peasants, whose it had been from time immemorial, was carried out by the political interest of the great landowners for their own private advantage. Mr. T. E. Kebbel refers to this subject as follows:-The fact is, that the right of the peasant to compensation for the loss inflicted on him by enclosure is just as clear as any other right which rests on usage and prescription. Allotment grounds, wherever such rights have been extinguished, are not a question of benevolence but of simple justice. A hundred years ago this seems to have been wholly overlooked. Everybody was compensated but those who stood in need of it most; and the rapid rise in poor rates which followed this policy, though it sometimes punished those who were the chief gainers by it, was but cold comfort to those who were the chief losers. And even now, we repeat, but little has been done, compared with what it seems reasonable to suppose might have been done, towards carrying out the intentions of the legislature and preventing such mistakes in future. The Act of 1845 provided that out of every enclosed waste a proportion of land should be set aside for the use of cottagers in lieu of their rights of common, subject, however, to the discretion of the Enclosure Commissioners, of which these gentlemen seemed to have availed themselves very largely. The land was to be vested in trustees, to be called the "allotment wardens," who should receive the rents and devote them to parochial purposes. But out of nearly 500,000 acres which have been enclosed since the date of that Act, only about 2,000 acres have been so assigned. And the point is one of great practical interest, as several millions of acres of waste land still exist in England capable of cultivation, and doubtless destined to the plough.'1

The result is that now two-thirds of the lands of England and Wales are in the hands of 10,207 persons,

1 The Agricultural Labourer, by T. E. Kebbel, Esq., 1870, pp. 64-66.

and, if we include Scotland, four-fifths of the island are held by 12,791 persons. If, however, we deduct from the figures given in the new Domesday Book the proportion due to names counted repeatedly, we could probably discover that four-fifths of the whole British soil is held by something like 5,000 owners, or that nearly one-half of it is held by less than 1,000. These owners are, however, to a large and preponderating extent only life-renters, the estates being entailed. By legal devices which are not advantageous to the personal interests of the nominal proprietors, nor to those of the people at large, these lands (40,000,000 acres in Great Britain) are, with insignificant exceptions, placed under permanent disabilities; they are the preserves of entail, fenced with strict settlement; they belong to no man, and to a certain extent they are doomed to infertility, because they are ever in waiting for the unborn hand of the next generation.'"

In consequence of the land, therefore, not being fully at the disposal of its present proprietors, for their own benefit and for the general benefit of the community, its value increases only very slowly; for while the annual value of the lands of England and Wales was 36,20,000l. in 1814-15, it was no more than 48,947,879l. in 1873-74, an increase at the rate of 35 per cent. On the other hand, the other real property has increased three or four times in value, and the profits of trades and professions have increased six-fold.

It appears, then, that while the wealth of England has increased from industry and commerce enormously, the value of lands, and consequently their produce, has been very immaterially affected. The very greatly in

1 See Paper on The Abuses of a Landed Gentry, by Arthur Arnold, in The Nineteenth Century for May, 1877. 2 Ibid.

3 See Journal of the Statistical Society of London for September, 1869, pp. 316-318; and Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom, from 1860 to 1874, p. 17.

6

creased demand for the produce of the soil, caused by the existence of a much larger and much more wealthy population, has had a very inadequate influence upon the value of the soil; and it would seem, therefore, that, considering the increased prices, the land must be upon the whole not much more productive than formerly. Mr. James Caird, in his English Agriculture,' affirms that farms producing meat, wool, and butter, although supposed to have undergone no improvement in the preceding eighty years, would yield in 1852, when he wrote, 200l. instead of 100l. at the earlier period. If we adopt this statement as a criterion of the rise in nominal values on meat-producing farms, we must arrive at the conclusion that the real values cannot have increased to any appreciable extent.

Professor Fawcett describes the effect of the present system of land tenure as follows:- The English system of land tenure directly tends to divorce capital from the soil; and this evil, instead of being cured, is each year assuming increased proportions since the area of land cultivated by those who own it is gradually becoming smaller.. . But the farmer, who is tenant-at-will, has no security whatever. . It is impossible to suggest any arrangement which, by discouraging individual energy, can be more antagonistic to good husbandry. Some idea may be formed of the injury thus inflicted on the community when it is remarked that a great part of the cultivated land of the country is occupied by tenants-at-will.'1

And this condition of agricultural stagnation has continued to exist, while the food supplies of the population have been largely and increasingly drawn from abroad. Thus there is now about 100 million cwts. of corn, four million cwts. of meat, and 680 millions of eggs, not to enumerate cheese, rice, &c., imported annually

1

Pauperism, its Causes and Remedies, by Professor Fawcett, p. 219.

G

into the United Kingdom; so that, on the basis of Mr. Caird's estimate of the agricultural food produce of the country, it now results that about two-fifths of the whole food required by the population must be regularly imported from other countries.1

The internal agricultural policy of England having thus been regulated for centuries, the masses of the people have been compelled to direct their attention and energies almost exclusively to trade, manufactures, and commerce for support and advancement.

But the treatment of the Irish people by the government of England has been still more evil than that of the English, and the policy carried out until lately towards that unfortunate island may be characterised as having been one of perpetual spoliation. Rebellion against the most unjust tyranny has been continually the excuse for, and the occasion of, renewed oppression and spoliation. Ireland had for long been the prey of English adventurers; and it mattered not what government was in power, the policy was unchanged. Until within a few decades the people of that island have been treated by the government, and sometimes by the people, of England as a conquered and an inferior race, and the effects have been disastrous to Ireland and unfortunate for England. It is true, indeed, that the Irish, in the hands of their native princes and chieftains, could not very well have emerged from barbarism; for their internecine quarrellings were chronic, and a strong external

The estimate which Mr. Caird formed of the agricultural food produce of the United Kingdom for the year 1867 (see Journal of the Statistical Society of London for June, 1868, p. 139) was 180,000,000l.; and if we allow an addition of 10,000,000l. as the increase of the nine intervening years, we shall probably be above the truth. But the declared value of the food supplies (excluding spirits, wines, tobacco, and spices) imported from abroad in 1876 was 136,000,000l. ; so that the supplies imported stand in relation to the home produce as 136 to 190, the former being therefore fully two-fifths of the whole.

power was necessary to maintain order, and to implant a firm and just rule. Instead of justice, however, being predominant, whether a Charles I. or a Cromwell occupied the throne, the course of seizure, rapine, and murder was unchecked. It could scarcely be expected that, while the lands of Ireland were frequently changing hands, the poor agriculturalists would have any opportunity of thriving. We find, in fact, that the unsettled state of the country, and the condition of chronic rebellion and spoliation that existed, was entirely against the material well-being of the poorer classes which have always formed the great mass of the population. It was always found most convenient to deal only with the head of the sept, as if he were the sole proprietor of the soil, not with its members; for when the former was incriminated, his lands were at the disposal of the Crown. The rights of the people to the soil were ignored; it often followed that the people themselves were found to be incumbrances on the land, and they were driven not unfrequently therefrom wholesale.

Thus, on the division of forfeited lands after the successes of the Protector, the people, in order to make way for the settlement of the disbanded soldiers, were driven across the Shannon into Connaught and Clare, and were kept there by a chain of garrisons. Whoever remained behind was liable to be murdered. What followed was necessarily of the most disastrous kind. The people died everywhere either of violence or starvation, so that Sir William Petty, the commissioned surveyor of the English government, estimated the loss of population between 1641 and 1682 at 504,000 persons, a number approaching one-half of the whole inhabitants existing in the year 1672.

One hundred years later we find that the landholders