THE EVILS OF COMMON FIELDS.--HOPS.--IMPLEMENTS.--MANURES.--GREGORY
KING--CORN LAWS
From what has been said in the preceding pages, it will be gathered
that a vast amount of compassion has been wasted on the enclosure of
commons, for it is abundantly evident from contemporary writers that
there were a large number of people dragging out a miserable existence
on them, by living on the produce of a cow or two, or some sheep and a
few poultry, with what game they could sometimes catch, and refusing
regular work. Dymock, Hartlib's contemporary, questions 'whether
commons do not rather make poore by causing idlenesse than maintaine
them;' and he also asks how it is that there are fewest poor where
there are fewest commons.
In the common fields, too, there was continual strife and contention
caused by the infinite number of trespasses that they were subject
to.[339] The absence of hedges, too, in these great open fields was
bad for the crops, for there was nothing to mitigate drying and
scorching winds, while in the open waste and meadows the live stock
must have sadly needed shelter and shade, 'losing more flesh in one
hot day than they gained in three cool days.' Worlidge, a Hampshire
man, joins in the chorus of praise of enclosures, for they brought
employment to the poor, and maintained treble 'the number of
inhabitants' that the open fields did; and he gives further proof of
the enclosure of land in the seventeenth century, when he mentions
'the great quantities of land that have within our memories lain open,
and in common of little value, yet when enclosed have proved excellent
good land.' Why then was this most obvious improvement not more
generally effected? Because there was a great impediment to it in the
numerous interests and diversity of titles and claims to almost every
common field and piece of waste land in England, whereby one or more
envious or ignorant persons could thwart the will of the
majority.[340] Another hindrance, he says, was that many roads passed
over the commons and wastes, which a statute was needed to stop.
In the seventeenth century hop growing was not nearly so common in
England as in the preceding, when Harrison had said, in his
_Description of Britain_, 'there are few farmers or occupiers in the
country which have not gardens and hops growing of their own, and
those far better than do come from Flanders.' There seems, indeed, to
have been a prejudice against the hop; Worlidge[341] says it was
esteemed an unwholesome herb for the use it was usually put to, 'which
may also be supplied with several other wholesome and better herbs.'
John Evelyn was very much against them, probably because he was such
an advocate of cider: 'It is little more than an age,' he says, 'since
hopps transmuted our wholesome ale into beer, which doubtless much
altered our constitutions. That one ingredient, by some not unworthily
suspected, preserving drink indeed, and so by custom made agreeable,
yet repaying the pleasure with tormenting diseases, and a shorter
life, may deservedly abate our fondness for it, especially if with
this be considered likewise the casualties in planting it, as seldom
succeeding more than once in three years.'[342] The City of London
petitioned against hops as spoiling the taste of drink.
Yet its cultivation is said to have advanced the price of land to £40,
£50, and sometimes £100 an acre, the latter an almost incredible price
if we consider the value of money then. There were not enough planted
to serve the kingdom, and Flemish hops had to be imported, though not
nearly so good as English. A great deal of dishonesty, moreover, was
shown by the foreign importers, so that in 1603 a statute (1 Jac. I,
c. 18) was passed against the 'false packinge of forreine hops,' by
which it appears that the sacks were filled up with leaves, stalks,
powder, sand, straw, wood, and even soil, for increasing the weight,
by which English growers it is said lost £20,000 a year. Such hops
were to be forfeited, and brewers using them were to forfeit their
value. The chief cause of their decrease was that few farmers would
take the trouble and care required to grow them, in spite of the often
excellent prices, which at Winchester at this date averaged from 50s.
to 80s. a cwt., sometimes, however, reaching over 200s., as in 1665
and 1687, though then as now they were subject to great fluctuations,
and in 1691 were only 31s. Many, too, were discouraged by the fact
'they are the most of any plant that grows subject to the various
mutations of the air, mildews sometimes totally destroying them,' no
doubt an allusion to the aphis blight. Hop yards were often protected
at this early date by hedges of tall trees, usually ash or poplar, the
elm being disapproved of as contracting mildews. Markham[343] says
that Hertfordshire then contained as good hops as he had seen
anywhere, and there the custom was 250 hills to every rood, 'and every
hill will bear 2-1/2 lb., worth on an average 4 nobles a cwt. (a noble
= 6s. 8d.);' hills were to be 6 ft. apart at least, poles 16 to 18 ft.
long and 9 or 10 inches in circumference at the butt, of ash, oak,
beech, alder, maple or willow.
Some planted the hills in 'plain squares chequerwise, which is the
best way if you intend to plough with horses between the hills. Others
plant them in form of a quincunx, which is better for the hop, and
will do very well where your ground is but small that you may overcome
it with either the breast plough or spade.' The manure recommended by
Worlidge was good mould, or dung and earth mixed. The hills were like
mole-hills 3 feet high, and sometimes were large enough to have as
many as 20 poles, so that some hop yards must have looked very
different then from what they do now, even when poles are retained;
but from two to five poles per hill was the more usual number.
Cultivation was much the same as in Reynold Scott's time, and picking
was still done on a 'floor' prepared by levelling the hills, watering,
treading, and sweeping the ground, round which the pickers sat and
picked into baskets, but the hop crib was also used.
It was considered better not to let the hops get too ripe, as the
growers were aware of the value of a fresh, green-looking sample; and
Worlidge advises the careful exclusion of leaves and stalks, though
Markham does not agree with him. Kilns were of two sorts: the English
kiln made of wood, lath, and clay; the French of brick, lime, and
sand, not so liable to burn as the former and therefore better.[344]
One method of drying was finely to bed the kiln with wheat straw laid
on the hair-cloth, the hops being spread 8 inches thick over this,
'and then you shall keepe a fire a little more fervent than for the
drying of a kiln full of malt,' the fire not to be of wood, for that
made the hops smoky and tasted the beer, but of straw! Worlidge,
strangely, recommended the bed of the kiln to be covered with tin, as
much better than hair-cloth, for then any sort of fuel would do as
well as charcoal, since the smoke did not pass through the hops.
Besides Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Leicestershire,
and Rutlandshire; Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire were recommended by
Markham for hop growing, the great hop counties of to-day being passed
over by him.
The growth of hemp and flax had by this time considerably decayed,
owing to the want of encouragement to trade in these commodities, the
lack of experience in growing them, and the tithes which in some years
amounted to more than the profits.[345] An acre of good flax was worth
from £7 to £12; but if 'wrought up fit to sell in the market' from £15
to £20.
Woad was considered a 'very rich commodity', but according to Blyth it
robbed the land if long continued upon it, although if moderately used
it prepared land for corn, drawing a 'different juice from what the
corn requires'. It more than doubled the rent of land, and had been
sold at from £6 to £20 a ton, the produce of an acre. John Lawrence,
who wrote in the first quarter of the eighteenth century, says woad
was in his time cultivated by companies of people, men, women, and
children, who hired the land, built huts, and grew and prepared the
crop for the dyer's use, then moved on to another place.[346]
There were proofs that man's inventive genius was at work among farm
implements. Worlidge mentions[347] an engine for setting corn,
invented by Gabriel Plat, made of two boards bored with wide holes 4
in. apart, set in a frame, with a funnel to each hole. It was fitted
with iron pins 5 in. long to 'play up and down', and dibble holes into
which the corn was to go from the funnels. This machine was so
intricate and clumsy that Worlidge found no use for it. However, he
recommends another instrument which certainly seems to anticipate
Tull's drill, though Tull is said to have stated when Bradley showed
him a cut of it that it was only a proposal and it never got farther
than the cut.[348] It consisted of a frame of small square pieces of
timber 2 inches thick; the breadth of the frame 2 feet, the height 18
inches, length 4 feet, placed on four good-sized wheels. In the middle
of the frame a coulter was fixed to make a furrow for the corn, which
fell through a wooden pipe behind, that dropped the corn out of a
hopper containing about a bushel, the fall of the corn from the hopper
being regulated by a wooden wheel in its neck. The same frame might
contain two coulters, pipes, and hoppers, and the instrument could be
worked with one horse and one man. It was considered a great advance
on sowing broadcast, and by the use of it 'you may also cover your
grain with any rich compost you shall prepare for that purpose, either
with pigeon dung, dry or granulated, or any other saline or lixirial
(alkaline, or of potash) substance, which may drop after the corn from
another hopper behind the one that drops the corn, or from a separate
drill'. The corn thus sown in rows was found easier to weed and hoe,
so that it is clear that this advantage was well understood before
Tull's time.
There was a great diversity of ploughs at this date, almost every
county having some variation.[349] The principal sorts were the
double-wheel plough, useful upon hard land, usually drawn with horses
or oxen two abreast, the wheels 18 in. to 20 in. high. The one-wheel
plough, which could be used on almost any sort of land; it was very
'light and nimble', so that it could be drawn by one horse and held by
one man, and thus ploughed an acre a day.
Then there was a 'plain plough without either wheel or foot', very
easy to work and fit for any lands; a double plough worked by four
horses and two men, of two kinds, one ploughing a double furrow, the
other a double depth.
There were also ploughs with a harrow attached, others constructed to
plough, sow, and harrow, but not of much value; and a turfing plough
for burning sod. Carts and waggons were of many sorts, according to
the locality, the greater wheels of the waggon being usually 18 feet
in circumference the lesser 9 feet. A useful implement was the
trenching plough used on grass land to cut out the sides of trenches
or drains, with a long handle and beam and with a coulter or knife
fixed in it and sometimes a wheel or wheels. The following is a list
of other implements then considered necessary for a farm.
_For the field._
Harrows Mole spear Beetles
Forks Mole traps Roller
Sickles Weedhooks Cradle scythe
Reaphooks Pitchforks Seedlip[350]
Sledds Rakes
_For the barn and stable._
Flails Pannels (pillions) Pails
Winnowing fan Pack-saddles Mane combs
Sieves Cart lines Goads
Sacks Ladders Yokes
Bins Corn measures Wanteyes[351]
Curry combs Brooms Suffingles (surcingles?)
Whips Skeps (baskets) Screens for corn.
Harness
_For the meadows and pastures._
Scythes Pitchforks Cutting spade for hayrick
Rakes Fetters and clogs Horse-locks.
Besides many tools.
A considerable variety of manures were in use, chalk, lime, marl,
fuller's earth, clay, sand, sea-weed, river-weed, oyster shells, fish,
dung, ashes, soot, salt, rags, hair, malt dust, bones, horns, and the
bark of trees. Of the oyster shells Worlidge says, 'I am credibly
informed that an ingenious gentleman living near the seaside laid on
his lands great quantities, which made his neighbours laugh at him (as
usually they do at anything besides their own clownish road or custom
of ignorance),' and after a year or two's exposure to the weather
'they exceedingly enriched his land for many years after.' The bones
then used were marrow-bones and fish bones, or 'whatever hath any
oiliness or fatness in it', but the bones of horses and other animals
were also used, burnt before being applied to the land, crushing not
being thought of till many years after.
In 1688 Gregory King,[352] who was much more accurate than most
statisticians of his time, gave the following estimate of the land of
England and Wales:--
Acres. Per acre.
Arable 9,000,000 worth to rent 5s. 6d.
Pasture and meadow 12,000,000 " " 8s. 8d.
Woods and coppices 3,000,000 " " 5s.
Forests and parks 3,000,000 " " 3s. 8d.
Barren land 10,000,000 " " 1s.
Houses, gardens, churches, &c. 1,000,000
Water and roads 1,000,000
----------
Total: 39,000,000
He valued the live stock of England and Wales at £18-1/4 millions, and
estimated the produce of the arable land in England at:
Million Value
bushels. per bushel.
Wheat 14 3s. 6d.
Rye 10 2s. 6d.
Barley 27 2s. 0d.
Oats 16 1s. 6d.
Peas 7 2s. 6d.
Beans 4 2s. 6d.
Vetches 1 2s. 6d.
The same statistician drew up a scheme of the income and expenditure
of the 'several families' in England in 1688, the population being
5-1/2 millions[353]:--
No. of
families Class. Income.
in class.
160 Temporal lords £3,200 0 0
800 Baronets 880 0 0
600 Knights 650 0 0
3,000 Esquires 450 0 0
11,000 Gentlemen 280 0 0
2,000 Eminent merchants 400 0 0
8,000 Lesser merchants 198 0 0
10,000 Lawyers 154 0 0
2,000 Eminent clergy 72 0 0
8,000 Lesser clergy 50 0 0
Yeoman:
40,000 Freeholders of the better sort 91 0 0
120,000 Freeholders of the lesser sort 55 0 0
120,000 (Tenant) farmers 42 10 0
50,000 Shopkeepers and tradesmen 45 0 0
60,000 Artisans 38 0 0
364,000 Labouring people and outservants 15 0 0
400,000 Cottagers and paupers 6 10 0
He calculated that the freeholder of the better sort saved on an
average £8 15s. 0d. a year per family of 7; and the lesser sort £2
15s. 0d. a year with a family of 5-1/2. The tenant farmer with a
family of 5, only saved 25s. a year, while labouring families who, he
said, averaged 3-1/2 (certainly an under estimate), lost annually 7s.,
and cottagers and paupers with families of 3-1/4 (also an under
estimate) lost 16s. 3d. a year. It will thus be seen that the tenant
farmers, labourers, and cottagers, the bulk of those who worked on the
land, were very badly off; the tenant farmer saved considerably less
than the artisan. It will also be noticed that the rural population of
England was about three-quarters of the whole.[354]
The winter of 1683-4 was marked by one of the severest frosts that
have ever visited England. Ice on the Thames is said to have been
eleven inches thick; by Jan. 9 there were streets of booths on it; and
by the 24th, the frost continuing more and more severe, all sorts of
shops and trades flourished on the river, 'even to a printing press,
where the people and ladies took a fancy to have their names printed
and the day and year set down when printed on the Thames.' Coaches
plied, there was bull-baiting, horse and coach races, puppet plays and
interludes, tippling 'and other lewd places'--a regular carnival on
the water.[355] Altogether the frost which began at Christmas lasted
ninety-one days and did much damage on land, many of the trees were
split as if struck by lightning, and men and cattle perished in some
parts. Poultry and other birds and many plants and vegetables also
perished. Wheat, however, was little affected, as the average price
was under 40s. a quarter. In 1692 a series of very bad seasons
commenced, lasting, with a break in 1694, until 1698, always known as
the 'ill' or 'barren' seasons, and the cause was the usual one in
England, excessive cold and wet. In 1693 wheat was over 60s. a
quarter, and in Kent turnips were made into bread for the poor.[356]
The difference in the price of farm produce in various localities was
striking, and an eloquent testimony to the wretched means of
communication. At Newark, for instance, in 1692-3 wheat was from 36s.
to 40s. a quarter, while at Brentford it touched 76s.; next year in
the same two places it was 32s. and 86s. respectively. In 1695-6 hay
at Newark was 13s. 4d. a ton, at Northampton it was from 35s. to 40s.
In 1662 was passed the famous statute of parochial settlement, 14 Car.
II, c. 12, which forged cruel fetters for the poor, and is said to
have caused the iron of slavery to enter into the soul of the English
labourer.[357] The Act states, that the reason for passing it was the
continual increase of the poor throughout the kingdom, which had
become exceeding burdensome owing to the defects in the law. Poor
people, moreover, wandered from one parish to another in order 'to
settle where there is the best Stocke, the largest commons or wastes
to build cotages, and the most woods for them to burn and
destroy.'[358] It was therefore determined to stop these wanderings,
and most effectually was it done. Two justices were empowered to
remove any person who settled in any tenement under the yearly value
of £10 within forty days to the place where he was last legally
settled, unless he gave sufficient security for the discharge of the
parish in case he became a pauper.
It is true that certain relaxations were subsequently made. The Act of
1691, 3 W. & M., c. 2, allowed derivative settlements on payment of
taxes for one year, serving an annual office, hiring for a year, and
apprenticeship; while the Act of 1696, 8 & 9 Wm. III, c. 30, allowed
the grant of a certificate of settlement, under which safeguard the
holder could migrate to a district where his labour was required, the
new parish being assured he would not become chargeable to it, and
therefore not troubling to remove him till there was actual need: but
the statute acted as an effectual check on migration and prevented the
labourer carrying his work where it was wanted.[359] It became the
object of parishes to have as few cottages and therefore as few poor
as possible. In 'close' parishes, i.e. where all the land belonged to
one owner, as distinguished from 'open' ones where it belonged to
several, all the cottages were often pulled down so that labourers
coming to work in it had to travel long distances in all weathers. We
shall see further relaxation in the law in 1795, but it was not until
modern times that this abominable system was destroyed. The
agricultural labourer's difficulty in building a house was aggravated
by the statute 31 Eliz., c. 7, before noticed, which in order to
restrain the building of cottages enacted that none, except in towns
and certain other places, were to be built unless 4 acres of land were
attached to them, under a penalty of £10, and 40s. a month for
continuing to maintain it. This Act was not repealed until the reign
of George III. However, it seems to have been frequently winked at. In
Shropshire, for instance, the fine often was only nominal; in the
seventeenth century orders authorizing the building of cottages on the
waste were freely given by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and orders
were also made by the Court for the erection of cottages
elsewhere.[360]
At the restoration of Charles II the corn laws had practically been
unaltered since 1571,[361] when it had been enacted that corn might be
exported from certain ports in certain ships at all times when
proclamation was not made to the contrary, on a payment of 12d. a
quarter on wheat and 8d. a quarter on other grain. Now both export and
import were subjected to heavy duties, but these caused such high
prices in corn that they were reduced in 1663; yet high duties were
again imposed in 1673, which continued until the revolution. Then,
owing to good crops and low prices, which brought distress on the
landed interest, a new policy was introduced: export duties were
abolished and the other extreme resorted to, viz. a bounty on export
of 5s. in the quarter as long as the home price did not exceed 48s. At
the same time import duties remained high, and this system lasted till
1773. Never had the corn-growers of England been so thoroughly
protected, yet, owing to causes over which the legislators had no
control, namely bountiful seasons, the prices of wheat for the next
seventy years was from 15 to 20 per cent. cheaper than in the previous
forty. Modern economists have described this system as one of the
worst instances of a class using their legislative power to subsidize
themselves at the expense of the community. As a matter of fact it was
the firm conviction of the statesmen and economists of the time, that
husbandry, being the main industry and prop of England, and the
foundation on which the whole political power of the country was
based, should receive every encouragement. At all events, in many ways
the policy was successful.[362] It encouraged investment in land, and
materially assisted the agricultural improvement for which the
eighteenth century was noted, the export too employed English
shipping, and thus aided industry. Arthur Young said it was the
singular felicity of this country to have devised a plan which
accomplished the strange paradox of at once lowering the price of corn
and encouraging agriculture, for by the system in vogue till 1773 if
corn was scarce it was imported, while if there was a glut at home
export was assisted so that great fluctuations in price were
prevented.[363] It seemed of the utmost importance to men of that time
that England should be self-supporting and independent of possible
adversaries for the necessaries of life; the wisdom of the policy was
never questioned, and was accepted by statesmen of every party.[364]
To blame the landowners for adopting what seemed the wisest course to
every sensible person is merely an instance of partisan spite.
At the Peace of Paris in 1763 the question as to whether England or
France was to be the great colonizing country of the world was finally
settled, and a great development of English trade ensued. It was
accompanied by a great increase of population, exports of corn were
largely reduced, and the balance began to incline the other way, so
that the next Act of importance was that of 1773 which permitted the
import of foreign wheat at a nominal duty of 6d. a quarter when it was
over 48s., but prohibited export and the bounty on export when wheat
was at or above 44s. This was the nearest approach to free trade
before 1846.
The time, however, was not yet ripe for this, and the nominal duty on
imports was too small for landlords and farmers, so that in 1791 the
price when the same nominal duty was to come into force was raised to
54s., while between 50s. and 54s. a duty of 2s. 6d. was imposed, and
under 50s. a duty of 24s. 3d.; and export was allowed without bounty
when wheat was under 46s. Export of corn, however, by this time had
become a matter of little moment, England having definitely ceased to
be an exporting country after 1789.
Not only were English landowners after the Restoration anxious to
protect their corn, but they also took alarm at the imports of Irish
cattle which they said lowered English rents, so that in 1665 and 1680
(18 Car. II, c. 2, and 32 Car. II, c. 2) laws were framed absolutely
prohibiting the import of Irish cattle, sheep, and swine, as well as
of beef, pork, bacon, and mutton, and even butter and cheese. The
statute 12 Car. II, c. 4, also virtually excluded Irish wool from
England by duties amounting to prohibition. It was not until 1759 that
free imports of cattle from Ireland were allowed for five years,[365]
a period prolonged by 5 Geo. III, c. 10, and a statute of 1772.
In 1699 wool was allowed to be shipped from six specified ports in
Ireland to eight specified ports in England,[366] and by 16 Geo. II,
c. 11, wool might be sent from Ireland to any port in England under
certain restrictions.
FOOTNOTES:
[339] Worlidge, _Systema Agriculturae_ (ed. 1669), p. 10.
[340] Ibid. p. 124.
[341] Ibid. p. 124.
[342] _Pomona_ (ed. 1664), p. 1.
[343] Ed. 1635, Book i, p. 175.
[344] Markham, _op. cit._ i. 188.
[345] Worlidge, _Systema Agriculturae_, p. 38. Plot, however, in his
_Natural History of Staffordshire_, 1686, says hemp and flax were sown
in small quantities all over the county, p. 109.
[346] _New System of Agriculture_ (ed. 1726), p. 113. Woad is still
grown 'in some districts in England' (Morton, _Cyclopaedia of
Agriculture_, ii. 1159), but in the Agricultural Returns of 1907
apparently occupies too small an acreage to entitle it to a separate
mention.
[347] Worlidge, _Systema Agriculturae_, p. 43.
[348] Tull, in his _Horseshoeing Husbandry_ (p. 147), speaks of the
drill as if already in use.
[349] Worlidge, _Systema Agriculturae_, p. 205.
[350] The seedlip was a long-shaped basket suspended from the sower's
shoulder and was usually made of wood.
[351] Horse-girths for securing pack-saddles.
[352] Houghton, about the same time, said England contained 28 to 29
million acres, of which 12 millions lay waste (_Collections_, iv. II).
In 1907 the Board of Agriculture returned the total area of England
and Wales, excluding water, at 37,130,344 acres.
[353] Eden, _State of the Poor_, i. 228.
[354] If we allow that most of the two last classes enumerated were
country folk. For the decline of the yeoman class, see chap. xviii.
[355] Evelyn's _Diary_.
[356] Tooke, _History of Prices_, i. 23.
[357] Fowle, _Poor Law_, p. 63.
[358] Hasbach, _op. cit._ p. 66, says, 'the abuses complained of in
the preamble (of the Act) did actually exist.'
[359] Hasbach, _op. cit._ pp. 67, 134, says the statute of 1662 did
not entail so much evil by hindering migration as is generally
supposed.
[360] _Shropshire County Records_: Abstracts of the orders made by the
Court of Quarter Sessions, 1638-1782, pp. xxiv, xxv.
[361] See above, p. 70. 13 Eliz., c. 13. McCulloch, _Commercial
Dictionary_ (1852), p. 412.
[362] Cunningham, _English Industry and Commerce_, ii. 371.
[363] _Political Arithmetic_, pp. 27-34, 193, 276.
[364] Lecky, _England in the Eighteenth Century_, vi. 192.
[365] McPherson, _Annals of Commerce_, iii. 311.
[366] Ibid. ii. 706; iii. 221, 293.