 
cheese  made  in  Ireland  and  very  little  made  by  private 
persons,  except,  perhaps,  a  small  quantity  of  soft  cheese, 
this  substantially  represents  the  total  home  supply,  which 
is  not  more  than  about  18  per  cent,  of  the  nation's  con- 
sumption. Canada  sends  us  about  52  per  cent,  of  our 
whole  requirements,  and  New  Zealand  14  per  cent.,  while 
7  per  cent,  from  the  Netherlands  and  5  per  cent,  from  the 
United  States  account  for  nearly  all  the  supplies  obtained 
outside  the  British  Empire. 

The  comparative  smallness  of  the  output  of  butter  and 
cheese  by  British  farmers  is,  of  course,  attributable  to  the 
ever-increasing  demand  for  fresh  milk,  of  which  hitherto 
the  home  producer  has  retained  a  practical  monopoly. 
As  already  noted,  nearly  all  the  milk  imported  is  in  the 
condensed  form,  but  with  the  view  of  making  a  comparison 
I  have  converted  these  quantities  into  terms  of  fresh  milk, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  the  calculation  I  have  reckoned 
the  small  quantities  of  oream,  separated,  preserved  and 
skim  milk  also  as  fresh  milk.  Making  some  allowance 
for  private  supplies,  I  reckon  that  the  total  consumption 
of  milk  in  all  forms  in  the  United  Kingdom  amounted 
to  about  913,000,000  gallons  in  1911,  of  which  over  95 
per  cent,  was  produced  in  this  country.  Of  oversea 
supplies  the  Netherlands  sent  more  than  half  and  Switzer- 
land about  one  fourth  (277  and  1*23  per  cent,  respectively 
of  our  total  consumption). 

The  quantity  of  fruit  grown  on  agricultural  holdings 
in  Great  Britain  (exclusive  of  apples  and  pears  used  for 
cider  and  perry)  is  about  6,000,000  cwts.,  and  the  value, 
with  a  small  addition  for  Ireland,  is  £4,500,000.  The 
production  in  private  gardens  as  well  as  that  grown  com- 
mercially under  glass  is  not  known,  while  nuts,  which  may 
properly  be  included  in  this  category,  are  also  an  unknown 
quantity.  We  may  perhaps  estimate  the  home  production 
of  fruit  and  nuts  at  a  total  value  of  ;£6,ooo,ooo.  The 
value  of  imported  fruit  and  nuts  is  £16,000,000,  but  of  this 


THE  NATION'S   FOOD  SUPPLY.  137 

total  dried  fruits  (currants,  raisins,  figs,  etc.)  account  for 
nearly  one-fourth,  and  exotic  fruits  (bananas,  oranges 
and  lemons)  for  nearly  one-third.  The  imports  of  raw  fruit 
directly  competing  with  home  produce  may  be  reckoned 
at  about  ;^5,ooo,ooo.  Apples  represent  by  far  the  largest 
item  of  our  fruit  supply,  Canada,  the  United  States 
and  Australia  sending  nearly  all  the  imports.  Oranges 
come  easily  second,  and  bananas  third  in  the  fruit  diet 
of  the  nation. 

Of  vegetables  the  farm  production  in  Great  Britain  is 
calculated  at  about  £11,000,000,  of  which  potatoes 
represent  over  £7,000,000.  Imports  of  vegetables  amount 
to  £4,000,000  ;  potatoes,  onions  and  tomatoes  accounting 
for  seven-eighths  of  the  total.  In  some  years  there  is  a 
considerable  exportation  of  potatoes,  and  in  191 1  this 
amounted  to  £432,000.  The  Irish  production  of  potatoes 
is  very  large,  and  adding  this  to  the  produce  of  private 
gardens  I  am  disposed  to  estimate  the  total  consumption 
of  vegetables  at  £24,000,000,  of  which  about  17  per  cent, 
comes  oversea. 

To  complete  the  items  of  the  nation's  food  bill  we  must 
add  £26,000,000  for  sugar.  The  total  imports  of  the 
beverages,  tea,  coffee  and  cocoa,  which  I  propose  to 
include  as  food,  amount  to  £18,500,000,  but  the  exports 
amount  to  over  £5,000,000,  so  that  the  home  consumption 
is  about  £13,500,000. 

From  this  very  rapid  survey  we  are  now  able  to  sum- 
marise the  nation's  food  supply  in  terms  of  money. 
Dividing  home  production  from  imports,  and  deducting 
exports,  we  get  the  statement  on  p.  138  of  the  value  of 
food  consumed  in  the  United  Kingdom. 

If  we  deduct  the  two  last  items,  for  which  there  is  no 
corresponding  home  production,  it  will  be  observed  that 
the  total  of  imported  food  is  valued  at  about  £13,000,000 
less  than  the  estimated  total  of  the  home  produce  con- 
sumed. In  other  words,  the  United  Kingdom  may  be 
said  to  produce  rather  more  than  one-half  of  its  total  food 


138 


AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 


Home 
produce. 

Imports. 

Total. 

Million  £'s. 

Minion  ;^'s. 

Million  /'s. 

Wheat,  flour  and  grain    . 

lO 

48 

58 

Meat      .... 

78 

51 

129 

Poultry,  eggs,  rabbits  and 

game 

15 

10 

25 

Fish       .... 

9 

3 

12 

Dairy  produce 

42 

35 

77 

Fruit     .... 

6 

16 

22 

Vegetables 

20 

4 

24 

Sugar    .... 

— 

26 

26 

Tea,  coffee  and  cocoa 

— 

13 

13 

180 

206 

386 

requirements,  exclusive  of  sugar  and  the  beverages  which 
may  be  regarded  as  necessaries  of  civilised  life.  I  have, 
I  hope,  sufficiently  insisted  on  the  fact  that  the  calcula- 
tions of  home  supplies  are  to  a  considerable  extent  esti- 
mated, and  the  margin  of  error  in  these  figures  is  much 
greater  than  that  which  exists  in  the  case  of  the  values  of 
imports.  But  another  cautionary  observation  must  be 
made  in  reference  to  the  terms  in  which  the  calculation  is 
expressed.  There  is  practically  no  common  measure 
except  value  which  can  be  applied  to  all  the  items  of  the 
account ;  but  it  is  not  altogether  a  satisfactory  measure 
for  the  purpose.  In  the  first  place,  as  I  have  indicated  in 
connection  with  meat,  the  general  level  of  price  of  the 
imported  food  is  generally  lower  than  that  of  home 
produce,  so  that  the  same  amount  of  money  may  represent 
a  larger  supply  in  the  one  case  than  the  other.  Then  it 
must  be  borne  in  mind  what  the  values  taken  purport  to 
be.  The  figures  of  imports  represent  the  declared  value 
(cost,  insurance  and  freight)  at  the  place  of  landing,  not 
including,  in  the  case  of  dutiable  articles,  the  amount  of 
the  duty.  The  total  net  amount  of  duty  charged  on 
sugar,  tea,  coffee,  cocoa  and  dried  fruits  is  £10,000,000. 
The  value  of  home  produce  mainly  represents  the  whole- 


THE   NATION'S   FOOD  SUPPLY.  139 

sale  price  of  the  raw  product  at  the  nearest  market.  It 
is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  figures  do  not  in  any  way 
represent  the  amount  actually  spent  by  the  consumers. 
Cost  of  manufacture,  as  in  the  case  of  wheat,  of  slaughter- 
ing and  dressing  in  the  case  of  live  animals,  and  in  all 
cases  cost  of  handling  and  distribution  must  be  added 
before  the  amount  spent  by  the  consumers  could  be 
ascertained.  This  calculation  I  shall  not  attempt.  I 
must  be  satisfied  if  I  have  succeeded  on  the  present 
occasion  in  giving  some  approximate  indication  of  the 
magnitude  of  the  nation's  food  supply  and  the  relative 
proportions  of  its  native  and  extraneous  supplies. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

SELLING  STOCK  BY   LIVE  WEIGHT.^ 

A  TENDENCY  towards  exactitude  is  characteristic  of 
farming  in  the  present  day.  The  scientific  school- 
master is  abroad,  and  his  influence  permeates  even  those 
quarters  where  his  authority  is  still  unaccepted.  The 
last  world  left  for  him  to  conquer  was  perhaps  the  agri- 
cultural, and  that  may  now  be  said  to  own  his  sway. 
There  still  doubtless  remain  many  persons  whose 
allegiance  to  the  haphazard  rule  of  tradition  is  un- 
broken, whose  "  stubborn  hearts,"  as  Spenser  says,  are 
not  yet  "  mollified  "  by  "  sweet  science."  But  the  typical 
farmer  of  the  day  is  not,  as  far  as  concerns  his  business, 
much  behind  the  practitioner  of  other  callings  in  appre- 
ciating the  advantages  of  exact  knowledge.  And  in  so 
far  as  he  aims  at  and  achieves  exactitude,  and  places  his 
dealings  on  a  strictly  commercial  basis,  is  there  hope  even 
in  these  dark  days  of  depression  that  he  may  be  able  to 
weather  the  storm. 

The  present  application  of  this  general  principle  lies  in 
the  consideration  of  the  desirability  of  substituting  a 
sounder  method  of  selling  stock  for  the  old  rule-of-thumb 
proceeding  which  still  generally  prevails  in  this  country. 
It  is  only  necessary  to  consider  the  matter  for  a  moment 
to  see  that  the  present  system  is  logically  indefensible. 
The  breeder  and  feeder  of  stock  is  engaged  in  the 
manufacture  of  beef  or  mutton.  Out  of  so  much  raw 
material  in  the  shape  of  calves  or  lambs,  of  store  cattle  or 
sheep,  of  grass,  of  hay,  of  cake,  of  corn,  and  so  forth,  he 

1  Journal  Bath  and  West  of  England  Society,  Vol.  XVIII., 
3rd  series,  1888. 


SELLING  STOCK  BY  LIVE  WEIGHT.         141 

turns  out  in  a  certain  time  an  article  which  is  worth  so 
much  in  the  market.  The  current  price  of  that  article  is 
subject  to  fluctuation,  and  depends,  firstly,  upon  its 
quality  at  the  time  of  sale,  and  secondly,  on  the  law  of 
supply  and  demand.  But  unquestionably  the  return 
which  should  be  made  to  the  vendor  for  that  article  is 
contingent  upon  the  quantity  of  it.  If  at  a  certain  date 
he  has  succeeded  in  manufacturing,  say,  1,000  lbs.  of 
beef  of  a  particular  quality,  he  ought,  on  commercial 
principles,  to  receive  just  so  much  more  than  if  he  had 
only  made  900  lbs.  As  it  will  be  sold  retail  by  weight,  so 
it  should  be  sold  wholesale  by  weight.  The  manufactured 
article — in  other  words,  the  beast  or  sheep — may  pass 
through  half  a  dozen  hands  between  the  producer  and 
consumer,  but  the  basis  of  every  transaction  to  which  it 
is  subject  should  be  its  weight. 

So  far,  it  is  probable  that  all  will  be  willing  to  go.  The 
crux  of  the  question  is,  whether  the  basis  of  weight  is  in 
the  first  place  a  practicable,  and  in  the  second  place  a 
convenient  one  to  adopt  in  the  sale  and  purchase  of  live 
stock  ;  supposing  the  affirmative  to  be  proved  in  both 
cases,  there  would  then  remain  the  further  question 
whether  such  a  change  as  would  be  necessary  would  be 
so  desirable  as  to  be,  as  the  phrase  goes,  "  worth  making." 
It  is  with  these  several  considerations,  and  with  others 
incidental  thereto,  that  this  present  paper  attempts  to 
deal. 

The  idea  of  selling  stock  on  the  basis  of  their  live 
weight  is  by  no  means  a  new  one.  But  although  the 
scales  have  been  sometimes  used,  the  favourite  method 
of  ascertaining  the  weight  has  hitherto  been  by  measure- 
ment. It  would  astonish  many,  perhaps,  to  know  how 
much  time  and  labour  have  been  expended  on  this 
subject  by  British  agricultural  reformers  during  the  past 
hundred  years.  In  the  ninth  volume  of  the  first  series 
of  this  Journal,  published  in  1799,  a  short  article  appears 
written  by   Lord  Somerville,  whose  name  is  now  less 


142  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

honoured  than  it  deserves  to  be  for  his  enlightened  efforts 
in  the  cause  of  agricultural  progress,  and  the  foremost 
part  which  he  played  in  the  farming  reformation  at  the 
end  of  the  last  century.  He  was  one  of  the  earliest  to 
devote  careful  attention  to  the  subject  of  estimating  the 
live  weight  of  cattle,  and  the  article  above  referred  to  was 
prefatory  to  a  series  of  calculations  which  he  termed 
"  The  Farmer's,  Grazier's,  and  Butcher's  Ready  Reckoner : 
a  short  Table  by  which  the  Weight  of  Stock,  according 
to  the  different  usages  in  England,  can  be  ascertained, 
and  the  Value  of  Stock  of  any  Size,  with  the  difference, 
at  once  discovered."  This  compendium  was  adopted  by 
the  Bath  and  West  Society,  was  printed  "  in  a  convenient 
size  for  the  pocket,"  and  sold  by  the  secretary  at  the 
Society's  rooms. 

Lord  Somerville's  table  did  not  precisely  deal  with  the 
method  of  ascertaining  the  weight  of  stock,  being  more 
immediately  directed  towards  an  equalisation  of  the 
various  standards  of  weight  in  use  throughout  the  kingdom. 
He  observed,  that 

it  is  well  known  that  in  the  London  markets  the  mode  of 
calculating  the  weight  of  both  sheep  and  cattle  is  by  the  stone 
of  8  lbs. ;  in  the  North  and  East  parts  of  England  by  the  stone 
of  14  lbs.  ;  and  in  the  South,  West,  and  North- West  parts  of 
England,  as  well  as  Wales,  by  the  score  of  20  lbs. 

Very  early  in  the  nineteenth  century  tables  for  calcu- 
lating the  weight  of  cattle  by  measurement  were  certainly 
in  existence.  In  the  third  volume  of  the  Royal  Agri- 
cultural Society's  Journal,  published  in  1842,  Mr.  C. 
Hildyard,  of  Thorpeland,  near  Northampton,  wrote  a 
letter  to  Mr.  Pusey,  in  which  he  remarked  that  thirty-five 
years  previously  he  had  met  with  computation  tables, 
which  he  corrected  and  amplified  in  a  small  "  ready- 
reckoner,"  printed  for  private  circulation.  This  appeared 
in  1814.  Shortly  afterwards  Dr.  Wollaston,  at  the 
suggestion  of  Earl  Spencer,  constructed  a  sliding-rule, 
showing  the  weights  in  stones  of  14  and  8  lbs.     Gary's 


SELLING  STOCK  BY  LIVE  WEIGHT.  143 

well-known  cattle-gauge  was  based  upon  the  calculations 
of  Dr.  WoUaston.  Other  tables  were  at  different  times 
constructed  by  Messrs.  Renton,  McDerment,  Douglas, 
Ainslie,  and  Stewart  respectively,  each  of  which  is,  or 
was,  known  by  the  name  of  its  constructor.  Youatt, 
in  his  "  Complete  Grazier "  (12th  edition),  gives  the 
following  as  the  mode  of  ascertaining  the  weight  of  cattle 
by  measurement : — 

The  farmer  passes  a  string  round  the  beast  just  behind  the 
shoulder-blade,  and  then  measures  the  length  of  that  string. 
This,  in  simple  language,  is  taking  the  girth  of  the  animal,  and 
he  writes  it  carefully  down.  Next,  from  that  bone  of  the  tail 
whence  a  line  would  fall  perpendicularly,  just  touching  the 
buttock,  he  measures  along  the  back  to  the  forepart  of  the 
shoulder-blade,  and  he  registers  the  amount  of  this.  He  has 
now  the  girth  and  the  length  of  the  beast.  He  multiplies 
them  together,  and  he  has  the  number  of  square  superficial 
feet  which  the  exterior  of  the  beast  comprises.  He  next 
multiplies  the  product  of  this  by  23,  the  number  of  pounds 
allowed  to  each  superficial  foot  in  all  cattle  measuring  less  than 
7  and  more  than  5  feet  in  girth,  and  he  obtains  the  sum  of 
713  lbs.,  which,  allowing  14  lbs.  to  the  stone,  is  50  stones  13  lbs., 
or,  according  to  the  old  computation  of  8  lbs.,  89  stones  and 
I  lb.  Suppose  the  animal  weighed  to  be  less  than  9  and  more 
than  7  feet  in  girth,  31  is  the  number  of  lbs.  to  each  superficial 
foot,  and  under  5  feet,  11  lbs.  For  a  half-fatted  beast,  i  stone 
in  20  must  be  allowed,  and  i  stone  in  the  whole  weight  for  a 
cow  that  has  had  calves. 

Taking  the  tables  of  Renton,  McDerment,  and  Cary, 
the  following  figures  will  show  that  they  approximated 
fairly  well  to  each  other,  although  each  was  based  on  a 
different  standard.  The  methods  adopted  for  working 
out  the  weight  from  the  measurement  were,  in  fact, 
various  and  many.  Stephens,  in  his  "  Book  of  the 
Farm,"  cites  five  distinct  rules  which  give  results  from  the 
same  measurements  with  a  difference  between  the  highest 
and  lowest  of  nearly  4  stones,  or  56  lbs.  These  extracts 
show  that  the  three  tables  above  mentioned  were  fairly 
in  accord.  They  are  calculated  upon  the  stone  of 
14  lbs. 


144 


AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 


Girth. 

Length. 

Renton's 
Table. 

McDerment's 
Table. 

Gary's 
Gauge. 

ft.  in. 

ft.     in. 

St.    lbs. 

St.    lbs. 

St. 

5     o 

j3     6 

21       O 
24       0 

20     II 
23     II 

21 

24 

5     6 

3     9 
U     9 

27       I 

27       0 

27 

34     4 

34       2 

34^ 

6      f> 

U     6 

38     8 

38       8 

38! 

V_»           l_? 

(5     o 

43     I 

42     12 

43 

(5     6 

64     6 

64       2 

64* 

7     o 

(  6     o 

70     5 

69     13 

701 

8     o 

(  6     6 

99     8 

99        0 

99| 

I  7    o 

107     5 

106       9 

107I 

With  reference  to  the  calculation  of  weight  from 
measurement,  Stephens,  in  his  "  Book  of  the  Farm," 
remarks  : — 

Upon  what  principle  the  rules  given  in  books  are  founded 
I  cannot  say,  unless  on  the  assumption  that  the  ox  is  a  hollow 
cylinder  ;  but  when  the  measurement  is  correctly  taken,  and 
the  ox  of  an  ordinary  size,  the  result  is  pretty  accurate. 

The  error  attendant  upon  these  calculations  is,  that 
they  form  a  rigid  rule  which  does  not  adapt  itself  to  the 
differences  which  are  found  in  all  animals.  The  tables 
upon  which  reliance  was  most  confidently  placed  seem 
often  to  have  been  found  erroneous,  especially  when  the 
stock  measured  were  above  the  average  size.  In  the 
book  on  "  British  Husbandry,"  published  by  the  Society 
for  the  Diffusion  of  Useful  Knowledge  in  1837,  particulars 
are  published  of  four  bullocks  which  were  exhibited  at 
the  Highland  Society's  Agricultural  Show  of  1834, 
showing  their  estimated  weights  according  to  several 
tables,  and  their  actual  dead  weight.  All  of  these 
calculations  fell  far  short  of  the  real  weight,  the  highest 
coming  only  within  56^  stones,  or  an  average  of  14  stones 
per  head  too  little,  and  the  lowest  showing  a  deficiency  of 
79I  stones,  or  nearly  20  stones  per  head.  Thus,  as  the 
author  justly  remarks,  taking  the  nearest  calculation — 


SELLING  STOCK  BY   LIVE  WEIGHT.  145 

that  made  by  Renton's  table — there  would  have  been  a 
loss  to  the  farmer  of  over  50  stones,  or,  according  to  the 
price  of  beef  at  that  time  in  Smithfield  Market,  of  £21 
on  four  beasts.  This  case  was  doubtless  an  extreme  one, 
but  it  is  evident  that  a  system  under  which  such  dis- 
crepancies were  possible,  was  scarcely  likely  to  find 
permanent  favour  among  practical  men.  Its  fallacy  lay 
in  the  assumption  that  all  cattle  were  of  mathematical 
proportions,  and  that  the  offal  of  each  was  in  an  invariable 
ratio  to  the  quantity  of  meat. 

But  there  is  a  surer  guide  than  the  tape,  and  that  is 
the  scales.  It  is  curious  that  there  is  an  insular  prejudice 
against  weighing  live  animals,  and  this  perhaps  accounts 
for  the  length  of  time  which  the  measurement  system 
has  been  before  the  farmer,  while  the  better  and  surer 
method  of  weight  has  been  comparatively  overlooked. 
In  the  valuable  report  on  "  American  Agriculture " 
presented  by  Messrs.  Clare  Sewell  Read  and  Albert  Pell 
to  the  Royal  Commission  on  Agriculture  in  1879,  attention 
was  pointedly  directed  to  the  universal  adoption  across 
the  Atlantic  of  weighbridges  in  marketing  live  stock. 
In  the  United  States  every  town  is  provided  with  a 
number  of  public  weighbridges,  while  every  market  and 
stockyard  possesses  an  enclosed  platform  under  cover, 
capable  of  weighing  several  bullocks  at  a  time.  Messrs. 
Read  and  Pell  mentioned  an  instance  of  forty  bullocks 
being  driven  on  to  the  machine  and  weighed  at  one  time, 
the  total  weight  being  over  41,000  lbs.  As  each  bullock 
was  estimated  to  turn  out  56  per  cent,  of  carcass  weight, 
there  was  nothing  to  settle  but  the  price  per  lb.,  and  the 
"  deal  "  was  complete. 

The  platform,  enclosed  at  both  sides  and  roofed  over,  has 
two  long  gates,  one  at  each  end.  One  being  set  open,  the 
drove  or  bunch  of  cattle  pass  on  to  the  balancing  platform, 
and  the  gate  is  shut  behind  them.  A  weight  is  recorded  by  a 
clerk  in  an  adjoining  room  in  the  presence  of  buyer  and  seller. 
A  ticket  is  given,  the  further  gate  is  opened,  and  off  the  cattle 

A.F.  L 


146  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

go.     The  whole  operation  does  not  take  more  than  from  two 
to  five  minutes. 

There  is  a  brisk,  business-like  air  about  such  a  trans- 
action which  cannot  but  offer  a  contrast  to  the  long 
and  tedious  method  whereby  in  this  country  forty  beasts 
such  as  these  would  "  change  hands." 

This  account,  supplemented  by  the  reports  of  other 
visitors  to  the  United  States,  gave  an  impetus  to  the 
movement  in  England  in  favour  of  substituting  the  scales 
for  guesswork  in  buying  and  selling  stock.  The  discussion 
upon  the  subject  has  become  general  ;  the  pow^erful 
support  of  Sir  John  Lawes,  and  of  a  host  of  agricultural 
leaders,  have  pressed  the  question  forward,  so  as  to  ripen 
it  with  more  quickness  than  that  with  which  such  matters 
usually  come  in  this  country  to  maturity. 

Instances  might  be  enumerated  of  many  stock-keepers 
who  have  sought  the  assistance  of  the  scales  in  carrying 
on  their  business.  Thirty  years  ago  Mr.  T.  Horsfall, 
writing  in  the  Journal  of  the  Royal  Agricultural  Society, 
remarked  that  he  had  weighed  his  fattening  cattle  for  a 
number  of  years,  and  his  milch  cows  for  two  years,  using 
the  weights  chiefly  as  a  guide  to  their  treatment,  but 
incidentally  also  as  a  basis  for  sale. 

The  main  difficulty  in  selling  stock  by  live  weight,  and 
the  point  on  which  doubt  chiefly  can  arise,  is  the  per- 
centage of  offal.  This  has  been  the  subject  of  much 
controversy.  Mr.  Horsfall,  in  the  article  above  quoted, 
recommended  that  "  the  usual  computation  for  a  well-fed, 
but  not  over-fat  beast  is  live  to  dead  weight  as  21  to  12," 
or  about  57  per  cent,  carcass  ;  "  with  such  modifica- 
tions as  suggest  themselves  by  experience."  Mr.  Robert 
Stevenson,  from  numerous  experiments,  calculated  that 
every  100  lbs.  of  live  weight  would  give  577  per  cent,  of 
dressed  meat.  Mr.  Ewart  constructed  a  table  in  which 
he  estimated  the  proportion  of  beef  to  range  from  45  up 
to  70  per  cent,  of  live  weight  in  proportional  ratio  to  the 
size  of  the  animal.    The  article,  however,  published  by 


SELLING  STOCK  BY  LIVE   WEIGHT.         147 

Sir  John  Lawes  and  Dr.  Gilbert  in  i860,  giving  the  results 
of  a  series  of  elaborate  and  exhaustive  experiments  on  the 
composition  of  oxen,  sheep,  and  pigs,  first  established  a 
reliable  standard.  Among  the  conclusions  arrived  at 
were  the  following  : — 

Well-bred  and  moderately  fattened  oxen  should  yield  58  to 
60  per  cent,  carcass  in  fasted  live  weight  ;  excessively  fat  oxen 
may  yield  from  65  to  70  per  cent.  Moderately  fattened  sheep 
(shorn)  should  yield  about  58  per  cent,  carcass  in  fasted  live 
weight ;  excessively  fat  sheep  may  yield  64  per  cent.,  or  more. 
Moderately  fat  pigs,  killed  for  fresh  pork,  should  yield  (includ- 
ing head  and  feet)  about  80  to  82  per  cent,  carcass  in  fasted 
live  weight ;  large,  well-fattened  pigs,  fed  for  curing,  will  yield 
a  considerably  higher  proportion.  In  each  of  the  three 
descriptions  of  animal,  the  proportion  will,  however,  vary 
much,  according  to  breed,  age,  and  condition. 

Sir  John  Lawes  has  recently  referred  to  these  conclusions 
in  an  article  written  during  the  present  year  (1886)  for  the 
Newcastle  Farmers'  Club.  In  quoting  them,  he  ob- 
serves : — 

It  will  be  observed  that  we  here  only  speak  of  the  fasted  live 
weight.  Most  of  our  animals,  however,  were  weighed  both 
unfasted  and  fasted,  and  we  have  ascertained  that  the  loss 
during  the  period  of  fasting,  24  hours,  is  subject  to  considerable 
fluctuations.     In  a  large  ox  it  may  vary  from  40  to  120  lbs. 

The  observations  and  experiments  of  many  practical 
men  have  been  published,  and  they  all  tend  more  or  less 
to  confirm  the  calculations  of  Rothamsted.  One  instance 
will  suffice,  taken  from  the  columns  of  the  agricultural 
press.  Mr.  T.  E.  Shrimpton,  of  Chalkpit  Farm,  Reading, 
weighed  eleven  cattle  of  various  breeds  and  ages.  They 
included  a  7-year-old  barren  Shorthorn  cow,  two  3-year- 
old  Shorthorn  heifers,  a  yearling  Shorthorn  heifer,  a 
Shorthorn  cow  in  milk,  a  3-year-old  cross-bred  polled 
steer,  a  5-year-old  Devon  steer,  a  4-year-old  Devon  steer, 
and  three  3-year-old  Devon  steers.  The  individual  live 
weights  ranged  from  8ig  lbs.  to  1.932  lbs.,  the  average 
being  1,465  lbs.  The  average  dead  weight  was  888  lbs , 
or  a  percentage  of  60.     The  percentages  of  dead  weight 

L2 


148  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

ranged  from  56  to  67,     It  should  be  noted  that  all  the 
animals  were  weighed  unfasted. 

We  now  come  to  the  practical  question  whether  an 
alteration  of  the  existing  methods  is  worth  while.  Why, 
it  will  be  asked,  should  we  change  the  present  system  ? 
It  works,  so  many  will  say,  comfortably  and  conveniently 
enough.  Why  therefore  introduce  scales  where  they  are 
not  wanted  ?  It  is  to  these  questions,  perfectly  natural 
and  legitimate  as  they  are,  that  an  answer  must  be 
sought. 

It  may  be  observed  at  once  that  it  is  by  no  means 
every  seller  of  stock  who  will  propound  the  queries  which 
have  just  been  placed  in  his  mouth.  Not  every  farmer 
is  even  now  satisfied  that  he  gets  the  fair  value  for  his 
stock.  One  thing,  at  any  rate,  he  knows,  and  that  is, 
that  he  knows  very  little  about  it.  The  average  farmer 
does  not  know,  and  has  no  means  of  knowing,  whether  the 
beasts  he  sells  fetch  their  full  price.  The  purchaser,  as 
a  rule,  does  know  with  very  remarkable  accuracy.  No 
ordinary  farmer  will  attempt  to  say  that  his  judgment  of 
the  size  and  weight  of  a  beast  is  equal  to  that  of  a  dealer 
or  butcher.  It  is  impossible  that  it  should  be  so.  The 
dealer  or  butcher  spends  his  life  in  estimating  the  weight 
of  stock.  His  eye  and  judgment  are  his  stock-in-trade, 
and  very  efficient  they  become.  He  possesses,  too,  what 
the  farmer  does  not  possess — the  means  of  training  and 
educating  his  judgment.  A  farmer  may  estimate  a 
beast  to  contain  a  certain  quantity  of  meat  ;  he  may 
possibly  be  right,  but  if  so,  he  never  knows  it.  The 
butcher  alone  is  able  to  check  his  judgment  by  the  actual 
result  in  the  slaughter-house. 

There  is  no  allegation  of  unfairness  against  butchers  as 
a  class  in  saying  that  they  are  scarcely  likely  to  over- 
estimate the  weight  of  a  beast  which  they  are  buying.  If 
they  possess  superior  knowledge  and  experience,  they  are, 
by  all  the  rules  of  business,  perfectly  justified  in  using 
them  to  their  advantage.     It  is  well  to  know  to  what 


SELLING  STOCK  BY   LIVE  WEIGHT. 


149 


extent  they  possess  the  habit  of  under-estimating  weights, 
which  obviously  tends  to  their  favour  in  driving  a  bargain. 

It  was  recently  the  good  fortune  of  the  present  writer, 
on  the  occasion  of  a  visit  to  Rothamsted,  to  hear  from 
Sir  John  Lawes  the  views  which  he  holds  on  this  subject. 
It  chanced  that  Mr.  Westley  Richards  was  present.  This 
gentleman,  who  is  well  known  as  a  prominent  advocate 
of  the  scales  in  stock-dealing,  has  taken  up  the  subject 
in  a  strong  belief  that  the  farmer  is  losing  money  very 
largely  by  his  practical  dependence  on  the  judgment  of 
the  butcher.  He  has  indeed  gone  so  far  as  to  estimate 
the  average  loss  to  the  farmer  at  45s.  per  head  on  fat 
stock  sold,  and  at  20s.  per  head  on  store  stock  purchased. 
Now,  Sir  James  Caird  estimates  the  annual  slaughter 
of  cattle  for  the  butcher  at  2,100,000  head.  At  45s.  per 
head  the  loss  would  amount  annually  to  the  sum  of 
£4,725,000,  and  to  this  Mr.  Westley  Richards  adds 
£2,000,000  as  the  loss  on  stores  purchased,  making  a 
total  annual  loss  to  the  British  farmer  of  £6,725,000. 

Mr.  Westley  Richards  has  analysed  the  results  of  the 
Rothamsted  investigations,  and  has  based  all  his  calcu- 
lations as  to  the  live  and  dead  weight  of  stock  upon  them. 
That  he  is  able  to  get  very  near  the  mark,  the  following 
account  of  eight  bullocks,  which  he  sold  to  butchers  by 
weight  in  October,  1884  indicates  : — 


Unfasted  Live  Weight. 

Offal 
calcula- 
ted at  44 
per  cent. 

Carcass 
calcu- 
lated at 
56  per 
cent. 

Carcass 
calcu- 
lated in 
stones  of 
14  lbs. 

Actual 
Weight 
in  stones 
of  14  lbs. 

Price 

per 

stone. 

Calculated 
Value. 

Sold  for. 

cwts.  qrs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

f.     d. 

£      s. 

d. 

£ 

s.      d. 

13      I 

0 

1,484 

653 

831 

59-5 

590 

9     4 

27    14 

0 

27 

5     0 

II       2 

0 

1,288 

567 

721 

517 

520 

24      0 

8 

24 

0     0 

12       I 

0 

1.372 

603 

769 

54-1 

54'i 

25    10 

8 

25 

12     0 

12       3 

0 

1,428 

628 

800 

572 

555 

26    13 

4 

25 

16     8 

13      3 

0 

1.540 

678 

862 

6i-8 

59-1 

28    14 

8 

27 

16     0 

12       0 

14 

1-358 

597 

761 

54'5 

533 

25     7 

4 

24 

16     0 

13     3 

0 

1.540 

678 

862 

61 -8 

58-6 

28   14 

8 

27 

5     0 

13   0 

0 

1.456 

640 

816 

58-4 

59-1 

d 

27     4 

0 

27 

12     0 

11,466 

5.044 

6,422 

4587 

452-8 
Per  hea 

213   19 

4 

210 

2     0 

26  14 

10 

26 

5     0 

150 


AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 


It  will  be  seen  that  over  five  tons  weight  of  stock,  the 
estimated  carcass  weight  only  differed  from  the  actual 
ascertained  weight  by  about  lo  lbs.  per  head  ;  and  this 
is  probably  a  fictitious  difference,  inasmuch  as  butchers 
can  get  off,  Mr.  Westley  Richards  states,  a  stone  and  a 
half  in  cutting  up  a  carcass. 

As  a  contrast  to  the  above,  a  duplicate  lot  of  eight 
bullocks  were  sent  on  the  same  day  to  Smithfield,  with 
the  following  result : — 


Offal 

Carcase 

Esti- 

Price 
per 

- 

Unfasted  Live  Weight. 

calcu- 
lated at 

calcu- 
lated at 

mated 
Weight 

Estimated 
Value 

Sold  for. 

Loss. 

44  per 

56  per 

in  stones 

8  lbs 

cent. 

cent. 

of  8  lbs. 

cwts.  qrs 

lbs. 

lbs. 

s.    d. 

£.    s.     d. 

i,    s.    d. 

£    s.    d. 

14      I 

0 

1.596 

702 

894 

1 1 1*6 

5     4 

29     I     6 

— 

— 

13       I 

0 

1,484 

653 

«3i 

104-0 

27  14     8 

— 

— 

13      I 

0 

1,484 

653 

«3i 

104-0 

27  14     8 

— 

— 

13      0 

0 

1.456 

641 

«i5 

I02-0 

27     4     0 

— 

— 

13      I 

0 

1,484 

653 

«3i 

104-0 

27  14     8 

— 

— 

14      I 

0 

1,596 

702 

894 

III-O 

29  16     0 

— 

— 

12       I 

0 

1.372 

604 

768 

96-0 

25   12     0 

— 

— 

12       I 

0 

1.372 

604 

768 

96-0 

25   12     0 

■~ 

11,844 

5.212 

6,632 

829-4* 

221     4     0 

204      0      0 

17      4     0 

Per  he 

ad      . 

27   13     0 

25    10      0 

230 

*  Equal  473  stones  of  14  lbs. 

It  should  be  observed  that  5s.  A^d.  per  stone  of  8  lbs- 
is  equivalent  to  9s.  ^ci.  per  stone  of  14  lbs.  The  quotations 
of  price  for  prime  Shorthorns,  as  published  for  the  London 
market  that  day,  were  5s.  2d.,  5s.  ^d.,  and  5s.  6^.  per 
8  lbs.  The  bullocks  were,  it  will  be  seen,  somewhat 
heavier  than  those  which  fetched  9s.  4^.  per  14  lbs.  in 
the  country.  In  commenting  upon  these  facts.  Sir  John 
Lawes  remarks  :  "  I  dare  say  that  it  a  complaint  had  been 
made  to  the  salesman,  Mr.  Westley  Richards  would  have 
been  assured  that  his  oxen  made  fully  5s.  4^.  per  stone." 

Another  lot  of  four  Welsh  runts,  sent  by  Mr.  Westley 


SELLING  STOCK  BY  LIVE  WEIGHT. 


151 


Richards  to  Smithfield  on  September  13th,  1885,  made 
£14  6s.,  or  ;^3  IIS.  6d.  per  head  less  than  they  should 
have  done  according  to  the  calculated  carcass  weights 
at  the  published  price  of  the  day.  An  account  of  sundry 
lots  of  bullocks,  numbering  altogether  fifty-one,  which 
were  sold  at  various  times,  mostly  by  auction,  showed  a 
similar  loss  per  head  of  £2  5s.  5^.,  or  about  yd.  per  stone. 
But  for  the  most  striking  and  instructive  illustration 
of  the  accuracy  of  the  scales  when  rightly  used,  we  must 
revert  to  Rothamsted.  In  1879,  Sir  John  Lawes  invited 
several  competent  experts — men  practised  in  the  esti- 
mation of  the  weight  of  cattle  by  the  eye — to  Rothamsted, 
and  asked  them  each  to  give  an  opinion  as  to  the  weight 
of  five  Hereford  bullocks.  He  had  himself  made  his 
calculation  from  the  live  weight  as  given  by  the  scales. 
The  experts  were  told  the  purpose  for  which  their  opinion 
was  asked,  so  that  they  had  no  other  interest  in  the 
matter  than — for  their  own  credit's  sake,  and  for  the 
sake  of  maintaining  the  present  system — to  get  as  near 
the  mark  as  possible.  After  their  opinions  had  been 
taken,  the  bullocks  were  slaughtered,  and  the  actual 
carcass  weights  ascertained.  The  following  table  shows 
the  results.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  stones  are 
here  8  lbs.  and  not  14  lbs. 


No. 

Estimated  Weights  by  Experts. 

Actual 

Carcass 

Weights. 

Error  of  Experts' 
Estimates. 

Carcass 

Weight 
as  calculated 

from 
Live  Weight. 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

Average. 

Too 
little. 

Too 
much. 

St. 

St. 

St.     lbs. 

St.     lbs. 

St.    lbs. 

St.  lbs. 

St.     lbs. 

I 
2 

90 

88 

88 
86 

89      0 

86     6 

93     I 
86     3 

4     I 

0     3 

94     4 
84     0 

3 
4 
5 

93 
91 
93 

91 

78 
88 

92     2 
85     6 
91     2 

93     4 
87     6 

93     7 

1  2 

2  0 
2     5 

— 

92     4 
88     6 
96     I 

455 

431 

445     0 

454     5 

455     7 

152  AN  AGRICULTURAL   FAGGOT. 

It  will  be  seen  that  only  in  two  instances  did  the 
highest  estimate  given  by  an  expert  amount  to  so  much 
as  the  actual  weight.  On  the  average  their  estimates 
were  9  stone  5  lbs.  too  little  for  the  five  bullocks,  while 
the  estimate  calculated  from  the  live  weight  varied  only 
10  lbs.  from  the  actual  result. 

The  principle  which  is  applicable  to  cattle  is,  of  course, 
equally  applicable  to  sheep.  At  a  debate  held  at  the 
Central  Chamber  of  Agriculture  in  April  last,  Mr.  Albert 
Pell  quoted  a  striking  instance  of  the  accidental  adoption 
of  the  system  at  Melton,  in  Leicestershire,  which  had 
occurred  only  in  the  previous  month.  A  large  breeder  of 
sheep  arrived  in  the  market  too  late  for  the  auction.  The 
butchers  offered  him  a  certain  price  for  his  sheep,  which 
he  refused  to  accept.  The  butchers  then  offered  him 
"  S^d.  per  lb.  for  the  dressed  meat,  dead  weight."  This 
offer  he  also  declined,  one  reason  for  his  so  doing  being 
that  he  could  not  be  present  himself  to  see  the  animals 
weighed  after  slaughter.  At  last  he  said,  "  I  will  sell 
them  at  /^d.  per  lb.  live  weight  on  the  scale,  dirt  and  all, 
as  they  stand."  The  proposal  was  accepted,  and  his 
sheep,  thirty  in  number,  were  weighed,  and  produced  £8 
more  than  the  highest  bid  which  had  been  made  for  them. 
The  butchers  who  bought  them  were  satisfied,  and 
admitted  that  they  had  been  mistaken  in  the  weight  of 
the  sheep. 

The  figures  which  have  been  quoted  conspire  to  show 
that  the  dead  weight  may  be  estimated  from  the  live 
weight  with  very  considerable  accuracy.  Wherever  it 
has  been  possible  to  check  a  careful  calculation  by  the 
actual  weight  after  slaughter,  the  agreement  has  been 
very  close.  There  is  no  doubt  also  that  in  the  majority 
of  instances  the  vendor  gets  a  better  price  by  weight  than 
he  does  by  guesswork.  This  is,  indeed,  only  to  be 
expected.  The  farmer  is  necessarily  handicapped  in 
bargaining  with  the  butcher.  The  use  of  the  scales  as  a 
basis  of  sale  would  indisputably  tend  to  his  advantage. 


SELLING  STOCK  BY   LIVE   WEIGHT.  153 

But  apart  from  individual  interests,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  the  introduction  of  a  sounder  principle  is  desirable. 
It  must  inevitably  be  to  the  public  advantage  that  the 
operations  of  the  cattle  markets  should  be  conducted  on 
strict  commercial  principles.  The  producer  and  con- 
sumer would  be  brought  closer  together,  and  the  wide 
margin  of  profit  which  intervenes  between  them,  and  out 
of  which  so  many  middlemen  now  make  their  living, 
would  be  materially  curtailed. 

It  must  not  be  thought  that  the  adoption  of  the  system 
of  selling  by  live  weight  would  obviate  the  need  for  sound 
judgment  on  the  part  of  both  vendor  and  purchaser, 
"  An  eye  for  a  beast  "  would  stiU  be  as  necessary  as  ever. 
The  breed  and  quahty,  the  ripeness  and  condition,  would, 
as  before,  be  matters  for  judgment.  Upon  these  points 
would  depend,  first  of  all,  the  relative  proportions  of 
carcass  and  offal,  and  secondly,  the  price  per  lb.  or  stone. 
Sale  by  auction  would  by  no  means  be  abohshed,  as  some 
persons  have  hastily  assumed.  It  might  possibly  be 
restricted,  but  it  is  a  matter  for  argument  whether  that 
would  be  in  itself  an  evil  to  the  farmer,  or  to  the  com- 
munity at  large.  But  stock  would,  no  doubt,  continue 
very  largely  to  come  under  the  hammer,  the  only  change 
being  that  the  bids  would  be  made  on  the  price  per  lb.  or 
per  stone,  instead  of  on  the  whole  animal. 

No  doubt  the  gravest  objection,  and  that  which  would 
at  first  militate  most  seriously  against  the  proposed 
system,  is  that  a  certain  amount  of  calculation  is  required. 
The  old-fashioned  farmer,  who  goes  into  the  market,  and 
says,  for  instance,  "  I  want  £20  for  that  beast,"  will  not 
so  readily  adopt  a  practice  which  entails  a  calculation  of 
the  price  per  stone.  This  difficulty,  however,  is  more 
apparent  than  real,  and  certainly  is  not  weighty  enough 
to  stop  the  way  of  a  reform  which  might  otherwise  be 
considered  desirable.  Rough-and-ready  methods  would 
very  soon  come  into  use.  The  butcher  at  the  present 
time  makes  a  calculation  of  the  weight  and  price  per 


154 


AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 


stone.  What  he  can  do,  the  farmer,  with  the  scales  to 
help  him,  could  as  easily  do. 

I  learn  from  Sir  John  Lawes,  who  has  kindly  given  me 
invaluable  information  for  the  preparation  of  this  article, 
that  he  proposes  to  publish,  when  a  demand  should  seem 
to  arise  for  it,  a  pocket  "  ready  reckoner,"  for  the  guidance 
of  the  farmer  in  estimating  the  weight  and  value  of  his 
stock  by  means  of  the  scales.  The  following  table  is  a 
specimen  of  the  mode  in  which  he  proposes  to  construct 
such  a  compendium. 

Similar  calculations  would  be  made  for  all  probable 
weights.     Sir  John  Lawes  writes  : — 

It  appears  to  be  almost  essential  that  the  lbs.,  8  lbs.  and 
14  lbs.  must  all  be  used.  To  induce  the  farmer  to  use  the 
scales  he  must  understand  them,  and  to  understand  them  he 
must  start  with  the  present  knowledge  that  a  certain  ox  which 
he  wishes  to  sell  to  the  butcher  should  weigh,  when  dead, 
48  or  47  stone.  According  as  he  uses  8-lb.  or  14-lb.  stones,  he 
considers  that  his  animal  should  make  5s.  or  8s.  gd.  per  stone 
and  be  worth  £21.  He  now  opens  his  ready  reckoner  and 
finds  what  the  live  weight  of  such  an  animal  would  be. 

Table  showing  the  dead  weight  of  an  ox  weighing  1,400  lbs.  alive, 
in  lbs.,  14  and  8  lbs.  stones,  and  price  at  y^d.  per  lb.,  8s.  gd.  per 
14  lb.,  and  5s.  per  8lbs.,  accordiyig  to  the  estimated  ripeness  of 
the  animal. 


Dead  weight. 

Value  at  7^^. 

Ox,  Live  Weight. 

per  lb.,  8s.  gd.  per 

14  lbs.,  Si-,  per 

Percent. 

In  lbs. 

In  14  lbs. 

In  8  lbs. 

Bibs. 

£      S.      d. 

1,400  lbs. 

56 

784 

56 

98-0 

24    10       0 

57 

795 

57 

99-6 

24    18       9 

58 

812 

58 

101-4 

25     7     6 

59 

826 

59 

103-2 

25   16     3 

60 

840 

60 

105-0 

26     5     0 

Sir  John  Lawes  in  another  letter  says,  "  I  have  not 
studied  what  would  be  the  best  form  of  table,  as  farmers 
have  appeared  to  be  so  indifferent."  With  reference 
to  the  whole  subject  he  remarks  further  : — 


SELLING  STOCK   BY   LIVE  WEIGHT.  155 

I  am  sure  that  the  subject  is  worth  the  attention  of  farmers, 
and  the  dealers  take  advantage  of  their  ignorance.  I  think, 
too,  that  when  Mr.  Westley  Richards  and  myself  are  prepared 
to  back  our  ignorance,  with  the  help  of  scales,  against  the  most 
experienced  butcher  or  salesman,  it  is  tolerably  evident  that 
they  are  a  valuable  help  to  the  ignorant. 

Sir  John  Lawes,  it  may  be  explained,  refers  to  his 
ignorance  with  respect  to  the  weight  of  an  animal.  He  is, 
as  is  well  known,  a  practical  farmer  as  well  as  a  scientific 
man,  and  is  well  able  to  judge  of  the  relative  quality  and 
condition,  and  by  that  judgment  to  make  his  estimate  of 
the  percentage  of  carcass.  So  much  knowledge,  as  Sir 
John  Lawes  himself  urges,  is  necessary  to  any  person 
who  sets  out  to  buy  or  sell  by  live  weight  ;  but  possessing 
this  knowledge,  the  farmer,  by  the  aid  of  the  scales,  can 
hold  his  own  in  the  market  against  the  most  experienced 
butcher  or  dealer. 

Reference  has  hitherto  been  made  to  the  disposal  of 
stock  by  the  farmer  to  the  butcher,  but  it  is  desirable  to 
indicate — what  is  sufficiently  patent— that  selling  by  live 
weight  implies  also  buying  by  live  weight.  In  other 
words,  if  the  system  be  adopted,  the  farmer  will  not  only 
sell  his  beeves,  but  will  also  buy  his  stores  thereby.  So 
far  as  prospects  of  actual  money  gain  are  concerned,  the 
farmer  has  possibly  less  interest  on  this  side  of  the  ques- 
tion. He  buys  probably  on  the  whole  more  advan- 
tageously than  he  sells.  Nevertheless  he  would  very 
likely  oftentimes  reap  an  immediate  benefit.  Sir  John 
Lawes  in  the  article  written  for  the  Newcastle  Farmers' 
Club,  already  referred  to,  says  : — 

I  generally  have  a  good  deal  of  rough  grass  left  by  the  dairy 
cows,  and  I  am  in  the  habit  of  purchasing  about  forty  Irish 
shorthorns  during  the  autumn  for  the  purpose  of  consuming  it. 
This  year  the  shorthorns,  with  the  carriage,  cost  mc  £13  5s. 
per  head,  and  their  average  weight  was  8  cwt.  3  qrs.  6  lbs. ;  the 
cost  therefore  was  not  quite  ^Id.  per  lb.  This  price  was 
reasonable  enough,  but  what  I  complain  of  is,  that  I  had  no 
voice  in  the  matter,  and  if  they  had  cost  i^.  per  lb.  more  I 
must  have  paid  it.     What  is  really  wanted,  and  what  every 


156  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

farmer  should  strive  for,  is  to  bring  every  transaction  within 
the  range  of  calculation.  Within  reasonable  limits,  with 
regard  to  accuracy,  we  can  calculate  the  amount  of  food  which 
will  be  required  to  add  200  lbs.  or  300  lbs.  to  a  bullock,  or 
50  lbs.  or  60  lbs.  to  a  sheep.  When  purchase  or  sale  by  weight 
is  established,  one  of  the  most  important  transactions  of  the 
farm  will  be  settled  on  a  sound  commercial  basis. 

In  the  same  place  Sir  John  Lawes  makes  one  or  two 
other  remarks  which  well  deserve  the  attention  of  every 
practical  farmer  : — 

Under  the  present  system  store  stock  is  often  purchased  at 
a  price  which  results  in  a  loss  upon  the  transaction  far  exceed- 
ing the  value  of  the  manure  obtained.  Twenty  tons  of  turnips 
cut  up  and  ploughed  in,  and  a  ton  of  rape-cake,  possess  more 
manure  properties  than  the  same  weight  of  roots  fed  with  a 
ton  of  linseed  cake.  Unless,  therefore,  the  animals  when  fat 
make  considerably  more  than  the  difference  between  the  price 
of  the  two  cakes,  we  should  surely  do  better  without  them. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe  that  the  principle  of 
selling  by  live  weight  is  advocated  for  animals  which  are 
bred  or  fed  for  the  butcher.  No  one  suggests  that 
breeding  or  pedigree  beasts  should  be  valued  by  specific 
gravity.  They  have  an  individuality  which  is  the  index 
of  their  price.  The  purchase  and  sale  of  them  is,  and 
must  from  the  nature  of  things  be,  speculative.  But 
food  has  an  absolute  value  which  is  contingent  only  upon 
its  quality,  and  upon  the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  If  a 
fanner  sells  a  sack  of  wheat,  a  load  of  straw,  or  a  dairy  of 
butter,  he  knows  just  how  much  he  disposes  of,  and 
expects  to  be  paid  according  to  the  precise  quantity.  He 
does  not  guess  the  quantity,  and  leave  the  purchaser  the 
chance  of  getting  so  much  more  than  he  bargained  for. 
Surely  the  principle  which  is  applicable  in  these  cases 
ought  also  to  be  applicable  to  the  beef  and  mutton  which 
he  sells. 

Although  the  breeder  does  not  immediately  come 
within  the  province  of  this  paper,  it  may  be  said,  in 
passing,  that  he  would  probably  benefit  very  considerably 
by  the  adoption  of  the  scales  as  an  aid  to  him  in  his 


SELLING  STOCK  BY  LIVE  WEIGHT.         157 

business.  By  periodical  weighings  of  his  stock  he  would 
find  that  his  knowledge  of  their  progress  was  very 
materially  increased.  In  these  pinched  times  it  requires 
some  courage  to  urge  upon  the  farmer  any  additional 
outlay  in  machinery,  but  there  are  few  appliances  which 
would  pay  better  interest  on  their  cost  to  the  stock- 
keeper  than  a  weighbridge,  apart  altogether  from  its 
use  in  marketing. 

Supposing  that  the  advantage  of  substituting  the 
system  of  the  scales  for  that  of  rule  of  thumb  in  the  cattle 
market  be  admitted,  how,  it  may  be  asked,  is  the  change 
to  be  brought  about  ?  Unquestionably  it  must  be  brought 
about  by  the  farmers  themselves  insisting  upon  it.  The 
producer  has  the  right,  and  within  certain  limitations, 
the  power  of  selling  his  produce  in  his  own  way.  He  is 
master  of  the  situation.  The  key  thereto  is  in  his  hands, 
and  it  is  for  him  to  recognise  its  value,  and  apply  it.  But 
there  is  a  preliminary  step  needed.  That  step  is  expressed 
in  a  word  of  somewhat  ominous  sound — legislation. 
The  legislation  which  is  needed,  however,  is  extremely 
small  and  extremely  simple.  It  is  that  the  authorities 
of  every  cattle  market,  licensed  to  take  tolls,  should  be 
compelled  to  erect  a  weighbridge  suitable  for  the  weighing 
of  live  stock.  By  the  Markets  Act  of  1847,  a  buyer  at 
present  possesses  the  right  of  having  "  commodities  " 
purchased  in  a  public  market  weighed,  but  it  has  been 
assumed — at  any  rate  by  the  market  authorities — that 
the  word  "  commodity  "  does  not  comprise  live  animals. 
It  is  obviously  fair,  however,  that  sellers  and  buyers 
should  have  the  power  of  effecting  a  sale  on  the  basis 
which  they  think  best,  instead  of  being,  as  they  now  in 
most  cases  are,  precluded  from  the  use  of  the  scales  by 
the  fact  that  there  are  no  scales  to  use. 

To  quote  a  now  historic  phrase,  "  the  flowing  tide  is 
with  us."  The  tendency  of  the  age,  to  which  allusion 
was  made  at  the  outset,  scarcely  leaves  room  to  doubt 
but  that  the  adoption  of  the  system  of  selling  stock  by 


158  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

live  weight  is  a  question  of  time.  The  principle  is  a  pro- 
gressive one,  and  these  are  progressive  times.  The 
subject  demands  from  the  farmer  unprejudiced  examina- 
tion and  consideration.  He  will  be  wise  if  he  at  once 
sets  to  work  so  to  examine  and  consider  it.  Let  him 
seriously  ask  first  of  all,  Is  the  present  practice  a 
sound  or  satisfactory  one  ?  Is  it  even  a  business-like 
one  ?  Familiarity  breeds  not  only  contempt  but — 
more  frequently — fondness.  That  which  is  habitual  is 
easy  ;  that  which  is  novel  is  difficult.  But  few  will 
maintain  after  frank  thought  that  the  custom  now  in 
vogue  conduces  to  the  interest  of  the  farmer,  or  is  incap- 
able of  improvement.  The  system  proposed  is  no  new 
thing.  In  China — the  oldest  civilised  country  in  the 
world — stock  has  been  sold  by  hve  weight  from  time 
immemorial.  This  at  any  rate  is  ancient  prestige  suffi- 
cient. In  America  the  weighing  machine  has  been  well 
termed  the  stockowner's  "  sheet-anchor."  Stock,  it  is 
generally  agreed,  is  the  hope  of  the  British  farmer.  Let 
him  then  learn  to  make  the  most  of  it. 


CHAPTER    X. 

BRITISH  AND  FRENCH  AGRICULTURE.^ 

Since  the  days  when  JuHus  Csesar  descended  from  Gaul 
upon  our  shores — and  probably  even  before  that  date — 
our  relations  with  our  nearest  continental  neighbour 
have  always  been  intimate.  Whether  the  two  nations 
have  been  at  variance  or  in  accord  they  have,  at  any  rate, 
always  been  of  absorbing  interest  one  to  the  other.  If, 
as  Longfellow  tells  us,  "  there's  nothing  in  the  world 
so  sweet  as  love,  and  next  to  love  the  sweetest  thing 
is  hate,"  we  may  fairly  claim  to  have  tried  both.  But 
whether  we  have  loved  or  hated  we  have  never  ceased 
to  respect  each  other  and  to  be  keenly  interested  in  each 
other's  concerns.  And  the  farmers  of  the  two  countries 
have  special  bonds  of  interest.  No  visitor  to  northern 
France  fails  to  notice  its  agricultural  af&nity  to  southern 
England,  while  French  farmers  have  proved  themselves 
formidable  competitors  in  the  markets  of  this  country, 
and  have  also  been  welcome  customers  to  British  breeders 
of  live  stock. 

In  attempting  to  consider  very  briefly  a  few  of  the 
points  of  comparison  and  contrast  between  British  and 
French  agriculture,  I  cannot  but  be  conscious  that  I  am 
retelling  a  tale  which  has  been  told  many  times  before  by 
distinguished  observers  on  both  sides  of  the  Channel. 
Since  Arthur  Young  wrote  his  "  Tour  in  France  "  many 
writers  have  described  the  conditions  and  practice  of 
French  agriculture,  and  have  in  most  cases  drawn  some 
comparison   with   the   corresponding   features   of   Great 

1  Journal  Bath  and  West  of  England  Society,  Vol.  XV.,  4th  series, 
1905. 


i6o  AN   AGRICULTURAL   FAGGOT. 

Britain.  A  recent  visit  to  the  north  of  France,  in  the 
course  of  which  I  traversed  a  good  deal  of  country  by 
road,  and  had  an  opportunity  of  visiting  several  typical 
farms,  led  me  to  put  together  some  of  the  facts  relating 
to  the  agriculture  of  both  countries  which  may,  perhaps, 
be  of  interest  to  those  who  are  not  familiar  with 
them. 

The  total  area  of  France  is  nearly  double  that  of  the 
United  Kingdom — 131,000,000  acres  as  compared  with 
78,000,000.  Nearly  one-fifth  of  the  whole  of  France  is 
covered  by  woods  and  forests,  and  nearly  10,000,000 
acres  are  returned  as  moor  and  heath  land.  Whether 
any  portion,  and  if  so,  how  much,  of  this  large  expanse 
of  woodland  and  moorland  should  be  considered  as 
contributing  to  agricultural  production,  by  affording 
partial  maintenance  for  stock,  cannot  be  determined,  but 
the  cultivated  area,  including  therein  all  returned  as 
under  crops  and  grass,  amounts  to  almost  precisely 
two-thirds  of  the  whole  country.  In  the  United  Kingdom, 
the  cultivated  area  slightly  exceeds  three-fifths  of  the 
total  surface  ;  but,  in  Great  Britain  alone,  13,000,000 
acres  of  mountain  and  heath  land,  in  addition,  are 
specifically  returned  as  being  utilised  for  stock  grazing. 
If  we  were  to  reckon  this  (as  it  fairly  may  be  reckoned) 
as  forming  part  of  the  agricultural  area,  and  if  we  were 
to  assume  that  the  moor  and  heath  land  in  France  were 
equally  productive,  we  should  find  that  a  larger  proportion 
of  the  surface  of  the  United  Kingdom  than  of  France 
is  utilised  for  agriculture.  On  the  other  hand,  of  the 
non-agricultural  land  it  must  be  allowed  that  the 
advantage  probably  lies  with  our  neighbours.  We  have 
no  woodland  wealth  comparable  to  theirs,  the  latest 
return  (in  1895)  which  we  have  of  woodland  in  Great 
Britain,  showing  that  we  possess  only  2,750,000  acres, 
while  if  Ireland  be  added,  the  total  is  only  3,000,000 
acres,  or  4  per  cent,  of  the  whole  surface  of  the  United 
Kingdom. 


BRITISH  AND  FRENCH  AGRICULTURE.      i6i 


It  may  be  convenient  to  recapitulate  these  facts  in 
tabular  form  : — 


— 

France. 

United  King- 
dom. 

Total  area          .... 

Acres. 
130,374,000 

Acres. 
77,684,000 

Cultivated  acreage  (crops  and  grass) 

Moor  and  heath 
Woods  and  forests 

85,759,000 

9,481,000 

22,224,000 

47,671,000 
12,788,0001 
3,030,000  2 

But  if  the  extent  to  which  the  land  of  the  two  countries 
is  utilised  for  agriculture  is  not  very  dissimilar,  the 
methods  of  its  utilisation  differ  very  widely.  In  France 
four-fifths  of  the  agricultural  land  is  under  arable  cultiva- 
tion, whereas  in  the  United  Kingdom  the  plough  holds 
sway  over  not  more  than  two-fifths.  The  variety  of 
crops  capable  of  successful  cultivation  in  France  is  no 
doubt  one  among  the  many  and  diverse  reasons  for  this 
wide  difference.  It  has  been  said  that  France  is  the  only 
country  in  Europe  where  the  soil  and  climate  are  capable 
of  producing  everything  that  is  required  by  its  inhabitants, 
whether  for  food  or  raiment.  Arthur  Young  divided  the 
country  into  three  zones  :  the  most  southern  being 
bounded  by  the  line  north  of  which  maize  will  not  produce 
corn  as  a  farm  crop  ;  the  central,  situated  between  that 
line  and  the  northern  limit  of  vines  ;  and  the  northern 
zone,  of  course,  lying  beyond  that  limit. 

The  principal  crops  grown  in  the  two  countries  may  be 
shown  concisely  in  a  table,  giving  the  acreage  under  each 
in  parallel  columns,  it  being  remembered  in  appreciating 
their  relative  importance  that  the  proportion  of,  roughly, 
two  to  one  represents  the  difference  in  the  agricultural 
area  of  France  and  the  United  Kingdom. 

'  "  Mountain  and  Heath  Land  used  for  grazing  " — Great 
Britain  only. 

2  For  Great  Britain  in  1895,  for  Ireland  in  1903. 

A.F.  M 


l62 


AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 


France,  1902. 

United  King- 
dom,   1904. 

Acres. 

Acres. 

Wheat 

16,212,366 

1,407,618 

Barley     ..... 

1,713,968 

2,002,854 

Oats         ..... 

9.465.371 

4.351. 183 

Rye 

3,289,435 

65.177 

Maize 

1,241,452 

Millet 

72,897 

— 

Buckwheat       .... 

1.384.783 

6.392  1 

Mixed  corn       .... 

417,904 

— 

Beans,  peas,  haricots  and  lentils . 

683,923 

430,826 

Potatoes            .... 

3,601,868 

1,200,419 

Colza       ..... 

86,630 

— 

Beetroot            .... 

1,941,926 

475.313^ 

Turnips  and  swedes  . 

— 

1,898,010 

Flax 

54.330 

44,856 

Hemp      ..... 

52.794 

Hops        ..... 

6,709 

47.799 

Small  fruit        .... 

— 

82,980 

Vines       ..... 

4.358.310 

— 

Tobacco  ..... 

44,816 

— 

Lucerne  ..... 

2,501,989 

55.724' 

Clover,  sainfoin  and  other  fodder 

crops    ..... 

6,454.849 

6.470,565 

Permanent  grass 

20,967,667 

28,693,305 

Orchards.          .... 

2,085,211  * 

243,008 

Bare  fallow       .... 

8,317.769 

437.927 

Wheat,  barley,  oats,  and  rye  are  grown  to  a  greater  or 
less  extent  all  over  France,  but  many  of  the  other  crops 
are  only  partially  distributed.  Thus,  maize  is  to  be 
found  in  little  more  than  half  of  the  eighty-seven  depart- 
ments, and  in  only  about  one-fourth  can  it  be  said  to  be 
extensively  cultivated.  Buckwheat  is  mainly  grown  in 
the  North-west,  although  there  are  but  few  departments 
without  some  land  under  that  crop.  Hops,  which  are 
confined  in  the  United  Kingdom  to  eight  counties,  are  in 
France  grown  in  eleven  departments,  although  97  per 
cent,  of  the  whole  crop  is  to  be  found  in  the  three  depart- 

1  Great  Britain  only. 

Mangold. 
'  In  1892.     Including  olives,  almonds,  mulberries,  chestnuts, 
etc. 


BRITISH  AND  FRENCH   AGRICULTURE.      163 


ments  of  Cote-d'Or,  Meurthe-et-Moselle,  and  Nord. 
Tobacco  is  cultivated  more  or  less  in  twenty-four  depart- 
ments, but  chiefly  in  four  contiguous  departments  of  the 
South-west — Dordogne,  Lot  et  Garonne,  Lot,  Gironde — 
in  Isere,  in  Pas  de  Calais,  and  in  the  island  of  Corsica. 
Vines,  although,  of  course,  mainly  to  be  found  in  the  South, 
are  more  widely  grown  than  is  sometimes  supposed  ; 
practically  every  department,  except  those  actually 
bordering  on  the  English  Channel,  having  a  certain  acreage. 

The  extension  or  contraction  of  the  acreage  under  one 
or  two  of  the  principal  crops  common  to  both  countries  is 
concisely  indicated  by  the  following  figures. 

The  years  1882  and  1892  are  taken  as  those  for  which 
the  results  of  the  decennial  agricultural  inquiry  in  France 
are  available.  The  results  of  that  taken  in  1902  are  not 
yet  published,  but  the  latest  figures,  as  issued  by  the 
Minister  for  Agriculture,  may  be  adopted.  It  should  be 
noted  that  wheat  in  France  includes  spelt. 


In  thousands  of  Acres  (ooo's  omitted). 

— 

France. 

United  Kingdom. 

1882. 

1892. 

1902. 

1882. 

1892. 

1902. 

Wheat  . 
Barley  . 
Oats      . 
Potatoes 

17,761 
2,411 
8,989 
3.305 

17,702 
2,102 
9,401 

3,641 

16,212 
1. 714 
9.465 
3,602 

3.164 

2,452 

4.245 
1,388 

2,299 
2,220 
4,238 
1.277 

1.773 
2,083 

4.157 
1,215 

If  the  latest  figures  (those  of  1904)  for  the  United 
Kingdom  were  taken,  they  would  show  a  somewhat 
different  comparison.  They  stand :  Wheat,  1,407,618 
acres  ;  barley,  2,002,854  acres ;  oats,  4,351,183  acres  ; 
potatoes,  1,200,419  acres.  In  any  case  the  salient  point 
of  this  comparison  is  the  relative  change  in  the  wheat  area 
of  the  two  countries.     In  both  there  has  been  a  dechne ; 

M2 


i64  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

but  whereas  in  France  the  decrease  has  been  less  than 
9  per  cent.,  in  the  United  Kingdom  it  has  been  44  per  cent., 
if  we  take  the  1902  figures  ;  and  nearly  56  per  cent.,  if  the 
1904  figures  are  taken.  Barley,  on  the  other  hand,  has 
declined  rather  more  in  France  than  here,  while  oats  have 
increased  about  5  per  cent,  in  France,  and  have  about 
held  their  own  in  the  United  Kingdom. 

There  are  in  France,  of  course,  certain  methods  of 
farming  to  which  we  have  no  parallel  on  this  side  of  the 
Channel.  About  one-tenth  in  value  of  the  whole  produce 
of  the  soil  (and  the  decennial  inquiry  comprises  a  valuation 
of  all  crops  including  grass  and  woodlands)  is  accounted 
for  by  vines,  while  the  silkworm  industry  is  also  one  with 
which  we  have  nothing  to  compare.  So  far  as  ordinary 
arable  farming  is  concerned,  the  typical  French  system 
as  described  by  Arthur  Young  and  referred  to  by  H.  M. 
Jenkins,^  viz.,  the  three-course — two  white  crops  (winter 
corn  followed  by  spring)  and  a  bare  fallow  in  the  third 
year — is  still  largely  practised,  although  it  appears  to 
have  been  now  very  generally  modified  by  the  substitu- 
tion of  a  green  crop  for  the  bare  fallow.  I  do  not  know  to 
what  extent,  or  in  what  districts,  this  system  now  prevails 
in  France,  but  it  apparently  exists  over  a  good  part  of 
Normandy.  Travelling  by  motor,  we  took  occasion  now 
and  again  to  stop  by  the  wayside  and  interview  the  men 
who  were  working  on  the  land.  In  the  country  lying 
between  Abbeville  and  Treport,  for  example,  we  saw 
a  farmer  who  was  occupied  in  cutting  his  wheat,  his 
wife  tying  after  him,  and  the  baby  in  a  perambulator 
sleeping  peacefully  in  the  corner  of  the  field — if  field  one 
may  call  a  patch  of  ground  in  a  wide  expanse  of  country 
comprising  many  farms  without  a  single  fence  in  sight. 
He  told  us  that  his  course  was  (i)  wheat,  (2)  oats,  (3)  beet- 
root or  clover,  and  it  seemed  that  this  was  mainly  the 
practice  throughout  that  district.  The  land  struck  one 
as  being  clean  and  well-managed,  with  that  rigid  economy 
*  Report  to  Royal  Commission  on  Agriculture,  1882. 


BRITISH  AND  FRENCH  AGRICULTURE.      165 

of  space  which  so  impresses  the  Enghshman  accustomed 
to  wide  headlands,  straggHng  fences,  and  hedgerow  timber. 
Yet  there  can  be  Httle  doubt,  it  seems  to  me,  that  this 
system  of  farming  is  essentially  a  survival  from  the  time 
of  the  occupation  of  Gaul  by  the  Romans,  who  probably 
introduced  the  three-field  course  into  France,  as  they 
apparently  did  into  Germany  and  this  country.  Dr. 
Seebohm^  has  pointed  out  that  the  homage  of  Hitchin 
Manor  presented  that  the  common  fields  within  the  town- 
ship had  immemorially  been,  and  ought  to  be,  kept  in 
three  successive  seasons  of  (i)  tilth  grain,  (2)  etch  grain, 
and  (3)  fallow — the  first  meaning  winter  corn  and  the 
second  spring  corn.  The  word  "  etch,"  or  "  eddish," 
which  remains  in  use  in  many  districts  of  England  to  this 
day,  occurs  frequently  in  Tusser,  thus — under  directions 
for  October — 

Seed  first  go  fetch 
For  edish  or  etch. 
White  wheat,  if  ye  please, 
Sow  now  upon  pease. 

In  the  sixteenth  century,  when  Tusser  wrote,  there 
appears  to  have  been  a  diversity  of  practice,  as  he 
recognises  wheat  after  a  pulse  crop,  although  he  recom- 
mends a  fallow  : — 

White  wheat  upon  pease-etch  doth  grow  as  he  would. 
But  fallow  is  best  if  we  did  as  we  should. 

It  appears,  then,  that  for  centuries  a  three-  (or  by  omitting 
the  fallow)  a  two-field  course  was  the  prevaihng  system 
in  Great  Britain,  and  it  was  probably  not  until  the  general 
introduction  of  the  turnip  that  the  four-course,  or  Norfolk 
system,  with  local  modifications  thereof,  broke  away 
from  the  old  traditions  and  altered  farm  practice  generally. 
It  would  seem  that  in  France  the  three-course  system 
with  the  fallow  must  have  been  persisted  in  extensively, 
having  regard  to  the  fact  that  nearly  one-eighth  of  the 

*  "  The  English  Village  Community,"  4th  edition,  pp.  376  et  seq. 


i66  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

whole  area  under  the  plough  is  returned  as  bare  fallow, 
whereas  the  United  Kingdom  has  not  more  than  2  per 
cent.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  in  the  districts  I 
happen  to  have  visited  no  large  amount  of  bare  fallow 
was  noticeable,  but  the  three-course  system  obviously 
holds  sway  among  farmers  of  all  classes.  Thus  on  a 
farm  of  about  625  acres,  near  Magny,  which  I  spent  an 
afternoon  in  looking  over,  nearly  the  whole  was  arable, 
and  a  three-course  rotation — wheat,  oats,  and  beetroot 
mostly — was  adopted. 

On  the  excellently  managed  estate  of  the  Vicomte 
Arthur  de  Chezelles,  at  Le  Boulleaume,  Oise,  where  I 
spent  a  most  interesting  day,  about  400  acres  of  the 
1,500  acres,  which  the  Vicomte  himself  personally  farms 
and  controls,  were  under  sugar  beet  at  the  time  of  our 
visit.  There  is  an  admirably-equipped  distillery  on  the 
estate,  where  alcohol  is  extracted  from  the  sugar  beet. 
The  beet  is  grown  in  as  close  proximity  as  possible  to  the 
distillery,  and  consequently  a  large  area  is  farmed  on  a 
two-course  rotation,  wheat  alternated  with  sugar  beet. 
Vicomte  de  Chezelles  will  be  remembered  as  an  enthu- 
siastic advocate  of  the  system  of  ensilage,  which  he  did 
much  to  bring  under  the  notice  of  English  farmers  on 
his  visit  to  the  Reading  Show  of  the  R.  A.  S.  E.  in  1882, 
and  subsequently  by  permitting  the  publication  of  full 
descriptions  of  his  own  practice.  He  is  still  convinced 
of  the  advantages  of  the  system,  and,  indeed,  stated  that 
after  twenty-seven  years'  experience  he  believed  in  it 
more  than  ever.  At  the  time  of  our  visit  the  famous 
silo  was  filled  with  the  product  of  about  300  acres  of 
clover,  lucerne,  sainfoin,  and  grass.  The  stuff  is  tipped 
into  the  silo  and  trodden  down  by  six  oxen,  who  go 
backwards  and  forwards  over  it  during  the  time  of  filling, 
and  when  full  the  whole  is  covered  with  18  inches  of 
earth. 

This  estate  provides  an  excellent  example  of  up-to- 
date   farm   management.     Labour-saving   equipment   is 


BRITISH  AND  FRENCH  AGRICULTURE.      167 

carried  to  its  utmost  development.  The  work  of  carting 
the  immense  quantity  of  beetroot  to  the  distillery  is 
facilitated  by  a  portable  tramway,  which  is  laid  down  as 
required  to  any  part  of  the  land  from  which  the  roots 
are  being  drawn.  The  Hquid  residuum  from  the  process 
of  distilling  is  said  to  possess  considerable  manurial 
value,  and  this  is  conveyed  back  to  the  land  by  an 
elaborate  system  of  movable  conduit  pipes.  The  pulp 
is  stored  in  pits  and  used  for  stock  feeding.  The  working 
oxen,  of  which  there  are  sixty,  are  mainly  fed  on  this 
pulp,  with  some  green  fodder  and  straw.  A  considerable 
breadth  of  land  is  devoted  to  lucerne,  a  crop  which  the 
Vicomte  values  highly.  It  is  sown  with  oats  and  left 
down  for  five  years.  Among  the  many  interesting 
features  of  this  estate  some  admirably  constructed  open 
sheds,  serving  either  as  Dutch  barns,  or  for  sheltering 
waggons  and  machinery,  were  especially  noticeable. 

The  diversity  of  farm  practice,  which  may  be  met  with 
even  during  a  short  and  restricted  tour  in  northern  France, 
is  remarkable.  For  miles  along  the  coast  one  sees 
undulating  downs,  reminding  one  of  Wiltshire  or  Dorset- 
shire, save  for  the  fact  that  they  comprise  so  much  more 
arable  land.  Then  again,  one  crosses  a  wide  plateau, 
covered,  as  far  as  eye  can  reach,  with  golden  corn,  with 
interstices  of  sainfoin,  clover,  or  beetroot,  and  now  and 
again  a  brown  patch  of  colza,  or  a  ruddy  oasis  of  buck- 
wheat. Then  the  road  dips  suddenly  into  a  valley,  along 
which  a  stream  flows,  edged  by  two  narrow  meadows  of 
rich  grass.  Or  one  finds,  as  between  Mantes  and  La 
Roche  Guyon,  for  example,  a  rich  plain  by  the  river 
edged  with  low  southern-fronting  hills,  where  la  petite 
culture  flourishes,  and  the  land  looks  like  a  patchwork 
quilt  with  small  plots  of  vines  standing  prominently 
amidst  a  variety  of  other  field  and  garden  crops. 

The  numbers  of  farm  live  stock  in  France  and  the 
United  Kingdom  respectively  are  shown  in  the  following 
table  :— 


i68 


AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 


France,  1902. 

United  Kingdom, 
1904. 

Cows      .... 
Other  cattle    . 

8,317,924 
6,610,626 

4,193,721 
7,381,830 

Total  cattle  . 
Sheep    .... 
Pigs        .... 
Horses  .... 

14,928,550 

18,476,788 
7,209,174 
3,028,478 

11,575,551 

29,105,109 

4,191,695 

2,100,634 

France. 

United  Kingdom 

174 

243 

215 

610 

The  relative  density  of  live  stock  on  the  land  is  much 
greater  in  this  country  than  in  France.  This  is  fairly 
shown  by  a  comparison  of  the  numbers  in  relation  to  the 
agricultural  area  of  the  respective  countries.  The  number 
per  1,000  acres  of  land  under  cultivation,  including,  of 
course,  permanent  pasture,  but  not  including  moor 
or  heath  land,  is  as  follows  : — 

Cattle 

Sheep 

Pigs  ...  «4  a» 

Horses       ...  34  43 

It  will  be  seen  that,  relatively,  France  has  only  about 
two-thirds  of  the  cattle,  one-third  of  the  sheep,  and  three- 
fourths  of  the  horses,  but  nearly  as  many  pigs  as  we 
have.  Adding  together  all  four  kinds  of  stock,  it  will 
be  seen  that  while  we  carry  as  nearly  as  possible  one  head 
of  stock  per  acre,  French  agriculturists  possess  about 
one  head  of  stock  for  every  two  acres  of  land  under 
cultivation.  It  should  be  added  that  about  500,000  mules 
and  asses,  and  about  1,500,000  goats,  are  enumerated  in 
France,  while  there  is  no  record  of  the  number  of  these 
animals  in  the  United  Kingdom. 

In  both  countries,  town  and  pleasure  horses  are  not 
included  in  the  returns,  which  represent  only  those  kept 
on  the  farm  ;  but  it  should  be  remembered  that  whereas 
in  this  country  practically  all  the  animal  labour  employed 


BRITISH  AND  FRENCH  AGRICULTURE.      169 

in  agriculture  is  included  in  the  horses  returned,  in 
France  a  large  proportion  of  the  cattle  are  utilised  for 
work  as  well  as  for  beef.  In  1892  the  number  of  working 
oxen  was  returned  as  1,387,050.  It  may  be  noted  that 
this  fact  probably  serves  to  swell  the  number  of  cattle 
returned,  as  compared  with  this  country,  as  a  working 
ox  no  doubt  lives  longer,  and  consequently  figures  more 
often  in  the  annual  census  than  a  steer  in  this  country. 

It  is  many  years  since  the  question  of  the  advantage 
of  em.ploying  oxen  for  farm  work  was  debated  and 
finally  settled  in  this  country.  Here  and  there  it  is 
still  possible  to  find,  even  in  southern  England,  a  team 
of  oxen  ploughing,  but  the  sight  is  so  uncommon  as  to 
attract  attention  by  reason  of  its  rarity.  To  the  vast 
majority  of  British  farmers  the  superiority  of  horses  over 
oxen  for  farm  work  is  as  much  a  settled  question  as  the 
superiority  of  the  threshing  machine  over  the  flail.  But 
in  France,  the  relative  economy  of  ox  and  horse  labour 
is  a  question  of  very  living  interest  and  frequent  dis- 
cussion. Certainly  nothing  could  be  further  from  the 
truth  than  the  assumption  that  those  who  employ  ox 
labour  are  in  any  sense  unprogressive  or  unintelligent. 
They  have  a  very  intimate  appreciation  of  the  arguments 
for  and  against,  and  their  practice  is  based  on  a  careful 
calculation  of  the  financial  considerations  involved.  On 
the  estate  of  Vicomte  de  Chezelles,  previously  mentioned, 
both  oxen  and  horses  are  used — sixty  of  the  former 
and  forty  of  the  latter.  In  one  field  of  wheat  on  that 
farm  three  McCormick  sheaf-binders  were  at  work,  each 
drawn  by  three  horses.  Ploughing  and  water-carting 
were  being  done  by  oxen.  The  cost  of  keeping  an  ox, 
especially  on  an  estate  where  sugar-beet  is  extensively 
grown,  and  where  he  is  fed  largely  on  the  pulp,  which  is 
in  effect  a  bye-product,  is  very  small,  and  much  less  than 
that  of  a  horse.  Then  again,  he  is  reared  to  a  working 
age  at  less  expense  and  with  less  trouble  ;  if  he  goes 
wrong  at  any  time,  or  meets  with  an  accident,  he  is  not, 


170  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

like  a  horse,  a  dead  loss,  but  can  be  at  once  turned  into 
profit,  and  at  the  end  of  his  life  he  has  a  value  which  is 
considerably  greater  than  that  of  a  horse.     The  agent  of 
another  estate  which  I  visited  mentioned,  in  discussing 
this  question,  that  he  reckoned  the  cost  of  a  day's  work 
of  a  team  of  three  horses  at  nearly  50  per  cent,  more  than 
that  of  a  team  of  four  oxen.     It  seems  to  be  generally 
reckoned  that  three  horses  are  equal  to  four  oxen  in 
haulage-power.     Of   course,   it  is  recognised  that   oxen 
move  more  slowly,   and,   consequently,  where  speed  is 
required,  as  in  road  work,  for  instance,  horses  have  the 
preference.     But  in  operations  such  as  ploughing — though 
I  have  no  data  available  on  a  point  which  no  doubt  has 
been  carefully  worked  out — it  is  possible  that  the  loss  by 
reason  of  lower  speed  may  be  easily  exaggerated.      Some 
of  our  ploughing  with  horses  is  not  done  very  rapidly,  and 
it  is  to  be  remembered  that  it  is  not  the  possible  speed  of 
the  horse,  but  the  actual  rate  of  walking  of  the  man,  which 
sets  the  pace.     We  have,  of  course,  no  breed  of  cattle  in 
this  country  comparable,  for  draught  purposes,  with  the 
Charolais  or  Charolais-Nivernais  cattle  of  France.     Most 
picturesque   they   look — big,    upstanding,    strong,   with 
heavy  fore-ends,    massive  heads  and  widespread  horns, 
in  colour  either  a  pure  white,  or  what  a  French  writer  terms 
"cafe  au  lait  clair,"  placid,  patient,  and  well  trained, 
but  with  a  deliberate,  dignified  gait,  which,  it  must  be 
admitted,  gives  such  an  impression  of  slowness  that  even 
the  heaviest  shire  horse  appears  active  by  comparison. 

But  where  oxen  are  kept  in  France  the  working  horses 
are  not  slow.  The  favourite  breed  is  the  Percheron, 
and  it  may  fairly  be  said  that  we  have  none  better.  On 
the  well-known  estate  of  M.  Thome,  at  Pinceloup,  Seine- 
et-Oise,  where  the  stock  of  all  kinds — horses,  cattle, 
sheep,  pigs,  and  dogs — are  of  the  very  highest  excellence, 
I  saw  some  fine  specimens  of  the  Percheron  breed  of 
horses.  They  are  lighter  and  more  active-looking  than 
our   Shires   and   Clydesdales.     Those   I   saw   here   were 


BRITISH  AND  FRENCH  AGRICULTURE.      171 


either  white  or  black,  but  grey  is,  I  beheve,  the  prevaiHng 
colour.  It  is  said  that  bay  was  the  original  colour  of 
the  breed,  but  that  it  was  supplanted  by  grey  in  conse- 
quence of  the  drivers  of  night  diligences  always  asking  for 
grey  horses  for  their  relays,  as  being  more  visible  by  night. 
We  are  accustomed  to  think  that  we  possess  in  this 
country  a  goodly  number  of  different  breeds  of  cattle, 
and  no  doubt  it  would  puzzle  many  people  to  give  a 
complete  list  of  them.  If  we  may  take  the  possession 
of  a  Herd  Book  as  evidence  of  sufficient  claims  to  recog- 
nition as  an  established  breed,  there  are  in  the  British 
Isles  seventeen  distinct  breeds.  There  are,  no  doubt, 
some  other  local  varieties  which  might  claim  to  be 
regarded  as  distinctive  breeds,  but  their  numbers  are 
few.  Although  it  will  be  generally  admitted  that  the 
Shorthorns  are  the  most  numerous  and  the  most  widely 
distributed  throughout  the  country,  we  have  no  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  number  of  pure-bred  animals  of  the 
different  breeds  or  the  number  which,  although  not 
pure -bred,  possess  the  essential  characteristics  of  a  par- 
ticular breed,  and  for  practical  purposes  may  be  described 
by  its  name.  In  Ireland,  where  the  collection  of  detailed 
information  from  farmers  does  not  perhaps  present  quite 
the  same  difficulty  as  in  Great  Britain,  statistics  are 
available  showing  the  number  of  bulls  of  each  breed. 
From  the  figures  for  1903  it  appears  that  the  numbers  in 
that  year  were  as  follows  : — 


Breed. 

Bred  in 
Ireland. 

Imported. 

Total. 

Shorthorn 

10,566 

■^43 

10,809 

Hereford  .... 

366 

34 

400 

Aberdeen  Angus 

695 

138 

833 

Norfolk  Red  Polled    . 

121 

17 

138 

Kerry        .... 

304 

2 

306 

Dexter      .... 

83 

I 

84 

Channel  Island 

35 

15 

50 

Cross-bred 

4.194 

84 

4,278 

Total  . 

16,364 

534 

16,898 

172  AN   AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

These  figures  would  hardly  represent  the  relative  im- 
portance of  the  same  breeds  in  Great  Britain,  Probably 
the  supremacy  of  the  Shorthorn  would  be  less  marked, 
and  there  are  several  other  important  breeds — such  as  the 
Devon,  Sussex,  Galloway,  Ayrshire,  Black  Welsh,  High- 
land, Lincolnshire  Red,  and  Longhorn — which  would  have 
to  be  taken  into  account.  It  is  to  be  hoped  also,  though 
not  perhaps  with  very  great  confidence,  that  the  propor- 
tion of  cross-bred  bulls  in  use  on  this  side  of  St.  George's 
Channel  is  substantially  less  than  the  one-fourth  which 
are  found  in  Ireland. 

In  France,  although  the  information  collected  at  the 
time  of  the  special  agricultural  census  held  every  ten 
years  is  very  much  more  complete  and  detailed  than  we 
are  able  to  obtain  in  this  country,  no  attempt  is  made  to 
enumerate  the  number  of  animals  of  particular  breeds. 
It  happens,  however,  that  this  subject  has  recently  been 
investigated  with  exhaustive  care  by  M.  de  Lapparent, 
the  Inspector-General  of  Agriculture,^  and  from  the  result 
of  his  inquiries  it  is  possible  to  ascertain  the  relative 
importance  and  distribution  of  the  different  breeds  of 
cattle.  It  appears  that  the  number  is  considerably 
greater  than  in  this  country,  although  many  of  the  older 
varieties  are  disappearing.  In  1881,  M.  Demdle  distin- 
guished thirty-eight  breeds,  but  M.  de  Lapparent  con- 
siders that  this  should  now  properly  be  reduced  to  twenty- 
three  without  counting  "  les  Durhams  "  (Shorthorns), 
The  number  of  cattle  estimated  as  belonging  to  a  parti- 
cular breed  is  about  7,000,000,  which,  applied  to  the 
census  figures  for  1892,  would  leave  about  5,500,000  as 
cross-breds  "  more  or  less  indefinable."  The  most  im- 
portant breed  is  the  Normande,  which  occupies  the 
departments  of  Manche,  Calvados,  Orne,  Eure,  Seine 
Inferieure,  and  Eure-et-Loir,  and  extends  its  influence 
more  or  less  into  all  the  departments  adjacent  thereto. 

*  "  fitude  sur  les  races,  varidtes  at  croisements  de  I'espece  bovine 
en  France":  Ministere  de  I'Agriculture,  "  Annales,"  1902. 


BRITISH  AND  FRENCH  AGRICULTURE.       173 

It  is  estimated  that  the  number  of  cattle  of  this  breed  is 
1,600,000.  It  was  the  first  French  breed  for  which  a 
Herd  Book  was  estabhshed.  This  was  started  in  1884. 
The  Normande  is  essentially  a  dairy  breed,  and  it  is 
reckoned  that  a  good  cow  fed  on  the  rich  land  of  its  own 
province  will  give  from  616  to  660  gallons  of  milk  during  a 
lactation  period  of  eight  months.  The  breed  which  ranks 
next  in  importance  is  the  Charolais,  which  is  estimated  to 
number  1,026,000  head,  and  is  found  chiefly  in  the  depart- 
ments of  Allier,  Sadne-et-Loire,  Nievre,  Loire,  Cher,  and 
Yonne.  It  is  the  draught  breed  par  excellence,  and  is  a 
poor  milker,  but  hardy,  and  for  furnishing  working  oxen 
it  has  probably  no  equal,  its  size  and  strength  admirably 
adapting  it  for  this  purpose.  Although  not  in  any  sense 
what  could  be  termed  "  a  good  doer  "  it  appears  that  its 
aptitude  to  fatten  is  in  comparison  superior  to  that  of 
other  draught  breeds.  The  breed  next  in  importance, 
which  is  estimated  as  being  represented  by  nearly 
1,000,000  head,  is  the  Parthenaise,  which  is  found  in  the 
west  of  France,  mainly  in  the  departments  of  Vendee, 
Loire  Inferieure,  Deux  Sevres,  Vienne,  and  Charente 
Inferieure.  Its  area  of  influence  is,  however,  decreasing, 
the  reason  apparently  being  that,  although  it  is  excellent 
as  a  draught  breed,  the  oxen  are  slow  to  develop  and  hard 
to  fatten  when  they  have  done  working.  The  Flamande 
breed,  which  is  found  mainly  in  Picardy,  is  estimated  at 
670,000  head,  the  departments  of  Nord,  Pas  de  Calais, 
Somme,  Aisne,  and  Oise  being  practically  monopolised  by 
it  and  its  crosses.  Near  Montreuil  we  passed  through  a 
small  village,  where  a  farmer  was  just  rounding  into  his 
yard  his  herd  of  about  a  score  of  handsome  dark-red 
Flemish  cows.  We  pulled  up  to  let  them  pass  and  had 
some  talk  with  the  farmer.  He  was  evidently  proud  of 
his  herd,  and  was  pleased  to  hear  them  praised.  He  was 
emphatic  in  his  opinion  that  there  was  no  better  dairying 
breed,  and  that  the  Flemish  cows  gave  more  and  better 
milk  than  the  Normandy  cows.     The  breed  has  been 


174  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT 

greatly  improved  from  the  original  stock,  partly  by 
crossing  with  the  Shorthorn,  notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  its  amelioration  was  seriously  checked  by  the  war  of 
1870,  and  also  by  the  ravages  of  cattle  plague.  While  the 
Flamande  breed  mingles  with  the  Normande  on  the  west, 
on  the  east  it  is  a  good  deal  crossed  with  the  Dutch  breed, 
which  occupies  a  good  part  of  the  department  of  the  Nord. 
It  is  estimated  that  there  are  about  30,000  Dutch  cattle  in 
France,  but  the  influence  of  the  breed  is  widely  felt 
throughout  the  dairying  districts  of  the  north  and  north- 
east. 

The  influence  of  the  Shorthorn  in  France  has  been  very 
great,  not  only  by  the  direct  effect  of  crossing  with  the 
native  breeds,  but  also  by  providing  the  model,  so  to 
speak,  which  breeders  might  attempt  to  copy  in  their 
efforts  to  attain  improvement  of  form  and  greater  pre- 
cocity. M.  de  Lapparent  observes  that  there  was  a  period 
in  France  of  a  veritable  infatuation  for  the  Shorthorn, 
which  was  regarded  as  the  one  source  of  amelioration  for 
any  and  every  breed  of  cattle.  As  the  French  author  of 
a  work  on  the  "  Races  Bovines  "  of  France,  England, 
Switzerland,  and  Holland,  enthusiastically  wrote,  about 
forty  years  ago,  "  Le  Durham,  voila  le  vrai  type  amehora- 
teur."  But,  with  time  and  experience,  it  came  to  be 
recognised  that  certain  breeds  responded  best  to  its 
influence,  and  its  use  became  more  limited.  For  nearly 
seventy  years  pure  Shorthorns  have  been  bred  in  France, 
and  there  are  now  many  long-established  herds  of  high 
reputation.  One  of  the  best  known  is  that  of  Pinceloup, 
which  we  visited,  and  the  owner,  M.  Thome,  stated  that  he 
had  bred  Shorthorns  for  forty-two  years.  It  is  somewhat 
curious  to  observe,  however,  that  the  breeding  of  Short- 
horns appears  to  be  declining.  In  1869  there  were 
305  Shorthorn  herds  in  France,  of  which  130  were  classed 
as  "  important,"  and  175  as  "  secondary."  In  1897  the 
number  was  reduced  to  200,  of  which  109  were  important, 
and  91  secondary.     A  remarkable  exception  to  the  general 


BRITISH  AND   FRENCH   AGRICULTURE.      175 

tendency  to  reduction  is  found  in  Finistere,  where  no  less 
than  sixty-three  new  herds  were  estabhshed  during  the 
period  referred  to.  Among  the  reasons  given  for  the 
decline  of  the  Shorthorns  are  :  first,  that  it  is  of  little 
benefit  for  the  improvement  of  breeds  which  have  to 
provide  working  oxen,  living  in  a  climate  and  under 
conditions  widely  different  from  the  native  home  of  the 
Shorthorns  ;  secondly,  that  while  an  infusion  of  Short- 
horn blood  has  been  beneficial  to  many  breeds,  the  limit 
of  the  benefit  which  it  can  confer  has  been  reached  ; 
thirdly,  where  Shorthorns  have  been  most  used  they 
have  now  completely  impressed  their  characteristics  upon 
the  original  breed,  which  approaches  so  closely  to  the 
Shorthorn  type  that  further  crossing  is  unnecessary  ;  and 
fourthly,  that  dairy  farmers  do  not  think  the  Shorthorn 
tends  to  improve  the  milking  qualities  of  their  cattle.  It 
may  also  be  that  an  additional  reason  is  to  be  found  in  the 
general  estabhshment  in  France,  as  in  England,  of  Herd 
Books  for  the  principal  breeds,  and  the  consequent 
exclusion,  as  far  as  their  influence  extends,  of  all  foreign 
blood.  There  is  one  breed  which  has  been  not  only 
improved  but  apparently  absorbed  by  the  Shorthorns. 
The  Mancelle  breed  has  now  almost  disappeared,  and  its 
place  taken  by  the  Durham-Manceaux  breed,  which  is 
estimated  to  number  674,000  head,  and  occupies  mainly 
the  departments  of  Maine-et-Loire,  Mayenne,  Loire- 
Inferieure,  and  Ille-et-Vilaine. 

The  little  Breton  breed  of  cattle — the  richness  of  whose 
milk  has  largely  accounted  for  the  fame  of  Brittany 
butter — are  estimated  to  number  about  850,000  head. 
The  Salers  and  Limousin  breeds,  kept  in  the  south  of 
France,  each  reach  nearly  500,000  in  number,  and  among 
other  breeds  of  importance  may  be  mentioned  the  Garon- 
naise  (365,000), the Comtoise,  Bearnaise,  Aubrac,  Fcmeline, 
Bressane,  Tarine,  Mezenc,  Ferrando-Forezienne,  and 
Gasconne. 

The  system  of  tethering  cattle  on  the  arable  land  is 


176  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

widely  prevalent,  and  naturally  attracts  the  notice  of  the 
English  visitor.  Frequently  one  sees  a  line  of  stock 
along  the  edge  of  a  piece  of  clover,  or  other  fodder  crop, 
each  animal  tethered  at  a  measured  distance  from  the 
next,  and  so  that  it  can  comfortably  reach  its  allotted 
stretch  of  provender.  There  is  economy  in  the  practice — 
instead  of  cutting  and  carting  the  green  food  to  the  stock 
they  fetch  it  for  themselves. 

The  scarcity  of  sheep  is  very  apparent,  but  to  some 
extent  it  is  more  apparent  than  real.  One  farmer,  whose 
farm  I  visited,  had  a  flock  of  500,  which  twenty  years  ago 
was  Merino,  but  by  the  constant  use  of  Southdown  rams 
is  now  to  all  appearance  Southdown.  He  explained  that 
the  practice  was  to  keep  them  all  housed  for  the  greater 
part  of  the  year.  At  that  time  (August)  the  ewes  were 
folded  on  a  piece  of  clover,  but  all  the  lambs  were  in  the 
buildings  as  well  as  the  rams.  One  interesting  point  was 
mentioned.  The  ewes  are  divided  into  two  lots,  one 
being  served  in  August  and  the  other  in  November,  and 
he  attributed  the  possibility  of  this  practice  to  the  Merino 
strain  in  the  ewes.  M.  Thome  possesses  an  excellent 
flock  of  Southdowns,  which  has  taken  high  honours  at 
the  principal  shows  in  France.  At  Le  Boulleaume,  part 
of  the  sheep  are  Southdowns,  and  part  a  cross  between  the 
Southdown  and  the  Dishley-Merino.  Rams  had  been 
imported  from  Sandringham  and  Babraham.  There  is 
no  doubt  that  the  Leicesters,  to  some  extent,  and  the 
Southdowns,  very  largely,  as  well  as  some  other  English 
breeds,  have  been  used  in  the  improvement  of  the  sheep 
of  France.  The  earliest  amelioration  of  the  native  stock 
came,  as  in  so  many  other  parts  of  the  world,  from  the 
Merino.  I  visited  the  famous  State  farm  of  Rambouillet, 
over  the  stately  portal  of  which  is  inscribed  : — 

"  Curat  oves  oviumque  magistros." 

It  was  established  at  the  time  when  there  was  a  general 
movement  to  introduce  the  Merinos,  which  Spain  had  so 


BRITISH  AND  FRENCH  AGRICULTURE.      177 

long  and  jealously  guarded,  into  other  parts  of  the 
Continent.  Sweden  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  country 
to  obtain  specimens  ;  but,  although  they  were  introduced 
into  that  country  in  1723,  it  was  not  until  1793  that  they 
became  firmly  estabhshed  there.  In  1765,  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  obtained  from  the  King  of  Spain  100  rams  and 
200  ewes,  which  were  the  progenitors  of  the  famous 
Merinos  of  that  country,  and  three  years  later  they  were 
introduced  into  Prussia.  In  1775,  the  Empress  Maria 
Theresa  imported  them  into  Hungary,  and  in  1791 
George  III.  secured  a  flock  of  Merinos  and  brought  them 
to  this  country.  The  well-intentioned  but,  as  is  now 
recognised,  ill-advised  attempt  to  establish  the  breed  here 
failed,  notwithstanding  energetic  Royal  support,  seconded 
by  an  influential  society  founded  for  the  express  purpose 
of  promoting  the  breeding  of  Merinos  in  Great  Britain. 
There  was  no  difficulty  in  acclimatising  the  sheep,  or  in 
maintaining  their  type  and  character,  but  they  were  not 
adapted  to  the  requirements  of  British  flockmasters,  who 
had  just  learnt  from  Bakewell  the  art  of  breeding  for 
economic  meat  production,  and  were  not  content  to 
sacrifice  everything  for  wool.  Mr.  Ellman  was  the  most 
famous  breeder  who  gave  Merinos  a  trial,  but  he  declined 
to  continue  the  experiment.  He  stated  that  he  could 
not  get  them  to  fatten,  although  he  treated  them  as  well 
as  other  sheep,  and  that  he  could  fatten  three  Southdowns 
for  one  Merino. 

The  first  attempt  to  introduce  the  Merino  into  France 
was  made  by  Colbert  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  but  his  efforts  were  frustrated  by  the  prejudices 
of  the  people.  In  1786,  Louis  XVI.  imported  a  consider- 
able number  of  Merinos  from  Spain,  and  established  a 
flock  at  Rambouillet,  where,  in  handsome  and  well- 
arranged  quarters,  their  descendants  are  housed  to  this 
day.  In  the  various  houses  were  150  rams,  representing, 
no  doubt,  the  highest  perfection  of  this  class  of  sheep, 
and  presenting  an  appearance  of  remarkable  uniformity 

A.F.  N 


178  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

of  type.  The  manager  stated  that  no  outside  blood  had 
been  used  since  the  estabhshment  of  the  flock,  and  even 
if  this  is  not  Uterally  the  case,  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  has 
been  very  closely  in-bred.  The  system  of  mating  the 
rams  and  ewes  and  recording  the  pedigrees  is  evidently 
most  carefully  arranged.  Each  ewe  is  brought  into  the 
house  to  the  ram,  the  ram  and  ewe  having  each  its  own 
number  stamped  on  the  fleece.  As  soon  as  the  ewe  is 
served,  the  number  of  the  ram  is  also  stamped  upon  her 
back.  There  are  about  500  ewes,  and  the  farm  consists 
of  about  890  acres. 

I  saw  very  little  of  the  Merino  sheep  in  the  country,  the 
prevailing  native  breed  in  the  districts  I  visited  being  the 
Berrichon.  At  the  farms  attached  to  the  Agricultural 
Institute  at  Beauvais,  however,  a  flock  of  400  Dishley- 
Merinos  is  kept,  and  I  saw  there  one  pure-bred  Merino 
ram,  and  four  rams  of  the  Dishley-Merino  breed.  The 
latter  struck  one  as  having  lost  at  any  rate  the  size  of  the 
Leicester. 

The  Craonnaise  breed  of  pigs  was  mostly  kept,  so  far 
as  I  saw,  and  at  Pinceloup  there  are  some  extraordinary 
specimens  of  this  famous  breed.  Among  the  many 
honours  won  by  this  herd  was  the  championship  at  the 
last  Paris  Exhibition.  The  size  of  the  boars  is  enormous, 
much  exceeding  that  of  our  largest  Yorkshires,  which 
they  resemble  more  nearly  than  any  other  English  breed. 
They  are,  however,  larger,  longer  in  the  leg,  with  greater 
length  and  depth  of  body,  and  with  a  profusion  of  hair. 
Yorkshires  are  also  kept  on  this  estate,  so  that  we  saw 
them  side  by  side  ;  but  the  agent,  M.  Beaucy,  insisted  on 
the  superiority  of  the  Craonnaise  pigs,  which,  he  stated, 
gave  a  larger  percentage  of  meat  and  a  smaller  proportion 
of  lard. 

I  cannot  attempt  to  discuss  the  difference  in  the  land 
systems  of  the  two  countries,  which  would  require  an 
article  by  itself,  but  it  may  be  noted  that  in  1892  53  per 
cent,  of  the  land  of  France  was  farmed  by  the  proprietor 


BRITISH  AND  FRENCH  AGRICULTURE.      179 


{culture  directe)  either  by  himself  and  family  alone,  or 
with  the  aid  of  others,  36  per  cent,  was  rented  [fermage), 
and  II  per  cent,  was  farmed  under  the  system  of  metayage 
{metayers).  In  Great  Britain  about  13  per  cent,  is  culti- 
vated by  the  owners,  and  Sj  per  cent,  rented. 

The  size  of  agricultural  holdings  in  France  may  be 
indicated  by  the  following  figures,  which  refer  to  1892  : — 

Holdings.  No. 

Under  2i    diCres  [tr^s  petite  culture)      .        2,235,405 

25  to  100        ,,         {moyenne  culture)  .  711,118 

Over  100         ,,         {grande  culture)       .  138,671 

5.702,752 

So  far  as  it  is  possible  to  give  comparable  figures,  the 
following  statement  shows  the  relative  size  of  holdings  in 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland  respectively  : — 


Holdings. 

Great  Britain. 

Ireland. 

Above     I  and  not  over     5  acres    . 
5          ..       ..       50     ..       . 
>.        50          ,,       ,,     200     ,, 
50          ,,       ,,     300     ,, 
,,      200  acres 

300     ,,               ... 

III. 357 

232,892 

150.055 
18,081 

62,292 

363.305 
80,504 

9,657 

512,385 

515.758 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  the  French  figures  there  is 
no  lower  limit,  so  that  every  "  holding,"  however  small, 
is  included,  while  the  figures  for  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
do  not  include  any  plot  unless  it  exceeds  an  acre.  In 
Ireland  there  are  74,890  holdings  of  i  acre  or  less,  while 
in  Great  Britain,  if  we  were  to  include  allotments  of  i  acre 
or  less,  the  number  of  "  holdings  "  of  land  would  be 
immensely  increased.  According  to  the  special  returns 
pubUshed  by  the  Board  of  Agriculture,  there  are  about 

N  2 


i8o  AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 

1,000,000  separate  plots  of  land  not  exceeding  i  acre  in 
extent,  cultivated,  of  course,  largely  by  persons  whose 
primary  occupation  is  not  agriculture.  While,  therefore, 
it  would  no  doubt  be  improper  to  suggest  that  a  figure 
exceeding  2,000,000  (which  would  result  from  the  addition 
of  all  the  "  allotments  "  to  all  the  "  agricultural  holdings  " 
in  the  United  Kingdom  enumerated  above)  could  fairly 
be  placed  against  the  French  figure  of  nearly  5,775,000 
of  "  holdings  "  {exploitatio7is) ,  it  would,  on  the  other  hand, 
be  inaccurate  to  exclude  from  the  comparison  all  the 
plots  of  I  acre  and  less.  In  France  it  is  evident  that  a 
large  proportion  of  the  holdings  must  be  less  than  i  acre, 
seeing  that  the  average  size  of  those  under  2^  acres 
(i  hectare)  is  about  i|  acres.  The  minute  sub-division 
of  the  land  in  France  has  been  the  theme  of  innumerable 
dissertations  and  frequent  lamentations.  Mr.  Jenkins, 
who  quotes  from  various  authorities  on  this  subject, 
remarks  that  the  excessive  sub-division  of  the  land  "  used 
to  be  called  in  French  morcellement  until  the  progress 
of  facts  rendered  the  word  too  feeble  to  express  the 
reality,  and  so  of  late  years  it  has  been  replaced  by  the 
term  '  pulverisation.'  "  ^ 

In  northern  France  the  system  of  landlord  and  tenant,  as 
we  know  it,  largely  prevails.  At  the  market  ordinary  in  the 
principal  hotel  at  Yvetot,  a  cheery  blue-bloused  farmer 
informed  us  that  not  one  farmer  in  100  in  that  district 
owned  his  farm.  I  was  sceptical  at  the  time,  and  thought 
we  must  have  misunderstood  him,  but  on  looking  up  the 
matter  I  found  that,  although  this  was  no  doubt  an 
exaggeration,  it  might  reasonably  approximate  to  the 
facts.  In  the  whole  of  that  department  (Seine  Inferieure) 
more  than  50  per  cent,  of  the  occupiers  of  land  do  not 
own  it,  and  in  one  or  two  other  departments  of  the  North 
and  North-west  the  proportion  is  considerably  higher. 
This  farmer,  like  many  others  in  all  parts  of  the  world, 
was  eloquent  on  the  subject  of  the  labourer.  It  was 
1  Report  to  Royal  Commission  on  Agriculture,  1882. 


BRITISH  AND  FRENCH  AGRICULTURE.      i8i 

interesting  to  gather  that  the  harvest  is  largely  got  in 
by  gangs,  organised  very  much,  it  seemed,  on  the  plan 
adopted  in  many  parts  of  England.  The  ordinary 
labourer's  wages  amounted,  said  this  informant,  on  an 
average  to  about  £32  per  annum.  In  districts  more  to 
the  south  his  lot  is  a  harder  one,  if  we  may  accept  the 
description  of  a  recent  charming  writer  on  French 
country  life.^  In  the  department  of  Alher  "  the  yearly 
receipts  of  a  day  labourer  in  good  work,  turn  by  turn 
haymaker  and  harvester,  thrasher,  wood-cutter,  and  so 
on  .  .  .  amount  in  Enghsh  coin  to  twenty-one  pounds 
twelve  shillings." 

I  must  not,  however,  pursue  this  subject,  which  leads 
to  economic  considerations  quite  outside  the  scope  of  this 
paper.  One  other  sociological  fact  may,  however,  be 
noted.  From  the  latest  census  returns  of  both  countries,  it 
appears  that  the  number  of  persons  engaged  in  agriculture 
amounts  in  France  to  46  per  cent,  of  the  occupied  popula- 
tion, while  in  the  United  Kingdom  it  amounts  to  12  per 
cent.  The  difference  in  the  position  of  farming  in  relation 
to  the  body  pohtic  could  hardly  be  expressed  more  tersely. 

A  comparison  of  the  actual  results  attained  by  the 
agriculturists  of  the  two  countries  is  practically  impossible 
in  detail.  Official  statistics  of  the  produce  of  the  land 
are  in  the  United  Kingdom  only  available  as  regards 
certain  crops,  and  the  figures  for  those  which  can  be  com- 
pared stand  as  follows  for  the  year  1901  (see  table,  p.  182). 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  production  of  hay  is 
from  permanent  grass  only,  and  that  the  ^aeld  of  "  beet- 
root "  in  France  excludes  that  grown  for  sugar,  and 
includes  only  that  grown  for  "  fodder." 

It  is  not  without  significance  that  whereas  the  cultiva- 
tion of  the  arable  land,  as  indicated  by  the  crops  here 
given,  appears  to  be  much  more  successful  in  this  country 
than  in  France,  the  management  of  the  grass  land — on 

>  "  The  Fields  of  France,"  by  Madame  Mary  Duclaux,  2nd 
edition,  1904. 


l82 


AN  AGRICULTURAL  FAGGOT. 


France. 

United  Kic 

igdom. 

Crop. 

Total  Pro- 

Yield 

Total  Pro- 

Yield 

duction. 

per  acre. 

duction. 

per  acre. 

Bushels. 

Bush. 

Bushels. 

Bush. 

Wheat 

301,328,000 

i8-o 

53,928,000 

30-9 

Barley- 

37,656,000 

20-0 

67,643,000 

317 

Oats 

218,321,000 

227 

161,175,000 

39-3 

tons. 

tons. 

tons. 

tons. 

Potatoes    . 

11,823,000 

3'i 

7,043,000 

5-8 

Beetroot  or  Man- 

gold 

12,228,000 

9-8 

9,224,000 

19-4 

cwts. 

cwts. 

cwts. 

cwts. 

Hay 

308,450,000 

22-4 

140,983,000 

23-8 

Hops 

63,000 

8-5 

649,000 

127 

which  British  farmers  somewhat  pride  themselves — 
seems  to  give  almost  equal  results  in  both  countries. 
I  cannot  profess  to  give  the  reasons  for  this,  but  may 
suggest  one  consideration,  which  perhaps  provides  a 
partial  explanation.  In  France,  no  doubt,  large  areas 
of  poor  and  unkindly  soil  must  be  under  the  plough,  and 
the  comparatively  limited  amount  of  pasture  probably 
consists  mainly  of  the  land  most  suitable  for  it.  In  this 
country,  on  the  other  hand,  much  of  the  poorest  land 
goes  down  to  grass,  and  the  arable  land  comprises 
principally  that  which  is  best  adapted  for  cultivation. 

As  regards  meat  production,  the  total  produced  in 
France  in  1892,  according  to  the  decennial  inquiry,  was 
1,300,000  tons  (exclusive  of  about  12,000  tons  of  horse 
flesh),  which  somewhat  exceeds  the  total  at  which  the 
production  of  the  United  Kingdom  was  put  in  the  report 
which  I  recently  presented  on  behalf  of  a  special  com- 
mittee of  the  Royal  Statistical  Society.^  The  quantity 
there  arrived  at,  as  representing  the  average  annual 
output  of  meat  by  the  farmers  of  the  United  Kingdom, 
was  1,245,920  tons. 

^  Journal  Royal  Statistical  Society,  Vol.  LXVII.,  pt.  3,  1904. 


BRITISH  AND  FRENCH  AGRICULTURE.      183 

There  are  several  other  points  upon  which  I  should  like 
to  have  touched.  Of  the  dairying  industry  of  Normandy, 
which  I  had  some  opportunity  of  investigating  in  1895, 
so  much  has  been  written  that  it  is  perhaps  unnecessary  to 
allude  to  it  here.  Another  important  industry  of  northern 
France — cider-making —  has  been  the  subject  of  interest- 
ing reports  in  recent  volumes  of  this  Journal.  The  subject 
of  rural  education  in  France  has  been  exhaustively 
treated  in  recent  reports.^  I  was  greatly  interested  in 
a  visit  which  I  paid  to  the  Agricultural  Institute  at 
Beauvais,  but  I  can  add  nothing  to  that  which  has  beer 
written  by  high  authorities  on  the  subject. 

When  I  undertook  this  article  I  hoped  to  be  able  to 
examine  in  much  more  detail  the  voluminous  records  of 
the  rural  economy  of  France.  Other  work  has  prevented 
this,  and  I  am  conscious,  therefore,  of  a  very  inadequate 
and  sketchy  attempt  to  deal  with  a  subject  requiring 
much  time  and  research.  I  can  but  hope,  however,  that 
I  may  have  put  in  a  concise  form  a  few  facts  which  will 
inspire  others  who  have  the  opportunity  to  examine  for 
themselves  the  manifold  points,  both  of  resemblance  and 
difference,  that  equally  serve  to  emphasise  I'entente 
cordiale,  which,  throughout  long  years  of  political  change, 
has  subsisted  between  the  farmers  of  France  and  of  these 
islands. 

1  "  Special  Reports  on  Educational  Subjects,"  Vol.  VII.  Rural 
Education  in  France  (ed.  834),  1902. 


INDEX. 


Adulteration,  84,  88 
Agricultural  area,  2,  29,  160 
Agricultural  depression,  I.,  15,  20, 

26,  32,  129 
Agricultural  experiments,  99 
Agricultural  holdings,  179 
Agricultural  Organisation  Society, 

I. 
Agricultural  Output,  Report  on, 

130 
Allotments,  72 
Allotments  Acts,  72 
Arable  land,  2,  10,  29,  68 
Ashton,  A.  J.,  44 
Auction  system,  79 


Bacon  factories,  123 

Bakewell,  Robert,  13,  37 

Ballard,  A.,  2 

Barnstaple  Market,  126 

Bath  and  West  of  England  Society, 

32,  99,  141 
Bear,  W.  E.,  65 
Black  Death,  the,  6,  9 
Board  of  Agriculture,  56,  61,  129, 

179 
Booth,  Charles,  75 
Bread,  80 
Breed  societies,  37 
British  Association,  34 
British  Empire,  supplies  from,  132 
Butter  factories,  122 
Butter-making,  loi 
Butter  supplies,  135 


Caird,  Sir  James,  30,  149 

Calves,  killing  of,  8 

Canada,  25,  26,  132 

Cattle,  13,  30 

Cattle  diseases,  96 

Central  Chamber  of    Agriculture, 

91,  no,  I  iS,  152 
Chadwick,  David,  82 
Charolais  cattle,  170,  173 
Cheese  factories,  93,  122 


Cheese  supplies,  135 
Chesterton,  G.,  16 
Chezelles,  Vicomte  de,  166,  169 
Civil  Service  Supply  Association, 

118 
Coke  of  Holkham,  14 
Common  field,  4 
Co-operation,   I.,  4,   89,   91,    loi, 

104,  114 
Corn  Laws,  7,  20,  21,  24 
Costelloe,  B.  F.  C.,  42,  44,  46,  50 
Cottages,  68 
Cottarii,  3 

Couling,  William,  29 
Cost  of  distribution,  75 
Craigie,  Major,  29,  64 
Craonnaise  pigs,  178 
Creameries,  93,  120 
Curtler,  W.  H.  R.,  8 


Daily  News  Commissioner,  64,  72 

Dairying,  37 

Darlington  Auction  Mart,  125 

Demesne,  4 

Denmark,    co-operation    in,    no, 

123 
Diseases  of  live  stock,  36 
Domesday  Survey,  i,  43 
Druce,  S.  B.  L.,  I.,  68,  73,  125 
Duckham,  T.,  I. 


Education,  agricultural,  77,  100 
Elliott,  Sir  T.  H.,  66,  67 
Ellman,  John,  13,  177 
Elton,  C.  I.,  42,  44,  46,  50 
Ensilage,  166 
Exports,  9,  21,  24,  28 


Fairs,  42,  45 

Fairs  Act,  1871.  .44 

Farmers'  Club,  London,  97,   117, 

122 
Farmers'  clubs,  96,  97,  98 
Farmers,  life  of,  1 3 


i86 


INDEX. 


Fawcett,  Henry,  104 
Fertilisers,  34 
Fish,  134 
Fitzherbert,  11 
Flamande  cattle,  173 
Food  supplies,  131 
Fox,  A.  Wilson,  I.,  117 
France,  agriculture  in,  159 
France,  co-operation  in,  loi,  106, 

118 
Francis,  G.  E.,  85 
Free  Trade,  24,  27,  38 
Fruit,  supplies  of,  136 


Germany,  co-operation  in,  109 
Gilbert,  Sir  Henry,  33 
Gonner,  E.  C.  K.,  10 
Green,  J.  R.,  21 
Grey,  Earl,  75,  117 
Gurdon,  John,  115 


Hammond,  J.  L.,  17 

Harleston   Co-operative  Farming 

Association,  116 
Harris,  W.  J.,  102 
Hasbach,  W.,  7 
Hildyard,  C,  142 
Holkham,  14 
Holyoake,  G.  J.,  105 
Horsfall,  T.,  146 
Hoskyns,  Wren,  34 
Housing  of  Working  Classes  Act, 

68 
Howard,  Charles,  I. 
Howard,  James,  67 


Imports,  21,  25,  28,  32,  87,  130 
Inclosure,  8,  10,  11 
Ireland,  24,  27,  93,  120,  160 
Irish  Co-operative  Agency,  128 


Jackson,  G.,  122 

Jenkins,   H.   M.,    117,    126,    164, 

180 
Johnson,  A.  H.,  18 


King,  Bolton,  115 
Kingsley,  Charles,  68 


Labourers,  3,  37,  63,  76,  100 
Land  division  in  France,  180 
Land,  making  of,  I. 
Lapparent,  M.  de,  172 


Lawes,  Sir  John,  I.,  33,  59,  146, 

149,  151,  154 
Laying  land  to  grass,  68 
Liber  Albus,  48,  52 
Lincolnshire  Association,  91 
Liebig,  Baron,  34 
Little,  W.  C,  I.,  100 
Live  stock,  5,  9,  13,  19.  30,  36,  167 
Longford  Cheese  Factory,  122 


Machinery,  agricultural,  17,  35, 

67 
McCuUoch,  J.  R.,  23,  29,  30 
Maitland,  F.  W.,  2 
Manor,  3,  5 
Manorial  system,  i,  4 
Market  overt,  50 
Markets,  42,  46,  54,  78 
Markets  and  Fairs  (Weighing  of 

Cattle)  Acts,  58,  60 
Markham,  Gervase,  13 
Marshall,  Alfred,  94,  114 
Measurement  of  stock,  141 
Meat,  87,  90,  133,  182 
Mechi,  J.  J.,  34 
Merino  sheep,  176 
Michel,  Georges,  105 
Migration  of  labourers,  37,  63 
More,  R.  Jasper,  I. 

Newcastle  Farmers'  Club,  97, 147 
Norfolk  Chamber  of  Agriculture, 

99 
Norfolk  system,  12,  165 
Normande  cattle,  173 


Old  age  pensions,  74 
Ormerod,  Miss,  35 
Oxen,  working,  169 


Parish  councils,  74 
Pasture,  9 
Pauperism,  70 
Peel,  Sir  Robert,  21,  27 
Pell,  Albert,  I.,  60,  145,  152 
Percheron  horses,  171 
Pie  Poudre,  Court  of,  51 
Plunkett,  Sir  Horace,  I.,  120 
Poor  Law  Commission,  17 
Population,  3 
Port  Reeve,  50 
Poultry  and  eggs,  134 
Poultry-fattening,  120 
Price  returns,  59,  61 
Prices,  15,  22,  25,  27,  38,  81 


INDEX. 


187 


Pringle,  Hunter,  116 

Produce  returns,  31 

Production,  agricultural,   36,  67, 

119 

Profit-sharing,  75 

Prothero,  R.  E.,  3,  5,  7,  9.  I9 

Pusey,  Philip,  19,  142 


Rabdourne  Manor  Farming  Asso- 
ciation, 116 

Rambouillet,  176 

Read,  Clare  Sewell,  I.,  96,  122,  145 

Rent,  4 

Richards,  Westley,  149 

Rochdale  pioneers,  89,  117 

Rocquigny,  Comte  de,  105 

Rogers,  Thorold,  4,  9,  12,  43 

Rothamsted,  33,  149.  151 

Rowlandson,  Samuel,  I. 

Royal  Agricultural  Society,  19,  32, 
119,  142,  146,  166 

Royal  Commission  on  Agricul- 
ture, I.,  116,  123,  145,  164 

Royal  Statistical  Society,  75,  182 

Rural  depopulation,  6,  7 


Science  and  agriculture,  32,  34, 

37 
Seebohm,  F.,  2,  6,  165 
Selling  stock  by  weight,  80,  140 
Servi,  3 

Shorthorns  in  France,  174 
Shrimpton,  T.  E.,  147 
Sinclair,  Sir  J.,  130 
Slater,  Gilbert,  10 
Smallholders,  3 
Smallholdings,  73 
Smith,  Adam,  64 
Smith,  T.  Carrington,  I. 
Somerville,  Lord,  141 
Southdowns  in  France,  176 
South  Durham  and  N.  Yorkshire 

Association,  92 
Speenhamland  system,  16 
Spencer,  Earl,  n6,  142 
Stallage,  54 


Stephens,  H.,  143 
Stevenson,  R.,  146 
Syndicats  Agricole,  106,  11? 


Tawney,  R.  H.,  18 
Tenant  farmers,  3 
Thome,  M.,  170,  174 
Three-course  system,  165 
Thring,  Lord,  73 
Through  tolls,  56 
Times,  The,  83 
Tithe  commutation,  17 
Tolls,  market,  52 
Tolzey  Court  Office,  51 
Townshend,  Lord,  12 
Treadwell,  John,  I. 
Tull,  Jethro,  12 
Tusser,  Thomas,  11,  165 


Value  of  land,  31 
Vandeleur,  Mr.,  115 
Vegetables,  suppUes  of,  137 
Vill,  2 
Villain,  3 
ViUiers,  C.  P.,  27 
Vinogradoff,  P.,  2 

Wages,  agricultural,  64,  66,  76 
Walter  of  Henley,  11 
Wantage,  Lord,  117 
War  of  the  Roses,  8 
Wars,  Napoleonic,  15,  25 
Weighing  live  stock,  58,  79,  145 
Weights  and  measures,  48 
Westminster,  Manor  of,  6 
Wheat,  prices  of,  15,  25,  27,  38,  81 
Wheat,  supplies  of,  131 
Winchilsea,  Earl  of,  I.,  127 
Wollaston,  Dr.,  142 
Wool,  9 


Yeoman  farmers,  17,  37 
Yield  of  crops,  9,  30,  182 
Youatt,  W.,  143 
Young,  Arthur,  14,  159,  161,  164 


V.    S.    KING   &    SON,    ORCHARD    HOUSE,    WESTMINSTER. 


Demy  Svo-  Cloth,  5s.  net.         Inland  postage,  4d. 

The  Land  and  the 
Commonwealth 

T.  E.  MARKS 

Member  of  Surveyors'  Institution  and  of  the  Eighty 
Land  Club  Group. 

With  an  Introduction  by 

J.  HUGH  EDWARDS,  M.P. 

(Author  of  "  The  Life  of  D.  Lloyd  George  ") 

The  work  contains  numerous  graphic  descriptions,  which 
arrest  the  attention  of  the  thinker. 

Among  the  subjects  dealt  with  by  the  Author  are  the  fol- 
lowing :  Emigration ;  The  economic  Misuse  of  Land ;  Land 
retained  for  Sport  and  Pleasure ;  Sub-division  of  unduly  large 
Estates  ;  The  Social  Influence  of  Land-ownership ;  The  Effect 
of  the  Budget  of  1909-igio;  Game  Laws;  The  Condition  of 
the  Agricultural  Labourer ;  Rural  Wages,  Rural  Housing,  and 
Rural  Depopulation;  The  Insidious  Evil  of  Charity  in  Vil- 
lages ;  Luxury — one  Root  of  the  Evil ;  Cottage  Building  by 
Public  Loans  ;  Small  Holdings ;  Credit  Banks  and  Agricultural 
Co-operation;  Afforestation  ;  Land  Laws  made  by  Landlords  ; 
Restrictions  on  the  Use  of  Land  permitted  by  Law  ;  Specimen 
Leases ;  Who  receives  the  Lion's  Share  of  Tenants'  Industry  ? 
The  Risks  of  thorough  Cultivation ;  Judicial  Fixing  of  Rents  ; 
Injustice  to  Town  Lessees  who  are  hedged  around  with  severe 
Limitations  ;  Are  Renewal  F'ines  Justifiable  ?  The  Leasehold 
System ;  Settled  Estates ;  Lack  of  Inducement  to  effect 
Permanent  Improvements ;  The  Undesirability  of  raising 
Death  Duties  by  Means  of  Mortgages ;  Legislative  Remedies 
Suggested ;  Trust  Estates ;  Copyhold  Tenure  ;  Its  Abolition 
considered. 

Speakers,  Writers,  and  Students  will  find  this  hook  invaluable. 

P.  S.  KING  U  SON,   Orchard  House,  Westminster. 


Demy  8vo.      Cloth,  78.  6d.  net.      Inland  Postage,  4d. 

A   HISTORY  OF  THE 

ENGLISH    AGRICULTURAL 
LABOURER 

By    W.    HAS BACH 

(Professor  of  Political  Science  la  the  University  of  Kiel) 

With  a  Preface  by  SIDNEY  WEBB,  LL.B. 

Spectator. — The  thoroughness  and  sincerity  displayed  in  the  authors 
investigation  and  writing  are  noteworthy.  .  .  .  We  hope  that  his  book 
will  be  read  by  every  country  resident  and  every  townsman  who  is 
desirous  of  obtaining  a  grip  of  some  of  the  bottom  facts  of  rural 
questions. 

Morning  Post. — Dr.  Hasbach's  big  book  upon  the  history  of  the  English 
agricultural  labourer,  which  first  appeared  in  Germany,  ...  is  here 
translated  into  English  from  a  new  edition,  and  furnishes  the  reader 
in  this  country  with  an  opportunity  of  judging  one  of  the  most  valu- 
able of  those  foreign  studies  upon  our  economic  life  which  have  of 
late  years  been  so  numerous. 

Nation. — The  author  and  translator  of  the  present  volume  have  done 
good  service  in  simplifying  and  completing  Dr.  Hasbach's  history.  .  .  . 
His  book  gives  one  a  favourable  impression,  not  only  of  its  careful 
learning  and  skilled  digestion  of  facts,  but  also  of  its  impartiality. 

Economist. — Dr.  Hasbach  has  added  to  the  considerable  debt  which 
Englishmen,  anxious  to  understand  their  own  country's  institutions, 
owed  already  to  foreign  students.  ...  It  is  to  be  wished  that  every 
legislator  who  has  taken  in  hand  the  difficult  problems  of  English 
village  life  had  mastered  the  sombre  and  momentous  history  which 
Dr.  Hasbach  has  here  explored. 

Manchester  Guardian. — The  book  is  an  admirable  example  of  scholarly 
and  industrious  research,  forming  a  valuable  contribution  to  the 
history  of  social  and  economic  progress.  .  .  .  The  text  is  fortified  by 
ample  notes  and  copious  tables  of  statistics,  the  analysis  of  the  best 
opinion  of  each  succeeding  epoch  is  illuminating,  and  the  conclusions 
are  just  and  convincing.  No  more  valuable  literary  aid  could  be  given 
to  the  fruitful  study  of  the  problems  of  rural  regeneration,  and  no 
student  of  the  subject  can  in  future  afford  to  overlook  Dr.  Hasbach's 
book. 

P.  S    KING  g  SON,  Orchard  House.  Westminster. 


Demy  8vo.      Cloth,  10s.  6d.  net.    Inland  postage,  5d. 

BRITISH     RURAL 
LIFE  AND  LABOUR 

FRANCIS  GEORGE   HEATH 

Jluthor  of  the  "Romance  of  'Peasant  Life,"  etc. 

An  iodispens«ble  ^rorK  on  the  economic  status  of  the  agricultural 

labourer    in  relation  to  the  present   increased  cost  of  living. 

A  Vade  mecum  for  all  students  of  agrarian  economics. 


Quarterly  Review. — His  picturesque  power,  his  fine  sympathy 
with  the  peasant  and  his  desire  to  improve  the  condition  of  those 
strugglers,  together  with  his  poetic  enthusiasm  for  nature,  everywhere 
appear.  He  writes  with  zest :  there  is  an  open-air  feeUng  about  his 
pages,  and  that  is  exactly  what  is  wanted  in  these  days  to  attract 
people  to  find  in  nature  some  subject  of  joy  that  may  make  the  sordid 
life  in  towns  tolerable. 

Daily  Telegraph. — .  .  .  Has  long  made  a  special  study  of  the 
subject  with  which  he  deals  in  this  volume — a  subject  of  almost 
incalculable  importance  to  the  country  at  large.  .  .  .  Interesting  and 
suggestive,  affording  ...  a  concise  survey  of  the  whole  field. 

Daily  Chronicle. — .  .  .  Has  long  been  known  as  a  charming 
writer  on  rural  life,  and  his  latest  book  .  .  .  comes  at  a  very 
appropriate  time. 

Daily  News. —  .  .  .  He  has  collected  a  great  deal  concerning  the 
life  of  the  rural  labourer,  which  must  be  of  use  to  whoever  wishes  to 
understand  the  rural  problem,  which  is  among  the  most  insistent  of 
national  problems. 

Library  World. —  .  .  .  Has  now  put  us  under  a  debt  of  gratitude 
...  an  exceedingly  valuable  book,  indispensable  to  a  public  or  other 
library  collection. 

Graphic. —  .  .  .  Mr.  Heath  with  a  gargantuan  appetite  for  facts 
and  a  thorough  grasp  of  his  subject,  remains  an  optimist.  ...  A 
complete  picture  of  the  conditions  under  which  the  peasants  of  England, 
Wales,  Scotland,  and  Ireland  live  and  work  to-day. 

Irish  Times. —  .  .  .  Long  since  made  his  name  as  the  author  of 
several  charming  works  dealing  with  peasant  life.  .  .  .  His  powers 
of  descriptive  writing  are  good.  ...  So  skilfully  does  the  author 
manage  to  maintain  our  interest  that  in  many  places  we  are  simply 
getting  the  details  of  innumerable  Blue  Books,  carefully  sifted,  with- 
out being  aware  of  the  fact. 

P.  S.  KING  U  SON,  Orchard  House.  Westminster. 


Crown  8vo.,  Cloth,  390  pp.      Price  6s.  net.      Inland  Postage,  4d. 


CO=OPERATION  IN  AGRICULTURE 

Being  a  comprehensive  conspectus  of  the  several  forms 

of  Co-operation   applied   in   Agriculture,    a   History   of 

their  Development,  and  Directions  for  their  Practice. 

By   HENRY   W.    WOLFF 

{late  Chairman  of  the  International  Co-operative  Alliance). 


CONTENTS : 


Chapter. 

Preface. 
I.     Introduction. 
II.     General  Principles. 

III.  Co-operative  Supply  of  Goods. 

IV.  Disposal    of    Produce  —  General 

Remarks. 
V.     Co-operative  Disposal  of  Milk. 
VI.     Disposal  of  Eggs  and  Poultry. 
VII.     Disposal  of  Grain. 
VIII.     Disposal  of  Live  Stock. 
IX.     Disposal  of  Other  Produce. 


Chapter. 

X.     Live  Stock  Improvement 
XI.     Co-operative  Insurance. 


Al.  Co-operative  Insurar 
XII.  Co-operative  Credit. 
^"'      Co-operation    for    Common    Work, 


XIII 


^v^-v^j^^.c*...v..     .or     ^^oiniuuii     vvurn. 
Common  Use  of  Machinery  and 
Obtainment  of  Power. 
XIV.     Co-operation     in    the     Tenure     of 

Land. 
XV.     Education. 
XVI.     "  Forced  "  Co-operation. 
XVII.     Conclusion. 


Demy  8vo.      Cloth,  272  pp.,  3s.  6d.  net.      Inland  Postage,  4d. 


AGRICULTURAL   ORGANISATION 

Its  Rise,  Principles,  and  Practice  Abroad  and  at  Home 

By  EDWIN  A.  PRATT 


AUTHOR   OF 


"  The  Organisation  of  Agriculture''  ;  "The  Transition  in  Agricul- 
ture " ;  "A  History  of  Inland  Transport  and  Communication,"  etc. 


Part. 

I.     Rise  and  Development. 

II.     Examples  from  Other  Lands. 

III.  The  Position  at  Home. 

IV.  The  Movement  in  Ireland. 

V.  Evolution  of  the  Agricultural  Organi- 
sation .Society  :  A,  Earlier  Efforts ; 
H,  Progress  and  Development  ;  C, 
State  Aid  and  Public  Approval  ; 
D,  Reconstitution  ;  E,  Devolution. 

VI.    Transport  Questions. 


CONTENTS : 

Part. 
VII. 


VIII. 


Work  Done  or  Projected :  A,  Co- 
operative Sale  ;  li,  The  Dairy 
Industry  ;  C,  t^ggs  and  Poultry  ; 
1),  Sale  of  Live  t'tock  ;  E,  Sale  of 
Grain,  Hay,  .Seeds,  etc.  ;  F, 
Organisation  of  the  Wool  Indus- 
try ;  G,  Organisation  of  the  Hop 
Industry;  f  I,  Co-operative  IJacon 
Factories;  I,  Grist  Milling;  K, 
Co-operative  Credit  ;  L,  Co-opera- 
tive Land  Rcntine  ;  M,  Co-opera- 
tiver  Insurance ;  N,  Rural  Tele- 
phones. 

Summary  and  Conclusion. 

Index. 


P.  S.  KING  U  SON.  Orchard  House.  Westminster. 


Crown  8vo.         Quarter  Cloth,  2s.  net.  Inland  Postage,  3d. 

RURAL    DEVELOPMENT 

AND 

SMALL  HOLDINGS 

Report  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  National  Congress  of  the  Small  Hold- 
ings Section  of  the  Festival  of  Empire,  held  at  the  Crystal  Palace,  1911. 


WITH    AN    ADDRESS   BY 


The  MARQUIS  OF  LINCOLNSHIRE,  K.G. 

Ex-President  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture. 
This  work  contains  papers  and  speeches  by  the  following 
well-known  authorities :  Sir  Melvill  Beachcroft,  Charles 
Bathurst,  M.P.,  Henry  W.  WolfF,  R.  Yerburgh,  M.P., 
Clement  C.  Smith,  J.  S.  Crobett,  Geoffrey  Hooper,  Christopher 
Turnor,  H.  Vincent,  Verney  Carter,  Sanders  Spencer,  Earl  of 
Harrowby,  Henry  T.  Tate,  Dr.  William  Hodgson,  Evan  R, 
Davies,  Prof.  J.  R.  Ainsworth  Davis,  M.A. 

Agricultural    Economist. — Valuable    addition    to    the    smallholder's 

library,  ...  an  epitome  of  expert  advice  ...  to  the  small  man  on 

the  land. 
Land  Agents'  Record. — .  .  .  The  capital  report  .  .  .  issued  shows  that 

.  .  .  a  .  .  .  good  deal  of  sound  work  was  done,  while  some  of  the 

papers  are  excellent. 
Estates  Gazette. — Contains  instructive  papers  and  discussions. 


Crown  8vo.  Cloth  Limp,  Is.  net.  Inland  Postage,  2d. 

ENGLAND'S     FOUNDATION 

AGRICULTURE  AND   THE    STATE 
By  J.  SAXON  MILLS,  M.A. 

Of  the  Inntr  Temple,  Barrister-at-Law 

With  a  Preface  by  The  EARL  OF  DENBIGH. 

Contents  :  Repealers  and  the  Land — Prophecies  and  Ful- 
filments— Story  of  Decline  continued — Laissez  Faive  and  S avoir 
Paire  —  A  Retrospect  —  Economic — Social  and  Physical — 
Defensive  —Imperial  Aspect — Practical. 

The  Earl  of  Denbigh  in  the  Preface  describes  the  book  as  a  "  valuable 

contribution  .  .  .  to  .  .  .  one  of  the  most  important  home  problems 

confronting  us." 
Journal  of  Political  Economy. — His  attack  is  strong,  and   at   many 

points  irresistible. 
Welldoer. — Mr.  Mills  is  to  be  highly  congratulated  upon  his  work,  ...  his 

points  are  good,  his  case  is  good,  and  his  subject  set  out  in  a  nutshell. 

P.  S.  KING  g  SON,  Orchard  House,  Westminster 


Demy  8vo.        Cloth,  434  pages.        10s.  6d.  net. 

CO  =  OPERATION     AT 
HOME  AND  ABROAD 

A    DESCRIPTION    AND    ANALYSIS 

C.  R.  FAY,  B.A. 

Fellow  of  Christ's  College  {late  Scholar  of  Kings  College),  Cambridge. 
Research  Student  at  the  London  School  oj' Economics,  1906-8. 


CONTENTS. 

Introduction. 

Part  I. 

Banks — Land  Banks  in  Germany,  Switzerland,  Italy,  France 
Belgium,  Denmark,  and  Ireland. 

Part  II. 

Agricultural  Societies  in  the  United  Kingdom  and  other  Countries — 
Co-operative  Supply— Co-operative  Production — Dairying,  etc. 
—Co-operative  Sale — Co-operation  and  the  Agricultural  Revolu- 
tion— Co-operation  and  Land  Tenure. 

Part  III. 

Co-operative  Societies  in  the  United  Kingdom  and  other  Countries 
—Industrial  Societies— Agricultural  and  Tenants'  Building 
Societies— Societies  of  1848— Workers'  Societies  v.  Store- 
Collective  Centralisation  v.  Individual  Localisation. 

Part  IV. 

Co-operative  Stores— General  Character— Stores  in  the  United 
Kingdom  and  other  Countries — Economic,  Social,  and  Industrial 
Significance  of  the  Co-operative  Store— Appendix— Glossary. 


Economist.— "  This  is  a  really  useful  book     .     .     .     and  should  hold  the  ground  for  a 
considerable  time  as  a  standard  work  on  its  subject." 


P.   S.  KING  U  SON,  Orchard  House,  Westminster. 

o 


Demy  8vo.       Cloth,  588  pp.,  6s.  net.       Inland  Postage,  5d. 


PEOPLE'S   BANKS 

A  RECORD  OF  SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC 
SUCCESS. 

ThiftI  Editionm    Newly  Revised  and  Enlargedm 

Giving  a  history  of  the  Origin  and  Extension  of  Co-operative 

Banking,  Statistics,  and  a  description  of  the  various  forms 

in  use  in  various  countries. 


HENRY    W.    WOLFF 

{Late  Chairman  of  the  International  Co-operative  Alliance). 

"  It  is  the  most  complete  book  on  the  subject." — Mr.  G.  N.  Pierson,  late 
Dutch  Prime  Minister  and  Minister  of  Finance. 

"  We  may  confidently  refer  those  who  desire  information  on  the  point 
to  the  book  with  which  Mr.  Wolff  has  provided  us.  It  will  be  a  most 
useful  thing  if  it  is  widely  read  and  the  lessons  which  it  contains  are  put 
in  practice." — Athencsum. 

"The  book  is  the  most  systematic  and  intelligent  account  of  these 
institutions  which  has  been  published." — Bankers'  Magazine  [New  York). 


CONTENTS : 

CMAfTER. 

Chapter. 

Prefaces. 

XL 

The  "  Banche  Popolari  " 

II. 

Introduction. 

of  Italy. 

II. 

The  General  Idea. 

XII. 

The   "  Casse   Rurali"    of 

III. 

The  Two  Problems. 

Italy. 

IV. 

The    Two   Aspects    of    the 

XIII. 

Co-operative     Credit     in 

Question. 

Belgium. 

V. 

Credit  to  Agriculture. 

XIV. 

Co-operative     Credit      in 

VL 

The  "  Credit  Associations  " 

Switzerland. 

of  Schulze-Delitzsch. 

XV. 

Co-operative     Credit     in 

VII. 

Raiffeisen  Village  Banks. 

France. 

VIII. 

Adaptations. 

XVI. 

Offshoots  and  Congeners. 

IX. 

"  Assisted  "        Co-operative 

XVII. 

Co-operative      Credit     in 

Credit. 

India. 

X. 

Co-operative       Credit        in 

XVIII. 

Conclusion. 

Austria  and  Hungary. 

Index. 

P.  S.  KING  8  SON.  Orchard  House,  Westminster. 


Demy  8vo.   Cloth,  318  pp.,  7s.  6d.  net.    Inland  postage  4d. 

CO=OPERATIVE   BANKING 

ITS  PRINCIPLES  AND  PRACTICE 

WITH    A   CHAPTER    ON 

CO=OPERATIVE      MORTGAGE      CREDIT 

Explaining  in  detail  the  principles  upon  which  Co-operative 
Banking  is  based  and  giving  the  rationale  of  its  practice. 

By  HENRY  W.    WOLFF 

{Laie  Cliairjnan  of  the  International  Co-operative  Alliance). 

"  Mr.  Wolff  brings  to  the  discussion  of  this  subject  not  merely  an  intimate 
knowledge  of  it,  and  a  well-trained  literary  faculty,  but  a  long  practical 
acquaintance  with  the  working  of  Cooperative  Banks  at  home  and  abroad, 
and  the  experience  gained  by  much  active  work  in  the  promotion  of  the 
movement." — Sir  E.  Brab?-ook,  late  Chief  Registrar  of  Friendly  Societies,  in 
the  '  '^  Journal  of  the  Royal  Statistical  Society. '' 

Cro^irn  8vo.    80  pp..  Is.  net.    Inland  postage  2d. 

BY   THE   SAME   AUTHOR. 

A    CO=OPERATIVE    CREDIT 
BANK   HANDBOOK 

Replacing  the  pamphlets  out  of  print:  Village  Banks  and  A 
People's  Bank  Manual,  and  containing  Model  Rules  for  two 
kinds  of  Credit  Societies,  severally  with  limited  and  unlimited 
liability,  and  directions  for  their  application  and  the  manage- 
ment of  Co-operative  Banks. 

CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER 

Preface. 
I.     General  Remarks. 
II.     Banks  based  upon  Shares  (Limited  Liability  Societies). 
III.     Model  Rules  for  such,  with  Annotations. 
IV.     Village  Banks  (Unlimited  Liability  Societies). 
V.     Model  Rules  for  such,  with  Annotations. 
VI.     Appendix — Form  of  Application — Forms  of  Bond  for 
Borrowers — Form    of    Fortnightly  Balance  Sheet — 
Model  Cash  Book. 

P.  S.  KING  S  SON.  Orchard  House.  Westminster. 


LEASEHOLD    ENFRANCHISEMENT 

The  Case  For  and  Against  and  a  Practical  Scheme. 

Relief  Against  Restrictive  Covenants  in  Leases 
and  Scheme  for  Continuity  of  Tenure 

By  EDWARD  ALEXANDER  COLLINS 

Crown  8Vo.  Cloth,  2s.  6d.  net.  Inland  Postage.  3d. 

A  useful  work  of  a  non-partisan  nature  on  the  existing  evils  of  the  present 
leasehold  system  and  suggesting  practical  remedies  of  a  moderate  and 
non-confiscatory  nature. 

TAXATION    OF    LAND    VALUES 

As  it  Affects  Landowners  and  Others 

By  JOHN   ORR,   M.A. 

Crown  8Vo.        Quarter  Cloth,  Is.  net.       Inland  Postage,  3d. 

Contents  : — I.  Some  Theories  of  Taxation  ;  II.  Some  Experiments  and 
their  Lessons;  III.  The  Valuation  of  Land;  IV.  Taxation  and  Rent; 
V.  Value ;  VI.  The  Principle  of  Political  Economy  ;  VII.  A  Practical 
Policy;    Appendix:  Turgot's  Principle. 


National  and  Local  Finance 

A  Review  of  the  Relations  between  the  Central  and 

Local  Authorities  in  England,  France,  Belgium,   and 

Prussia  during  the  Nineteenth  Century 

By  J.  WATSON  GRICE,  D.Sc.  (Econ.)  Lond. 

With  a  Preface  by  SIDNEY  WEBB,  LL.B. 
Demy  8Va.       Cloth,  432  pp..  10s.  6d,  net.       Inland  Postage.  5d. 


THE  NATURE  AND  FIRST  PRINCIPLE 
OF    TAXATION 

By    ROBERT    JONES,    B.Sc.    (Econ.) 
With  a  Preface  by  SIDNEY  WEBB,  LL.B. 

Tfemy  8Vo.        Cloth,  7s.  6d.  net. 

Contents. — The  Nature  of  a  Tax — The  Development  of  Ideas  about 
Taxation — The  First  Principle  of  Taxation — The  Limitations  and  the 
Complements  of  the  Principle  of  Economy  in  Taxation — Appendices — 
Bibliographia. 

P.  S.  KING  8  SON.  Orch&rd  House.  Westminster. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Form  L9 — 15m-10,'48(B1039)444 


1925  An  agricultural 
-m2R — ra^{j;oL 


1925 

R32a