第16章

intheexpensesoffivefamiliesoflabourers，thefuelvariesfrom£；1，

15s。0d。upto£；4，3s。0d。，withanaverageof£；2，8s。0d。per

family。Itmustberemembered，too，thatthesumof10s。forfuelfromthe

commoniscalculatedontheassumptionthatthemanwouldotherwisebeworking；

whereas，inreality，hecouldcuthisturfinslacktimesandinoddhours，

whentherewasnomoneytobemadebyworkingforsomeoneelse。

Therewasanotherrespectinwhichtheresourcesofalabouringfamily

werediminishedtowardstheendofthecentury，andthistoowasalossthat

therichthoughttrifling。Fromtimeimmemorialthelabourerhadsenthis

wifeandchildrenintothefieldstogleanorleazeaftertheharvest。The

profitsofgleaning，undertheold，unimprovedsystemofagriculture，were

veryconsiderable。EdensaysofRodeinNorthamptonshire，whereagriculture

wasina’wretchedstate，fromthelandbeingincommon-fields，’that’several

familieswillgatherasmuchwheataswillservethemforbreadthewhole

year，andasmanybeansaswillkeepapig。’(4*)Fromthispointofview

enclosure，withitsimprovedmethodsofagriculture，meantasensibleloss

tothepooroftheparish，butevenwhentherewaslesstobegleanedthe

privilegewasbynomeansunimportant。AcorrespondentintheAnnalsof

Agriculture，(5*)writingevidentlyoflandunderimprovedcultivation

inShropshire，estimatesthatawifecangleanthreeorfourbushels。The

consumptionofwheat，exclusiveofotherfood，byalabourer’sfamilyhe

putsathalfabushelaweekatleast；thepriceofwheatat13s。6d。abushel；

thelabourer’swagesat7s。or8s。Tosuchafamilygleaningrightsrepresented

theequivalentofsomesixorsevenweeks’wages。

Withtheintroductionoflargefarmingthesecustomaryrightswerein

danger。Itwasanuisanceforthefarmertohavehisfencedfieldssuddenly

invadedbybandsofwomenandchildren。Theearstobepickedupwerenow

fewandfarbetween，andtherewasariskthatthelabourers，husbandsand

fathersofthegleaners，mightwinkatsmalltheftsfromthesheaves。Thus

itwasthatcustomaryrights，whichhadneverbeenquestionedbefore，and

seemedtogobacktotheBibleitself，cametobethesubjectofdispute。

OnthewholequestionofgleaningthereisananimatedcontroversyintheAnnalsofAgriculture(6*)betweenCapelLofft，(7*)aromanticSuffolk

Liberal，whotookthesideofthegleaners，andRuggles，(8*)thehistorian，

whoarguedagainstthem。CapelLofftwasahumaneandchivalrousmagistrate

who，unfortunatelyfortheSuffolkpoor，wasstruckofftheCommissionof

thePeaceafewyearslater，apparentlyattheinstanceoftheDukeofPortland，

forpersuadingtheDeputy-Sherifftopostponetheexecutionofagirlsentenced

todeathforstealing，untilhehadpresentedamemorialtotheCrownpraying

forclemency。Thechiefargumentsonthesideofthegleanerswere(1)that

immemorialcustomgavelegalright，accordingtothemaxim，consuetudoangliae

lexestangliaecommunis；(2)thatBlackstonehadrecognisedtherightin

hisCommentaries，basinghisopinionuponHaleandGilbert，’Alsoithath

beensaid，thatbythecommonlawandcustomofEnglandthepoorareallowed

toenterandgleanonanother’sgroundafterharvestwithoutbeingguilty

oftrespass，whichhumaneprovisionseemsborrowedfromtheMosaiclaw，(iii。

212，1stedition)；(3)thatinIrelandtherightwasrecognisedbystatutes

ofHenryVIII’sreign，whichmodifiedit；(4)thatitwasacustomthathelped

tokeepthepoorfreefromdegradingdependenceonpoorrelief。Itwasargued，

ontheotherhand，bythosewhodeniedtherighttoglean，thatthoughthe

customhadexistedfromtimeimmemorial，itdidnotrestonanybasisof

actualright，andthatnolegalsanctiontoithadeverbeenexplicitlygiven，

Blackstoneandtheauthoritiesonwhomhereliedbeingtoovaguetobeconsidered

final。Further，thecustomwasdemoralisingtothepoor；itledtoidleness，

’howmanydaysduringtheharvestarelostbythemotherofafamilyand

allherchildren，inwanderingaboutfromfieldtofield，togleanwhatdoes

notrepaythemthewearoftheircloathesinseeking；’itledtopilfering

fromthetemptationtotakehandfulsfromtheswarthorshock；anditwas

deplorablethatonagood-humouredpermissionshouldbegrafted’alegal

claim，initsuseandexercisesonearlyapproachingtolicentiousness。’

Whilstthiscontroversywasgoingon，thelegalquestionwasdecidedagainst

thepoorbyamajorityofjudgesintheCourtofCommonPleasin1788。One

judge，SirHenryGould，(9*)dissentedinalearnedjudgment；themajority

basedtheirdecisionpartlyonthemischievousconsequencesofthepractice

tothepoor。Thepoorneverlostarightwithoutbeingcongratulatedbythe

richongainingsomethingbetter。Itdidnot，ofcourse，followfromthis

decisionthatthepracticenecessaryceasedaltogether，butfromthattime

itwasaprivilegegivenbythefarmerathisowndiscretion，andhecould

warnoffobnoxiousor’saucy’personsfromhisfields。Moreover，thedearer

thecorn，andthemoreimportanttheprivilegeforthepoor，themorethe

farmerwasdisinclinedtolargessthepreciousears。CapelLoffthadpleaded

thatwithimprovedagriculturethegleanerscouldpickupsolittlethat

thatlittleshouldnotbegrudged，butthefarmerfoundthatunderfamine

pricesthislittlewasworthmoretohimthanthecarelessscatteringsof

earliertimes。(10*)

Thelossofhiscowandhisproduceandhiscommonandtraditionalrights

wasrenderedparticularlyserioustothelabourerbythegeneralgrowthof

prices。Forenclosurewhichhadproducedtheagrarianproletariat，hadraised

thecostoflivingforhim。TheacceptedopinionthatunderenclosureEngland

becameimmenselymoreproductivetendstoobscurethetruththattheagricultural

labourersufferedinhischaracterofconsumer，aswellasinhischaracter

ofproducer，whenthesmallfarmsandthecommonsdisappeared。Notonlyhad

hetobuythefoodthatformerlyhehadproducedhimself，buthehadtobuy

itinarisingmarket。AdamSmithadmittedthattheriseofpriceofpoultry

andporkhadbeenacceleratedbyenclosure，andNathanielKentlaidstress

onthediminutioninthesupplyoftheseandothersmallprovisions。Kent

hasdescribedthechangeinthepositionofthelabourersinthisrespect：

’Formerlytheycouldbuymilk，butter，andmanyothersmallarticlesinevery

parish，inwhateverquantitytheyarewanted。Butsincesmallfarmshave

decreasedinnumber，nosucharticlesaretobehad；forthegreatfarmers

havenoideaofretailingsuchsmallcommodities，andthosewhodoretail

themcarrythemalltotown。Afarmerisevenunwillingtosellthelabourer

whoworksforhimabushelofwheat，whichhemightgetgroundforthree

orfourpenceabushel。Forwantofthisadvantageheisdriventothemealman

orbaker，who，intheordinarycourseoftheirprofit，getatleasttenper

cent。ofthem，uponthisprincipalarticleoftheirconsumption。’(11*)Davies，

theauthorofTheCaseofLabourersinHusbandry，thusdescribesthe

newmethodofdistribution。’Thegreatfarmerdealsinawholesalewaywith

themiller：themillerwiththemealman：themealmanwiththeshopkeeper，

ofwhichlastthepoormanbuyshisflourbythebushel。Forneitherthe

millernorthemealmanwillsellthelaboureralessquantitythanasack

offlour，undertheretailpriceofshops，andthepoorman’spocketwill

seldomallowofhisbuyingawholesackatonce。’(12*)

Itisclearfromthesefactsthatitwouldhaveneededaverylargeincrease

ofwagestocompensatethelabourerforhislossesunderenclosure。Butreal

wages，insteadofrising，hadfallen，andfallenfar。ThewriteroftheBedfordshire

Report(p。67)，comparingtheperiodof1730-50withthatof1802-6inrespect

ofpricesofwheatandlabour，pointsoutthattoenablehimtopurchase

equalquantitiesofbreadinthesecondperiodandinthefirst，thepay

ofthedaylabourerinthesecondperiodshouldhavebeen2s。aday，whereas

itwas1s。6d。NathanielKent，writingin1796，(13*)saysthatinthelast

fortyorfiftyyearsthepriceofprovisionshadgoneupby60percent，

andwagesby25percent，’butthisisnotall，forthesourcesofthemarket

whichusedtofeedhimareinagreatmeasurecutoffsincethesystemof

largefarmshasbeensomuchencouraged。’ProfessorLevyestimatesthatwages

rosebetween1760and1813by60percent，andthepriceofwheatby130

percent。(14*)Thusthelabourerwhonowlivedonwagesaloneearnedwages

ofalowerpurchasingpowerthanthewageswhichhehadformerlysupplemented

byhisownproduce。Whereashisconditionearlierinthecenturyhadbeen

contrastedwiththatofContinentalpeasantsgreatlytohisadvantagein

respectofquantityandvarietyoffood，hewassuddenlybroughtdownto

thebarestnecessitiesoflife。ArthurYounghadsaidagenerationearlier

thatinFrancebreadformednineteenpartsintwentyofthefoodofthepeople，

butthatinEnglandallranksconsumedanimmensequantityofmeat，butter

andcheese。(15*)Weknowsomethingofthemanneroflifeofthepoorin1789

and1795fromthefamilybudgetscollectedbyEdenandDaviesfromdifferent

partsofthecountry。(16*)Thesebudgetsshowthatthelabourerswererapidly

sinkinginthisrespecttotheconditionthatYounghaddescribedasthe

conditionofthepoorinFrance。’Baconandotherkindsofmeatformavery

smallpartoftheirdiet，andcheesebecomesaluxury。’Butevenonthemeagre

foodthatnowbecametheordinaryfareofthecottage，thelabourerscould

notmakeendsmeet。Allthebudgetstellthesametaleofimpoverisheddiet

accompaniedbyanoverwhelmingstrainandanactualdeficit。Thenormallabourer，

evenwithconstantemployment，wasnolongersolvent。

Ifwewishtounderstandfullythepredicamentofthelabourer，wemust

rememberthathewasnotfreetoroamoverEngland，andtryhisluckinsome

strangevillageortownwhenhiscircumstancesbecamedesperateathome。

Helivedunderthecapricioustyrannyoftheoldlawofsettlement，andenclosure

hadmadethatnetamuchmoreseriousfactforthepoor。Thedestruction

ofthecommonshaddeprivedhimofanycareerwithinhisownvillage；the

SettlementLawsbarredhisescapeoutofit。Itisworthwhiletoconsider

whattheSettlementLawswere，andhowtheyacted，andasthesubjectis

notuncontroversialitwillbenecessarytodiscussitinsomedetail。

Theoreticallyeverypersonhadoneparish，andoneonly，inwhichheor

shehadasettlementandarighttoparishrelief。Inpracticeitwasoften

difficulttodecidewhichparishhadthedutyofrelief，anddisputesgave

risetoendlesslitigation。Fromthispointofvieweighteenth-centuryEngland

waslikeachessboardofparishes，onwhichthepoorweremovedaboutlike

pawns。ThefoundationofthevariouslawsonthesubjectwasanActpassed

inCharlesII’sreign(13and14CharlesII。c。12)in1662。Beforethis

Acteachparishhad，itistrue，thedutyofrelievingitsownimpotentpoor

andofpolicingitsownvagrants，andtheinfirmandagedwereenjoinedby

lawtobetakethemselvestotheirplaceofsettlement，whichmightbetheir

birthplace，ortheplacewheretheyhadlivedforthreeyears，but，asa

rule，’apoorfamilymight，withoutthefearofbeingsentbackbytheparish

officers，gowheretheychoose，forbetterwages，ormorecertainemployment。’(17*)

ThisActof1662abridgedtheirliberty，and，inplaceoftheoldvagueness，

establishedanewandelaboratesystem。TheActwasdeclaredtobenecessary

inthepreamble，because’byreasonofsomedefectsinthelaw，poorpeople

arenotrestrainedfromgoingfromoneparishtoanother，andthereforedo

endeavourtosettlethemselvesinthoseparisheswherethereisthebest

stock，thelargestcommonsorwastestobuildcottages，andthemostwoods

forthemtoburnanddestroy；andwhentheyhaveconsumedit，thentoanother

parish；andatlastbecomeroguesandvagabonds；tothegreatdiscouragement

ofparishestoprovidestock，whenitisliabletobedevouredbystrangers。’

BytheActanynew-comer，withinfortydaysofarrival，couldbeejected

fromaparishbyanorderfromthemagistrates，uponcomplaintfromtheparish

officers，andremovedtotheparishwhereheorshewaslastlegallysettled。

If，however，thenew-comersettledinatenementoftheyearlyvalueof