1200, owing to the increase in population and growth of trade, changes of far-reaching effect were produced. Increase of population filled up the vacant lands as they were cleared; growth of trade brought money into the country, which resulted in the commutation for cash of dues and services rendered to the lord. The tenant of a manor was ready to exchange irksome and often uncertain services for a fixed sum, whilst the lord was equally quick to see the advantage of receiving cash wherewith to discharge his own obligations and to hire labour as and when required. Moreover, he was beginning to see that compulsory labour was not very efficient, just as his successor is beginning to perceive, somewhat dimly, it is true, that hired labour is almost as inefficient. The first services to be sold were. those "with plough teams." Such sale, however, was far from uniform. For one year the whole service might be commuted; for another, only a certain number of days; for a third, the whole service might be again demanded. Eventually, and by the end of the period we are considering, the larger tenants had by cash payment bought their freedom, their labour being replaced by the landless sons of freemen, virgators or cottiers, and of tenants with holdings too small for their complete maintenance. In these men we find the origin of our present agricultural labourer, who was paid by the day or piece and was thus to be distinguished from the farm servant who was usually hired by the year and lived at the home farm-house.

Another effect of the increase of population and growth of wealth was the practice which soon sprang up of the lord letting off portions or even the whole of his demesne. He commenced to become a mere rent-receiver, and his example was followed even by the villeins who, in the 14th century, very commonly sublet their own holdings, not infrequently becoming tenants of the lord's demesne.

From the middle of the 14th century many other causes

contributed to the breakdown of the manorial system and with it the multiplication of the agricultural proletarian. The Black Death was responsible for a large measure of personal freedom owing to the scarcity of labour created and the general upheaval, though even this catastrophe did not operate uniformly, since in many places, particularly in the north-west, villeins were to be found as late as the 18th century. One result of the depopulation caused by the plague was the conversion by the great landowners of arable into pasture for sheep-farming, a conversion accelerated after the accession of Henry VII by the demand of the middle classes for cheap meat and raw materials such as hides and wool. Wool especially became in consequence more profitable than corn. The manorial lords required larger areas for sheep runs and less labour. Their great object therefore became to drive the population off the land, and this was accomplished by means of enclosures of the common and waste lands and by evictions of the small holders. Houses and even whole villages were swept away, just as, centuries later, some of the Scottish landowners in the Highlands "cleared" out the crofters to make room for deer forests. The arable land was converted into pasture, and even the common land, in numerous cases, was taken away from the villagers and occupied by the lord's sheep. "In other cases," says Professor Hasbach, "in order to get rid of the necessity for preserving the rights of the commoners in the commons, the ground in certain enclosed fields was divided. into several parcels, which were made to serve by turns as arable and grass land."1

It is unnecessary to question the legality of these methods. As a rule it may be assumed that evictions and enclosures were effected within the strict letter of the law. At the same time it may be equally assumed that many of the evicted had rights in law which owing to their relative

1 History of the English Agricultural Labourer, 34.

weakness were disregarded by their evictors. For instance, after the Reformation, the new owners of monastic lands forced the copyholders to become leaseholders, upon the ground that their rights had become extinguished with those of the Church. So, too, in the case of copyholds where the fine on succession was uncertain, the lord, by demanding an exorbitant sum, forced the tenant to exchange his copyhold for a leasehold. In each case when the lease determined the tenant could be turned out. By one means or another large masses of people were driven off the land, and with them also disappeared large numbers of domestic and farm servants. The latter had probably been recruited from the borderers and cottiers, and were now replaced to a large extent by day labourers.

We must, however, not lose sight of the important fact that the result of these enclosures of the commons or waste land was economically good in so far as it aided agricultural progress. This was fully recognised by the Tudor monarchs, who however also recognised that the process could not in the national interests be allowed to depopulate the countryside. Accordingly, we find a number of statutes having for their object the protection of the peasantry and the small farmer. The laws against enclosures and evictions, in restriction of sheep-farming and for the maintenance of husbandry, may be especially noticed. But these statutes remained largely ineffective because their administration lay in the hands of the very class against which they were directed, namely, the landowners.

Wherever the day labourers could not be accommodated in the farm-house, cottages—generally mere hovels―sprang up. One of the measures to check this manufacture of agricultural proletarians was the famous Statute of 1589,' whereby the erection of cottages upon less than four acres was prohibited. To prevent overcrowding and to encourage

1 31 Eliz., c. 7.

the holder of "plough teams," not more than one family was to be allowed to occupy any such cottage. That this statute was not altogether a dead letter is proved by the few reported cases to be found up to 1661. Its administration, however, was confined to the Justices of Assize and Justices of the Peace. The latter were synonymous with the landowners, and were therefore unlikely to be at pains to enquire too closely into the non-fulfilment of their obligations by their fellow-justices in their capacity of landowners. They became sufficiently powerful indeed to secure its repeal in the year 1775.

Thus by the reign of James I the free labourer predominated over both the farm servant and the villein. Although a large number of these free labourers were mere landless hirelings, still, in those places where the villages had not suffered from common enclosures, the labourers still possessed their houses and gardens, together with their stock and rights of common, and where the Act of Elizabeth of 1589 had been enforced their small holdings as well. But we must not forget that their personal liberty was limited by numerous statutes of the Tudor regime, preventing freedom of movement by the labourer from one place to another and fixing the terms of hiring between master and servant. It was during this period, too, that a new landed aristocracy took the place of the old which had been almost annihilated by the Wars of the Roses. It was composed of merchants, lawyers and tradesmen, who owed their success to the expansion of trade and of yeomen who were in a position to take advantage of "unthrifty gentlemen."

Although thus democratised, the landowners soon came to represent the old interests in a more modern and capitalist form. Their opportunity came with the Restoration. By the abolition of military tenures they freed themselves from

1 Coke 2 Inst. 736.

feudal dues and obligations of service, and transferred the burden of providing a national militia to the shoulders of the general tax-payer. By the re-introduction of the entail system by means of the family settlement they increased. their social position. By marrying the daughters of merchants and traders, and by putting their younger sons into trade and commerce, they attracted a considerable portion of the new wealth to their own pockets. And lastly, by the national agricultural policy of Protection, a strong impulse was given to the production of cattle and corn instead of wool.

In order to take full advantage of the new agricultural expansion, the primary object of the landowner was to make himself master of the soil. This object was attained by private Enclosure Acts, the earliest of which was passed in the year 1709 and which continued up to 1845. Enclosure also took place by so-called voluntary agreement. With the acquisition of absolute powers of ownership, the landowner was in a position to satisfy his desire for an increased income, necessitated by the extravagant standard of life demanded by his social position. This increase was obtained by the system of "engrossing of farms," that is to say, by the consolidation of a number of small farms into one large holding. By this method the landlord was relieved very largely of outgoings for repairs, etc., to numerous buildings. And with the rise of the price of food stuffs he was able to raise rents.

It is true that the expense of these Enclosure Acts was extremely onerous, and but for the new area carved out of and enclosed from the commons and waste lands, the landowner would have been out of pocket. It must also not be forgotten that the enclosures were in the main for the benefit of the agricultural interest as a whole. measures," writes Professor Hasback, "in themselves often meant economic progress, but they were not seldom trans

66

1