ENCLOSURE FOR SHEEP PASTURE
Enclosure made by the tenants themselves by common agreement aroused
no opposition or apprehension. No diminution of the area under tillage
beyond that which had already of necessity taken place occurred, and
the grass land already present in the fields was made available for
more profitable use. The Doctor in Hales' dialogue carefully excepts
this sort of enclosure from condemnation:
I meane not all Inclosures, nor yet all commons, but only of such
Inclosures as turneth commonly arable feildes into pastures; and
violent Inclosures, without Recompense of them that haue the
right to comen therein: for if the land weare seuerallie inclosed
to the intent to continue husbandrie theron, and euerie man, that
had Right to commen, had for his portion a pece of the same to
him selfe Inclosed, I thincke no harm but rather good should come
therof, yf euerie man did agre theirto.[112]
In this passage Hales recognizes the theoretical possibility of a
beneficial sort of enclosure, but the conditional form in which his
remarks are thrown indicates that, so far as he knew, there was little
systematic division of the land among the tenants by common consent.
Orderly rearrangement of holdings into compact plots suitable for
enclosure was difficult unless the small holders had all disappeared,
leaving in the community only men of some means, who were able to
undertake the expenses of the readjustment. In most villages,
however, holdings of all sizes were the rule. Some tenants had almost
no land under cultivation, but picked up a living by working for
others, and by keeping a few sheep on the commons and on the fallow
lands of the town. There was thus always a fringe of peasant families
on the verge of destitution. They were being gradually eliminated, but
the process was extremely slow. A few of them in each generation,
feeling as a realized fact the increasing misery which has been
predicted for the modern industrial laborer, were forced to give up
the struggle. Their land passed into the hands of the more prosperous
men, who were thus gradually accumulating most of the land. In some
cases, no doubt, all of the poorer tenantry were drained off in this
fashion, making it possible for those who remained to consolidate
their holdings and enclose them in the fashion advocated by
Fitzherbert, keeping a part under tillage until it needed a rest, and
pasturing sheep and cattle in the closes which were under grass.
It is impossible to estimate the number of these cases. What we do
know is that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries no such stage
had been reached in hundreds of English townships. The enclosures
which had been made by the tenants were of a few acres here and there.
The fields for the most part were still open and subject to common,
and consisted in part of poor pasture land. We do know also that many
landlords took matters into their own hands, dispossessed the tenants,
and enclosed a part or all of the land for sheep pastures. The date at
which this step was made, and the thoroughness with which it was
carried out, depended very much upon the character and needs of the
landlord, as well as upon local circumstances affecting the condition
of the soil and the degree of poverty suffered by the tenants. The
tendency for landlords to lose patience with the process which was
gradually eliminating the poorer men and concentrating their land in
the hands of the more prosperous is not characteristic of any one
century. It began as early as the middle of the fourteenth century,
and it extended well into the seventeenth. By 1402 clergy were being
indicted as _depopulatores agrorum_.[113] In the fifteenth century
statutes against enclosure and depopulation were beginning to be
passed, and Rous gives a list of fifty-four places near Warwick which
had been wholly or partially depopulated before about 1486.[114] For
the sixteenth century, we have the evidence of numerous statutes, the
returns of the commissions, doggerel verse, popular insurrections,
sermons, _etc._ Miss Leonard's study of the seventeenth-century
enclosures is confirmed by additional evidence presented by Gonner
that the movement was unchecked in this period. In 1692, for instance,
Houghton was attacking the "common notion that enclosure always leads
to grass," by pointing out a few exceptions.[115] In 1695 Gibson spoke
of the change from tillage to pasture, which had been largely within
living memory.[116]
There is no reason to believe that the landowners who carried out this
process were unusually mercenary and heartless. The need for putting
their land to some remunerative use was imperative, and it is
surprising that the enclosure movement was of such a piece-meal
character and extended over so many years, rather than that it took
place at all.
There was little rent to be had from land which lay for the most part
in open fields, tilled by men who had no capital at their command for
improving the condition of the soil, or for utilizing profitably the
portion of the land which was so impoverished that it could not be
cultivated.
Poor tenants are unprofitable tenants; it is difficult to collect rent
from them and impossible to raise their rent, and they attempt to save
by exploiting the land, leaving it in worse condition than when they
received it. Contemporary references to the poverty of these
open-field tenants all confirm the impression given by Hales:
They that be husbandmen now haue but a scant lyvinge therby.[117]
I that haue enclosed litle or nothinge of my grond could (never
be able) to make vp my lordes rent weare it not for a little
brede of neate, shepe, swine, gese and hens that I doe rere vpon
my ground: whereof, because the price is sumwhat round, I make
more cleare proffitt than I doe of all my corne and yet I haue
but a bare liuinge.[118]
Harrison, at the end of the century, writes of the open-field tenants:
They were scarce able to liue and paie their rents at their daies
without selling of a cow or an horsse, or more, although they
paid but foure poundes at the vttermost by the yeare.[119]
The tenant who could not pay this rent without selling stock was, of
course, one of those who would soon have to give up his land
altogether, if the landlord continued to demand rent. If he sold his
horses and oxen to raise the rent one year, he was less able to work
his land properly the next year, and the crop, too small in the first
place to enable him to cover expenses, diminished still more. When
the current income was ordinarily too small to cover current expenses,
no relief was to be found by reducing the capital. A time came when
these men must be either turned away, and their land leased to others,
or else allowed to stay and make what poor living they could from the
soil, without paying even the nominal rent which was to be expected of
them.
Lord North's comment on the enclosure movement as he saw it in the
seventeenth century is suggestive of the state of affairs which led to
the eviction of these husbandmen:
Gentlemen of late years have taken up an humor of destroying
their tenements and cottages, whereby they make it impossible
that mankind should inhabit their estates. This is done sometimes
barefaced because they harbour poor that are a charge to the
parish, and sometimes because the charge of repairing is great,
and if an house be ruinous they will not be at the cost of
rebuilding and repairing it, and cast their lands into very great
farms which are managed with less housing: and oftimes for
improvement as it is called which is done by buying in all
freeholds, copyholds, and tenements that have common and which
harboured very many husbandry and labouring families and then
enclosing the commons and fields, turning the managry from
tillage to grasing.[120]
Not only were these men able to pay little rent for the land they
held, but, as has been suggested, they were unable to maintain the
land in proper condition by the use of manure and marl. These expenses
were beyond the means of the farmer who was falling behind; they
neglected the soil because they were poor, and they were poor because
the yield of the land was so low; but their neglect caused it to
decline even more. Fitzherbert, who deplores the fact that marl is no
longer used in his time, points out that not only the leaseholder, who
is averse to making improvements on account of the insecurity of his
tenure, but the freeholder, also, is neglecting his land; although
He knoweth well, he shall take the profits while he liueth, & his
heyres after him, a corrage to improw his owne, the which is as
good as and he purchased as much as the improwment cometh
to.[121]
But if he spent money on marling the soil, he would have nothing to
live on while waiting for the crop. The very poverty of the small
holders made it necessary for them to sink in still greater poverty,
until the lord deprived them of the land, or until they became so
discouraged that they gave it up of their own volition. They might
easily understand the force of Fitzherbert's arguments without being
able to follow his advice. "Marle mendeth all manor of grounde, but it
is costly."[122] The same thing is true of manure. According to
Denton, the expense of composting land was almost equivalent to the
value of the fee simple of the ground. He refers to a record of the
early fourteenth century of the payment of more than twice the
ordinary rent for composted land.[123] With manure at high prices, the
man in difficulty might be tempted to sell what he had; it was
certainly out of the question for him to buy more. Or, what amounted
to the same thing, he might sell hay or straw, and so reduce the
forage for his cattle, and return less to the soil by means of their
dung.
Dr. Simkhovitch points out the difference between the farmer who is
unable to meet expenses in a particular year because of an
exceptionally bad season, and one who is suffering because of
progressive deterioration of his farm. The first may borrow and make
good the difference the following year; the latter will be unable to
extricate himself. He neither has means to increase his holding by
renting or buying more land, nor to improve the land which he has
already. His distress is cumulative:
Only one with sufficient resources can improve his land. By
improving land we add to our capital, while by robbing land we
immediately add to our income; in doing so, however, we diminish
out of all proportion our capital as farmers, the productive
value of our farm land. The individual farmer can therefore
improve his land only when in an economically strong position. A
farmer who is failing to make a living on his farm is more likely
to exploit his farm to the utmost; and when there is no room for
further exploitation he is likely to meet the deficit by
borrowing, and thus pledging the future productivity of his
farm.[124]
While small holders in the open fields were in no position to pay
higher rents, the land owners were suffering. Prices were rising, and
while the higher price of farm produce in the market was of little
help to the tenant whose own family used nearly everything he could
raise, the landlords felt the pressure of an increasing cost of
living.
Many of us [says the Gentleman, in Hales' dialogue] haue bene
driuen to giue over oure houshold, and to kepe either a chambere
in london, or to waight on the courte Vncalled, with a man and a
lacky after him, wheare he was wonte to kepe halfe a score cleane
men in his house, and xxtie or xxxtie other persons besides,
everie day in the weke.... We are forced either to minyshe the
thirde parte of our houshold, or to raise the thirde parte of our
Revenues.[125]
It was difficult for the landowners to make economic use of even those
portions of the land which were not in the hands of customary tenants.
If they were willing to invest capital in enclosing demesne land and
stocking it with sheep, without disturbing their small tenants, they
found it impossible to do so. Not only did the poorer tenants have to
cultivate land which was barely productive of more than the seed used,
because they could not afford to allow it to lie idle as long as it
would produce anything; not only did they allow the land which was
under grass to remain practically waste, because they could not afford
to enclose it and stock it with sheep; not only did they neglect
manuring and marling the land because these improvements were beyond
their means, so that the land was constantly growing poorer in their
hands, and so that they could pay very little rent; but they were also
tenacious of their rights of common over the rest of the land, and
resisted all attempts at enclosure of the holdings of the more
prosperous tenants, because they had to depend for their living
largely upon the "little brede of neate, shepe, swine, gese and hens"
which were maintained partly by the gleanings from other men's land
when it lay common.
They undoubtedly suffered when the lord himself or one of the large
leaseholders insisted on enclosing some of the land. If the commonable
area was reduced, or if the land enclosed was converted from arable to
pasture (as it usually was), the means by which they made their living
was diminished. The occasional day's wages for labor spent on the land
converted was now withdrawn, and the pasturage for the little flock
was cut down. The practical effect of even the most innocent-looking
enclosures, then, must have been to deprive the poorer families of the
means of livelihood, even though they were not evicted from their
worthless holdings. Enclosures and depopulation were inseparably
linked in the minds of contemporaries, even when the greatest care was
taken by the enclosing authorities to safeguard the rights of the
tenants.
These rights, however, seriously interfered with the most advantageous
use of land, and often were disregarded. Not only did the small
holders have rights of common over the rest of the land, but their own
strips were intermingled with those of the lord and the large holders.
The typical problem confronting the enclosing landlord is shown below:
HOLDINGS IN OPEN FIELD, WEST LEXHAM, NORFOLK, 1575[126]
_Strips in Furlong A_ _Strips in Furlong B_
1. Will Yelverton, freeholder. 1. Robert Clemente, freeholder.
2. Demesne. 2. Demesne.
3. Demesne. 3. Demesne.
4. Will Yelverton. 4. Demesne.
5. Demesne. 5. Demesne.
6. Demesne. 6. Demesne.
7. Demesne. 7. Demesne.
8. Demesne. 8. Demesne.
9. Demesne. 9. Will Lee, freeholder.
10. Glebe. 10. Will Gell, copyholder.
11. Demesne. 11. Demesne.
12. Demesne. 12. Demesne.
13. Glebe. 13. Demesne.
If, as was probably the case, the product from these demesne strips
was so small that the land was fit only for conversion to pasture, the
pecuniary interest of the lord was to be served best by enclosing it
and converting it. But should he make three enclosures in furlong A,
and two in furlong B, besides taking pains to leave a way clear for
Will Yelverton and Lee and Gell to reach their land? Or should he be
content merely with enclosing the larger plots of land, because of the
expense of hedging and ditching the smaller plots separately from the
rest? If he did this, the unenclosed portions would be of little
value, as the grass which grew on them could not be properly utilized
for pasture. The final alternative was to get possession of the strips
which did not form part of the demesne, so that the whole could be
made into one compact enclosure. In order to do this it might be
necessary to dispossess Will Lee, Will Gell, _etc._ The intermingling
of holdings, in such a way that small holders (whose own land was in
such bad condition that they could not pay their rents) blocked the
way for improvements on the rest of the land, was probably responsible
for many evictions which would not otherwise have taken place.
But not all evictions were due to this cause alone. The income to the
owner from land which was left in the hands of customary tenants was
much lower than if it was managed by large holders with sufficient
capital to carry out necessary changes. Where it is possible to
compare the rents paid by large and small holders on the same manor,
this fact is apparent:
AVERAGE RENT PER ACRE OF LAND ON FIVE MANORS IN WILTSHIRE, 1568[127]
I II III
s. d. s. d. s. d.
Lands held by farmers 1 6 7 3/4 1 5 3/4
Lands held by customary tenants 7 1/2 5 1 0 3/4
IV V
s. d. s. d.
Lands held by farmers 1 1 3/4 1 5 1/2
Lands held by customary tenants 5 3/4 5 3/4
The differences in these rents are sufficient to be tempting to the
lord who was seeking his own interest. The large holders were able to
expend the capital necessary for enclosing and converting the part of
the land which could not be profitably cultivated because of its bad
condition. The capital necessary for this process itself was
considerable, and besides, it was necessary to wait several years
before there was a return on the investment, while the sod was
forming, to say nothing of the large expenditure necessary for the
purchase of the sheep. The land when so treated, however, enabled the
investor to pay higher rents than the open-field husbandmen who
"rubbed forth their estate in the poorest plight."[128]
A lord who was willing to consider only pecuniary advantage had
everything to gain by clearing the land entirely of small holders, and
putting it in the hands of men with capital. It is, therefore, to the
credit of these landowners that there are so few authentic cases of
the depopulation of entire villages and the conversion of all of the
arable land into sheep runs. These cases made the lords who were
responsible notorious and were, no doubt, exceptional. Nearly fifteen
hundred places were covered by the reports of the commissions of 1517
and 1607, and Professor Gay has found among these "but a round dozen
villages or hamlets which were all enclosed and emptied of their
inhabitants, the full half of them in Northamptonshire."[129] For the
most part, the enclosures reported under the inquisitions as well as
those indicated on the maps and surveys of the period involved only
small areas, and point to a process of piece-meal enclosure. The
landowners seem to have been reluctant to cause hardship and to have
left the open-field tenants undisturbed as far as possible, contenting
themselves with the enclosure and conversion of small plots of land.
The social consequences of so-called depopulating enclosure were
serious, but they are not seen in their proper perspective when one
imagines the condition of the evicted tenants to have been fairly good
before they were dispossessed. The cause lying back of the enclosure
movement was bringing about the gradual sinking of family after
family, even when no evictions were made. To attribute the poverty and
misery of the rural population to the enclosure movement is to
overlook the unhappy condition of the peasants, even where no
enclosures had been made. Enclosures had been forbidden in the fields
of royal manors in Northamptonshire, but this did not protect the
peasantry from destitution. The manor of Grafton, for instance, was
surveyed in 1526 and a note was made at the end of the survey that the
revenue drawn from the lordship had lately been increased, but "there
can no ferther enprovemente there be made and to kepe the tenantries
standyng. Item the tenauntriez there be in sore decaye." The surveyor
of Hartwell also notes that the "tenements there be in decay."[130]
The economic basis of the unfortunate social changes which were
associated with the process of enclosure came gradually to be
recognized. It was evidently futile to enact laws requiring the
cultivation of land "wasted and worn with continual plowing and
thereby made bare, barren and very unfruitfull."[131] Merely
restrictive and prohibitory legislation was followed by the suggestion
of constructive measures. Until the middle of the sixteenth century,
laws were made in the attempt to put a stop to the conversion of
arable land to pasture under any conditions, and required that land
which had been under cultivation should be plowed in the future. In
the act of 1552, however, an attitude somewhat more reasonable is to
be seen. It was provided that land which had been under cultivation
within a certain number of years preceding the act should be tilled,
"_or so much in quantity_."[132] Public men were also urging that less
time be devoted to the futile attempt to force men to cultivate land
unfit for tillage, and that encouragement be given instead to measures
for improving the waste, and bringing fresh land under the plow.[133]
After a time, moreover, another fact became apparent: there was a
marked tendency to break up and again cultivate the land which in
former generations had been converted to pasture. The statute of 1597
not only contained a proviso permitting the conversion of arable
fields to pasture on condition that other land be tilled instead,[134]
thus tacitly admitting that the reason for withdrawing land from
cultivation was not the low price of grain, but the barrenness of the
land, but also explicitly referred to this fact in another proviso
permitting the conversion of arable land to pasture temporarily, _for
the purpose of recovering its strength_:
Provided, nevertheless, That if anie _P_son or Body Pollitique or
Corporate hath ... laide or hereafter shall lay anie grownde to
graze, or hathe used or shall use the same grownde with shepe or
anie other cattell, which Grownde hath bene or shall be dryven or
worne owte with Tillage, onely upon good Husbandrie, and with
intente bona fide withowt Fraude or Covyne the same Grownde shall
recover Harte and Strengthe, an not with intent to continue the
same otherwise in shepe Pasture or for fattinge or grazinge of
Cattell, that no such _P_son or Body Politike or Corporate shall
be intended for that Grownde a Converter within the meaning of
this Lawe.[135]
A speaker in the House of Commons commends these provisions:
For it fareth with the earth as with other creatures that through
continual labour grow faint and feeble-hearted, and therefore, if
it be so far driven as to be out of breath, we may now by this
law resort to a more lusty and proud piece of ground while the
first gathers strength, which will be a means that the earth
yearly shall be surcharged with burden of her own excess. And
this did the former lawmakers overslip, tyeing the land once
tilled to a perpetual bondage and servitude of being ever
tilled.[136]
Several years before the passage of this statute, Bacon had remarked
that men were breaking up pasture land and planting it voluntarily.[137]
In 1619, a commission was appointed to consider the granting of licenses
"for arable lands converted from tillage to pasture." The proclamation
creating this commission, after referring to the laws formerly made
against such conversions, continues:
As there is much arable land of that nature become pasture, so is
there by reason thereof, much more other lands of old pasture and
waste, and wood lands where the plough neuer entred, as well as
of the same pasture lands so heretofore conuerted, become
errable, and by husbandrie made fruitfull with corne ... the
quantitie and qualitie of errable and Corne lands at this day
doth much exceed the quantitie that was at the making of the
saide Lawe.... As the want thereof [of corn] shall appeare, or
the price thereof increase, all or a great part of those lands
which were heretofore converted from errable to pasture and have
sithence gotten heart, strength and fruitfulness, will be reduced
to Corne lands againe, to the great increase of graine to the
Commonwealth and profite to each man in his private.[138]
John Hales had protested against depopulating enclosures, in 1549, by
appealing to the public spirit of landowners. They increased their
profits by converting arable land to pasture, but, he argued,
It may not be liefull for euery man to vse his owne as hym
lysteth, but eueyre man must vse that he hath to the most
benefyte of his countrie. Ther must be somethynge deuysed to
quenche this insatiable thirst of greedynes of men.[139]
But now it was no longer necessary to persuade the owners of this same
land to forgo their own interests for the sake of the public good.
Those whose land had been used as pasture for a great number of years
were finding it valuable arable, because of its long period of rest
and regeneration. Land which had been converted to pasture was being
put under the plow because of the greater profit of tillage.
So great was the profit of cultivating these pastures that landlords
who were opposed to having pastures broken up by leaseholders had
difficulty in preventing it. Towards the end of the sixteenth century
at Hawsted, and in the beginning of the seventeenth, a number of
leases contained the express provision that no pastures were to be
broken up. In 1620 and the years following, some of the leases
permitted cultivation of pasture, on the condition that the land was
to be laid to grass again five years before the expiration of the
lease.[140]
There is no doubt of the fact that much land was being converted from
pasture to arable in this period. Evidence of this tendency multiplies
as the century advances. In 1656 Joseph Lee gave a list of fifteen
towns where arable land hitherto converted to pasture had been plowed
up again within thirty years.[141]
Barren and insufficiently manured land did not produce good crops
merely because other land had been given an opportunity to recover its
strength. The conversion of open-field arable to pasture went on
unchecked in the seventeenth century because it had not yet had the
benefit of the prolonged rest which made agriculture profitable, and
without which it had become impossible to make a living from the soil.
The lands which have been "heretofore converted from errable to
pasture.... have sithence gotten heart, strength and fruitfulnesse,"
and are therefore being plowed again; but the land which has escaped
conversion, and has been tied to the "perpetual bondage and servitude
of being ever tilled," is "faint and feeble-hearted," and is being
laid to grass, for pasture is the only use for which it is suited. The
cause of the conversion of arable fields to pasture is the same as
that which caused the same change on other lands at an earlier
date--so low a level of productivity that the land was not worth
cultivating. Lands whose fertility had been restored were put under
cultivation and plowed until they were again in need of rest.
Thus the final result was about the same whether an enclosing landlord
cut across the gradual process of readjustment of land-holding among
the tenants, and converted the whole into pasture, or whether the
process was allowed to go on until none but large holders remained in
the village. In both cases the tendency was towards a system of
husbandry in which the fertility of the soil was maintained by
periodically withdrawing portions of it from cultivation and laying
it to grass. In the one case, cultivation was completely suspended for
a number of years, but was gradually reintroduced as it became evident
that the land had recovered its strength while used as pasture. In the
other, the grazing of sheep and cattle was introduced as a
by-industry, for the sake of utilizing the land which had been set
aside to recover its strength, while the better land was kept under
the plow. Whether enclosures were made for better agriculture, then,
as Mr. Leadam contends, or for pasture, as is argued by Professor
Gay,[142] the arable enclosures were used as pasture for a part of the
time and the enclosed pastures came later to be used for tillage part
of the time, and the two things amount to the same thing in the end.
This end, however, had still not been reached in a great number of
open-field villages by the beginning of the eighteenth century, and we
should expect to find that the history of the land in this century was
but a repetition of what had gone before, in so far as the fields
which had not hitherto been enclosed are concerned.
But, during the seventeenth century, an agricultural revolution was
taking place. Experiments were being made with new forage crops. For
one thing, it was found that turnips could be grown in the fields and
that they made excellent winter forage; and grass seeding was
introduced. The grasses and clovers which were brought from Holland
not only made excellent hay, but improved the soil rapidly. The
possibility of increasing the amount of hay at will put an end to the
absolute scarcity of manure--the limiting factor in English
agriculture from the beginning. And the comparative ease with which
the artificial grasses could be made to grow did away with the need
of waiting ten or fifteen years, or perhaps half a century, for
natural grass to cover the fields and restore their productiveness.
Only with the introduction of grass seeding did it become
possible to keep a sufficient amount of stock, not only to
maintain the fertility of the soil, but to improve it steadily.
The soil instead of being taxed year after year under the heavy
strain of grain crops was being renovated by the legumes that
gathered nitrogen from the air and stored it on tubercles
attached to their roots. The deep roots of the clover penetrated
the soil, that no plow ever touched. Legumes like alfalfa,
producing pound by pound more nutritious fodder than meadow
grass, produced acre by acre two and three times the amount, and
when such a field was turned under to make place for a grain
crop, the deep and heavy sod, the mass of decaying roots, offered
the farmer "virgin" soil, where previously even five bushels of
wheat could not be gathered.[143]
As the value of these new crops became generally recognized, some
effort was made to introduce them into the regular rotation of crops
in the fields which were still held in common, but, for the most part,
these efforts were unsuccessful, and new vigor was given to the
enclosure movement. Frequently persons having no arable land of their
own had right of common over the stubble and fallow which could not be
exercised when turnips and clover were planted; for reasons of this
sort, it was difficult to change the ancient course of crops in the
open fields. For example, late in the eighteenth century (1793) at
Stiffkey and Morston, the improvements due to enclosure are said to
have been great, for:
being half-year land before, they could raise no turnips except
by agreement, nor cultivate their land to the best
advantage.[144]
At Heacham the common fields were enclosed by act in 1780, and Young
notes:
Before the enclosure they were in no regular shifts and the field
badly managed; now in regular five-shift Norfolk management.[145]
At Northwald, about 3,000 acres of open-field land were enclosed in
1796 and clover was introduced. The comment made is that "the crops
bear quite a new face." The common field of Brancaster before
enclosure in 1755 "was in an open, rude bad state; now in five or six
regular shifts."[146]
Hitherto there had been only one way of restoring fertility to land;
converting it to pasture and leaving it under grass for a prolonged
period. Now it could be speedily improved and used intensively. Arthur
Young describes the modern method of improvement in his account of the
changes made in Norfolk husbandry before 1771:
From forty to fifty years ago, all the northern and western and a
great part of the eastern tracts of the county were sheep walks,
let so low as from 6 _d._ to 1_s._ 6 _d._ and 2 _s._ an acre.
Much of it was in this condition only thirty years ago. The
improvements have been made by the following circumstances.
First. By enclosing without the assistance of Parliament.
Second. By a spirited use of marl and clay.
Third. By the introduction of an excellent course of crops.
Fourth. By the introduction of turnips well hand-hoed.
Fifth. By the culture of clover and ray-grass.
Sixth. By the lords granting long leases.
Seventh. By the country being divided chiefly into large farms.[147]
The evidence which has been examined in this monograph reveals the
far-reaching influence of soil exhaustion in English agrarian history
in the centuries before the introduction of these new crops. As the
yield of the soil declined, the ancient arable holdings proved
incapable of supporting their cultivators, and a readjustment had to
be made. The pressure upon subsistence was felt while villainage was
still in force, and the terms upon which serfdom dissolved were
influenced by this fact to an extent which has hitherto not been
recognized. The economic crisis involved in the spread of the money
economy threw into relief the destitution of the villains; and the
easy terms of the cash payments which were substituted for services
formerly due, the difficulty with which holders for land could be
obtained on any terms, the explicit references to the poverty of whole
communities at the time of the commutation of their customary
services, necessitate the abandonment of the commonly accepted view
that growing prosperity and the desire for better social status
explain the substitution of money payments for labor services in the
fourteenth century. The spread of the money economy was due to the
gradual integration of the economic system, the establishment of local
markets where small land holders could sell their produce for money.
Until this condition was present, it was impossible to offer money
instead of labor in payment of the customary dues; as soon as this
condition was present, the greater convenience of the use of money
made the commutation of services inevitable. In practise money
payments came gradually to replace the performance of services through
the system of "selling" works long before any formal commutation of
the services took place. But, whatever the explanation of the spread
of the money economy in England during this period, it is not the
prosperity of the villains, for, at the moment when the formal change
from payments in labor to money payments was made, the poverty and
destitution of the landholders were conspicuous. That this poverty was
due to declining fertility of the soil cannot be doubted. Land in
demesne as well as virgate land was showing the effects of centuries
of cultivation with insufficient manure, and returned so scant a crop
that much of it was withdrawn from cultivation, even when serf labor
with which to cultivate it was available. Exhaustion of the soil was
the cause of the pauperism of the fourteenth century, as it was also
of the enclosure and conversion to pasture of arable land in the
fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Systematic enclosure
for the purpose of sheep-farming on a large scale was but the final
step in a process of progressively less intense cultivation which had
been going on for centuries. The attention of some historians has been
devoted too exclusively to the covetous sheep-master, against whom
contemporary invective was directed, and the process which was going
on in fields where no encloser was at work has escaped their notice.
The three-field system was breaking down as it became necessary to
withdraw this or that exhausted plot from cultivation entirely for a
number of years. The periodic fallow had proved incapable of keeping
the land in proper condition for bearing crops even two years out of
three, and everywhere strips of uncultivated land began to appear in
the common fields. This lea land--waste land in the midst of the
arable--was a common feature of sixteenth and seventeenth century
husbandry. The strips kept under cultivation gave a bare return for
seed, and the profit of sheep-raising need not have been
extraordinarily high to induce landowners to abandon cultivation
entirely under these conditions. A great part of the arable fields lay
waste, and could be put to no profitable use unless the whole was
enclosed and stocked with sheep. The high profit made from
sheep-raising cannot be explained by fluctuations in the price of
wool. The price of wool fell in the fifteenth century. Sheep-farming
was comparatively profitable because the soil of the ancient fields
was too barren to repay the costs of tillage. Land which was in part
already abandoned, was turned into pasture. The barrenness and low
productivity of the common fields is explicitly recognised by
contemporaries, and is given as the reason for the conversion of
arable to pasture. Its use as pasture for a long period of years gave
it the needed rest and restored its fertility, and pasture land which
could bear crops was being brought again under cultivation during the
centuries in which the enclosure movement was most marked.
Footnotes:
[112] Lamond, _op. cit._, p. 49.
[113] 4 H. 4, c. 2. Miss Leonard calls attention to this statute.
"Inclosure of Common Land in the Seventeenth Century." _Royal Hist.
Soc. Trans._, New Series, vol. xix, p. 101, note 2.
[114] _Cf. supra_, p. 27.
[115] Gonner, _Common Land and Inclosure_, p. 162.
[116] Leonard, _op. cit._, p. 140, note 2.
[117] Lamond, _op. cit._, p. 90.
[118] _Ibid._, pp. 56-57.
[119] _Description of Britain_ (_Holinshed Chronicles_, London, 1586), p.
189.
[120] Leonard, _op. cit._, vol. xix, p. 120.
[121] _Surveyinge_, ch. 28.
[122] _Ibid._, ch. 32.
[123] Denton, _England in the Fifteenth Century_, p. 150.
[124] "Rome's Fall Reconsidered," _Political Science Quarterly_, vol.
xxxi, pp. 217, 220.
[125] Lamond, _Common Weal of this Realm of England_, pp. 19-20.
[126] Tawney, _Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century_, pp. 254-255.
[127] Tawney, _op. cit._, p. 256.
[128] Carew, as quoted by Leonard, _op. cit._, vol. xix, p. 137.
[129] "Enclosures in England," _Quarterly Journal of Ec._, vol. xvii, p.
595.
[130] Lennard, _Rural Northamptonshire_, pp. 73-4.
[131] The reason stated in the preamble of many of the Durham decrees
granting enclosure permits (Leonard, _op. cit._, p. 117).
[132] 5 & 6 Ed. 6, c. 5. Re-enacted by 5 El., c. 2.
[133] Memorandum addressed by Alderman Box to Lord Burleigh in 1576,
Gonner, _op. cit._, p. 157.
[134] 39 El., ch. 2, proviso iii.
[135] _Ibid._, proviso iv.
[136] Bland, Brown & Tawney: _Select Documents_, p. 272.
[137] Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern
Times_, part ii, p. 99.
[138] _Ibid._, p. 99.
[139] Lamond, _op. cit._, p. lxiii.
[140] Cullum, _Hawsted_, pp. 235-243.
[141] Leonard, "Inclosure of Common Fields in the Seventeenth
Century," _Royal Hist. Soc. Trans._, N. S., vol. xix, p. 141, note.
[142] For this controversy see, "The Inquisitions of Depopulation in
1517 and the 'Domesday of Inclosures,'" by Edwin F. Gay and I. S.
Leadam, _Royal Hist. Soc. Trans._, 1900, vol. xiv, pp. 231-303.
[143] Simkhovitch, _Political Science Quarterly_, vol. xxviii, pp.
400, 401.
[144] _Board of Agriculture Report, Norfolk_, ch. vi.
[145] _Ibid._, ch. vi.
[146] _Ibid._
[147] Bland, Brown and Tawney, _op. cit._, pp. 530-531.
INDEX
Abbot's Ripton, 61
Arable, 11;
area reduced, 22, 24, 27, 54-56, 70, 80;
barren, 12, 16-17, 23, 47, 49, 55-56, 58, 62, 70, 72, 79, 81,
97-99, 101, 106;
fertility restored, 13, 41-42, 46-47, 81-82, 98-99, 101, 103;
converted to pasture, 11-12, 14, 18-19, 23, 27-28, 30, 32, 35-36,
58, 71, 84, 88, 90, 99;
cultivation resumed, 12, 15-16, 31, 33, 84, 99-101;
lea strips, 41, 79-84, 87, 106;
enclosed, 83-84, 102
Ashley, 33
Bacon, 99
Bailiff-farming, 50, 70, 73-74
Ballard, 20, 50, 59-60, 63, 70, 77
Barley, 37, 56
Beggars, 70
Berkeley estates, 23, 27, 58, 63, 83
Black Death, 16, 18-23, 38, 41, 56-57, 60, 67
Bolam, 80
Bond land deserted, 16, 21, 56-57, 60-61, 66, 70, 72;
refused, 59;
no competition for, 21;
vacant, 22-23, 57-58, 62, 66, 72;
compulsory holding of, 21, 57, 59-60, 62, 72;
leased, 23, 57, 62, 75-76;
rents of, 16, 20-21, 57-58, 63, 66-68
Brightwell, 68
Burwell, 61
Cattle, 48-49, 69, 91, 102
Carew, _Survey of Cornwell_, 33
Chatteris, 70
Clover, 102, 104
Combe, 51
Commissions on enclosure, engrossing, etc., 15, 30, 84
Common-field system, 11, 48, 85;
stability of, 82, 85, 87, 103;
disintegration of, chapter III
Commutation of villain services, 19, 56-57, 64-69, 73, 105
Concessions to villains, 57, 59, 62-64, 66, 69;
see villain services, rents
Conversion, arable to pasture, 11-12, 14, 18-19, 23, 27-28, 30, 32,
35-36, 39-43, 58, 71, 84, 88, 90, 99;
pasture to arable, 19, 31, 34-36, 39-43, 84;
both, 19, 35-36, 39-43, 84;
reconversion of open-field land formerly laid to grass, 13, 15-16,
31, 33, 84, 99-101
Convertible husbandry, 41-42, 81-82, 84, 102
Corbett, 78
Corn-laws, 33-34
Cornwall, 33
Cost of living, 92
Crawley, 59
Crops, 48, 102-104
Cross-plowing, 78
Cunningham, 32
Curtler, 13
Demesne, leased, 19-20, 57, 73;
intermixed with tenant land, 94-95
Denton, 13, 27, 91
Depopulation, 27-30, 94, 96
Desertion, 16, 21, 56-57, 60-61, 66, 70, 72
Downton, 50, 68
East Brandon, 79
Emparking, 27
Enclosed land, pasture, 33, 87;
tilled, 83-84, 102;
convertible husbandry, 41-42, 81, 84, 101-102
Enclosure, defined, 11-12;
progress of, 27-43, 87-88;
early, 16, 18-19, 22-23, 27, 58;
seventeenth century, 12, 17, 31, 35-37, 39, 88;
eighteenth century, 31, 103-104;
causes, see productivity, soil-exhaustion, prices;
social consequences, 15, 29-30, 97,
see depopulation, unemployment, eviction;
literature of, 14-15;
opposition to, 82, 93;
effect on quality of wool, 33;
for sheep-farming, 12, 19, 22, 24, 28, 37, 42-44, 83-84, 87-88,
90, 96, 98;
enclosed land cultivated, 83-84, 102
Engrossing, 75;
see holdings, amalgamation of
Eviction of tenants, 12, 15, 27, 30, 38, 90, 94, 96
Fallow, 11, 47, 85, 87, 106;
see pasture, lea land
Fertility, see productivity, soil-exhaustion;
fertility restored, 13, 41-42, 46-47, 81-82, 98-99, 101, 103
Fines, 59
Fitzherbert, 41, 77-79, 81-82, 91
Forage, 49, 91, 102
Forncett, 51, 61, 63, 84
Gay, Professor E. F., 15, 96, 102
Gonner, E. C. K., 13, 88
Gorleston, 77
Grafton Park, 34
Gras, Norman, 51
Gray, H. L., 79
Grazing, 11, 18, 46;
profits from, 80;
see sheep-farming, pasture
Hales, John, 86, 89, 92, 100
Harrison, Description of Britain, 89
Hasbach, 13
Hawsted, 100
Hay, 48-49, 91, 102
Heriots, 69
Holdings, deserted, 16, 21, 56-57, 60-61, 66, 70, 72;
refused by heir, 59;
vacant, 22-23, 57-58, 62, 66, 72;
intermixed, 11, 77-78, 85, 94-95;
amalgamated, 12, 56, 74-75;
divided, 76
Holway, 41
Houses, destruction of, 90
_Husbandry_, Anonymous, 51
Innes, 32
Isle of Wight, 28, 76
Labor, supply of, 18, 22-23, 38, 41;
see wages, unemployment
Landlords, enclosure by, 12, 96, 100, 106
Leadam, 102
Lea-land, 41, 79, 80-84, 87, 106
Lee, Joseph, 101
Leicestershire, 15
Leonard, E. M., 15, 27, 35-36, 40, 88
Levett, A. E., 20, 50, 59-60, 63, 70, 77
Manorial system, readjustments in fourteenth century, 19 _et seq._
Manure, 41-42, 46-50, 78, 90, 102;
see sheep-fold, marl
Markets, local, 105
Marl, 46, 50, 90-91, 104
Meadow, 48-49
Meredith, 32
Merton College, 51
Money-economy, 105;
see commutation of services
Monson, Lord, 34
More, Sir Thomas, 29-30
Nailesbourne, 60, 64
North, Lord, 90
Northwald, 104
Open-field land, see common-field system, enclosures, lea-land
Page, 60-61, 68
Pasture, waste, 46, 49, 93;
fallow pasture, 11, 49, 82, 85, 93;
lea strips, 41, 79-84, 87, 106;
enclosed, 33, 82, 87;
converted to arable, 19, 31, 34, 36, 39-43, 84;
profits of, 12, 18, 30, 32-33, 107;
leased, 100
Pauperism, see poverty
Pembroke, 41
Population, 34
Poverty, villains, 16, 21, 56, 59, 67-69, 72, 106;
small tenants, 87, 90-91, 97
Prices, sixteenth century, 92;
wool and wheat, 12, 17-19, 24-33, 36-37, 40, 53;
seventeenth century, 36-37
Productivity, 14, 38, 41, 44-48, 50-56, 90;
see soil-exhaustion
Profits, tillage, 22, 34, 39, 41, 58, 70, 72, 89-92;
pasture, 12, 18, 30, 32-33, 96, 107
Protests against enclosures, 14-15, 38
Prothero, 13
Reconversion, pasture to arable, 12, 15-16, 31, 33, 84, 90, 101
Rents, 16, 20-21, 57-58, 63, 66-68, 73, 89-90, 95
Rogers, J. T., 17, 26, 31, 39
Rotation of crops, 11, 103-104
Rothamsted Experiment Station, 44
Rous, 27, 88
Russell, 44, 46-47, 49
Seager, 17
Seligman, 17
Sheep, 12, 29
Sheep-farming, 12, 19, 22, 24, 28, 37, 42-44, 83-84, 87-88, 90, 96, 98
Sheep-fold, 49-50
Simkhovitch, 13, 17, 47-48, 91
Smyth, John, 23, 58
Soil-exhaustion, 12, 16-17, 23, 47, 49, 55-56, 58, 62, 70, 72, 79-81,
97-99, 101, 106
Statutes of husbandry, 28, 30, 39-40, 75-76, 88, 97-99
Stiffkey, 103
Stock and land lease, 73
Strips, 11, 85, 94-95;
exchanged, 77
Tawney, 77
Tenants, elimination of, 87;
evicted, 12, 15, 27, 30, 38, 90, 94, 96;
poverty, 87, 90-91, 97;
enclosure by, 15, 82-87;
opposition to enclosure, 82, 93;
rents of, 89-90, 95
Therfield, 60, 61
Turf-borders, 11;
plowed under, 78
Turnips, 102-104
Tusser, 41, 79, 82
Twyford, 59
Unemployment, 28, 30, 38
Utopia, 29-30
Villains, poverty, 16, 21, 56, 59, 67-69, 72, 106;
compelled to take land, 21, 57, 59-60, 62, 72;
desertion of, 16, 21, 56-57, 60-61, 66, 70, 72;
social status with relation to commutation, 20, 57, 65, 67-68
Villain-services, 58-59;
reduced, 21, 62-64, 72;
commuted, 19-20, 56-57, 62, 64-69, 73, 105;
sold, 64, 66, 105;
excused, 70-71;
leased, 73;
retained, 67
Vinogradoff, 65-66
Virgate, 74;
value of services, 62-63
Wages, 18, 36-39, 72-73
Walter of Henley, 51, 53
Waste, 12, 46, 49, 93, 98
Westmoreland, Countess of, 36
Weston, 61, 68
Westwick, 80
Wheat, yield, 47, 50-56, 90;
prices, 12, 17-19, 24-31, 32-33, 36-37, 40, 53
Whorlton, 80
Winchester, Bishopric of, 20, 50, 51-54, 60-61, 63, 70, 77
Witney, 51-53, 55-56, 67-68
Wool, demand for, 12, 22, 24-25, 29, 32, 42, 43;
price of, 12, 17-19, 22, 24-33;
quality, 33
Woollen industry, expansion of, 12, 22, 24-25
Woolston, 59
Young, Arthur, 104
Columbia University in the City of New York
The University includes the following:
Columbia College, founded in 1754, and Barnard College, founded in
1889, offering to men and women, respectively, programs of study which
may be begun either in September or February and which lead normally
in from three to four years to the degrees of Bachelor of Arts. The
program of study in Columbia College makes it possible for a well
qualified student to satisfy the requirements for both the bachelor's
degree and a professional degree in law, medicine, technology or
education in five to eight years according to the course.
The Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy and Pure Science,
offering advanced programs of study and investigation leading to the
degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy.
The Professional Schools of
Law, established in 1858, offering courses of three years leading
to the degree of Bachelor of Laws and of one year leading to the
degree of Master of Laws.
Medicine. The College of Physicians and Surgeons, established in
1807, offering two-year courses leading to the degree of Bachelor
of Science and five-year courses leading to the degree of Doctor
of Medicine.
Mines, founded in 1863, offering courses of three years leading
to the degrees of Engineer of Mines and of Metallurgical
Engineer, and of one year leading to the degree of Master of
Science.
Chemistry and Engineering, set apart from School of Mines in
1896, offering three-year courses leading to degrees in Civil,
Electrical, Mechanical and Chemical Engineering, and of one year
leading to the degree of Master of Science.
Teachers College, founded in 1888, offering in its School of
Education courses in the history and philosophy of education and
the theory and practice of teaching, leading to appropriate
diplomas and the degree of Bachelor of Science in Education; and
in its School of Practical Arts founded in 1912, courses in
household and industrial arts, fine arts, music, and physical
training leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science in
Practical Arts. All the courses in Teachers College are open to
men and women. These faculties offer courses leading to the
degree of Master of Arts and Master of Science.
Architecture, offering a program of indeterminate length leading
to the degree of Bachelor of Architecture and Master of Science.
Journalism, founded in 1912, offering a two-year course leading
to the degree of Bachelor of Literature in Journalism. The
regular requirement for admission to this course is two years of
college work.
Business, founded in 1916, offering two and three-year courses in
business training leading to appropriate degrees.
Dentistry, founded in 1917, offering five-year courses leading to
appropriate degrees.
Pharmacy. The New York College of Pharmacy, founded in 1831,
offering courses of two, three and four years leading to
appropriate certificates and degrees.
In the Summer Session the University offers courses giving both
general and professional training which may be taken either with or
without regard to an academic degree or diploma.
Through its system of Extension Teaching the University offers many
courses of study to persons unable otherwise to receive academic
training.
The Institute of Arts and Sciences provides lectures, concerts,
readings and recitals--approximately two hundred and fifty in
number--in a single season.
The price of the University Catalogue is twenty-five cents postpaid.
Detailed information regarding the work in any department will be
furnished without charge upon application to the _Secretary of
Columbia University_, New York, N. Y.
The West Florida Controversy of 1798-1813
A Study in American Diplomacy
By ISAAC JOSLIN COX
Associate Professor of History, University of Cincinnati
702 pages. 12mo. $3.00
This volume has just been published in the series of the Albert Shaw
Lectures on Diplomatic History. It is based on lectures delivered in
the Johns Hopkins University in 1912, and later revised for
publication. The subject involves one of the most intricate problems
in American history, and Professor Cox has spared no pains in
searching for new sources of information. He has not only availed
himself of the collections in Washington and of the material in the
Department of Archives and History at Jackson, Mississippi, but he has
personally searched the archives at Seville and Madrid.
The volume deals with the secret intrigues of statesmen and diplomats
in the capitals of America and Europe on the one hand, and with the
aggressive, irresponsible movements of impatient frontiersmen on the
other. Professor Cox thinks that the sturdy pioneers of the Southwest
outstripped the diplomats, and that their deeds were the decisive
factors in the settlement of the long and bitter controversy that was
waged over West Florida.
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
Baltimore, Maryland
Colombia University Press Publications
AMERICAN CITY PROGRESS AND THE LAW. By HOWARD LEE MCBAIN, Ph.D.,
Professor of Municipal Science and Administration, Columbia
University. Pp. viii + 269.
WORLD ORGANIZATION AS AFFECTED BY THE NATURE OF THE MODERN STATE. By
DAVID JAYNE HILL, LL.D., late American Ambassador to Germany. Pp. ix +
214. Reprinted with new Preface.
OUR CHIEF MAGISTRATE AND HIS POWERS. By WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT,
Twenty-seventh President of the United States. Pp. vii + 165.
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES. By WOODROW WILSON,
LL.D., President of the United States. Pp. vii + 236.
THE BUSINESS OF CONGRESS. By SAMUEL W. MCCALL, Governor of
Massachusetts. Pp. vii + 215.
THE COST OF OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. By HENRY JONES FORD, Professor of
Politics in Princeton University. Pp. xv + 147.
POLITICAL PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT. By ALBERT SHAW, LL.D.,
Editor of the _Review of Reviews_. Pp. vii + 268.
THE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN.
By JEREMIAH W. JENKS, LL.D., Professor of Government and Public
Administration in New York University. Pp. xviii + 187.
THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF THE LAW. By JOHN CHIPMAN GRAY, LL.D., late
Royall Professor of Law in Harvard University. Pp. xii + 332.
THE GENIUS OF THE COMMON LAW. By the Right Honorable Sir FREDERICK
POLLOCK, Bart., D.C.L., LL.D. Pp. vii + 141.
THOMAS JEFFERSON. His Permanent Influence on American Institutions. By
JOHN SHARP WILLIAMS, U. S. Senator from Mississippi. Pp. ix + 330.
THE MECHANICS OF LAW MAKING. By COURTENAY ILBERT, G. C. B., Clerk of
the House of Commons. Pp. viii + 209.
LAW AND ITS ADMINISTRATION. By HARLAN F. STONE, LL.D., Dean of the
School of Law, Colombia University. Pp. vii + 232.
Uniformly bound, 12mo, cloth. Each, $1.50 _net_.
THE LAW AND THE PRACTICE OF MUNICIPAL HOME RULE. By HOWARD LEE MCBAIN,
Associate Professor of Municipal Science and Administration in
Columbia University. 8vo, cloth, pp. xviii + 724. Price, $5.00 _net_.
STUDIES IN SOUTHERN HISTORY AND POLITICS. Inscribed to William
Archibald Dunning, Lieber Professor of History and Political
Philosophy in Columbia University, by his former pupils, the authors.
A collection of fifteen essays. 8vo, cloth, pp. viii + 294. $2.50
_net_.
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY. A magazine issued by authority of the
Trustees of the University, which aims to represent that wide variety
of literary, philosophic, and scientific activity which focuses at
Columbia and through which the University contributes to the thought
and work of the world. The Quarterly is published in January, April,
July and October. Annual subscription, one dollar; single numbers,
thirty cents. 400 pages per volume.
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents
30-32 West Twenty-Seventh Street, New York City
LONGMANS, GREEN & CO.
THE VILLAGE LABOURER, 1760-1832: A Study in the Government of England
before the Reform Bill. By J. L. and Barbara Hammond. 8vo. $3.00
_net_.
"There is not a chapter in Mr. and Mrs. Hammond's book which fails
to throw new light on enclosures or on the administration of the
poor laws and the game laws, and on the economic and social
conditions of the period.... A few other studies of governing
class rule before 1867 as searchingly analytical as Mr. and Mrs.
Hammond's book will do much to weaken this tradition and to make
imperative much recasting of English History from 1688."--
--_Am. Political Science Review_.
THE TOWN LABOURER, 1760-1832: The New Civilization. By J. L. Hammond
and Barbara Hammond, Authors of "The Village Labourer, 1760-1832: A
Study in the Government of England before the Reform Bill." 8vo. $3.50
_net_.
This volume is the first part of a study of the Industrial
Revolution. It will be completed by another volume giving in
detail the history of the work-people in various industries, with
a full account of the Luddite rising and of the disturbances
connected with the adventures of the _agent provocateur_ Oliver.
"Never has the story been told with such masterly precision, or
with such illuminating reference to the original sources of the
time, as in this book.... The perspective and proportion are so
perfect that the life of a whole era, analyzed searchingly and
profoundly, passes before your eyes as you read."--_The Dial_.
"A brilliant and important achievement. 'The Town Labourer' will
rank as an indispensable source of revelation and of
inspiration."--_The Nation_ (London).
BLACK AND WHITE IN THE SOUTHERN STATES: A Study of the Race Problem in
the United States from a South African Point of View. By Maurice S.
Evans. 8vo. $2.25 _net_.
"This is a sequel to the author's earlier volume. BLACK AND WHITE
IN SOUTH EAST AFRICA. It is a product of the same searching
insight and the same candid observation."--_American Journal of
Sociology_.
BLACK AND WHITE IN SOUTH EAST AFRICA: A Study in Sociology. By Maurice
S. Evans. 8vo. $2.25 _net_.
"An exceedingly lucid statement of the arduous and intricate
problem which lies before the people of South Africa in dealing
with the native races."--_The Nation_.
THE CONTROL OF THE DRINK TRADE. A Contribution to the National
Efficiency, 1915-1917. By Henry Carter, a Member of the Central
Control Board (Liquor Traffic). With a Preface by Lord D'Abernon,
Chairman of the Board. 8vo. $2.50 _net_.
Mr. Carter describes the reason which led to the appointment of the
Control Board, and gives a full and detailed account of the work of
the Board in restricting the sale of drink, and providing Industral
Canteens; and also of the state purchase of enterprises at Gretna,
Carlisle, and elsewhere.
Fourth Avenue and 30th Street, NEW YORK
LONGMANS, GREEN & CO.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES. With Special Reference
to Factory Practice. By EDWARD D. JONES, Ph.D., Professor of Commerce
and Industry, University of Michigan. With Illustrations and
Bibliographies. Large 12mo. $2.00 _net_. (_Second Impression_).
"To the head of any industrial organization, and especially to
the executives of those which have not long been created and are
still faced with many of the problems discussed in the volume, it
should be particularly useful."--_Wall Street Journal_.
THE WORKS MANAGER TO-DAY: An Address Prepared for a Series of Private
Gatherings of Works Managers. By SIDNEY WEBB, Professor of Public
Administration in the University of London (School of Economic and
Political Science). Crown 8vo. $1.40 _net_
An examination, in easy lecture form, of the problems of
management of any considerable industrial enterprise, especially
in relation to the organization of labor, methods of
remuneration, "Scientific Management" and "Welfare Work,"
piecework and premium bonus systems, restriction of output and
increase of production, the maintenance of discipline, etc.
THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. By ERNEST LUDLOW BOGART,
Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics in the University of Illinois.
With 26 Maps and 95 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. $1.75.
READINGS IN THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. By E. L.
BOGART, Ph.D., and C. M. THOMPSON, Ph.D., of the University of
Illinois. 8vo. $2.80.
A source book which collects in one volume contemporary material
illustrating the most important economic developments in the
country's history. The material is arranged as follows: Eight
chapters deal with the United States before 1808; nine with the
period of 1808-1860; and six with the period since 1860.
RAILROADS. In two volumes. By WILLIAM Z. RIPLEY, Ph.D. Nathaniel Ropes
Professor of Economics in Harvard University, author of "Railway
Problems," etc.
Vol. I. RATES AND REGULATION, with 41 maps and diagrams. 8vo.
$3.00 _net_.
Vol. II. FINANCE AND ORGANIZATION, with 29 maps and diagrams. 8vo.
$3.00 _net_.
PRINCIPLES OF ECONOMICS: with Special Reference to American
Conditions. By EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, LL.D. McVickar Professor of
Political Economy in Columbia University. Seventh Edition, Revised
(1916). $2.50 _net_.
UNEMPLOYMENT: A Problem of Industry. By W. H. BEVERIDGE, Stowell Civil
Law Fellow of University College, Oxford, 1902-1906; formerly
sub-Warden of Toynbee Hall and Member of the Central (Unemployed) Body
for London. 8vo. $3.00 _net_.
Fourth Avenue and 30th Street, NEW YORK
The Academy of Political Science in the City of New York
The Academy of Political Science is composed of persons interested in
political, social and economic questions. Members receive the
Political Science Quarterly and the Proceedings of the Academy. Annual
dues, five dollars. Address the Secretary of the Academy of Political
Science, Columbia University, New York.
POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY
_Managing Editor_
HENRY RAYMOND MUSSEY
The Quarterly follows the most important movements of foreign politics
but devotes chief attention to questions of present interest in the
United States. Every article is signed and expresses simply the
personal view of the writer. Scholarly reviews and brief book notes
are published and an annual Supplement gives a valuable record of
political events throughout the world. Address editorial
communications to the Political Science Quarterly; business
communications to the Academy of Political Science, Columbia
University, New York.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
The Proceedings, now in their seventh volume, give detailed treatment
to special subjects of importance. The issues of the present year are
The Foreign Relations of the United States, 454 pages, $1.50, and
Economic Conditions of Winning the War, $1.50. A full list of the
numbers thus far issued will be sent on request. Address Academy of
Political Science, Columbia University, New York.
Transcriber's Notes:
Passages in italics indicated by underscore _italics_.
The following printing errors were corrected:
"it" corrected to "is" (page 16/172)
' corrected to " (page 27/183)
"villians" corrected to "villains" (page 67/223)
missing closing quotation mark added (page 69/225)
"sieze" corrected to "seize" (page 69/225)
"demense" corrected to "demesne" (page 73/229, 3 times)
missing "to added (page 78/234) (although not [to] be ignored)
"and and" corrected to "and" (page 80/236)
Footnote [38] has no corresponding marker in the text.
Page 78 contains three footnote markers (two of which are marked
with the same number - [99]) but only two footnotes.
Additional spacing after some of the block quotes is intentional
to indicate both the end of a quotation and the beginning of a
new paragraph as is in the original text.
End of Project Gutenberg's The Enclosures in England, by Harriett Bradley