contended that a higher rate of payment would not have been better both for himself and for his employers. At the same time, it cannot be denied the general condition of the agricultural labourer is far better now than it was twenty, or even fifty, years ago. The hours of work have been lessened, and machinery, although it has caused displacement in some cases, has yet relieved the labourer of much of the severe work which he had then to perform. In many counties the wives of the labourers have been entirely emancipated from field work for many years past, though, of course, in many counties also, they do light field work at harvest time. Greater opportunities for education have been given, and the dwellings of rural labourers, with all their defects, are generally better now than they used to be. "The labourer of the present day," it is said, "who is better fed, better clothed, better housed, than his father was, may not be fully conscious of the improvement that bas taken place, because his ideas have expanded, and his wants, like those of persons in every other class, have grown; but none the less he lives in less discomfort, his toil is less severe, his children have a better prospect before them, and opportunities which he himself never enjoyed." 1

Such is a fair, though not a roseate, statement of the present position, and at first glance it may seem satisfactory. But when we come to consider that, after all, the present tolerable position of the agricultural labourer is an improvement only when compared with the depth of degradation reached about the middle of the nineteenth century, and that his condition had till then been steadily declining, we may well stop and ask ourselves whether there is much cause for congratulation in the fact that the agricultural labourer of the end of the nineteenth century is not much worse off than he was a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago. Considering the vast improvement that has taken place in the whole of our social and economic standard of living, and in the opportunities which are now

1

1 Report of Mr W. C. Little, Assistant Agricultural Commissioner, in his General Report on the Agricultural Labourer to the Labour Commission (June 20, 1894).

opened up by modern culture, it is doubtful whether we can honestly say that the agricultural labourer has had his fair share of them. Statisticians rejoice because he has for some time no longer retrograded, but has even advanced; but this is but a poor advance compared with that of the nation as a whole. However, for whatever advance that has taken place, we shall do well to be thankful, for a sturdy and contented peasantry, where it exists, is the best backbone for a progressive nation.

The rise, such as it is, is due, among other causes, to the formation of Trades Unions, the leader and promoter of which among agricultural labourers was Joseph Arch. This active and energetic man, who has sat in more than one Parliament, 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 10s. or 11s. a week-but the evils of the factory system of child labour had been transferred to the life of the fields. 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.1 Their pay was of 1 For gang labour see the Report (Reports, xii., 1843) of the Committee of 1843 on this subject. The worst evils are said to have been corrected in 1816 by the 56 Geo. III., c. 139 (Cunningham, Growth of Industry, ii. 653), but cf. Rogers, Six Centuries, pp. 511, 512.

The following extract from one of the Rev. S. Baring-Gould's novels gives some idea of the conditions of gang labour. I am assured by the author that he derived the incident from a reliable authority in the district where it happened: "Twice or thrice the wheat had to be hoed, and the hoers were women. Over them the farmers set a 'ganger' armed with an ox-goad, who thrust on the lagging women with a prod between the shoulder-blades.”—Baring-Gould, Cheap Jack Zita, p. 214.

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 pauperised and degraded labour. Amid times like these Joseph Arch grew up, and the seed of Trade Unionism was sown, but it was not till 1872 (at which time it will be remembered that British farmers were doing very well)1 that the agitation was begun which resulted in the formation of the National Agricultural Labourers' Union. The difficulties of organising the down-trodden labourers were enormous, but they were at length overcome by the leaders of the agitation, and their efforts have already done much to improve the material condition of their members. Wages have decidedly risen since the agitation began, but even now they certainly cannot be called high.

§ 251. The Present Condition of British Agriculture.

It remains to notice briefly the causes which are still influencing our agricultural industry, and to point out in what direction we may expect a revival from the present state of depression. Besides the fact of the increase of rents up to 1870 or 1875, we notice an increase of the foreign competition already alluded to an increase 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. Even when it began again, it was not very serious as long as it stood alone, 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 3 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

1 Above, p. 438.

3

2 See the Agricultural Returns for recent years. 3 Aided by the discovery of gold in California and Australia.

been supplied with grain from these three great agricultural countries, 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 under the old rents. The consequence has been the ruin of many farmers, and a terrible loss of income for all classes in any way connected with agriculture.1 But at the same time rents have decreased very slowly in spite of the frequent stories that are heard of wholesale reductions by sympathetic landlords. This may be seen from the official returns. The annual value of lands assessed under Schedule A in the United Kingdom was highest in 1879-80, when it was £69,548,793. It had decreased to £63,268,679 in 1885-86, and still further 2 declined to £57,694,820 in 1890-91. But it is surprising to find that even this latter figure is higher than the gross assessment of 1852-53, before the Russian War, while, on the other hand, land is not worth nearly so much to farm as it was then, so that it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the fall in rents has not been so great as it should have been in proportion to the fall in the profits of the farmer.

3

In course of time it is certain that the economic action of supply and demand will bring rents down to something like their commercial value, as, indeed, it has been rapidly doing in some places lately (1895); meanwhile the English landlords, as an eminent agriculturist 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

1 It was estimated by Sir James Caird (Evidence before the Commission on Depression in Trade in 1886) that the loss of the agricultural community as a whole in annual income was £42,800,000 as compared with 1876. (C. 4715, Qu. 7673, and f. 7677, 7742, 7785).

2 See Bear, The British Farmer and his Competitors, pp. 9, 10.

The assessment for Great Britain under Schedule B was £46,571,887. A change in the assessment for Ireland renders the exact comparison difficult, but it is obvious that, even allowing for Ireland, there has not been so great a fall as might have been expected.

4 W. E. Bear, u. s., p. 12.

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 1 (which are fortunately increasing in spite of high rents), 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 encouragement of light railways and rural tram lines, together with the abolition of the system of preferential railway rates, would enable producers to put their produce with greater ease upon the home market; for the requirements of the English nation 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 yet open to him, even if he gives up wheat-growing, and betakes himself more to dairyfarming, market-gardening, and what may be termed the minor branches of agriculture. But it may not be necessary for him to give up wheat altogether, since foreign farmers are beginning to find out that they cannot put wheat on the English market at the present low prices. In course of time the nation will probably perceive 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 they have left; 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

1 The steady increase in allotments is shown by the figures of British allotments under one acre :-In 1873, 246,398; in 1888, 357,795; in 1890, 455,005. Of these, the greater number (441,024 in 1890) were in England. Small holdings under fifty acres, and other than allotments, have also increased since 1875 (see Hazell's Annual, 1895). Mr W. C. Little, in the Report above referred to (Royal Commission on Labour, June 20, 1894), states that the rentals of allotments are very high, as everyone knows who has had experience of their working.