1793-1815
THE GREAT FRENCH WAR.--THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.--HIGH PRICES, AND
HEAVY TAXATION.
This period, that of the great war with France, was one generally of
high prices and prosperity for landowners and farmers. It was a
prosperity, however, that was largely fictitious, and when the high
prices of the war time were over, it was succeeded by many disastrous
years. The prosperity, too, was also largely neutralized by a crushing
weight of taxation and rates, while the labourer, although his wages
were increased, found prices grow at a much greater rate, and it was,
as Thorold Rogers has said, the most miserable period in his history.
Its commencement was marked by the foundation of the Board of
Agriculture. On May 15, 1793, Sir John Sinclair[504] moved in the
House of Commons, 'that His Majesty would take into his consideration
the advantages which might be derived from the establishment of such a
board, for though in some particular districts improved methods of
cultivating the soil were practised, yet in the greatest part of these
kingdoms the principles of agriculture are not sufficiently
understood, nor are the implements of husbandry or the stock of the
farmer brought to that perfection of which they are capable. His
Majesty's faithful Commons were persuaded that if it were founded a
spirit of improvement might be encouraged, which would result in
important national benefits.
The motion was carried by 101 to 26. By its charter the board
consisted of a president, 16 ex-officio and 30 ordinary members, with
honorary and corresponding members. It was not a Government department
in the modern sense of the term, but a society for the encouragement
of agriculture, as the Royal Society is for the encouragement of
science. It was, indeed, supported by parliamentary grants, receiving
a sum of £3,000 a year, but the Government had only a limited control
over its affairs through the ex-officio members, among whom were the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Lord Chancellor, the First
Lord of the Admiralty, and the Speaker.
The first president was Sir John Sinclair, and the first secretary
Arthur Young, with a salary of £400 a year, which he thought
insufficient.[505] The first task of the new board was that of
preparing statistical accounts of English agriculture, and it was
intended to take in hand the commutation of tithes, which would have
been a great boon to farmers, with whom the prevailing system of
collecting tithes was very unpopular; but the Primate's opposition
stopped this. The board appointed lecturers, procured a reward for
Elkington for his draining system, encouraged Macadam in his plans for
improving roads, and Meikle the inventor of the thrashing machine, and
obtained the removal of taxes on draining tiles, and other taxes
injurious to agriculture. It also recommended the allotment system,
and Sinclair desired 3 acres and a cow for every industrious cottager.
During the abnormally high prices of provisions from 1794-6, the
quartern loaf in London in 1795 being 1s. 6d., though next year it
dropped to 7-3/4d.,[506] the board made experiments in making bread
with substitutes for wheat, which resulted in a public exhibition of
eighty different sorts of bread. Its efforts were generally followed
by increased zeal among agriculturists; but Sinclair, an able but
impetuous man,[507] appears to have taken things too much into his own
hands and pushed them too speedily.
Financial difficulties came, chiefly owing to the cost of the surveys,
which had been hurried on with undue haste and often with great
carelessness, the surveyors sometimes being men who knew nothing of
the subject.
Sinclair was deposed from the presidency in 1798, and succeeded by
Lord Somerville. He again was succeeded by Lord Carrington, under
whose presidency the board offered premiums (the first of £200), owing
to the high price of wheat and consequent distress, for essays on the
best means of converting certain portions of grass land into tillage
without exhausting the soil, and of returning the same to grass, after
a certain period, in an improved state, or at least without injury.
The general report, based on the information derived from these
essays, states that no high price of corn or temporary distress would
justify the ploughing up of old meadows or rich pastures, and that on
certain soils well adapted to grass age improves the quality of the
pasture to a degree which no system of management on lands broken up
and laid down can equal. In spite of this, the cupidity of landowners
and farmers, when wheat was a guinea a bushel or at prices near it,
led to the ploughing up of much splendid grass land, which was never
laid down again until, perhaps in recent years, owing to the low price
of grain; so that some of the land at all events has, owing to bad
times, returned to the state best suited to it.
The board looked upon the enclosure and cultivation of waste lands,
which in England they estimated at 6,000,000 acres,[508] as a panacea
for the prevailing distress, and after much opposition they managed to
pass through both Houses in 1801 a Bill cheapening and facilitating
the process of parliamentary enclosure. This Act, 41 Geo. III, c. 109,
'extracted a number of clauses from various private Acts and enacted
that they should hold good in all cases where the special Act did not
expressly provide to the contrary.' Another benefit rendered to
agriculture was the establishment in 1803 of lectures on agricultural
chemistry, the first lecturer engaged being Mr., afterwards Sir
Humphry, Davy, who may be regarded as the father of agricultural
chemistry.
In 1806 Sinclair was re-elected president, and his second term was
mainly devoted to completing the agricultural surveys of the different
counties, which, before his retirement in 1813, he had with one or two
exceptions the satisfaction of seeing finished. Though over-impetuous,
he rendered valuable service to agriculture, not only by his own
energy but by stirring up energy in others; as William Wilberforce the
philanthrophist said, 'I have myself seen collected in that small room
several of the noblemen and gentlemen of the greatest properties in
the British Isles, all of them catching and cultivating an
agricultural spirit, and going forth to spend in the employment of
labourers, and I hope in the improvement of land, immense sums which
might otherwise have been lavished on hounds and horses, or squandered
on theatricals.'
Among the numerous subjects into which the board inquired was the
divining rod for finding water, which was tested in Hyde Park in 1801,
and successfully stood the test. In 1805, Davy the chemist reported on
a substance in South America called 'guana', which he had analysed and
found to contain one-third of ammoniacal salt with other salts and
carbon, but its use was not to come for another generation. From the
time of Sinclair's retirement in 1813 the board declined. Arthur
Young, its secretary, had become blind and his capacity therefore
impaired. One year its lack of energy was shown by the return of
£2,000 of the Government grant to the Treasury because it had nothing
to spend it on. The Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool, was against it,
the clergy feared the commutation of tithe which the board advocated,
the legal profession was against the Enclosure Act, the landed
interest thought the surveys were intended for purposes of taxation;
and the grant being withdrawn, an effort to maintain the board by
voluntary subscription failed, so that it dissolved in 1822, after
doing much valuable work for English agriculture.
Before its extinction it had held in 1821, at Aldridge's Repository,
the first national agricultural show. £685 was given in prizes, and
the entries included 10 bulls, 9 cows and heifers, several fat steers
and cows, 7 pens of Leicester and Cotswold rams and ewes; 12 pens of
Down, and 9 or 10 pens of Merino rams and ewes.[509] Most of the
cattle shown were Shorthorn, or Durham, as they were then called, with
some Herefords, Devons, Longhorns, and Alderneys. There were also
exhibits of grass, turnip-seed, roots, and implements.
This first national show had been preceded by many local ones.[510]
The end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries
saw the establishment all over England of farmers' clubs, cattle
shows, and ploughing matches.
The period now before us is marked by the great work of the Collings,
who next to Bakewell did most to improve the cattle of the United
Kingdom. Charles Colling was born in 1751, and the scene of his famous
labours was Ketton near Darlington. He had learnt from Bakewell the
all-importance of quality in cattle, and determined to improve the
local Shorthorn breed near his own home, which had been described in
1744 as 'the most profitable beasts for the dairyman, butcher, and
grazier, with their wide bags, short horns, and large bodies.' He was
to make these 'profitable beasts' the best all-round cattle in the
world, and to succeed where George Culley had failed. The first bull
of merit he possessed was 'Hubback',[511] described as a little
yellow, red, and white five-year-old, which was mated with cows
afterwards to be famous, named Duchess, Daisy, Cherry, and Lady
Maynard. At first Colling was against in-breeding, and not until 1793
did he adopt it, more by accident than intention, but the experiment
being successful he became an enthusiast. The experiment was the
putting of Phoenix to Lord Bolingbroke, who was both her half-brother
and her nephew, and the result was the famous Favourite. A young
farmer who saw Favourite and his sister at Darlington in 1799, was so
struck by them that he paid Colling the first 100 guineas ever given
for a Shorthorn cow.[512]
One of Hubback's daughters had in 1795, by Favourite, a roan calf
which grew to be the celebrated Durham Ox, which at five and a half
years weighed 3,024 lb., and was sold for £140. It was sold again for
£250, the second purchaser refusing £2,000 for it, and taking it round
England on show made a profitable business out of it, in one day in
London making £97. A still more famous animal was the bull Comet, born
1804, which at the great sale in 1810 fetched 1,000 guineas. This bull
was the crowning triumph of Colling's career and the result of very
close breeding, being described as the best bull ever seen, with a
fine masculine head, broad and deep chest, shoulders well laid back,
loins good, hind-quarters long, straight and well packed, thighs
thick, with nice straight hocks and hind legs. Perhaps Colling thought
he had pursued in-and-in breeding too far, at all events in 1810 he
dispersed his famous herd. The sale was held at a most propitious
time, for the Durham Ox had advertised the name of Colling far and
wide, and owing to the war prices were very high. Comet fetched 1,000
guineas, and the other forty-seven lots averaged £151 8s. 5d., an
unheard-of sale, yet all the auctioneer got was 5 guineas, much of the
work of the sale falling on the owner, and the former sold the stock
with a sand-glass.
After the sale at Ketton, Brampton, the farm of Charles's brother
Robert, became the centre of interest to the Shorthorn world. Robert
obtained excellent prices for his stock, five daughters of his famous
bull George fetching 200 guineas each. Probably he, like his brother,
pursued in-and-in breeding too far, and in 1818 there was another
great sale; but war-prices had gone and agriculture was depressed, so
that the cattle fetched less than at Ketton, but still averaged £128
14s. 9d. for 61 lots, and 22 rams averaged £39 6s. 4d. Robert died in
1820, his brother in 1836.
It cannot be said that the Collings were the founders of a new breed
of cattle; they were the collectors and preservers of an ancient breed
that might otherwise have disappeared.[513] The object of good
breeders was now to get their cattle fat at an early age, and they so
far succeeded as to sell three-year-old steers for £20 apiece,
generally fed thus: in the first winter, hay and turnips; the
following summer, coarse pasture; the second winter, straw in the
foldyard and a few turnips; next summer, tolerable good pasture; and
the third winter, as many turnips as they could eat.[514]
Cattle at this time were classified thus: Shorthorns, Devons, Sussex,
Herefords (the two latter said by Culley to be varieties of the
Devon), Longhorned, Galloway or Polled, Suffolk Duns, Kyloes, and
Alderneys.
Sheep thus: the Dishley Breed (New Leicesters), Lincolns, Teeswaters,
Devonshire Notts, Exmoor, Dorsetshire, Herefordshire, Southdown,
Norfolk, Heath, Herdwick, Cheviot, Dunfaced, Shetland, Irish.[515]
With the increased demand for corn and meat from the towns the
necessity of new and better implements became apparent, and many
patents were taken out: by Praed, for drill ploughs, in 1781; by
Horn, for sowing machines, in 1784; by Heaton, for harrows, in 1787;
for sowing machines, by Sandilands, 1788; for reaping machines, by
Boyce, 1799; winnowing machines, by Cooch, 1800; haymakers, by Salmon,
1816; and for scarifiers, chaff-cutters, turnip-slicers, and
food-crushers.[516] But the great innovation was the threshing machine
of Meikle. Like most inventions, it had forerunners. The first
threshing machine is mentioned in the _Select Transactions of the
Society of Improvers in the Knowledge of Agriculture in Scotland_,
published in 1743 by Maxwell. It was invented by Michael Menzies, and
by it one man could do the work of six. One machine was worked by a
great water-wheel and triddles, another by a little wheel of 3 feet
diameter, moved by a small quantity of water. The first attempts to
substitute horse or other power for manual in threshing were directed
to the revolution of jointed flails, which should strike the floor on
which the corn was spread, but this proved unsatisfactory, so that
rubbing the grain out of the straw by revolving cylinders was
tried,[517] Young, in his northern tour, met a Mr. Clarke at Belford
in Northumberland, who was famous for mechanics,[518] among his
inventions being a threshing machine worked by one horse, which does
not seem to have effected much. Eventually Mr. A. Meikle, of Houston
Mill near Haddington, in 1798 erected a machine the principles of
which, much modified, are those of to-day; and in 1803 Mr. Aitchison,
of Drumore in East Lothian, first applied steam to threshing. It was
some time, however, before this beneficent invention was generally
used, and when the machines were used they were usually driven by
horse--or water-power until about 1850. In 1883 Messrs. Howard, of
Bedford, adapted a sheaf-binding apparatus to the threshing machine.
With new implements came new crops; the Swede turnip was grown on some
farms in Notts just before 1800, but it is not known who introduced
it.[519] The mangel wurzel was introduced about 1780-5 by Parkyns, and
prickly comfrey in 1811.
The year 1795 was one of great scarcity owing to the wet and stormy
summer, and in August wheat went up to 108s. a quarter.[520] As usual
many other causes but the right one were put forth, and the old
accusations of monopoly, forestalling, and regrating were heard again.
The war with France, with more reason, was considered to have helped
in raising prices, but the chief cause was the bad season. The members
of both Houses of Parliament bound themselves to reduce the
consumption of bread in their homes by one-third, and recommended
others to a similar reduction. It was a period of terrible distress
for the agricultural labourer. His wages were about 9s. a week, and it
was impossible for him to live on them, so that what is known as 'the
allowance system' came in. At Speenhamland in Berkshire, in this year,
the magistrates agreed that it was not expedient to help the labourer
by regulating his wages according to the statute of Elizabeth, but
recommended the farmers to increase their pay in proportion to the
present price of provisions, and they also granted relief to all poor
and industrious men according to the price of bread. They were merely
giving effect to Gilbert's Act of 1782, which legalized the
supplementing of the wages of able-bodied men from the rates, and the
decision was nicknamed the 'Speenhamland Act' because it was so
generally followed. However well meant, the effect was most
demoralizing and the English labourer, already too prone to look to
the State for help, was induced to depend less on his own exertions.
The real remedy would have been a substantial increase of his scanty
wages. As it was, landowner and farmer were often paying the labourer
in rates money that would far better have come to him in wages, and
the rates in some districts became so burdensome that land was thrown
out of cultivation. In the same year as the Speenhamland Act the
statute 36 Geo. III, c. 23, forbade the removal of persons from any
parish until they were in actual need of support; but although the law
was thus relaxed, the fixed principle which caused the refusal of all
permanent relief to labourers who had no settlement in the parish
acted as a very efficient check on migration, though, as we have seen,
it did not entirely check it. In 1796 the question of regulating the
labourers' wages by Parliament was raised; but Pitt, remembering such
schemes had always failed, was hostile, and the matter dropped.[521]
In the same year Eden made his inquiries concerning the rate of wages
and the cost of living. In Bedford, he found the agricultural labourer
was getting 1s. 2d. a day and beer, with extras in harvest[522]; but
bacon was 10d. a lb. and wheat 12s. a bushel. However, parish
allowances were liberal, a man, his wife, and four children sometimes
receiving 11s. a week from that source.
In Cumberland the labourer was being paid 10d. to 1s. a day with food,
or 1s. 6d. to 1s. 8d. without; in Hertfordshire, 1s. 6d. a day; in
Suffolk, 1s. 4d. a day and beer.
Nearly everywhere his expenditure was much in excess of his earnings,
the yearly budgets of fifty-three families in twelve different
counties showed generally large annual deficiencies, amounting in one
case to £21 18s. 4d. In one case in Lindsey, where the deficiency was
small, the family lived on bread alone. The factory system, too, had
already deprived the labourer of many of his by-industries, and thus
helped the pauperism for which landlord and farmer had to pay in
rates.
About 1788 Sir William Young proposed to send the unemployed labourers
round to the parishioners to get work, their wages being paid by their
employers and by the parish. This method of obtaining work was known
as the 'roundsman system'.[523]
Landlords, however, and farmers were profiting greatly by the high
prices, which fortunately received a check by the abundant harvest of
1796, which, with large imports,[524] caused the price of wheat to
fall to 57s. 3d., and in 1798 to 47s. 10d. It is difficult to conceive
what instability, speculation, and disaster such fluctuations must
have led to. In 1797 the Bank Restriction Act was passed, suspending
cash payments, and thereby causing a huge growth in credit
transactions, a great factor in the inflated prosperity of this
period. In January, 1799, wool was 2s. a lb., and prices at
Smithfield:
s. d. s. d.
Beef, per stone of 8 lb. 3 0 to 3 4
Mutton " " 3 0 " 4 2
Pork " " 2 8 " 3 8
The summer of that year was uninterruptedly wet; some corn in the
north was uncut in November, so that wheat went up to 94s. 2d., and in
June, 1800, was 134s. 5d., the scarcity being aggravated by the
Russian Government laying an embargo on British shipping.[525] Yet
Pitt denied that the high prices were due to the war.[526] They were
due, indeed, to several causes:
1. Frequent years of scarcity.
2. Increase of consumption, owing to the great growth of
the manufacturing population, England during the war having
almost a monopoly of the trade of Europe.
3. Napoleon's obstructions to importation.
4. The unprecedented fall of foreign exchanges.
5. The rise in the price of labour, scanty as it was.
6. Suspension of cash payments, which produced a medium
of circulation of an unlimited nature, and led to speculation.[527]
In March, 1801, wheat was 156s.; beef at Smithfield, 5s. to 6s. 6d. a
stone; and mutton, 6s. 6d. to 8s. A rise in wages was allowed on all
sides to be imperative, but the labourer even now got on an average
little more than 9s. a week,[528] a very inadequate pittance, though
generally supplemented by the parish. Arthur Young[529] tells of a
person living near Bury in 1801, who, before the era of high prices,
earned 5s. a week, and with that could purchase:
A bushel of wheat.
" malt.
1 lb. of butter.
1 lb. of cheese.
A pennyworth of tobacco.
But in 1801 the same articles cost him:
s. d.
A bushel of wheat 16 0
" malt 9 0
1 lb. of butter 1 0
1 lb. of cheese 4
Tobacco 1
--------
£1 6 5
========
His wages were now 9s., and his allowance from the rates 6s., so that
there was a deficiency of 11s. 5d.
The increase in the cost of living in the last thirty years is
further illustrated by the following table:
1773. 1793. 1799. 1800.
£ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.
Coomb of malt 12 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 0 0
Chaldron of coals 1 11 6 2 0 6 2 6 0 2 11 0
Coomb of oats 5 0 13 0 16 0 1 1 0
Load of hay 2 2 0 4 10 0 5 5 0 7 0 0
Meat, per lb. 4 5 7 9
Butter, " 6 11 11 1 4
Loaf sugar, per lb. 8 1 0 1 3 1 4
Poor rates, in the £ 1 0 2 6 3 0 5 0
It was again proposed by Mr. Whitbread in the House of Commons that
wages should be regulated by the price of provisions, and a minimum
wage fixed; but there was enough sense in the House to reject this
return to obsolete methods.
After March, 1801, prices commenced to fall, owing to a favourable
season and the reopening of the Baltic ports, which allowed imports to
come in more freely, for most of our foreign corn at this time came
from Germany and Denmark. At the end of the year wheat averaged 75s.
6d., and with fair seasons it came down in the beginning of 1804 to
49s. 6d. Beef at Smithfield was from 4s. to 5s. 4d. a stone, mutton
from 4s. to 4s. 6d.[530] This great drop in prices was accompanied by
an increase in wages, the labourer from 1804 to 1810 getting on an
average 12s. a week[531]; the cost of implements rose, so did the rate
of interest, and the cry of agricultural distress in 1804 was heard
everywhere. More protection was demanded by those interested in the
land, and accordingly a duty of 24s. 3d. was imposed when the price
was 63s. or under; a bounty was paid on export when it was 40s. or
under; and wheat might be exported without bounty up to 54s.
However, 1804 was a very deficient harvest, owing to blight and
mildew, and by the end of the year wheat was 86s. 2d. The harvests
till 1808 were not as bad as that of 1804, but not good enough to
lower the prices. Also, owing to the Berlin and Milan Decrees of
Napoleon and the Non-intercourse Act of the United States of America,
imports were restricted so that at the end of 1808 wheat was 92s. In
this year the exports of wheat exceeded the imports, but it was due to
the requirements of our army in Spain; and 1789 was the last year when
exports were greater under normal circumstances.[532] 1809 was a bad
harvest, so was 1810; in the former rot being very prevalent among
sheep; and by August, 1810, hay was £11 a load and wheat 116s., only
large imports (1,567,126 quarters) preventing a famine. Down wool was
2s. 1d. per lb., beef and mutton 8-1/2d., cheese 8d.[533]
In 1811 the whole of July and part of August were wet and cold; and
in August, 1812, wheat averaged 155s., the finest Dantzic selling at
Mark Lane for 180s., and oats reached 84s. As our imports of corn then
chiefly came from the north-west of Europe, which has a climate very
similar to our own, crops there were often deficient from bad seasons
in the same years as our own, and the price consequently high. On the
other hand, it is a proof that produce will find the best market
regardless of hindrances, that much of our corn at this time came from
France. Corn in 1813 was seized on with such avidity that there was no
need to show samples. As high prices had now prevailed for some time
and were still rising, landlords and farmers jumped to the conclusion
that they would be permanent; so that this is the period when rents
experienced their greatest increase, in some cases having increased
fivefold since 1790, and speculations in land were most general. Land
sold for forty years' purchase, many men of spirit and adventure very
different from farmers 'were tempted to risk their property in
agricultural speculations',[534] and large sums were sunk in lands and
improvements in the spirit of mercantile enterprise. The land was
considered as a kind of manufacturing establishment, and 'such powers
of capital and labour were applied as forced almost sterility itself
to become fertile.' Even good pastures were ploughed up to grow wheat
at a guinea a bushel, and much worthless land was sown with corn.
Manure was procured from the most remote quarters, and we are told a
new science rose up, agricultural chemistry, which, 'with much
frivolity and many refinements remote from common sense, was not
without great operation on the productive powers of land.'
Land jobbing and speculation became general, and credit came to the
aid of capital. The larger farmers, as we have seen, were before the
war inclined to an extravagance that amazed their older
contemporaries; now we are told, some insisted on being called
esquire, and some kept liveried servants.[535]
It is somewhat curious to learn that one of the drawbacks from which
farmers suffered at this time was the ravages of pigeons, which seem
to have been as numerous as in the Middle Ages, when the lord's
dovecote was the scourge of the villein's crops. In 1813 there was
said to be 20,000 pigeon houses in England and Wales, each on an
average containing 100 pairs of old pigeons.[536]
Another pest was the large number of 'vermin', whose destruction had
long before been considered important enough to demand the attention
of the legislature.[537] Some parishes devoted large portions of their
funds to this object; in 1786 East Budleigh in Devonshire, out of a
total receipt of £20 1s. 8-1/2d., voted £5 10s. for vermin killing.
That now sacred animal the fox was then treated with scant respect,
farmers and landlords paying for his destruction as 'vermin'[538]; the
parish accounts of Ashburton in Devonshire, for instance, from
1761-1820 include payments for killing 18 foxes and 4 vixens, with no
less than 153 badgers.
But the edifice of artificial prosperity was already tottering. After
1812 prices fell steadily,[539] the abundant harvest of 1813 and the
opening of the continental ports accelerated this, and by December,
1813, wheat was 73s. 3d. Yet agriculture had made solid progress. The
Committee of the House of Commons which inquired into the state of the
corn trade in 1813 stated that through the extension of, and
improvements in, agriculture the agricultural produce of the kingdom
had increased one-fourth in the preceding ten years.[540] The high
prices had attracted a large amount of capital to the land, so that
there was very rapid and extensive progress, the methods of tillage
were improved, large tracts of inferior pasture converted into arable,
much, however, of which was soon to revert to weeds; there were many
enclosures, and many fens, commons, and wastes reclaimed. But there
was a reverse side to this picture of prosperity, even in the case of
landlord and farmer. The burden of taxation was crushing; a
contemporary writer, a farmer of twenty-five years standing,[541]
wrote that, with the land tax remaining the same, there was a high
property tax, house and window taxes were doubled, poor rates in some
places trebled, highway, church, and constable rates doubled and
trebled, and there were oppressive taxes on malt and horses, both nags
and farm animals. A man renting a farm at £70 and keeping two
farm-horses, a nag, and a dog, would pay taxes for them of £5 0s. 6d.,
a fourteenth of his rent.[542] Indeed, poor rates of 16s. and 20s. in
the £ were known,[543] and they were occasionally more than the whole
rent received by the landlord forty years before. A Devonshire
landowner complained that seven-sixteenths out of the annual value of
every estate in the county was taken from owners and occupiers in
direct taxes.[544] And the Committee on Agricultural Depression of
1822 asserted that during the war taxes and rates were quadrupled.[545]
Blacksmiths, whitesmiths, collar makers, ropers, carpenters, and many
other tradesmen with whom the farmer dealt, raised their prices
threefold; and it was openly asserted that the high prices of grain
and stock were not proportionate to the increase of other prices. Much
of the grass land broken up in the earlier years of the war was before
the close in a miserable condition, for it was cropped year after year
without manure, and was worn out. On the whole it may be doubted if
the bulk of the farmers of England made large profits during the war;
many no doubt profited by the extraordinary fluctuations in prices,
and it was those men who 'kept liveried servants'; but there must have
been many who lost heavily by the same means, and the rise of rent,
taxes, rates, labour, and tradesmen's prices largely discounted the
prices of corn and stock. The landowners at this period have generally
been described as flourishing at the expense of the community, but
their increased rents were greatly neutralized by the weight of
taxation and the general rise in prices. A contemporary writer says
that owing to the heavy taxes, even in the war time, he 'often had not
a shilling at the end of the year.'[546]
The following accounts, drawn up in 1805,[547] do not show that
farmers were making much money with wheat at 10s. a bushel:
Account of the culture of an acre of wheat on good fallow land:
Dr. £ s. d.
Two years' rent 2 0 0
Hauling dung from fold 10 0
Four ploughings 2 0 0
Two harrowings 4 0
Lime 1 18 0
Seed, 2-1/2 bushels 1 5 0
Reaping 5 0
Threshing 10 0
Wages 5 0
Tithes and taxes 15 0
--------
£9 12 0
========
Cr. £ s. d.
20 bushels of wheat at 10s 10 0 0
The straw was set against
the value of the dung.
The tailend wheat was
Eaten by the family!
---------
£10 0 0
=========
And on a farm on good land in the same county the following would be
the annual balance sheet at the same date:
Dr. £ s. d.
Rent 200 0 0
Tithes 40 0 0
Wages 58 0 0
Extra harvestmen 7 0 0
Tradesmen's bills 50 0 0
Taxes and rates 58 0 0
Malt, hops, and cider 60 0 0
Lime 20 0 0
Hop poles 10 0 0
Expenses at fairs and markets 8 0 0
Clothing, groceries, &c., for the family 45 0 0
Interest on £1,500 capital, at 5 per cent. 75 0 0
Sundries 15 0 0
----------
£646 0 0
==========
Cr. £ s. d.
360 bushels of wheat, @ 10 s. 180 0 0
300 bushels of barley, @ 6s. 90 0 0
100 bushels of peas, @ 6s. 30 0 0
20 cwt. hops 60 0 0
Sale of oxen, cows and calves 150 0 0
Profits from sheep 100 0 0
" from pigs, poultry, dairy, and sundries 50 0 0
----------
£660 0 0
==========
According to this the farmer did little more than pay rent, interest
on capital, and get a living. Yet prices of what he had to sell had
gone up greatly: wheat in Herefordshire in 1760 was 3s. a bushel, in
1805, 10s.; butcher's meat in 1760 was 1-1/2d. a lb., in 1804, 7d.;
fresh butter 4-1/2d. in 1760, 1s. 3d. in 1804; a fat goose in Hereford
market in 1740, 10d.; 1760, 1s.; 1804, 4s.; a couple of fowls in 1740,
6d.; 1760, 7d.; 1804, 2s. 4d.[548] The winter of 1813-4 was
extraordinarily severe, and the wheat crop was seriously injured, but
the increased breadth of cultivation, a large surplus, and great
importations kept the price down. Many sheep, however, were killed by
the hard winter, which also reduced the quality of the cattle, so that
meat was higher in 1814 than at any previous period.[549] At
Smithfield beef was 6s. to 7s. a stone, mutton 7s. to 8s. 6d. With the
peace of 1814 the fictitious prosperity came to an end, a large amount
of paper was withdrawn from circulation, which lowered the price of
all commodities, and a large number of country banks failed. The first
sufferers were the agricultural classes, who happened at that time to
hold larger supplies than usual, the value of which fell at once; the
incomes of all were diminished, and the capital of many
annihilated.[550] At the same time the demand for our manufactures
from abroad fell off; the towns were impoverished, and bought less
from the farmer.
The short period of war in 1815 had little effect on prices, and in
January, 1816, wheat was 52s. 6d., and the prices of live stock had
fallen considerably. In 1815 protection reached its highest limit, the
Act of that year prohibiting import of wheat when the price was under
80s. a quarter, and other grain in proportion.[551] However, it was of
no avail; and in the beginning of 1816 the complaints of agricultural
distress were so loud and deep that the Board of Agriculture issued
circular letters to every part of the kingdom, asking for information
on the state of agriculture.
According to the answers given, rent had already fallen on an average
25 per cent. and agriculture was in a 'deplorable state.'[552]
Bankruptcies, seizures, executions, imprisonments, were rife, many
farmers had become parish paupers. Rent was much in arrear, tithes and
poor rates unpaid, improvements generally discontinued, live stock
diminished; alarming gangs of poachers and other depredators ranged
the country. The loss was greater on arable than on grass land, and
'flock farms' had suffered less than others, though they had begun to
feel it heavily.
All classes connected with the land suffered severely; the landlords
could not get many of their rents; the farmer's stock had depreciated
40 per cent.[553]; many labourers, who during the war had been getting
from 15s. to 16s. a week and 18s. in summer,[554] were walking the
country searching for employment. Many tenants threw up their farms,
and it was often noticed that landlords, 'knowing very little of
agriculture and taken by surprise,' could not manage the farms thrown
on their hands, and they went uncultivated. Some farmers paid up their
rent to date, sold their stock, and went off without any notice;
others, less scrupulous, drove off their stock and moved their
household furniture in the night without settling.[555]
Farmers and landowners were asked to state the remedies required. Some
asked for more rent reduction and further prohibition of import, but
the most general cry was for the lessening of taxation.
A Herefordshire farmer[556] stated that in 1815 the taxes on a farm of
300 acres in that county were:
£ s. d.
Property tax, landlord and tenant 95 16 10
Great tithes 64 17 6
Lesser tithes 29 15 0
Land tax 14 0 0
Window lights 24 1 6
Poor rates, landlord 10 0 0
" tenant 40 0 0
Cart-horse duty, landlord, 3 horses 2 11 0
Two saddle horses, landlord 9 0 0
Gig 6 6 0
Cart-horse duty,[557] tenant 7 2 0
One saddle horse, tenant 2 13 6
Landlord's malt duty on 60 bushels of barley 21 0 0
Tenant's duty for making 120 bushels of
barley into malt 42 0 0
New rate for building shire hall, paid by landlord 9 0 0
" " " tenant 3 0 0
Surcharge 2 8 0
------------
£383 11 4
============
The parish of Kentchurch, in Herefordshire, paid in direct taxes a
greater sum than the lands of the whole parish could be let for.
Another very general complaint was of the collection of tithe in kind,
a most awkward and offensive method, causing great expense and waste,
which, however, had given way in many places to compounding.
Such is the picture of agriculture after twenty years of high prices
and protection.[558] One may naturally ask, if much money had been
made by farmers during these years, where had it all gone to that they
were reduced at the first breath of adversity to such straits? Some
allowance must be made for the fact that these accounts come from
those interested in the land, who were always ready to make the most
of misfortune with a view to further protection, and the farmer is a
notorious grumbler. It seems, however, that most landlords and tenants
believed that the high prices would last for ever, and lived
accordingly, and, as we have seen, many made no profit at all because
of their increased burdens. As a matter of fact, both were grumbling
because prices had come back to their natural level after an unnatural
inflation.[559]
Hemp at this date was still grown in Lincolnshire and Somerset, and
Marshall tells us that in 1803 there was a considerable quantity of
hemp grown in Shropshire.[560] In that county there was a small plot
of ground, called 'the hemp-yard,' appendant to almost every
farm-house and to many of the best sort of cottages. Whenever a
cottager had 10 or 15 perches of land to his cottage, worth from 1s.
6d. to 2s. 6d. a year, with the aid of his wife's industry it enabled
him to pay his rent. A peck of hempseed, costing 2s., sowed about 10
perches of land, and this produced from 24 to 36 lb. of tow when
dressed and fit for spinning. A dozen pounds of tow made 10 ells of
cloth, worth generally about 3s. an ell. Thus a good crop on 10
perches of land brought in £4 10s. 0d., half of which was nett profit.
The hemp was pulled a little before harvest, and immediately spread on
grass land, where it lay for a month or six weeks. The more rain there
was the sooner it was ready to take off the grass. When the rind
peeled easily from the woody part, it was, on a dry day, taken into
the house, and when harvest was over well dried in fine weather and
dressed, being then fit for the tow dresser, who prepared it for
spinning. After the crop of hemp the land was sown with turnips, a
valuable resource for the winter.
Since 1815 little hemp or flax has been grown in England[561]; in 1907
there were, according to the Agricultural Returns, 355 acres of flax
grown in England, and hemp was not mentioned.
FOOTNOTES:
[504] _R.A.S.E. Journal_, 1896, p. 1, and 1898, p. 1.
[505] _Autobiography_, p. 242.
[506] Eden, _State of the Poor_, i. 18.
[507] 'Had his industry been under the direction of a better
judgement, he would have been an admirable president.'--Young,
_Autobiography_, p. 316.
[508] _The Report of the Committee on Waste Lands_, 1795, estimated
wastes and commons at 7,800,000 acres, p. 221.
[509] The Merino was largely imported into England by the efforts of
George III, and a Merino Society was formed in 1811; but many
circumstances made it of such little profit to cultivate it in
preference to native breeds, that it was diverted to
Australia.--Burnley, _History of Wool_, p. 17.
[510] The first, the Bath and West of England, was established in
1777.
[511] _R.A.S.E. Journal_, 1899, p. 7.
[512] Higher prices had been realized for the improved Longhorns; in
1791, at the sale of Mr. Fowler of Little Rollright, Sultan a
two-year-old bull fetched 210 guineas, and a cow 260 guineas; and at
Mr. Paget's sale in 1793, a bull of the same breed sold for 400
guineas.--_Culley on Live Stock_, p. 59.
[513] _R.A.S.E. Journal_, 1899, p. 28.
[514] _Culley on Live Stock_ (1807), pp. 46-7.
[515] _Culley on Live Stock_, p. vi.
[516] _R.A.S.E. Journal_, 1892, p. 27.
[517] Morton, _Cyclopaedia of Agriculture_, ii. 964.
[518] _Northern Tour_, iii. 49. Clarke also experimented on the effect
of electricity on vegetables, electrifying turnips in boxes with the
result that growth was quickened and weight increased.
[519] _R.A.S.E. Journal_, 1896, p, 93.
[520] Tooke, _History of Prices_, p. 182.
[521] _Autobiography of A. Young_, p. 256.
[522] _State of the Poor_, i. 565 et seq.; Thorold Rogers, _Work and
Wages_, p. 487. It is difficult to calculate the exact income of the
labourer; besides extras in harvest, and relief from the parish, he
might have a small holding, or common rights, also payments in kind
and the earnings of his wife and children.
[523] Hasbach, _op. cit._ p. 181; Eden, _op. cit._ li. 27.
[524] Imports of wheat and flour in 1796 were 879,200 quarters.
[525] Yet imports were comparatively large; 1,264,520 quarters of
wheat, against 463,185 quarters in 1799.
[526] Tooke, _History of Prices_, p. 219.
[527] _Farmer's Magazine_, 1817, p. 60.
[528] Thorold Rogers, _Work and Wages_, c. 18.
[529] _Annals of Agriculture_, xxxvii. 265. In 1805, in Herefordshire,
the labourer was getting about 6s. 6d. a week--See Duncumb, _General
View of Agriculture of Herefordshire_. Those who lived in the
farm-house often fared best: in 1808 the diet of a Hampshire farm
servant was, for breakfast, bacon, bread, and skim milk; for lunch,
bread and cheese and small beer; for dinner, between 3 p.m. and 4
p.m., pickled pork or bacon with potatoes, cabbages, turnips, or
greens, and broths of wheat-flour and garden stuff. Supper consisted
of bread and cheese and a pint of ale. His bread was usually made of
wheat, which, considering the price, is remarkable. On Sundays he had
fresh meat. The farmers lived in many cases little better; a statement
which must be compared with others ascribing great extravagance to
them.--Vancouver, _General View of the Agriculture of Hants_ (1808),
p. 383.
[530] Tooke, _History of Prices_, i. 236.
[531] Thorold Rogers, _Work and Wages_, c. 18. In many cases he was
getting 15s. and 16s. a week all the year round. The Parliamentary
Committee of 1822 put his wages during the war at from 15s. to 16s. a
week. _Parliamentary Reports Committees_, v. 72; but it is difficult
to say how much he received as wages, and how much as parish relief.
Recruiting for the war helped to raise wages, as did the increased
growth of corn.
[532] McCulloch, _Commercial Dictionary_ (1847), p. 438. See Appendix,
ii.
[533] Tooke, i. 319, and _Pamphleteer_, vi. 200 (A. Young). Since
1770, says the latter, labour by 1810-11 had doubled, but meat had
risen 146 per cent., cheese 153 per cent., bread 100 per cent. Wages
therefore had not risen in proportion to prices.
[534] _Inquiry into Agricultural Distress_ (1822), p. 38.
[535] _Thoughts on Present Depressed State of Agricultural Industry_
(1817), p. 6.
[536] Vancouver, _General View of the Agriculture of Devon_, p. 357.
[537] See 14 Eliz., c. 11, and 39 Eliz., c. 18.
[538] _Transactions of the Devon Association_, xxix. 291-349.
[539] Average annual prices of wheat were: 1812, 126s. 6d.; 1813,
109s. 9d.; 1814, 74s. 4d.; 1815, 65s. 7d.
[540] Porter, _Progress of the Nation_, p. 149.
[541] _A Defence of the Farmers and Landowners of Great Britain_
(1814), p. 49.
[542] Ibid. p. x.
[543] Ibid. p. 7.
[544] _Agricultural State of the Kingdom_, p. 67.
[545] _Parliamentary Reports (Committees)_, v. 72.
[546] _Thoughts on the Present Depressed State of the Agricultural
Interest_ (1817), p. 4.
[547] Duncumb, _General View of the Agriculture of Hereford_, 1805.
The writer of _A Defence of the Farmers and Landowners of Great
Britain_ (1814) puts the average crop of wheat in the United Kingdom
at 15 or 16 bushels an acre, p. 28. A very low estimate.
[548] Duncumb, _General View of the Agriculture of Hereford_, p. 140.
[549] Tooke, _History of Prices_, ii. 4.
[550] _Farmer's Magazine_ (1817), p. 69.
[551] The duties were often evaded by smuggling; coasting vessels met
the foreign corn ships at sea, received their cargoes, and landed them
so as to escape the duty.
[552] _Agricultural State of the Kingdom_, p. 5.
[553] _Observations for the Use of Landed Gentlemen_ (1817), p. 7.
[554] _Defence of the Farmers, &c._ (1814); and _Parliamentary
Reports_, v. 72.
[555] _Agricultural State of the Kingdom_, p. 64.
[556] Ibid. p. 105.
[557] The agricultural horse tax was repealed in 1821, the tax on
ponies and mules in 1823.
[558] There were some exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of
replies to the letters were couched in the above spirit.
[559] At a time when landlords formed the majority in Parliament, it
is curious to find a substantial farmer asserting that 'the landed
interest has been, since the corn law of 1773, held in a state of
complete vassalage to the commercial and manufacturing, and the
farmers of the country in a state very little superior to that of
Polish peasants.'
[560] _Review of Western Department_, pp. 249, 250.
[561] Morton, _Cyclopaedia of Agriculture_, ii. 26.