A Short History of English Agriculture Part 27

2. Increase of consumption, owing to the great growth of the manufacturing population, England during the war having almost a monopoly of the trade of Europe.

3. Napoleon's obstructions to importation.

4. The unprecedented fall of foreign exchanges.

5. The rise in the price of labour, scanty as it was.

6. Suspension of cash payments, which produced a medium of circulation of an unlimited nature, and led to speculation.[527]

In March, 1801, wheat was 156s.; beef at Smithfield, 5s. to 6s. 6d. a stone; and mutton, 6s. 6d. to 8s. A rise in wages was allowed on all sides to be imperative, but the labourer even now got on an average little more than 9s. a week,[528] a very inadequate pittance, though generally supplemented by the parish. Arthur Young[529] tells of a person living near Bury in 1801, who, before the era of high prices, earned 5s. a week, and with that could purchase:

A bushel of wheat.

" malt.

1 lb. of b.u.t.ter.

1 lb. of cheese.

A pennyworth of tobacco.

But in 1801 the same articles cost him:

s. d.

A bushel of wheat 16 0 " malt 9 0 1 lb. of b.u.t.ter 1 0 1 lb. of cheese 4 Tobacco 1 -------- 1 6 5 ========

His wages were now 9s., and his allowance from the rates 6s., so that there was a deficiency of 11s. 5d.

The increase in the cost of living in the last thirty years is further ill.u.s.trated by the following table:

1773. 1793. 1799. 1800.

s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d.

Coomb of malt 12 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 0 0 Chaldron of coals 1 11 6 2 0 6 2 6 0 2 11 0 Coomb of oats 5 0 13 0 16 0 1 1 0 Load of hay 2 2 0 4 10 0 5 5 0 7 0 0 Meat, per lb. 4 5 7 9 b.u.t.ter, " 6 11 11 1 4 Loaf sugar, per lb. 8 1 0 1 3 1 4 Poor rates, in the 1 0 2 6 3 0 5 0

It was again proposed by Mr. Whitbread in the House of Commons that wages should be regulated by the price of provisions, and a minimum wage fixed; but there was enough sense in the House to reject this return to obsolete methods.

After March, 1801, prices commenced to fall, owing to a favourable season and the reopening of the Baltic ports, which allowed imports to come in more freely, for most of our foreign corn at this time came from Germany and Denmark. At the end of the year wheat averaged 75s.

6d., and with fair seasons it came down in the beginning of 1804 to 49s. 6d. Beef at Smithfield was from 4s. to 5s. 4d. a stone, mutton from 4s. to 4s. 6d.[530] This great drop in prices was accompanied by an increase in wages, the labourer from 1804 to 1810 getting on an average 12s. a week[531]; the cost of implements rose, so did the rate of interest, and the cry of agricultural distress in 1804 was heard everywhere. More protection was demanded by those interested in the land, and accordingly a duty of 24s. 3d. was imposed when the price was 63s. or under; a bounty was paid on export when it was 40s. or under; and wheat might be exported without bounty up to 54s.

However, 1804 was a very deficient harvest, owing to blight and mildew, and by the end of the year wheat was 86s. 2d. The harvests till 1808 were not as bad as that of 1804, but not good enough to lower the prices. Also, owing to the Berlin and Milan Decrees of Napoleon and the Non-intercourse Act of the United States of America, imports were restricted so that at the end of 1808 wheat was 92s. In this year the exports of wheat exceeded the imports, but it was due to the requirements of our army in Spain; and 1789 was the last year when exports were greater under normal circ.u.mstances.[532] 1809 was a bad harvest, so was 1810; in the former rot being very prevalent among sheep; and by August, 1810, hay was 11 a load and wheat 116s., only large imports (1,567,126 quarters) preventing a famine. Down wool was 2s. 1d. per lb., beef and mutton 8-1/2d., cheese 8d.[533]

In 1811 the whole of July and part of August were wet and cold; and in August, 1812, wheat averaged 155s., the finest Dantzic selling at Mark Lane for 180s., and oats reached 84s. As our imports of corn then chiefly came from the north-west of Europe, which has a climate very similar to our own, crops there were often deficient from bad seasons in the same years as our own, and the price consequently high. On the other hand, it is a proof that produce will find the best market regardless of hindrances, that much of our corn at this time came from France. Corn in 1813 was seized on with such avidity that there was no need to show samples. As high prices had now prevailed for some time and were still rising, landlords and farmers jumped to the conclusion that they would be permanent; so that this is the period when rents experienced their greatest increase, in some cases having increased fivefold since 1790, and speculations in land were most general. Land sold for forty years' purchase, many men of spirit and adventure very different from farmers 'were tempted to risk their property in agricultural speculations',[534] and large sums were sunk in lands and improvements in the spirit of mercantile enterprise. The land was considered as a kind of manufacturing establishment, and 'such powers of capital and labour were applied as forced almost sterility itself to become fertile.' Even good pastures were ploughed up to grow wheat at a guinea a bushel, and much worthless land was sown with corn.

Manure was procured from the most remote quarters, and we are told a new science rose up, agricultural chemistry, which, 'with much frivolity and many refinements remote from common sense, was not without great operation on the productive powers of land.'

Land jobbing and speculation became general, and credit came to the aid of capital. The larger farmers, as we have seen, were before the war inclined to an extravagance that amazed their older contemporaries; now we are told, some insisted on being called esquire, and some kept liveried servants.[535]

It is somewhat curious to learn that one of the drawbacks from which farmers suffered at this time was the ravages of pigeons, which seem to have been as numerous as in the Middle Ages, when the lord's dovecote was the scourge of the villein's crops. In 1813 there was said to be 20,000 pigeon houses in England and Wales, each on an average containing 100 pairs of old pigeons.[536]

Another pest was the large number of 'vermin', whose destruction had long before been considered important enough to demand the attention of the legislature.[537] Some parishes devoted large portions of their funds to this object; in 1786 East Budleigh in Devonshire, out of a total receipt of 20 1s. 8-1/2d., voted 5 10s. for vermin killing.

That now sacred animal the fox was then treated with scant respect, farmers and landlords paying for his destruction as 'vermin'[538]; the parish accounts of Ashburton in Devonshire, for instance, from 1761-1820 include payments for killing 18 foxes and 4 vixens, with no less than 153 badgers.

But the edifice of artificial prosperity was already tottering. After 1812 prices fell steadily,[539] the abundant harvest of 1813 and the opening of the continental ports accelerated this, and by December, 1813, wheat was 73s. 3d. Yet agriculture had made solid progress. The Committee of the House of Commons which inquired into the state of the corn trade in 1813 stated that through the extension of, and improvements in, agriculture the agricultural produce of the kingdom had increased one-fourth in the preceding ten years.[540] The high prices had attracted a large amount of capital to the land, so that there was very rapid and extensive progress, the methods of tillage were improved, large tracts of inferior pasture converted into arable, much, however, of which was soon to revert to weeds; there were many enclosures, and many fens, commons, and wastes reclaimed. But there was a reverse side to this picture of prosperity, even in the case of landlord and farmer. The burden of taxation was crushing; a contemporary writer, a farmer of twenty-five years standing,[541]

wrote that, with the land tax remaining the same, there was a high property tax, house and window taxes were doubled, poor rates in some places trebled, highway, church, and constable rates doubled and trebled, and there were oppressive taxes on malt and horses, both nags and farm animals. A man renting a farm at 70 and keeping two farm-horses, a nag, and a dog, would pay taxes for them of 5 0s. 6d., a fourteenth of his rent.[542] Indeed, poor rates of 16s. and 20s. in the were known,[543] and they were occasionally more than the whole rent received by the landlord forty years before. A Devonshire landowner complained that seven-sixteenths out of the annual value of every estate in the county was taken from owners and occupiers in direct taxes.[544] And the Committee on Agricultural Depression of 1822 a.s.serted that during the war taxes and rates were quadrupled.[545]

Blacksmiths, whitesmiths, collar makers, ropers, carpenters, and many other tradesmen with whom the farmer dealt, raised their prices threefold; and it was openly a.s.serted that the high prices of grain and stock were not proportionate to the increase of other prices. Much of the gra.s.s land broken up in the earlier years of the war was before the close in a miserable condition, for it was cropped year after year without manure, and was worn out. On the whole it may be doubted if the bulk of the farmers of England made large profits during the war; many no doubt profited by the extraordinary fluctuations in prices, and it was those men who 'kept liveried servants'; but there must have been many who lost heavily by the same means, and the rise of rent, taxes, rates, labour, and tradesmen's prices largely discounted the prices of corn and stock. The landowners at this period have generally been described as flourishing at the expense of the community, but their increased rents were greatly neutralized by the weight of taxation and the general rise in prices. A contemporary writer says that owing to the heavy taxes, even in the war time, he 'often had not a shilling at the end of the year.'[546]

The following accounts, drawn up in 1805,[547] do not show that farmers were making much money with wheat at 10s. a bushel:

Account of the culture of an acre of wheat on good fallow land:

Dr. s. d.

Two years' rent 2 0 0 Hauling dung from fold 10 0 Four ploughings 2 0 0 Two harrowings 4 0 Lime 1 18 0 Seed, 2-1/2 bushels 1 5 0 Reaping 5 0 Threshing 10 0 Wages 5 0 t.i.thes and taxes 15 0 -------- 9 12 0 ========

Cr. s. d.

20 bushels of wheat at 10s 10 0 0 The straw was set against the value of the dung.

The tailend wheat was Eaten by the family!

--------- 10 0 0 =========

And on a farm on good land in the same county the following would be the annual balance sheet at the same date:

Dr. s. d.

Rent 200 0 0 t.i.thes 40 0 0 Wages 58 0 0 Extra harvestmen 7 0 0 Tradesmen's bills 50 0 0 Taxes and rates 58 0 0 Malt, hops, and cider 60 0 0 Lime 20 0 0 Hop poles 10 0 0 Expenses at fairs and markets 8 0 0 Clothing, groceries, &c., for the family 45 0 0 Interest on 1,500 capital, at 5 per cent. 75 0 0 Sundries 15 0 0 ---------- 646 0 0 ==========

Cr. s. d.

360 bushels of wheat, @ 10 s. 180 0 0 300 bushels of barley, @ 6s. 90 0 0 100 bushels of peas, @ 6s. 30 0 0 20 cwt. hops 60 0 0 Sale of oxen, cows and calves 150 0 0 Profits from sheep 100 0 0 " from pigs, poultry, dairy, and sundries 50 0 0 ---------- 660 0 0 ==========

According to this the farmer did little more than pay rent, interest on capital, and get a living. Yet prices of what he had to sell had gone up greatly: wheat in Herefordshire in 1760 was 3s. a bushel, in 1805, 10s.; butcher's meat in 1760 was 1-1/2d. a lb., in 1804, 7d.; fresh b.u.t.ter 4-1/2d. in 1760, 1s. 3d. in 1804; a fat goose in Hereford market in 1740, 10d.; 1760, 1s.; 1804, 4s.; a couple of fowls in 1740, 6d.; 1760, 7d.; 1804, 2s. 4d.[548] The winter of 1813-4 was extraordinarily severe, and the wheat crop was seriously injured, but the increased breadth of cultivation, a large surplus, and great importations kept the price down. Many sheep, however, were killed by the hard winter, which also reduced the quality of the cattle, so that meat was higher in 1814 than at any previous period.[549] At Smithfield beef was 6s. to 7s. a stone, mutton 7s. to 8s. 6d. With the peace of 1814 the fict.i.tious prosperity came to an end, a large amount of paper was withdrawn from circulation, which lowered the price of all commodities, and a large number of country banks failed. The first sufferers were the agricultural cla.s.ses, who happened at that time to hold larger supplies than usual, the value of which fell at once; the incomes of all were diminished, and the capital of many annihilated.[550] At the same time the demand for our manufactures from abroad fell off; the towns were impoverished, and bought less from the farmer.

The short period of war in 1815 had little effect on prices, and in January, 1816, wheat was 52s. 6d., and the prices of live stock had fallen considerably. In 1815 protection reached its highest limit, the Act of that year prohibiting import of wheat when the price was under 80s. a quarter, and other grain in proportion.[551] However, it was of no avail; and in the beginning of 1816 the complaints of agricultural distress were so loud and deep that the Board of Agriculture issued circular letters to every part of the kingdom, asking for information on the state of agriculture.

According to the answers given, rent had already fallen on an average 25 per cent. and agriculture was in a 'deplorable state.'[552]

Bankruptcies, seizures, executions, imprisonments, were rife, many farmers had become parish paupers. Rent was much in arrear, t.i.thes and poor rates unpaid, improvements generally discontinued, live stock diminished; alarming gangs of poachers and other depredators ranged the country. The loss was greater on arable than on gra.s.s land, and 'flock farms' had suffered less than others, though they had begun to feel it heavily.

All cla.s.ses connected with the land suffered severely; the landlords could not get many of their rents; the farmer's stock had depreciated 40 per cent.[553]; many labourers, who during the war had been getting from 15s. to 16s. a week and 18s. in summer,[554] were walking the country searching for employment. Many tenants threw up their farms, and it was often noticed that landlords, 'knowing very little of agriculture and taken by surprise,' could not manage the farms thrown on their hands, and they went uncultivated. Some farmers paid up their rent to date, sold their stock, and went off without any notice; others, less scrupulous, drove off their stock and moved their household furniture in the night without settling.[555]

Farmers and landowners were asked to state the remedies required. Some asked for more rent reduction and further prohibition of import, but the most general cry was for the lessening of taxation.

A Herefordshire farmer[556] stated that in 1815 the taxes on a farm of 300 acres in that county were:

s. d.

Property tax, landlord and tenant 95 16 10 Great t.i.thes 64 17 6 Lesser t.i.thes 29 15 0 Land tax 14 0 0 Window lights 24 1 6 Poor rates, landlord 10 0 0 " tenant 40 0 0 Cart-horse duty, landlord, 3 horses 2 11 0 Two saddle horses, landlord 9 0 0 Gig 6 6 0 Cart-horse duty,[557] tenant 7 2 0 One saddle horse, tenant 2 13 6 Landlord's malt duty on 60 bushels of barley 21 0 0 Tenant's duty for making 120 bushels of barley into malt 42 0 0 New rate for building shire hall, paid by landlord 9 0 0 " " " tenant 3 0 0 Surcharge 2 8 0 ------------ 383 11 4 ============

The parish of Kentchurch, in Herefordshire, paid in direct taxes a greater sum than the lands of the whole parish could be let for.

Another very general complaint was of the collection of t.i.the in kind, a most awkward and offensive method, causing great expense and waste, which, however, had given way in many places to compounding.