THE EVILS OF COMMON FIELDS.—HOPS.—IMPLEMENTS.— MANURES.—GREGORY KING—CORN LAWS pdf

THE EVILS OF COMMON FIELDS.—HOPS.—IMPLEMENTS.— MANURES.—GREGORY KING—CORN LAWS From what has been said in the preceding pages, it will be gathered that a vast amount of compassion has been wasted on the enclosure of commons, for it is abundantly evident from contemporary writers that there were a large number of people dragging out a miserable existence on them, by living on the produce of a cow or two, or some sheep and a few poultry, with what game they could sometimes catch, and refusing regular work. Dymock, Hartlib's contemporary, questions 'whether commons do not rather make poore by causing idlenesse than maintaine them;' and he also asks how it is that there are fewest poor where there are fewest commons. In the common fields, too, there was continual strife and contention caused by the infinite number of trespasses that they were subject to. [339] The absence of hedges, too, in these great open fields was bad for the crops, for there was nothing to mitigate drying and scorching winds, while in the open waste and meadows the live stock must have sadly needed shelter and shade, 'losing more flesh in one hot day than they gained in three cool days.' Worlidge, a Hampshire man, joins in the chorus of praise of enclosures, for they brought employment to the poor, and maintained treble 'the number of inhabitants' that the open fields did; and he gives further proof of the enclosure of land in the seventeenth century, when he mentions 'the great quantities of land that have within our memories lain open, and in common of little value, yet when enclosed have proved excellent good land.' Why then was this most obvious improvement not more generally effected? Because there was a great impediment to it in the numerous interests and diversity of titles and claims to almost every common field and piece of waste land in England, whereby one or more envious or ignorant persons could thwart the will of the majority. [340] Another hindrance, he says, was that many roads passed over the commons and wastes, which a statute was needed to stop. In the seventeenth century hop growing was not nearly so common in England as in the preceding, when Harrison had said, in his Description of Britain, 'there are few farmers or occupiers in the country which have not gardens and hops growing of their own, and those far better than do come from Flanders.' There seems, indeed, to have been a prejudice against the hop; Worlidge [341] says it was esteemed an unwholesome herb for the use it was usually put to, 'which may also be supplied with several other wholesome and better herbs.' John Evelyn was very much against them, probably because he was such an advocate of cider: 'It is little more than an age,' he says, 'since hopps transmuted our wholesome ale into beer, which doubtless much altered our constitutions. That one ingredient, by some not unworthily suspected, preserving drink indeed, and so by custom made agreeable, yet repaying the pleasure with tormenting diseases, and a shorter life, may deservedly abate our fondness for it, especially if with this be considered likewise the casualties in planting it, as seldom succeeding more than once in three years.' [342] The City of London petitioned against hops as spoiling the taste of drink. Yet its cultivation is said to have advanced the price of land to £40, £50, and sometimes £100 an acre, the latter an almost incredible price if we consider the value of money then. There were not enough planted to serve the kingdom, and Flemish hops had to be imported, though not nearly so good as English. A great deal of dishonesty, moreover, was shown by the foreign importers, so that in 1603 a statute (1 Jac. I, c. 18) was passed against the 'false packinge of forreine hops,' by which it appears that the sacks were filled up with leaves, stalks, powder, sand, straw, wood, and even soil, for increasing the weight, by which English growers it is said lost£20,000 a year. Such hops were to be forfeited, and brewers using them were to forfeit their value. The chief cause of their decrease was that few farmers would take the trouble and care required to grow them, in spite of the often excellent prices, which at Winchester at this date averaged from 50s. to 80s. a cwt., sometimes, however, reaching over 200s., as in 1665 and 1687, though then as now they were subject to great fluctuations, and in 1691 were only 31s. Many, too, were discouraged by the fact 'they are the most of any plant that grows subject to the various mutations of the air, mildews sometimes totally destroying them,' no doubt an allusion to the aphis blight. Hop yards were often protected at this early date by hedges of tall trees, usually ash or poplar, the elm being disapproved of as contracting mildews. Markham [343] says that Hertfordshire then contained as good hops as he had seen anywhere, and there the custom was 250 hills to every rood, 'and every hill will bear 2 1 / 2 lb., worth on an average 4 nobles a cwt. (a noble = 6s. 8d.);' hills were to be 6 ft. apart at least, poles 16 to 18 ft. long and 9 or 10 inches in circumference at the butt, of ash, oak, beech, alder, maple or willow. Some planted the hills in 'plain squares chequerwise, which is the best way if you intend to plough with horses between the hills. Others plant them in form of a quincunx, which is better for the hop, and will do very well where your ground is but small that you may overcome it with either the breast plough or spade.' The manure recommended by Worlidge was good mould, or dung and earth mixed. The hills were like mole-hills 3 feet high, and sometimes were large enough to have as many as 20 poles, so that some hop yards must have looked very different then from what they do now, even when poles are retained; but from two to five poles per hill was the more usual number. Cultivation was much the same as in Reynold Scott's time, and picking was still done on a 'floor' prepared by levelling the hills, watering, treading, and sweeping the ground, round which the pickers sat and picked into baskets, but the hop crib was also used. It was considered better not to let the hops get too ripe, as the growers were aware of the value of a fresh, green-looking sample; and Worlidge advises the careful exclusion of leaves and stalks, though Markham does not agree with him. Kilns were of two sorts: the English kiln made of wood, lath, and clay; the French of brick, lime, and sand, not so liable to burn as the former and therefore better. [344] One method of drying was finely to bed the kiln with wheat straw laid on the hair-cloth, the hops being spread 8 inches thick over this, 'and then you shall keepe a fire a little more fervent than for the drying of a kiln full of malt,' the fire not to be of wood, for that made the hops smoky and tasted the beer, but of straw! Worlidge, strangely, recommended the bed of the kiln to be covered with tin, as much better than hair-cloth, for then any sort of fuel would do as well as charcoal, since the smoke did not pass through the hops. Besides Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Leicestershire, and Rutlandshire; Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire were recommended by Markham for hop growing, the great hop counties of to-day being passed over by him. The growth of hemp and flax had by this time considerably decayed, owing to the want of encouragement to trade in these commodities, the lack of experience in growing them, and the tithes which in some years amounted to more than the profits. [345] An acre of good flax was worth from £7 to £12; but if 'wrought up fit to sell in the market' from £15 to£20. Woad was considered a 'very rich commodity', but according to Blyth it robbed the land if long continued upon it, although if moderately used it prepared land for corn, drawing a 'different juice from what the corn requires'. It more than doubled the rent of land, and had been sold at from£6 to £20 a ton, the produce of an acre. John Lawrence, who wrote in the first quarter of the eighteenth century, says woad was in his time cultivated by companies of people, men, women, and children, who hired the land, built huts, and grew and prepared the crop for the dyer's use, then moved on to another place. [346] There were proofs that man's inventive genius was at work among farm implements. Worlidge mentions [347] an engine for setting corn, invented by Gabriel Plat, made of two boards bored with wide holes 4 in. apart, set in a frame, with a funnel to each hole. It was fitted with iron pins 5 in. long to 'play up and down', and dibble holes into which the corn was to go from the funnels. This machine was so intricate and clumsy that Worlidge found no use for it. However, he recommends another instrument which certainly seems to anticipate Tull's drill, though Tull is said to have stated when Bradley showed him a cut of it that it was only a proposal and it never got farther than the cut. [348] It consisted of a frame of small square pieces of timber 2 inches thick; the breadth of the frame 2 feet, the height 18 inches, length 4 feet, placed on four good- sized wheels. In the middle of the frame a coulter was fixed to make a furrow for the corn, which fell through a wooden pipe behind, that dropped the corn out of a hopper containing about a bushel, the fall of the corn from the hopper being regulated by a wooden wheel in its neck. The same frame might contain two coulters, pipes, and hoppers, and the instrument could be worked with one horse and one man. It was considered a great advance on sowing broadcast, and by the use of it 'you may also cover your grain with any rich compost you shall prepare for that purpose, either with pigeon dung, dry or granulated, or any other saline or lixirial (alkaline, or of potash) substance, which may drop after the corn from another hopper behind the one that drops the corn, or from a separate drill'. The corn thus sown in rows was found easier to weed and hoe, so that it is clear that this advantage was well understood before Tull's time. There was a great diversity of ploughs at this date, almost every county having some variation. [349] The principal sorts were the double-wheel plough, useful upon hard land, usually drawn with horses or oxen two abreast, the wheels 18 in. to 20 in. high. The one-wheel plough, which could be used on almost any sort of land; it was very 'light and nimble', so that it could be drawn by one horse and held by one man, and thus ploughed an acre a day. Then there was a 'plain plough without either wheel or foot', very easy to work and fit for any lands; a double plough worked by four horses and two men, of two kinds, one ploughing a double furrow, the other a double depth. There were also ploughs with a harrow attached, others constructed to plough, sow, and harrow, but not of much value; and a turfing plough for burning sod. Carts and waggons were of many sorts, according to the locality, the greater wheels of the waggon being usually 18 feet in circumference the lesser 9 feet. A useful implement was the trenching plough used on grass land to cut out the sides of trenches or drains, with a long handle and beam and with a coulter or knife fixed in it and sometimes a wheel or wheels. The following is a list of other implements then considered necessary for a farm. For the field. Harrows Mole spear Beetles Forks Mole traps Roller Sickles Weedhooks Cradle scythe Reaphooks Pitchforks Seedlip [350] Sledds Rakes For the barn and stable. Flails Pannels (pillions) Pails Winnowing fan Pack-saddles Mane combs Sieves Cart lines Goads Sacks Ladders Yokes Bins Corn measures Wanteyes [351] Curry combs Brooms Suffingles (surcingles?) Whips Skeps (baskets) Screens for corn. Harness For the meadows and pastures. Scythes Pitchforks Cutting spade for hayrick Rakes Fetters and clogs Horse-locks. Besides many tools. A considerable variety of manures were in use, chalk, lime, marl, fuller's earth, clay, sand, sea-weed, river-weed, oyster shells, fish, dung, ashes, soot, salt, rags, hair, malt dust, bones, horns, and the bark of trees. Of the oyster shells Worlidge says, 'I am credibly informed that an ingenious gentleman living near the seaside laid on his lands great quantities, which made his neighbours laugh at him (as usually they do at anything besides their own clownish road or custom of ignorance),' and after a year or two's exposure to the weather 'they exceedingly enriched his land for many years after.' The bones then used were marrow-bones and fish bones, or 'whatever hath any oiliness or fatness in it', but the bones of horses and other animals were also used, burnt before being applied to the land, crushing not being thought of till many years after. In 1688 Gregory King, [352] who was much more accurate than most statisticians of his time, gave the following estimate of the land of England and Wales:— Acres. Per acre. Arable 9,000,000 worth to rent 5s. 6d. Pasture and meadow 12,000,000 " " 8s. 8d. Woods and coppices 3,000,000 " " 5s. Forests and parks 3,000,000 " " 3s. 8d. Barren land 10,000,000 " " 1s. Houses, gardens, churches, &c. 1,000,000 Water and roads 1,000,000 ————— Total: 39,000,000 He valued the live stock of England and Wales at £18 1 / 4 millions, and estimated the produce of the arable land in England at: Million bushels. Value per bushel. Wheat 14 3s. 6d. Rye 10 2s. 6d. Barley 27 2s. 0d. Oats 16 1s. 6d. Peas 7 2s. 6d. Beans 4 2s. 6d. Vetches 1 2s. 6d. The same statistician drew up a scheme of the income and expenditure of the 'several families' in England in 1688, the population being 5 1 / 2 millions [353] :— No. of families in class. Class. Income. 160 Temporal lords £3,200 0 0 800 Baronets 880 0 0 600 Knights 650 0 0 3,000 Esquires 450 0 0 11,000 Gentlemen 280 0 0 2,000 Eminent merchants 400 0 0 8,000 Lesser merchants 198 0 0 [...]... in the previous forty Modern economists have described this system as one of the worst instances of a class using their legislative power to subsidize themselves at the expense of the community As a matter of fact it was the firm conviction of the statesmen and economists of the time, that husbandry, being the main industry and prop of England, and the foundation on which the whole political power of. .. 1662 was passed the famous statute of parochial settlement, 14 Car II, c 12, which forged cruel fetters for the poor, and is said to have caused the iron of slavery to enter into the soul of the English labourer.[357] The Act states, that the reason for passing it was the continual increase of the poor throughout the kingdom, which had become exceeding burdensome owing to the defects in the law Poor people,... adversaries for the necessaries of life; the wisdom of the policy was never questioned, and was accepted by statesmen of every party [364] To blame the landowners for adopting what seemed the wisest course to every sensible person is merely an instance of partisan spite At the Peace of Paris in 1763 the question as to whether England or France was to be the great colonizing country of the world was finally... less than the artisan It will also be noticed that the rural population of England was about three-quarters of the whole.[354] The winter of 1683-4 was marked by one of the severest frosts that have ever visited England Ice on the Thames is said to have been eleven inches thick; by Jan 9 there were streets of booths on it; and by the 24th, the frost continuing more and more severe, all sorts of shops... security for the discharge of the parish in case he became a pauper It is true that certain relaxations were subsequently made The Act of 1691, 3 W & M., c 2, allowed derivative settlements on payment of taxes for one year, serving an annual office, hiring for a year, and apprenticeship; while the Act of 1696, 8 & 9 Wm III, c 30, allowed the grant of a certificate of settlement, under which safeguard the holder... settled, and a great development of English trade ensued It was accompanied by a great increase of population, exports of corn were largely reduced, and the balance began to incline the other way, so that the next Act of importance was that of 1773 which permitted the import of foreign wheat at a nominal duty of 6d a quarter when it was over 48s., but prohibited export and the bounty on export when wheat... returned the total area of England and Wales, excluding water, at 37,130,344 acres [353]Eden, State of the Poor, i 228 [354]If we allow that most of the two last classes enumerated were country folk For the decline of the yeoman class, see chap xviii [355]Evelyn's Diary [356]Tooke, History of Prices, i 23 [357]Fowle, Poor Law, p 63 [358]Hasbach, op cit p 66, says, 'the abuses complained of in the preamble... for instance, the fine often was only nominal; in the seventeenth century orders authorizing the building of cottages on the waste were freely given by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and orders were also made by the Court for the erection of cottages elsewhere.[360] At the restoration of Charles II the corn laws had practically been unaltered since 1571,[361] when it had been enacted that corn might... abolished and the other extreme resorted to, viz a bounty on export of 5s in the quarter as long as the home price did not exceed 48s At the same time import duties remained high, and this system lasted till 1773 Never had the corn-growers of England been so thoroughly protected, yet, owing to causes over which the legislators had no control, namely bountiful seasons, the prices of wheat for the next seventy... parish to another in order 'to settle where there is the best Stocke, the largest commons or wastes to build cotages, and the most woods for them to burn and destroy.'[358] It was therefore determined to stop these wanderings, and most effectually was it done Two justices were empowered to remove any person who settled in any tenement under the yearly value of £10 within forty days to the place where . THE EVILS OF COMMON FIELDS. —HOPS. —IMPLEMENTS. — MANURES. —GREGORY KING—CORN LAWS From what has been said in the preceding pages, it will be gathered that a vast amount of compassion. in the chorus of praise of enclosures, for they brought employment to the poor, and maintained treble &apos ;the number of inhabitants' that the open fields did; and he gives further proof. cut of it that it was only a proposal and it never got farther than the cut. [348] It consisted of a frame of small square pieces of timber 2 inches thick; the breadth of the frame 2 feet, the