Produced by MWS, RichardW, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)









 THE INDUSTRIAL
 HISTORY OF ENGLAND


 THE INDUSTRIAL
 HISTORY OF ENGLAND

 BY
 H. DE B. GIBBINS, LITT.D., M.A.

 SOMETIME SCHOLAR OF WADHAM COLLEGE, OXFORD
 AND UNIVERSITY (COBDEN) PRIZEMAN
 IN POLITICAL ECONOMY

 WITH FIVE MAPS AND A PLAN

 TWENTY-SEVENTH EDITION

 METHUEN & CO. LTD.
 36 ESSEX STREET W.C.
 LONDON


 _First Published_                                     _July 1890_
 _Second Edition_                                           _1890_
 _Third Edition_                                            _1892_
 _Fourth Edition_                                           _1895_
 _Fifth and Sixth Editions_                                 _1897_
 _Seventh Edition_                                          _1900_
 _Eighth Edition_                                           _1902_
 _Ninth Edition_                                            _1903_
 _Tenth Edition_                                            _1904_
 _Eleventh and Twelfth Editions_                            _1906_
 _Thirteenth and Fourteenth Editions_                       _1907_
 _Fifteenth Edition_                                        _1908_
 _Sixteenth Edition_                                        _1910_
 _Seventeenth Edition_                                      _1911_
 _Eighteenth Edition, Revised_                              _1912_
 _Nineteenth Edition_                                       _1913_
 _Twentieth Edition_                                        _1914_
 _Twenty-First Edition_                                     _1916_
 _Twenty-Second Edition_                                    _1917_
 _Twenty-Third, Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth
     Editions_                                              _1918_
 _Twenty-Sixth Edition_                                     _1919_
 _Twenty-Seventh Edition_                                   _1920_




PREFACE


This little book is an attempt to relate in a short, concise, and
simple form the main outlines of England’s economic and industrial
history. It is meant to serve as an introduction to a fuller study
of the subject and as a preliminary sketch which the reader can
afterwards, if he wishes, fill in for himself from larger volumes
dealing with special periods. At the same time it is hoped that this
outline may succeed in giving not only to the student but to the
ordinary reader a general view of a side of history too frequently
neglected, but of the utmost importance to a proper understanding of
the story of the English nation. I have endeavoured, as far as possible
in the brief limits of a work like this, to connect economic and
industrial questions with social, political, and military movements,
believing as I do that only in some such mutual relation as this can
historical events obtain their full significance.

The paramount necessity of simplicity and conciseness in an outline
of this kind has compelled me to omit or mention very briefly many
points which those who are familiar with my subject might well expect
to be included. I have not, for instance, given elaborate statistical
figures or voluminous footnotes upon the actual condition of our trade
at various periods. Nor have I given more than an outline of the old
and new Poor Laws, of financial measures, or of Banking; and with much
reluctance I have omitted a discussion of Colonial Trade. But all
these points, except perhaps the last, may be reserved by a student
till he comes to much larger works; though a proper economic history
of our Colonies yet remains to be written. Such as it is, however, I
trust that this general view of the broad outlines of the growth of our
wealth and industry in their relation to the general history of England
may have its uses.

I have preferred not to weary my reader by constant references to
authorities in footnotes, but have acknowledged my obligations to the
various authorities consulted in an appendix, where suggestions for
further reading will be found.




PREFACE TO THE EIGHTEENTH EDITION


Since the original publication of this book in 1890, twenty-one years
have elapsed, and the author, whose untimely death all scholars
deplore, was able to embody various corrections which made this book
harmonize more completely with his larger work _Industry in England_.
On certain points he was led to modify his opinions—a course inevitable
in a book covering so large a ground.

In the Preface to the Fifth Edition he wrote: “It has been said that
I write with a prejudice against the owners of land: but this is not
the case. The landed gentry of England happen for some centuries to
have held the predominant power in the State and in society, and used
it, not unnaturally, in many cases to further their own interests.
It is the duty of an historian to point this out, but it need not
therefore be thought that he had any special bias against the class.
Any other class would certainly have done the same, as, for instance,
mill-owners did among their own _employées_ at the beginning of this
century, and as, in all probability, the working classes will do when
a further extension of democratic government shall have given them the
opportunity.

“It is a fault of human nature that it can rarely be trusted with
irresponsible power, and unless the influence of one class of society
is counterbalanced more or less by that of another, there will always
be a tendency to some injustice. I trust that my readers will
bear this in mind when reading the following pages, and will believe
that I intend no unfairness to the landed gentry of England, who have
done much to promote the glory and stability of their country.”

The present, or eighteenth edition, has been carefully revised by Miss
M. E. Hirst, M.A., and in addition to such revision she has written a
new chapter (Chapter VIII.) which treats of the New Age of Industrial
Expansion. _The Industrial History of England_ is thus continued from
the point at which the author left it and is carried up to the year
1911.




CONTENTS


 PERIOD I

 ENGLAND BEFORE THE NORMAN CONQUEST

 CHAP. I. INTRODUCTORY—THE ROMANS AND THEIR
            SUCCESSORS—TRADE                                1

 CHAP. II. THE LAND: ITS OWNERS AND CULTIVATORS             5


 PERIOD II

 FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST TO THE REIGN OF
 HENRY III. (1066–1216 A.D.)

 CHAP. I. DOMESDAY BOOK AND THE MANORS                     10

 CHAP. II. THE TOWNS AND THE GILDS                         22

 CHAP. III. MANUFACTURES AND TRADE: ELEVENTH TO
            THIRTEENTH CENTURIES                           31


 PERIOD III

 FROM THE THIRTEENTH TO THE END OF THE FIFTEENTH
 CENTURY, INCLUDING THE GREAT PLAGUE (1216–1500)

 CHAP. I. AGRICULTURE IN MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND                  40

 CHAP. II. THE WOOLLEN TRADE AND MANUFACTURES              47

 CHAP. III. THE TOWNS, INDUSTRIAL VILLAGES, AND FAIRS      57

 CHAP. IV. THE GREAT PLAGUE AND ITS ECONOMIC EFFECTS       67

 CHAP. V. THE PEASANTS’ REVOLT OF 1381, AND THE SUBSEQUENT
            PROSPERITY OF THE WORKING CLASSES              75


 PERIOD IV

 FROM THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY TO THE EVE OF THE
 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (1509–1760)

 CHAP. I. THE MISDEEDS OF HENRY VIII., AND ECONOMIC
             CHANGES IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY              83

 CHAP. II. THE GROWTH OF FOREIGN TRADE                     91

 CHAP. III. ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND                           100

 CHAP. IV. PROGRESS OF AGRICULTURE IN THE SEVENTEENTH
             AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES                     109

 CHAP. V. COMMERCE AND WAR IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND
             EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES                         121

 CHAP. VI. MANUFACTURES AND MINING                        132


 PERIOD V

 THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND MODERN ENGLAND

 CHAP. I. THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION                       144

 CHAP. II. THE EPOCH OF THE GREAT INVENTIONS              157

 CHAP. III. WARS, POLITICS, AND INDUSTRY                  167

 CHAP. IV. THE FACTORY SYSTEM AND ITS RESULTS             176

 CHAP. V. THE CONDITION OF THE WORKING CLASSES            187

 CHAP. VI. THE RISE AND DEPRESSION OF MODERN AGRICULTURE  198

 CHAP. VII. MODERN INDUSTRIAL ENGLAND                     211

 CHAP. VIII. THE NEW AGE, 1897–1911                       223


 NOTE ON AUTHORITIES FOR INDUSTRIAL HISTORY               241

 NOTES                                                    243

 INDEX                                                    253




LIST OF MAPS AND DIAGRAMS


 DIAGRAM OF A MANOR                                       _page_  21

 ENGLAND SHORTLY AFTER THE TIME OF
 DOMESDAY, A.D. 1100–1200                          _facing page_  38

 INDIA IN THE TIME OF CLIVE, SHOWING ENGLISH
 FACTORIES AND DISTRICTS UNDER OUR INFLUENCE       _facing page_ 128

 INDUSTRIAL ENGLAND, 1700–1750                     _facing page_ 134

 ENGLAND, SHOWING COAL-FIELDS AND CORRESPONDING
 MANUFACTURES                                      _facing page_ 164

 INDUSTRIAL ENGLAND, 1890                          _facing page_ 210

{1}




THE INDUSTRIAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND

PERIOD I

ENGLAND BEFORE THE NORMAN CONQUEST


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY—THE ROMANS AND THEIR SUCCESSORS—TRADE


§ 1. Although the industrial history of England does not properly begin
until the settlement made by the Norman Conquest, it is nevertheless
impossible to omit some reference to the previous economic condition of
the country. As everybody knows, the Romans were the first to invade
Britain, although it had been known, probably for centuries previously,
to the Phenicians and Carthaginians who used to sail here for its tin
and lead. The Romans, however, first colonized the country and began
to develop its resources; and they succeeded in introducing various
industries and in opening up a considerable commerce.

Under Roman sway Britain reached a high level of prosperity, and there
is abundant evidence of this fact from Roman writers. They speak of the
rich natural productions of Britain, of its numerous flocks and herds,
of its minerals, of its various commercial facilities, and of the
revenues derived from these sources. {2}

We know that there were no less than fifty-nine cities in Britain in
the middle of the third century A.D., and the population was probably
fairly large, though we have no certain statistics upon this point.[1]
Large quantities of corn were exported from the land, as many as 800
vessels being sent on one occasion to procure corn for the Roman cities
in Germany. This shows a fairly advanced agriculture. Tin also was
another important export, as indeed it has always been; and British
slaves were constantly sent to the market at Rome. In the country
itself great material works, such as walled towns, paved roads,
aqueducts, and great public buildings were undertaken, and remained to
testify to the greatness of their builders long after their name had
become a distant memory. The military system of the Romans helped to
produce industrial results, for the Roman soldiers took a prominent
part in road-making, building dykes, working mines, and the great
engineering operations that marked the Roman rule. The chief towns very
largely owed their origin to their importance as military stations;
and most of them, such as York, London, Chester, Lincoln, Bath, and
Colchester, have continued ever since to be considerable centres of
population, though of course with occasional fluctuations. When,
however, the Romans finally left Britain (in A.D. 410), both trade
and agriculture began to sink; the towns decayed; and for centuries
England became the battle-ground of various predatory tribes from
the Continent, who gradually effected a settlement, first in many
kingdoms, but finally in one, and became known as “the English,” or the
Anglo-Saxon nationality (A.D. 827).

  [1. See note 1, p. 243, on Population of Roman Britain.]


§ 2. TRADE IN THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD—But although Egbert became Lord of
the Saxons in 827, it was not till {3} the reign of Edgar (958–975)
that England became one united kingdom, and indeed throughout this
period internal war was almost constant, and naturally prevented any
great growth of home industry or foreign trade. The home industry, such
as it was, was almost entirely agricultural, under a system of which
I shall speak in the next chapter. The separate communities living in
the country villages or small towns were very much disinclined for
mutual intercourse, and endeavoured as far as possible to be each a
self-sufficing economic whole, getting their food and clothing, coarse
and rough as it generally was, from their own flocks and herds, or
from their own land in the mark or manor.[2] Hence only the simplest
domestic arts and manufactures were carried on.

  [2. See next chapter.]


§ 3. INTERNAL TRADE. MONEY—But, however much a community may desire
to be self-sufficing, it cannot be so entirely. Differences of soil,
mineral wealth, and other advantages cause one community to require
what another has in abundance. Salt, for instance, was largely in
request for salting meat for the winter, and it cannot be universally
procured in England. Hence local markets arose, at first always on the
neutral boundary between two marks,[3] the place of the market being
marked by the boundary stone, the origin of the later “market cross.”
These markets at first took place only at stated times during the year.
Shrines and burial-places of noted men were the most frequented spots
for such annual fairs. Thus, _e.g._, the origin of Glasgow may be
traced from the burial-place of St Ninian (A.D. 570). There seems to
have been a well-defined, though small, trading class; but, at any rate
at first, most people of different occupations met {4} at well-known,
convenient places, and bartered without the assistance of any kind of
middlemen.

  [3. See note 2, p. 243, on Markets on Boundaries.]

Mere barter, however, is tedious and cumbersome; and although, up to
the time of Alfred (A.D. 870), a large proportion, though not the
whole, of English internal trade was carried on in this fashion,
the use of metals for exchange begins to become common in the ninth
century; and in A.D. 900 regular money payments by tenants are found
recorded. And when we come to the levy of the Danegeld (A.D. 991)—the
tax raised by Ethelred as a bribe to the Danes—it is clear that money
coinage must have been widely diffused and in general circulation.


§ 4. FOREIGN TRADE—Trade of all kinds had suffered a severe blow
when the Romans quitted Britain, but during the Anglo-Saxon period
English merchants still did a certain amount of foreign trade. They
were encouraged too in this by a doom, of Danish origin,[4] which
provided that “if a merchant thrived so that he fared thrice over the
sea by his own means, then was he of thane-right worthy,” which gave
him a comparatively high rank. The settlement of German merchants in
London, pointing to some continental trade, also dates from the time
of Ethelred the Unready (about A.D. 1000). Much of this foreign trade
lay in the treasures of precious metals and embroideries, which were
imported for use in monasteries. It is interesting, by the way, to
note that St Dunstan (who died in 988) encouraged handicraft work in
metals, especially in ironwork. The exports from England were chiefly
wool—which we shall afterwards see becomes of great importance—some
agricultural produce, and also, as before, lead and tin. English
merchants we know went to Marseilles, and others frequented the great
French fairs of Rouen and St Denis in the ninth century; while, {5}
rather earlier, we have a most interesting document, our first treaty
of commerce in fact, dated A.D. 796, by which Karl the Great, or
Charlemagne, as some people call him, grants protection to certain
English traders from Mercia. And in King Alfred’s days one English
bishop even “penetrated prosperously” to India with the king’s gifts
to the shrine of St Thomas.

  [4. See note 3, p. 243, on Danish Influence on Commerce.]


§ 5. GENERAL SUMMARY—Taking a general view of the period between
the Saxon Conquest and the Norman Conquest, we see that crafts and
manufactures were few and simple, being confined as far as possible
to separate and isolated communities. Fine arts, and works in metal
and embroideries were limited to the monasteries, which also imported
them. The immense mineral wealth of the island in iron and coal was
untouched. Trade was small, though undoubtedly developing. The mass of
the population was engaged in agriculture, and every man had, so to
speak, a stake in the land, belonging to a manor or parish. A landless
man was altogether outside the pale of social life. The owners of the
land, and the method of its cultivation, will occupy us in the next
chapter.


CHAPTER II

THE LAND: ITS OWNERS AND CULTIVATORS


§ 1. THE MARK—We have just said that the population of England as a
whole was almost entirely engaged in agriculture; and indeed for some
centuries onward this industry was by far the most important in the
country. Now, it is impossible to understand the conditions of this
industry without first glancing at the tenure of land as existing about
this time. It has been thought, but it is {6} not at all certain, that
in very early times before the tribes afterwards called English had
crossed over to England, or perhaps even before they had arrived in
Europe, all land was held in common by various communities of people,
perhaps at first with only a few families in each. The land occupied
by this community (whether it was a whole tribe or a few families) had
probably been cleared away from the original forests or wastes, and
was certainly separated from all other communities by a fixed boundary
or _mark_,[5] whence the whole land thus separated off was called a
mark. Within this mark was the primitive village or “township,” where
each member of the community had his house, and where each had a common
share in the land. This land was of three kinds—(1) The _forest_,
or _waste_ land, from which the mark had been originally cleared,
useful for rough natural pasture, but uncultivated. (2) The _pasture_
land, sometimes enclosed and sometimes open, in which each mark-man
looked after his own hay, and stacked it for the winter, and which was
divided into allotments for each member. (3) The _arable_ land, which
also was divided into allotments for each mark-man. To settle any
question relating to the division and use of the land, or to any other
business of common importance, the members of the mark, or mark-men,
met in a common council called the _mark-moot_, an institution of
which relics survived for many centuries. This council, and the mark
generally, formed the political, social, and economic unit of the
early English tribes. How far it actually existed when these tribes
occupied England it is difficult to say, and it is probable that it had
already undergone considerable transformation towards what is called
the _manorial_ {7} system. But this much is certain, that in England,
as in Germany, traces of communal life still remain. Our commons, still
numerous in spite of hundreds of enclosures, and the names of places
ending in _ing_, which termination frequently implies a primitive
family settlement, are evidences which remain among us to-day. And
it is only comparatively recently that the “common fields,” yearly
divided among the commoners of a parish, together with the “three-field
system,” which this allotment involved, have disappeared from our
English agriculture.

  [5. For a criticism of the mark theory see _Industry in
  England_, pp. 47–61.]


§ 2. THE MANOR—But when we come to the time when the Anglo-Saxons
had made a final settlement, and were ruled by one king, we find a
different system prevailing—_i.e._ the manorial system. The word
“manor” is a Norman name for the Saxon “township,” or community, and it
differs from the mark in this: the mark[6] was a group of households
organized and governed on a common, democratic basis, while in the
manor we find an autocratic organization and government, whereby a
group of _tenants_ acknowledge the superior position and authority
of a “lord of the manor.” But although “manor” is a Norman name, the
change from the old mark system had taken place long before the Norman
Conquest, and even if perhaps occasional independent communities still
existed, they were completely abolished under the Norman rule. The
great feature of the manor was, that it was subject to a “lord,” who
owned absolutely a certain portion of the land therein, and had rights
of rent (paid in services, or food, or money, or in all three) over the
rest of the land. It is probable that the lord of the manor had gained
his position under a promise of aiding and protecting his humbler
brethren; but, even in later {8} times, he had to acknowledge certain
rights belonging to them.

  [6. _i.e._ supposing it ever existed.]


§ 3. COMBINED AGRICULTURE—In the manor, just as in the earlier stage,
all agriculture was carried on collectively by the tenants of the
manor. Men gathered together their oxen to form the usual team of eight
wherewith to drag the plough, pastured their cattle in common, and
employed a common swineherd or shepherd for their pigs and sheep.

The distinctive feature of this combined agriculture was the
three-field system. All the arable land near a village was divided into
three strips, and was sown in the following manner:—A field was sown
with wheat or rye in the autumn of one year; but owing to the slowness
of primitive farming this crop would not be reaped in time for autumn
sowing the next year, so the sowing took place in the following spring,
the next crop being oats or barley; after this crop the land lay fallow
for a year. Hence, of these three strips, every year one had wheat or
rye, another oats or barley, while the third was fallow. The land of
each individual was necessarily scattered between the various plots of
his neighbours, so that each might have a fair share in land of good
quality. This style of agriculture, of course, produced very meagre
results, but it seems to have been sufficient for the simple wants of
the occupiers of that epoch.


§ 4. THE FEUDAL SYSTEM—In the next period we shall see this manorial
system consolidated and organized under the Norman rule, and so may
defer a full description of a typical manor till then. Here we may say
that the manor is closely connected with the _feudal_ system, which,
it must be remembered, had begun a considerable time before the Norman
Conquest. For the manor afforded a convenient political and social unit
for the estimation of {9} feudal services, and the lord of the manor
became more and more a feudal chief. But it must be understood that the
manorial system was not the same as the feudal system, though it helped
to prepare the way for it; and eventually the lords of the manors
became nominally the protectors, but really the masters of the village
husbandmen dwelling around them. The lord professed to take them under
his protection if they surrendered their independence to him, and it
was probably owing to the frequent incursions of the Danes that the
system grew as it did. In Canute’s reign we find it in full force, for
at this time the kingdom was divided into great military districts, or
_earldoms_, the “earl” being responsible to the king and receiving the
profits of his district. When William the Norman conquered England he
did not, as is often supposed, impose a feudal system upon the people.
The system was there already, developed from the old manors, and all
William I. did was to reorganize it, and give the English people Norman
instead of Anglo-Saxon or Danish lords.

 NOTE.—The theory of the mark (which is now regarded as very doubtful)
 is dealt with more fully in ch. iv. of my _Industry in England_, where
 also the evidences of communal village life are discussed; and I must
 refer my readers to this for more recent views.

{10}




PERIOD II

FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST TO THE REIGN OF HENRY III. (A.D. 1066–1216)


CHAPTER I

DOMESDAY BOOK AND THE MANORS


§ 1. DOMESDAY BOOK—It was very natural that, when William the Norman
conquered England, he should wish to ascertain the capabilities of his
kingdom both in regard to military defence and for taxation; and that
he should endeavour to gain a comprehensive idea of the results of his
conquest. So he ordered a grand survey of the kingdom to be made, and
sent commissioners into each district to make it. These officials were
bidden to inquire about all the estates in the realm—who held them,
what was the value of each, how many men occupied it and how many
cattle each supported. The results of this survey form our earliest
and most reliable statistics for English industrial history; and it is
to be regretted that no general table or analysis of this great work
has yet been made, or that historians do not use it more copiously for
gaining a knowledge of the social and economic conditions of the time.
For this latter purpose it is absolutely unrivalled.[7]

  [7. For recent works on Domesday Book, see p. 242.]


§ 2. ECONOMIC CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY AS SHOWN IN DOMESDAY—From it we
may gather the following few facts {11} as to the economic condition
of England about the time of the Norman Conquest. The population
numbered about 2,000,000, three-fourths of whom lived by agricultural
labour, the remaining fourth being townsfolk, gentry, and churchmen.
The East and South, especially the county of Kent, were the best
tilled, richest, and most populous parts of the country. “The downs
and wolds gave fine pasturage for sheep, the copses and woods formed
fattening grounds for swine, and the hollows at the downs’ foot, the
river flats, and the low, gravel hills, were the best and easiest
land to plough and crop. Far the largest part of the country was
forest—_i.e._ uncleared and undrained moor, wood, or fen.”[8] The
chief towns were London, Canterbury, Chester, Lincoln, Oxford, York,
Hereford, and Winchester; but these were trading centres rather than
seats of manufacturing industry. A small foreign export trade was done
in wool and lead, the imports being chiefly articles of luxury. There
were 9250 villages or manors in the land; in these about three-fifths
of each is waste—_i.e._ untilled, common land—one-fifth pasture, and
one-fifth arable.

  [8. V. _Industry in England_, p. 69.]


§ 3. THE MANORS AND THEIR OWNERS—Now each of these manors after the
Norman Conquest was held by a “lord,” who held it more or less remotely
from the king. For it is the distinguishing feature of the Conquest,
that William the Norman made himself the supreme landlord of the
country, so that all land was held under him. He himself of course held
a good many manors, which were farmed by his bailiffs, and for each of
these manors he was the lord. But the majority of the manors were held
by his followers, the Norman nobles, and nearly all of them had several
manors apiece. Now it was impossible for a noble to look after all his
manors himself, and they {12} found it was not always the best plan
to put their bailiffs in to work them; so they used to sublet some of
their manors to other tenants, often to Englishmen who had submitted to
the Norman Conquest. The nobles who held the land direct from the king
were called _tenants in chief_,[9] the tenants to whom they sublet it
were called _tenants in mesne_.[10] If a noble let a manor to a tenant
in mesne the tenant then took his place, and became the _lord_ of the
manor. Thus, then, we have some manors owned directly by the king,
others by the great nobles, and others again by tenants in mesne. For
instance, in the part of Domesday relating to Oxfordshire, we find
that one Milo Crispin, a tenant in chief, held several manors from the
king, but also let some of them to sub-tenants, that of Cuxham, _e.g._,
being let to one Alured, who was therefore its lord. So in Warwickshire
the manor of Estone (now Aston) was one of those belonging to William
Fitz-Ansculf, but he had let it to Godmund, an Englishman, who was then
“lord of the manor of Estone.”

  [9. Or, _in capite_.]

  [10. _i.e._ sub-tenants.]


§ 4. THE INHABITANTS OF THE MANORS—Besides the lord himself (whether
king, noble, or sub-tenant), with his personal retainers, and generally
a parish priest or some monks, there were three other classes of
inhabitants. (1) First came the _villeins_, who formed 38 per cent. of
the whole population recorded in Domesday, and who held their land in
virgates, a _virgate_ being some thirty acres of arable land, scattered
of course in plots (cf. p. 20) among the common fields of the manor,
together with a house and messuage in the village. These villeins were
often called _virgarii_ (or _yardlings_), from this term virgate. (2)
Below the villeins came the _cottars_, or _bordars_, a class distinct
from and below the former, who probably held {13} only some five or
ten acres of land and a cottage, and did not even possess a plough,
much less a team of oxen, apiece, but had to combine among themselves
for the purpose of ploughing. They form 32 per cent. of the Domesday
population. Finally came (3) _the slaves_, who were much smaller in
numbers than is commonly supposed, forming only 9 per cent. of the
Domesday population. Less than a century after the Conquest these
disappear and merge into the cottars.


§ 5. THE CONDITION OF THESE INHABITANTS—The chief feature of the
social condition of these classes of people was that they were subject
to a lord. They each depended upon a superior, and no man could be
either lordless or landless; for all persons in _villeinage_, which
included everyone below the lord of the manor, were subject to a
master, and bound to the land, except, of course, “free tenants” (p.
15). But even against their lord the villeins had certain rights which
had to be recognized. They had, moreover, many comforts and little
responsibility, except to pay their dues to their lord. Moreover, it
was possible for a villein to purchase a remission of his services, and
become a “free tenant.” Or he might become such by residing in a town
for a year and a day, and being a member of a town gild, as long as
during that period he was unclaimed by his lord. And in course of time
the villein’s position came to be this—he owed his lord the customary
services (see p. 14) whereby his lord’s land was cultivated; but his
lord could not refuse him his customary rights in return—“his house
and lands, and rights of wood and hay”—and in relation to everyone
but his lord he was a perfectly free citizen. His condition tended to
improve, and up to the time of the Great Plague (1348) a large number
of villeins had become actually free, having commuted their services
{14} for money payments. What these services were we shall now
explain. But finally, we wish to point out that the state of villeinage
and of serfage was practically the same thing in two aspects; the first
implying the fact that the villein was bound to the soil, the second
that he was subject to a master. A serf was not a slave; and, as we saw
above, _slaves_ became extinct soon after the Norman Conquest.


§ 6. SERVICES DUE TO THE LORD FROM HIS TENANTS IN VILLEINAGE—Under the
manorial system rent was paid in a very different manner from that
in which it is paid to-day, for it was a rent not so much of money,
though that was employed, as of services. The services thus rendered by
tenants in villeinage, whether villeins or cottars, may be divided into
_week-work_, and _boon-days_ or work on special days. The week-work
consisted of ploughing or reaping, or doing some other agricultural
work for the lord of the manor for two or three days in the week, or at
fixed times, such as at harvest; while _boon-day_ work was rendered at
times not fixed, but whenever the lord of the manor might require it,
though the number of boon-days in a year was limited. When, however,
the villein or cottar had performed these liabilities, he was quite
free to do work on his own land, or for that matter on any one else’s
land, as indeed the cottars frequently did, for they had not much land
of their own, and so often had time and labour to spare. It was from
this cottar class with time to spare that a distinct wage-earning
class, like our modern labourers, arose, who lived almost entirely by
wages. We shall hear more of them later on; but at the time of the
Conquest they hardly existed.


§ 7. MONEY PAYMENTS AND RENTS—It was also usual for a tenant, besides
rendering these servile services, to pay his lord a small rent either
in money or kind, generally {15} in both. Thus on Cuxham manor we find
a villein (or serf) paying his lord ½_d._ on November 12th every
year and 1_d._ whenever he brews. He also pays, in kind, 1 quarter of
seed-wheat at Michaelmas; 1 peck of wheat, 4 bushels of oats, and 3
hens on 12th November; also 1 cock and 2 hens, and 2_d._ worth of bread
every Christmas. His _services_ are—to plough and till ½ acre of
the lord’s land, to give 3 days’ labour at harvest, and other days when
required by the bailiff. This was the rent for about 12 or 15 acres of
land (half a virgate), and upon a calculation of the worth of labour
and provisions at that time (end of thirteenth century) comes to about
6_d._ an acre for his land, and 3_s._ a year for his house and the land
about it (_curtilage_).


§ 8. FREE TENANTS. SOKE-MEN—So far I have been speaking only about
tenants in villeinage. But in the Domesday Book we find another class
of tenants, called _free_, who had to pay a rent fixed in amount,
either in money or kind, and sometimes in labour. This rent was fixed
and unalterable in amount, and they were masters of their own actions
as soon as it was paid. They were not, like the villeins, bound to
the soil, but could transfer their holdings or even quit the manor if
they liked. They were, however, subject to their lord’s jurisdiction
in matters of law, and hence were called _soke-men_ (from _soke_ or
_soc_ = jurisdiction exercised by a lord). They also were bound to give
military service when called upon, which the villeinage tenants had
not to give. If they had any services to render, these were generally
commuted into money payments; and here we may observe, that there
was a constant tendency from the Conquest to the time of the Great
Plague (1348) towards this commutation. Villeins also could, and did
frequently, commute their labour rents for money rents. {16}

In Domesday, we find that the Eastern and East-central counties were
those in which “free” tenants or soke-men were most prevalent. There
they form from 27 to 45 per cent. of the inhabitants of those parts,
though, taking all England into view, they only form 4 per cent. of the
total population. The number of free tenants, however, was constantly
increasing, even among tenants in villeinage, for the lord often found
it more useful to have money, and was willing to allow commutation of
services; or again, he might prefer not to cultivate _all_ his own land
(his _demesne_), but to let it for a fixed money rent to a villein to
do what he could with it; and thus the villein became a free man, while
the lord was sure of a fixed sum from his land every year, whether the
harvest were good or bad.


§ 9. ILLUSTRATIONS OF OLD MANORS. (1) ESTONE—To make clear what I have
said in this chapter, it will perhaps be well to give two illustrations
drawn from the Domesday Book (eleventh century) and from bailiffs’
accounts of a later period (end of thirteenth century).

First we will take a manor in Warwickshire in the Domesday Survey
(1089)—Estone, now Aston, near Birmingham. It was one of a number
belonging to William, the son of Ansculf, who was tenant in chief, but
had let it to one Godmund, a sub-tenant in mesne. The Survey runs:
“William Fitz-Ansculf holds of the King Estone, and Godmund of him.
There are 8 hides.[11] The arable employs 20 ploughs; in the demesne
the arable employs 6 ploughs, but now there are no ploughs. There are
30 villeins with a priest, and 1 bondsman, and 12 bordars [_i.e._
cottars]. They have 18 ploughs. A mill pays 3 {17} shillings. The
woodland is 3 miles long and half a mile broad. It was worth £4; now
100 shillings.”

  [11. A _hide_ varied in size, and was (after the Conquest)
  equal to a _carucate_, which might be anything from 80 to 120 or 180
  acres. Perhaps 120 is a fair average, though some say 80.]

Here we have a good example of a manor held by a sub-tenant,
and containing all the three classes mentioned in § 4 of this
chapter—villeins, cottars, and slaves (_i.e._ bondsmen). The whole
manor must have been about 5000 acres, of which 1000 were probably
arable land, which was of course parcelled out in strips among the
villeins, the lord, and the priest. As there were only 18 ploughs
among 30 villeins, it is evident some of them at least had to use a
plough and oxen in common. The demesne land does not seem to have been
well cultivated by Godmund the lord, for there were no ploughs on it,
though it was large enough to employ six. Perhaps Godmund, being an
Englishman, had been fighting the Normans in the days of Harold, and
had let it go out of cultivation, or perhaps the former owner had died
in the war, and Godmund had rented the land from the Norman noble to
whom William gave it.


§ 10. CUXHAM MANOR IN THE ELEVENTH AND THIRTEENTH CENTURIES—Our second
illustration can be described at two periods of its existence—at the
time of Domesday and 200 years later. It was only a small manor of
some 490 acres, and was held by a sub-tenant from a Norman tenant in
chief, Milo Crispin. It is found in the Oxfordshire Domesday, in the
list of lands belonging to Milo Crispin. The Survey says: “Alured [the
sub-tenant] now holds 5 hides for a manor in Cuxham. Land to 4 ploughs;
now in the demesne, 2 ploughs and 4 bondsmen. And 7 villeins with 4
bordars have 3 ploughs. There are 3 mills of 18 shillings; and 18 acres
of meadow. It was worth £3, now £6.” Here, again, our three classes of
villeins, cottars or bordars, and slaves are represented. The manor was
evidently a good one, for though smaller than Estone it {18} was worth
more, and has three mills and good meadow land as well. Now, by the
end of the thirteenth century this manor had passed into the hands of
Merton College, Oxford, which then represented the lord, but farmed it
by means of a bailiff. Professor Thorold Rogers gives us a description
of it,[12] drawn from the annual accounts of this bailiff, which he
has examined along with a number of others from other manors. We find
one or two changes have taken place, for the bondsmen have entirely
disappeared, as indeed they did in less than a century after the
Conquest all through the land. The number of villeins and bordars has
increased. There are now 13 villeins and 8 cottars, and 1 free tenant.
There is also a prior, who holds land (6 acres) in the manor but does
not live in it; also two other tenants, who do not live in the manor,
but hold “a quarter of a knight’s fee” (here some 40 or 50 acres)—a
knight’s fee comprising an area of land varying from 2 hides to 4 or
even 6 hides, but in any case worth some £20. As the Cuxham land was
good, the quantity necessary for the valuation of a fee would probably
be only the small hide or carucate of 80 acres, and the quarter of
it of course 20 acres or a little more. The 13 serfs hold 170 acres,
but the 8 cottars only 30 acres, including their tenements. The free
tenant holds 12⁠¾ acres, and Merton College as lord of the manor
some 240 acres of demesne. There are now two mills instead of three,
one belonging to the prior, and the other to another tenant. There were
altogether, counting the families of the villeins and cottars, but not
the two tenants of military fees, about 60 or 70 inhabitants, the most
important being the college bailiff and the miller.

  [12. In his _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_.]


§ 11. DESCRIPTION OF A MANOR VILLAGE—Now in both these country manors,
as in all others, the central feature {19} would be the dwelling of
the lord, or manor-house. It was substantially built, and served as a
court-house for the annual sittings of the _court baron_ and _court
leet_.[13] If the lord did not live in it, his bailiff did so, and
then the lord would come once or twice a year to hold these courts.
Near the manor-house generally stood the church, often large for
the size of the village, because the nave was frequently used as a
town-hall for meetings or for markets. Then there would be the house
of the priest, possibly in the demesne; and after these two the most
important building was the mill, which, if there was a stream, would
be placed on its banks in order to use the water-power. The rest of
the tenants generally inhabited the principal street or road of the
village, near the stream, if one ran through the place. The houses of
these villages were poor and dirty, not always made of stone, and never
(till the fifteenth century) of brick, but built of posts wattled and
plastered with clay or mud, with an upper storey of poles reached by a
ladder. The articles of furniture would be very coarse and few, being
necessarily of home manufacture; a few rafters or poles overhead, a
bacon-rack, and agricultural tools being the most conspicuous objects.
Chimneys were unknown, except in the manor-houses, and so too were
windows, and the floor was of bare earth. Outside the door was the
“mixen,” a collection of every kind of manure and refuse, which must
have rendered the village street alike unsavoury, unsightly and
unwholesome. But though their life was rude and rough, it seems that
the villagers were fairly happy, and, considering all things, about as
well off as are their descendants now.

  [13. See note 4. p. 243, on Manorial Courts.]


§ 12. THE KINDS OF LAND IN A MANOR—Before concluding this chapter, it
is necessary, in order to complete our {20} sketch of the manorial
system from the time of the Conquest onwards, to understand how the
land was divided up. We may say that there were seven kinds of land
altogether, (1) First came the lord’s land round about the manor-house,
the _demesne_ land, which was strictly his own, and generally
cultivated by himself or his bailiff. All other land held by tenants
was called _land in villeinage_. (2) Next came the arable land of
the village held by the tenants in _common fields_. Now these fields
were all divided up into many strips, and tenants held their strips
generally in quite different places, all mixed up anyhow (cf. diagram,
where the tenants are marked A, B. C, etc.). The lord and the parson
might also have a few strips in these fields. There were at least
three fields, in order to allow the rotation of crops mentioned before
(p. 8). Each tenant held his strip only till harvest, after which all
fences and divisions were taken away, and the cattle turned out to feed
on the stubble. (3) Thirdly came the _common pasture_, for all the
tenants. But each tenant was restricted or stinted in the number of
cattle that he might pasture, lest he should put on too many, and thus
not leave enough food for his neighbours’ cattle. Sometimes, however,
we find pasture without stint, as in Port Meadow at Oxford to this day.
(4) Then comes the _forest_ or _woodland_, as in Estone, which belonged
to the lord, who owned all the timber. But the tenants had rights, such
as the right of lopping and topping certain trees, collecting fallen
branches for fuel; and the right of “pannage”—_i.e._ of turning cattle,
especially swine, into the woods to pick up what food they could.
(5) There was also in most manors what is called the _waste_—_i.e._
uncultivated—land, affording rough pasture, and on which the tenants
had the right of cutting turf and bracken for fuel and fodder. Then
near the stream there would {21}

DIAGRAM OF A MANOR

 THE KING (supreme landlord)
         │
 TENANT IN CHIEF, owning various manors.
         │
 A SUB-TENANT, or tenant in mesne, the lord of the
   manor below.
         │
  [Illustration]

{22}

perhaps be some (6) _Meadow land_, as at Cuxham; but this always
belonged to the lord, and if he let it out, he always charged an extra
rent (say eightpence instead of sixpence an acre), for it was very
valuable as affording a good supply of hay for the winter. Lastly, if
the tenant could afford it, and wanted to have other land besides the
common fields, where he could let his cattle lie, or to cultivate the
ground more carefully, he could occupy (7) a _close_, or a portion of
land specially marked off and let separately. The lord always had a
close on his demesne, and the chief tenants would generally have one or
two as well. The close land was of course rented more highly than land
in the common fields.

The accompanying diagram shows a typical manor, held by a sub-tenant
from a tenant in chief, who holds it of the king. It contains all the
different kinds of land, though of course they did not always exist
all in one manor. It also shows the manor-house, church, mill and
village.[14]

  [14. See note 5, p. 244, on Decay of Manorial System.]


CHAPTER II

THE TOWNS AND THE GILDS


§ 1. THE ORIGIN OF TOWNS—As in the case of the manor, which was the
Norman name for the Saxon “townships,” the town, in the modern sense
of the word, had its origin from the primitive settlement known as the
mark (p. 6). The only difference between a town and a manor originally
lay in the number of its population, and in the fact that the town was
a more defensible place than the {23} “township,” or rural manor,
probably having a mound or moat surrounding it, instead of the hedges
which ran round the villages. In itself it was merely a manor or group
of manors; as Professor Freeman puts it, “one part of the district
where men lived closer together than elsewhere.” The town had at first
a constitution like that of a primitive village in the mark, but its
inhabitants had gradually gained certain rights and functions of a
special nature. These rights and privileges had been received from the
lord of the manor on which the town had grown up; for towns, especially
provincial towns, were at first only dependent manors, which gained
safety and solidity under the protection of some great noble, prelate,
or the king himself, who finally would grant the town thus formed a
charter.


§ 2. RISE OF TOWNS IN ENGLAND—Towns first became important in England
towards the end of the Saxon period Saxon England had never been
a settlement of towns, but of villages and townships, or manors.
But gradually towns did grow up, though differing widely in the
circumstances and manner of their rise. Some grew up in the fortified
camps of the invaders themselves, as being in a secure position; some
arose from a later occupation of the once sacked and deserted Roman
towns. Many grew silently in the shadow of a great abbey or monastery.
Of this class was Oxford, which first came into being round the
monasteries of St Frideswide and Osney. Others clustered round the
country houses of some Saxon king or earl. Several important boroughs
owed their rise to the convenience of their site as a port or a trading
centre. This was the origin of the growth of Bristol, whose rise
resulted directly from trade; and London of course had always been
a port of high commercial rank. A few other towns, like Scarborough
and Grimsby, were at first {24} small havens for fishermen. But all
the English towns were far less flourishing before the arrival of the
Normans than they afterwards became.


§ 3. TOWNS IN DOMESDAY: LONDON—If, now, we once more go back to our
great authority, the survey made by William the Norman, we find that
the status of these towns or boroughs is clearly recognized, though
they are regarded as held by the lord of the manor “in demesne,” or
in default of a lord, as part of the king’s demesne. Thus Northampton
at that time was a town in the king’s demesne; Beverley was held in
demesne by the Archbishop of York. It was possible, too, that one
town might belong to several lords, because it spread over, or was an
aggregate of, several manors or townships. Thus Leicester seems to have
included four manors, which were thus held in demesne by four lords—one
by the king, another by the Bishop of Lincoln, another by a noble,
Simon de Senlis, and the fourth by Ivo of Grantmesnil, the sheriff. In
later times it was held under one lord, Count Robert of Meulan.

Now, in the Domesday Book there is mention made of forty-one provincial
cities or boroughs, most of them being the county towns of the present
day. There are also ten fortified towns of greater importance than
the others. They are Canterbury, York, Nottingham, Oxford, Hereford,
Leicester, Lincoln, Stafford, Chester, and Colchester. London was a
town apart, as it had always been, and was the only town which had a
civic constitution, being regulated by a port-reeve and a bishop, and
having a kind of charter, though afterwards the privileges of this
charter were much increased. London was of course a great port and
trading centre, and had many foreign merchants in it. It was then, as
well as in subsequent centuries, the centre of English national life,
and {25} the voice of its citizens counted for something in national
affairs. The other great ports of England at that time were Bristol,
Southampton, and Norwich, and as trade grew and prospered, many other
ports rose into prominence (see p. 64).


§ 4. SPECIAL PRIVILEGES OF TOWNS—Even at the time of the Conquest most
towns, though small, were of sufficient importance to have a certain
status of their own, with definite privileges. The most important of
these was the right of composition for taxation, _i.e._ the right of
paying a fixed sum, or rent, to the Crown, instead of the various
tallages, taxes, and imposts that might be required of other places.
This fixed sum, or composition, was called the _firma burgi_, and by
the time of the Conquest was nearly always paid in money. Previously
it had been paid both in money and kind, for we find Oxford paying to
Edward the Confessor six sectaries of honey as well as £20 in coin;
while to William the Norman it paid £60 as an inclusive lump sum. By
the end of the Norman period all the towns had secured the _firma
burgi_, and the right of assessing it themselves, instead of being
assessed by the sheriff; they had the right also of choosing a mayor
of their own, instead of the king’s bailiff or _reeve_. They had,
moreover, their own tribunals, a charter for their customs, and special
rules of local administration, and, generally speaking, gained entire
judicial and commercial freedom.


§ 5. HOW THE TOWNS OBTAINED THEIR CHARTERS—It is interesting to see
what circumstances helped forward this emancipation of the towns from
the rights possessed by the nobles and the abbeys, or by the king. The
chief cause of the readiness of the nobles and kings to grant charters
during this period (from the Conquest to Henry III.) was their lack
of ready money. Everyone knows {26} how fiercely the nobles fought
against each other in Stephen’s reign, and how enthusiastically they
rushed to the Crusades under Richard I. They could not indulge their
love of fighting, which in their eyes was their main duty, without
money to pay for their fatal extravagances in this direction, and to
get money they frequently parted with their manorial rights over the
towns that had grown up on their estates. Especially was this the case
when a noble, or king, was taken prisoner, and wanted the means of his
ransom. In this way Portsmouth and Norwich gained their charters by
paying part of Richard I.’s ransom (1194). Again, Rye and Winchelsea
gained theirs by supplying the same king (in 1191) with two ships for
one of his Eastern crusades. Many other instances might be quoted
from the cases of nobles who also gave charters when setting out upon
these extraordinary religious and sentimental expeditions. Indeed, the
Crusades had a very marked influence in this way upon the growth of
English towns. Someone had to pay for the wars in which the aristocracy
delighted, and it is well to remember the fact that the expenses of
all our wars—and they have been both numerous and costly—have been
defrayed by the industrial portion of the community. And the glories
and cruelties of that savage age of so-called knightly chivalry, which
has been idealized and gilded by romancers and history-mongers, with
its tournaments and torture-chambers, were paid for by that despised
industrial population of the towns and manors which contained the real
life and wealth of mediæval England.


§ 6. THE GILDS AND THE TOWNS. VARIOUS KINDS OF GILDS—But besides the
indirect effect of the Crusades, there was another powerful factor in
the growth and emancipation of the towns after the Conquest. I refer
to the _merchant_ {27} _gilds_, which were becoming more and more
prominent all through this period, though the height of their power was
reached in the fourteenth century. These merchant gilds were one out
of four other kinds of gilds, all of which seem to have been similar
in origin. The earliest gilds are found in Saxon times, and were very
much what we understand by clubs. At first they were associations of
men for more or less religious and charitable purposes, and formed
a sort of artificial family, whose members were bound by the bond
not of kinship, but of an oath; while the gild-feast, held once a
month in the common hall, replaced the family gatherings of kinsfolk.
These gilds were found both in towns and manors, but chiefly in the
former, where men were brought more closely together. Besides (1) the
_religious_ gilds, we find in Saxon times (2) the _frith_ gilds, formed
for mutual assistance in case of violence, wrong, or false accusation,
or in any legal affairs. But this class of gilds died out after the
Conquest. The most important were (3) the _merchant_ gilds mentioned
above, which existed certainly in Edward the Confessor’s time, being
called in Saxon _ceapemanne_ gilds, and they were recognized at the
time of the Conquest, for they are recorded in Domesday here and
there as possessing lands. The merchant members of these gilds had
various privileges, such as a monopoly of the local trade of a town,
and freedom from certain imposts. They had a higher rank than the
members of the (4) _craft_ gilds. These last were associations of
handicraftsmen, or artisans, and were separate from the merchant gilds,
though also of great importance. If a town was large enough, each craft
or manufacture had a gild of its own, though in smaller towns members
of various crafts would form only one gild. Such gilds were found, too,
not only in towns but in country villages, as is known, _e.g._, in the
case of some {28} Norfolk villages, and remains of their halls in
villages have been found. Their gild feasts are probably represented to
this day in the parish feasts, survivals of ancient custom.


§ 7. HOW THE MERCHANT GILDS HELPED THE GROWTH OF TOWNS—Now it was
only natural that the existence of these powerful associations in the
growing boroughs should secure an increasing extent of cohesion and
unity among the townsmen. Moreover, the craft and merchant gilds had
a very important privilege, which could make many men anxious to join
their ranks, namely, that membership in a gild for a year and a day
made a tenant in villeinage a free man, as were all the members of a
gild. Thus the gilds included all the free tenants in a town, and in
becoming a merchant gild the body of free citizens, who formed the only
influential portion of a town, began to enlarge their municipal powers.
It became their special endeavour to obtain from the king or from their
lord wider commercial privileges, grants of coinage, of holding fairs,
and of exemption from tolls. Then they asked for freedom of justice and
of self-government; and more especially did the gilds, as representing
practically the town, buy up the _firma burgi_, or fixed tax, and thus
became their own assessors, and finally bought a charter, as we have
seen, from a king or noble in need of ready money. And so gradually,
and by other steps which are not always clear, the emancipation of the
towns was won by the gilds; the boroughs became free from their lords’
restrictions and dues; till by the end of the twelfth century chartered
towns, which were very few at the time of the Conquest, became the
general rule.


§ 8. HOW THE CRAFT GILDS HELPED INDUSTRY—So far we have specially
noted the work of the merchant gilds, which, as it were, built up the
constitution and freedom of the towns. {29}

We must now look for a moment at the work of the artisans’ gilds, or
craft gilds, which afterwards became very important. These gilds are
found not only in London, but in provincial towns. The London weavers
are mentioned as a craft gild in the time of Henry I. (A.D. 1100),
and most of these gilds seemed to have existed already for a long
period. The Goldsmiths’ Gild claimed to have possessed land before
the Norman Conquest, and it was fairly powerful in the days of Henry
II. (A.D. 1154), for he found it convenient to try and suppress it.
But it did not receive the public recognition of a charter till the
fourteenth century. They arose, of course, first in the towns, and
originally seem to have consisted of a small body of the leading men of
a particular craft, to whom was confided the regulation of a particular
industry, probably as soon as that industry was thought of sufficient
importance to be regulated. The gild tried to secure good work on the
part of its members, and attempted to suppress the production of wares
by irresponsible persons who were not members of the craft. Their
fundamental principle was, that a member should work not only for his
own private advantage, but for the reputation and good of his trade;
hence bad work was punished, and it is curious to note that night-work
is prohibited as leading to poor work. The gild took care to secure a
supply of competent workmen for the future by training young people in
its particular industry, and hence arose the _apprentice system_, which
at first, at any rate, had considerable advantages.

The gild, moreover, exercised a moral control over its members, and
secured their good behaviour, thus forming an effective branch of the
social police. On the other hand, it had many of the characteristics
of a benefit {30} society, providing against sickness and death among
those belonging to it, as indeed all gilds did.

These institutions, however, did not only belong to the towns, but
were found in country districts also; thus we hear of the carpenters’
and masons’ rural gilds in the reign of Edward III. Even the peasant
labourers, according to Professor Thorold Rogers, possessed these
associations, which in all cases served many of the functions of the
modern trade unions. Later on (1381) we shall come to a very remarkable
instance of the power of these peasants’ unions in the matter of
Tyler’s rebellion.


§ 9. LIFE IN THE TOWNS OF THIS TIME—The inhabitants of the towns were
of all classes of society. There was the noble who held the castle,
or the abbot and monks in the monastery, with their retainers and
personal dependants; there were the busy merchants, active both in the
management of their trade and of civic affairs; and there were artisans
and master workmen in different crafts. There were free tenants, or
_tenants in socage_, including all the burgesses, or burgage-tenants,
as they were called; and there was the lower class of villeins, which,
however, always tended to rise into free men as they were admitted
into the gilds. “To and fro went our forefathers in the quiet, quaint,
narrow streets, or worked at some handicraft in their houses, or
exposed their goods round the market-cross. And in those old streets
and houses, in the town-mead and market-place, amid the murmur of the
mill beside the stream, and the notes of the bell that sounded its
summons to the crowded assembly of the town-mote, in merchant gild and
craft gild, was growing up that sturdy, industrial life, unheeded and
unnoticed by knight or baron, that silently and surely was building up
the slow structure of England’s wealth and freedom.”[15]

  [15. V. _Industry in England_, p. 96; and Green, _History_,
  I. 212.]

{31}


CHAPTER III

MANUFACTURES AND TRADE: ELEVENTH TO THIRTEENTH CENTURIES


§ 1. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE FEUDAL SYSTEM—We shall find that for some
time after the Norman Conquest English industry does not develop very
rapidly, and that for obvious reasons. The feud that existed between
Norman and Saxon—although perhaps partially allayed by Henry I.’s
marriage to an English wife—and the social disorder that accompanied
this feeling, hardly tended to that quiet and security that are
necessary for a healthy industrial life. The frightful disorders that
occurred during the fierce struggle for the kingdom between Stephen
of Blois and the Empress Maud, and the equally frightful ravages
and extortions of their contending barons, must have been serious
drawbacks to any progress. As the old annalist remarks—“They fought
among themselves with deadly hatred; they spoiled the fairest lands
with fire and rapine; in what had been the most fertile of counties
they destroyed almost all the provision of bread.”[16] But this mighty
struggle fortunately ended in ruining many of the barons who took
part in it, and in the desirable destruction of most of their abodes
of plunder. And the accession of Henry II. (1154) marks a period of
amalgamation between Englishmen and Normans, not only in social life,
but in commercial traffic and intercourse.

  [16. Quoted by Green; _History_, I. 155.]

But even when we come to look at the feudal system in a time of
peace, we see that it did not tend to any great growth of industry.
For it encouraged rather than diminished that spirit of isolation and
self-sufficiency {32} which was so marked a feature of the earlier
manors and townships, where, again, little scope was afforded to
individual enterprise, from the fact that the consent of the lord of
a manor or town was often necessary for the most ordinary purposes of
industrial life. It is true, as we have seen, that when the noble owner
was in pecuniary difficulties the towns profited thereby to obtain
their charters; and perhaps we may not find it altogether a matter
for regret that the barons, through their internecine struggles, thus
unwittingly helped on the industry of the land. It may be admitted
also, that though the isolation of communities consequent upon the
prevalent manorial system did not encourage trade and traffic between
separate communities, it yet tended to diffuse a knowledge of domestic
manufactures throughout the land generally, because each place had
largely to provide for itself.

The constant taxation, however, entailed by the feudal system in the
shape of tallages, aids, and fines, both to king and nobles, made it
difficult for the lower classes to accumulate capital, more especially
as in the civil wars they were constantly plundered of it openly. The
upper classes merely squandered it in fighting. Agriculture suffered
similarly; for the villeins, however well off, were bound to the land,
especially in the earlier period soon after the Conquest, and before
commutation of services for money rents became so common as it did
subsequently; nor could they leave their manor without incurring a
distinct loss, both of social status and—what is more important—of
the means of livelihood. The systems of constant services to the lord
of the manor, and of the collective methods of cultivation, were also
drawbacks to good agriculture. Again, in trade, prices were settled by
authority, competition was unduly checked, {33} and merchants had to
pay heavy fines for royal “protection.”


§ 2. FOREIGN TRADE. THE CRUSADES—But, on the other hand, the Norman
Conquest, which combined the Kingdom of England with the Duchy of
Normandy in close political relations, gave abundant opportunities
for commerce, both with France and the Continent, and foreign
trade certainly received a stimulus from this fact. It was further
developed by the Crusades. The most obvious effect of these remarkable
expeditions for a visionary success was the opening up of Trade Routes
throughout Europe to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, and to the
East in general. They produced also a considerable redistribution of
wealth in England itself, for the knights and nobles that set out for
the Holy Land often mortgaged their lands and never redeemed them, or
they perished and their lands lapsed to the crown, or to some monastery
that took the place of a trustee for the absent owner. The growth of
towns also, as we saw, is directly attributable to the privileges and
freedom secured at this time by supplying money to a crusading lord.
As to foreign trade, our chief authority at this time is the old
chronicler, Henry of Huntingdon, whose history was published about
A.D. 1155. Like most historians, even of the present day, he says
very little about so insignificant a matter as trade; but the single
sentence which he devotes to it is probably of as great value as any
other part of his book. From it we gather that our trade with Germany
was extensive, and that we exported lead and tin among the metals; fish
and meat and fat cattle (which seems to point to some improvement in
our pastoral economy); and, most important of all, fine wool, though
at that time the English could not weave it properly for themselves.
Our imports, however, are very {34} limited, comprising none of the
necessities of life, and few of its luxuries beyond silver and foreign
furs. Other imports were fine woven cloths, used for the dresses of the
nobility; and, after the Crusades began, of rich Eastern stuffs and
spices, which were in great demand, and commanded a high price. So too
did iron, which was necessary for agricultural purposes, as Englishmen
had not yet discovered their rich stores of this metal, but had to get
it from the lands on the Baltic shore. Generally speaking, we may say
that our imports consisted of articles of greater intrinsic value and
scarcity than our exports, and thus were fewer in number, though of
course balancing in total value, as imports and exports always must.


§ 3. THE TRADING CLAUSES IN THE GREAT CHARTER—One great proof of the
existence of a fair amount of foreign trade is seen in the clauses
which were inserted in the Great Charter (1215), by the influence of
the trading class. One enactment secures to foreign merchants freedom
of journeying and of trade throughout the realm, and another orders
a uniformity of weights and measures to be enforced throughout the
whole kingdom. The growth of home industry in the towns is seen in the
enactment which secures to the towns the enjoyment of their municipal
privileges, their freedom from arbitrary taxation, and the regulation
of their own trade. The forfeiture of a freeman, even upon conviction
of felony, was never to include his wares, if he were a merchant. The
exactions of forced labour by the royal officers was also forbidden,
and this must have been a great boon to the agricultural population.
There is also a clause which endeavours to restrict usury exacted by
the Jews, a clause which points to the usual characteristics of the
Hebrew race, and which shows their growing importance {35} in economic
England. We will therefore briefly mention the facts concerning them at
this period.


§ 4. THE JEWS IN ENGLAND: THEIR ECONOMIC POSITION—The first appearance
of the Jews in England may practically be reckoned as occurring at the
time of the Norman Conquest, for immediately after 1066 they came in
large numbers from Rouen, Caen, and other Norman towns. They stood in
the peculiar position of being the personal property, or “chattels,”
of the king, and a special officer governed their settlements in
various towns. These settlements were called Jewries, of which those at
London, Lincoln, Bury St Edmund’s, and Oxford were at one time fairly
considerable. They were protected by the king, and of course paid him
for their protection. Their general financial skill was acknowledged
by all, and William II. employed them to farm the revenues of vacant
sees, while barons often employed them as stewards of their estates.
They were also the leading if not the only capitalists of that time,
and must have assisted merchants considerably in their enterprises,
of course upon the usual commission. After the death of Henry I. the
security which they had enjoyed was much weakened, in proportion as
the royal power declined in the civil wars, and in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries they were in a precarious position. Stephen and
Matilda openly robbed them; Henry II. (in 1187) demanded one-fourth of
their chattels, and Richard I. obtained large sums from them for his
crusading extravagances. From 1144 to 1189, riots directed against them
became common, and the Jewries of many towns were pillaged. In 1194
Richard I. placed their commercial transactions more thoroughly under
local officers of the crown. John exploited them to great advantage,
and levied heavy tallages upon them, and Henry III. did very much the
same. They were {36} expelled from the kingdom in 1290, and before
this had greatly sunk from their previous position as the financiers
of the crown, to that of petty money-lenders to the poor at gross
usury. What concerns us more immediately to notice in this early period
of English history, is their temporary usefulness as capitalists in
trading transactions, at a time when capital was not easily accumulated
or kept in safety.[17]

  [17. See note 6, p. 244, on their return.]


§ 5. MANUFACTURES IN THIS PERIOD: FLEMISH WEAVERS—We now turn from the
subject of trade and finance to that of manufacturing industry. On
doing so, we find that the chief industry is that of weaving coarse
woollen cloth. An industry so necessary as this, and one too that
can be carried on in a simple state of society with such ease, as a
domestic manufacture, would naturally always exist, even from the
most uncivilized times. This had been the case in England. But it
is noticeable that although Henry of Huntingdon mentions the export
of “fine wool” as one of the chief English exports, and although
England had always been in a specially favourable position for growing
wool, her manufacture of it had not developed to any great extent.
Nevertheless it was practised as a domestic industry in every rural
and urban community, and at this period already had its gilds—a sure
sign of growth. Indeed one of the oldest _craft_ gilds was that of
the London weavers, of which we find mention in the time of Henry I.
(A.D. 1100). And in this reign, too, we first hear of the arrival
of Flemish immigrants in this country, who helped largely both then
and subsequently in the development of the woollen manufacture. Some
Flemings had come over indeed in the days of William the Norman, having
been driven from Flanders by an incursion of the sea, and had settled
at Carlisle. But Henry I., as we read in {37} Higden’s Chronicle,
transferred them to Pembrokeshire in A.D. 1111: “Flandrenses, tempore
regis Henrici primi, ad occidentalem Walliæ partem, apud Haverford,
sunt translati.” Traces of them remained till a comparatively recent
period, and the names of the village of _Flemingston_, and of the road
called the _Via Flandrica_, running over the crest of the Precelly
mountains, afford striking evidence of their settlement there, as also
does the name _Tucking Mill_ (_i.e._ Cloth-making mill, from German
and Flemish _tuch_, “a cloth”). Norfolk also had from early times
been the seat of the woollen industry, and had had similar influxes
of Flemish weavers. They do not, however, become important till the
reign of Edward III., when we shall find that English cloth manufacture
begins to develop considerably. In this period, all we can say is that
England was more famed for the wool that it grew than for the cloth
which it manufactured therefrom, and it had yet to learn most of its
improvements from lessons taught by foreigners.


§ 6. ECONOMIC APPEARANCE OF ENGLAND IN THIS PERIOD. POPULATION—The
England of the Domesday Book was very different from anything which we
can now conceive, nor did its industrial condition change much during
the next century or two. The population was probably under 2,000,000 in
all; for in Domesday Book only 283,342 able-bodied men are enumerated.
These multiplied by five, to include women and children, give
1,400,000 of general population, and allowing for omissions we shall
find two millions rather over than under the mark. Nor indeed could
the agricultural and industrial state of the country have supported
more. This population was chiefly located in the Southern and Eastern
counties, for the North of England, and especially Yorkshire, had
been laid waste by the Conqueror, in {38} consequence of its revolt
in 1068. The whole country between York and the Tees was ravaged, and
the famine which ensued is said to have carried off 100,000 victims.
Indeed, for half-a-century the land “lay bare of cultivation and of
men” for sixty miles northward of York, and for centuries more never
fully recovered from this terrible visitation. The Domesday Book
records district after district, and manor after manor, in Yorkshire as
“waste.” In the East and North-west of England, now the most densely
populated parts of the country, all was fen, moorland, and forest,
peopled only by wild animals and lawless men. Till the seventeenth
century, in fact, Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire were
the poorest counties in England. The fens of East Anglia were
reclaimed only in 1634. The main ports were London for general trade;
Southampton, for the French trade in wines; Norwich for the export wool
trade with Flanders, and for imports from the Baltic; and on the west
coast Bristol, which had always been the centre for the western trade
in Severn salmon and hides. At one time, too, it was the great port
for the trade of English slaves who were taken to Ireland, but William
the Norman checked that traffic, though it lingered till Henry II.
conquered Ireland. For internal trade _market towns_, or villages as we
should call them, were gradually springing up. They were nearly always
held in demesne by the lord of the manor, who claimed the tolls, though
in after years the town bought them of him. Some of these markets
had existed from Saxon times, as is seen by the prefix “Chipping”
(=_chepinge_, A.S. a market), as in Chipping Norton, Chippingham, and
Chepstowe; others date from a later period, and are known by the prefix
“Market,” as _e.g._ Market Bosworth. But these market towns were very
small, and indeed only some {39} half-dozen towns in the kingdom had
a population above 5000 inhabitants. These were London, York, Bristol,
Coventry, Norwich, and Lincoln.

  [Illustration: ENGLAND SHORTLY AFTER TIME OF DOMESDAY, A.D. 1100–1200

  DARK GREEN: Density of population greater. RED BROWN: Forest. YELLOW:
  Marsh.

  The chief colour is _Green_ to show that whole country was chiefly
  agricultural. Part of Yorks _Pale_ to show it was waste.

  The ten chief towns: 1—York.* 2—Bristol.* 3—Lincoln.* 4—Norwich.*
  5—Coventry.* 6—Oxford. 7—Colchester. 8—Nottingham. 9—Winchester. And
  10—London.

  *Population over 5000.]


§ 7. GENERAL CONDITION OF THE PERIOD—Speaking generally for the whole
period after the Conquest, we may say that, though the economic
condition of England was by no means unprosperous, industrial
development was necessarily slow. The disputes between Stephen and
Maud, and the civil wars of their partisans, the enormous drain upon
the resources of the country caused by Richard I.’s expenses in
carrying on Crusades when he should have been ruling his kingdom, and
the equally enormous taxes and bribes paid by the worthless John to
the Papal See, could not fail seriously to check national industry. It
is no wonder that in John’s reign, at the beginning of the thirteenth
century, we hear of great discontent throughout all the land, of much
misery and poverty, especially in the towns, and of a general feeling
of revolt. That miserable monarch was only saved from deposition by his
opportune death.

Yet with all these evils the economic condition of England, although
depressed, was by no means absolutely unhealthy; and the following
reign (Henry III., 1216–1272), with its comparative peace and leisure,
afforded, as we shall see, sufficient opportunity to enable the people
to regain a position of general opulence and prosperity. This time of
quiet progress and industrial growth forms a fitting occasion for the
marking out of a new epoch.

{40}




PERIOD III

FROM THE THIRTEENTH TO THE END OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY, INCLUDING THE
GREAT PLAGUE (1216–1500)


CHAPTER I

AGRICULTURE IN MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND


§ 1. INTRODUCTORY. RISE OF A WAGE-EARNING CLASS—The long reign of Henry
III., although occasionally troubled by internal dissensions among
the barons, was upon the whole a prosperous and peaceful time for the
people in general, and more especially for those whom historians are
pleased to call the lower classes. For by this time a remarkable change
had begun to affect the condition of the serfs or villeins, a change
already alluded to before, by which the villeins became free tenants,
subject to a fixed rent for their holdings. This rent was rapidly
becoming a payment in money and not in labour, for, as we saw, the
lords of the manors were frequently in want of cash, and were ready to
sell many of their privileges. The change was at first gradual, but
by the time of the Great Plague (1348), money rents were becoming the
rule rather than the exception; and though labour rents were not quite
obsolete, it was an ill-advised attempt to extort them again that was
the prime cause of Wat Tyler’s insurrection (1381). Before the Plague,
in fact, villeinage in the old sense had become almost {41} extinct,
and the peasants, both great and small, had achieved practical freedom.
The richer villeins had developed into small farmers; while the poorer
villeins, and especially the cottars, had formed a separate class of
agricultural labourers, not indeed entirely without land, but depending
for their livelihood upon wages paid for helping to cultivate the land
of others. The rise of this class, that lived by wages and not by
tilling their own land, was due to the fact that cottars and others,
not having enough land of their own to occupy their whole time, were
free to hire themselves to those who had a larger quantity of land.
Especially would they become labourers at a fixed wage for the lord
of a manor when he had commuted his rights to the unpaid services of
all his tenants for a fixed money rent. Of course this change came
gradually, but its effect is seen subsequently in the difficulties as
to wages expressed in the Statute of Labourers, difficulties which
first became serious after the Great Plague.


§ 2. AGRICULTURE THE CHIEF OCCUPATION OF THE PEOPLE—Throughout
the whole of this period the vast majority of the population were
continuously engaged in agricultural pursuits, and this was rendered
necessary owing to the very low rate of production consequent upon
the primitive methods of agriculture. The production of corn was only
about four, or sometimes eight, bushels per acre, and this naturally
had the effect of keeping down the population, at this time still only
between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000. It is a remarkable fact that even
the inhabitants of the towns used at harvest-time to go out into the
country to get agricultural work, and people often migrated from one
district to another for the same purpose, just as Irish agricultural
labourers of to-day are accustomed to cross over to England for the
harvesting. {42} Some attention was being paid to sheep farming, and
a noticeable increase in this branch of industry took place in the
beginning of the fourteenth century. One order of monks in particular,
the Cistercians, used to grow large quantities of wool; and indeed
England had almost a monopoly in the wool trade with Flanders, for even
Spanish wool could not be utilized without an admixture of English.
But the great increase of sheep farming occurs rather later, at the
beginning of the sixteenth century.


§ 3. METHODS OF CULTIVATION. THE CAPITALIST LANDLORD AND HIS BAILIFF.
THE “STOCK AND LAND” LEASE—The agriculture of the early part of this
period is described to us by Walter de Henley, who wrote a book on
husbandry some time before 1250. It cannot be said that our agriculture
was at this time at a high level, for, as we have seen, the production
of wheat (_e.g._) was exceedingly low, not being more than four to
eight bushels per acre. If we look at a typical manor, we shall find
that the arable lands in it were divided pretty equally between the
landlord and the tenants of the manor; and before the Great Plague
the landlord was not merely a rent-receiving master, but a capitalist
land-owner, who cultivated his land by means of his bailiff, subject to
his personal supervision. These bailiffs kept very accurate accounts,
and we are thereby greatly helped in our investigations in this period.
The average rent paid by tenants from the thirteenth to the sixteenth
century was sixpence per acre. In many cases, especially on lands owned
by monasteries, the land was held on the “stock and land” lease system,
by which the landlord let a certain quantity of stock with the land,
for which the tenant, at the expiration of his lease, had to account
either in money or kind. A relic of this kind of lease {43} existed
even in the eighteenth century, for Arthur Young occasionally mentions
the practice of the landlord letting cows to dairy farmers. In mediæval
times the person to whom cows were leased for dairy purposes was the
_deye_—_i.e._ dairyman or dairymaid. The stock and land lease plan
was favourable to the tenant, for it supplied his preliminary want of
capital, and if he was fortunate allowed him often to make considerable
profits, and even eventually purchase an estate for himself.


§ 4. THE TENANT’S COMMUNAL LAND AND CLOSES—It must always
be remembered, however, that the arable land in a manor was
“communal”—_i.e._ each tenant held a certain number of furrows or
strips in a common field, the separate divisions being merely marked
by a piece of unploughed land, where the grass was allowed to grow.
The ownership of these several strips was limited to certain months of
the year, generally from Lady Day to Michaelmas, and for the remainder
of the year the land was common pasture. This simple and rudimentary
system was utterly unsuited to any advanced agriculture. The tenants,
however, also possessed “closes,” some for corn, others for pasture and
hay. The rent of a close was always higher than that of communal land,
being eightpence instead of sixpence per acre. Besides the communal
arable land, and his close, the husbandman also had access to two or
three kinds of common or pasture—(1) a common close for oxen, kine, or
other stock, pasture in which is stinted both for landlord and tenant;
(2) the open (“champaign” or “champion”) country, where the cattle go
daily before the herdsmen; (3) the lord’s out-woods, moors, and heaths,
where the tenants are stinted but the lord is not. Thus the tenant had
valuable pasture rights, besides the land he actually rented. But the
system of holding arable land in strips {44} was very cumbrous and
caused many disputes, since often a tenant would hold a short lease
on one strip and a longer lease on another; or confusion of ownership
would arise; while in many ways tenure was made insecure, and no
encouragement was given to advanced agriculture.


§ 5. PLOUGHING—As regards the cultivation of the land, it was generally
ploughed three times a year. Ordinary ploughing took place in the
autumn, the second ploughing in April, the third at midsummer. The
furrows were, according to Walter de Henley, a foot apart, and the
plough was not to go more than two fingers deep. The ploughing and much
other work was done by oxen, as being cheaper than horses. The hoeing
was undertaken by women, who also worked at harvest-time in the fields.
In _Peres the Plowman’s Crede_ (about A.D. 1394) we have a description
of a small farmer ploughing while his wife leads the oxen. “His wife
walked by him with a long goad, in a cutted cote cutted full high” (l.
433).

An average yield of six bushels per acre is what Walter de Henley
thinks necessary to secure profitable farming.


§ 6. STOCK, PIGS AND POULTRY—As to stock, the amount kept was generally
rather large, and the agriculturist of the thirteenth century was fully
alive to the importance of keeping it; for Walter de Henley advised
stocking land to the full extent it would bear. Oxen, as we saw, were
kept for the plough and draft; but not much stock was fatted for the
table, especially as it could not be kept in the winter. There was no
attempt to improve breeds of cattle, for the scarcity of winter food
(winter roots being unknown till much later), and the general want of
means for resisting the severities of the winter helped to keep all
breeds much upon the same level. On the other hand, {45} swine were
kept in large numbers, and every peasant had his pig in his sty, and,
indeed, probably lived on salt pork most of the winter. Care was taken
with the different breeds. The whole of the parish swine were generally
put in summer under the charge of one swineherd, who was paid both by
tenants and the lord of the manor. The keeping of poultry, too, was at
that time universal, so much so that they were very rarely bought by
anyone, and when sold were almost absurdly cheap. This habit of keeping
fowls, ducks, and geese must have materially helped the peasant in
ekeing out his wages, or in paying that portion of his rent which was
paid in kind; as _e.g._ in the case of the Cuxham tenant (p. 15) who
had to pay his lord six fowls in all during the year.


§ 7. SHEEP—This animal is so important in English agriculture that we
must devote a special paragraph to it alone. For the sheep was, in
the earlier periods of English industrial history, the mainstay of
the British farmer, chiefly, of course, owing to the quantity of wool
required for export. England had, up to a comparatively recent period,
almost a monopoly of the raw wool trade, her only rival being Spain.
There were, as mentioned before, a great number of breeds of sheep,
and much care was taken to improve them. The fleece however was light,
being only as an average 1 lb. 7⁠¾ oz., according to Professor
Rogers, and the animal was small. The reason of this was that the
attempts of the husbandman to improve his breeds were baffled by the
hardships of the mediæval winter, and by the prevalence of disease,
especially the rot and scab. It is probable that the average loss on
the flocks was 20 per cent. a year. They were generally kept under
cover from November to April, and fed on coarse hay, wheat, and oat
straw, {46} or pea and vetch haulm; but no winter roots were available.


§ 8. INCREASE OF SHEEP FARMING—A great increase of sheep farming took
place after the Great Plague (1348), and this from two causes. The
rapid increase of woollen manufactures promoted by Edward III. rendered
wool growing more profitable, while at the same time the scarcity
of labour, occasioned by the ravages of the Black Death, and the
consequently higher wages demanded, naturally attracted the farmer to
an industry which was at once very profitable, and required but little
paid labour. So, after the Plague, we find a tendency among large
agriculturists to turn ploughed fields into permanent pasture, or, at
any rate, to use the same land for pasture and for crops, instead of
turning portions of the “waste” into arable land. Consequently from
the beginning of the fifteenth century we notice that the agricultural
population decreases in proportion as sheep farming increases; and the
steady change may be traced in numerous preventive statutes till we
come (in 1536) to those of Henry VIII. about decayed towns, especially
in the Midlands and the Isle of Wight, culminating in the excitements
of 1549. Another cause that, in Henry VIII.’s time, had a distinct
influence in promoting sheep farming, was the lack of capital that made
itself felt, owing to the general impoverishment of England in his
wasteful reign, and which naturally turned farmers to an industry that
required little capital, but gave quick returns.


§ 9. CONSEQUENT INCREASE OF ENCLOSURES—One consequence of this more
extensive sheep farming was the great increase in enclosures made
by the landlords in the sixteenth century. So great were these
encroachments and enclosures in north-east Norfolk, that they led, in
1549, {47} to a rebellion against the enclosing system, headed by Ket;
but, though more marked, perhaps, in Henry VIII.’s reign, the practice
of sheep farming had been growing steadily in the previous century.
Fortescue, the Lord Chancellor of Henry VI. (in the middle of the
fifteenth century), refers to its growth and the prosperity it caused
in rural districts—a prosperity, however, that must have been confined
only to the great land-owners. We receive other confirmation of this
from various statutes designed to prevent the rural population from
flowing into the towns, as, for example, the Acts of 1 and 9 Richard
II. (1377 and 1385), of 17 Richard II. (1394), promoting the export
of corn in hopes of making arable land more valuable. Another Act was
passed in 1489 (4 Henry VII.) to keep the rural population from the
towns. But the growth of sheep farming is also connected with a great
economic and industrial development in England, the rise and progress
of cloth manufactures and of the weaving industry generally, and to
this we must now devote our next chapter.


CHAPTER II

THE WOOLLEN TRADE AND MANUFACTURES


§ 1. ENGLAND’S MONOPOLY OF WOOL—In the Middle Ages England was the only
wool-producing country in the North of Europe. Spain grew wool also,
but it could not be used alone for every kind of fabric, and besides
it was more difficult to transport wool from Spain to Flanders, the
seat of the manufacture of that article, than it was to send it across
the narrow German Ocean, where swarms of light craft plied constantly
between Flanders and the {48} eastern ports of England. Hence England
had a practical monopoly of the wool trade, which was due not only
to its favourable climate and soil, but also to the fact that even
at the worst periods of civil war—and they did not last for long—our
island was incomparably more peaceful than the countries of Western
Europe. From the thirteenth to the seventeenth century, the farmers of
Western Europe could not possibly have kept sheep, the most defenceless
and tender of domestic animals, amid the wars that were continually
devastating their homesteads; nor, as a matter of fact, did they do
so. But in England, especially after the twelfth century, nearly
everybody in the realm, from the king to the villein, was concerned
in agriculture, and was interested therefore in maintaining peace.
Even when the great landlords, after the Plague of 1348, gave up the
cultivation of their arable land, they went in, as we saw, for sheep
farming, and enclosed large tracts of land for that purpose. Hence the
export trade in wool became more and more important, and there was
always a continual demand for English wool to supply the busy looms of
the great manufacturing towns in Flanders.


§ 2. WOOL AND POLITICS—The most convincing proof of the importance of
the wool trade is seen in England’s diplomatic relations with Flanders,
which, by the way, afford an interesting example of the necessity
of taking economic factors into account in dealing with national
history. Flanders was the great manufacturing country of Europe at
that time. England supplied its raw material in vast quantities, and
nine-tenths of English wool went to the looms of Bruges and Ghent. A
stoppage of this export from England used to throw half the population
of the Flemish towns out of work. The immense transactions that even
then took place, are {49} seen from the fact that a single company
of Florentine merchants would contract with the Cistercian monks of
England for the whole year’s supply of the wool produced on their
vast sheep-ranges on the Yorkshire moorlands; for the Cistercian
order were among the foremost wool-growers in the country. Now, it
is a curious and significant fact that when Edward I., Edward III.,
and Henry V. premeditated an attack on France, they generally took
care to gain the friendship of Flanders first,[18] so as to use that
country as a base from which to enter France, or at least as a useful
ally; and secondly, they paid a large proportion of the expenses of
their French expeditions by means of a wool-tax in England. Thus,
when Edward III. opened his campaign against France in 1340, he did
so from Flanders, with special help afforded by a Flemish alliance.
This king also received annually £60,000 from the wool-tax alone, and
on special occasions even more. Again, it was a grant of 6_s._ 8_d._
on each sack of wool exported that enabled Edward I. in 1275 to fill
his treasury for his subsequent invasion of Wales. The same king in
1297 got the means for equipping an expedition against France, _via_
Flanders, in the same way. Similarly Henry V. took care to cultivate
the friendship of the Flemish and their rulers before setting out to
gain the French crown, and paid for his expedition by raising taxes on
wool and hides. The enormous revenues also which from the thirteenth
to the fifteenth century were exacted from England by the Papal Court,
and by the Italian ecclesiastics quartered on English benefices,
were transmitted in the shape of wool to Flanders, and sold by the
Lombard exchangers, who transmitted the money thus realized to Italy.
The extent of these revenues may be gathered from the fact that the
{50} Parliament of 1343, in a petition against Papal appointments to
English ecclesiastical vacancies, asserted that—“The Pope’s revenue
from England alone is larger than that of any Prince in Christendom.”
And at this very time the deaneries of Lichfield, Salisbury, and
York, and the archdeaconry of Canterbury, were all held by Italian
dignitaries, while the Pope’s collector sent from London 20,000 marks a
year to his master at Rome. Now, these impositions were paid out of the
proceeds of English wool. It is interesting, too, to find that taxes
for King Edward III. were calculated, not in money, but in sacks of
wool. In one year the Parliament granted him 20,000 sacks; in another
year 30,000 sacks. In 1339 the barons granted him “the tenth sheep,
fleece, and lamb.” Early in the fifteenth century £30,000 out of the
£40,000 revenue from customs and taxes came from wool alone. Once more,
as in the days of the Crusades, we are able to see how the Hundred
Years’ War with France, and the exactions of Rome, were paid for by the
industrial portion of the community, while underneath the glamour of
the victories of Edward III. and Henry V. lies the prosaic but powerful
wool-sack.[19]

  [18. See note 7, p. 244, on Flanders and England.]

  [19. See note 8, p. 243, on Other Sources of Income.]


§ 3. PRICES AND BRANDS OF ENGLISH WOOL—Having now seen the importance
of wool as a factor in English industry and political history, we
must proceed to study more closely the facts of the woollen trade,
and the manufacture of woollen cloth. The chief growers of wool
were the Cistercian monks, who owned huge flocks of sheep. The wool
grown near Leominster, in Herefordshire, was the finest of all, and,
generally speaking, that grown in Wiltshire, Essex, Sussex, Hampshire,
Oxfordshire, Cambridge and Warwickshire, was the best. The poorest
came from the North of England, and from {51} the Southern downs.
There were a number of different breeds of sheep, for care was taken to
improve the breed, and it would seem that forty-four different brands
of English wool, ranging in value from £13 to £2, 10_s._ the sack (of
364 lbs.), were recognized both in the home and foreign markets, as
mentioned in a Parliamentary petition of 1454. The average price of
wool from 1260–1400 was 2_s._ 1⁠¾_d._ per clove of 7 lbs.—_i.e._ a
little over threepence a pound, sometimes fourpence. In the middle of
this period (1350) the average annual export, according to Misselden,
in the _Circle of Commerce_, was about 11,648,000 lbs., representing a
value of some £180,683 yearly.


§ 4. ENGLISH MANUFACTURES—Now, although I have spoken of Flanders as
the manufacturing centre for Europe, it must not be supposed that
England could not manufacture any of the large quantity of wool which
it grew. Undoubtedly the people of the Netherlands were at that time
the great manufacturers of the world, and were acquainted with arts
and processes to which the English were strangers, while for a long
time the English could not weave fine cloths; but, nevertheless,
there was a considerable manufacturing industry, chiefly of coarse
cloths, an industry very widely spread, and carried on in people’s own
cottages under the domestic system. The chief kinds of cloth made were
hempen, linen, and woollen coverings, such as would be used for sacks,
dairy-cloths, woolpacks, sails of windmills, and similar purposes.
The great textile centres were Norfolk and Suffolk, where, indeed,
manufacturing industries had existed long before the earliest records.
An idea of their importance may be given from the fact that, in the
assessment for the wool-tax of 1341, Norfolk was counted by far the
wealthiest county in England after Middlesex (including London). {52}
There was also a cloth industry of importance in the West of England,
the chief centres being Westbury, Sherborne, and Salisbury. The linen
of Aylsham was also celebrated.


§ 5. FOREIGN MANUFACTURE OF FINE GOODS—But we find rich people used to
purchase fine cloths from abroad—_e.g._ linen from Liège and Flanders
generally, and velvet and silk goods from Genoa and Venice—although
there was certainly a silk industry in London, carried on chiefly by
women, and protected by an Act of 1454. In the England of which we are
now speaking, the textile industries were prevented from attaining a
full development from the fact that, though general, they were strictly
local; and, moreover, those who practised them did not look upon
their handicraft as their sole means of livelihood, but even till the
eighteenth century were generally engaged in agriculture as well. The
cause of this is connected with the isolation and self-sufficiency of
separate communities, previously noted. An evidence of the consequent
inferiority of English to Flemish cloth is given by the fact that an
Act of 1261 attempts to prohibit the import of spun stuff and the
export of wool. Needless to say it was useless. The prices of cloth
at this period are interesting, as showing the great difference
between the fine (_i.e._ foreign) and coarse (home) cloths. The
average price of linen is 4_d._ an ell, being as low as 2_d._ and as
high as 8⁠¼_d._ Inferior woollens sold at 1_s._ 7⁠½_d._ a
yard, “russet” at 1_s._ 4_d._, blanketing at 1_s._ On the other hand,
scarlet cloth (foreign) rises to the enormous price of 15_s._ a yard.
Cloth for liveries varied from 2_s._ 1_d._ to 1_s._ per yard. Speaking
generally for the period 1260–1400, we may give the average price of
the best quality at 3_s._ 3⁠½_d._ a yard from 1260–1350, and 3_s._
5⁠½_d._ from 1350–1400; while cloth of the second quality {53}
fetched 1_s._ 4⁠½_d._ in the first period, and 1_s._ 11⁠¼_d._
in the second.


§ 6. FLEMISH SETTLERS TEACH THE ENGLISH WEAVERS. NORWICH—It is to
Edward III., very largely, that the development of English textile
industry is due. It is true that, long before, Henry II. had
endeavoured to stimulate English manufacture by establishing a “cloth
fair” in the churchyard of St Bartholomew. But English industry had
developed slowly till the days of Edward, partly, no doubt, owing to
the continual disorder of the preceding reigns. Stimulated, probably,
by his wife Philippa’s connexion with Flanders, he encouraged Flemish
weavers to settle in England, chiefly in the Eastern counties, though
we hear of two Flemings from Brabant settling in York in 1331; and
about this time one John Kemp, also a Fleming, removed from Norwich,
and founded in Westmoreland the manufacture of the famous “Kendal
green.” The chief centre, however, of the foreign weavers was naturally
Norwich, the Manchester of those days, with a population of some 6000,
and the chief industry was that of worsted cloths, so named from the
place of manufacture, Worstead. When we speak of worsted cloths, we
mean those plain, unpretending fabrics that probably never went beyond
a plain weave or a four-shaft twill. The yarn was very largely spun on
the rock or distaff, by means of a primitive whorl or spindle, while
the loom was but a small improvement on that in which Penelope wove her
famous web. There was a great demand among religious orders for sayes
and the like, of good quality; plain worsteds were generally worn by
the public.


§ 7. THE WORSTED INDUSTRY—Whether the growth of the worsted cloth
industry was connected or not with this particular Flemish immigration
we cannot determine. {54} The manufacture was confirmed to the town of
Worstead by a patent of 1313, and in 1328, also, Edward III. issued a
letter patent on behalf of the cloth workers in worsted in the county
of Norfolk. The manufacture was already so extensive and important that
the next year a special “aulnager” (or cloth searcher) was appointed
to inspect the worsted stuffs of Norwich and district, and held his
office for twenty years. In 1348, however, on the petition of the
worsted weavers and merchants themselves, the patent was revoked, and
the aulnager removed. But in 1410, when Norwich gained a new charter,
the power of “aulnage” was once more given, at its own request, to its
mayor and sheriffs, or their deputies.


§ 8. GILDS IN THE CLOTH TRADE—In the previous period we referred to
the origin and growth of the craft gilds, and it is interesting to
note their importance in connexion with the woollen industry at this
time. As a separate craft, that of the weaver cannot be traced back
beyond the early part of the twelfth century; in the middle of the
twelfth century, however, gilds of weavers are found established in
several of the larger English towns. At first they were in voluntary
association, though acting independently of each other, but it became
the policy of the government in the fourteenth century to extend the
gild organization over the whole country, and thus to bring craftsmen
together in organized bodies. Elaborate regulations were drawn up for
their governance by Parliament, or by municipalities. Now, in London at
this date (1300), and probably at Norwich and other large towns, the
woollen industry was divided into four or five branches, the weavers
and burellers, the dyers and fullers, and the tailors (_cissores_).
The weavers and burellers were united in the same gild, the dyers and
fullers in another, while the tailors formed a third gild of {55}
their own. But they were all very conscious that they had interests in
common, and they were accustomed to act together in matters affecting
the industry as a whole, such as, _e.g._, ordering cloth made in the
city to be dyed and fulled in that city, and not sent out to some other
town.


§ 9. THE DYEING OF CLOTH—The dyeing and fulling industry, however,
could not have flourished much in England at this time, for English
cloths were mostly sent to be fulled and dyed in the Netherlands; and
indeed we cannot consider dyeing as a really English industry till the
days of James I., where it will be duly mentioned. At the same time
it was not unknown, for we have scarlet, russet, and black cloths of
English make in the fourteenth century. But the industry was chiefly
carried on in the Netherlands, owing to the progress there made in the
cultivation of madder, which forms the basis of so many different dyes.
This plant has never been at any time largely cultivated in England,
and, moreover, the Dutch for several centuries possessed the sole
secret of a process of pulverizing the root in order to prepare it for
use. Such being the case, there is no wonder that they far excelled the
English in the art of dyeing.


§ 10. THE GREAT TRANSITION IN ENGLISH INDUSTRY—From the time of this
first Flemish immigration in the fourteenth century, we perceive the
beginning of an important modification in our home industries. Hitherto
England had been almost exclusively a purely agricultural country,
growing large quantities of wool, exporting it as raw material, and
importing manufactured goods in exchange. But from this period the
export of wool gradually declines, while on the other hand our home
manufactures increase, until at length they in turn are exported. In
fact, manufactured cloth, and not raw wool, becomes the {56} basis of
our national wealth, and finally the export is forbidden altogether, so
that we may have the more for the looms at home.

A proof of the growing importance of manufacture in this period is the
noticeable lack of labourers and the high wages they get, as set forth
in the Act 7 Henry IV. (_i.e._ 1406), which points to an increase of
weavers in all parts of the kingdom, that takes labourers from other
employments.


§ 11. THE MANUFACTURING CLASS AND POLITICS—The growing importance of
the manufacturing class which was now rapidly springing up, can be
clearly traced in the politics of the Tudor period. In spite of two
great drawbacks the cloth manufacture was growing. It had naturally
been severely checked for a generation or so by the awful national
disaster of the Great Plague, which occurred so soon after Edward II.
had helped to found it in England, and which for the time utterly
paralysed English industry in all its branches. It had been checked
again by the long and useless wars which Edward III. and his successors
carried on against France, at enormous cost and with no practical
results, but which of course were paid for out of the proceeds of our
national industries. But after these two checks it developed steadily,
even during the Wars of the Roses; for these wars were carried on
almost exclusively by the barons and their retainers, in a series
of battles hardly any of which were of any magnitude, exaggerated
though they have been both by contemporary and later historians. These
wars had the ultimate effect of causing the feudal aristocracy to
destroy itself in a suicidal conflict, and thus helped to increase the
influence of the middle class—_i.e._ the merchants and manufacturers—as
a factor in political life. And thus it became the policy of the
Tudor sovereigns, who were gifted with a {57} certain amount of
native shrewdness, to hasten the decaying power of the feudal lords by
simultaneously supporting, and being supported by, the middle class,
and to the alliance thus made between the crown and the industrial
portion of the community we owe a rapid increase of the commercial
prosperity which laid the foundations of the greatness of the
Elizabethan age, and of the great mercantile enterprises that succeeded
it.


CHAPTER III

THE TOWNS, INDUSTRIAL VILLAGES, AND FAIRS


§ 1. THE CHIEF MANUFACTURING TOWNS—During the period between the
Norman Conquest and the middle of the thirteenth century, the towns,
as we saw, had been gradually growing in importance, gaining fresh
privileges, and becoming almost, in some cases quite, independent
of the lord or king, by the grant of a charter. Moreover they had
grown from the mere trading centres of ancient times into seats of
specialized industries, regulated and organized by the craft gilds.
This new feature of the industrial or manufacturing aspect of certain
towns is well shown in a compilation, dated about 1250, and quoted by
Professor Rogers in _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, which gives
a list of English towns and their chief products. Hardly any of the
manufacturing towns mentioned are in the North of England, but mostly
in the East and South. {58}

The following table gives the name of the town, and its manufacture or
articles of sale.

   TOWN          PRODUCT

 (1) _Textile Manufactures_

 Lincoln         Scarlet cloth.
 Bligh           Blanket.
 Beverley        Burnet cloth.
 Colchester      Russet cloth.
 Shaftesbury     Linen fabrics.
 Lewes           Linen fabrics.
 Aylesbury       Linen fabrics.
 Warwick         Cord.
 Bridport        Cord and Hempen fabrics.


 (2) _Bakeries_

 Wycombe         Fine bread.
 Hungerford      Fine bread.
 St Albans       Fine bread.


 (3) _Cutlery_

 Maxtead         Knives.
 Wilton          Needles.
 Leicester       Razors.


 (4) _Breweries_

 Banbury         Brewing.
 Hitchin         Brewing.
 Ely             Brewing.


 (5) _Markets_

 Ripon           Horses.
 Nottingham      Oxen.
 Gloucester      Iron.
 Bristol         Leather and Hides.
 Coventry        Soap.
 Northampton     Saddlery.
 Doncaster       Horse-girths.
 Chester         Skins and Furs.
 Shrewsbury      Skins and Furs.
 Corfe           Marble.
 Cornwall towns  Tin.


 (6) _Fishing Towns_

 Grimsby         Cod.
 Rye             Whiting.
 Yarmouth        Herrings.
 Berwick         Salmon.


 (7) _Ports_

 Norwich
 Southampton
       ——
 Dunwich   Mills.

This list is obviously incomplete, for it omits towns like Sheffield
and Winchester, both of which were important as manufacturing towns
from very early times, though the woollen manufactures of the latter
were soon outstripped by those of Hull, York, Beverley, Lincoln, and
especially Norwich. But such as it is the list is curious, chiefly
as showing how manufactures have long since deserted their original
abodes, and have been transferred to towns of quite recent origin.


§ 2. STAPLE TOWNS AND THE MERCHANTS—It will have been {59} observed
that by the time this list was compiled, most towns were either the
seat of a certain manufacture, or the market where such manufactures
were sold. Now, in the days of Edward I. and Edward II. (1272–1327),
several such towns were specially singled out and granted the privilege
of selling a particular product, the _staple_ of the district, and were
hence called _staple towns_. Besides a number of towns in England,
staples were fixed at certain foreign ports for the sale of English
goods. At first Antwerp was selected as the staple town for our
produce, and afterwards St Omer. A staple was also set up at Calais
when we took it (1347), but at the loss of that town in 1558 it was
transferred to Bruges. The staple system thus begun by the first two
Edwards, was established upon a firm legal basis by Edward III. The
statute 27 Edward III. c. 9 (1354), enumerates all the staple towns
of England, and sets forth the ancient customs payable upon staple
goods. It enacts that only merchants of a particular staple—_i.e._
those engaged in a particular trade like wool or hides—may export
these goods, and that each staple should be governed by its own mayor
and constables. Now, although regulations like these are opposed to
our modern ideas of free competition, they were to a certain extent
useful in the Middle Ages, because the existence of staple towns
facilitated the collection of custom duties, and also secured in some
degree the good quality of the goods made in, or exported from, a town.
For special officers were appointed to mark them if of the proper
quality and reject them if inferior. The system also had the important
_political_ result of bringing into prominence the merchants as a
class, and of increasing their influence. So much were they a special
class, that the sovereign always negotiated with them separately. Thus
in 1339, when Edward III. was as usual fighting {60} against France,
and, also as usual, in great want of money, he was liberally supplied
with loans by Sir William de la Pole, a rich merchant of Hull, who
acted on behalf of himself, and many other merchants. Sir Richard
Whittington performed similar services for Henry IV. and Henry V.


§ 3. MARKETS—Another class of towns were the country market towns,
many of which exist in agricultural districts to-day, in much the same
fashion as they did six centuries ago. The control and regulation of
the town market was at first in the hands of the lord of the manor,
but by this period it had been bought by the corporation or by the
merchant gild, or by both, and was now one of the most valued of
municipal privileges. The market-place was always some large open space
within the city walls, such as, for instance, exists very noticeably in
Nottingham to this day. London had several such spaces, of which the
names Cornhill, Cheapside, the Poultry, still remain. The capital was
indeed a perpetual market, though of course provincial towns only held
a market on one or two days of the week. It is curious to notice how
these days have persisted to modern times. The Wednesday and Saturday
market of Oxford has existed for at least six centuries, if not
more. The control of these markets was undertaken by the corporation
for various purposes. The first of these was to prevent frauds and
adulteration of goods, and for this purpose special officers were
appointed, as in the staple towns, or like the “aulnager” of Norwich
mentioned before (p. 54). This was possible in a time when industry was
limited, and the competitive idea was as yet unborn, and one cannot
help thinking that it must have been of great use to purchasers. The
second object of the regulators of the market was to keep prices at
a “natural {61} level,” and to regulate the cost of manufactured
articles. The price of provisions in especial was a subject of much
regulation, but our forefathers were not very successful in this point,
laudable though their object was.[20]


§ 4. THE GREAT FAIRS—Now, besides the weekly markets there were held
annually in various parts of the kingdom large fairs, which often
lasted many days, and which form a most important and interesting
economic feature of the time. They were necessary for two reasons: (1)
because the ordinary trader could not and did not exist in the small
villages, in which it must be remembered most of the population lived,
nor could he even find sufficient customers in a town of that time, for
very few contained over 5000 inhabitants; (2) because the inhabitants
of the villages and towns could find in the fairs a wider market for
their goods, and more variety for their purchases. The result was that
these fairs were frequented by all classes of the population, from
noble and prelate to the villein, and hardly a family in England did
not at one time of the year or another send a representative, or at
least give a commission to a friend, to get goods at some celebrated
fair. They afforded an opportunity for commercial intercourse between
inhabitants of all parts of England, and with traders from all parts
of Europe. They were, moreover, a necessity arising from the economic
conditions of a time when transit of goods was comparatively slow,
and when ordinary people disliked travelling frequently or far beyond
the limits of their own district. The spirit of isolation which is
so marked a feature of the mediæval town or village encouraged this
feeling, and except the trading class few people travelled about,
and those who did so were regarded with suspicion. Till the epoch of
modern railways, in fact, fairs were a {62} necessity, though now
the rapidity of locomotion and the facility with which goods can be
ordered and despatched, have annihilated their utility and rendered
their relics a nuisance. But even in the present day there are plenty
of people to be found in rural districts who have rarely, and sometimes
never, been a dozen miles from their native village.

  [20. See note 9, p. 245, on Assize of Bread and Ale.]


§ 5. THE FAIRS OF WINCHESTER AND STOURBRIDGE—Fairs were held in every
part of the country at various parts of the year. Thus there was a
fair at Leeds, which for several centuries served as a centre where
the wool-growers of Yorkshire and Lancashire met English and foreign
merchants from Hull and other eastern ports, and sold them the raw
material that was to be worked up in the looms of Flanders. But
there were a few great fairs that eclipsed all others in magnitude
and importance, and of these two deserve special mention, those at
Winchester and Stourbridge. (1) That at _Winchester_ was founded in the
reign of William the Norman, who granted the Bishop of Winchester leave
to hold a fair on St Giles’ Hill, for one day in the year. Henry II.,
however, granted a charter for a fair of sixteen days. During this time
the great common was covered with booths and tents, and divided into
streets called after the name of the goods sold therein, as, _e.g._,
“The Drapery,” “The Pottery,” “The Spicery.” Tolls were levied on every
bridge and roadway to the fair, and brought in a large revenue. The
fair was of importance till the fourteenth century, for in the _Vision
of Peres the Plowman_, Covetousness tells how

 “To Wye and to Winchester I went to the fair.”

But it declined from the time of Edward III., chiefly owing to the
fact that the woollen trade of Norwich and {63} other eastern towns
had become far more important, while on the other hand Southampton was
found to be a more convenient spot for the Venetian traders’ fleet (p.
93) to do business.

(2) _Stourbridge Fair_—But the greatest of all English fairs, and that
which kept its reputation and importance the longest, was the Fair of
Stourbridge, near Cambridge.[21] It was of European renown, and lasted
for a whole month, from the end of August to the end of September.
Its importance was due to the fact that it was within easy reach of
the ports of the east coast, which at that time were very accessible
and much frequented. Hither came the Venetian, and Genoese merchants,
with stores of Eastern produce—silks and velvets, cotton, and precious
stones. The Flemish merchants brought the fine linens and cloths of
Bruges, Liège, and Ghent, and other manufacturing towns. Frenchmen and
Spaniards were present with their wines; Norwegian sailors with tar
and pitch; and the mighty traders of the Hanse towns exposed to sale
furs and amber for the rich, iron and copper for the farmers, flax for
their wives; while homely fustian, buckram, wax, herrings, and canvas
mingled incongruously in their booths with strange, far-off Eastern
spices and ornaments. And in return the English farmers—or traders on
their behalf—carried to the fair hundreds of huge wool-sacks, wherewith
to clothe the nations of Europe; or barley for the Flemish breweries,
with corn and horses and cattle also. Lead was brought from the mines
of Derbyshire, and tin from Cornwall; even some iron from Sussex, but
this was accounted inferior to the imported metal. All these wares
were, as at Winchester, exposed in stalls and tents in long streets,
some named after the various nations that congregated {64} there, and
others after the kind of goods on sale. This vast fair lasted down
to the eighteenth century in unabated vigour, and was at that time
described by Daniel Defoe, in a work now easily accessible to all,[22]
which contains a most interesting description of all the proceedings
of this busy month. It is not much more than a hundred years since the
Lancashire merchants alone used to send their goods to Stourbridge,
upon a thousand pack-horses, but now the pack-horses and fairs have
gone, and the telegraph and railway have taken their place.

  [21. See note 10, p. 246, on Stourbridge Fair.]

  [22. _Tour through the Eastern Counties_ (Cassell’s National
  Library, 3_d._).]


§ 6. ENGLISH MEDIÆVAL PORTS—In the last paragraph mention was made of
the east coast having ports of great prominence in this period. It will
be convenient here to notice what were the chief ports of England,
and to remark how few of them have retained their old importance. The
chief port was of course London, which has always held an exceptional
position, and the other principal ports were on the east and south
coast. Southampton was from early times the chief southern harbour, and
next to it Dartmouth, Plymouth, Sandwich, and Winchelsea, Weymouth,
Shoreham, Dover, and Margate. They were connected with the trade in
French and Spanish goods. On the western coast Bristol was almost
the only port much frequented, and was the centre and harbour for
the western fisheries, and also a place of export for hides and the
cloth manufactures of the western towns. In the fifteenth century
Bristol fishermen penetrated through the Hebrides to the Shetland and
Orkney Islands and the northern fisheries, where they found that the
Scarborough men had long preceded them. On the eastern coast, indeed,
Scarborough was one of the most enterprising ports. Boston, Hull, Lynn,
Harwich, {65} Yarmouth, and Colchester were also very flourishing, and
were concerned in the Flemish and Baltic trade. Farther north Newcastle
was the centre for the coasting trade in coal, and Berwick was a
fisherman’s harbour. But the southern and eastern ports were the most
frequented, as being suitable to the light and shallow craft that did a
coasting trade, or ran across to the Continent in smooth weather.


§ 7. THE TEMPORARY DECAY OF MANUFACTURING TOWNS—We have now noticed
the chief markets, fairs, ports, and manufacturing towns of mediæval
England, and it will be seen that commercial prosperity was certainly
developing. So too were home manufacturing industries, but their
growth brought about a curious effect in the decay of certain towns,
and the rise of industrial villages in rural districts. To the decay
of towns we find frequent reference in the Statutes of Henry VII. and
his successor—_i.e._ from 1490 or 1500 onwards. This decay was due to
two causes: (1) to the growth of sheep farming, mentioned above (p.
45), and (2) to the fact that the industrial disabilities imposed upon
dwellers in towns, in consequence of the corporate privileges of the
gilds, now far exceeded the advantages of residence there. The days
of usefulness for the gilds had gone past; their restrictions were
now only felt to cramp the rising manufacturing industries. Hence we
find the manufacturers of the Tudor period were leaving the towns and
seeking open villages instead, where they could develop their trade
free from the vexatious restrictions of old-fashioned corporations.
Of course laws were passed to check this tendency, and to confine
particular industries to particular towns. Thus, in Norfolk, no one was
to “dye, shear, or calendar cloth” anywhere but in the town of Norwich
(Act of 14 and 15 Henry VIII.); no one in the {66} northern counties
was to make “worsted coverlets” except in York (Act of 33 and 34 Henry
VIII.).


§ 8. GROWTH OF INDUSTRIAL VILLAGES. THE GERMS OF THE MODERN FACTORY
SYSTEM—Such protective enactments were, however, as protective
enactments must generally be, utterly in vain. Henry VII. tried to
remedy the supposed evil by limiting the privileges of interference of
the gilds, but even this step was useless. Manufactures were slowly
and surely transferred to various villages, and in several industries
a kind of modern factory system can be traced at this time. Master
manufacturers, weary of municipal and gild-made restrictions, organized
in country places little communities solely for industrial purposes,
and so arranged as to afford greater scope for the combination and
division of labour. The system of apprenticeship was a powerful element
in this scheme, and supplied ready labour for these small factories.
The goods were made not as formerly only for local use, but for the
purposes of trade and profit throughout the kingdom. The master was
bound to his workmen rather more closely than the mill-owner of the
present day to his “hands,” for the spirit of personal sympathy and
obligation still survived in these small labour communities. But
the germs of the modern system were there; for this new system was
not that of domestic or cottage industry, as had been the rule in
previous periods, but a system of congregated labour organized upon
a capitalistic basis by one man—the organizer, head, and owner of
the industrial village—the master clothier. Among the famous master
clothiers of the woollen industry, we read of Cuthbert of Kendal,
Hodgkins of Halifax, Brian of Manchester, each of whom “kept a great
number of servants at work—carders, spinners, weavers, dyers, shearers,
and others.” {67} Perhaps the greatest of them was John Winchcombe,
or “Jack of Newbury,” as he was called, of whom it is recorded that a
hundred looms always worked in his house, and he was rich enough to
send a hundred of his journeymen to Flodden Field, in 1513. His kerseys
were famous all over Europe. It was from communities such as these that
the villages of Manchester, Bolton, Leeds, Halifax, and Bury took their
rise, and afterwards developed into the great factory towns of to-day.
But these workshops, large though they seemed then, were utterly
insignificant compared with the huge factories of to-day, where the
workmen are numbered in thousands, and are, to the capitalist-employer
or joint-stock company that owns the mill, merely a mass of human
machines, more intelligent though not so durable as other machines, and
possessed of an unpleasant tendency to go out “on strike,” for reasons
that naturally appear to their employer insufficient and subversive
of the whole industrial system. However, the industrial system is not
subverted, though the workmen can hardly be said to be upon the same
pleasant footing with their employers as they used to be in the old
industrial village.


CHAPTER IV

THE GREAT PLAGUE AND ITS ECONOMIC EFFECTS


§ 1. MATERIAL PROGRESS OF THE COUNTRY—In the preceding chapters we have
attempted to give an idea of the state of industry and commerce in
England in the Middle Ages. We now come to a most important landmark
in the history of the social and industrial condition of the {68}
people—viz. the Great Plague of 1348 and subsequent years. Almost
two centuries had elapsed since the death of Stephen (1154), and the
cessation of those great civil conflicts which harried England in his
reign. These two centuries had witnessed on the whole a continuous
growth of material prosperity. The wealth of the country had increased;
the towns had developed and had aided the growth of a prosperous
mercantile and industrial middle class, who regulated their own
affairs in their gilds, and also had a voice in municipal management.
The country at large was mainly devoted to agricultural and pastoral
pursuits, and the mass of the people were engaged in tilling the ground
or feeding cattle. The mass of the people too were now better fed and
better clothed than those of a similar class on the Continent, and a
great proof of their general prosperity is to be found in the nature
of their food. It is a significant economic fact that wheaten bread
was then, and has generally since been, the staple food of the English
labourer. In most other lands, bread made from rye and other cereals
was generally good enough for the working classes. If rye failed they
had nothing to fall back upon, and thus famines were frequent. But the
English labourer always had some other cereal besides wheat in reserve.


§ 2. SOCIAL CHANGES. THE VILLEINS AND WAGE-PAID LABOURERS—Besides the
growth of material prosperity in these two centuries, we find that the
commutation of villeinage services into money payments to the lord of
the manor—a tendency frequently commented upon—had been growing apace.
This commutation had been going on for a long time, in fact ever since
the Conquest, if not before, and the villeins in general had freed
themselves not only from labour-dues, but from the vexatious customary
fines or “amercements” which they had to {69} pay to the lord of the
manor on certain social occasions—such as the marriage of a daughter,
or the education of a son for the Church. But of course this freedom
was not complete, though it is important to notice its growth, for we
shall see that it formed the occasion of a great class struggle some
years after the Great Plague.

There is another feature which is also of importance, and which had
come more and more into prominence during the past two centuries. I
refer to the increase in the numbers of those who lived upon the labour
of their hands, and were employed and paid wages like labourers of the
present day. It has been mentioned before that they arose from the
cottar class, who had not enough land to occupy their whole time, and
who were therefore ready to sell their labour to an employer. These
two features, the commutation of labour-dues for money payments, and
the rise of a wage-paid labouring class, are closely connected, for it
was natural that, when the lord of a manor had agreed to receive money
from his tenants in villeinage instead of labour, he should have to
obtain other labour from elsewhere and pay for it in the money thus
received by commutation. The tendency of these social changes was
greatly in favour of the villeins, whose social condition had steadily
improved, and whose tenancy in villeinage was more and more becoming
a “free” tenancy. Neither were the villeins, whether comparatively
well-to-do yeomen or agricultural labourers, so much bound to the
manor as formerly, for in proportion as their labour services were
no longer necessary, their lord would let them leave the manor and
seek employment, or take up some manufacturing industry, elsewhere.
It had always been possible for the villeins (or serfs) to do this
on payment of a small fine (_capitagium_), and it is certain that as
money payments {70} became increasingly the fashion, the lord would
not object to receiving this further payment, unless perchance he would
require a good deal of labour done upon his own land.


§ 3. THE FAMINE AND THE PLAGUE—The position of the labouring class had
been further improved by the effects of the famines which occurred
in A.D. 1315–16. Of course they suffered great hardships and their
numbers were considerably thinned, but at the same time this loss of
life and diminution in their numbers caused their services to become
more valuable in proportion to their scarcity, and they gained a rise
of some 20 per cent. in wages. From this date till the coming of
the Great Plague, some thirty years later, they and the rest of the
English people enjoyed a period of great prosperity. It was on the
whole a “merry England” on which the Great Plague suddenly broke. The
prosperity of the people was reflected in the splendour and brilliancy
of the court and aristocracy, and the national pride had been increased
by the recent victory of Crecy, and by the other successes in the
French war, which brought not only glory but occasionally wealth, in
the shape of heavy ransoms. But in 1348 the prosperity and pride of the
nation was overwhelmed with gloom. The Great Plague came with sudden
and mysterious steps from Asia to Italy, and thence to Western Europe
and England, carried some say by travelling merchants, or borne with
its infection on the wings of the wind. It arrived in England at the
two great ports of Bristol and Southampton in August 1348, and thence
spread all over the land. Its ravages were frightful. Whole districts
were depopulated, and about one-third of the people perished. Norwich
and London, being busy and crowded towns, suffered especially from
the pestilence, and though the {71} numbers of the dead have been
grossly exaggerated by the panic of contemporaries and the credulity of
modern historians,[23] there can be no doubt that the loss of life was
enormous.


§ 4. THE EFFECTS OF THE PLAGUE ON WAGES—The most immediate consequence
of the Plague was a marked scarcity in the number of labourers
available. For being of the poorest class they naturally succumbed
more readily to famine and sickness. This scarcity of labour naturally
resulted in higher wages. The land-owners began to fear that their
lands would not be cultivated properly, and were content to buy
labour at higher prices than would have been given at a time when
the necessity of the labourer to the capitalist was more obscured.
Hence the wages of labourers rose far above the customary rates. In
harvest-work, for example, the rise was nearly 60 per cent., and what
is more it remained so for a long period; the rise in agricultural
wages generally was 50 per cent. So it was also in the case of
artisans’ wages, in the case of carpenters, masons, and others. It
seems the upper classes and the capitalists of that day very strongly
objected to paying high wages, as they naturally do. The king himself
felt deeply upon the point. Without waiting for Parliament to meet,
Edward III. issued a proclamation ordering that no man should either
demand or pay the higher rates of wages, but should abide by the
old rate. He forbade labourers to leave the land to which they were
attached, and assigned heavy penalties to the runaways. Parliament
assembled in 1349 and eagerly ratified this proclamation, {72} in
the laws known as the _Statutes of Labourers_. But the demand for
labour was so great that such legislative endeavours to prevent its
proper payment were fortunately ineffective. Runaways not only found
shelter, but also good employment and high wages. Parliament fulminated
its threats in vain; and in vain increased its penalties, by a later
Statute of 1360 ordering those who asked more than the old wages to be
imprisoned, and, if they were fugitives, to be branded with hot irons.
For once the labourer was able to meet the capitalist on equal terms.

  [23. It was asserted by the fourteenth-century chroniclers,
  and has often been repeated since, that nearly 60,000 people died
  in Norwich alone. As a matter of fact, the whole county of Norfolk,
  including that city, hardly contained 30,000 people.]


§ 5. PRICES OF PROVISIONS—Now, although there was a great rise in the
price of labour, the price of the labourers’ food did not rise in
proportion. The price of provisions, indeed, was but little affected,
for food did not require much manual labour in its production, and
hence the rise of wages would not be much felt here. What _did_ rise
was the price of all articles that required much labour in their
production, or the cost of which depended entirely upon human labour.
The price of fish, for instance, is determined almost entirely by the
cost of the fisherman’s labour, and the cost of transit. Consequently
we should under these circumstances expect a great rise in the price
of fish, and such indeed was the case. So, too, there was an enormous
increase in the prices of tiles, wheels, canvas, lead, ironwork, and
all agricultural materials, these being articles whose value depends
chiefly upon the amount of labour spent over them, and upon the cost
of that labour. Hence, both peasant and artisan gained higher wages,
while the cost of living remained for them much the same; and those who
suffered most were the owners of large estates, who had to pay more for
the labour which worked these estates, and more too for the implements
used in working them.

{73}


§ 6. EFFECTS OF THE PLAGUE UPON THE LAND-OWNERS—The fact that the
larger land-owners found the cost of working their land doubled or
even trebled caused important economic changes. Before the Plague
the cost of harvesting upon an ordinary estate, quoted by Professor
Rogers, was £3, 13_s._ 9_d._: afterwards it rose to £12, 19_s._ 10_d._
Moreover, the landlord had to consent to receive lower rents, for many
tenants could not work their farms profitably with the old rents, and
the new prices for labour and implements. And, as rent is paid out of
the profits of agriculture, it was obvious even to the landlord that
smaller profits meant lower rents. Now, in this state of things, the
landlord had two courses open to him. He could turn off the tenant and
cultivate all his land himself; or he could try and exist upon the
smaller income gained from lower rents. It was obviously impossible
for him to cultivate all his land himself, for he would have to employ
a large number of bailiffs for his various manors, and trust to their
honesty to do their best for him. Moreover, he would have to pay his
bailiffs, while after all his tenants paid him something, though less
than formerly. So he decided to allow his tenants to pay him a smaller
rent. What is more, he decided under the circumstances to give up
farming altogether, and let even the lands which he had reserved for
his own cultivation. The landlords, in fact, had not apparently either
the ability or the inclination to superintend agriculture under these
changed conditions, and gave up trying to work their land themselves.
So that one great result of the Plague was that landlords to a large
extent gave up capitalist farming upon their own account, and let their
tenants cultivate the soil, and also pay them for continuing to do so.


§ 7. RISE OF THE TENANT FARMER OR YEOMAN CLASS—The {74} natural
effect of this change on the part of the land-owners was that the
small peasant farmers greatly increased in numbers. The circumstances
of the time favoured them, for the rise in the price of labour was
not so severely felt by them, since they could and did use the unpaid
labour of their families upon their holdings. Then, when they had tided
over the immediate results of the Plague, they took larger holdings
as they grew richer. They were helped in this by the stock and land
lease system already referred to (p. 42), which gave them the use of
a larger quantity of agricultural capital than they could otherwise
have commanded. But when the tenant farmer’s wealth increased he found
himself able, as a rule, to keep his own stock.


§ 8. THE EMANCIPATION OF THE VILLEINS—The gradual amelioration of
the conditions of villeinage or serfage received a forcible impetus
from the Great Plague. Those villeins who had not already become
free tenants, and especially those who lived on wages, shared in the
advantages now gained by all who had labour to sell. Their labour was
more valuable, and they were able with their higher wages to buy from
their lord a commutation of those exactions which interfered with their
personal freedom of action, with their right to sell their labour to
other employers, or with their endeavours to reach a better social
position. Serfage or villeinage gradually became practically extinct
after the Plague,[24] though the landowners, backed up by the lawyers,
interposed many obstacles in the path of emancipation, and a great
Revolt was necessary to enable the villeins to show their power. This
Revolt and its success must now engage our attention.

  [24. See note 11, p. 246, on Survivals.]

{75}


CHAPTER V

THE PEASANTS’ REVOLT OF 1381, AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROSPERITY OF THE
WORKING CLASSES


§ 1. NEW SOCIAL DOCTRINES—By no means the least important among the
effects of the Great Plague was the spirit of independence which it
helped to raise in the breasts of the villeins and labourers, more
especially as they now gained some consciousness of the power of
labour, and of its value as a prime necessity in the economic life of
the nation. There was indeed a revolutionary spirit in the air in the
last quarter of the fourteenth century, and the villeins could not
help breathing it. The social teaching of the author of _Peres the
Plowman_, with his outspoken denunciation of those who are called the
upper classes; the bold religious teaching of Wiklif and the wandering
friars, and the marked political assertion of the rights of Parliament
by the “Good Parliament” of 1376, were all manifestations of this
spirit. It was natural, too, that, feeling their power as they did, the
villeins should become restive when they heard from the followers of
Wiklif that, as it was lawful to withdraw tithes from priests who lived
in sin, so “servants and tenants may withdraw their services and rents
from their lords that live openly a cursed life.”


§ 2. THE COMING OF THE FRIARS. WIKLIF—Such indeed was the teaching
that Wiklif promulgated, and it was carried throughout all England by
that great association of wandering friars which he founded under the
title of the “poor priests.” These men were like the {76} mendicant
friars who had come to England a century before[25] to work in the
poorer parts of the English towns; only Wiklif’s priests generally
wandered out into the isolated and remote country villages, and spread
abroad the independent doctrines and the revolutionary spirit of the
times. Spending their lives in moving about among the “upland folk,” as
the country people were called, clad in coarse, undyed brown woollen
garments, they won the confidence of the peasants, and what is more,
helped them to combine in very effectual trade unions. They acted as
treasurers for the common funds of these peasants’ unions, and served
as messengers between those in different parts of the country, having
passwords and a secret language of their own. Their preaching was
similar to that of the celebrated priest of Kent, John Ball, who for
twenty years before the great rising (1360–80) openly spoke words
like these: “Good people, things will never be well in England so
long as there be villeins and gentlemen. By what right are they whom
we call lords greater than we? On what grounds have they deserved it?
Why do they hold us in serfage? They have leisure and fine houses: we
have pain and labour, and the wind and rain in the fields. And yet
it is of us and our toil that these men hold their estate.” These
searching questions as to the rights of the lords, and the bold but
true statement that it was the villeins and labouring classes who
supported—and paid for—their high estate, came closely home to the
peasants. They were encouraged too by the independent religious views
of the Lollards, and it is said that half England held their views. And
this independence of social and religious tenets was hardly calculated
to make the villeins bear {77} with equanimity the exactions of their
lords after the Great Plague.

  [25. The Black Friars of Dominic came in 1221, and the Grey
  Friars of Francis in 1224.]


§ 3. THE RENEWED EXACTIONS OF THE LANDLORDS—For it must be remembered
that the Great Plague did not immediately emancipate the villeins,
or cause the land-owners to give up farming on their own account.
The process, of course, took a few years, and in these few years the
land-owners made desperate efforts to avoid paying higher wages than
formerly for labour. As it had now become costly, they insisted more
severely upon the performance by their tenants of such labour-dues
as were not yet commuted for money payments. They even tried to make
those tenants who had emerged from a condition of villeinage to a free
tenancy, return back to villeinage again, with all its old labour-dues
and casual services. If a man could not prove by legal documentary
evidence that he held his land in a free tenancy, the land-owner
might pretend he was a villein tenant, and subject to all a villein’s
services, although these services might long ago have been commuted
for a money rent without any legal formality. There is much reason
to believe, moreover, that they abused their power of inflicting
“amercements,” or fines, upon their tenants in the manor courts for
trivial breaches of duty. So at least Wiklif and the author of _Peres
the Plowman_ tell us. The villeins naturally resisted this attempt
to make a retrograde movement, which would force them back into the
old bondage from which they had redeemed themselves; the free tenants
supported them, for they knew their turn would come next if the serfs
failed; and the labouring classes eagerly joined the movement also, in
hopes of getting rid of the vexatious Statutes of Labourers.

{78}


§ 4. THE PEASANTS’ REVOLT[26]—The crisis came in 1381, and was
perhaps precipitated by the oppressive manner in which the poll-tax
was collected. But the poll-tax itself was not the real cause of the
revolt. The rising had long been foreseen, and arrangements had been
duly made among the peasants’ unions by the poor priests, their agents
and messengers, who formed the connecting links between all the labour
organizations of the land. A sudden rising took place, as unanimous as
it was unanticipated, throughout all England, from Scarborough to Kent
and Devon. Almost simultaneously the peasants showed their combined
strength, and a large body of them under Wat Tyler marched upon London.
It is well known how they met the young King Richard II. at Mile-end,
and demanded of him the petition which shows the real meaning of the
movement: “We will that you free us for ever, us and our lands,” they
asked; “and that we be never named or held as villeins.” “I grant
it,” said the king, with regal diplomacy, and the peasants believed
him. But they very soon learned how vain a thing it is to put one’s
trust in princes, for after the peasant armies in the various parts of
England had quieted down, and the Essex men, among others, claimed the
fulfilment of his royal promise, Richard openly broke faith. “Villeins
you were,” said the king, “and villeins you are. In bondage shall
you abide, and that not your old bondage, but a worse!” Fortunately
this never happened. Although suppressed, the rising was practically
successful, for it had shown the power of the combination of labour, in
the great strife between labour and capital. A few of the ringleaders
were imprisoned and executed, among them being several priests. The
{79} authorities of course blustered, and swore they would never
give in. Equally of course they did give in; no further attempts were
made to exact labour-dues or _corvées_; and within a generation or so
villeinage or serfage became practically extinct[27]; and the villeins
became known as copyholders or tenants by custom.

  [26. For other views of this Revolt see my _Industry in
  England_, ch. xii.]

  [27. For survivals see note 11, p. 246.]


§ 5. THE CONDITION OF THE ENGLISH LABOURER—After this great
insurrection came what has been termed the golden age of the English
labourer, and it lasted all through the fifteenth century. Food was
cheap and abundant; wages were amply sufficient. True, the employers of
labour still tried, by various petitions and Acts (_e.g._ 7 Henry IV.,
4 Henry V., 23 Henry VI., 11 Henry VII.), to enforce the Statute of
Labourers, but they were practically unsuccessful, and prosperity was
progressive and continuous till the evil days of Henry VIII. The wages
of a good agricultural labourer, before the Plague, had been £2, 7_s._
10_d._ per year as an average, including the labour of his wife and
child; after the Plague his wages would be £3, 15_s._, and the cost of
his living certainly not more than £3, 4_s._ 9_d._ An artisan, working
300 days a year, would get, say, £3, 18_s._ 1⁠½_d._ before 1348,
and after that date £5, 15_s._ 7_d._, which was so far above the cost
of maintenance as to give him a very comfortable position. His working
day, too, was not excessive, while the fixed rents of the time were
very low. These low rents were also one great cause of the prosperity
of the new yeoman, or tenant farmer class (p. 73) that had arisen
after the collapse of the capitalist land-owners in consequence of the
Plague. This class remained for at least two centuries the backbone of
English agriculture.


§ 6. DRAWBACKS—There were, however, a few drawbacks in this “golden
age,” as various critics have told {80} us. The ordinary hardships
of human life were in many respects greater than they are now—disease
was more deadly, and the risks of life more numerous[28]; but from
this very fact the extremes of poverty and wealth were less widely
distinguished and less acutely felt; and, although it cannot be
asserted that people did not occasionally die of want in very bad
times, yet the grinding and hopeless poverty just above the verge of
actual starvation, so often prevalent in the present time, did not
belong to mediæval life. The chief hardships to be encountered were
in the winter, for, owing to the absence of winter roots, stock could
only be kept in limited quantities, and the only meat procurable
was that which had been previously salted. It is certain that much
of mediæval disease is traceable to the excessive use of salted
provisions. The houses, also, were rudely built of mud, clay, or even
wattled material, for brickmaking was a lost art, and stone was only
used for the manor-houses and the dwellings of the wealthy. But food
was abundant and cheap. The cost of living was not more than one-tenth
of what it is at the present day. Three pounds of beef could be bought
for a penny; a pig cost about fourpence; beer was only a halfpenny a
gallon. Employment was fairly constant and regular, and in addition to
their wages, labourers still possessed the valuable old manorial common
rights of common pasture and forest.

  [28. The question is more fully treated in _Industry in
  England_, ch. xii. (end).]


§ 7. THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES—So things went on happily after the
Great Revolt, and in the days of the fourth and fifth Henries. The
brilliant, but useless, French victories of the latter monarch were
paid for partly by the prosperous middle and lower classes, and {81}
partly by the French themselves; and very costly they were. England
was still mainly agricultural, but manufactures were growing. Though
wool was still exported, much was being worked up in the towns and
villages. Artisans earned about 3_s._ a week, which would certainly
be worth more than 30_s._ a week at present. Industry, as will be
remembered, was organized in the craft gilds, and apparently the gild
system was a success till its restrictions in towns began to cramp the
growing manufactures. The fifteenth century was a period of prosperity
and content, in spite of both civil and foreign wars; and even the
wasteful reign of Henry VI., with its unsuccessful war with France, and
huge subsidies to Rome, though it made the Government unpopular and
caused widespread national discontent and occasional insurrections in
Kent and Wiltshire, did not materially injure the general prosperity.
The king himself, however, was nearly bankrupt. The Wars of the Roses
which followed (1455–86) did not affect the country at large, being
fought in a series of much exaggerated skirmishes by small bodies
of nobles and their followers. They ended in the very desirable
consummation of the ruin of the remnants of the feudal aristocracy,
and at the same time opened a further path for the influence of the
industrial classes, whose favour Henry VII. had the wisdom to court,
and in return was supported by them in his policy of weakening the
power of the great barons. He encouraged commerce,[29] and aided the
prosperity of his kingdom, thereby amassing for his own treasury
considerable wealth. In his reign the feudal system was dying out, the
nation prospered, and the Middle Ages came to a close in a wealthy and
industrious England (A.D. 1500). {82}

  [29. Cf. note 7, p. 244.]

But before the next century was completed part of the nation was
impoverished, the labourers were degraded and despoiled, and a long
legacy of pauperism and misery was bequeathed to the country by the
wastefulness and extravagance of Henry VIII.

{83}




PERIOD IV

FROM THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY TO THE EVE OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
(1509–1760)


CHAPTER I

THE MISDEEDS OF HENRY VIII., AND ECONOMIC CHANGES IN THE SIXTEENTH
CENTURY


§ 1. HENRY VIII.’S WASTEFULNESS—Henry VIII. came to the throne in
1509. He succeeded to a full treasury left by his thrifty father, and
replenished by contributions from the general prosperity of the country
at the close of the fifteenth century. But he soon dissipated the whole
of these accumulations. He spent a great deal of money in subsidizing
the needy Emperor of Germany, Maximilian, and in interfering in foreign
affairs which were better left alone, in the hope of winning for
himself a military reputation. His Continental wars and alliances cost
him dear, or rather they cost the English people dear, for they gave
him liberal grants of money (as _e.g._ in 1513) before he set out on
his fruitless expeditions. But even in time of peace his expenditure
was equally extravagant. The cost of his household establishments, and
those of his children, was simply enormous; for the establishments
of Mary, Edward, and even Elizabeth were each more costly than the
whole annual charge of his father’s household. His extravagance was
monumental, though where his money went he could not himself discover.
Wolsey {84} said of him, “Rather than miss any part of his will,
he will endanger one-half of his kingdom.” As a matter of fact he
succeeded in impoverishing the whole of it.


§ 2. THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MONASTERIES—He soon wasted the carefully
accumulated treasures of his father, and sought for further supplies.
They were gained at first by increased taxation, but as this money was
spent in the French wars, Henry was soon in difficulties again. Then he
tried another expedient. The monasteries suggested themselves to him as
an easy prey, and he knew that an attack upon them would not displease
the growing Protestant party in the country. These institutions were in
many cases not fulfilling their ancient functions properly, and were
often far from being the homes of religious virtue. So excuses were
easily found, and in 1536 the smaller monasteries with an income below
£200 a year were suppressed, and in 1539 the larger ones were similarly
treated. About 1000 houses were suppressed, the _annual_ income of
which was £161,000, equivalent to more than two millions sterling of
our present money. Half-a-dozen bishoprics and a few grammar schools
were founded out of the proceeds of this spoliation, in order to blind
the eyes of the people at large. But with these paltry exceptions the
whole of that vast capital and revenue was granted to courtiers and
favourites, sold at nominal prices, or gambled away by the king and his
satellites.


§ 3. RESULTS OF THE SUPPRESSION—Although the mass of the people did
not protest very vigorously against this piece of royal robbery,
many of them witnessed with silent dismay the destruction of ancient
institutions that had formed so integral a part of the national life.
A few even expressed their discontent in open insurrection, and
risings took place in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire,[30] but these {85}
were put down. The economic disturbances which resulted were not so
clearly seen, but were far more severe. They were acute enough from the
mere fact of so much wealth having suddenly changed hands and being
spent with reckless prodigality. It is said that one-fifth, or even
one-third, of the land in the kingdom was held by the monasteries, and
it was now transferred from the holding of the Church into the hands
of a new set of nobles and landed gentry, created from the dependants
and time-servers of Henry’s court. These were enriched, but the former
tenants of the monasteries and the poorer class of labourers suffered
greatly. Hence serious results followed. Nearly all monastic lands
were held by tenants upon the “stock and land lease” system, spoken
of before; but, when these monastic lands were suddenly transferred
into the clutches of Henry’s new and needy nobility, the stock was
confiscated and sold off, while the money rent was raised. The new
owners did not care for the slow, though really lucrative, system of
providing the tenant with a certain amount of stock for his land,
but simply wished to get all the money they could without delay. The
result was that the poorer tenants were almost ruined, and it seems
probable that pauperism was greatly increased. What small amount of
pauperism had previously existed had been sufficiently relieved by the
monasteries, who, owing their wealth to charitable offerings, could not
well refuse charity to those that needed it; but on their dissolution
pauperism had no longer such relief, and very soon we shall see it
became necessary to provide that relief by law. With the dissolution
the history of English legal pauperism may be said to begin, although
of course other causes contributed to its growth. But among these
causes the spoliation of the monasteries had no unimportant place.

  [30. _e.g._ “The Pilgrimage of Grace,” 1536.]

{86}


§ 4. THE ISSUING OF BASE COIN—Four years after the dissolution,
Henry was in difficulties again. He dared not ask his Parliament for
further supplies so soon after his last piece of plunder, so he betook
himself to a still more wicked kind of robbery. In 1543 he began to
debase the currency, and repeated this criminal action in 1545 and
1546. This debasement forms a landmark in English industrial history
as disastrous as the other landmark of the Great Plague. Its effect
was not felt immediately, but it was none the less real. The chief
point that concerned the labourer was that prices rapidly rose, but
that, as is always the case, the rise of wages did not coincide with
this inflation, and when they did rise they did not do so in a fair
proportion. The necessaries of life rose in proportion of one to two
and one-half; wages, when they finally rose, only in the proportion
of one to one and one-half. When too late it was recognized that the
issue of base money was the cause of dearth in the realm, and Latimer
lamented the fact in his sermons. Meanwhile, the mischief had been done.


§ 5. THE CONFISCATION OF THE GILD LANDS—What Henry did with his gains
thus obtained by underhand robbery cannot be accurately discovered. But
it soon went, for he again required a supply of money.

One other method of robbing the industrial classes still remained, and
though Henry died, his ministers were not slow to take advantage of
it. This step was the confiscation of the gild lands, planned by Henry
VIII. but finally carried out by his son’s guardian, Somerset. These
lands had been acquired by the craft gilds both in town and country,
partly by bequests from members, and partly by purchase from the funds
of the gilds. The revenues of these lands were used for lending,
without usury, to poorer members of the gilds, for apprenticing poor
children, for {87} widows’ pensions, and, above all, for the relief of
destitute members of the craft. Thus the labourer of that time had in
the funds of the gild a kind of insurance money, while the gild itself
fulfilled all the functions of a benefit society. Now, Henry VIII.
got an Act passed for the confiscation of this and other property,
but died before his scheme was carried out. It was then Somerset who
procured the Act for perpetrating this offence—on the plea that these
lands were associated with superstitious uses. Only the property of the
London gilds was left untouched. The gilds had relieved pauperism in
the Middle Ages, assisted in steadying the price of labour, and formed
a centre for associations that fulfilled a want now only partially
supplied by modern trade unions. Their abolition was a heavy blow to
the English labourer.

Why this abolition was not more generally resented is a point of some
interest. In the first place, the religious gilds and craft gilds
were suppressed together on the plea above mentioned, and thus the
difference between them was confused. Then again, the London gilds were
spared because of their power, and thus it was made their interest
not to interfere with the destruction of their provincial brethren.
The nobles were bought off with presents gained from the funds of the
gilds. Moreover, the _craft_ gilds in the country towns were becoming
close corporations, whose advantages were often monopolized by a few
powerful members. This led, as we saw, to the manufacture of cloth
being spread from the towns into industrial villages in the rural
districts, where perhaps the mass of the population, not perceiving
the full significance of the act, did not object to a measure which
struck a blow at the town “mysteries.” But, nevertheless, a great
deal of discontent was aroused. Somerset became very unpopular, and
insurrections broke out in many {88} parts of the country, the most
dangerous being in Cornwall, Devonshire, and in the West. They were
caused not only by this spoliation but by agrarian discontent as well,
but German and Italian mercenaries were introduced to put them down,
and the protests of the people were everywhere choked in their blood.


§ 6. THE AGRARIAN SITUATION—Such were the acts instigated or actually
performed by that miserable monarch, whom nevertheless not a few people
who write history seek to glorify. Possibly they do so in ignorance of
the facts. This much is certain, that Henry VIII.’s reign witnessed
growing pauperism in a country which had been a few years previously
in a state of considerable material comfort. But before the close of
his reign the labouring classes became impoverished, and tenant farmers
were ruined with high rents exacted by the new nobility. The landed
gentry and nobility, however, profited by this, and the merchants grew
rich by their accumulations in foreign trade. But those who depended
directly upon the cultivation of the land for their living suffered
severely. There had been for some years past a steady rise in the price
of wool for export, partly because the manufacturers of the Netherlands
were so flourishing, and partly owing to a general rise of prices on
the Continent since the great discoveries of silver in South America.
Land-owners saw that it was more immediately profitable to turn their
arable land into pasture, and go in for sheep farming on a large scale.
They therefore did three things. They evicted as many as possible of
their smaller tenants, and as Sir Thomas More tells us: “in this way it
comes to pass that these poor wretches, men, women, husbands, orphans,
parents with little children—all these emigrate from their native
fields without knowing where to go.” Then they raised the rents of
the larger tenants, the {89} yeomen and farmers, so that, as Latimer
mentions, land for which his father had paid £3 or £4 a year, was in
1549 let at £16, almost to the ruin of the tenant. Thirdly, the large
land-owners took from the poor their common lands by an unscrupulous
system of enclosures. Wolsey had in vain endeavoured to stop their
doing this, for he had sagacity enough to perceive how it would
pauperize the labourers and others who had valuable rights in such
land. But enclosures and evictions went on in spite of his enactments,
with the inevitable result of social disorders.

The most important of these risings took place in Norfolk, where
enclosures had been made upon a tremendous scale. Ket, a wealthy
tanner of Norwich, took the lead (in 1549) of a large body of some
16,000 tenants and labourers, who demanded the abolition of the late
enclosures and the reform of other local abuses. The Earl of Warwick
defeated the petitioners in a battle, put down the rising, and hanged
Ket at Norwich Castle. The farmers and peasantry were thus cowed into
submission.


§ 7. OTHER ECONOMIC CHANGES—From these facts it became evident that
the old mediæval industrial system was breaking up in England. The new
life created by the Renaissance caused a keener and more eager spirit
among all classes of men. Competition began to operate as a new force,
and men made haste to grow rich. The merchants were becoming bolder
and more enterprising in their ventures. The discoveries of America
by Columbus (1492) and by Cabot (1497), and of the sea-route to India
by Vasco da Gama (1498), had kindled a desire to share largely in the
wealth of these newly accessible countries. At home the lords of the
manors no longer remained in close personal relationships with their
tenants. The tenants were no longer villeins, but were nominally {90}
independent, and had certain rights. But the lords of the manors
had small respect for rights that were only guarded by custom; and
evicted or oppressed their tenants to such an extent that multitudes
of dispossessed and impoverished villagers flocked to the towns. In
fact Sir Thomas More tells us that the tenants “were got rid of by
fraud or force, or tired out by repeated wrongs into parting with their
property.”

Many labourers, too, could be found wandering from place to place,
begging or robbing. The old steady village life, with its isolation
and strong home ties, was undergoing a violent transition. Constant
work and regular wages were becoming things of the past. The labourer’s
wages would not purchase the former quantity of provisions under
the new high prices caused by the debasement of the currency, and
the discoveries of silver from 1540–1600; for wages, though they
ultimately follow prices, do so very slowly, and not always even then
proportionately.


§ 8. SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY—Such were the
events which caused so great an economic transition in this period.
They resulted in the pauperization of a large portion of the working
classes, and the impoverishment of the small farmers. On the other
hand, the nobles and land-owners gained considerable wealth. The
merchants also were exceedingly flourishing, and foreign trade was
growing. In summing up, then, we may say that the suppression of the
monasteries, and the creation of a new nobility from the adventurers
of Henry VIII.’s court, who obtained most of the monastic wealth; the
debasement of the coinage and the exaltation in prices, aided largely
(1540–1600) by the discovery of new silver mines in South America;
the rise in the price of wool both for export and home manufacture,
coupled {91} with the consequent increase in sheep farming and the
practice of enclosure of land—all produced most important economic
changes in the history of English labour and industry. To these we must
add, towards the end of the sixteenth century, the great immigration
of Flemings, chiefly after 1567, owing to the continual persecutions
of Alva and other Spanish rulers. This gave a great impetus to
English manufactures, its effects, however, being chiefly felt in the
seventeenth century, when another immigration took place. Finally,
in the sixteenth century were laid the foundations of our present
commercial enterprise and maritime trade, by the voyages of Drake and
other great sea-captains of Elizabeth’s reign. Their expeditions, it is
true, were mainly buccaneering exploits, but they created a spirit of
maritime enterprise that bore good fruit in the following reigns. Nor
indeed was trade even in the previous centuries entirely insignificant,
but had considerably developed, as the following chapter will show.


CHAPTER II

THE GROWTH OF FOREIGN TRADE


§ 1. THE EXPANSION OF COMMERCE. THE NEW SPIRIT—Just as the beginning of
the sixteenth century marks what may be called an economic revolution
in the home industries of the country, so too it marks the beginning of
international commerce upon the modern scale. The economic revolution,
of which the new agricultural system and the practice of enclosures
was the most striking feature, was a change from the old dependent,
uncompetitive, and regulated industrial system, to one under {92}
which Capital and Labour grew up as separate forces in the form in
which we recognize them now. Labour had become nominally independent
after the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, and at the same time it consciously
felt that it was in opposition to capitalist and land-owning interests.
In its desire for freedom it had also begun to shake off even its
self-imposed restrictions, and the power of the gilds had rapidly
waned. A new and eager spirit came with the Renaissance and the
Reformation, a spirit which on the economic side showed itself in the
development of competition, the shaking off of old restraints, and in
more daring and far-seeing enterprises. Especially was this the case
among the merchants, fired as they were by the great discoveries of the
latter end of the fifteenth century, and hence we notice, throughout
the sixteenth century and especially at its close, that our foreign
trade becomes more extensive than it had ever been before, and the
foundations of our present international commerce were securely laid.


§ 2. FOREIGN TRADE IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY—At this point we must
look back for a moment at our foreign trade before this new epoch.
Although our enterprises were by no means large, there was yet a fairly
considerable trade done with the countries in the west of Europe—_i.e._
France, Spain, and the Baltic lands, and especially with the Low
Countries. As England was then almost entirely an agricultural country,
our chief export was wool for the Flemish looms to work up; but there
was also other agricultural produce exported; and likewise some mineral
products. In fact England supplied nearly all Western Europe with
two most important metals, tin and lead; the former coming chiefly
from Cornwall and the latter from Derbyshire, though in neither case
exclusively from those counties. Bodmin was, however, the staple town
{93} for the export of tin. Our huge mineral wealth in coal and iron
was hardly yet touched, even for home use, and none was exported. Our
imports were numerous and varied, their number being balanced, as they
must always be, by the greater bulk and value of our exports of wool
and lead.

A fair amount of trade was done with Portugal and Spain, which sent
us iron and war-horses; Gascony and other parts of France sent their
wines; rich velvets, linens, and fine cloths were imported from Ghent,
Liège, Bruges, and other Flemish manufacturing towns. The ships of the
Hanse merchants brought herrings, wax, timber, fur and amber from the
Baltic countries; and Genoese traders came with silks and velvets and
glass of Italy. And all met one another, as we saw before, in the great
fairs, as at Stourbridge, or in the great trading centre of the Western
world, London.


§ 3. THE VENETIAN FLEET—But our most important trade in the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries centred round the annual visit of the Venetian
fleet to the southern shores of England. This was a great company of
trading vessels, which left Venice every year upon a visit to England
and Flanders.[31] Our English vessels did not at this time venture
into the Mediterranean, and so all the stores of the Southern European
countries, and more especially the treasures of the East, came to us
through the agency of Venice. Laden with silks, satins, fine damasks
and cottons, and other then costly garments, together with rare Eastern
spices and precious stones, camphor and saffron, this fleet sailed
slowly along the shores of the Mediterranean, trading at the ports of
Italy, South France and Spain, till it passed through the Straits of
Gibraltar, and at length came up the Channel, and {94} reached our
southern ports. When it had reached the Downs, the fleet broke up for
a time, some vessels putting in at Sandwich, Rye, and other towns, and
a large number stopping at Southampton. Others went on to Flanders.
Several days, sometimes weeks, were spent in exchanging their valuable
cargoes for English goods, chiefly wool, the balance being paid over in
gold, and then the various portions of the great fleet would reunite
again, and set sail for Venice, from which they were often absent for
nearly a twelvemonth. This annual visit was very convenient for English
traders, before our own merchants ventured far away from our coasts.
But it is a sign of the increased commercial enterprise of England in
the sixteenth century that this visit then became unprofitable, and the
last time the Venetian fleet came to our shores was in 1587.

  [31. Hence the Venetians themselves called it the “Flanders
  fleet.”]


§ 4. THE HANSEATIC LEAGUE’S STATION IN LONDON—While our commerce was,
however, not yet so greatly developed, there existed another important
institution carried on by foreign merchants, this time from Germany.
The Hanse, or Hanseatic League, was started in the twelfth century
by some of the leading trading towns of Germany, such as Hamburg
and Lübeck, and after a time these towns formed themselves into a
League for mutual protection among the constant Continental wars, and
became a sort of republic (1241). In another century (by 1360) it
had grown so large and powerful that ninety cities belonged to the
confederacy, and it had branches or depots in every important town of
Northern Europe. Of course there was also a branch at London, in the
“Steelyard,” on which spot the Cannon Street Station now stands. This
branch had existed from very early times, and a warehouse was there in
which the German merchants stored their goods. In Richard II.’s time
this building was {95} enlarged, and so it was again in the reign of
Edward IV. Round it dwelt the foreign merchants who formed quite a
little colony in the very heart of mediæval London. Here they held a
kind of chamber of commerce, presided over by an alderman, with two
co-assessors, and nine council-men, and meeting regularly on Wednesday
mornings in every week. The Steelyard colony existed for some hundreds
of years, and taught many valuable commercial lessons to our English
merchants. It provided for us a regular supply of the produce of
Russia, Germany, and Norway, especially timber and naval stores, and
also corn when our English harvest fell short. But as our own merchants
grew more prosperous and their commerce extended, they became jealous
of the German colony. Attacks were made upon it by London mobs, and
Edward VI. actually rescinded its charter. That was the beginning
of the end. Mary restored it for a time, but towards the close of
Elizabeth’s reign (1597) it was finally abolished. This, too, was
another sign of the growth of our own foreign trade.


§ 5. OUR TRADE WITH FLANDERS. ANTWERP IN THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH
CENTURIES—We have mentioned before how the eastern ports and harbours
of England used to swarm with small, light craft that plied all the
summer through between our own country and Flanders. We have seen too
that this continuous trade was due to the fact that we supplied the
Flemish looms with wool. Up to the fifteenth century the great Flemish
emporium, to which our English ships plied, was Bruges, but in the
sixteenth century this town quite lost its former glory, and Antwerp
took its place. The change was due to the action of Maximilian, the
Emperor of Germany, to whom Henry VIII. was allied, and who, in revenge
for a rebellion in which Ghent and Bruges took part, caused the canal
{96} which connected Bruges with the sea to be blocked up at Sluys
(1482), and thus English and other ships were compelled to direct
their course to Antwerp, which then became a great and flourishing
port. Antwerp remained without a rival till near the close of the
sixteenth century, and every nation had its representatives there. Our
own consul, to use a modern term, was, at the close of the fifteenth
century, Sir Richard Gresham; and later, in the reign of Henry VIII.,
his celebrated son, the financier and economist, Sir Thomas Gresham.
The fact of our having these representatives there is again a proof
of the growth of trade in the sixteenth century. An Italian author,
Ludovico Guicciardini (who died in 1589), gives a very precise account
of our own commerce with Antwerp at this period, and it is interesting
to note how varied our commerce has by this time become. This is what
he says as to our _imports_: “To England Antwerp sends jewels, precious
stones, silver bullion, quicksilver, wrought silks, gold and silver
cloth and thread, camlets, grograms, spices, drugs, sugar, cotton,
cummin, linens fine and coarse, serges, tapestry, madder, hops in great
quantities, glass, salt, fish, metallic and other merceries of all
sorts; arms of all kinds, ammunition for war, and household furniture.”
As to our _exports_ he tells us: “From England Antwerp receives vast
quantities of coarse and fine draperies, fringes and all other things
of that kind to a great value; the finest wool; excellent saffron, but
in small quantities; much lead and tin; sheep and rabbit skins without
number, and various other sorts of the fine peltry (_i.e._ skins) and
leather; beer, cheese, and other provisions in great quantities; also
Malmsey wines, which the English import from Candia. It is marvellous
to think of the vast quantity of drapery sent by the English into the
Netherlands.” {97}

This list is sufficient to show an extensive trade, and we shall
comment upon one or two items of it in the next chapter. Here we need
only remark upon the great growth of English manufactures of cloth.


§ 6. THE DECAY OF ANTWERP AND RISE OF LONDON AS THE WESTERN
EMPORIUM—But the prosperity of Antwerp did not last quite a century.
Like all Flemish towns it suffered severely under the Spanish invasion,
and the persecutions of the notorious Alva. In 1567 it was ruinously
sacked, and its commerce was forced into new channels, and the disaster
was completed by the sacking of the town again in 1585. Antwerp’s ruin
was London’s gain. Even in 1567, at the time of the first sacking,
many Protestant Flemish merchants fled to England, where, as Sir
Thomas Gresham promised them, they found peace and welcome, and in
their turn gave a great impulse to English commercial prosperity.
Throughout Elizabeth’s reign, in fact, there was a continual influx of
Protestant refugees to our shores, and Elizabeth and her statesmen had
the sagacity to encourage these industrious and wealthy immigrants.
Besides aiding our manufactures, as we shall see later, they aided
our commerce. In 1588 there were 38 Flemish merchants established in
London, who subscribed £5000 towards the defence of England against the
Spanish Armada. The greatness of Antwerp was transferred to London, and
although Amsterdam also gained additional importance in Holland, London
now took the foremost position as the general mart of Europe, where
the new treasures of the two Americas were found side by side with the
products of Europe and the East.


§ 7. THE MERCHANTS AND SEA-CAPTAINS OF THE ELIZABETHAN AGE IN THE NEW
WORLD—It is thus of interest to note how the great Reformation conflict
between Roman Catholic and Protestant in Europe resulted in the
commercial {98} greatness of England. Interesting, also, is the story
of the expansion of commerce in the New World, owing to the attacks of
the great old sea-captains, Drake, Frobisher, and Raleigh, upon the
huge Catholic power of Spain. These attacks were perhaps not much more
than buccaneering exploits, but the leaders of them firmly believed
that they were doing a good service to the cause of Protestantism
and freedom by wounding Spain wherever they could. And possibly they
were right. Their wondrous voyages stimulated others, likewise, to
set out on far and venturesome expeditions. Men dreamt of a northern
passage to India, and although Willoughby’s expedition failed, one of
his ships under Richard Chancellor reached Archangel, and thus opened
up a direct trade with Russia; so that in 1554 a company was formed
specially for this trade. It was, too, in Elizabeth’s reign that the
merchants of Southampton entered upon the trade with the coast of
Guinea, and gained much wealth from its gold-dust and ivory. Sir John
Hawkins engaged in the slave-trade between Africa and the new fields
of labour in America. Bristol fishermen sailed across the dreaded
Atlantic to the cod-fisheries off Newfoundland, and at the close of
Elizabeth’s reign English ships began to rival the Portuguese in the
Polar whale-fisheries.

This reign witnessed also the rise of the great commercial Companies.
The company of Merchant Adventurers had indeed existed since Henry
VII.’s time, having been formed in imitation of the Hanseatic League.
The Russian Company of 1554 was formed upon the model of this earlier
company; and then came the foundation of the great East India Company.
It was due to the results of Drake’s far-famed voyage round the world,
which took three years, 1577–80. Shortly after {99} his return
it was proposed to found “a company for such as trade beyond the
equinoctial line,” but a long delay took place, and finally a company
was incorporated for the more definite object of trading with the East
Indies. The date of this famous incorporation was 1600, and in 1601
Captain Lancaster made the first regular trading voyage on its behalf.
To this modest beginning we owe our present Indian Empire.


§ 8. REMARKS ON THE SIGNS AND CAUSES OF THE EXPANSION OF TRADE—Now,
if we look at the broad features that mark the growth of sixteenth
century trade, we shall see that it was closely connected with
England’s decision to abide by the Protestant cause. It was that which
won her the friendship of the Flemish merchants; it was the religious
disturbances in Flanders that gained for London the commercial
supremacy of Europe; it was our quarrel with Roman Catholic Spain that
inspired the voyages of Drake and Hawkins, and thus caused others to
venture forth into new and perilous seas, over which in course of time
the English merchants sailed almost without a rival. And, as we have
shown, the signs of the expansion of England are seen in the fall of
the Hanse settlement in London, and the stoppage of the visits of the
Venetian fleet. On the other hand the rapid growth of the port of
Bristol in the west witnessed to fresh trade with the New World; and
the rise of Boston and Hull[32] on the east coast is significant as
showing the development of our Northern and Baltic trade, even to the
extent of rivalling the great Hanse towns. A great stimulus had arisen,
and England was now taking a leading position among the nations of the
world. It is now our business to survey it as it existed in the time of
Elizabeth.

  [32. They had always been important (cf. p. 64).]

{100}


CHAPTER III

ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND


§ 1. PROSPERITY AND PAUPERISM—The reign of Elizabeth is generally
regarded as prosperous, and so upon the whole it was. But she had come
to the throne with a legacy of pauperism from her father, Henry VIII.,
and from her father’s counsellors, who guided her weak brother, Edward
VI. Nor had Mary helped to alleviate it. Social discontent was at
Elizabeth’s accession prevalent, and it is to her credit as a sovereign
that at her death danger from that source had passed away. This was
partly due to the growth of wealth and industry throughout the kingdom,
to the great gains of our foreign trade, and to the rapid expansion of
our manufactures. But pauperism was now a permanent evil, and legal
measures had to be taken for its relief. One abiding cause of it was
the persistent enclosures which still went on, together with the new
developments in agriculture. Nevertheless, before the close of her
reign the bulk of the people became contented and comfortable, owing to
the prolonged peace which prevailed. The merchants and landed gentry
were rich; the farmers and master-manufacturers were prosperous; even
the artisans and labourers were not hopelessly poor, though to call
them well-off would be a misstatement. We may now see how the wealth of
the first two classes was produced.


§ 2. THE GROWTH OF MANUFACTURES—The economic transition before alluded
to (p. 55), by which England developed from a wool-exporting into
a wool-manufacturing country, had in Elizabeth’s reign almost been
completed. {101} The woollen manufacture had become an important
element in the national wealth. England no longer sent her wool to be
manufactured in Flanders, although a good deal of it was dyed there.
It was now worked up at home, and the manufacturing population was
not confined to the towns only, but spread all over the country; and
both spinning and weaving afforded direct employment for an increasing
number of workmen, while even in agricultural villages it was a
frequent bye-industry. The worsted trade, of which Norwich was still
the centre, spread over all the Eastern counties. The broad-cloths
of the West of England took the highest place among English woollen
stuffs. Even the North, which had lagged so far behind the South in
industrial development, ever since the harrying it underwent at the
hands of William the Norman, began now to show signs of activity and
new life. It had, in this period, developed special manufactures of its
own, and Manchester friezes, York coverlets, and Halifax cloth now held
their own amongst the other manufactures of the country.


§ 3. MONOPOLIES OF MANUFACTURING TOWNS—One important sign of the growth
of manufactures is seen in the fruitless attempts made in the sixteenth
century to confine a particular manufacture to a particular town. This
is a sure sign that the manufacture of that article was increasing
in country districts, and that competition was operating in a new
and unexpected way upon the older industries. An example of this may
be seen in the monopoly granted by Parliament in Henry VIII.’s reign
(1530) to Bridport in Dorsetshire, “for the making of cables, hawsers,
ropes, and all other tackling.” This monopoly was granted upon the
complaint made by the citizens of Bridport, that their town “was like
to be utterly {102} decayed,” owing to the competition of “the people
of the adjacent parts,” who were therefore by this monopoly forbidden
to make any sort of rope. The only result of this measure, however,
was to transfer the rope-making industry from Dorset to Yorkshire, and
Bridport was in a worse plight than before.

In the same reign (1534), the inhabitants of Worcester, Evesham,
Droitwich, Kidderminster, and Bromsgrove, then the only towns in
Worcestershire, complained that “divers persons _dwelling in the
hamlets, thorps, and villages_ of the county made all manner of
cloths, and exercised shearing, fulling, and weaving within their own
houses, to the great depopulation of the city and towns.” A monopoly
was granted to the towns, the only result of which was that they
became worse off than before, a great portion of the local industry
being transferred to Leeds. A little later (1544) the citizens of
York complain of the competition of “sundry evil-disposed persons
and apprentices,” who had “withdrawn themselves out of the city
into the country,” and competed with York in the manufacture of
coverlets and blanketings. York got a monopoly, but her manufactures
gained nothing thereby. Again, in 1552 Edward VI. enacted that the
manufacture of hats, coverlets, and diapers should be confined to
Norwich and the market towns of Norfolk. Elizabeth granted numerous
_trading_ monopolies[33] for the sale of special articles, but the
monopoly system was opposed to the new competitive spirit of the
age. In 1601 a great many of the most obnoxious were withdrawn, and
by that time few remained imposed upon the manufacture of goods. The
above illustrations, however, are interesting as showing the growth of
manufactures in all parts of the kingdom, and in rural districts (cf.
p. 65). {103} They are useful also as glaring instances of the folly
of protective enactments.

  [33. See note 11_a_, p. 246, on Monopolies.]


§ 4. OUR EXPORTS OF MANUFACTURES—Besides these monopolies we have ample
evidence of the growth of our cloth manufactures in the statements made
by Ludovico Guicciardini (1523–89), as to our exports to Antwerp. “It
is marvellous,” he says, “to think of the vast quantity of drapery sent
by the English into the Netherlands, being undoubtedly one year with
another above 200,000 pieces of all kinds, which, at the most moderate
rate of 25 crowns per piece, is 5,000,000 crowns, so that these and
other merchandise brought by the English to us, or carried from us
to them, may make the annual amount to more than 12,000,000 crowns,”
which is equivalent to some £2,400,000. One great cause of our progress
in manufactures was the immigration of persecuted Dutch and Flemish
Protestants, previously mentioned, which formed so important a feature
in the new growth of manufactures and agriculture in Elizabethan
England.


§ 5. THE FLEMISH IMMIGRATION IN THIS REIGN—This influx of foreign
manufacturers and workmen began to occur soon after Elizabeth’s
accession, when the death of Mary had relieved men from the fear of
Romish persecution. A numerous body of Flemings came over in 1561,
and starting from Deal, spread to Sandwich, Rye, and other parts of
Kent. Another body settled in Yarmouth, and over Norfolk generally.
In 1570 there were 4000 natives of the Netherlands in Norwich alone.
And after the sack of Antwerp in 1585, the immigration largely
increased. The new arrivals introduced or improved many manufactures,
such as those of cutlery, clock-making, hats, and pottery. But the
greatest improvements they made were in weaving and lace-making. They
greatly developed “every sort of workmanship in wool and flax.” {104}
The lace manufacture was introduced by refugees from Alençon and
Valenciennes into Cranfield (Beds), and from that town it extended
to Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, and Northamptonshire; while other
immigrants founded the manufacture of the well-known Honiton lace in
Devon. It is interesting thus to notice how much we owed to foreign
teachers in earlier times, for the reigns of Edward III., Elizabeth,
and later of Charles II. were all signalized by large influxes of
people from the Low Countries, bringing with them increased skill, and
often considerable capital.

An interesting testimony to the influence of these refugees is afforded
by Harrison in his _Description of England_ (in the time of Elizabeth).
He says about our wool: “In time past the use of this commodity
consisted for the most part in cloth and woolsteds; but now, _by means
of strangers succoured here from domestic persecution_, the same hath
been employed unto sundry other uses; as mockados, bays, vellures,
grograines, &c., whereby the makers have reaped no small commodity.”


§ 6. AGRICULTURE—The growth of our manufactures helped of course to
promote sheep farming, not only on the part of great land-owners,
but even of ordinary moderate farmers. Upon this point also Harrison
mentions an important fact: “And there is never an husbandman (for
now I speak not of our great sheep-masters, of whom some one man hath
20,000) but hath more or less of this cattle (sheep) feeding on his
fallows and short grounds, which yield the finer fleece.” Besides sheep
farming, however, which had long since risen into importance, our
agriculture had improved in several respects. Here foreign influence
is again visible. Already a change in the mode of cultivation had been
brought about, not so great as that which took place in {105} the two
succeeding centuries, but still quite perceptible. A larger capital
was brought to bear upon the land, the breed of horses and cattle was
improved, and more intelligent use was made of manure and dressings.
It was said that one acre under the new system produced as much as two
did under the old. In addition to these improvements, the coming of
the Flemings and Dutch introduced several new vegetables. The refugees
cultivated in their gardens, carrots, celery, and cabbages, which were
previously either unknown or very scarce in this country. The most
important service to agriculture, however, was the introduction of the
hop, which is said to have been brought to England by some Flemish,
as early as 1524, and later in the century, in Elizabeth’s reign, the
hop-gardens of Kent had already become famous, and have remained so
ever since. The introduction of hops of course led the way to a better
method of brewing beer, and from this time forward beer became a
national beverage.[34]

  [34. The malt liquor, of course, had been in general use at a
  much earlier period.]

§ 7. SOCIAL COMFORTS—All this increase of the national wealth, in
commerce, manufactures, and agriculture, produced important changes
in the mode of living. The standard of comfort became higher. Food
became more wholesome. As agriculture improved, and animals could be
kept through the winter with greater ease, salt meat and salt fish
no longer formed the staple food of the lower classes for half the
year. Brickmaking had been rediscovered about 1450; and by the time
of Elizabeth the wooden, or wattled houses (p. 19) had generally been
replaced, at least among all but the poorest class, with dwellings of
brick and stone. The introduction of chimneys and the lavish use of
glass also helped to {106} improve the people’s dwellings; and indeed
the houses of the rich merchants, or the lords of the manors, were now
quite luxuriously furnished. Carpets had superseded the old filthy
flooring of rushes; pillows and cushions were found in all decent
houses; and the quantity of carved woodwork of this period shows that
men cared for something more than mere utility in their surroundings.
The lavishness of new wealth was seen, too, in a certain love of
display, of colour, of “purple and fine linen,” which characterizes
the dress of the Elizabethan age. The old sober life and thought of
mediæval England had been entirely revolutionized by the sudden opening
of the almost fabulous glories of the New World, and men revelled
joyously in the new prospects of the wealth of the wondrous West. But
yet there were the seeds of pauperism in the land, and all the wealth
of the merchants and the adventurers of Elizabethan England did not
prevent the sure and inevitable Nemesis that followed upon the crimes
and follies of Elizabeth’s father.


§ 8. THE CONDITION OF THE LABOURERS—For it is impossible, in glancing
at the condition of labour in the days of Elizabeth, to forget the
disastrous economic changes wrought by the criminal follies of Henry
VIII. and his followers since the earlier days of the fifteenth
century. Compared with the fifteenth century, the poverty of the
wage-earners in Elizabeth’s reign was great indeed, though even then
not so bad as it subsequently became. But the whole of the next two
centuries show a steady deterioration in the lot of the English
labourer and artisan. Of course the condition of labour will be best
seen by taking examples of the wages then given. In Elizabeth’s reign,
then, we may reckon the yearly wages of an agricultural labourer at
about £8, 4_s._, and the cost of living, which now included house rent,
formerly {107} unknown, at £8, thus leaving a very narrow margin for
contingencies. Daily wages were (in 1564)—for artisans, 8_d._ a day in
winter and 9_d._ in summer; for labourers, 6_d._ in winter and 7_d._ in
summer, and in harvest-time occasionally 8_d._ or even 10_d._ This is
not very much more than the wages paid at the close of the fifteenth
century (viz. artisans 3_s._ a week, and labourers 2_s._), but the
price of food had risen almost to three times the old average.


§ 9. ASSESSMENT OF WAGES BY JUSTICES. THE FIRST POOR LAW—Wages in
husbandry and in handicrafts were now fixed, under the statute 5
Elizabeth, cap. 4 (1563),[35] by the justices in quarter sessions, and
of course these employers of labour would hardly fix an unnecessarily
high rate of wages; and, what is more, wages did actually conform to
their assessments in spite of the continual rise in the price of the
necessaries of life. It is not surprising that under these conditions
the problem of pauperism in England speedily took a very pronounced
form. Even in 1541, under Henry VIII., it was found that some system
of relief was necessary; but a system of voluntary contributions was
for a time sufficient to meet the difficulty. But in Edward VI.’s reign
pauperism began to increase alarmingly, though now we see that it was
only natural; and finally Elizabeth found it necessary to institute
a regular system of poor-law relief. In 1601, therefore, by Act 43
Elizabeth, cap. 3, it was legally enacted that all property should be
duly assessed by regular assessors, in order that rates might be levied
for the relief of pauperism. After a few renewals this law was made
permanent in Charles I.’s reign (1641), and continued legally in force
till 1812; and its general principles lasted till 1835. The effect
of this poor law {108} was to keep the wages of labour at the very
lowest possible level, for now the employers (chiefly, at that time,
the land-owners) knew that if a labourer’s wages could not maintain
him, he would have to be relieved from the rates. In other words, part
of the labourers’ wages would be, and was, paid by the general public,
and thus expense would be saved to individual employers. This state of
things did not, perhaps, ensue immediately upon the passing of this
law, but became more common later. The results of the system were seen
more clearly in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, to which we
shall subsequently refer.[36]

  [35. Commonly known as the _Act of Apprenticeship_ (cf. note
  12, p. 247).]

  [36. See note 12, p 247, on _Intention of Act_.]


§ 10. POPULATION—The marked improvement in agriculture and the increase
of wealth brought with them, at the close of the sixteenth century,
an equally marked increase of population. We saw that at the time
of Domesday the population of England was under two millions. When
the poll-tax of 1377 was levied, in the last year of Edward III.’s
reign, it had not much increased, being at most not more than two and
a quarter millions, according to careful calculations based upon the
returns of this tax. But by the end of Elizabeth’s reign it had rapidly
risen to some 5,000,000 souls, at which figure it remained for some
hundred and fifty years longer. The bulk of the population was still in
the southern half of the country, although the north was now becoming
more prosperous, owing to the extension of manufactures. It will be
seen that England was by no means overcrowded, and yet people were
found who complained of the increase of population. William Harrison in
his _Description of England_ (written between 1577–87) remarks: “Some
also do grudge at the great increase of people in these days, thinking
a necessary brood of cattle far better than {109} a superfluous
augmentation of mankind. But,” he adds severely, “I can liken such men
best unto the Pope or the Devil,” and adds that in case of invasion
they will find “that a wall of men is far better than stacks of corn
and bags of money.” Even without the fear of invasion before our eyes,
it is well for us to-day not to forget this latter sentence in the
modern international race for wealth.


CHAPTER IV

PROGRESS OF AGRICULTURE IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES


§ 1. RÉSUMÉ OF PROGRESS SINCE THIRTEENTH CENTURY—It will be remembered
that great agricultural changes had taken place since Henry III.’s
reign. For a century or so after his death (1272) the land-owner was
also a cultivator, living upon his land and owning a large amount of
capital in the form of stock, which he let out under the stock and
land lease system. But after the Great Plague (1348) this method of
cultivation by capitalist land-owners ceased, except in the one case of
sheep farming; the land-owner became generally a mere rent receiver;
and agriculture consequently suffered. Marling, for instance, fell into
disuse, and the breed of sheep, it is said, deteriorated somewhat. The
great feature of the change was the transformation of large tracts
of arable land into pasture for sheep, and the growth of enclosures
for the sake of the same animal. The landlords rapidly proceeded
to raise their rents, till, in the sixteenth century, extortionate
renting became so common that Bishop Latimer, and Fitzherbert, the
{110} author of a useful work on surveying, complained about it both
in sermons and other writings. Hence English agriculture did not
materially improve between the days of Henry III. and of Elizabeth.
But in this queen’s reign, as we saw, several improvements were made
under the influence of foreign refugees. For the inhabitants of the
Low Countries and Holland have been our pioneers not only in commerce
and finance, but in agriculture also. It was now these people who
introduced into England the cultivation of artificial grasses and
of winter roots, the want of which, it will be remembered, greatly
embarrassed the English farmer in the mediæval winter. The introduction
of hops also was of great importance.


§ 2. PROGRESS IN JAMES I.’S REIGN. INFLUENCE OF LANDLORDS—Of course the
greatest industrial progress of this period was made in the direction
of foreign trade, and in James’s reign progress in agriculture was slow
as compared with that in commerce, but it was substantial—substantial
enough, at any rate, for the landlords to exact an increased
competitive rent, as we know from Norden’s work, _The Surveyor’s
Dialogue_ (1607). It was even complained that the actions of the
landlords tended to discourage progress, for when a tenant wished to
renew a lease he was threatened with dispossession if he did not pay an
increased rent for the very improvements he had made himself. However,
from the facts given by Norden, and also by another writer—Markham,
the author of _The English Husbandman_ (1613)—it is evident that there
was considerable improvement, development, and variety now shown
in English agriculture. The special characteristic feature of the
seventeenth century is the utilization of the fallow for roots, though
these had been known in gardens in the previous century. Land was
still largely cultivated in common fields, and was, of course, {111}
much subdivided. The most fertile land was to be found in Huntingdon,
Bedford, and Cambridge shires, the next best being in Northampton,
Kent, Essex, Berkshire, and Hertfordshire.


§ 3. WRITERS ON AGRICULTURE. IMPROVEMENTS. GAME—Oxen were still
preferred to horses; but a noticeable improvement is the attention
now paid to the various kinds of manures, on which subject Markham
was the first to write specially. The fact that agriculture was now
made the topic of various treatises proves that important development
was taking place. Besides the works already mentioned, we have
the _Systema Agriculturæ_ by Worridge, a farmer of Hampshire, the
second edition of which appeared in 1675. He is a strong advocate
of enclosures, as against the old common field system, on the plea
that the former is more conducive to high farming; but he also is in
favour of small enclosed farms. Though at first local and somewhat
spasmodic, and hindered by the landlord’s power of appropriating the
results of increased skill on the part of the tenant, under the head
of “indestructible powers of the soil,” yet the progress made was
sufficient to double the population of England. A curious fact in the
agriculture of the seventeenth century may be here mentioned; I mean
the existence of a very large amount of waste land, and the use made
of it for purposes of breeding game. At that time it is evident that
killing game was not the exclusive right of the land-owners, but was a
common privilege. Large quantities of game were sold, and at a cheap
price, and “fowling” must evidently have been an important item in the
farmer’s means of livelihood.


§ 4. DRAINAGE OF THE FENS—A most important feature in the development
of agriculture in the Eastern counties was the drainage of the
fens—_i.e._ all that large district {112} which extends inward
from the Wash into the counties of Lincoln, Cambridge, Northampton,
Huntingdon, Norfolk and Suffolk. This district had been reclaimed by
the Romans, and had been then a fertile country. But in the time of the
Domesday Book it was once again a mere marsh, owing to incursions of
the sea, which the English at that time had not the ability to prevent.
Although even in 1436, and subsequently, partial attempts had been made
to reclaim this vast area, the first effectual effort was begun only
in 1634, by the Earl of Bedford, who got 95,000 acres of the reclaimed
land as a reward for his undertaking. The contract was fulfilled in
1649, and a corporation was formed to manage the “Bedford level,” as
it was now called, in 1688. The reclaiming of so much land naturally
increased the prosperity of the counties in which it stood, and their
agriculture flourished considerably in consequence, Bedfordshire for
instance being now the most exclusively agricultural county in the
kingdom.


§ 5. RISE OF PRICE OF CORN, AND OF RENT—The price of corn, meanwhile,
was now steadily rising. From 1401 to 1540—_i.e._ before the rise
in prices and the debasement of the coinages—the average price had
been six shillings per quarter; after prices had recovered from their
inflation and settled down to a general average once more, taking the
price from 1603 to 1702, corn was forty-one shillings per quarter. The
average produce had apparently declined since the fifteenth and before
the improvements of the seventeenth century. In the former period it
was about twelve bushels per acre, and in the fourteenth century eleven
bushels; but Gregory King, writing in the seventeenth century, only
gives ten bushels as the average of his time. His estimate, however, is
doubted. At the same time, rent had risen from the sixpence per acre of
the fifteenth century to four shillings, according {113} to Professor
Rogers, or even 5_s._ 6_d._ according to King, who says the gains of
the farmer of his time are very small, and that rents were more than
doubled between 1600 and 1699. We will reserve the topic of the rise
of rent, however, for a separate section, and keep to the agricultural
developments of the period.


§ 6. SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. POPULARITY OF
AGRICULTURE—As the use of winter roots had been the special feature
of the seventeenth century, so the feature of the eighteenth was the
extension of artificial pasture and the increased use of clover,
sainfoin, and rye-grass; not, of course, that these had been hitherto
unknown, but now their seeds are regularly bought and used by any
farmer who knew his business. At first, like all other processes of
agriculture, the development was very slow and gradual, but it went
on steadily nevertheless. A great stimulus to progress was given
by the fact that the English gentlemen of the eighteenth century
developed quite a passion for agriculture as a hobby, and it became
a fashionable pursuit for all people of any means, citizens and
professional men joining in it as a kind of bye-industry, as well as
farmers and land-owners who made it their business. Arthur Young, the
great agricultural writer of this century, declares that “the farming
tribe is now made up of all classes, from a duke to an apprentice.”
But two important mistakes were made in the eighteenth century, and
they have not ceased to exist in the nineteenth, causing very largely
the distress under which English agriculture has for some time been
labouring. They are the mistakes of occupying too much land with
insufficient capital, and of not keeping regular and detailed accounts.
Still, between 1720 and 1760, progress was very rapid, and noble
land-owners made great efforts to improve their estates, in {114}
order thereby to raise their rents and increase their profits, in
the hope of outdoing the great merchant princes who had now appeared
upon the scene. They thus became in a way the pioneers of agricultural
progress, the principal result of their efforts being seen in the
increased number and quality of the stock now kept on farms.


§ 7. IMPROVEMENTS OF CATTLE, AND IN THE PRODUCTIVENESS OF LAND.
STATISTICS—The extended cultivation of winter roots, clover, and other
grasses, naturally made it far easier for the farmer to feed his
animals in the winter; and the improvement in stock followed closely
upon the improvement in fodder. The abundance of stock, too, had again
a beneficial result in the increased qualities of manure produced, and
the utilization of this fertilizer was scientifically developed. The
useful, though costly, process of marling was again revived, and was
advocated by Arthur Young; soils were also treated with clay, chalk, or
lime. So great was the improvement thus made, that the productiveness
of land in the eighteenth century rose to four times that of the
thirteenth century, when five bushels or eight bushels of corn per acre
was the average. Stock, also, was similarly improved; an eighteenth
century fatted ox often weighed 1200 lbs., while hitherto, from the
fourteenth to the end of the seventeenth century, the weight had not
been usually much above 400 lbs. The weight of the fleece of sheep had
also increased quite four times. Population being even then small, a
considerable quantity of corn was exported, the British farmer being
also protected from foreign competition by the corn laws (made in
Charles II.’s reign, 1661 and 1664), forbidding importation of corn,
except when it rose to famine prices. Young estimated the acreage of
the country at 32,000,000 acres (King put it {115} at 22,000,000 in
the seventeenth century); its value (at thirty-three and one-half
years’ purchase) was, says Young, £536,000,000. The value of stock he
places at nearly £110,000,000, and estimates the wheat and rye crop at
over 9,000,000 quarters per annum, barley at 11,500,000 quarters, and
oats at 10,250,000 quarters. The rent of land had risen to nearly ten
shillings an acre.


§ 8. WRONG DONE TO SMALL LAND-OWNERS BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS—The
development and success of English agriculture, from 1700 to 1765
or 1770, was thus remarkable and extensive; but it was not effected
without considerable economic changes and great and unnecessary
suffering among two important classes of the population—the yeomen
or small freeholders, and the agricultural labourers. The decay of
the yeomanry, indeed, forms a sad interlude in the growing prosperity
of the country. The position of many small land-owners had been
greatly and disastrously affected by the Statute of Frauds, passed
in the time of Charles II. By this extraordinary and high-handed Act
it was decreed that after July 24th, 1677, all interests in land
whatsoever, if created by any other process except by deed, should be
treated as tenancies at will only, any law or usage to the contrary
notwithstanding. The intention, apparently, of those who passed
this law—an intention which resulted successfully—was to extinguish
all those numerous small freeholders who had no written evidence to
prove that they held their lands, as they had done for centuries,
on condition of paying a small fixed and customary rent. This Act
certainly succeeded in dispossessing many of the class at which it
was aimed; but there were yet a certain number against whom it was
inoperative; hence, at the end of the seventeenth century, twenty
years or so {116} after this Act, Gregory King is able to estimate
that there were 180,000 freeholders in England, including, of course,
the larger owners. But by the time of Arthur Young these also had
disappeared, or at least were rapidly disappearing, and he sincerely
regrets “to see their lands now in the hands of monopolizing lords.”


§ 9. CAUSES OF THE DECAY OF THE YEOMANRY—The cause was partly political
and partly social. After the revolution of 1688, the landed gentry
became politically and socially supreme, and any successful merchant
prince—and these were not few—who wished to gain a footing sought, in
the first place, to imitate them by becoming a great land-owner; hence
it became quite a policy to buy out the smaller farmers, and they were
often practically compelled to sell their holdings. At the same time,
the custom of primogeniture and strict settlements prevented land
from being much subdivided, so that small or divided estates never
came into the market for the smaller freeholders to buy. It is also
certain that this result was accelerated by the fact that small farms
no longer paid under the old system of agriculture, and the new system
involved an outlay that the yeoman could not afford. Farming on a large
scale became more necessary, and this again assisted in extinguishing
the smaller men, for large enclosures were made by the landed gentry
in spite of feeble opposition from the yeomen, who, however, could
rarely afford to pay the law costs necessary to put a stop to the
encroachments of their greater neighbours. Thus the yeomen lost their
rights in the common lands, and at the same time the new agriculture
involved a breaking up of the old common field system, which could not
possibly hold its own against the modern improvements.


§ 10. GREAT INCREASE OF ENCLOSURES—The abolition of {117} the old
system was necessary, but the manner in which it was carried out was
disastrous. The enclosures of the landed gentry were often carried
on with little regard to the interests of the smaller tenants and
freeholders, who, in fact, suffered greatly; and in this present
age English agriculture is, in a large measure, still feeling the
subsequent effects of the change, while many people are advocating
a partial return to small holdings, cultivated, however, with the
improved experience given by modern agricultural progress. Apparently,
this was not the first occasion on which the land-owners had made
enclosures and encroached upon the common lands of their poorer
neighbours, and not merely upon the waste; but the rapidity and
boldness of the enclosing operations in the eighteenth century far
surpassed anything in previous times. Between 1710 and 1760, for
instance, 334,974 acres were enclosed; and between 1760 and 1843 the
number rose to 7,000,000.


§ 11. BENEFITS OF ENCLOSURES AS COMPARED WITH THE OLD COMMON FIELDS—The
benefits of the enclosure system were, however, unmistakable, for the
cultivation of common fields under the old system was, as Arthur Young
assures us, miserably poor. The arable land of each village under
this system was still divided into three great strips, subdivided by
“baulks” three yards wide. Every farmer would own one piece of land
in each strip—probably more—and all alike were bound to follow the
customary tillage; this was to leave one strip fallow every year,
while on one of the other two wheat was always grown, the third being
occupied by barley or oats, pease, or tares. The meadows, also, were
still held in common, every man having his own plot up to hay harvest,
after which the fences were thrown down, and all householders’ cattle
were allowed to graze on it freely, {118} while for the next crop the
plots were redistributed. Every farmer also had the right of pasture
on the waste. This system produced results miserably inferior to those
gained on enclosed lands, the crop of wheat in one instance being,
according to Young, only seventeen or eighteen bushels per acre, as
against twenty-six bushels on enclosures. Similarly, the fleece of
sheep pastured on common fields weighed only 3⁠½ lbs., as compared
with 9 lbs. on enclosures. It is noticeable, too, that Kent, where much
land had for a long time been enclosed and cultivated, was reckoned in
Young’s time the best cultivated and most fertile county in England.
Norfolk, also, was pre-eminent for good husbandry, in its excellent
rotation of crops and culture of clover, rye-grass, and winter roots,
due, said Young, in 1770, “to the division of the county chiefly into
large farms,” and, it must be added, to unscrupulous enclosure.


§ 12. THE RISE IN RENT—The farmer himself, however, was heavily taxed
for his land, and though the high prices he got for his corn up to the
repeal of the corn laws enabled him to pay it, his rent was certainly
at a very high figure. The rise had begun after the dissolution of the
monasteries in the sixteenth century, though in that period the rise
was slow. But Latimer asserts that his father only paid £3 or £4 for a
holding which in the next generation was rented at £16, the increased
figure being only partially accounted for by the general rise in
prices. In the seventeenth century, according to King, rents were more
than doubled, and the sixpence per acre of mediæval times must have
seemed almost mythical. The Belvoir estate, the property of the Dukes
of Rutland, who are spoken of as indulgent landlords, forms a good
example of the rise of rent in the two following centuries. In 1692
land is found rented at 3_s._ 9⁠¼_d._ an acre, and a little {119}
later at 4_s._ 1⁠½_d._ By the year 1799 the same land had risen to
19_s._ 3⁠¾_d._, with a further rise in 1812 to 25_s._ 8⁠¾_d._
In 1830 it was at 25_s._ 1⁠¾_d._, but in 1850 had risen to 38_s._
8_d._, that is about ten times the seventeenth century rent. This
enormous rise was not by any means due solely to increase of skill in
agricultural industry, but was largely derived from increased economy
in production, or, in other words, from the oppression and degradation
of the agricultural labourer.


§ 13. THE FALL IN WAGES—This degradation was brought about by the
system of assessment[37] of wages which we noticed in Elizabeth’s
reign, a system by which the labourer was forced by law to accept
the wages which the justices (generally the landed proprietors,
his employers) arranged to give him. It is not the business of an
historian to make charges against a class, but to put facts in their
due perspective. Therefore without comment upon the action of the
justices in this matter I shall merely refer to one or two of these
assessments and show their effect upon the condition of labour,
especially of agricultural labour, which occupied more than one-third
of the working classes. Speaking generally, we may quote Professor
Rogers’ remark, that “if we suppose the ordinary labourer to get 3_s._
6_d._ a week throughout the year, by adding his harvest allowance to
his winter wages, it would have taken him more than forty weeks to earn
the provisions which in 1495 he could have got with fifteen weeks’
labour, while the artisan would be obliged to have given thirty-two
weeks’ work for the same result.” To give details, we may first quote,
as an example, the Rutland magistrates’ assessment, in April 1610. The
wages of an ordinary agricultural labourer {120} are put at 7_d._ a
day from Easter to Michaelmas, and at 6_d._ from Michaelmas to Easter.
Artisans get 10_d._ or 9_d._ in summer, and 8_d._ in winter. Now, the
price of food was 75 per cent. dearer than in 1564, while the rate of
wages are about the same; and compared with (say) 1495, food was three,
or even four, times dearer. Another assessment, in Essex in 1661,
allows 1_s._ a day in winter, and 1_s._ 2_d._ in summer, for ordinary
labour. But, in 1661, the price of wheat (70_s._ 6_d._ a quarter) was
just double the price of 1610 (35_s._ 2⁠½_d._). The labourer was
worse off than ever. Another typical assessment is that of Warwick,
in 1684, when wages of labourers are fixed at 8_d._ a day in summer,
7_d._ in winter; of artisans at 1_s._ a day. At this period Professor
Rogers reckons the yearly earnings of an artisan at £15, 13_s._; of a
farm labourer at £10, 8_s._ 8_d._, exclusive of harvest work; while the
cost of a year’s stock of provisions was £14, 11_s._ 6_d._ It is true
that at this period the labourer still possessed certain advantages,
such as common rights, which, besides providing fuel, enabled them to
keep cows and pigs and poultry on the waste. Their cottages, too, were
often rent free, being built upon the waste, while each cottage, by
the Act of Elizabeth, was supposed to have a piece of land attached to
it, though this provision was frequently evaded. But yet it is evident
that, even allowing for these privileges, which, after all, were now
being rapidly curtailed, the ordinary agricultural labourer—that is,
the mass of the wage-earning population—must have found it hard work to
live decently. By the beginning of the eighteenth century his condition
had sunk to one of great poverty. The ordinary peasant, in 1725, for
instance, would not earn more than £13 or about £15 a year; artisans
could not gain more than £15, 13_s._; while the cost of the stock of
provisions was £16, 2_s._ 3_d._ Thus {121} the husbandman who, in
1495, could get a similar stock of food by fifteen weeks’ work, and the
artisan who could have earned it in ten weeks, could not feed himself
in 1725 with a whole year’s labour. His wages had to be supplemented
out of the rates; and there was but little alteration in these rates
till the middle of the eighteenth century. But about that time (1750)
he had begun to share in the general prosperity caused by the success
of the new agriculture and the growth of trade and manufactures.
The evil, however, had been done, and although a short period of
prosperity, chiefly due to the advance made by the new agriculture,
cheered the labourer for a time, his condition after the Industrial
Revolution again rapidly deteriorated, till we find him at the end of
the eighteenth century and for some time afterwards in a condition of
chronic misery.

  [37. As to the alleged futility of these assessments see
  _Industry in England_, p. 257.]


CHAPTER V

COMMERCE AND WAR IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES


§ 1. ENGLAND A COMMERCIAL POWER—In glancing over the progress of
foreign trade in the time of Elizabeth, we noticed that our war with
Spain was due to commercial as well as religious causes. The opening
up of the New World made a struggle for power in the West almost
inevitable among European nations; the new route to India _viâ_ the
Cape of Good Hope, discovered by Vasco da Gama, made another struggle
for commercial supremacy as inevitable in the far East. In the reign
of Henry VIII. we find, from one of his Statutes, that Malaga had
been {122} the farthest port to which at this time English seamen
yet ventured. For a century or more after the discoveries of Columbus
and da Gama, Spain and Portugal, and a little later on Holland, had
practically a monopoly both of the Eastern and Western trade. But now a
change had come. The Englishmen of the Elizabethan age cast off their
fear of Spain, entered into rivalry with Holland, and finally made
England the supreme commercial power of the modern world. The history
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is a continuous record of
their struggles to attain this object.


§ 2. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE STRUGGLE WITH SPAIN—In the last quarter of
the sixteenth century Elizabeth had entered (1579) into an alliance,
offensive and defensive, with Holland against Spain. The motive of the
alliance was partly religious, but the shrewdness of the queen and
her statesmen no doubt foresaw more than spiritual advantages to be
gained thereby. After the alliance, Drake and the other great naval
captains of that day began a system of buccaneering annoyances to
Spanish commerce. The Spanish and Portuguese trade and factories in
the East were considered the lawful prizes of the English and their
allies the Dutch. The latter, as all know, were more successful at
first than we were, and soon established an Oriental Empire in the
Indian Archipelago. But at the very end of her reign England had
prospered sufficiently for Elizabeth to grant charters to the Levant
Company, and its far greater companion the East India Company. Then,
when a fresh war with Spain was imminent, England wisely began to plant
colonies in North America, at the suggestion of Sir Walter Raleigh; and
after one or two other abortive attempts, Virginia was successfully
founded by the London Company in 1609, and became a Crown colony in
1624. {123} After this, as every one knows, colonies grew rapidly on
the strip of coast between the Alleghany Mountains and the Atlantic.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world the East India Company was
slowly gaining ground, and founding English agencies or “factories,”
that of Surat (in 1612) being the most important. As yet we had not
come into open conflict with Spain or Portugal; and indeed we owed the
possession of Bombay to the marriage of Charles II. with Katherine of
Braganza (1661). Then the company gained from Charles II. the important
privilege of making peace or war on their own account. It had a good
many foes to contend with, both among natives and European nations,
among whom the French were as powerful as the Portuguese.


§ 3. CROMWELL’S COMMERCIAL WARS—The monopoly of Spain was first really
attacked by Cromwell. James I. had been too timid to declare war,
and Charles I. was too much in danger himself to think of trusting
his subjects to support him if he did so. But Cromwell was supported
both by the religious views of the Puritans and the desires of the
merchants when he declared war against England’s great foe. He demanded
trade with the Spanish colonies, and religious freedom for English
settlers in such colonies. Of course his demands were refused, as
he well knew that they would be. Whereupon he seized Jamaica (1655)
and intended to secure Cuba; and at any rate succeeded in giving the
English a secure footing in the West Indies. He seized Dunkirk also
from Spain (then at war with France), with a view to securing England a
monopoly of the Channel to the exclusion of our old friends the Dutch.
Dunkirk, however, was a useless acquisition, and was sold again by
Charles II. Not content with victory in the West, Cromwell with the
full consent of mercantile England declared war against the Dutch,
who were now {124} more our rivals than our friends. It would have
been perfectly possible for the English and the Dutch to have remained
upon good terms; but the great idea of the statesmen and merchants of
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was to gain a sole market
and a monopoly of trade, and so the Dutch had to be crushed. It was a
mistake, but mistakes have frequently been made, owing to a lack of
that indispensable concomitant of statesmanship, accurate economic
knowledge. Cromwell succeeded in his object. He defeated the Dutch and
broke their prestige in the two years’ war of 1652–54, and designed to
ruin their trade by the Navigation Acts of 1651 (p. 130). The contest
between the Dutch and English for the mastery of the seas was already
practically decided, and the capture of New Amsterdam (New York as we
called it afterwards) in 1664, and the subsequent wars of Charles II.’s
reign, completed the discomfiture of Holland.


§ 4. THE WARS OF WILLIAM III. AND OF ANNE—The continental wars in which
England was engaged after the deposition of James II. were rendered
necessary to some extent by the tremendous power of France under
Louis XIV. William III. saw it was inevitable for the interest of
England that Louis XIV. should be checked, and the war of the Spanish
Succession (1702–13) was carried on with the object of preventing that
king from joining the resources of Spain to those of his own kingdom.
For had he done so two disastrous results would have happened. The
Stuarts would by his help have been restored to the English throne,
and the struggle against absolute monarchy and religious tyranny would
unfortunately have been fought over again. Secondly, the growth of
English commerce would have been checked if not utterly annihilated.
As it was we were preserved from the {125} Stuarts; and when the war
was finally over in 1713, found ourselves in possession of Gibraltar,
now one of the keys of our Indian Empire, and of the Hudson’s Bay
Territory, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia (then called Acadia)—the
foundations of our present Canadian dominion. England was also allowed
by Spain to trade—in negroes—with Spanish colonies, and to send one
ship a year to the South Seas. The war, as far as we were concerned,
was a commercial success, though we had to pay rather heavily for it,
and were involved in further difficulties in America thereby.


§ 5. EXPANSION OF ENGLISH TRADE AFTER THESE WARS[38]—Even during the
above wars English trade had been spreading. English merchants now
did business in the Mediterranean with Turkey and Italy, in the North
with Holland, Germany, Russia and Norway, in the East with India,
Arabia and Africa, in the West with America and the Spanish colonies.
Many companies were started, too numerous to mention here, for those
who had hoarded their money during the war were now anxious to make
profitable use of it. Of these new companies the most famous was the
South Sea Company, formed in 1711 to trade with South America. The
directors anticipated enormous profits, and offered to advance the
Government £7,500,000 to pay off part of the National Debt. Everyone
knows the story of their collapse (1721), and the ruin it brought
upon thousands of worthy but credulous shareholders. It was a time
when all the accumulated capital of the country seemed to run riot in
hopes of gaining profits. Hundreds of smaller companies were started
every day, and an unhealthy excitement prevailed. One company, with a
capital of £3,000,000, was {126} started “for insuring to all masters
and mistresses the losses they may sustain by servants”; another “for
making salt-water fresh”; a third for “planting mulberry trees and
breeding silk-worms in Chelsea Park.” One in particular was designed
for importing “a number of large jackasses from Spain in order to
propagate a larger kind of mule in England,” as if, remarks a later
writer with some severity, there were not already jackasses enough in
London alone.

  [38. See note 16, p. 249, on Union with Scotland, Darien
  Scheme and Methuen Treaty.]

All this mania for investing capital, however, shows how prosperous
England had now become, and how great a quantity of wealth had been
accumulated, partly by trade, but also by the growth of manufactures
and improvements in agriculture. Englishmen now felt strong enough to
have another struggle for the monopoly of trade, with the result that
fresh wars were undertaken, and the country was heavily burdened with
debt. But the wars were on the whole a success, though the wish for a
monopoly was a mistake.


§ 6. FURTHER WARS WITH FRANCE AND SPAIN—All the wars in which England
now engaged had some commercial object in view. People had yet to learn
that the best way to extend a nation’s trade is to promote general
peace. In default of that, however, it seemed well to provoke a general
war. Mistaken as England’s policy was, it was no more so than that of
her neighbours, for all believed, as many do still, in the sole market
theory. Moreover, England was provoked into war by the secret “Family
Compact” between the related rulers of France and Spain, by which
Philip V. of Spain agreed to take away the South American trade from
England, and give it to his nephew, Louis XV. of France. The result
was a system of annoyance to English vessels trading in the South
Seas, culminating in the mutilation of an English {127} captain, one
Jenkins, and war was declared openly in 1739. This war merged into the
war of the Austrian Succession, which lasted for eight years (1740–48),
a matter with which England was in no way concerned, but which afforded
a good excuse to renew the struggle against the commercial growth of
France as well as Spain. We gained nothing by it except the final
annihilation of the hopes of the Stuarts, and a small increase of
British power upon the high seas.

After a few years, however, we entered upon another war, the Seven
Years’ War (1756–63), in which England and Prussia fought side by side
against the rest of Europe, and attacked France in particular in all
parts of the world. The war was largely caused by the quarrels of the
French and English colonists in America, and of rival traders in India.
We cannot here go into the details of it. It is sufficient to say that,
after a bad beginning, we won various victories by sea and land, and at
the close (1763) found ourselves in possession of Canada, Florida, and
all the French possessions east of the Mississippi except New Orleans,
and had gained the upper hand in India. We held almost undisputed sway
over the seas, and our trade grew by leaps and bounds. Unfortunately
we afterwards engaged in other wars of a less necessary character, and
wasted a great deal of our wealth before the end of the century. But
the short peace which ensued after 1763 gave us an opportunity which we
did not neglect of increasing our national industries, and practically
gave us the great start in manufactures to which we owe our present
wealth. In this war, too, we gained our Indian Empire and Canada, to
which we must devote a few short remarks.


§ 7. THE STRUGGLE FOR INDIA—Since the founding of Surat and the
acquisition of Bombay, the East India {128} Company had also founded
two forts or stations, which have since become most important cities,
namely, Fort St George in 1640 (now Madras), and Fort William in 1698
(now Calcutta). They had become powerful, and each of the three chief
stations had a governor and a small army. The French, however, had
also an East India Company, whose chief station was Pondicherry, south
of Madras; and the two companies were by no means on friendly terms.
When their respective nations were at war in 1746–48, they too had
some sharp fighting, but it was only when Dupleix, the French Governor
of Pondicherry, had gained almost absolute power over Southern India
after the death of the Great Mogul and the Nizam of the Dekkan in 1748,
that matters became serious. The English traders feared with justice
the loss both of their lives and commerce, and open war broke out.
The magnificent exertions of Clive and Lawrence defeated the French,
and finally Dupleix was recalled in 1754 and quiet was restored. But
two years afterwards the Seven Years’ War broke out, and India was
disturbed again. Suraj-ud-Daula, the ally of the French, took Calcutta
and committed the Black Hole atrocity (1757), and he and his allies did
their best to drive the English out of Bengal. This province, however,
was saved by Clive at the battle of Plassey; Coote defeated the French
at Wondiwash (1760); and Pondicherry was captured by the English in
1761. Finally in 1765 the East India Company became the collector of
the revenues for Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, and thus the English power
was acknowledged and consolidated. Our future struggles in India were
not with the French but with native princes.


§ 8. THE CONQUEST OF CANADA—There was, however, a great struggle
for commercial supremacy to be waged against the French in America.
It began in 1754. The {129} English had now thirteen flourishing
colonies between the Alleghany Mountains and the sea. Behind them,
above them, and below them, all was claimed by France as French
territory. It was inevitable that the growth of our colonies should
lead to war, and such was the case. The French began by driving out
English settlers from land west of the Alleghany Mountains; the
English retorted by driving French settlers out of Nova Scotia, and
tried to make a colony in the Ohio valley. In this latter object they
were foiled by Duquesne, the French Governor of Canada, who built
Fort Duquesne there in 1754. Shortly afterwards, the next Governor,
Montcalm, conceived the idea of linking together Forts Duquesne,
Niagara, and Ticonderoga by lesser forts, so as to keep the English in
their narrow strip of eastern coast-line. Then the English Government
at home took up the matter, and sent out General Braddock and 2000
men to help the colonists. Braddock was defeated and killed (1755),
but when the Seven Years’ War broke out in the next year, Pitt sent
ammunition, men, and money to help the colonists to attack Quebec
and Montreal. The war was renewed in Canada with fresh vigour; Fort
Duquesne was captured in 1758, Quebec in 1759, and Montreal in 1760;
and when peace was made in Europe in 1763, England had gained all the
French possessions in America, and her colonies were enabled to extend
as far as they desired. We foolishly lost them by a mistaken policy a
few years afterwards.

  [Illustration: INDIA IN THE TIME OF CLIVE SHOWING ENGLISH FACTORIES
  AND DISTRICTS UNDER OUR INFLUENCE.]


§ 9. SURVEY OF COMMERCIAL PROGRESS DURING THESE WARS—The reign of James
I. was noticeable for the rapid growth of the foreign trade which had
developed from the somewhat piratical excursions of the Elizabethan
sailors. Trading companies were formed in considerable numbers, and
among them the Levant Company may be noticed, {130} as having made
“great gains” in the East in 1605. The mercantile class was now growing
both numerous and powerful, and a proof of their advance in social
position and influence is furnished by the new title of nobility,
that of baronet, conferred by James I. upon such merchant princes as
were able and willing to pay the needy king a good round sum for the
honour.[39] It is interesting, by the way, to notice the figures of
trade in his reign. In 1613 the exports and imports both together were
about £4,628,586 in value, and a sign of a quickly developing Eastern
trade is also seen in the fact that James made attempts to check the
increasing export of silver from the kingdom. At this time English
merchants traded with most of the Mediterranean ports, with Portugal,
Spain, France, Hamburg, and the Baltic coasts. Ships from the north
and west of Europe used in return to visit the Newcastle collieries,
which were rapidly growing in value. The English ships were also very
active in the new cod fisheries of Newfoundland, and the Greenland
whale fisheries. Commerce was further aided by the Navigation Acts of
1651, which provided that no merchandise of Asia, Africa, or America
should be imported in any but English ships. Previously, the carrying
trade had been in the hands of the Dutch, but Holland had now entered
upon the period of its decline, and the short war with England which
followed these Acts contributed to hasten it. The development of
English trade is signalized in this century by the appearance of
numerous books and essays on commercial questions, of which the works
of Mun, Malynes, Misselden, Roberts, Sir Josiah Child, Worth, and
Davenant may be mentioned as among the most important. The increase
in the wealth of the country is shown by the rapid rebuilding of
London after the Great {131} Fire, when the loss was estimated at
£12,000,000; and Sir Josiah Child, writing in 1670, speaks of the great
development of the commerce and trade of England in the previous twenty
years. We know from Gregory King that rents had been doubled in this
period, and that is always a sure sign of prosperity. The East India
Company was so flourishing that in 1676 their stock was quoted at 245
per cent. Trade with America was equally prosperous. New Amsterdam, now
New York, was taken from the Dutch in 1664, and in 1670 the Hudson’s
Bay Company received their charter. But the main commercial fact of
the latter half of the seventeenth century, and of the eighteenth,
was the development of the Eastern trade, and, as a consequence, of
the home production of articles to be exchanged for Eastern goods.
The cloth trade especially was greatly increased, and imports of
cloth from Spain were quite superseded. This improvement in English
manufactures led to increased trade with our colonial possessions,
especially in the West Indies. It was partly, perhaps, this great
development of English trade[40] with both the Western and the Eastern
markets that stimulated the genius of the great inventors to supply our
manufacturers with machinery that would enable them to meet the huge
demands upon their powers of production, for, by 1760, the export trade
had grown to many times its value in the days of James I. Then, as we
saw, it was only £2,000,000 per annum; in 1703, nearly a hundred years
later, it was, according to a MS. of Davenant’s, £6,552,019; by 1760
it reached £14,500,000. The markets, too, had undergone a change. We
no longer exported so largely to Holland, Portugal, and France, as in
the seventeenth century, but instead one-third of our exports went to
our colonies. In 1770, {132} for example, America took three-fourths
of the manufactures of Manchester, and Jamaica alone took almost as
much of our manufactures as all our plantations together had done in
the beginning of the century. The prosperity and development of modern
English commerce, as we know it, had now begun. It was due, of course,
not to the great wars we had waged for the right of a sole market, but
to the fact that we were able to supply the markets of the world with
manufactured goods that no other country could then produce. How we
were able to do so will shortly be seen when we come to speak of the
Industrial Revolution of the last half of the eighteenth century.

  [39. See note 13, p. 247, on Banking and the Stop of the
  Exchequer.]

  [40. See also my _Commerce in Europe_, pp. 137–147.]


CHAPTER VI

MANUFACTURES AND MINING


§ 1. CIRCUMSTANCES FAVOURABLE TO ENGLISH MANUFACTURES—I have frequently
remarked in previous chapters that Flanders was the great manufactory
of Europe throughout the Middle Ages, and up to the sixteenth
century. Her competition would in any case have been sufficient to
check much export of manufactured goods from England, though we had
by the sixteenth century got past the time when most of our imports
of clothing came from Flanders. Now, at the end of the sixteenth
century, Flemish competition was practically annihilated, owing to
the ravages made in the Low Countries by the Spanish persecutions and
occupation. But England did not merely benefit by the cessation of
Flemish competition: she received at the same time hundreds of Flemish
immigrants, who greatly improved our home manufactures, and thus our
{133} prosperity was doubly assisted. The result is seen in the fact
that our export of wool diminished, and our export of cloth increased.


§ 2. WOOL TRADE. HOME MANUFACTURES. DYEING—In the reign of James I.
the wool trade is even said to have declined, and certainly we know
that little wool can have been exported, for nearly all that produced
in England was used for home manufacture. On the other hand, however,
the same fact shows that the manufacturing industry was rising in
importance, for it required all the home-grown wool that could be got;
and, in 1660, the export of British wool was for this reason forbidden,
and remained so till 1825. The woollen trade was now very largely in
the hands of the Merchant Adventurers,[41] whose methods caused many
complaints; but the manufacturing industry flourished steadily, and a
considerable part of the population was now engaged in it. It seems
to have received some impetus, also, from the Acts 4 and 5 James I.
(1607 and 1608), carefully regulating and guarding the quality of
cloth exported, and by the end of the seventeenth century no less than
two-thirds of our exports were woollen fabrics. The usefulness of our
climate, too, for this particular manufacture had been discovered, and
was now recognized, while the manufacturing industry was likewise aided
by the impetus given to dyeing by the exertions of Sir Walter Raleigh.
Previously to James I.’s reign most English goods had to be sent to
the Netherlands to be dyed, as I explained above; but Raleigh, in his
_Essay on Commerce_, called attention to this fact, and proposed to
grant a monopoly for the art of dyeing and {134} dressing, and by his
advice the export of English white goods was prohibited (1608), but the
monopoly granted to Sir W. Cockayne caused such an outcry that it was
revoked.

  [41. This Company, by charters from James I. in 1604 and 1617,
  had the exclusive privilege of exporting the woollen cloths of England
  to the Netherlands and Germany. It included some 4000 merchants.]


§ 3. OTHER INFLUENCES FAVOURABLE TO ENGLAND. THE HUGUENOT
IMMIGRATION—But other influences were at work in the seventeenth
century in favour of our home industries. It becomes more and more
apparent that our insular position was specially fitted for the
development of manufactures as soon as they made a fair start. Except
for the Parliamentary War, which did not disturb the industry of the
country very much—for there is no sign of undue exaltation of prices,
or anything else that points to commercial distress—England was free
from the terrible conflicts that desolated half Europe in the Thirty
Years’ War. Our own Civil War was conducted with hardly any of the
bloodshed, plunder, and rapine that make war so disastrous. But the
Thirty Years’ War (1619–1648) did not cease till the utter exhaustion
of the combatants made peace inevitable, and till every leader who had
taken part in the beginning of the war was in his grave. Germany was
effectually ruined, and with Germany and Flanders laid low, England
had little to fear from foreign competition. And just at this moment
the folly of our neighbour, the French King Louis XIV., induced him to
deprive his nation of most of its skilled workmen, by the Revocation
of the Edict of Nantes. His loss was our gain. The Edict in question,
passed nearly a century previously, had insured freedom of worship
to the French Huguenots, who comprised in their ranks the _élite_ of
the industrial population. Louis XIV. set to work to exterminate the
Protestant religion in France, and began by revoking this Edict (1685).
Once more England profited by her Protestantism, and, owing {135}
to the religious opinions of her people, received a fresh accession
of industrial strength. Some thousands of skilled Huguenot artisans
and manufacturers came over and settled in this land. They greatly
improved the silk, glass, and paper trades, and exercised considerable
influence in the development of domestic manufactures generally. It is
said that the immigrants numbered 50,000 souls, with a capital of some
£3,000,000.[42] Everyone knows how they introduced the silk industry
into this country, and how Spitalfields long remained a colony of
Huguenot silk weavers. Their descendants are to be found in every part
of England.

  [42. Anderson’s _Chron. of Commerce_, ii. 569.]

  [Illustration: 1700–50 INDUSTRIAL ENGLAND

  Showing Population in first half of 18th Century, chief towns and
  manufactures. The most populous counties are dark green.

  The majority of the population was in the west and south central
  counties (_dark green_); but Lancs. and the West Riding of Yorks.
  were increasing. The chief manufacturing centres in (1) Eastern
  counties, (2) Wilts, (3) Yorks, &c., are shown thus [symbol] but
  it must be remembered that manufactures were very scattered and
  carried on side by side with agriculture. Several other counties are
  therefore marked with slanting lines.]


§ 4. DISTRIBUTION OF THE CLOTH TRADE—From this time forward the
cloth trade, in especial, took its place among the chief industries
of the country, largely owing to the fresh spirit infused into it,
first by Flemish, and afterwards by French weavers. It became more
and more widely distributed. The county of Kent, and the towns of
York and Reading made one kind of cloth of a heavy texture, the piece
being thirty or thirty-four yards long by six and one-half quarters
broad, and weighing 66 lbs. to the piece. Worcester, Hereford, and
Coventry made a lighter kind of fabric, while throughout the eastern
counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex were made cloths of various
kinds—plunkets, azures, blues, long cloth, bay, say, and serges;
Suffolk, in particular, made a “fine, short, white cloth.” Wiltshire
and Somerset made plunkets and handy warps; Yorkshire, short cloths.
Broad-listed whites and reds, and fine cloths, also came from
Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire; and Somerset was famous in
the eastern part for narrow-listed whites and reds, and in the west
for “dunsters.” Devonshire made kerseys and grays, as also did {136}
Yorkshire and Lancashire. The Midlands furnished “Penistone” cloths
and “Forest whites”; while Westmoreland was the seat of the manufacture
of the famous “Kendal green” cloths, as also of “Carpmael” and
“Cogware” fabrics. It will be seen that the manufacture was exceedingly
extensive, and that special fabrics derived their names from the chief
centre where they were made. It may be mentioned here, too, that the
value of wool shorn in England at the end of the seventeenth century
was £2,000,000, from about 12,000,000 sheep (according to Youatt); and
the cloth manufactured from it was valued at £6,000,000 or £8,000,000.
Nearly half-a-century later (1741) the number of sheep was reckoned
at 17,000,000, the value of wool shorn at £3,000,000, and of wool
manufactured at £8,000,000, showing that progress in invention had not
done much to enhance the value of the manufactured article. But in
1774, when the Industrial Revolution may be said to have fairly begun,
the value of manufactured wool was £13,000,000, the value of raw wool
(£4,500,000) being smaller in proportion.


§ 5. COAL-MINES—Turning now from textile manufactures to mining and
working in metals, we find that in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries we were just upon the eve of the most important changes
in these industries—changes which, in many places, have entirely
transformed the face of the country. But it cannot be too clearly
understood that none of our mining and mineral industries attained any
proportions worth speaking of till what is known as the Industrial
Revolution. Englishmen seem to have had hardly any idea of the vast
wealth of coal and iron that has placed us in the forefront of Europe
as a manufacturing nation. Nevertheless we may just glance at the
imperfect methods which our forefathers used up {137} till the
eighteenth century. Coal-mining had been carried on fairly extensively
by the Romans, as for instance the discovery of huge cinder-heaps at
Aston and other places testifies. Then, like all our industries, it was
almost entirely given up, and it was due to the Norman Conquest that
coal-mining was revived. That it was practised to some extent in the
North is seen from an entry in the _Boldean Book_ (a kind of Domesday
of the county of Durham, composed in 1183), in which a smith is allowed
twelve acres of land for making the ironwork of the carts, and has
to provide his own coal. But collieries were not opened at Newcastle
till the thirteenth century, in the year 1238. In the next year we
find notice of the first public recognition of coal as an article of
commerce, and from a charter of Henry III. to the freemen of Newcastle,
we may date the foundation of the coal trade. In 1273 this had become
sufficiently extensive for the use of coal to be forbidden in London;
as there was a prejudice against it and in favour of wood as fuel. In
the fourteenth century, again, the monks of Tynemouth Priory engaged
in mining speculation, and (1380) leased a colliery for £5. In the
fifteenth century trade was sufficiently important to form a source of
revenue, for a tax of twopence per chaldron was placed upon sea-borne
coal, and in 1421 an Act had to be passed to enforce this tax. In fact
in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries coal-mining became general in
Great Britain.


§ 6. DEVELOPMENT OF COAL TRADE: SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES—By
the seventeenth century it had also become important—important enough
for the needy Stuart monarch Charles I. to see in it a chance of
revenue. This king gave to Sir Thomas Tempest and his partners the
monopoly of the sale of Newcastle coal for twenty-one years, beginning
in 1637; and next year he allowed a {138} syndicate to be incorporated
which was to buy up all the coal from Newcastle, Sunderland and
Berwick, and sell it in London for “not more than 17_s._ a ton in
summer, and 19_s._ in winter”—an extravagant price for those times. The
king got a shilling a ton out of this ingenious scheme. However, the
Long Parliament finally put a stop to this outrageous monopoly.

But although the coal trade was fairly extensive for that period,
it was utterly insignificant compared with its present dimensions,
and that for a very good reason. There was no means of pumping water
out of the mines, except by the old-fashioned air-pump, which was of
course utterly inadequate. Nor was a suitable invention discovered
till the very end of the seventeenth century, when Thomas Savery in
1698 invented a kind of pump, worked by the condensation of steam.
This rather clumsy invention, however, was soon superseded in 1705 by
Newcomen’s steam pump. But it was not till after the commencement of
the Industrial Revolution that steam power was scientifically applied
to coal-mines by the inventions of Watt and Boulton (1765 and 1774),
which we shall notice in their proper place. Up to that time, also,
it was difficult to transport coal into inland districts by road,
Newcastle coal being carried to London in ships, and then carried up
inland rivers in barges. But these barges could not go high up many
rivers at that time, and canals were not yet made. It was difficult
for instance to get coal to Oxford, for it had to come to London, and
then part way up the Thames, which was not then navigable so far. But
at Cambridge it was easily procurable, for barges could come right up
to the town from eastern ports. Hence it was much cheaper at Cambridge
than at Oxford.


§ 7. THE IRON TRADE—As it had been with coal, so with iron. Only very
small quantities of it were mined in the {139} Middle Ages; it was
smelted only by wood, as a rule, and was manufactured only in a very
rude way. We saw that at the great fairs foreign iron, chiefly from
the Biscay coast, was much in demand, as our own supply was utterly
insufficient. It was naturally not until we learnt to mine and use
our coal properly that we learnt also how to mine and manufacture our
iron. Before learning this, English workmen used wood as fuel, and it
is to this cause that we owe the destruction of most of the forests
which, at the time of Domesday, occupied so large an area. “The waste
and destruction of the woods in the counties of Warwick, Stafford,
Hereford, Monmouth, Gloucester, and Salop by these iron-works is not
to be imagined,” a speaker said in Parliament as late as the beginning
of the eighteenth century. And as wood was used as house-fuel also,
it will readily be understood what a vast destruction of timber took
place. In 1581 the erection of iron-works within certain distances
from London and the Thames was prohibited “for the preservation of the
woods.”

But early in the seventeenth century (1619) Dud Dudley, son of Lord
Dudley, began to make use of sea and pit coal for smelting iron, and
obtained a monopoly “of the mystery and art of smelting iron-ore, and
of making the same into cast works or bars, in furnaces, with bellows.”
Dudley sold this cast-iron at £12 a ton, and made a good profit out
of it. He actually produced seven tons a week, which was considered a
large supply, and shows the comparative insignificance of the industry
then. However, it was only comparatively insignificant, for before the
close of the century it was calculated that 180,000 tons of iron were
produced in England yearly; and in the eighteenth century (1719) iron
came third in the list of English manufactures, and the trade gave
employment to 200,000 people. There was, however, still great {140}
waste of wood, since a great many ironmasters did not use coal, and
therefore the export and even the manufacture of iron was discouraged
by legislation to such an extent that by 1740 the output had been
reduced to 17,350 tons per annum, barely a tenth of the previous amount
quoted. The waste of timber was most noticeable in the Sussex Wealden,
the forests of which owe their destruction almost entirely to the iron
and glass manufactures.

But about this time another inventor, Darby, discovered the secret of
the large blast furnace in which pit coal and charcoal were used. He
began his experiments as early as 1730, but did not do much for some
twenty years. In 1756, however, his works were “at the top pinnacle of
prosperity; twenty and twenty-two tons per week sold off as fast as
made, and profit enough.”

After Darby came Smeaton, and other inventors, and the Industrial
Revolution spread to the iron trade. We shall see it in operation in
our next period.


§ 8. POTTERY—As with all other manufactures, so too the development
of pottery was reserved for the Renaissance of industry in the
eighteenth century. Of course pottery of a kind had always been made
in England, especially where the useful soil of Staffordshire formed
a favourable ground for the exercise of this art. But the pottery
hitherto manufactured had been rude and coarse, and its manufacture
was a strictly domestic and not very widespread industry. We owe its
improvement, as in so many other cases, largely to the efforts of
the Dutch and Huguenot immigrants of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. For the Dutch had been great among the potters of Europe, as
the renown of Delft-ware still testifies, and France had the honour of
being the land of Palissy. The factories at Burslem owed their origin
to {141} the industry of two Germans, called Elers, from whom an
Englishman, Astbury, learnt the secret of producing the red unglazed
Japanese ware, and the black Egyptian ware. Burslem, too, was the
birthplace of Josiah Wedgwood, born 1730, who first began business in
1752 as manager for a master-potter, but started in business on his
own account in 1759, the eve of the Industrial Revolution. His efforts
and experiments were magnificent and untiring, and they can be read at
leisure in various biographical works. It is sufficient here to say
that Wedgwood was the man who first made the art of pottery a science,
and before his death in 1795 he had brought this manufacture to such
a pitch of excellence, that few improvements have been left for his
successors to make, and it rose to be one of the chief industries of
the country.


§ 9. OTHER MINING INDUSTRIES--There remain one or two industries that
require a passing mention, but which were not in the eighteenth century
of much importance. As to the metals, the foreign trade in tin and
lead has been already mentioned. In the reign of John the tin-mines
of Cornwall were farmed by the Jews, and the tin and lead trade must
have attained considerable proportions in the fourteenth century,
for the Black Prince paid his own expenses in the French wars by the
produce of his mines of those metals in Devonshire. Copper, also, was
mined in the northern counties, and in a statute of 15 Edward III.
(1343) we find grants of mines given at Skeldane, in Northumberland; at
Alston Moor, in Cumberland; and at Richmond, in Yorkshire; a royalty
of one-eighth going to the king, and one-ninth to the lord of the
manor. Keswick was at that time a centre of this industry; but there
cannot have been any great output, for copper had to be imported from
Germany in the fifteenth century. The mines were also very primitive,
the approaches being {142} made not by shafts, but by adits in the
side of a convenient hill. Another mineral, which is very abundant
in England, especially in Worcestershire and Cheshire, was at this
period hardly utilized. Salt was a necessary of life to the English
householder, for he had to salt his meat for the winter; but he did not
know how to mine it himself, and either got it imported from south-west
France or contented himself with the inferior article evaporated on the
sea-coast, until the end of the seventeenth century.

In this place, too, we may mention that brickmaking was a lost art from
the fifth to the fifteenth century, and bricks were not even imported.
The first purchase of bricks to be recorded was at Cambridge, in 1449;
but before the end of the fifteenth century it became a common building
material in the eastern counties, and in the sixteenth century was
generally used in London and in the counties along the lower course of
the Thames.


§ 10. THE CLOSE OF THE PERIOD OF MANUAL INDUSTRIES--We have now reached
a turning-point in English industrial history, and are about to study a
period that is in every way a violent contrast to the centuries which
preceded it. We have come to the time when machinery begins to displace
unaided manual labour. Hitherto all our manufactures, our mining, and
of course our agriculture, had been performed by the literal labour of
men’s hands, only slightly helped by a few simple inventions. Industry,
too, was not organized upon a vast capitalistic basis, though of course
capitalists existed; but it would be more correct to say that hitherto
industry had been chiefly carried on by numbers of smaller capitalists
who were also manual workmen, even when they employed other workmen
under them. Only in agriculture had the capitalist class become very
far removed from the labourers. There was certainly no such violent
contrast {143} as now exists between a mill-owner and a mill-hand in
the realm of manufacturing industry, though of course this contrast
existed between the rich land-owner who received rents, and the poor
agricultural labourer whose labour helped to pay them. But, speaking of
industry generally, it may be said that the absence of machinery kept
employers and workmen more upon a common level, and as large factories
of course did not exist, industry was carried on chiefly in the
workmen’s homes, and the workman was not merely a unit among hundreds
of unknown “hands” in a mill, but a person not hopelessly removed in
social rank from his employer, who was well acquainted with him, and
like him worked with his own hands.

But now this old order of things passes away, and a new order appears,
ushered in by the whir and rattle of machinery and the mighty hiss of
steam. A complete transformation takes place, and the life of England
stirs anew in the great Industrial Revolution.

{144}




PERIOD V

THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND MODERN ENGLAND


CHAPTER I

THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION


§ 1. INDUSTRY AND POLITICS. LAND-OWNERS AND MERCHANT PRINCES--We
are, of course, mainly concerned in this book with industrial facts;
but as these underlie all politics and national history, we must
pause for a moment to see how the growth of commerce had by this
time affected the relations of two great classes: the land-owners
and their new rivals, the great merchants and the commercial classes
generally. Up to the time of the deposition of James II., or the Whig
Revolution of 1688, as it is sometimes called, the land-owning class
had been practically supreme in social and political influence. But
from that time forward, although they still held this high position,
their influence was heavily counterbalanced by that of the mercantile
classes. The capitalist and the commercial magnates were all favoured
by the great movement which divided the nation into the two historic
parties of Whigs and Tories, for it was that movement which first
accentuated their importance in the political life of the nation.
That importance was still more accentuated by a series of significant
economic events which took place shortly after the Revolution; namely,
the foundation of the Bank of {145} England (1694),[43] the new
and extended Charter granted to the East India Company in 1693, the
beginning of the National Debt in the same year, and the Restoration
of the Currency in 1696. The commercial and industrial section of the
community was becoming more and more prominent, and the great Whig
families who occupied themselves with endeavouring to rule England in
the eighteenth century, relied for their support upon the middle and
commercial classes. The old reverence, however, for the position of
a land-owner had not yet died out, and the men who had gained their
wealth by commerce strove for a higher social position by buying land
in large quantities. The time had not yet come when a merchant was on
equal terms with a landlord.

  [43. See notes 13 and 14, pp. 247, 248, for details.]

In fact there has always been an extraordinary sentimentalism as
regards land among all classes of the English people; and for some
reason that has never been fully explained a man who has merely
inherited a large amount of land (even if he has never attempted to
cultivate it) is regarded as being superior to one who has amassed a
fortune in the industrial or commercial world. And this feeling was
stronger in the eighteenth century than it is at the present time.
Hence commercial magnates bought land, and with it social prestige.
The James Lowther who was created Earl of Lonsdale in 1784 was the
descendant of a merchant engaged in the Levant trade; the first Earl of
Tilney was the son of that eminent man of business, Sir Josiah Child.
The daughters of merchant princes were even allowed to marry--and
maintain--the scions of a needy aristocracy. Defoe actually discovered
the amazing and revolutionary fact that a man engaged in commerce
might be a gentleman, though no doubt this {146} bold supposition of
his was at first looked upon with incredulity. He says: “Trade is so
far from being inconsistent with a gentleman that in England trade
makes a gentleman; for, _after a generation or two_, the tradesman’s
children come to be as good gentlemen, statesmen, parliament men,
judges, bishops, and noblemen as those of the highest birth and the
most ancient families.” Dean Swift remarked “that the power which used
to follow land had gone over to money.” Dr Johnson announced oracularly
that “an English merchant was a new species of gentleman.”

Now, the Industrial Revolution went still further to gain social
and political influence for the commercial classes. It succeeded in
destroying the foolish idea that the land-owners alone were to be
looked upon as the leaders of the nation. It gave the capitalists and
manufacturers a new accession of power by enormously increasing their
wealth. Moreover, it helped to undermine the landed interest by making
the manufactures of England at first equal, and afterwards superior,
to her agriculture, so that a rich mill-owner or ironmaster became as
important as a large land-owner. The monopoly of the landed interest
was broken by capital. Nowhere is the contrast between the old and new
classes in the last century seen more closely than in Scott’s _Rob
Roy_, where the old Tory squire who held fast to Church and king is
contrasted with the new commercial magnate who supported the House of
Hanover. One good we enjoyed from the rise of the commercial classes,
and that was the final overthrow of the Stuarts, with all the follies
which that unfortunate race represented.


§ 2. THE COMING OF THE CAPITALISTS--Now, although the commercial
capitalist was fast coming into prominence as the rival of the
land-owner, he was becoming still more {147} prominent as the master
of the workmen whom he employed. For before the Industrial Revolution
the capitalist had occupied a comparatively subordinate place. The
vast enterprises of modern industry, such as railways or mills, which
often require so large an expenditure of capital before they can begin
to be in any way remunerative, were practically unknown a century
ago. The industrial system was, moreover, far less complicated,
far less international, far less subdivided. Instead of the great
capitalist manufacturers of to-day, who can control the markets of a
nation, England possessed numbers of smaller capitalists, with far
less capital, both individually and in the aggregate, than what is
now required by a man who undertakes even a moderate business. The
large capitalists of the last century were chiefly the foreign trading
companies. For English home manufactures, although greatly developed,
were still largely conducted upon the domestic system, and the small
capitalist-artisan was a conspicuous feature of that time, just as the
large mill-owner or ironmaster is of our own day. Manufactures were
carried on by a number of small master-manufacturers, who gave out
work to be done in the homes of their employés; and who often combined
agricultural with manufacturing pursuits. But nevertheless there were
signs of the approach of modern capitalist methods, of production upon
a large scale. It was becoming increasingly the custom to employ a
large number of workpeople together under one roof, or at least under
the direction and supervision of one great manufacturer. Arthur Young,
for instance, mentions a silk mill at Sheffield with 152 hands--a large
number in the eighteenth century; a factory at Boynton with 150 hands;
and a master-manufacturer at Darlington who ran above fifty looms. Work
was also {148} given out by capitalist manufacturers or merchants to
workmen to do at home in the villages and towns. These workmen were,
like the employés of the present day, entirely dependent upon their
employer for work and wages. Thus, at Nottingham in 1750 we find fifty
master-manufacturers who “put out” work in this way for as many as 1200
looms in the hosiery trade.


§ 3. THE CLASS OF SMALL MANUFACTURERS--But although the coming of
the capitalists was now near at hand the old order of things was not
seriously disturbed till the application of steam power to machinery
some years later. There were still many small manufacturers who lived
on their own land and worked with their workpeople in their own houses.
Defoe in his _Tour through Great Britain_ (made in 1724–26) gives an
interesting account of this class at a time when they were in the
height of their prosperity, before machinery and steam had even begun
to cause their disappearance. Speaking of the land near Halifax, in
Yorkshire, he says: “The land was divided into small enclosures from
two acres to six or seven each, seldom more, every three or four pieces
of land having a house belonging to them; hardly a house standing
out of speaking distance from another. We could see at every house
a tenter, and on almost every tenter a piece of cloth or kersie or
shalloon. At every considerable house there was a manufactory. Every
clothier keeps one horse at least to carry his manufactures to the
market; and every one generally keeps a cow or two or more for his
family. By this means the small pieces of enclosed land about each
house are occupied, for they scarce sow corn enough to feed their
poultry. The houses are full of lusty fellows, some at the dye-vat,
some at the looms, others dressing the cloths; the women and children
carding or spinning; being all employed, from the {149} youngest to
the oldest.” And Defoe adds a remark which is certainly not applicable
either to Halifax or any other manufacturing town of the present day,
for he concludes his description with the words: “not a beggar to be
seen, or an idle person.”


§ 4. THE CONDITION OF THE MANUFACTURING POPULATION--For it is a
significant fact that under the old domestic system, simple and
cumbrous as it was, the manufacturing population was very much better
off than it was for some time after the Industrial Revolution. For
one thing, they still lived more or less in the country and were not
crowded together in stifling alleys and courts, or long rows of bare
smoke-begrimed streets, in houses like so many dirty rabbit-hutches.
Even if the artisan did live in a town at that time, the town was very
different from the abodes of smoke and dirt which now prevail in the
manufacturing districts. There were no tall chimneys, belching forth
clouds of evil smoke; no huge, hot factories with their hundreds of
windows blazing forth a lurid light in the darkness, and rattling with
the whir and din of ceaseless machinery by day and night. There were
no gigantic blast furnaces rising amid blackened heaps of cinders, or
chemical works poisoning the fields and trees for miles around. These
were yet to come. The factory and the furnace were almost unknown.
Work was carried on by the artisan in his little stone or brick house,
with the workshop inside, where the wool for the weft was carded and
spun by his wife and daughters, and the cloth was woven by himself
and his sons. He had also, in nearly all cases, his plot of land near
the house, which provided him both with food and recreation, for he
could relieve the monotony of weaving by cultivating his little patch
of ground, or feeding his pigs and poultry. Work too was more regular
than it {150} often is at present, for there were fewer commercial
fluctuations; fashions did not change so quickly, and the market for
home-spun fabrics was always steady and assured. The relations between
employers and employed were far closer; even the distribution of wealth
was comparatively more equal. Wages were of course less in money value
than at present, but then prices of food and rent were only about
half what they are now. Arthur Young gives 9_s._ 6_d._ as the average
weekly wages of an artisan in the North and Midland counties, while the
average rent for a cottage in the same counties he puts at 28_s._ 2_d._
a year, or only 6⁠½_d._ per week. And it must be remembered that
this included a piece of land round the cottage. Meat, also, was cheap,
being from 2⁠½_d._ to 3⁠¼_d._ per pound; and bread 1⁠¼_d._
a pound. In fact we may confidently say that artisans, especially
spinners and weavers, were well off about 1760. Adam Smith testifies to
this in the _Wealth of Nations_. “Not only has grain become somewhat
cheaper,” he says, “but many other things from which the industrious
poor derive an agreeable and wholesome variety of food have become a
great deal cheaper.” And the healthy condition of industry in general
is shown by the fact that at the close of the wars with France by the
Peace of 1763, when more than 100,000 men accustomed to war were thrown
upon the country and had to find work or else be supported somehow or
other, “not only no great convulsion, but no sensible disorder arose.”


§ 5. CONDITION OF THE AGRICULTURAL POPULATION--Nor was that
convenient plenty which was the lot of the manufacturing portion
of the people confined only to that section. The condition of the
agricultural labourer, who was generally the worst off of all classes
from being so much under the direct supervision of his master, had
{151} considerably improved, together with the general improvement
of agriculture spoken of in a previous chapter. The price of corn
had fallen, while wages had risen, though these were less than an
artisan’s, being, according to Arthur Young’s average estimate for the
North and Midland counties, about 7_s._ a week. But it was generally
8_s._ or 10_s._, while the board of a working man may be placed at
about 5_s._ or 6_s._ a week. Cottages were occasionally rent free, or
at any rate only paid a low rent, never more than 50_s._ or 60_s._
per year. There was an abundance of food, clothing, and furniture.
Wheat-bread had entirely superseded rye-bread. Every poor family now
drank tea, which had formerly been a costly luxury. The consumption
of meat was, says Arthur Young, “pretty considerable,” and that of
cheese “immense.” Indeed he states that the labourers “by their large
wages and the cheapness of all necessaries enjoyed better dwellings,
diet, and apparel in England than the husbandmen or farmers did in
other countries.” Certainly Arthur Young must have been struck with the
difference between the agricultural population of England and that of
France, which latter country he visited shortly before the Revolution,
when the misery of the labourers was at its lowest depth, thanks to the
extortions of the privileged noblesse.


§ 6. GROWTH OF POPULATION--But not only had the condition of the
industrial population improved in the period 1700–1750, but their
numbers had also considerably increased. And now too was beginning
that great shifting of the centres of population from the South to
the North of England, which is so important a feature in the new
industrial epoch. The most suggestive fact of this period is the growth
of the population of Lancashire and of the West Riding of Yorkshire,
which were rapidly becoming {152} the seats of the cotton and coarse
woollen manufactures. Similarly also Staffordshire and Warwickshire,
the pottery and hardware centres, were growing in numbers, and so,
too, were Durham and Northumberland, whose coal-fields were now far
more developed than before. On the other hand, the population of the
Western and Eastern counties, still large manufacturing centres, had
increased very little. But in the North and North-west the increase was
enormous. Between 1685 and 1760 the people of Liverpool had increased
tenfold, of Manchester fivefold, of Birmingham and Sheffield sevenfold.
The total population of England had increased from the five millions or
so of Elizabeth’s time, to not much less than eight millions in Arthur
Young’s time, and far more of these were in the northern portions of
the country than was the case even in Defoe’s time. Defoe said in
1725, “the country south of the Trent is by far the largest, as well
as the richest and most populous.” But forty or fifty years later the
shifting towards the North had already made itself felt. The cause of
the great increase of population between 1700 and 1760 is to be found
in the rapid increase of national wealth gained by foreign commerce,
in the progress of home manufactures and of agriculture. Increased
wealth means increased comfort in living, increased command of food,
and consequently better chances of survival among children born of poor
parents. And in this period the increase in national wealth was, in
spite of foreign wars, enormous; for if England had to pay heavily for
these wars other countries had to pay more heavily still, and were,
moreover, the battle-grounds of contending armies, while our own land
was at least free from invasion.


§ 7. ENGLAND STILL MAINLY AGRICULTURAL--Of the population of the
country at this time the majority were still {153} engaged in
agriculture, and the agricultural labourers alone formed one-third
of the working classes, and a large number even of the manufacturing
classes still worked in the fields for a portion of the year,
especially in harvest-time. In 1770 England was still mainly an
agricultural country, and Arthur Young estimates that the income of the
agricultural portion of the nation was larger than that of all the rest
of the community. But it must be remembered that by far the largest
portion of this income was in the hands of large land-owners and the
farmers, the share of the labourer being of course much smaller. Arthur
Young’s estimates must be taken with a certain amount of caution, but
they are probably approximately correct, and are certainly interesting
as giving us a very fair idea of the distribution of occupations and
national wealth just before the Industrial Revolution. Hence I append a
small table, giving in round numbers the figures of his estimates. It
will be noticed that the number of the population is rather too high,
but the proportion of one class to another is probably correct.

                      INCOMES OF VARIOUS CLASSES[44]
                            IN MILLION POUNDS

  [Illustration]

  Interest on capital 5
  Paupers 1·5
  Military and official 5
  Professions 5
  Commercial 10
  Manufacturing 27
  Agricultural 66
     Total = £119,500,000.

  [44. This table is drawn to scale.]

{154}

                               POPULATION
                               IN MILLIONS
  [Illustration]

  Paupers ·5
  Military and official ·5
  Professional ·2
  Commercial ·7
  Manufacturing 3
  Agricultural 3·6
     Total = 8,500,000.

It will be perceived that the agriculturists, though only about half
a million more in numbers than the manufacturing classes, had a far
larger proportionate income, in fact more than double. This was of
course partly due to the agricultural improvements of this period, and
to the fact that manufactures were still carried on almost solely by
hand, thus giving only a small production from a good many workmen. But
the Industrial Revolution rapidly changed all this, and now agriculture
is no longer the staple industry of the country. We may here refer
to what has been previously mentioned in regard to the agricultural
development on enclosed land, and to the superiority of the results
of enclosures over common fields. Those farmers and large owners who
understood the best ways of raising crops prospered, and more and more
land was enclosed every year to grow corn (which by the way was rapidly
rising in price), clover, turnips and other root-crops. No less than
700 Enclosure Acts were passed between 1760 and 1774. The old common
fields were beginning to disappear, and the working classes also lost
their rights of pasturing cattle on the wastes, for wastes now were
enclosed. It must be admitted that the old common-field system produced
very poor results (cf. p. 41), but the loss of his common rights was
very {155} disastrous to the labourer, for it drove him off the land
at the same time as the growth of manufactures attracted him off from
it, and thus the labourer became in a few years completely divorced
from the soil. At present attempts are being made to attract him back
to it by offering him small strips of inferior land at a high rent.
This is known as the allotment system. It need scarcely be said that,
as at present carried out, it is hardly likely to succeed.[45]

  [45. For recent developments, _v._ p. 231.]


§ 8. THE DOMESTIC SYSTEM OF MANUFACTURE--But in the period we are
now speaking of, the period before the great inventions, neither
the agricultural labourer nor the manufacturing operative was quite
divorced from the land. The weavers, for instance, often lived in
the country, in a cottage with some land attached to it. There had
certainly been changes in the industrial system before 1760. At first
the weaver had furnished himself with warp and weft, worked it up, and
brought it to the market himself; but by degrees this system grew too
cumbersome, and the yarn was given out by merchants to the weaver, and
at last the merchant got together a certain number of looms in a town
or village, and worked them under his own supervision. But even yet
the domestic system, as it is commonly called, retained in many if not
in most cases the distinctive feature that the manufacturing industry
was not the only industry in which the artisan was engaged, but that
he generally combined with it a certain amount of agricultural work in
the cultivation of his own small plot of land. This fact explains to
some extent the comparative comfort of the operative in this cottage
industry, for that they were fairly well off is the testimony of Adam
Smith, in 1776. Commercial fluctuations were few; the home market was
steady; {156} employer and employed were more closely knit together
than at present; wealth was more equally distributed, and capital
existed in smaller amounts but in a larger number of hands. The poet’s
vision of “contentment spinning at the cottage door” was not altogether
imaginary, for women and children shared in the common task brought
home by the head of the family. Nor, after all, was trade so restricted
and hampered as some writers have seemed to suppose. On the contrary,
there was, in spite of bad roads, very frequent and considerable
internal communication for manufacturing purposes, and this was
facilitated by means of the local markets, the importance of which
in those days cannot be easily overrated. Manufacturers would ride a
long way to buy wool from the farmers or at the great fairs already
mentioned, such as that of Stourbridge (p. 63), which was sufficiently
considerable even a hundred years ago, or those of Lynn, Boston,
Gainsborough, and Beverley, all four of which were celebrated for their
wool-sales. This wool was then brought home and sorted; then sent out
to the hand-combers, and on being returned combed was again sent out,
often to long distances, to be spun. It was, for instance, sent from
remote parts of Yorkshire to Lancashire, or even farther; or again from
near London to Kendal and back. When spun, the tops, or fine wool, were
entrusted to some shopkeeper to “put out” among the neighbours. Then
the yarn was brought back and sorted by the manufacturer himself into
hanks, according to the counts and twist. The hand-weavers would next
come for their warp and weft, and in due time bring back the piece,
which often was sent elsewhere to be dyed. Finally, the finished cloth
was sent to be sold at the fairs, or at the local “piece halls” of such
central towns as Leeds or Halifax. {157}

Hence it will be seen that there was a considerable diffusion of work
under the old system, and it was not necessary for great numbers of
people to live close together, or work in factories upon a large scale.
Things were done with greater leisure, and more time was taken over
them. But with the Industrial Revolution came all the hurry and stress
of modern manufacturing life, and a complete change took place in the
manner and methods of manufacture. And now, having seen how things
stood immediately before this great change, we can proceed at once to
the means by which it was brought about.


CHAPTER II

THE EPOCH OF THE GREAT INVENTIONS


§ 1. THE SUDDENNESS OF THE REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPORTANCE--The change
from the domestic system of industry which has been briefly sketched in
the previous chapter to the modern system of production by machinery
and steam power, was sudden and violent. The great inventions were
all made in a comparatively short space of time, and the previous
slow growth of industry developed quickly into a feverish burst of
manufacturing production that completely revolutionized the face of
industrial England. In little more than twenty years all the great
inventions of Watt, Arkwright, and Boulton had been completed, steam
had been applied to the new looms, and the modern factory system
had fairly begun. Nothing has done more to make England what she at
present is--whether for better or worse--than this sudden and silent
Industrial Revolution, for it increased her wealth tenfold, and gave
her half-a-century’s start in front of the nations of Europe. The
French Revolution {158} took place about the same time, and as it was
performed amid streams of blood and flame, it attracted the attention
of historians, who have apparently yet to learn that bloodshed and
battles are merely the incidents of history. The French Revolution also
succeeded in giving birth to one of the world’s military heroes, and a
military hero naturally excites the enthusiasm of the multitude. But
the French Revolution was the result of economic causes that had been
operating for centuries, and which had had their effect in England
four hundred years before, at the time of the Peasants’ Revolt. These
economic causes have been rather kept in the background by modern
historians, and it was hardly to be expected that they should recognize
the operation of such causes in England; more especially as their
effects were not accentuated by political fireworks, but were even
partially hidden by subsequent events resulting from these effects. Men
were blinded too by an increase in the wealth of the richer portion of
the nation, not even seeing whence that wealth proceeded, and quite
ignoring the fact that it was accompanied by serious poverty among the
industrial classes. Nor did historians perceive that the world-famous
wars in which England was engaged at the close of the last century
and up to 1815, were necessitated by England’s endeavour to gain the
commercial supremacy of the world, after she had invented the means of
supplying the world’s markets to overflowing. Economic causes were at
the root of them all. We shall discuss later the connection between our
foreign politics and our industry; at present we must adhere to the
subject of the development of that industry by the great inventors.[46]
{159}

  [46. There was an Agricultural Revolution as important as the
  Industrial one, but it is best to treat it separately. I have done so
  in Ch. vi.]


§ 2. THE GREAT INVENTORS--The transition from the domestic to the
factory system was begun by four great inventions. In 1770 James
Hargreaves, a weaver of Standhill, near Blackburn, patented the
spinning-jenny--_i.e._ a frame with a number of spindles side by side,
which were fed by machinery, and by which many threads might be spun at
once, instead of only one, as had been the case in the old one-thread
hand-spinning wheel. Hargreaves first used this “jenny” for some time
in his own house, and was at once enabled to spin eight times as much
yarn as before. In 1771 Arkwright established a successful mill at
Cromford on the Derwent, in which he employed his patent spinning
machine, or “water-frame,” an improvement upon a former invention
of Wyatt’s, which derived its name from the fact that it was worked
by water power. A few years later (1779) both these inventions were
superseded by that of Samuel Crompton, a spinner, but the son of a
farmer near Bolton. His machine, the “mule,” combined the principles of
both the previous inventions, and was called by this name as being the
hybrid offspring of its mechanical predecessors. It drew out the roving
(_i.e._ the raw material when it has received its first twist) by an
adaptation of the water-frame, and then passed it on to be finished and
twisted into complete yarn by an adaptation of the spinning-jenny. This
invention effected an enormous increase in production, for nowadays
12,000 spindles are often worked by it at once and by one spinner.
It dates from the year 1779, and was so successful that by 1811 more
than four and a half million spindles worked by “mules” were in use in
various English factories. Like many inventors Crompton died in poverty
in 1827.

These three inventions, however, only increased the power of spinning
the raw material into yarn. What {160} was now wanted was a machine
that would perform the same service for weaving. This was discovered by
Dr Cartwright, a Kentish parson, and was patented as the “power-loom”
in 1785, though it had afterwards to undergo many improvements, and did
not begin to be much used till 1813. But the principle of it was there,
and it was one of the most important factors in the destruction of the
old domestic system. For at first only spinning was done by machinery,
and the weavers could still do their work by hand in the old methods;
and indeed they continued to do so till a comparatively recent period,
and many old people in Northern manufacturing districts can still
remember the old weaving industry, as carried on in the workmen’s own
houses. But the improvements on Cartwright’s invention did away with
the hand-weaver, as the others had abolished the hand-spinner, and the
old form of industry was doomed.

Its death-blow, however, was yet to come. Wondrous as were the changes
introduced by the machines just spoken of none of them would have
by themselves alone revolutionized our manufacturing industries.
Power of some kind was needed to work them, and water power, though
used at first, was insufficient and not always available. It was the
application of steam to manufacturing processes which finally completed
the Industrial Revolution. In 1769, the year in which Wellington
and Bonaparte were born, James Watt took out his patent for the
steam-engine. It was first used as an auxiliary in mining operations,
but in 1785 it was introduced into factories, a Nottinghamshire
cotton-spinner having one set up in his works, which had previously
been run only by water power. Of course the enormous advantages of
steam over water power became immediately apparent; manufacturers,
especially in the cotton trade, {161} hastened to make use of the new
methods, and in fifteen years (1788–1803) the cotton trade trebled
itself.


§ 3. THE REVOLUTION IN MANUFACTURES AND THE FACTORIES--Although these
machines of which we have just spoken were intended at first for use
in the manufacture of cotton, they rapidly extended to that of woollen
and linen fabrics. It is impossible here to describe all the various
modifications and adaptations that were thus made; we can only refer to
the general features of the great change. The most remarkable of these
features was the sudden growth of factories, chiefly of course at first
for spinning cotton or woollen yarn. The old factories, had perforce
been planted by the side of some running stream, often in a lonely
and deserted spot, very inconvenient for markets and the procuring of
labour; but necessarily so placed for the sake of the water. Those of
my readers who know Yorkshire or Lancashire fairly well may remember
how frequently in the course of some long country walk near Bradford,
Halifax, Leeds, or Manchester, they come upon the ruins of some old
mill, crumbling beside a rushing stream, a silent relic of the old days
before the use of steam. How wonderful must the first rude inventions
have seemed to the workers in those old factories, as the strange new
machinery rattled and shook in the quiet country hollows, and the becks
and streamlets ran down to turn the new spindles and looms that were to
revolutionize the face of agricultural England. But the old water-mills
gave way to others worked by steam power, and now it was no longer
necessary to choose any particular site for the works. So the new race
of manufacturers made haste to run up steam-factories wherever they
could. “Old barns and cart-houses,” says Radcliffe, “outbuildings of
all descriptions were repaired; windows broke through the old blank
walls, and all were {162} fitted up for loom-shops; new weavers’
cottages arose in every direction.” The merchants too, who did not run
factories on their own account, but merely purchased yarn, began to
collect weavers around them in great numbers, to get looms together
in a workshop, and to give out warp themselves to the workpeople. And
now the workers began to feel the difference between the old system
and the new. Formerly they used to buy for themselves the yarn they
were to weave, and had a direct interest in the cloth they made from
it, which was their own property. They were in fact economically
independent. The new system made them dependent upon the merchant or
upon the mill-owner. At first, it is true, they gained a rise in wages,
for the increase in production was so great that labour was continually
in demand, and every family, says Radcliffe, brought home forty to one
hundred and twenty shillings per week. But this did not last very long.
The new machinery soon threw out of employment a number of those who
had worked only by hand; it enabled women and children to do the work
of grown men; it made all classes of workers dependent upon capitalist
employers; it introduced an era of hitherto unheard-of competition. The
coming of the capitalists had become an accomplished fact, and with
it began again the exploitation of labour. Of this we shall speak in
another chapter. Other national changes now demand our attention.


§ 4. THE GROWTH OF POPULATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTHERN
DISTRICTS--The two most striking facts of the Industrial Revolution
are the great growth and the equally great shifting of the population.
Before 1751 the largest decennial increase of population had been about
5 or 6 per cent. But for each of the next three periods of ten years
the increase became rapidly greater, till in 1801 {163} it was 14 per
cent. on the previous ten years, and reached even 21⁠½ per cent. in
the period 1801 to 1811. This last was the highest rate ever reached in
England, and is more than double that recorded in the census of 1881 or
1891. The population of England had been under 8,000,000 in 1760; by
1821 it had risen to nearly 12,000,000; and at the present moment it is
certainly nearly treble that number.

At the same time, the great migration to the North, already begun
before the Revolution, was now accelerated and completed. The Northern
counties, which in the Middle Ages had, as we saw, been comparatively
deserted, now became and have since remained the most populous and
flourishing of all. The centres of the new factory system were in
the North, and thither flocked the workers who had formerly been
distributed over England in a much more extensive manner, or who had
clustered round the great Eastern and Western centres of industry,
which before 1760 had excelled the other centre, the West Riding,
in prosperity. But now this was changed. Before the Revolution, the
Eastern counties, more especially about Norwich and the surrounding
districts, had been famous for their manufactures of crapes,
bombazines, and other fine, slight stuffs. In the West of England
the towns of Bradford-on-Avon, Devizes, and Warminster had been
manufacturing centres noted for their fine serges; Stroud had been
the centre of the manufacture of dyed cloth, and so had Taunton been,
for even in Defoe’s time (1725) it had 1100 looms; and the excellence
of the Cotswold wool had done much for the industry of the district.
These two centres and their productions, then, were far more famous
than the third, the West Riding, including the towns of Halifax, Leeds,
and Bradford, where only coarse cloths were made. The cotton trade
{164} of Lancashire, too, had previously been insignificant, for it
was only incidentally mentioned by Adam Smith, though Manchester and
Bolton were then, as now, its headquarters. In 1760 only 40,000 persons
were engaged in it, the annual value of the cotton manufacture was
comparatively insignificant, while in 1764 the value of our cotton
exports was only one-twentieth of our woollen, and only strong cottons,
such as dimities and fustians, were made. But now the cotton cities of
Lancashire and the woollen and worsted factories of Yorkshire greatly
surpass the older seats of industry in wealth and population, while
the cotton export has risen to be the first in the kingdom, and the
vast majority of the industrial population is now found North of the
Trent. These great industrial changes were the direct consequence of
the introduction of new manufacturing processes. For the use of steam
power in mills necessitated the liberal use of coal, and hence the
factory districts are necessarily almost coincident with the great
coal-fields, as will be seen from the appended map.[47] Moreover, the
coal industry had been developed almost simultaneously with the growth
of manufactures, and indeed one reacted upon the other. It will be
convenient here to mention the improvements made in coal-mining and in
the iron trade.

  [47. In this industrial map it will be seen that we have

  (1) corresponding to the Yorks coal-field, manufactrs. of woollens,
  &c., cutlery, &c., lace & hosiery, machinery.

  (2) corresponding to the Lancs. coal-field, manufactrs. of cotton.

  (3) corresponding to the Staffs coal-field manufactrs. of pottery and
  hardware.

  (4) corresponding to the S. Wales coal-field smelting & iron
  industries.]

  [Illustration: MAP OF ENGLAND]


§ 5. THE REVOLUTION IN THE MINING INDUSTRIES--I have mentioned in a
previous chapter that the development of the vast natural resources of
our country as regards coal {165} and iron was retarded by the lack of
steam power (p. 137). But with the steam-engines of Watt and Boulton a
new era dawned upon coal-mining. In 1774 Watt, after vainly advocating
his invention, entered into partnership with Matthew Boulton, a
Birmingham man, and their new engine soon produced a vast change in
the manner of pumping water from the mines, just as it also produced
other changes in every manufacture dependent upon the use of coal.
Steam power was used not only to clear the mines of water, but also in
sinking shafts, where formerly entrance had often been made only by
tunnelling in the side of a hill. It was used too in bringing up the
coal from the pit, and in many other necessary processes. The result of
this application of steam power was soon seen in the general opening up
of all the English coal-fields, and the consequent further growth of
towns like Newcastle, Sheffield, and Birmingham, whose industries now
depend so greatly upon a large supply of coal.

With the great output of coal came an immediate revival of the iron
trade, which it will be remembered had greatly declined about 1737 and
1740, for as coal was not available wood had to be used as fuel, and
the consequent destruction of forests, especially the Sussex Wealden,
had caused legislative prohibitions. The scientific treatment of iron
ore in the various processes of manufacture had indeed been improved,
but nothing much could be done without coal. This was seen for instance
by an ironmaster, Anthony Bacon, in 1755, who obtained a lease for 99
years of a district at Merthyr Tydvil, eight miles long and five broad,
upon which he erected both iron and coal works. In 1760 Smeaton’s
invention of a new blowing apparatus at his works at Carron, near
Falkirk, did away with the old clumsy bellows; and the other inventions
of Cranage (1766), of Onions (1783), and of Cort {166} (1784), for
which separate treatises must be consulted, brought the manufacture of
iron almost to perfection. Whereas about 1740 we produced only some
18,000 tons of iron annually, and had to import at least 20,000 tons;
we produced in 1788 as much as 68,000 tons, and the production has
gone on steadily increasing to the present time, when our export alone
amounts to four and a half million tons of iron and steel annually.


§ 6. THE NATION’S WEALTH AND ITS WARS--Of course these discoveries of
new processes in procuring coal and making iron enormously increased
the wealth of England, and at the same time entirely changed the
conditions of industry. For they helped on the textile manufactures by
providing any amount of fuel and machinery, and all these together gave
employment to a population that seemed to grow in accordance with the
need of the nation for workers. The new textile and mining industries
supplied England with that vast wealth which enabled her to endure
successfully the long years of war at the close of last century and
the beginning of this. The Industrial Revolution came only just in
time, for after the repose of 1763 to 1792, during which this silent
Revolution matured and took root, England engaged in a struggle which
she certainly could never have supported without a far greater national
wealth than she possessed in the first three quarters of the eighteenth
century. And as it was, the year 1815 found a large portion of her
people in poverty and distress, and the industrial classes suffered
heavily from the taxation which the war imposed. But owing to her
industrial development the war left England at its close, in spite of
all her troubles, the foremost nation of Europe in economic matters,
and consequently in all other matters also. As is the case with most
modern wars, this great war originated in economic causes, even {167}
to a certain extent in economic mistakes, but it had important effects
upon industry and was largely affected by industrial considerations.
Hence we must consider it rather more closely.


CHAPTER III

WARS, POLITICS, AND INDUSTRY


§ 1. ENGLAND’S INDUSTRIAL ADVANTAGES IN 1763--If we look at the state
of the European powers after the conclusion of the Seven Years’ War by
the Treaty of Paris in 1763, we shall see that England had achieved a
very favourable position for the growth of her internal industries. It
is true that along with the rest of Europe she had adopted the policy
of endeavouring to secure a sole market for her goods, and though that
policy was a ruinous mistake she was not alone in her error, and since
other powers were doing the same, it was just as well that she should
hold the lead among them. And, as Professor Rogers has remarked, since
we are paying interest upon the heavy national bills which we ran up at
that time, we may profitably examine what we gained thereby.

In the first place, England had seriously crippled her powerful
commercial rival, France, both in her Indian and American possessions.
By the Seven Years’ War we had gained Canada, Florida, and all the
French possessions east of the Mississippi River (except New Orleans);
while in India our influence had become supreme, owing to the victories
of Clive. French influence in India and America was practically
annihilated. Spain, the faithful ally of France, lost with her friend
her place as the commercial rival of England in foreign trade. Germany
was {168} again being ravaged by the dynastic struggles in which
Frederick the Great bore so prominent a part, between the reigning
houses of Austria and Prussia. Holland was similarly torn by internal
dissensions under the Stadtholder William V., which gave the rival
sovereigns of Prussia and Austria a chance of making matters worse by
their interference. By 1790 the United Provinces had thus sunk into
utter insignificance. Sweden, Norway, and Italy were of no account in
European politics, and Russia had only begun to come to the front.
Hence England alone had the chance of “the universal empire of a
sole market.” The supply of this market, especially in our American
colonies, was in the hands of English manufacturers and English
workmen. The great inventions which came, as we saw, after 1763 were
thus at once called into active employment, and our mills and mines
were able to produce wealth as fast as they could work without fear of
foreign competition.


§ 2. THE MISTAKE OF THE MERCANTILE THEORY--But unfortunately our
capitalists made a great mistake in their policy. The commercial mind
of England was dominated by what is known as the “Mercantile Theory.”
It was a theory that had grown up naturally out of the spirit of
Nationalism, of self-sustained and complete national life, that was
our heritage from the Renaissance and the Reformation. It was not
altogether wrong, for its object was national greatness, an object
laudable and harmless enough. But the believers in the policy of
increasing our national greatness also believed that it could only be
attained in one way, and that was at the expense of our neighbours.
In one form and another the theory frequently crops up even to-day,
though we are supposed to have repudiated it. The measures adopted
to attain this end were various and not always unsuccessful. True,
{169} our commercial forefathers made the mistake--not uncommon even
now--of believing that national wealth consisted chiefly in holding
large stores of gold and silver, and hence they prohibited the export
of bullion, till the East India Company demonstrated the futility of
this scheme.[48] They endeavoured, too, to obtain a supply of the
precious metals by prohibiting the purchase of foreign manufactures,
and encouraging only the imports of raw material, that we might sell
our own manufactures for foreign silver and gold. Hence proceeded wars
of tariff, as for instance when we prohibited the import of gold-lace
from Flanders, and the Flemish in revenge excluded our exports of wool.
But the most famous of the restrictions imposed by this theory were
the Navigation Acts of 1651, by which it was ordered that no goods
from Asia, Africa, or America were to be imported into England or her
colonies, except in ships belonging to English subjects, and no goods
of any European country were to be imported except in English vessels,
or ships belonging to the country from which the goods came. Of course
these Acts resulted in collision with Dutch interests, for the Dutch
were at that time the ocean carriers of the world. We were driven out
of neutral ports, and lost the Russian and Baltic trade, because of the
high charges of English ship-owners, to whom this protective scheme
gave a monopoly of freights. But at the same time our shipping trade
gained a great stimulus, and our commercial supremacy grew with it.
Of course, however, this protective measure made the country at large
pay a higher price for this privilege than was necessary, and we could
probably have done better without it. Nevertheless these Acts, coupled
with the development of our Indian and American trade, resulted in
giving us a position of undoubted {170} commercial supremacy. Many
other Protective measures, of a worse kind than this, were passed owing
to the dictates of this theory, as for instance when in 1750 Parliament
forbade the importation of pig and bar iron from our American colonies.
But the Nemesis of this Protective policy was sure to come, and come
it did in that fatal folly which caused us to lose those very colonies
which we had defended against the French in the Seven Years’ War.

  [48. See note 15, p. 249, on this point.]


§ 3. THE LOSS OF THE AMERICAN COLONIES--The way in which English
statesmen looked upon our colonies in the last century was that they
owed everything to England, and that therefore it was only fair that
they should be exploited in the interests of the mother-country.
Thus all imports to our colonies from any other country of Europe
except England were forbidden, in order that our manufacturers might
monopolize the American market. The criminal folly of our legislators
went even further than this, for every attempt was made to discourage
the colonists from starting manufactures at home. The American woollen
industry was practically suppressed; all iron manufactures, as just
mentioned, were forbidden in 1750; even colonial hatters were not
allowed to send hats from one colony into another.

Nevertheless the American colonists evaded the regulations that forbade
them to trade with any but the mother-country, and did, for instance,
a considerable trade with South America. But in George III.’s reign,
Grenville, a Whig minister, was foolish enough to try and stop this.
Moreover, he sought to raise money wherewith to pay for the American
portion of the Seven Years’ War by taxing the colonists upon the stamps
on legal papers (Stamp Act, 1765). The idea that the colonists should
pay part of the expenses of the war undertaken in their defence was
just enough; but that these expenses should be defrayed by a {171}
system of taxation in which they had no voice was exactly the reverse.
It is to the credit of Pitt that he protested against this taxation
without representation, and exerted his influence for the repeal of
this Act (1766). Thus the feelings of the colonists were soothed for
a time, and in 1770 Lord North took off all taxes except that on tea.
The colonists refused to buy tea: the East India Company, whose trade
naturally suffered, tried to force their tea into America, and matters
culminated in the celebrated emptying of a shipload of it into Boston
harbour by the citizens of that port (1773). North tried to punish
the Bostonians by decreeing that their port should be closed, and
that the charter of Massachusetts, their colony, should be annulled.
Of course war was now imminent. We need not here go into the details
of that unfortunate conflict, though we must mention the heroic
endeavours of Pitt, now Lord Chatham, to make England give full redress
to her offspring. His efforts were in vain. France eagerly took the
opportunity of assisting the Americans against the English, and England
had to pay very dearly for her adherence to the Mercantile Theory.


§ 4. THE OUTBREAK OF THE GREAT CONTINENTAL WAR--But although the War
of Independence cost us a great deal, it did not greatly affect the
development of our home industries. The Industrial Revolution went
steadily on, and for just thirty years (1763–93) the country, though
not entirely at peace, was yet sufficiently undisturbed to make rapid
progress in the new manufacturing methods. But in 1789 the French
Revolution broke out, and for over twenty years Europe was plunged into
a disastrous and exhausting conflict. At the first outbreak of the
Revolution, England looked on quietly. Many men were openly glad that
the downtrodden masses of the French nation had overthrown the tyranny
of an upper class whose only {172} idea of their duty in life was to
extort the last farthing from those below them, in order to spend it
in irresponsible debauchery. Statesmen like Fox gloried in it; the
younger Pitt was anxious not to interfere. But Pitt was forced into
action by the capitalists, who now were equal with the land-owners as
the two ruling powers of England. He saw that the conquests which the
new French Republic was already beginning to make might help France to
secure again her old position as the most formidable rival of English
commerce. If now this rival could be finally struck down, England was
sure of the control of the world’s markets. It was obviously the policy
of England to check the power of France, and when war was declared by
the young Republic, England was not slow to answer the challenge. After
this England was plunged headlong into the great European struggle of
Monarchy against Republicanism. Pitt gained the support of all classes
at home. The merchants and manufacturers were only too glad to see
their old rival ruined; the land-owners and nobility were of course
indignant at seeing the “lower classes,” even of a foreign nation, rise
against their lords, even though their lords perhaps deserved their
punishment. It was generally believed, and it was largely true, that
England was fighting for the great principles of Monarchy and Religion,
exemplified by a foolish king and a corrupted priesthood. For a time
everyone supported Pitt’s policy. But the French Revolution had found
many sympathizers among the working classes, and after the country had
felt the first severity of the burdens imposed by the war, a spirit of
discontent manifested itself. But the nation at large was against this
opposition, and drastic measures were taken to silence it. Pitt was
indomitable till his death (in 1805), and under his guidance England
often fought single-handed against the world. {173} At times, as in
1796, she was threatened with invasion by the French, and the Irish, or
a certain section of them, assisted her would-be invaders. At another
time (1806), English industry was threatened with ruin by Napoleon’s
Berlin Decree, forbidding Continental nations to trade with us.[49] But
at last the great inspiring genius of England’s enemies was defeated,
and the long years of war came to a close in 1815.

  [49. See my _Commerce in Europe_, p. 177.]


§ 5. ITS EFFECTS UPON INDUSTRY, AND THE WORKING CLASSES--When peace
came at length, it found the resources of the nation sorely tried, but
not yet exhausted. All classes had suffered somewhat, but the working
classes worst of all. The French Revolution, and the consequent wars,
had retarded to some extent the development of our industries, for it
took nearly all the wealth produced by the new industrial system to
pay for them. But in one thing we possessed a great advantage over
Continental nations, for our island was the only country in which war
was not actually going on, and hence our manufactures were undisturbed.
Consequently England was by no means so exhausted as the other
participants in the struggle, and she had, moreover, the ocean-carrying
trade left secure to her by our undisputed naval supremacy. But yet
her finances had been tried and stretched to an enormous extent. The
total cost of the war with France had been £831,446,449, to meet which
Pitt was compelled to turn to almost every expedient that his financial
ingenuity could suggest. Taxation became more and more heavy, and
£600,000,000 was added to the debt which we have since been engaged
in paying off. The currency had been placed in the most abnormal
condition; cash payments were (in 1797) suspended by the Bank of
England; and it became a necessity, as soon as {174} the war was over,
to put an end to the circulation of a practically inconvertible paper
currency by the resumption of them in 1819.

But the working classes had suffered the most, in spite of the fact
that our manufactures prospered and exports increased all through the
war. In 1793 the exports were officially valued at over £17,000,000;
for every year afterwards they were at least £22,000,000, often more;
in 1800 over £34,000,000, and in 1815 had quite doubled their value
at the beginning of the war, being then over £58,000,000 (official
value). But the profits all went into the hands of the capitalist
manufacturers, while taxation fell with special severity upon the
poor, since taxes were placed on every necessity and convenience of
daily life. Even as late as 1841 there were 1200 articles in the
customs tariff. The price of wheat, moreover, rose to famine height;
from 49_s._ 3_d._ per quarter in 1793, to 69_s._ in 1799, to 113_s._
in 1800, and 106_s._ in 1810. At the same time wages were rapidly
falling,[50] and thus the chief burdens of the war fell upon those
least able to pay for them. But the poverty of the poor was the wealth
of the land-owners, who kept on raising rents continually and grew rich
upon the starvation of the people; for they persuaded Parliament to
prohibit the importation of foreign corn except at famine prices (cf.
p. 200), and shifted the burden of taxation, as was not unnatural,
upon other shoulders. It was owing to their influence that Pitt raised
fresh funds from taxes on articles of trade, manufacture and general
consumption. The result was seen in the deepening distress of the
industrial classes, and in 1816 riots broke out everywhere--in Kent
among the agricultural labourers, in the Midlands among the miners, and
at {175} Nottingham among the artisans, who wreaked their vengeance
upon the new machines which they thought had stolen their bread. They
should have blamed those who did not allow them to participate in the
wealth they had helped to create.

  [50. For further details as to condition of the working
  classes, see p. 194.]


§ 6. POLITICS AMONG THE WORKING CLASSES--Such were the economic effects
of the war upon English society--the enriching of the capitalists and
land-owners at the expense of the working classes. So dire was the
distress of the workmen that they felt something must be done to make
their voice effectively heard in the government of the people. William
Cobbett, in his _Weekly Political Register_, taught them to believe
that a reform of Parliament would cure their evils. The influences of
the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution also combined to
arouse an active political feeling amongst them; for the former excited
a sympathetic feeling of revolt against unjust oppression, from what
source soever it might come, and the latter brought home to them in
their daily lives the new and sharp distinctions between the capitalist
autocrat and his hundreds of workpeople bound to him only by a cash
nexus, and as yet powerless to resist his endeavours to keep down their
wages. Indistinctly, but none the less keenly, the working classes
began to feel that they too must be consulted in the councils of the
nation, and as a preliminary step must gain an influence over political
events. But their early endeavours were sharply and severely repressed,
and the legislation following on the (so-called) Manchester Massacre
of 1819, crushed them for a time. But the Great War had roused the
political feelings of the masses, by the misery it had inflicted upon
them and by the industrial conditions which it had brought more fully
into play. For although at first it retarded them, it gave a direct
stimulus to the new {176} manufactures and to the new manufacturing
system, by leaving England the only nation not too exhausted to
continue her commerce. During its progress England had definitely
become the workshop of the world, her industry had definitely completed
its transition from the domestic to the factory system. Of this system,
with its enormous advantages but also enormous evils, we must now speak.


CHAPTER IV

THE FACTORY SYSTEM AND ITS RESULTS


§ 1. THE RESULTS OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE FACTORY SYSTEM--The
great war of which I have just spoken in the preceding chapter found
England at its beginning a nation whose mainstay was agriculture,
with manufactures increasing, it is true, but still only of secondary
importance. At the commencement of the war, English workers spun
and wove in their cottages; at its close they were herded together
in factories, and were the servants of machinery. The capitalist
element had become the main feature in production, and the capitalist
manufacturers the main figures in English industry, rivalling and often
overtopping the landed gentry. But a man cannot become a capitalist
without capital, and capital cannot be accumulated without labour;
though these remarkably obvious facts are constantly forgotten. The
large capitalists of earlier manufacturing days obtained their capital,
after the first small beginnings, from the wealth produced by their
workmen and from their own acuteness in availing themselves of new
inventions. Of the wealth produced by their workmen they took nearly
the whole, leaving their employés only enough to live upon while
producing {177} more wealth for their masters. Hence it may be said
that capital was in this case the result of abstinence, though the
abstinence was on the part of the workman and not of his employer, as
we shall shortly see.

This, then, was the immediate result of the factory system: the growth
of large accumulations of capital in the hands of the new master
manufacturers, who with their new machinery, undisturbed by internal
war, were able to supply the nations of Europe with clothing at a time
when these nations were too much occupied in internecine conflicts
on their own soil to produce food and clothing for themselves. Even
Napoleon, in spite of all his edicts directed against English trade,
was fain to clothe his soldiers in Yorkshire stuffs when he led them
to Moscow. It was no wonder that the growth of capital was rapid and
enormous. Other results followed. The formerly widespread cottage
industry was now aggregated into a few districts, nearly all in
Lancashire and Yorkshire. Persons of all ages and both sexes were
collected together in huge buildings, under no moral control, with
no arrangements for the preservation of health, comfort, or decency.
The enormous extension of trade rendered extra work necessary, and
the mills ran all night long as well as by day. The machines made “to
shorten labour” resulted in many cases in vastly extending it; while
in others again they took away all the means of livelihood from the
old class of hand-workers. Hence riots frequently occurred, and the
labourers sought to destroy the new machinery; the struggle of what
were called “the iron men” against human beings of flesh and blood long
continued to be a source of controversy and complaint, more especially
as the workmen saw that the profits made by these iron men went almost
entirely into the hands of their masters. {178}


§ 2. CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE OF THE NEW ORDER OF THINGS--A very good
idea of the effects of the introduction of the factory system upon the
operatives may be formed from a resolution unanimously adopted by the
magistrates at the quarter sessions of Preston, in Lancashire, dated
November 11th, 1779, wherein it was “resolved: That the sole cause of
great riots was the new machines employed in the cotton manufacture:
That the county [_i.e._ the manufacturers] had greatly benefited by
their erection, and that the destroying them in one county only led to
their erection in another; and that if a total stop were put by the
legislature to their erection in Britain it would only tend to their
establishment in foreign countries, to the detriment of the trade in
Britain.” But better than the cold words of a formal resolution is
the description of the country round Manchester published in 1795 by
a Dr Aikin. He points out what we have already referred to, that “the
sudden invention and improvement of machines to shorten labour have had
a surprising influence to extend our trade, and also to call in hands
from all parts, particularly children for the cotton mills.” He says
that domestic life is seriously endangered by the extensive employment
of women and girls in the mills, for they had become ignorant of all
household duties. “The females are wholly uninstructed in knitting,
sewing, and other domestic affairs requisite to make them frugal wives
and mothers. This is a very great misfortune to them and to the public,
as is sadly proved by a comparison of the labourers in husbandry, and
those of manufacturers in general. In the former we meet with neatness,
cleanliness, and comfort; in the latter with filth, rags, and poverty.”
He also mentions the great prevalence of fevers among employés in
cotton mills, consequent upon the utterly unsanitary {179} conditions
under which they laboured. But nowhere were the evils which accompanied
the sudden growth of wealth and of industry so marked as in the case
of those miserable beings who were brought to labour in the new mills
under the apprentice system. Their life was literally and without
exaggeration simply that of slaves.


§ 3. ENGLISH SLAVERY. THE APPRENTICE SYSTEM--When factories were first
built there was a strong repugnance on the part of parents who had been
accustomed to the old family life under the domestic system to send
their children into these places. It was in fact considered a disgrace
so to do: the epithet of “factory girl” was the most insulting that
could be applied to a young woman, and girls who had once been in a
factory could never find employment elsewhere. It was not until the
wages of the workman had been reduced to a starvation level that they
consented to their children and wives being employed in the mills. But
the manufacturers wanted labour by some means or other, and they got
it. They got it from the workhouses. They sent for parish apprentices
from all parts of England, and pretended to apprentice them to the
new employments just introduced. The mill-owners systematically
communicated with the overseers of the poor, who arranged a day for
the inspection of pauper children. Those chosen by the manufacturer
were then conveyed by wagons or canal boats to their destination, and
from that moment were doomed to slavery. Sometimes regular traffickers
would take the place of the manufacturer, and transfer a number of
children to a factory district, and there keep them, generally in some
dark cellar, till they could hand them over to a mill-owner in want of
hands, who would come and examine their height, strength, and bodily
capacities, exactly as did the slave-dealers in the American markets.
{180} After that the children were simply at the mercy of their
owners, nominally as apprentices, but in reality as mere slaves, who
got no wages, and whom it was not worth while even to feed or clothe
properly, because they were so cheap and their places could be so
easily supplied. It was often arranged by the parish authorities, in
order to get rid of imbeciles, that one idiot should be taken by the
mill-owner with every twenty sane children. The fate of these unhappy
idiots was even worse than that of the others. The secret of their
final end has never been disclosed, but we can form some idea of their
awful sufferings from the hardships of the other victims to capitalist
greed and cruelty. Their treatment was most inhuman. The hours of their
labour were only limited by exhaustion after many modes of torture had
been unavailingly applied to force continued work. Children were often
worked _sixteen hours_ a day, by day and by night. Even Sunday was used
as a convenient time to clean the machinery. The author of _The History
of the Factory Movement_ writes[51]: “In stench, in heated rooms, amid
the constant whirling of a thousand wheels, little fingers and little
feet were kept in ceaseless action, forced into unnatural activity by
blows from the heavy hands and feet of the merciless over-looker, and
the infliction of bodily pain by instruments of punishment invented
by the sharpened ingenuity of insatiable selfishness.” They were fed
upon the coarsest and cheapest food, often with the same as that served
out to the pigs of their master. They slept by turns and in relays, in
filthy beds which were never cool; for one set of children were sent
to sleep in them as soon as the others had gone off to their daily or
nightly toil. There was often no discrimination of sexes; and disease,
misery and vice grew as in a {181} hotbed of contagion. Some of these
miserable beings tried to run away. To prevent their doing so, those
suspected of this tendency had irons riveted on their ankles with long
links reaching up to the hips, and were compelled to work and sleep
in these chains, young women and girls as well as boys suffering this
brutal treatment. Many died and were buried secretly at night in some
desolate spot, lest people should notice the number of the graves; and
many committed suicide. The catalogue of cruelty and misery is too long
to recite here; it may be read in the _Memoirs of Robert Blincoe_,
himself an apprentice, or in the pages of the Blue-books of the
beginning of this century, in which even the methodical dry official
language is startled into life by the misery it has to relate. It is
perhaps not well for me to say more about the subject, for one dares
not trust oneself to try and set down calmly all that might be told
about this awful page in the history of industrial England. I need only
remark, that during this period of unheeded and ghastly suffering in
the mills of our native land, the British philanthropist was occupying
himself with agitating for the relief of the very largely imaginary
woes of negro slaves in other countries. He of course succeeded in
raising the usual amount of sentiment, and perhaps more than the usual
amount of money on behalf of an inferior and barbaric race, who have
repaid him by relapsing into a contented indolence and a scarcely
concealed savagery which have gone far to ruin our possessions in the
West Indies. The spectacle of England buying the freedom of black
slaves by riches drawn from the labour of her white ones, affords an
interesting study for the cynical philosopher.

  [51. Samuel Kydd (pseudonym “Alfred”).]


§ 4. THE BEGINNING OF THE FACTORY AGITATION--The state of things in
factories where large numbers of apprentices {182} were employed
became so bad, that at last something had to be done. In 1802 an
Act was passed “for the preservation of the health and morals of
apprentices and others employed in cotton and other mills.” It is a
significant fact, that the immediate cause of this Bill was the fearful
spread through the factory districts of Manchester of epidemic disease,
owing to the overwork, scanty food, wretched clothing, long hours, bad
ventilation, and overcrowding in unhealthy dwellings of the workpeople,
especially the children. The hours of work were “reduced” to only 12
per day. This Act, however, did not apply to children residing near the
factory where they were employed, for they were supposed to be “under
the supervision of their parents.” The result was that, although the
apprentice system was discontinued, other children came to work in the
mills, and were treated almost as brutally, though luckily they were
not entirely in the hands of their master. But the evils of this system
of child labour were very great. During the whole of the period of 1800
to 1820, and even to 1840, the results of their sufferings were seen in
the early deaths of the majority of children and in the crippled and
distorted forms of the majority of those who survived. On the women
and grown-up girls the effects of long hours and wearisome work were
equally disastrous. A curious inversion of the proper order of things
was seen in the domestic economy of the victims of this cheap labour
system, for women and girls were superseding men in manufacturing
labour, and, in consequence, their husbands had often to attend, in a
shiftless, slovenly fashion, to those household duties which mothers
and daughters hard at work in the factories were unable to fulfil.
Worse still, mothers and fathers in some cases lived upon the killing
labour of their little children, by letting them out {183} to hire to
manufacturers, who found them cheaper than their parents.

The factory hands in general, and the children in particular, at
length found help from a few philanthropists who had not allowed
themselves to be dazzled by the glowing eloquence of the agitators
against black slavery. Lord Ashley, afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury,
and Richard Oastler must in especial be mentioned as the champions of
the mill-hands. Long years after Lord Shaftesbury had succeeded in his
noble work, he spoke of the sad sights he had seen during his earlier
labours in the factory districts. “Well can I recollect,” he said in a
speech in the House of Lords in 1873, “in the earlier periods of the
factory movement, waiting at the factory gates to see the children
come out, and a set of sad, dejected, cadaverous creatures they were.
In Bradford especially the proofs of long and cruel toil were most
remarkable. The cripples and distorted forms might be numbered by
hundreds, perhaps by thousands. A friend of mine collected a vast
number together for me; the sight was most piteous, the deformities
incredible. They seemed to me, such were their crooked shapes, like a
mass of crooked alphabets.” A corroboration of his words is found in
one of Southey’s letters to Mr May (written March 1st, 1833), in which,
speaking of factory labour, he remarked with justice: “the slave trade
is mercy compared to it.”

The companion of the famous Lord Shaftesbury in the factory agitation
was Richard Oastler, who was born in 1789 and died in 1861, and at
first, especially in 1807, was a great supporter of Wilberforce in his
anti-slavery agitation. But, living as he did in the factory districts
of Yorkshire, he discovered a worse slavery existing at his very doors,
and at once decided to do his best to put a stop to it. From 1829 to
1832 he was the leader of the {184} movement for a “ten hours day,”
and from 1830 to 1847 he devoted himself especially to stopping the
oppression of children in factories, till he caused the Factories
Regulation Acts to be passed. A short reference to these Factory Acts
will not be out of place.


§ 5. THE VARIOUS FACTORY ACTS--After the Act of 1802 already referred
to for improving the condition of apprentices, an Act for the
regulation of work in cotton mills was passed in 1819, allowing no
child to be admitted into a factory before the age of nine, and placing
12 hours a day as the limit of work for those between the ages of nine
and sixteen. The day was really one of 13⁠½ or 14 hours, because
no meal-times were included in the working day. Then again in 1831 an
Act was passed forbidding night-work in factories for persons between
nine and twenty-one years of age, while the working day for persons
under eighteen was to be 12 hours a day, and 9 hours on Saturdays. But
this legislation only applied to cotton factories; those engaged in
the manufacture of wool were quite untouched, and matters there were
as bad as ever. But a spirit of agitation was fortunately abroad in
the country. These were the days of the Reform Bill and of the rise of
Trade Unions. These unions of workmen cried out for the restriction of
non-adult labour to 10 hours a day, and the Conservative party, who
were chiefly interested in the land and not in the mills, supported
them readily against the manufacturers, who were mainly Liberals and
Radicals. The two most important Acts were those of 1833 and 1847.
That of 1833, introduced by Lord Shaftesbury, prohibited night-work
to persons under eighteen in both cotton, wool, and other factories;
children from nine to thirteen years of age were not to work more than
48 hours a week, and young persons from thirteen to {185} eighteen
years were to work only 68 hours. Provision was also made for the
children’s attendance at school, and for the appointment of factory
inspectors. These restrictions in the employment of children led to
a great increase in the use of improved machinery to make up for the
loss of their labour, and it is probable that they accelerated the
use of steam power instead of water power in the smaller and more
old-fashioned mills. Then, after one or two minor Acts, the famous
Ten Hours Bill (10 Vict. c. 29) was passed in 1847, which reduced the
labour of women and young persons to 10 hours a day, the legal day
being between 5.30 A.M. and 8.30 P.M. Manufacturers tried to avoid the
provisions of this Bill by working persons thus protected in relays,
but this was stopped by the fixing of a uniform working day in 1850,
so that young persons and women could only work between the hours of 6
A.M. and 6 P.M., and on Saturdays only till 2 P.M. Since the passing
of these Acts a great many much needed extensions of their provisions
to other industries have been made, and in 1874 the minimum age at
which a child could be admitted to a factory was fixed at ten years.
The limitation of the labour of women and young persons necessarily
involved the limitation of men’s labour, because their work could not
be done without female aid. Thus the ten hours day at last became
universal in factories.


§ 6. HOW THESE ACTS WERE PASSED--It is curious to notice how these Acts
were passed. They all showed the steady advance of the principle of
State interference with labour; a doctrine most distasteful to the old
Ricardian school of economists, even when that interference was made
in the interests of the physical and moral well-being, not only of the
industrial classes, but of the community at large. Hence the economists
of the day aided the {186} manufacturers in opposing these Acts to
the utmost of their power, and the laws passed were due to the action
of the Tories and land-owners. Lord Shaftesbury, Fielden, Oastler, and
Sadler were all Tories, though they were accused of being Socialists.
They were supported by the landed gentry. But the mill-owners had
their revenge afterwards when they helped to repeal the Corn Laws in
spite of the protest of the landlords, who did not mind the workmen
having shorter hours at other people’s expense, but objected to their
having cheap bread at their own. The working classes cannot fail
to observe that each party was their friend only in so far as they
could injure their opponents, or at least do no harm to themselves.
John Bright especially distinguished himself (Feb. 10, 1847) by his
violent denunciation of the Ten Hours Bill, which he characterized as
“one of the worst measures ever passed in the shape of an Act of the
legislature.”[52] In 1908 a Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill was passed
into law.

  [52. This extraordinary utterance is to be found in the
  records of Hansard, third series, volume 89, page 1148.]

But when we look back upon the degradation and oppression from
which the industrial classes were rescued by this agitation, we can
understand why Arnold Toynbee said so earnestly: “I tremble to think
what this country would have been but for the Factory Acts.” They
form one of the most interesting pages in the history of industry,
for they show how fearful may be the results of a purely capitalist
and competitive industrial system, unless the wage-earners are in a
position to act as an effectual check upon the greed of an unscrupulous
employer.

{187}


CHAPTER V

THE CONDITION OF THE WORKING CLASSES


§ 1. DISASTROUS EFFECTS OF THE NEW INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM--We have already
seen in various preceding chapters that the condition of the labourers
deteriorated from the time of Elizabeth onwards, but in the middle
of the eighteenth century it had been materially improved owing to
the increase of wealth from the new agriculture and from the general
growth of foreign trade. But then came the great Continental wars and
the Industrial Revolution; and it is a sad but significant fact that,
although the total wealth of the nation vastly increased at the end
of last century and the beginning of this, little of that wealth came
into the hands of the labourers, but went mainly into the hands of
the great landlords and new capitalist manufacturers, or was spent in
the enormous expenses of foreign war. We saw, too, that the labourer
felt far more severely than anyone else the burden of this war, for
taxes had been imposed on almost every article of consumption, while
at the same time the price of wheat had risen enormously. Moreover,
labour was now more than ever dependent on capital, and the individual
labourer was thoroughly under the heel of his employer. This, it will
be remembered, was the result of the system of Assessment of Wages
(p. 107), under which the justices of the peace, including of course
chiefly manufacturers and land-owners, fixed the wages of labour for
their own districts, and fixed them at so low a figure that they had
nearly always to be supplemented out of the rates paid by the general
public. The labourer had no redress, for {188} all combination in the
form now known as Trade Unions was suppressed, and his condition sank
to the lowest depth of poverty and degradation.


§ 2. THE ALLOWANCE SYSTEM OF RELIEF--This state of things was
aggravated by various misfortunes. The latter part of the eighteenth
century was marked by almost chronic scarcity, and after 1790 wheat
was rarely below 50_s._ a quarter, and often double that price. The
famine was enhanced by the restrictions of the Corn Laws; meanwhile,
population was growing with portentous and almost inexplicable
rapidity. The factories employed large numbers of hands, but these
were chiefly children whose parents were often compelled to live upon
the labour of their little ones; and the introduction of machinery
had naturally caused a tremendous dislocation in industry, which
could not be expected to right itself immediately. Poverty was so
widespread that, in 1795, the Berkshire justices, in a now famous
meeting at Speenhamland, near Newbury, declared the old quarter
sessions assessment of wages insufficient, besought employers to give
rates more in proportion to the cost of living, but added that if
employers refused to do this they would make an allowance to every
poor family in accordance with its numbers. This allowance system
succeeded in demoralizing both employers and employed alike, taking the
responsibility of giving decent wages off the shoulders of the farmers,
and putting a premium upon the incontinence and thriftlessness of the
labourers. This method of relief was general from about 1795 to 1834,
in fact until the enactment of the New Poor Law. Employers of labour,
manufacturing as well as agricultural, put down wages in many parts
of the country to what was simply a starvation point, knowing that an
allowance would be made to the labourers, upon the {189} magistrates’
orders, out of the poor rates. The wages actually paid to able-bodied
men were frequently only five or six shillings a week, but relief to
the amount of four, five, six, or seven shillings a week, according to
the size of the man’s family, was given out of the rates. Such a system
could not fail to have a permanently disastrous influence upon the
moral and social condition of those who suffered from it, taking from
them all self-reliance, all hope, all incentives to improving their
position in life. And as a matter of fact its ill-effects, especially
in agricultural districts, are even yet apparent.


§ 3. RESTRICTIONS UPON LABOUR--What made the condition of the labourers
worse still, was the fact that they could neither go from one place to
another to seek work, nor could they combine in industrial partnership
for their mutual interests. The law of settlement effectually prevented
migration of labourers from one parish to another. It began with the
Statute of 1662, which allowed a pauper to obtain relief only from that
parish where he had his settlement, “settlement” being defined as forty
days’ residence without interruption. There were many variations and
complications of this Statute made in ensuing reigns, but it remained
substantively the same till it was mitigated by the Poor Law of 1834.
The law of settlement was further strengthened by what are called
the Combination Laws, which prevented workmen from coming together
to deliberate over their various industrial interests, or to gain
a rise in wages. “We have no Acts of Parliament,” said Adam Smith,
with justice, “against combining to lower the price of work, but many
against combining to raise it.” Elsewhere he describes the inevitable
result of a strike as being “nothing but the punishment or ruin of the
{190} ringleaders.” The workmen had, of course, no political influence:
they could only show their discontent by riots and rick-burnings. Yet
the time of their deliverance was at hand.

I have already referred to the sympathy between the French Revolution
and the Industrial Revolution. The former, it is true, frightened our
statesmen, but it gave courage to the working classes, and made them
hope fiercely for freedom. The latter Revolution concentrated men more
and more closely together in large centres of industry, dissociated
them from their employers, and roused a spirit of antagonism which is
inevitable when both employers and employed alike fail to recognize the
essential identity of their interests. Now, wherever there are large
bodies of men crowded together there is also a rapid spread of new
ideas, new political enthusiasms, and social activities. And in spite
of the lack of the franchise the artisans of our large towns made their
voices heard; fiercely and roughly, no doubt, in riot and uproar, but
they had no other means. There were found some statesmen in Parliament,
chiefly disciples of Adam Smith, who gave articulation to the demands
of labour, and owing to their endeavours the Combination Laws were
repealed in 1824. But the following year proved how insecure was the
position of the labourers without a vote. The employers of labour were
able to induce Parliament in 1825 to stultify itself, by declaring
illegal any _action_ which might result from those deliberations of
workmen which a twelvemonth before they had legalized. But still they
were allowed to deliberate, strange as it may now seem that permission
was needed for this, and their deliberations materially aided in
passing the Reform Bill of 1832. For as soon as a class can make its
voice heard, even though it cannot {191} directly act, other classes
will take that utterance into account.


§ 4. GROWTH OF TRADE UNIONS--But the Reform Bill, though a great step
forward, somewhat belied the hopes that had roused the enthusiasm of
its industrial supporters. The workmen found that, after all, it merely
threw additional power into the hands of the upper and middle classes.
Their own position was hardly improved. Then they had to make their
voice heard again, and urged on by the misery and poverty in which they
were still struggling, they demanded the Charter. The Chartist movement
(1838 to 1848) seems to us at the present time almost ludicrously
moderate in its demands. The vote by ballot, the abolition of property
qualifications for electors, and the payment of parliamentary members
were the main objects of its leaders, though they asked for universal
suffrage as well. Nevertheless people were frightened, especially when
the Chartists wished to present a monster petition at Westminster on
April 10th, 1848, and military and police intervention was called in.
The movement collapsed, and finally died away when the repeal of the
Corn Laws had restored prosperity to the nation. Many have laughed at
the working classes for trying to gain some infinitesimal fraction of
political power. But the working classes are generally acute, and they
saw that this was the ultimate means of material prosperity, nor has
the event failed to justify their belief. In the somewhat quieter times
which followed the collapse of the Chartists, their influence went on
extending, and though the workmen ceased to agitate they were not idle,
but continued steadily organizing themselves in Trade Unions. These
institutions were not, however, recognized by law till a Commission was
appointed, including Sir William Erle, {192} Lord Elcho, and Thomas
Hughes, to inquire into their constitution and objects (February,
1867). Their Report disclosed the existence of intimidation with
occasional outrages--as was natural when the men had no other way of
giving utterance to their wishes. But Trade Unionism triumphed. The
Unions were legalized in 1871, and this Act was further extended and
amended in 1876. The old law of master and servant had passed away, and
employer and employed were now on an equal political footing. It has
remained for the men by silent strength to place themselves on an equal
footing in other respects. Meanwhile the employers entered into a like
combination by forming the National Federation of Employers in 1873,
and the long struggle of the working classes for industrial freedom
did not result in any lessening of the feeling of class antagonism.
But Trade Unions have done much to gain a greater measure of material
prosperity for the working classes, and to give them a larger share
than formerly in the wealth which the workers have helped to create.
When we look back upon the last half-century we can only wonder that
trade unionists have been so moderate in their demands, considering the
misery and poverty amidst which they grew up.


§ 5. THE WORKING CLASSES FIFTY YEARS AGO--For it must continually be
remembered that the condition of the mass of the people in the first
half of this century was one of the deepest depression. Several writers
have commented upon this, and have taken occasion to remark upon the
great progress in the prosperity of the working classes since that
time. It is true they have progressed since then, but it has hardly
been progress so much as a return to the state of things about 1760
or 1770. The fact has been that after the introduction of the new
industrial {193} system the condition of the working classes rapidly
declined; wages were lower and prices were higher; till at length the
lowest depth of poverty was reached about the beginning of the reign
of Queen Victoria. Since then their condition has been gradually
improving, partly owing to the philanthropic labours of men like Lord
Shaftesbury, still more owing to the combined action of working men
themselves. To quote the expression of that celebrated statistician, Mr
Giffen: “it is a matter of history that pauperism was nearly breaking
down the country half-a-century ago. The expenditure on poor-law relief
early in the century and down to 1830–31 was nearly as great at times
as it is now. With half the population in the country that there now
is, the burden of the poor was the same.” The following table will show
the actual figures of English pauperism at a time when the wealth of
the nation was advancing by leaps and bounds. It will be noticed that
the rate was highest in 1818, which was shortly after the close of the
great Continental War, but fell rapidly after 1830, and since 1841 the
rate per head of population has not been much more than six or seven
shillings.

 +------+-------------+----------------+----------------+
 | Year |  Population |Poor Rate raised| Rate per head  |
 |      |             |                | of Population  |
 +------+-------------+----------------+----------------+
 |      |             |                |   _s._  _d._   |
 | 1760 |  7,000,000  | £1,250,000     |    3     7     |
 | 1784 |  8,000,000  | £2,000,000     |    5     0     |
 | 1803 |  9,216,000  | £4,077,000     |    8    11     |
 | 1818 | 11,876,000  | £7,870,000     |   13     3     |
 | 1820 | 12,046,000  | £7,329,000     |   12     2     |
 | 1830 | 13,924,000  | £6,829,000     |   10     9     |
 | 1841 | 15,911,757  | £4,760,929     |    5    11⁠¾    |
 +------+-------------+---------------------------------+

But the mere figures of pauperism, significant though they are, can
give no idea of the vast amount of misery and degradation which the
majority of the working {194} classes suffered. The tale of their
sufferings may be read in the Blue-books and Reports of the various
Commissions which investigated the state of industrial life in the
factories, mines and workshops between 1833 and 1842; or it may be
read in the burning pages of Engels’ _State of the Working Classes in
England in 1844_, which is little more than a sympathetic résumé of the
facts set forth in official documents. We hear of children and young
people in factories overworked and beaten as if they were slaves; of
diseases and distortions only found in manufacturing districts; of
filthy, wretched homes where people huddle together like wild beasts;
we hear of girls and women working underground in the dark recesses
of the coal-mines, dragging loads of coal in cars in places where no
horses could go, and harnessed and crawling along the subterranean
pathways like beasts of burden. Everywhere we find cruelty and
oppression, and in many cases the workmen were but slaves bound to
fulfil their master’s commands under fear of dismissal and starvation.
Freedom they had in name; freedom to starve and die; but not freedom to
speak, still less to act, as citizens of a free state. They were often
even obliged to buy their food at exorbitant prices out of their scanty
wages at a shop kept by their employer, where it is needless to say
that they paid the highest possible price for the worst possible goods.
This was rendered possible by the system of paying workmen in tickets
or orders upon certain shops. It was called “truck”; and has at length
been condemned by English law (1887).

But though as a matter of fact the sufferings of the working classes
were aggravated by the extortions of employers, and by the partiality
of a legislature which forbade them to take common measures in
self-defence, yet there was one great cause which underlay all these
minor {195} causes, and that was the Continental War which ended in
1815. “Thousands of homes were starved in order to find the means for
the great war, the cost of which was really supported by the labour of
those who toiled on and earned the wealth that was lavished freely--and
at good interest for the lenders--by the Government. The enormous
taxation and the gigantic loans came from the store of accumulated
capital which the employers wrung from the poor wages of labour, or
which the landlords extracted from the growing gains of their tenants.
To outward appearance the strife was waged by armies and generals;
in reality the resources on which the struggle was based were the
stint and starvation of labour, the overtaxed and underfed toils of
childhood, the underpaid and uncertain employment of men.”[53]

  [53. Rogers: _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_.]


§ 6. WAGES--And indeed if we examine some of the wages actually paid
at the beginning of this century, and again at the beginning of Queen
Victoria’s reign, we shall find that they were excessively low. The
case of common

 +------+---------------------+-----------------------------+
 | Year |   Weavers’ Wages*   |       Wheat, per qr.*       |
 +------+---------------------+-----------------------------+
 | 1802 |  13_s._ 10_d._      |           67_s._            |
 | 1806 |  10_s._  6_d._      |           76_s._            |
 | 1812 |   6_s._  4_d._      |          122_s._            |
 | 1816 |   5_s._  2_d._      |           76_s._            |
 | 1817 |   4_s._  3⁠½_d._     |           94_s._            |
 |      +---------------------+-----------------------------+
 |      |  * From Leone Levi. | * From Porter’s _Progress_. |
 +------+---------------------+-----------------------------+

weavers was particularly hard in the years of the great war, and
affords an interesting example of the extortions of the capitalist
manufacturers of the period. For purposes of comparison I give above
the price of wheat and {196} of weekly wages in the same years; for
the price of wheat forms a useful standard by which to gauge the real
value of wages, even when it is not consumed in large quantities. It
will be seen that wages were at their lowest point just after the
conclusion of the war, while, on the other hand, wheat was almost at
famine prices. After this, however, and till 1830 the wages of weavers
rose again, for the new spinning machinery had increased the supply of
yarn at a much greater rate than weavers could be found to weave it,
and hence there was an increased demand for weavers, and they gained
proportionately higher wages, the average for woollen cloth weavers
from 1830–45 being 14_s._ to 17_s._ a week, and for worsted stuff
weavers 11_s._ to 14_s._ a week. But even these rates are miserably low.

The wages of spinners were also very poor, the work being mostly done
by women and children, though when men are employed they get fairly
good pay. The following table will show clearly the various rates, and
it will be seen that here wages sink steadily till 1845, owing to the
rapid production of the new machinery. The women’s

 +----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
 | Spinners |   1808–15  |   1815–23  |   1823–30  |   1830–36  |   1836–45  |
 +----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
 | Men      | 24/ to 26/ | 24/ to 26/ | 24/ to 26/ | 24/ to 26/ | 24/ to 26/ |
 | Women    | 13/ to 14/ | 13/ to 14/ | 11/ to 12/ |  8/ to 10/ |  7/ to 9/  |
 | Children | 4⁠/⁠6 to 5⁠/⁠6 | 4⁠/⁠6 to 5⁠/⁠6 | 4⁠/⁠6 to 5⁠/⁠6 | 4⁠/⁠6 to 5⁠/⁠6 | 4⁠/⁠6 to 5⁠/⁠6 |
 +----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+

wages exhibit the fall most markedly, the labour of children being
already affected to some extent by the provisions of the Factory Acts.
As for the agricultural labourer, he too suffered from low wages, the
general average to 1845 being 8_s._ to 10_s._ a week, and generally
nearer the former than the latter figure. In fact the material
condition of the working classes of England was {197} at this time
in the lowest depths of poverty and degradation, and this fact must
always be remembered in comparing the wages of to-day with those of
former times. Some people who ought to know better are very fond of
talking about the “progress of the working classes” in the last seventy
years; and the Jubilees of our late Queen of course afforded ample
opportunity--of which full advantage was taken--for such optimists
to talk statistics. But to compare the wages of labour properly we
must go back more than a hundred years, for seventy years ago the
English workman was passing through a period of misery which we must
devoutly hope, for the sake of the nation at large, will not occur
again. It is interesting to note, though it is impossible here to go
fully into the subject, that in trades where workmen have combined,
since the repeal of the Conspiracy Laws in 1825 and the alteration in
the Act of Settlement,[54] wages have perceptibly risen. Carpenters,
masons, and colliers afford examples of such a rise. But where there
has been no combination it is noteworthy how little wages have risen
in proportion to the increased production of the modern labourer, and
to the higher cost of living, nor does the workman always receive his
due share of the wealth which he helps to create. Of the results of
labour combinations we shall, however, have something to say in the
final chapter of this little book. But there was one class of people
who happened from various causes to obtain a very large share of the
national wealth, and who grew rich and flourished while the working
classes were almost starving. In spite of war abroad and poverty at
home, the rents of the land-owners increased, and the agricultural
interest received a stimulus which has resulted in a very natural
reaction. The rise in rents and the recent {198} depression of modern
agriculture will form the subject of our next chapter.

  [54. Page 189, and note 18, p. 251.]


CHAPTER VI

THE RISE AND DEPRESSION OF MODERN AGRICULTURE


§ 1. SERVICES RENDERED BY THE GREAT LAND-OWNERS--Although there have
been occasions in our industrial history when one is compelled to
admit that the deeds of the landed gentry have called for anything but
admiration, we yet must not overlook the great services which this
class rendered to the agricultural interest in the eighteenth century.
I have already mentioned that the development and the success of
English agriculture in the half-century or more before the Industrial
Revolution was remarkable and extensive; and this success was due to
the efforts of the landlords in introducing new agricultural methods.
They took an entirely new departure and adopted a new system. It
consisted, as I mentioned before, in getting rid of bare fallows and
poor pastures by substituting root-crops and artificial grasses. The
fourfold or Norfolk rotation of crops was introduced, the landlords
themselves taking an interest in and superintending the cultivation of
their land and making useful experiments upon it. The number of these
experimenting landlords was very considerable, and in course of time
the tenant farmers followed them, and thus agricultural knowledge and
skill became more and more widely diffused. The reward of the landlords
came rapidly. They soon found their production of corn doubled and
their general produce trebled. They were able to exact higher rents,
for they had taught their {199} tenants how to make the land pay
better, and of course claimed a share of the increased profit. About
the years 1740–50 the rent of land, according to Jethro Tull, was 7_s._
an acre; some twenty years or more afterwards Arthur Young found the
average rent of land to be 10_s._ an acre, and thought that in many
cases it ought to have been more. It is probable that the landlord
would not have done so much for agriculture if he had not expected
to make something out of his experiments; but the fact that he was
animated by an enlightened self-interest does not make his work any
the less valuable. The pioneers of this improved agriculture came
from Norfolk, it being uncertain whether Lord Townshend or Mr Coke,
the descendant of the great Chief Justice, was the first. But this
much is certain: that Lord Lovell, one of the most distinguished and
energetic of the new agricultural school, found that his profits under
the new system were 36 per cent., as his accounts, still preserved for
the year 1731–32, and a copy of which is extant, bear witness. The
new agriculture indeed brought with it a revolution as important in
its way as the Industrial Revolution.[55] One of the chief features
of the change, the enclosures, has been already commented upon. The
enclosure of the common fields was beneficial, and to a certain extent
justifiable, for the tenants paid rent for them to the lord of the
manor. But it was effected at a great loss to the smaller tenant,
and when his common of pasture was enclosed as well, he was greatly
injured, while the agricultural labourer was permanently disabled.
But it was not unnatural that enclosures should rapidly be made when
farming, and especially grain-growing, had become so profitable. The
reason for the profits of agriculture at this period we can now examine.

  [55. See _Industry in England_, p. 430.]

{200}


§ 2. _The stimulus caused by the Bounties_--The Government of the year
1660 had imposed heavy protective duties upon the importation of grain
from abroad, in fact prohibiting it except when wheat was at famine
prices, as it happened to be in 1662, when it was 62_s._ 9⁠½_d._
a quarter, the ordinary price being 41_s._ But it did not reach this
price again for many years afterwards. The Government of 1688, not
content with the foregoing protective measure, added a bounty of 5_s._
per qr. upon the export of corn from England. But the effect of this
bounty was not felt for several years, for happily, soon after the
passing of the Bounty Act, a series of plentiful harvests occurred,
and corn was very cheap. There were consequently loud outcries from
the landlords about agricultural distress, which merely meant that
the people at large were enjoying cheap food. The aim of the bounty
on corn had been to raise prices by encouraging its export, and thus
rendered it scarcer and dearer in England. As a matter of fact, it
had the opposite effect, for it served as a premium upon which the
wheat-grower could speculate, and thus induced him to sow a larger
breadth of his land with wheat. The premium upon production caused
producers to grow more than the market required, and so prices fell.
Thus, happily for the consumer, the Corn Laws and the bounty were
harmless during the greater part of the eighteenth century, for farmers
competed one against the other sufficiently to keep down prices. But
the inevitable Nemesis of protective measures came at the end of the
century, when population was growing with unexampled rapidity and
required all the corn it could get. Then the prices of corn rose to a
famine pitch, while the duty upon its importation prevented it coming
into the country in sufficient quantities. The landlords received
enormous rents, and {201} the farmers did not mind paying them, for
the profits of both were immense. But meanwhile the mass of the people
was frequently on the verge of starvation, and at length the country
perceived that things could not be allowed to go on any longer in this
way.[56] The manufacturing capitalists of the day supported the leaders
of the people in their agitation, for they hoped that cheap food might
mean low wages. By their aid the landed interest was overcome, and in
1846 the Corn Laws, by the efforts of Cobden and his followers, were
finally repealed. Nevertheless the British farmer and his landlords,
forgetting, it seems, the days when they got high prices by the
starvation of the poor, still frequently clamour for the re-imposition
of the incubus of protection.

  [56. By a law of 1773 importation of foreign wheat was forbidden
  as long as English wheat was not more than 48_s._ per quarter. In
  1791 a duty of 24_s._ 3_d._ was imposed as long as English wheat was
  less than 50_s._ a qr.; if English wheat was over 50_s._, the duty
  was 2_s._ 6_d._ The landed interest, however, was not satisfied yet.
  In 1804 foreign corn was practically prohibited from importation if
  English wheat was less than 63_s._ a qr.; in 1815 the prohibition was
  extended till the price of English wheat was 80_s._ a qr. Then came
  the agitations and riots of 1817–19, after which the country sank
  into despair till the formation of the Anti-Corn Law League in 1839.]


§ 3. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS--The high prices gained by farmers
before the repeal of the Corn Laws had, however, one good effect in
increasing the development of agricultural skill and of agricultural
improvements. The heavy soils of the London clay had at one time been
laid out in pasture lands, as being useless for turnip-growing or for
root-crops. The corn duties, however, caused these pastures to be
broken up for the sake of growing wheat, barley, and clover; the soil
was more thoroughly drained, and mangolds were grown as a rotation
crop, so that the {202} area of bare fallow was much diminished, while
the quantity of food, both for men and cattle, was much increased.
In recent years much of this very land has reverted to pasture for
dairy-farming. Besides the increase of the area under wheat, special
attention was given to artificial manures. The use of bones, at first
very roughly broken, became recognized. About 1840–41 dissolved bones
and Peruvian guano came into use, particularly in growing turnips,
and these were followed very soon by mineral phosphates, and more
recently by nitrate of soda and sulphate of ammonia. After the repeal
of the Corn Laws in 1846 the prospects of English agriculture began
to look rather gloomy, or at least the farmers thought so. But the
tremendous development of trade and population, the stimulus given to
all kinds of commerce by the employment of steam, not only for transit
but as a motive power for machinery, had their natural influence upon
agriculture, and the farmer did well. Improved agricultural machinery
came into use, by which farm work was facilitated, and the outlay for
labour was lessened. Makers of these machines showed great enterprise
and skill, and many altogether new appliances were placed in the
farmer’s hands. Steam power has come to be used with advantage in
digging, stirring and harrowing the ground, though it has not been
such a success in ploughing. Altogether English agriculture made great
strides, and was quite prosperous in the years 1870–73, when the
general prosperity of the industrial classes was increasing, and people
did not mind paying fairly high prices for farm produce. But afterwards
a period of depression set in. A succession of bad years, notably the
wet and sunless season of 1879 which ruined many a farmer, together
with excessive rain and deficient sunshine, most seriously injured the
average harvests. {203} Foreign competition in wheat, imported cattle,
and butchers’ meat largely increased. The price of wheat fell between
1880 and 1886 from 50_s._ to 30_s._ a qr.; between 1884 and 1887 beef
fell from 80_s._ to 55_s._ per cwt.; and other produce also fell in
proportion. Thousands of farmers were then ruined, and agriculture
generally suffered a severe and prolonged depression, and much arable
land was then laid down again as pasture, indeed some went altogether
out of cultivation. Meanwhile the political false prophets were going
about with their usual nostrums, and the flags of Protection and even
of Bimetallism were both waved before the bewildered eyes of the
British farmer, as if they were signals of salvation.


§ 4. THE CAUSE OF THE DEPRESSION. THE RISE IN RENT--Now it is perfectly
obvious to an impartial observer of economic facts, that an industry
so flourishing as English agriculture was not very many years ago,
could not have suffered so severe a collapse unless there had been some
great underlying cause, beside the ordinary complaints of bad harvests
and foreign competition. Bad harvests are not peculiar to England, and
foreign competition, however keen it may be, has first to overstep a
very considerable natural margin of protection in the cost of carriage.
It costs, for instance, according to that great authority Sir James
Caird, 9_s._ per quarter to transport American wheat from Chicago to
London. It is clear that besides these, there must have been other
influences of considerable importance, to cause English agriculture
to be, in spite of its apparent prosperity, in so insecure a position
that it should have sunk to the depressed condition in which it even
now remains. We have not to look far for one cause. It is the lack of
agricultural capital.

But how, it may naturally be asked, has it come about that the English
farmer, after the very favourable period {204} before the depression,
should thus suffer from a lack of capital, a lack which renders it
almost impossible for him to work his land properly? The answer is
simple. His capital has been greatly decreased, surely though not
always slowly, by a tremendous increase in his rent. The landlords
of the eighteenth century made the English farmer the foremost
agriculturist in the world, but their successors of the nineteenth
have raised his rent disproportionately. Such, at any rate, is the
verdict of eminent agricultural authorities; and the land-owners have
been compelled, for their own sake, to reduce the exorbitant rents
they received a few years ago. Unfortunately, too, the attention of
other classes of the community has been till lately diverted from the
condition of our agriculture by the prosperity of our manufactures. But
these two branches of industry, the manufacturing and the agricultural,
are closely interdependent, and must suffer or prosper together.

It is possible, as I have pointed out elsewhere, that there are
certain economic theories which have helped the decline of English
agriculture. They are the Ricardian theory of rent, and the dubious
“law of diminishing returns.” They have made many people think that
this decline was inevitable, and have diverted their attention from
the prime, though not the only, cause of the trouble--namely, the
increase of rent. But putting these doubtful theories aside, we may
employ ourselves more profitably in looking at the facts of the case.
I have mentioned before that in Tull’s time, at the beginning of the
eighteenth century, the average rent of agricultural land was 7_s._ per
acre, and by Young’s time towards the close of the century it had risen
to 10_s._ per acre. Diffused agricultural skill caused an increase of
profits, and the hope of sharing in these profits led farmers to give
competitive {205} rents, which afterwards the landlords took care to
exact in full and frequently to increase. The farmers were enabled to
pay higher rents by the low rate of wages paid to their labourers,
a rate which the landed gentry, as justices, kept down by their
assessments. In 1799 we find land paying nearly 20_s._ an acre; in 1812
the same land pays over 25_s._; in 1830 again it was still at about
25_s._, but by 1850 it had risen to 38_s._ 8_d._, which was about four
times Arthur Young’s average. Indeed £2 per acre was not an uncommon
rent for good land a few years ago (1885),[57] the average increase
of English rent being no less than 26⁠½ per cent. between 1854
and 1879. Now such rent as this was enormous, and could only be paid
in very good years. In ordinary years, and still more in bad years,
it was paid out of the farmer’s capital. This process of payment was
facilitated by the fact that the farmer of this century did not keep
his accounts properly, a fruitful source of eventual evil frequently
commented upon by agricultural authorities; and also by the other fact,
that even when he perceived that he was working his farm at a loss, the
immediate loss (of some 10 or 15 per cent.) involved in getting out of
his holding was heavy enough in most cases to induce him to submit to a
rise in his rent, rather than lose visibly so much of his capital.

  [57. Cf. statistics in my article in _Westminster Review_,
  December 1888, p. 727.]

The invisible process, however, was equally certain, if not so
immediate. The result has been that the average capital per acre now
employed in agriculture is only about £4 or £5, instead of at least
£10 as it ought to be,[58] and the farmer cannot afford to pay for a
sufficient supply of {206} labour, so that the agricultural population
is seriously diminishing. Nothing in modern agriculture is so serious
as this decline of the rural population, and we must here devote a
few words to a consideration of the agricultural labourer and the
conditions of his existence.

  [58. My calculations on this head will be found in the _Economist_
  of April 28th, 1888, and they coincide closely with independent
  statements made by Professor Rogers.]


§ 5. THE LABOURER AND THE LAND. WAGES--It has been previously mentioned
that the Industrial Revolution was accompanied by an equally important
revolution in agriculture: the main features of the agrarian revolution
being the consolidation of small into large farms, the introduction
of new methods and machinery, the enclosure of common fields and
waste lands, and discontinuance of the old open-field system, and
finally the divorce of the labourer from the land. The consolidation
of farms reduced the number of farmers, while the enclosures drove the
labourers off the land, for it became almost impossible for them to
exist on their low wages now that their old rights of keeping small
cattle and geese upon the commons, of having a bit of land round their
cottages, and other privileges were ruthlessly taken from them. They
have retreated in large numbers into the towns and taken up other
pursuits, or helped to swell the ranks of English pauperism. Before the
Industrial and Agrarian Revolution, Arthur Young in 1769 estimated that
out of a total population of 8,500,000 the agricultural class, “farmers
(whether freeholders or leaseholders), their servants and labourers,”
numbered no less than 2,800,000--_i.e._ over one-fourth of the total
population. The number of those engaged in manufactures of all kinds he
puts at 3,000,000. His figures may be taken as substantially correct,
though perhaps not as accurate as a modern census. Now let us look
at the agricultural population of to-day. The total number of males
and females engaged as agricultural {207} wage-earners is only some
689,000[59]--that is, very far below the numbers so engaged a century
ago, while the proportion has sunk from one person in four to one in
twenty-five concerned in agriculture. At the present time our fields
have on the average only one man to cultivate twenty-seven acres of
land--and that man is very badly paid for his trouble, be he farmer or
labourer.

  [59. The figures are for 1901 and represent a fall of thirty
  per cent. since 1881.]

But not only have the numbers of the agricultural population decreased,
but the labourer no longer has any share as a rule in the land.
Certainly the agricultural labourer, at any rate in the South of
England, was much better off in the middle of the eighteenth century
than his descendants were in the middle of the nineteenth. In fact in
1850 or so wages were in many places actually lower than they were in
1750, and in hardly any county were they higher. But meanwhile almost
every necessary of life, except bread, has increased in cost, and
more especially rent has risen, while on the other hand the labourer
has lost many of his old privileges, for formerly his common rights,
besides providing him with fuel, enabled him to keep cows or pigs and
poultry on the waste, and sheep on the fallows and stubbles, and he
could generally grow his own vegetables and garden produce. All these
things formed a substantial addition to his nominal wages. In 1750 or
so his nominal wages averaged 8_s._ or 10_s._ a week; in 1850 they only
averaged 10_s._ or 12_s._, although in the latter period his nominal
wages represented all he got, while in the former they represented only
part of his total income. Since 1850, however, even agricultural wages
have risen, the present average being 13_s._ or 14_s._ a week. The
rise, such as it is, is due to some extent to Trade Unions, the leader
and {208} promoter of which among agricultural labourers was Joseph
Arch. This remarkable man was born in 1826, and in his youth and middle
age saw the time when agricultural labour was at its lowest depth. Not
only were wages low, being about 10_s._ or 11_s._ a week, but the worst
evils of the factory system of child labour had been transferred to the
life of the fields. The philanthropists seem to have overlooked the
disgraceful conditions of the system of working in agricultural gangs,
under which a number of children and young persons were collected on
hire from their parents by some overseer or contractor, who took them
about the district at certain seasons of the year to work on the land
of those farmers who wished to employ them. The persons composing the
gang were exposed to every inclemency of the weather, without having
homes to return to in the evening, people of both sexes being housed
while under their contract in barns, without any thought of decency
or comfort, while the children often suffered from all the coarse
brutalities that suggested themselves to the overseer of their labour.
Their pay was of course miserable, though gangs flourished at a time
when farmers and landlords were making huge profits. But the degrading
practice of cheap gang-labour was defended as being necessary to
profitable agriculture; which means that tenants were too cowardly or
too obtuse to resist rents which they could not pay except by employing
pauperized and degraded labour. Amid times like these Joseph Arch grew
up, and it was not till 1872 (at which time it will be remembered that
British farmers were doing very well) that he began the agitation which
resulted in the formation of the National Agricultural Labourers’
Union. His difficulties in organizing the downtrodden labourers were
enormous, but he finally succeeded in spite of the resentment of
agricultural {209} employers. His efforts have already done much
to improve the material condition of the labourers, and wages have
decidedly risen from this and other causes. But they certainly cannot
be called high.


§ 6. THE PRESENT CONDITION OF BRITISH AGRICULTURE--It remains to notice
briefly the causes which are now influencing our agricultural industry,
and to point out in what direction we may expect a revival from the
present state of depression. Besides the great fact of the increase
of rents we notice an increase of foreign competition, which is of
comparatively recent date. Our competitors are mainly Russia, America,
and last but by no means least, India. At the time of the Crimean
War, and for some years subsequently, Russian competition ceased to
exist. When it began it, standing alone, was not very serious, for
America had not yet entered the field, and was prevented from doing
so by the sanguinary struggles of the Civil War. High prices for
grain prevailed therefore till some time after America had ceased her
internal conflict, and it was only quite recently that much grain
was grown for export in India. But since 1870 or so England has been
supplied with grain from these three great agricultural lands, and the
English farmer, no longer buoyed up at the expense of the rest of the
community by protective measures, has found it impossible to grow wheat
at a profit at the old rents. Many farmers have been ruined; and at Sir
James Caird’s estimate (in 1886) the loss of the agricultural classes
of all ranks in spendable income has been nearly £43,000,000 _per
annum_. According to this well-known authority rents should therefore
have been reduced by £22,800,000 instead of by much less than half that
amount. Even now the aggregate rental is higher than it was before the
Russian war. In course of time it is certain that the economic action
of {210} supply and demand will bring rents down to something like
their commercial value; meanwhile the English landlords, as Mr W. E.
Bear remarks, have the choice between allowing their old tenants to be
ruined first, and then accepting reduced rents, or granting reductions
soon enough to save men in whom they have hitherto had some confidence
as tenants. It will be necessary also to make important changes in the
laws and customs of land tenure, so that our farmers may have complete
security for their capital invested in improvements, and freedom of
enterprise (_e.g._ in cropping and tilling), in order that they may
do their best with the land. An extended system of small holdings and
allotments, guaranteed by a thorough measure of Tenant Right, together
with free trade in land as well as other commodities, would do much
to place moderate farms within the reach of industrious and thrifty
yeomen and labourers. Greater facilities for transit, including the
abolition of the essentially protective system of preferential railway
rates, would enable producers to put their produce with ease upon
the home market, for English food requirements guarantee an enormous
and steady demand at home for every scrap of food-stuff that the
land is capable of producing. The farmer is slow to adapt himself to
changed conditions, but a profitable future is open to him even if he
gives up wheat-growing and betakes himself more to dairy-farming and
market-gardening. But it may not be necessary for him to give up wheat,
for it seems probable that the wheat area of the world, except in
India, will not increase; since foreign farmers are beginning to find
out that they cannot put wheat on the English market at the present
low prices. People will see that it is desirable, and that ultimately
it will be profitable, to recall capital and labour back to the land
which it is evident that it has left; {211} and that it is the
height of economic folly to rely, as some do, upon the extension of
our manufacturing industries to counteract agricultural depression.
Prosperous agriculture means for us prosperous manufactures, and
from an economic point of view the interests of the plough and the
loom are identical. Neither can be served by protective tinkering.
Reforms of a totally different character are needed, foremost among
which is a widespread reduction of rent, and a general rearrangement
of the relations between landlord and tenant. It is on the face of it
ridiculous to assert that, with an unequalled demand in the home market
for all he can produce, the English farmer cannot find some means of
making the land pay and pay well. But before he can do this he must
spend more capital upon it than he has lately been able to do.

  [Illustration: 1890 INDUSTRIAL ENGLAND

  _Showing Population and Manufactures_

  Manufacturing districts are shown by slanting lines; large
  manufacturing towns by black circles; and the most populous counties
  are coloured darker than the others. It will be noticed that
  population since 1750 has shifted very much to the North and North
  West of England, whilst manufactures are far more concentrated than
  formerly.]


CHAPTER VII

MODERN INDUSTRIAL ENGLAND


§ 1. THE GROWTH OF OUR INDUSTRY--We have now traced the industrial
growth of England from the diffused beginnings of manufactures and
agriculture in the isolated manors, and have seen how gradually towns
grew up, commerce extended and markets arose, while manufacturers
became organized in various centres and regulated by gilds. We have
seen that for several centuries the back-bone of our national wealth
was wool, but that in time we ceased to export it, and worked it up
into cloth ourselves, thereby gaining great national wealth. We have
seen, too, how our foreign trade, after its petty beginnings in the
Middle Ages, took a fresh start {212} in the buccaneering days of
the Elizabethan sea-captains and then rapidly developed, by means of
the various great Companies, till England became commercially supreme
throughout the world. From commercial beginnings we traced the rise of
our Indian Empire, and the growth of the American colonies. Meanwhile
at home there came an Industrial Revolution which, happening as it
did at the moment that was politically most favourable to its growth,
gave England a very useful start over all other European nations in
manufacturing industries of all kinds, and enabled her to endure
successfully the enormous burdens of the great Continental war. Now
comes a time of still greater progress, economic as well as commercial,
for the old restrictive barriers to trade are to be swept away, and a
new economic policy is to be inaugurated.


§ 2. STATE OF TRADE IN 1820--If we now endeavour to gain some idea of
the trade of the country soon after the war, we may look for a moment
at its condition in 1820, just before Free Trade measures were begun.
The official value of foreign and colonial imports was declared to be
£32,000,000, which with a population of about 21,000,000 was at the
rate of about thirty shillings a head. The exports of home produce
amounted to some £36,000,000. The tonnage of shipping entering and
leaving our harbours was 4,000,000 tons, of which 2,648,000 tons
belonged to the United Kingdom and its dependencies. Steamers were, of
course, as yet unknown. Professor Leone Levi calculates the trade of
the country at not more than one-eighth or one-ninth of what it is at
the present time. The wealth and comfort accessible to the people in
general was much more limited, the consumption of tea, for instance,
being only 1 lb. 4 oz. per head, and of sugar 18 lbs. a head. In fact,
if we compare {213} the £244,710,066 worth of our exports in 1889–90
with the £32,000,000 worth in 1820 we see at once how gigantic has been
the growth of our trade. In 1889, again, the imports (for the first ten
months) were £347,985,087, which is more than nine times their value in
1820. But even at the beginning of the century England was far ahead
of her old rival France, for French imports were only worth £8,000,000
in 1815, and her exports only about double that amount, or less than
half England’s exports, which in that year rose to over £42,000,000
(official value).


§ 3. THE BEGINNINGS OF FREE TRADE--Now the year 1820 is memorable
not merely as showing the condition of our trade, but for the great
enunciation of Free Trade principles which it witnessed. For in that
year the London merchants formulated a noteworthy Petition praying that
every restrictive regulation of trade, not imposed on account of the
revenue, together with all duties of a protective character, might be
at once repealed. At last the teachings of economists were being put
into practice by men of business. The Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce
sent up a similar petition; a Committee was appointed in Parliament
to investigate the wishes of the petitioners of our two capitals; and
it brought in a report thoroughly in agreement with the Free Trade
principles of the merchants. In the following year Mr Huskisson,[60]
the President of the Board of Trade, proposed the first measures of
commercial reform, and one by one the restrictions upon our trade
were removed. The most important of the new measures was the gradual
alteration of the old Navigation Laws (cf. p. 130), finally culminating
in their total repeal in 1849.

  [60. See more fully note 18, p. 251.]

It is true that in the period 1821 to 1830 the foreign {214} trade
of the United Kingdom did not exhibit much material improvement, but
still there was a steady increase. The official value of imports rose
from £30,000,000 to £46,000,000, and the value of British manufactures
exported from £40,000,000 to £60,000,000. But the declared value of
exports remained pretty steady at about £37,000,000. Yet in the United
Kingdom itself trade was growing rapidly, and the increase of wealth
gave an opportunity for a general diminution of taxes, and our sorely
strained finances were set in order. Many of the injurious duties upon
raw materials and articles of British manufacture--as _e.g._ those on
raw silk, coal, glass, paper, and soap--were taken off, to the great
advantage of our manufacturing industries.


§ 4. REVOLUTION IN THE MEANS OF TRANSIT--Now, too, another great
industrial revolution was effected. I refer to the introduction
of railways, steam navigation, and the telegraph, which have done
almost as much as the great inventions of the eighteenth century to
revolutionize the commerce of the world. In 1830 the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway was opened. In 1838 the first ocean passages to
New York by steamship were accomplished by the _Great Western_ from
Bristol, and the _Sirius_ from Cork; although ever since the beginning
of the century small steamers and tugs had been used for coasting
purposes, and on the River Clyde. In 1837 Cooke and Wheatstone patented
the needle telegraph, and the Electric Telegraph Company was formed
in 1846 for bringing the new inventions into general use. In 1840 the
penny postage came into operation. Yet more recently the Suez Canal
(1869) has shortened immensely the distance to the East. It is obvious
to all how incalculably all these inventions and appliances {215} have
aided the development, not only of English trade, but of the commerce
of all the world.


§ 5. MODERN DEVELOPMENTS. OUR COLONIES--Now I do not propose, in the
limits of a little work like this, to go into a detailed account of the
growth of commerce since these great modern inventions. There is ample
material for the student in larger works; and the statistics of our
progress may be consulted in the invaluable pages of Mr Giffen’s and
Professor Leone Levi’s books. Here I can only indicate in the broadest
outlines the chief features of the recent developments of industry. We
have followed the industrial history of England up to a period more
prolific in commercial events, and more remarkable for commercial
progress than any that preceded it. The experiments and tentative
measures of Mr Huskisson and other statesmen paved the way for a bolder
and more assured policy on the part of subsequent governments, till
at length Sir Robert Peel, urged on by the Anti-Corn Law League (p.
201), and stimulated by great famine in Ireland in 1845, openly adopted
the principles of Free Trade. Under his leadership the Corn Laws were
repealed (1846); the tariff was entirely remodelled, and the old
protective restrictions abolished, Mr Gladstone’s Budget of 1853 being
particularly memorable in this direction. A great increase of trade
followed the inauguration of the policy which is always associated
with the great name of Cobden,[61] and the wealth of the country was
even further developed. The extension of the railway system was at
the same time a cause and an effect of this development, and when the
great Exhibition of 1851, the precursor of several others, was held,
England was able to show to all the world her immense superiority in
productive and manufacturing industries. {216} A further stimulus to
trade was supplied by the discovery of gold in California and Australia
(1847–51), which supplied a much-needed addition to the currency of
the world. Meanwhile, since the war of American Independence, England
had been building up a great colonial empire, and she had the sense
not to attempt again to levy taxes upon her unwilling offspring. India
was taken over from the East India Company (1858). The colonies of
Canada and the Cape were gained by conquest; those of Australia and
New Zealand were the result of spontaneous settlement. The two former
were captured from the French and Dutch, but of the second of them
at least we have not made a commercial or even a political success;
nor are we likely to do so unless we can contrive to keep on good
terms with the original settlers, and to allow no misplaced sentiment
about native races to disturb cordial relations between Europeans.
As regards our Australasian colonies, they have grown far beyond
the expectations of former generations, and gained for themselves
entire political freedom, though they have chosen to use it chiefly
in carrying on a one-sided war of hostile protective tariffs against
their mother-country. As, however, they owe English capitalists a good
deal of money, the interest on which is paid in colonial goods, there
is a strong commercial bond of union between us and them; a bond which
protectionists in England are strangely anxious to break, by placing
unnatural obstacles upon the payment in goods of the interest due upon
colonial loans.

  [61. See note 16, p. 250, on his French treaty.]


§ 6. ENGLAND AND OTHER NATIONS’ WARS--But besides the extension of
our colonial relations, English trade has benefited by the quarrels
of her competitors. The prostration of Continental nations after 1815
precluded much competition till almost the middle of the century, and
{217} then the Crimean War broke out (1854–56). As mentioned before,
this war gave a great stimulus to our agriculture, and had a similar
effect upon our manufactures. The Indian Mutiny which followed it did
not much affect our trade, but it rendered necessary the deposition
of the East India Company and the assumption of government by the
Crown (1858),[62] and thus eventually served to put our relations
to that vast and rich empire upon a much more satisfactory and
profitable basis. About the same time the Chinese wars of 1842 and
1857, regrettable as they were, established our commercial relations
with the East generally upon a firm footing, and since then our trade
with Eastern nations has largely developed. Then came the Civil War in
America (1861–65), after which there was an urgent demand for English
products to replace the waste caused by this severe conflict. The
Civil War was succeeded by a series of short European wars, chiefly
undertaken for the sake of gaining a frontier, as was the war waged by
Prussia and Austria upon Denmark (1864), followed by another struggle
between the two former allies (1866). Then in 1870–71 all Europe was
shaken by the tremendous fight between France and Germany, and since
then the Continental nations have occupied themselves in keeping up an
armed peace at an expense almost equal to that of actual warfare. All
their conflicts have arrested their industrial development, to their
own detriment but to England’s great advantage. Not content however
with that, they increase their difficulties by a dogged protectionism.
As a result, they are far poorer in general wealth than our own land,
and only succeed in competing with us by means of underpaid and
overworked labour. But the labourer will not {218} always consent
to be overworked and underpaid, and signs are not wanting that his
discontent is fast ripening into something more dangerous.

  [62. See note 17, p. 250.]


§ 7. PRESENT DIFFICULTIES. COMMERCIAL DEPRESSIONS--But although English
commerce has reached a height of prosperity considerably above that
of other nations, it has not been and is not now without serious
occasional difficulties. It has been throughout the century visited
at more or less periodic intervals by severe commercial crises. In
the earlier portion of the century they occurred in the years 1803,
–10, –15, –18, –25, and –36; and were short, sharp, and severe. Since
1837 they have occurred at regular periods of about ten years, namely
in 1847, –57, –66, –73, and –82; latterly depression has been most
persistent, though with short cessations for special industries. In the
last year or two, however, trade has again revived, and on the whole we
may now (1896) be said to be enjoying a fair measure of prosperity.

The causes of such depressions in trade are various, and not always
obvious. They are, so to speak, dislocations of industry, resulting
largely from mistaken calculations on the part of those “captains of
industry” whose _raison d’être_ is their ability to interpret the
changing requirements in the great modern market of the civilized
world. A failure in their calculations, a slight mistake as to how long
the demand for a particular class of goods will last, or as to the
number of those who require them, results inevitably in a glut in the
market, in a case of what is called (wrongly) “over-production”; and
this is as inevitably followed by a period of depression, occasionally
enlivened by desperate struggles on the part of some manufacturer to
sell his goods at any cost. With such a huge field as the international
market, it is not to be wondered at that such mistakes are by no
means {219} rare, nor does it seem as if it were possible to avoid
them under the present unorganized and purely competitive industrial
system. They have been aggravated in England by a belief that our best
customers are to be found in foreign markets, and the importance of a
steady, well established, and well understood home market is not fully
perceived. “A pound of home trade is more significant to manufacturing
industry than thirty shillings or two pounds of foreign.” Now one of
the most important branches of our home trade must be the supplying of
agriculturists with manufactures in exchange for food. But when the
purchasing power of this class of the community has sunk as much as
£43,000,000 per annum, it is obvious that such a loss of custom must
seriously affect manufacturers. Again, no small portion of our home
market must consist in the purchases made by the working classes, yet
it does not seem to occur to capitalist manufacturers that if they pay
a large proportion of the industrial classes the lowest possible wages,
and get them to work the longest possible hours, while thus obtaining
an ever-increasing production of goods, the question must sooner or
later be answered: who is going to consume the goods thus produced?


§ 8. THE PRESENT CAPITALIST SYSTEM. FOREIGN MARKETS--The answer as
far as the capitalist is concerned seems to be: foreign customers in
new markets. English manufacturers and capitalists have consistently
supported that policy which seemed likely to open up these new markets
to their goods. For a long time, as we saw (p. 213), they occupied
themselves very wisely in obtaining cheap raw material by passing
enactments actuated by Free Trade principles and removing protective
restrictions. Cheap raw material having thus been gained, and machinery
having now been developed to such an extent as to {220} increase
production quite incalculably, England sends her textile and other
products all over the world. She seems to find it necessary to discover
fresh markets every generation or so, in order that her vast output of
commodities may be sold. This policy naturally receives the approval of
those engaged in foreign commerce, and most of our wars with countries
like China, Egypt, or Burmah, involve commercial interests. But as
other foreign nations are also engaging more widely in external trade,
the international struggle for new markets is liable to assume at any
time a dangerous phase. To-day, indeed, the industrial history of our
country seems to have reached a point when production under a purely
capitalist system is overreaching itself. It must go on and on without
ceasing, finding or fighting for an outlet for the wealth produced,
lest the whole gigantic system of international commerce should break
down by the mere weight of its own immensity. Meanwhile, English
manufacturers are complaining of foreign competition in plaintive
tones, which merely means that, whereas they thought some years ago
that they had a complete monopoly in supplying the requirements of the
world, they are now perceiving that they have not a monopoly at all,
but only a good start, while other nations are already catching them up
in the modern race for wealth.


§ 9. OVER-PRODUCTION AND WAGES--With all this, too, we hear cries
of over-production, a phrase which economically is meaningless,
more especially at a time when a very large number of people in the
civilized world are daily on the verge of starvation, when the paupers
of every civilized country are numbered by thousands, and plenty of
people who never complain have not enough clothes to wear and not
enough food to eat. Wages are certainly better than they were fifty
years ago, but no one who knows {221} the facts of the case will deny
that for the average workman--I am not speaking of skilled artisans
and the _élite_ of the working classes--it is practically impossible
to save anything out of his wages against old age or sickness. It is
not the business of a historian to vituperate any particular class,
but he may justly point out the mistakes to which classes have as a
matter of history been liable. And the great mistake of the capitalist
class in modern times has been to pay too little wages.[63] It is
an old agricultural saying--I believe of Arthur Young’s--that one
cannot pay too much for good land, or too little for bad land. The
same remark applies to labour. Capitalist employers rarely make the
mistake of paying too much for bad labour, but they have constantly,
as a matter of history, committed the worse error of paying too little
for good labour. At the beginning of this century, as I have shown,
the coming of the capitalist and of the capitalist factory system,
beneficial as it was ultimately to England, was followed by a time of
unprecedented misery and poverty for those whom they employed. The day
of the capitalist has come, and he has made full use of it. The day of
the labourer will come when he has the wisdom, and, we may add, the
self-denial, necessary for a right use of his opportunities.

  [63. This is now not so true as it was some time ago.]


§ 10. THE POWER OF LABOUR. TRADE UNIONS AND CO-OPERATION--But the
labourers of to-day are a very different class from their ancestors
of fifty or seventy years ago. They have learnt, at least the most
advanced among them, the power of combination, a remedy which at one
time was forbidden them, but which is now fortunately once more theirs.
The steady growth of Trade Unions and of Co-operative Societies has
taught them habits of self-reliance and of thrift, and has made them
{222} look more closely into the economic conditions of industry.
These unions and societies do not yet embrace all the workmen of
England, but they contain the best and worthiest of them, and their
members are able to preserve a certain independence in treating with
their employers. The power of capital is now opposed by the strength of
united labour, and some of the great strikes of recent years have shown
how great this united strength may be. But the power of labour may
often in such cases degenerate into what readily becomes its weakness;
and in any event, the attitude of mutual distrust and hostility between
employer and employed is one which those who have the best interests of
labour at heart cannot fail to deplore. It is true that the labourer
can look back in his history to times when the power of his employer
was used too selfishly and he himself was miserably oppressed. The
miseries of the early days of the Industrial Revolution, the pauperism
of agricultural labour in the early days of the nineteenth century,
the sad conditions of children’s employment at the beginning of
Queen Victoria’s reign--all these show how the greed of gain has
rendered masters callous to their workpeople’s welfare. But it must be
remembered also that in many cases the workpeople themselves were by
no means always anxious for the improvement of these conditions; and
both masters and men have been slow to recognize the essential identity
of interest, and the equal rights, of Capital and Labour. If the great
principle of mutual interest and co-operation between employer and
employed were more fully acted upon, then the industrial history of our
country would enter upon a new era of well-founded prosperity.

{223}


CHAPTER VIII

THE NEW AGE, 1897–1911


§ 1. INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION--It is impossible in the compass of a
brief chapter to deal otherwise than in the barest outline with the
industrial developments of the last fourteen years. The period opens
with the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria, includes the whole reign of
her son, King Edward the Seventh, and closes in the Coronation year of
her grandson, George the Fifth. From one point of view the country has
during this time made marvellous advances in general prosperity. The
population, indeed, which according to the returns of 1911 stands at
the figure of 36,075,269 for England and Wales, shows a slower rate of
progress than for any other decennial period since the institution of
the census in 1801; but in so far as the diminished birth-rate is due
to a higher standard of living among the people, such a slackening is
itself a token of material well-being. And judging by the ordinarily
accepted standards neither the accumulated wealth nor the productivity
of our nation has ever before attained so great a height.

The gross amount of income brought under the survey of the Inland
Revenue Department in 1907–08 (the last year for which returns are
available) amounted for the first time to over £1,000,000,000 sterling,
while the net amount available for taxation was over £693,000,000 as
against £525,000,000 in 1897–98. The public applications for capital
registered in London in the year 1910 reached a total of £267,439,100,
a vast sum which exceeds all previous records by more than £75,000,000,
and (apart from the large number of unrecorded private investments)
{224} shows the prosperity of undertakings at home and the amount of
surplus capital available for investment abroad.

Wages also, which declined from 1901 to 1905, yet show a marked
increase over the whole period under review, though this increase is
unfortunately largely nominal, owing to the contemporaneous rise in
prices and house-rent.

Both shipping and railway transport have undergone a vast expansion:
the statistics for inland traffic are the chief among our few data
regarding the advance of home trade. Foreign trade, which the “man in
the street” has been led by recent controversy to take as the main
criterion of industrial progress, after breaking all previous records
in 1907, again surpassed itself in 1910. Our total imports for that
year were £678,440,173, and our exports of British produce amounted to
£430,589,811. A comparison with 1897, when the value of our imports
was £451,028,960 and of our exports £294,174,118, shows how remarkable
has been the increase in the volume of our foreign trade. A noteworthy
feature is the growth in the re-export figures, which in 1910 for the
first time exceeded £100,000,000, thus testifying to the maintenance of
our position as the great carrier and transport agent for the world.


§ 2. WARS, CALAMITIES, AND THE AMERICAN CRISIS--Yet there is another
side to this picture of progress and well-being. During the same period
the various quarters of the world were visited by a long series of
calamities, both natural and artificial, from which our own dominions
were not exempt. The Spanish-American War of 1898, the Russo-Japanese
War of 1904–05, and the disastrous earthquakes at San Francisco (1906),
Jamaica (1907), and Messina (1908) all caused not only loss of life and
great physical suffering, but widespread destruction of capital, the
effects of which were felt in all industrial countries. {225} In the
earlier years of the period plague and famine in India and a succession
of serious droughts in Australia also checked the productive capacity
and purchasing power of these great dependencies, and consequently
affected our industries at home.

But the closest and most malign influence was that of the South African
War (1899–1903), which, after at first giving an apparent impetus to
the trades supplying munitions of war, left behind it a legacy of debt,
increased military and naval expenditure, and widespread depression
in trade, with consequent unemployment during the “lean years” that
followed. The National Debt in 1898–99, before the outbreak of war,
stood at £638,000,000, but had risen by 1903–04 to £798,000,000, or to
the level of 1870, thus wiping out in four years the laborious debt
reductions of more than thirty years.

After some years of depression trade again revived, and throughout
the world 1907 was a year of abnormally high prices and widespread
speculation, which culminated during the autumn in an acute financial
crisis in the United States. There practically all the banks suspended
cash payments for some months. The effects of this shock to credit were
felt far and wide. Vast quantities of gold were shipped to the United
States, and although London at the time stood the strain much better
than any other financial centre, the Bank of England was forced to
raise its rate of discount to seven per cent. In the following year the
United States and Japan still suffered from commercial depression, and
in India the harvest proved a failure. Hence, as the consuming power
of these great areas was checked, their demand for British goods fell
off. Thus the volume of our foreign trade was greatly reduced and the
average of the monthly unemployment returns by the Trade Unions {226}
for 1908 was far the highest for many years past, being 9·1 per cent.,
as against 4·3 in the preceding year.


§ 3. THE INCREASE OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURE--During the Boer War and since
its close there has been an unparalleled growth both in national
and municipal expenditure. For every £5 that was required by public
departments in 1895 £8 is now expended. The addition to the National
Debt, and consequently to the debt charges, has been already noticed,
and the following table shows the general figures for the opening and
close of the period under review:--

                         _Expenditure_   _Estimated Expenditure_
                             1897–98                  1910–11

 Army                      £19,330,000               £27,760,000
 Navy                       20,850,000                40,604,000
 Civil Service              23,446,000                42,686,000
 National Debt and other
   services                 25,000,000                36,945,000
 Post Office, Customs and
   Inland Revenue           14,310,000                23,852,000
                          ______________________________________
               Total      £102,936,000              £171,847,000
                          ______________________________________

These totals represent an expenditure per head of the total population
of £2, 11_s._ in 1897–98 and of £3, 16_s._ in 1910–11.

We must remember, however, that the expenses of the Post Office are
more than covered by the revenue derived from that institution, and
that much of the addition to the Civil Service estimates is due to
Old Age Pensions and to the increased provision for education. “The
Civil Service charge has risen as the natural result of multiplied
and enlarged activities, and advance has been specially heavy in the
last two decades, but the Civil Service includes education, poor
law, the improvement of roads and health, and many other services
which conduce to national well-being. It stands on a very different
economic level from armaments, which represent {227} the workings of
international discord and jealousy.”[64] Yet there is no doubt that
in all departments the public money is being expended more freely and
extravagantly than was the case some twenty-five years ago.

The portentous increase in naval expenditure must be ascribed partly to
the Boer War, but chiefly to our recent rivalry in naval construction
with Germany, and our adoption of the _Dreadnought_ type of battleship.
Army expenditure increased between 1897 and 1899 through a series of
“little wars” in Egypt and India, and since the South African War we
have been practically maintaining a war establishment in time of peace.

Thus we see that owing to the growth of armaments and fresh expenditure
on social needs the taxpayer has to endure a heavy burden, which
threatens to grow as the rate of increase among the population
slackens. Any expenditure beyond what is required for military
efficiency and social well-being is not only wasteful but actually
injurious to our industry and commerce, since it diverts capital from
productive channels. There is no justification for maintaining taxation
at a war level in time of peace. As Mr Gladstone said, money is best
left to fructify in the pockets of the people; or, to quote his great
opponent, Lord Beaconsfield, who was always in agreement with him on
this point, “the more you reduce the burdens of the people in time of
peace, the greater will be your strength when the hour of peril comes.”

  [64. _Economist_, Nov. 19, 1910.]


§ 4. FREE TRADE AND PROTECTION. THE COLONIES--Ever since the repeal
of the Corn Laws there had been in England a group of agricultural
Protectionists, and some thirty years ago a small number of
manufacturers began to advocate retaliation against foreign tariffs
under the title of “Fair Trade.” Towards the close of Queen {228}
Victoria’s reign the growth of Imperial sentiment brought into
prominence suggestions for a closer political and commercial union
between England and her colonies. In 1903 these various strands
of thought were combined by Mr Joseph Chamberlain, then Colonial
Secretary, in his campaign on behalf of “Tariff Reform.” This movement
(which thus at first contained the inconsistent elements of protection
to the British farmer, retaliation against the foreign manufacturer,
and colonial preference) met with some acceptance in that year of
depressed trade, and has now been adopted as the programme of the
Unionist Party, in spite of the opposition of an important minority. In
the General Election of 1906 the Protectionists sustained a crushing
defeat, and they have not since been able to secure a majority in the
House of Commons.

Although the controversy is still unsettled, it is at present, for
various reasons, somewhat in abeyance. Old Age Pensions, which were to
have been provided out of the revenues of the tariff, have been granted
without recourse to protection, and other questions have occupied the
political field at home, while the recent great expansion both in home
and foreign trade seems, in the eyes of the public, to have falsified
the more gloomy predictions of the “Tariff Reformers.”

The supporters of the movement emphasize the growing political and
commercial importance of our colonies, and the rapid advances made by
Germany and the United States in neutral markets, and they point to the
tariff walls which block our trade with foreign nations. Free-traders,
in reply, maintain that the progress of Germany and America is due
to a combination of many causes apart from their tariffs. They are,
for purposes of internal trade, the largest free trade areas in the
world. {229} Since the trade of nations is mutually interdependent we
cannot suffer from an increase in commercial prosperity elsewhere, and
retaliation has never proved a successful method of fighting hostile
tariffs. In conclusion, they declare that an impossible task awaits any
statesman who undertakes to frame a British tariff satisfactory alike
to farmer, manufacturer, the colonies and India, and one which would
not involve an increase in the price of food and other necessaries.

The reader must refer to larger treatises for details of the
controversy, which has been much embittered by party spirit. But
it seems at least that the war of statistics and arguments has not
proved that the position of the working classes in regard to real
wages, continuity of employment, and conditions of labour is better
in protected countries than among our own people: indeed, as skilled
economists constantly remind us, so many other factors are involved
and so many qualifications must be made that it is almost impossible
to draw trustworthy comparisons of this nature. Nor has the response
of the colonies to the suggestions of the Preferentialists been
encouraging. They have shown without ambiguity that highly as they
value their connexion with the mother-country, they value equally
highly their own political and commercial independence. In 1901 the
various States of Australia united in a Federal Commonwealth whose
tariff is highly protective, and in 1911 Canada began to negotiate
mutual tariff concessions with the United States, her nearest and
most important market. Our colonies are thus rapidly developing into
practically independent States, bound to us, indeed, by ties of filial
affection and interest, but determined to shape their own careers.
South Africa has just entered upon the most hopeful chapter of her
chequered history {230} by the federation of the four colonies in
the Union of South Africa. The original settlements of Cape Colony
and Natal and the two Boer States conquered in the late war form now
a self-governing whole--a happy reconciliation, hardly to have been
anticipated at the end of the war, which is a high tribute to the
wisdom of statesmen at home and to the healing effects of time in South
Africa.


§ 5. THE POSITION OF THE WORKERS. SOCIAL LEGISLATION--Returns recently
published by the Local Government Board and other official statistics
show that in the last half-century there has been a very marked
improvement in regard to public health and social conditions. The
rate of infantile mortality (among children less than one year old)
is still sadly high in many town areas, yet, though it stood in 1907
at 118 per thousand for the whole of England and Wales, this figure
is lower than that for any Continental country except Holland, and
the death-rates from many diseases have also fallen rapidly in recent
years. Housing accommodation has improved, statistics of overcrowding
in 1901 showing a considerable reduction upon those of the previous
census, and pauperism has on the average steadily declined. Wage
statistics are inadequate and very difficult of interpretation, but
they seem to indicate a marked rise during the last forty years, while
the level of prices has fallen 24 per cent. during the same period.
A detailed consideration of the last five years, however, reveals a
less cheerful picture. The depression of trade resulting from the
expenditure of capital during the South African War led to a fall in
wages and a serious increase in unemployment. The hardships of the
workers were aggravated by a period of rising prices and by the reflex
effects of the American crisis. The statistics of pauperism in 1907 and
{231} 1908 showed a proportion of 24 per thousand inhabitants against
an average of 22 per thousand for the preceding decade. In October and
November 1908 the Trade Unions returned 9 per cent. of their members
as unemployed, whilst amongst unorganized and casual workers the
proportion was no doubt higher.

Yet at the same time there is a greatly increased sensitiveness of
the public conscience regarding the condition of the vast majority of
the population, as has been shown both in Parliamentary legislation
and in unofficial movements for social betterment. Among the latter,
garden villages and schemes for housing and town-planning bear witness
to a recognition by employers and municipalities of a duty to provide
workers and their families with some of the necessities for “good
life.”[65]

  [65. “The State came into being to preserve life, but it
  continues in being for the sake of good life.”--ARISTOTLE.]

Such questions have become all the more urgent with the recent rapid
growth of great suburban districts on the borders of our cities. This
phenomenon--due to the eagerness of workers to escape into regions of
somewhat purer air and lower rates outside the municipal areas--is
emphasized in the latest census returns. According to these the
boroughs are actually increasing in population less rapidly than their
neighbouring counties, and in London itself the overflow is shown by
decreases in many of the boroughs and an increase of 33 per cent. in
the “Outer Ring.”

In another direction the success of the Workers’ Educational
Association and kindred efforts proves that many among the working
classes are eager to grasp opportunities for intellectual growth. But
it is in recent legislation that we find the most remarkable testimony
both to the power of the labour movement and the awakened {232}
national conscience to which allusion has just been made.

There was an attempt in 1907 to check the drift townwards by offering
the labourer an inducement to remain in the country. The aim of the
Small Holdings and Allotments Act of that year was to provide him with
a few acres of land at a reasonable rate with security of tenure,
and so to re-establish the small cultivator. The Budgets from 1906
to 1908 not only relieved the general taxpayer by debt reduction and
the middle classes by a differentiation of the income-tax in favour
of earned incomes, but also reduced the tea and sugar duties, which
fall most heavily on the working classes. But the Budget of 1908 will
be remembered chiefly for the step then taken towards the relief of
the aged poor. The institution of Old Age Pensions (already in force
for some years in our Australasian colonies) was hotly decried as a
Socialistic measure debasing to the recipients. So far, however, the
test of experience seems to show none but good results, and since the
recent removal of the poor relief disqualification there has been a
marked fall in the statistics of pauperism. In 1909 the new Chancellor
of the Exchequer, Mr Lloyd-George, introduced his first Budget. Its
rejection by the House of Lords, which marked the crisis of the long
struggle between the two Houses, has made it famous in constitutional
history. But, avoiding its controversial clauses, we may note that
this Budget also provided a small sum for the establishment of
Labour Exchanges, on the Continental model, throughout the country.
These exchanges, which are now working, aim at rendering labour more
mobile, at bringing employers requiring workers and workers needing
employment into touch with one another, and at publishing reliable
information as to the condition of the labour {233} market. The
Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1897, which placed the liability for
industrial accidents on the shoulders of employers, was extended in
1906 to all workers (including domestic servants) whose annual earnings
are under £250. Lastly, in 1911, a far-reaching scheme was introduced
by which, with State assistance, all wage-earners (under a maximum
of £160 per annum) are to be insured against sickness (including for
women a maternity benefit) and the experiment of an insurance against
unemployment is to be tried in the case of building, shipbuilding, and
engineering--the trades which suffer most acutely from periodical lack
of work.

We may also notice here the publication in 1909 of the exhaustive
Report of the Poor Law Commission appointed in 1905. This is noteworthy
both for its wholesale condemnation of the existing poor law system and
its drastic proposals for a new method of dealing with the problem of
poverty and unemployment. Four Commissioners, led by Mrs Sidney Webb,
the well-known social writer, published their own “Minority” report,
which contains a still more far-reaching scheme of State control. Both
reports have aroused keen interest, they have influenced some of the
legislation just described, and one of the schemes or a compromise
between them will no doubt form the basis for the expected reform of
the Poor Law.


§ 6. TRADE UNIONISM AND THE LABOUR MOVEMENT--It was remarked in the
last paragraph that the social legislation recorded was due in part
to the pressure of the organized forces of labour upon politicians.
The membership of Trade Unions has risen from 1,688,531 in 1898 to
2,426,592 in 1910; while in Parliament the Labour Party consisted in
1911 of about forty members, the majority of whom were nominated by
Trade Unions and {234} maintained out of Trade Union funds. Through
these representatives Trade Unionists have been able to exert a
considerable influence upon legislation. By the decision, on appeal,
of the House of Lords, in the Taff Vale Case (1901), the Trade Unions
Act of 1871 was so interpreted as to make it possible for a Trade Union
to be sued in tort for the acts of its members, and for Trade Union
funds to become liable for any damages that might be awarded. Trade
Unionists protested against the decision as contrary to the spirit of
the legislation of 1871, and sufficient pressure was exerted by the
Labour members to ensure the passage of the Trade Disputes Act in 1906.
This restored Trade Unions to their original position under the law of
1871.

But in 1909 the “Osborne Judgment” struck a blow at the existence
of the Labour Party itself. Osborne, a member of the Amalgamated
Society of Railway Servants, sued the officials of that union on the
ground that the enforced levy from members for the maintenance of
Parliamentary representatives was _ultra vires_ and accordingly void.
After prolonged litigation the House of Lords gave its final judgment
in favour of the plaintiff. The Labour Party in Parliament began to
press for the reversal of this decision, and at the same time tried
to conciliate opposition by abolishing the “pledge” to which all its
members had been forced to subscribe. But the obvious difficulties
which handicapped men of moderate means, of whatever party, in their
attempts to enter Parliament, led to another movement amongst Liberals,
Labour Members, and some Conservatives for the payment of all Members
of Parliament out of State funds, and provision for this step was made
in the Budget of 1911.

Of recent years there has been considerable unrest in {235} the labour
world and much loss of time and money has accrued to both employers
and employed through industrial disputes. The most important stoppages
were those in the coal trade (in South Wales in 1898 and 1910 and in
the North in 1910), in the Lancashire cotton industry in 1908 and
1910, in the engineering centres on the north-east coast in 1908, and
in the shipbuilding trade in 1910. In August 1911 the country had
to face stoppages at the London and Liverpool docks, and, closely
following, a general railway strike, which occurred at twenty-four
hours’ notice. The dockers gained their demands; the railway strike,
through the efforts of the Government, only lasted two days, as a small
and impartial Commission was immediately appointed to inquire into the
working of the Railway Conciliation Boards, the inefficiency of which
to remedy grievances was put forward by the railway unions as the cause
of the strike. These recent transport difficulties occasioned very
serious trade losses and much inconvenience to the general public, and
in certain parts of the country were attended by grave rioting and
disorder. All the disputes have taxed the powers of skilled arbitrators
(Board of Trade officials or distinguished private individuals),
but their most disquieting feature has been, in several cases, the
tendency of the workers not to comply with the terms of settlement,
and the apparent inability of Trade Union officials to enforce such
compliance. Action of this kind can only have the effect of alienating
popular sympathy even in the case of genuine grievances. However, it
is admitted by most observers that the recent increase in the prices
of important commodities and the general rise in the standard of life
amongst the working classes make the claim for higher wages and shorter
hours of work a well-founded one.

{236}


§ 7. RECENT INVENTIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS--With regard
to industrial machinery recent years have shown rather a greater
perfection and rapidity of working than any actually new invention.
Perhaps the greatest technical improvements have been made in
engineering and steel production, but in many branches of industry the
part of the machine constantly increases in importance and that of the
individual worker diminishes.

The most striking developments of the last fifteen years have been in
connection with transport and communication. The telephone has become
a business necessity, and now wireless telegraphy (associated with the
name of M. Marconi) has extended our power of rapid intercourse even to
mid-ocean. There has been an enormous increase in the size and speed
of merchant vessels, the most sensational evidence of which is seen in
the vast ocean liners of German and Anglo-American companies plying
between Europe and the United States.[66] Not only have these ships
reduced the passage between New York and Liverpool to a length of about
five days, but they are able to carry much larger cargoes than their
predecessors, and thus doubly tend to swell the volume of international
trade. On land there has been an extraordinary increase in the use of
motor transport both for goods and passenger traffic, and the recent
successes of aviation seem to foretell that at no distant time the air
will form another highway for human intercourse.

  [66. The _Lusitania_ and _Mauretania_ are over 31,000 tons
  burden; the _Olympic_ and the _Titanic_, 45,000 tons.]

Glancing at the changes in the industrial world we may note the
tendency (due to resultant economies of marketing and management)
towards an increase in the {237} size of a single business and in the
amount of capital invested in it. This tendency is seen in many of the
great staple manufactures, such as the textile trades and milling,
but also in banking and finance generally, where the huge joint-stock
concerns with many branches have swallowed up the old-fashioned
private bank with its local connexion. In retail trading, too, the
great stores, providing many classes of goods under one roof, prove
formidable rivals to the small shopkeepers. These stores are generally
run as joint-stock companies and often have branches throughout the
country. Nevertheless, thanks mainly to the absence of a protective
tariff, which shelters the growth of monopoly, England is comparatively
free from the dominance of great Trusts. Some partial or local
monopolies exist, of which railways, newspaper combines, and the “tied”
public-houses attached to some brewing companies form the most obvious
examples. But in the opinion of those qualified to judge, the small
trader or manufacturer is holding his own in many branches of industry.

The census returns, which show the shifting of employment in various
groups of industry, form a good criterion of their relative importance.
Those for 1901 have been analysed as follows by a recent writer:--

  “The orders which show the greatest decline are textiles and dress.
 While metal, ships, pottery, wood, food, etc., show a moderate
 advance, precious metals and instruments, vehicles, chemicals,
 printing, show a great increase. A still closer examination into the
 sub-orders of the census returns shows that the foundational and
 the staple processes of manufacture are stagnant or declining in
 importance, while those concerned with the finishing processes of
 manufacture, especially those {238} concerned with the manufacture of
 more highly specialized articles, are increasing.”[67]

Mr Hobson adds that the most noteworthy advance is shown in two special
groups, the trades concerned with the building and furnishing of houses
and those which manufacture vehicles for land and water carriage.
The growth in the first of these groups tends to corroborate the
statistics of improved housing accommodation already mentioned, while
that in the second introduces us to the most significant movement of
all, the enormous increase in all occupations connected with land and
water transport. This again may be correlated with the figures for our
re-export trade already given, since both show England’s marvellous
position as the great market and carrier for the world.

  [67. Hobson, _Evolution of Modern Capitalism_, p. 388.]


§ 8.[68] THE NECESSITY OF STUDYING ECONOMIC FACTORS IN
HISTORY--Hitherto our prosperity, great as it is, has frequently had
its drawbacks, and has passed through many vicissitudes. Our ancestors
and ourselves have made many mistakes, and till recently, as we have
seen, the growth of our national wealth has been slow. But a study
of industrial history is not without its uses, if it helps us to-day
to understand how we have come into our present position, and what
faults and follies we must avoid in order to retain it. Unfortunately,
few historians have thought it worth their while to study seriously
the economic factors in the history of nations. They have contented
themselves with the intrigues and amusements of courtiers and kings,
the actions of individual statesmen, or the destructive feats of
military heroes. They have often failed to explain properly the great
causes which necessitated the results they claim {239} to investigate.
But just as it is impossible to understand the growth of England
without a proper appreciation of the social and industrial events
which rendered that growth possible, and which provided the expenses
which that growth entailed, so it will be impossible to proceed in the
future without a systematic study of economic and industrial affairs.
Many of the great political questions of our day derive most of their
difficulty from economic causes; while international politics tend
more and more to centre round matters of commercial and industrial
importance. After all, the means by which we gain our daily bread form
for the majority of mankind the most pressing of problems; and what is
true of the individual is true on a larger scale of the nation also.
Man is by no means a purely economic animal, but the material wants
of human life must be satisfied, and much of human activity must be
directed toward their fulfilment. The history of mankind is the history
of man’s activity, and so long as human nature and men’s material
conditions are what they are, so long must economic and industrial
factors have a potent influence in the course of political and social
life. We have seen in these pages how such factors have influenced the
growth of our own nation and contributed towards bringing us into our
present position; and it is only reasonable to believe that commercial
and industrial considerations must weigh more and more heavily with
us if that position is to be secured and maintained. And those of us
who wish to help in maintaining and advancing our national progress
must seek carefully to answer the economic questions that are forcing
themselves continually upon us, by looking at them in the light
afforded by the industrial history of a great industrial nation.

  [68. This paragraph originally formed the conclusion to Dr Gibbins’
  volume.]

{241}




NOTE ON AUTHORITIES FOR INDUSTRIAL HISTORY


For the earlier periods of English industrial history the ordinary
student will find Cunningham’s _Growth of Industry_ and Ashley’s
_Introduction to English Economic History and Theory_ useful. Besides
these he should endeavour by all means to read the _Domesday Book_, a
translation or copy of which may be found in most public libraries. The
well-known histories of Stubbs and Freeman are also a great help. Then,
for the whole of the period from Henry III. to the eighteenth century,
the large work, _The History of English Agriculture and Prices_ (in
six volumes) by Professor Thorold Rogers affords a perfect mine of
information. The same author’s _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_ and
_Economic Interpretation of History_ are absolutely indispensable
for anyone who wants to understand, not only our industrial, but our
general history. Time spent over these two books is amply repaid.
For the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries especially, Toynbee’s
_Industrial Revolution_ and Leone Levi’s _History of Commerce_ must be
read, and the Blue-books of the period should also be consulted.

Besides these works by modern authors, Arthur Young’s _Northern and
Southern Tours in England_, and Defoe’s _Tour_ afford a valuable
picture of English industries in the last century, as also does the
_Wealth of Nations_ by Adam Smith. There is likewise a useful little
_History of British Commerce_, from the earliest times, by G. L. Craik
(published in 1844 by Charles Knight, but now long since out of print),
which I have found very helpful and fairly complete.

For the political portion of our history Green’s _History of the
English People_ will probably be sufficient for general readers; and
it contains occasionally a reference to industrial events. Mr George
Howell’s _Conflict of Capital and Labour_ should be read, as affording
a clear view of the old gilds and their modern descendants, the Trade
Unions; and no student of modern industrial questions should omit to
familiarize himself with the {242} _History of Co-operation_, by Mr
Holyoake. A little book called _The Romance of Trade_ gives a number
of interesting industrial facts in a disconnected sort of way, and may
be read with advantage when the student knows the general outlines of
industrial history. Harrison’s _Elizabethan England_ (now published in
the Camelot Classics Series) might be read in a similar way, as giving
a picture of sixteenth century life.

I must acknowledge my indebtedness to all the above works, which I
have freely used in this little history, and especially to the works
of Professor Thorold Rogers, without which no complete industrial
history could have been written. I have also utilized in some places
the material already existing in my own _Short Account of the Growth
of English Industry_ in the _Co-operative Annual_ of 1890, and in
my article on _English Agriculture_ in the _Westminster Review_
of December 1888. I have preferred to state in this note the more
accessible works that I have consulted, omitting others which are not
immediately necessary for ordinary readers, rather than to burden
my pages with continual footnotes and references. I trust that the
works here indicated may help to guide students of economic history
in reading far beyond the limits within which this short outline is
necessarily confined.

I have also dealt with this subject more fully in a larger work
entitled _Industry in England_ (Methuen: London, 1896).

 H. de B. G.

Of recent years some standard works on Domesday have been published,
including Round’s _Feudal England_, F. W. Maitland’s _Domesday Book and
Beyond_, Vinogradoff’s _Villeinage in England_ and Ballard’s _Domesday
Inquest_--the last being an excellent summary. Webb’s _Industrial
Democracy_ and _History of Trade Unionism_, Hobson’s _Evolution of
Modern Capitalism_ and Booth’s monumental _Life and Labour of the
People of London_, all deal with the modern period. No serious student
should fail to consult the publications of Government departments and
Royal Commissions concerning questions of trade, industry, and social
progress. The census returns and the current Statistical Abstracts
are also useful. Bowley’s _Elementary Manual of Statistics_ affords
valuable help in the interpretation of these publications.

 M. E. H

{243}




NOTES


1. POPULATION OF ROMAN BRITAIN (p. 2)--It is, of course, impossible
to state this accurately. Much of the land that supported a large
population in Roman times afterwards fell waste--_e.g._ the fens of the
eastern counties (p. 111); but the numerous Roman remains still left to
us testify to a considerable economic development. (Cf. also the facts
given in Cunningham’s _Growth of English Industry_, p. 53).


2. MARKETS ON BOUNDARIES (p. 3)--A good example of this is
Moreton-in-Marsh, an ancient market town situated on the boundaries
of the four counties of Oxford, Gloucester, Worcester and Warwick
shires. This fact is recorded by a stone, known as “the four shires’
stone,” and situated about a mile from the town on the London Road.
The religious origin of many markets, alluded to in the case of
Glasgow, should not be forgotten. (Cf. Cunningham’s _Growth of English
Industry_, p. 76.)


3. DANISH INFLUENCE ON COMMERCE (p. 4)--The Danes, before ever they
came to England, were enterprising navigators, as is shown by their
very early commerce with Russia, their colonization of Iceland (A.D.
874), and discovery of Greenland (A.D. 985), and the coast of the (now)
Eastern United States. They settled chiefly in the north of England,
in very large numbers and formed an active industrial population, many
of them becoming leading merchants. They were instrumental in causing
English trade to develop in the north of Europe, and generally speaking
gave a stimulus to navigation. (Cf. Cunningham’s _Growth of English
Industry_, p. 83 _sqq._--1890 ed.)


4. MANORIAL COURTS (p. 19)--The court baron was composed of a kind
of jury of freeholders and was concerned with civil proceedings. The
court leet was composed of all tenants, both free and serf, who acted
as a jury in criminal cases, minor offences, and so forth. Both courts
were presided over by the lord of the manor or his bailiff. Thus local
discipline and law was concentrated in the hands of the inhabitants
of the parish themselves, and the {244} manorial courts were a very
useful means of education in local self-government. Unfortunately their
power, utility, and educational influence declined with the decay of
the whole manorial system. (Cf. Rogers’ _Work and Wages_, pp. 63 and
420.--1889 ed.)


5. DECAY OF MANORIAL SYSTEM (p. 22)--The decay of this social and
economic system begins most clearly and markedly with the changes made
by the Black Death (1348), and by the social revolution which followed
it, of which the Peasants’ Revolt was the first and most startling
symptom (cf. pp. 73, 74–77). The legislation of Edward I. forms, again,
another epoch from which to date the decay of manorial institutions.
As Dr Cunningham says (_Growth of Industry_, p. 243), “In regard to
commerce, manufactures, and to agriculture alike, the local authorities
were gradually overtaken and superseded by the increasing activity of
Parliament, till in the time of Elizabeth the work was practically
finished.” The essentially local and personal relations of the manor
gave way to the more general and impersonal relations of national
government and national economy.


6. THE JEWS (p. 36)--It appears that this expulsion of the Jews was not
absolutely complete, and Jewish tradition gives the year 1358 as the
date of final expulsion; but in 1410 a Jewish physician, Elias Sabot,
was certainly allowed to practise in England. There seems to have been
a certain immigration of Jews to England, when they were expelled from
Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella (1492), for there are notices of them
recovering debts in English law-courts. Their presence in this country
was, however, only first _publicly_ sanctioned by Cromwell; and during
the Commonwealth and the reign of Charles II. they came back here in
considerable numbers. (Cf. Wolf’s _Anglo-Jewish Exhibition Papers_, p.
57; and my own _History of Commerce in Europe_, p. 99.)


7. COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH FLANDERS (p. 49)--We may add to the
notices here given the treaty of 1274 between Edward I. and the
Countess of Flanders, protecting the export of English wool to
Flanders, and the well-known case of Perkin Warbeck. This impostor
was supported by the dowager Duchess of Burgundy, and was well
received in Flanders, then ruled by the Archduke Philip. As Philip,
at the instigation of the Duchess, encouraged Warbeck, Henry VII.
took the step of banishing all Flemings from England (1493), and as
Philip replied by expelling all the English from Flanders, commercial
intercourse between the two countries was almost entirely suspended.
The result was, as {245} Bacon tells us, this interruption “began to
pinch the merchants of both nations very sore,” and they besought their
respective sovereigns “to open the intercourse again.” Philip withdrew
his support from Warbeck and the impostor was left without resources,
so that his subsequent appearance in England was a complete failure.
The want of English wool thus altered the policy of the Flemish rulers,
and before long the “great treaty,” or _Intercursus Magnus_, was made
between the two nations (1496), by which trade was once more allowed
to proceed unchecked, and “the English merchants came again to their
mansion at Antwerp where they were received with procession and great
joy.”

Henry VII. also made a commercial treaty with Denmark (1490); and one
with the Republic of Florence, securing to that city a stipulated
supply of English wool every year. (Cf. _Commerce in Europe_, p. 98.)


8. OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME (p. 50)--Of course we must not forget
that the kings who fought against the French got money for their
wars by other means as well. Large amounts were extorted from the
Jews; enormous debts were contracted by Edward III. with the great
Florentine bankers the Bardi; and his repudiation of them in 1345
caused the failure of that firm. Edward III. also pawned his crown and
jewels, which were in pledge at Cologne, and could not redeem them,
till the Hansa merchants in England came to his rescue and lent him
the necessary cash in return for trading privileges in London. (Cf.
_Commerce in Europe_, §§ 44 and 62. The question of taxation, etc., may
be studied from larger political histories.)


9. ASSIZE OF BREAD AND ALE (p. 61)--The best example of such regulation
is found, perhaps, in the Act 13, Rich. II., st. 1, c. 8 (1389–90),
which ordains: “Forasmuch as a man cannot put the price of corn and
other victuals in certain, the justices of the peace shall every year
make proclamation “by their discretion,” according to the dearth of
victuals, how much every mason, carpenter, tiler, and other craftsmen,
workmen, and other labourers by the day shall take by the day, with
meat and drink or without meat and drink, and that every man shall obey
such proclamations from time to time, as a thing done by statute.”
Finally, provision is made for the correct keeping of the _assize_, or
_assessment_ from time to time, of the prices of bread and ale. The
earliest notice of an “assize” in England is found in the Parliament
Rolls for 1203, but the practice is probably much {246} older; and the
most ancient law upon the subject is the 51st Hen. III. (A.D. 1266),
“Assisa Panis et Cerevisiæ.” The assize of bread was in force till the
beginning of the nineteenth century, and was only then abolished in
London.


10. STOURBRIDGE FAIR (p. 63)--This Stourbridge or Sturbridge is now
almost in Cambridge itself, the relics of the fair being held in a
field near Barnwell, about a mile and a half from the city. In ancient
times it was very easy for merchants to come up the River Ouse in
barges or light boats, as water-transport was much more used then than
now, and even the sea-going ships were very light craft. Probably a
Flemish merchant would find no difficulty in sailing all the way from
Antwerp to Cambridge in a light ship.


11. SURVIVALS OF VILLEINAGE (pp. 74, 79)--Of course an ancient and
universal custom could not die out all at once, but its decay after
1381 was certainly rapid. Dr Cunningham (_Growth of Industry_, p.
360) quotes cases to prove that villeinage existed in the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries, but he himself says that Fitzherbert (_On
Surveyinge_, 1539) “laments over the continuance of villanage as
a disgrace to the country”; and Fitzherbert would surely not have
spoken thus if it was a recognized institution, instead of a decaying
survival. Again, in 1574 Elizabeth enfranchised all bondmen on her
estates; and she would hardly have done this if it had been the
universal custom to retain villeins in their old bondage. We may
readily admit that there were plenty of survivals of villeinage,
although the old institutions were practically obsolete.


11_a_. MONOPOLIES (p. 102)--These had been used by the crown partly in
order to raise money by their sale and partly as a convenient method
of paying or rewarding ministers or court favourites. Thus Elizabeth’s
favourite, Essex, had a monopoly of sweet wines. But by Elizabeth’s
time they had become so unpopular, and people saw so clearly the taxes
which they inflicted on all articles thus monopolized that Parliament
demanded (in 1601) their abolition. So determined was the House that
the Queen gave way, though she was no doubt within the legal limits
of her prerogative. James I., however, used his prerogative to create
so many new monopolies that Parliament again protested (in 1609), and
he also revoked them all. But after the suspension of Parliamentary
government in 1614 monopolies were granted again, till in 1621 their
revocation was one of the main points mentioned among the grievances
which the House {247} of Commons proceeded to redress, and monopolies
were then once more abolished. The three patents (or monopolies)
chiefly complained of were those on (1) inns and hostelries, (2)
alehouses, (3) gold and silver thread. The Act abolishing monopolies
is the 21 Jac. I. cap. 3 (1624). This Parliamentary struggle about
monopolies shows very clearly the beginnings of the great fight between
Parliament and the Crown, the former trying to regain rights which had
for some time (especially under the Tudors) been in abeyance, and the
Crown to keep prerogatives which had hitherto been exercised unchecked.


12. ELIZABETH’S POOR LAW (p. 107)--There is no doubt that the original
intention of the Act was beneficent, and its framers are not to be held
responsible for the use made of it in later times.

The ACT OF APPRENTICESHIP, incidentally fixing wages by assessment, was
mainly concerned with the relations of masters to their journeymen and
apprentices; and enacted also that no person should exercise a craft or
trade unless he had been apprenticed to it for seven years.


13. BANKING AND THE STOP OF THE EXCHEQUER (p. 130)--Banking was now
becoming a regular business, carried on especially by goldsmiths,
who often advanced money to the sovereign upon the security of taxes
or personal credit. A pamphlet of 1676, called “The Mystery of the
Newfashioned Goldsmiths or Bankers Discovered,” shows how banking and
money-lending had become a regular business, and gives the year 1645
as about the time when commercial men began regularly to put their
cash in the hands of goldsmiths. It also states that “the greatest of
them (_i.e._ of the goldsmiths) were enabled to supply Cromwell with
money in advance upon the revenues, as his occasions required, at
great advantage to themselves.” Similarly the famous goldsmith George
Heriot had frequently obliged James I. It is well known how the London
goldsmiths advanced Charles II. as much as £1,300,000, at 8 to 10 per
cent. interest, upon the security of the taxes; and how (in 1672) he
suddenly refused to pay them, saying they must be content with the
interest, and closed the exchequer, thus causing a serious commercial
panic.

The unsatisfactory method of obtaining loans from goldsmiths and other
private persons was partly the cause of William Paterson’s project, now
known as the BANK OF ENGLAND (1694). Paterson offered to provide the
Government of William III. with £1,200,000, to be repaid by taxation
on beer or other liquors and {248} by rates on shipping, while those
who subscribed this money were incorporated into a regular company
which was to receive 8 per cent. interest and also £4000 a year for
management. Thus the matter of loans was first placed upon a proper
basis and the Bank thus formed, and supported by Government credit,
took at once a leading position in English commerce. (Cf. Rogers’
_First Nine Years of Bank of England_.)


14. NATIONAL DEBT (p. 145)--This loan, mentioned in the last note, was
the beginning of a regular National Debt, the system of contracting
loans upon the security of the supplies or upon Government credit,
and of paying them off gradually in succeeding generations. (Cf. my
_Commerce in Europe_, p. 145, and Grellier’s _National Debt_.)

THE RESTORATION OF THE CURRENCY was due to Montague, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. Up to the time of Charles II. silver money was made
by simply cutting the metal with shears, and shaping and stamping it
with a hammer. It was thus quite easy to clip or shear the coins again
without being detected, and then pass them off to an unsuspecting
person for their full nominal value. So the coins became smaller
and smaller, and people often found on presenting them at a bank or
elsewhere that they were only worth half their nominal value. At first,
under Charles II., it was thought sufficient to issue new coins with a
ribbed or “milled” edge, but the only result of this was that the good
coin was melted or exported and (as is always the case) the inferior
money remained at home. It was then seen, by Montague and Sir Isaac
Newton (the Master of the Mint), that the only way was to _call in_ the
old coinage and issue an entirely new and true milled currency. The
expenses of this re-coinage, which cost some two and a half millions,
were defrayed by a tax on window-panes. (Cf. Rogers’ _Economic
Interpretation of History_, p. 200.)

THE EAST INDIA COMPANY’S NEW CHARTER was granted on October 7th, 1693,
by William III., and restored all the former powers and privileges
of the Company. This Company’s monopoly of trade with India had been
frequently infringed by private traders, and it was generally regarded
with such great hostility that the House of Commons in 1692 requested
the King to dissolve the Company upon the ground of mismanagement and
conduct injurious to national interests. However, the enemies of the
Company failed, and all its privileges were confirmed by the Charter of
1693. Its monopoly was nevertheless still often disregarded, and {249}
the validity of it denied by Parliament in spite of the King’s favour.
A New Company was even formed in 1698, but after a few years the two
rival Companies were amalgamated (1708).


15. EXPORT OF BULLION (p. 169)--“In form the prohibition on the export
of gold and silver coin continued to 1816. People were allowed to
export gold in bars, foreign coin, and bullion the produce of foreign
coin; and an oath had to be taken that exported bars were of this
character. People were hired to swear that they were so, and sworn-off
gold, as it was called, was worth 1⁠½_d._ an ounce more than other
gold was. Three-halfpence an ounce was the bullion-dealer’s payment for
perjury” (Rogers’ _Economic Interpretation of History_, p. 187).

The necessities of their Eastern trade compelled the East India Company
to acquire large stores of bullion and export it to India, in spite of
any prohibition to the contrary; and their trade, with its enormous
profits, was thus a very clear example of the mistaken character of the
theory which taught that gold and silver must not be exported for fear
of impoverishing the country. This fact, in the case of the East Indian
trade, was seen by some economists early in the eighteenth century, and
was then clearly stated by a writer in the paper called the _British
Merchant_ (i. 26), who estimated the export of bullion to India and
China at £400,000 or £500,000 a year (in 1764 it was £369,831, and
£532,705 in 1790). The _British Merchant_ was first published in 1713.


16. IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL EVENTS (p. 125)--Among the important
commercial events of this period one ought certainly to include the
_Darien Scheme_ and the _Union of England and Scotland_, although these
belong more fitly to a History of Commerce than of Industry. The Darien
scheme was a project originated by William Paterson, the founder of the
Bank of England, who proposed to colonize the Isthmus of Darien and
use it as “the key of the Indies and door of the world” for commerce.
English capitalists, however, would not support his scheme and it
was denounced by the English Parliament. Nevertheless a company was
formed in Scotland, called “The Scottish African and Indian Company,”
a charter was given it by the Scotch Parliament in 1695, and a capital
of £900,000 was ultimately raised, £400,000 coming from Scotland, then
a very poor country, and the rest from English and Dutch merchants.
The hostility of the East India Company, the Levant Company, and of
the Dutch in {250} general, however, never ceased, and it was owing
to their influence that, when the ill-fated colony at last set out for
Darien in July 1698, the settlers were left quite unaided against the
attacks of the Spaniards, who claimed the monopoly of South American
trade. In fact, Spanish attacks and the climate, so utterly unsuited
for European colonists, sealed the fate of the expedition, and few who
went out ever returned. This failure had the most serious effect in
impoverishing the Scotch, who could then ill afford the loss, but there
is little doubt that it greatly helped to bring about the subsequent
Act of Union between England and Scotland, in which William Paterson
was largely concerned (1707). The Union proved of considerable benefit
to Scotland, as, by it, trade between the two countries became free,
English ports and colonies were thrown open to the Scotch, and Scotland
found a large market for woollen and linen goods and cattle in England.

The date of the _Methuen Treaty_ is 1703, and it was arranged by John
Methuen between England and Portugal. It was agreed that British
woollen goods should be admitted into Portugal and her colonies,
provided that at all times Portuguese wines were admitted into
England at two-thirds of the duty (whatever it might be) levied on
French wines. The result was a considerable increase of trade with
Portugal, but an even greater decrease of trade with France, while the
wine-drinking of our upper classes took a very different direction,
for port, which had hitherto been almost unknown in England, became
the typical drink of the English gentleman, and more port was sent to
the United Kingdom than to all the rest of Europe together. It was not
till the time of the commercial treaty of 1860 with France, that the
heavy duties on light French wines were reduced, and with them the
duties on French manufactures. Till then, as Gladstone said in his
speech on the subject in 1862, “it was almost thought a matter of duty
to regard Frenchmen as traditional enemies,” not only in politics but
in commerce. This treaty was only one among the many great services of
Cobden to the commerce of his country.


17. DEPOSITION OF EAST INDIA COMPANY (p. 217)--In June, 1858, the
East India Company ceased to exist, the territories of India were
transferred to the Crown of England, and the Queen was proclaimed
sovereign of India on November 1st, 1858. The Company’s army
became part of the Queen’s army, and Lord Canning, who had been
Governor-General, became the first Viceroy. All the powers hitherto
exercised by the East India {251} Company, or by the Board of Control,
were vested in the Secretary of State for India, assisted by a Council
of fifteen members appointed by the Crown.


18. HUSKISSON’S REFORMS (p. 213)--It was Huskisson who in 1823 passed
a “Reciprocity of Duties Bill,” by which English and foreign ships had
equal advantages in England whenever foreign nations allowed the same
to English vessels in their ports. He threw open the commerce of our
colonies, under certain restrictions, to other nations. He reduced the
duties on silk and wool in 1824, and in the same year the Acts fixing
wages (cf. p. 107), and limiting the free travelling about of workmen
(p. 189) were repealed. So also were all laws controlling combinations
of either masters or workmen; though combinations of workmen to
intimidate employers were made illegal in 1825.

{253}




INDEX


Accounts, bailiffs’ mediæval, 18; modern farmers’ lack of, 113, 205

Acreage of England (A. Young), 114

Adam Smith, 150, 189

Agriculture, early combined, 8; before and after Great Plague, 71, 73;
mediæval, 40–45; in 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, 109–117; modern,
198–201; depression of, 202, 209

Agricultural improvements, 104, 113, 201; gangs, 208; labourer, 40, 71,
79, 119, 142, 150, 188, 205, 208; reforms, 210; wages, 79, 119–121;
wealth, 152, 209; population, 150, 153, 206; writers, 42, 110; union,
208

Alfred, 4, 5

Allowance system of relief, 188

American War, 170

Anglo-Saxon trade, 3

Antwerp, 59, 95; decay of, 97

Apprentices, in gilds, 29; in factories, 179, 181

Arable land in a manor, 6, 20

Arch, Joseph: his work, 207, 208

Aristocracy: feudal, 32; land-owning, 143, 198

Arkwright’s inventions, 159

Artisans: mediæval, 29; modern, 174, 190, 221; wages of, 71, 79, 120,
150, 162, 174, 187, 195; Huguenot, 134, 135

Assessments of wages, 107, 119, 187

Aston, manor of, 12

Australian colonies, 216, 225, 229

Aviation, 236


Bailiffs’ Accounts, 18, 42

Baltic trade, development of our, 99

Bank of England, 144, 173, 223

Barons’ wars, 31

Beaconsfield, 227

Beggars (Defoe’s remark), 149

Berlin decree, 173

Birmingham, 152

Black Death. _See_ Great Plague

Blincoe, Robert, on factories, 181

Bodmin, staple for tin, 92

Bombay, 123, 127

Bordars, 12

Boston, port, 64

Boulton’s inventions, 165

Bounties on corn, 200

Bradford, 161, 163, 183

Bread, wheat, 68, 150; price of, 150

Brickmaking, 105, 142

Bristol, 23, 39, 64

Britain in Roman times, 1, 2

Bruges, 95; staple at, 59

Burslem, 140

Bye industries, 155


Calais, our staple town, 59

Cambridge, coal at, 138

Canada, 125, 128, 216, 229

Cape Colony, 216, 230

Capital, 223

Capital in agriculture (A. Young), 115; to-day, 205; loss of farmers’,
203

Capitalist agriculture, 42; cessation of, 73; artisans, 147;
manufacturers, 147, 174, 176

Capitalist manufacture, epoch of, 162; present system of, 219

Capitalists and workmen, 221, 222; the coming of, 146, 162; mistakes of
(Mercantile Theory), 168

Captains of industry, 218

Cartwright’s inventions, 160

Carucate of land, 16 (_note_)

Castles, growth of towns near, 23

Cattle in mediæval times, 44; improvements in breed of, 114

Census, 237

Chamberlain, 228

Champaign land, 43

Charlemagne, commercial treaty with, 5

Charles I. and coal trade, 137

Charter, the Great, 34

Charters of towns, 25, 28; of companies, 98

Chartism, 191

Cheese, consumption of, 151

Chester a Roman town, 2, 24

Chinese wars, 217

Cistercian monks wool-growers, 42, 49

Civil Service, 226

Civil War in England, its effect, 134

—— in America, 217

Climate, our, useful for manufactures, 133

Closes, 21, 43

Cloth trade, 54, 55, 135. _See_ Manufactures

Clover, introduction of, 113

Coal trade, 136, 137; influence on manufactures, 164 and _map_

Cobbett, 175

Cobden, 201, 215

Colonies, our, 122, 128, 167, 170, 215

Combination Laws, 189, 190; power of, 221; of workmen, 191;
Combination of peasants in the Peasants’ Revolt, 76, 78

Commerce, early, 4; our first treaty of, 5. _See_ Trade

Commerce and war, 121–129, 169, 216

Commercial progress, 129; depressions, 218, 225

Common fields, 8, 20; enclosure of, 116, 199; pasture, 20

Communal land, 8, 43

Commutation of services for money payments, 16, 41, 74

Companies, formation of trading, 98, 129, 212

Company, East India, 98; Levant, 129; Hudson’s Bay, 131

Competition, appearance of, 92; checked by feudalism, 32; foreign, 209,
220; modern, 219

Condition of the people. _See_ Wages and Artisans and Agricultural
labourers

Conquest, England after Norman, 37, 39

Continental War, 171, 195

Co-operation, growth of, 221

Corn Laws, 200, 201, 215; Repeal of, 186, 201, 227

Cort’s inventions, 165

Cottars, 12

Cotton manufacture, 164

Counties, Eastern, cloth trade in, 57, 135, 163; Northern, desolation
of in mediæval times, 38; Northern, shifting of population to, 163, and
_map_; Southern most populous, 11, 37, 152

Craft gilds, 27, 29

Crisis (United States), 225

Cromwell’s commercial wars, 123

Crusades, 26, 33

Currency, debasement of, 86

Cuxham manor, 17, 18


Dairy Farming, 210; dairyman, 43

Debasement of currency, by Henry VIII., 86

Defoe, references to his _Tour_, 64, 145, 148

Demand for labourers after Great Plague, 71

Discoveries of Columbus and others, 89

Dissolution of monasteries, 84

Distress of working classes after 1815, 174, 192

Distribution of wealth before Industrial Revolution, 153, 156

Domesday Book, its historical value, 10; condition of England as shown
in, 11, and _map_; towns in, 24; manors in (Cuxham and Aston), 16, 17;
population in, 12, 13

Drawbacks of mediæval life, 79, 80

_Dreadnought_, 227

Dutch, agricultural improvements due to, 105, 110; other improvements,
140; wars with (Cromwell’s), 123, 130; carrying trade once in hands of,
130

Dyeing, 55, 133


Earthquakes, 224

East, development of trade with, after Crusades, 33; in James I.’s
reign, 129

East India Company, 98, 127, 145, 216

Eastern counties, manufactures in, 57, 135, 163

Economic folly, 170, 203, 211

Economics, importance of, in history, 238

_Economist_, 226

Edward I. and Edward III., usefulness of wool to them, 49; their
alliances with Flanders, 49

Edward III. and Statute of Labourers, 71; and manufactures, 53

Edward VI. and the Hansa in London, 95

Eight Hours’ Movement, 186, 235

Elizabethan England, 100–109; sea-captains, 97, 122

Emancipation of villeins, 74

Employers, capitalist, 67, 146, 192, 221; their assessments of wages,
107

Enclosures, 46, 116

England before Norman Conquest, 1–9; after it, 11, 37; in Middle Ages,
68, 81; in Elizabeth’s reign, 100; modern, 211 _sqq._; a commercial
power, 121

England and other nations’ wars 216

Estone manor, 16

Expenditure, public increase of, 226

Export of corn, 200

Exports in Roman times, 2; in 12th century, 33; of wool, 36, 48, 51,
92; exports in 15th century, 92, 96; later, 103, 130, 131, 132, 166,
174, 212


Factories set up, 161

Factory Acts, 181–185

Factory children, 179, 182

Factory system, germs of, 66; growth of, 176–181, 186

Fairs, 53, 61–63

Famine of 1315, 70

Farmers, losses of, 209

Fens, the, 38; drainage of, 111

Feudal system, 8; effects of, 31

“Firma Burgi,” the, 25

Flanders, its manufactures, 48, 52; our trade with, 95, 132, 169

Flemish weavers in England, 36, 37, 53, 103

Foreign competition, 134, 209, 216, 220

France and England, 123, 126, 157, 167, 172, 213

Frauds, Statute of, 115

Free Trade, 212, 213, 227

Friars, the coming of the, 75


Game, 111

Gangs, agricultural, 208

Germany, 134, 167, 217, 227, 228

Gilds, 27–30; in cloth trade, 54

Gild lands, confiscation of, 86

Gladstone’s budget of 1853, 215, (quoted), 227

Glasgow, 3

Gold, discoveries of, 216

Greshams, the, 96

Guicciardini on trade, 96, 103


Hansa, the, factory in London, 94, 95

Hargreaves, 159

Harrison’s _Elizabethan England_, 104, 108

Henry of Huntingdon (quoted), 33

Henry II., 31; Henry V., 49; Henry VIII., 83–91

History, economic questions in, 238

Hobson, 237, 238

Holland, 122, 123, 168, 230. _See_ Dutch

Home trade, value of, 219

Houses, mediæval, 19

Housing and town-planning, 230

Huguenots in England, 134

Hull, 64

Huskisson and Free Trade, 213


Imports, 34, 63, 93, 212. _See_ Trade

Income-tax, 223

India, 5, 127, 225

Industrial Revolution. _See_ Revolution

Industrial transition in 14th century, 55

Industrial villages (mediæval), 65

Industries, manual, 142

Industry, growth of, 212

Infant mortality, 230

Inhabitants of a manor, 12, 13

Inventions, 138, 140, 159, 160, 165, 236

Iron trade, 138, 139, 164


Jews in England, 35

Jewries, 35

John, King, 39

Joint-Stock Companies, 237


Ket’s Rising, 47

King, Gregory, referred to, 112, 114, 116

“Knight’s Fee,” a, 18


Labour, power of, 221

Labour. _See_ Agricultural labourer, Manufacturing population, and
Artisans; _also_ Wages and Capitalist

Labour Exchanges, 232

Labour Party, 233

Labourer, the “Golden Age” of, 79

Lace, 103

Land, different kinds of, in a manor, 21

Landlords, 73, 77; rapacity of, 109, 204; their gains, 198; services
of, 198, 204

Latimer on rent, 118

Leeds, 151, 156, 163

Liverpool, 152, 236

Lloyd-George, 232

London, 2, 24, 39; the Western emporium, 97

Lord of the manor, 7, 11


Manchester, 152

Manor, 7, 12

Manufacturers and politics, 56, 145; large and small, 147

Manufacture, domestic system of, 155

Manufactures, 36, 51, 100, 135

Manufacturing towns, mediæval, 57; decay of, 65; monopolies of, 101;
population, 149, 152, 178, 231

Marconi, 236

Mark, the, 5, 6; mark-moot, 6

Markets, 3, 38, 60; “a sole market,” 168; new, 219

Master clothiers, 66

Meadow land valuable, 21

Members, payment of, 234

Mercantile Theory, the, 168

Merchant gilds, 27, 28

Middle Ages, close of, 81

Mining, 141, 164; women in mines, 194

Misery of working classes, 194

Monasteries, dissolution of, 84, 85

Money, 3

Monopolies, 101, 237

More, Sir Thomas, evidence of, 88, 90

Motor transport, 236


Napoleon I., 173

National Debt, 145, 173, 225

Navigation Acts, 130, 169, 213

Newcastle (coals), 130, 137

New World, discoveries in, 89

Norfolk, 46, 51, 112; agriculture in, 199

Northern counties, desolation of, 38; growth of, 162

Norwich, 26, 39

Nottingham, 24, 58, 60


Oastler, Richard, 183

Old Age Pensions, 226, 228, 232

“Osborne Judgment,” 234

Over-production, 220

Oxford, origin of, 23, 25


Pauperism, 100, 192, 193, 232

Peasants’ Revolt, 78

Petition, the Merchants’, in 1820, 213

Pigs, 45

Pitt, 171

Plague, the Great, 70; its effects, 71, 73

Ploughing, 44

Politics and industry, 49, 55, 144, 175, 222

Poor Law Commission Report, 233

Poor Laws, the, 107, 188. _See_ Allowance and Assessments

Poor priests, the, 76

Population of England, 37, 41, 108, 151, 162

Ports, mediæval, 64

Post Office, 226

Pottery trade, 140

Prices after the Plague, 72; mediæval, 80; later, 90, 112, 174, 202;
inflation of, 90, 225

Productiveness of land, 41

Protectionism, 169, 216, 227, 237

Protestant refugees to England, 97, 103, 110, 134


Railways, 214, 224

Reforms, needed agricultural, 210

Rent, mediæval, 15, 22

Rent, rise of, 88, 112, 118, 119, 204, 224

Restrictions on labour, 189

Revolution, the Industrial, 144 _sqq._, 157, 161, 164, 190; the French,
157, 171, 190; the Agricultural, 158, 206

Rights of villeins, 13, 43

Rush for new markets, the, 219


Salt, 142

Seamen, the Elizabethan, 91, 97

Serfs, 13

Services due to a lord, 14, 15

Settlement, law of, 189

Shaftesbury, Lord, 183

Sheep, 45

Sheep farming, 46

Sheffield, 58, 152

Silver, discoveries of, 90

Sixteenth century, changes of, 88, 90

Slave, 13; in modern England, 179

Small Holdings, 232

Smith, Adam, 150, 189

Social movements, 68, 75, 142, 146, 190

Social comforts, 105

Soke-men, 15

South Africa, 225, 229

Southampton, 25, 64

South Sea and other Companies, 125

Spain and England, 121, 126, 167

Speenhamland Act, 188

Staple towns, 59

Steam and machinery, 160

Steamers, 214, 236

Steelyard, the, 94

“Stock and Land Lease,” the, 42, 85

Stourbridge fair, 63

Strikes, 235


Taff Vale Case, 234

Tax on wool, 49, 50

Taxation, 174, 232

Telegraphs, 214

Telegraphy, wireless, 236

Telephone, 236

Ten Hours’ Bill, 185

Tenants of a manor, 11; free tenants, 15

Town, life in a mediæval, 30

Towns: in Domesday, 11; origin of, 21; growth in England, 23; charters
of, 25; mediæval, 58; staple, 56

Township, 7

Toynbee, Arnold, 186

Trade, Anglo-Saxon, 3, 4, 5; later, 33; expansion of, 91–99, 103, 125,
129, 131, 173, 212, 224

Trade Unions, 191, 207, 221, 231, 233

Trading clauses in the Great Charter, 34

Transit, means of, 214, 224

Truck Act, 194

Trusts, 237

Tyler’s Revolt, 78


Unemployment, 230

United States, 225, 228

Venetian Fleet, the, 63, 93

Village, a mediæval, 19; industrial, 65

Villeinage, land in, 20

Villeins, 13, 41, 68; emancipation of, 74, 79

Virgate, 12


Wage-earning class, rise of, 40, 69

Wages, 71, 79, 106, 119, 120, 150, 174, 195, 206, 220, 224, 230

Walter de Henley on farming, 42, 44

War, South African, 225, 230

War, the Thirty Years’, 134; the Continental, 171, 195

—— cost of, 173

Wars and industry, 81, 122–129, 134, 166, 167–175, 216, 224

“Waste,” the, 6, 20

Watt’s inventions, 138, 160, 165

Weavers’ gilds, 29, 54

Wedgwood, 141

Wheat, prices of, 174, 195, 200, 203; and _see_ Wages

Wiklif, 75

Winchester fair, 62

Women and girls in mines, 194

Women’s wages, 196

Wool, 47, 50, 104, 136

Workers’ Educational Association, 231

Working classes. _See_ Artisans, Agricultural labourer, and
Manufacturing population; _also_ 187–197

Workmen’s Compensation, 233

Worsted industry, the, 53

Writers on commerce, 130


Yeomen, rise of the, 73; decay of, 115–116

Young, Arthur, referred to, 114, 117, 150, 153, 199, 206, 221




TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE:

Original spelling and grammar have been generally retained, with some
exceptions noted below. Original printed page numbers are shown like
this: {52}. Original small caps are now uppercase. Italics look _like
this_. Footnotes have been relabeled 1–68, and moved from within
paragraphs to nearby locations between paragraphs. The transcriber
produced the cover image and hereby assigns it to the public domain.
Ditto marks have been removed, replaced by the referenced text.
Original page images are available from archive.org—search for
“industrialhistor00gibb”.

Page 135. “Norfork” to “Norfolk”.

Page 170. “with South America,” to “with South America.”

Page 245. There is an unmatched double quotation mark in this sentence:
‘“Forasmuch as a man cannot put the price of corn and other victuals in
certain,” the justices of the peace shall every year make proclamation
“by their discretion,” according to the dearth of victuals, how
much every mason, carpenter, tiler, and other craftsmen, workmen,
and other labourers by the day shall take by the day, with meat and
drink or without meat and drink, and that every man shall obey such
proclamations from time to time, as a thing done by statute.”’. This
edition omits the one following ‘certain,’, but that’s just a guess.

Page 246. “Parlamentary” to “Parliamentary”.