William Pitt and the Great War by John Holland Rose (e book reader for pc .TXT) 📖

sold at six

guineas the quarter, and by the month of May was down nearly to normal

prices. In that month Pitt deemed the crisis past; for the King's Speech

of 19th May, at the end of the last session of that Parliament,

congratulated members on the success of their efforts to afford relief

to the people. The harvest of 1796 was more abundant; but confidence

was not restored until late in the year. As Whitbread pointed out, the

increase of large farms at the expense of the little men led to the

holding back of the new corn. The small farmer perforce had to sell his

corn at once. The wealthy farmer could bide his time.[426]

 

In these years of dearth, when the troubles in Poland restricted the

supply of corn from that natural granary, the importance of the United

States became increasingly obvious. Pitt had consistently sought to

improve the relations with our kinsmen, and in 1791 sent out the first

official envoy, George Hammond. The disputes resulting from the War of

Independence and those arising out of the British Maritime Code during

the Great War, brought about acute friction; but the good sense of Pitt,

Washington, and John Jay, his special envoy to London, led to the

conclusion of an Anglo-American Treaty (7th October 1794). Though hotly

opposed by the Gallophil party at Washington, it was finally ratified in

September 1796, and thus postponed for sixteen years the hostilities

which had at times seemed imminent. For the present the United States

sent us an increased quantity of cotton wool, but mere driblets of corn

except in seasons of scarcity. Lancashire benefited from the enhanced

trade, while the British farmer did not yet discern the approach of

times of ruinous competition.[427]

 

                  *       *       *       *       *

 

Agriculture had long been an occupation equally fashionable and

profitable. No part of the career of George III deserves more

commendation than his patronage of high farming. That he felt keen

interest in the subject appears from the letters which he sent to "The

Annals of Agriculture" over the signature of "Ralph Robinson," one of

his shepherds at Windsor. A present of a ram from the King's fine flock

of merinos was a sign of high favour. Thanks to this encouragement and

the efforts of that prince of agricultural reformers, Arthur Young, the

staple industry of the land was in a highly flourishing condition. The

rise in the price of wheat now stimulated the demand for the enclosure

of waste lands and of the open or common-fields which then adjoined the

great majority of English villages. The reclamation of wastes and fens

was an advantage to all but the very poor, who, as graziers,

wood-cutters, or fishermen, dragged along a life of poverty but

independence. Though they might suffer by the change to tillage, the

parish and the nation at large reaped golden harvests.

 

The enclosure of common fields was a different matter. Though on them

the traditional rotation of crops was stupid and the husbandry slipshod,

yet the semi-communal tillage of the three open strips enabled Hodge to

jog along in the easy ways dear to him. In such cases a change to more

costly methods involves hardship to the poor, who cannot, or will not,

adopt the requirements of a more scientific age. Recent research has

also shown that villagers depended mainly on their grazing rights. Now,

a small grazier does not readily become a corn-grower. Even if he can

buy a plough and a team, he lacks the experience needful for success in

corn-growing. Accordingly, the small yeomen could neither compete with

the large farmers nor imitate their methods. While the few who succeeded

became prosperous, the many sank into poverty. These results may also be

ascribed to the expense and injustice too often attending the enclosures

of this period. Far from striking off at one blow the fetters of the old

system, as happened in France in 1789, English law required each parish

to procure its own Enclosure Act. Thus, when the parishioners at the

village meeting had decided to enclose the common fields and waste,

there occurred a long and costly delay until the parochial charter was

gained.

 

Then again, the difficult task of re-allotting the wastes and open

fields in proportion to the rights of the lord of the manor, the

tithe-owner, and the parishioners, sometimes furnished an occasion for

downright robbery of the poor. That staunch champion of high-farming and

enclosures, Arthur Young, names many instances of shameful extortion on

the part of landlord and attorneys. Where the village carried out its

enclosure fairly and cheaply, the benefits were undoubtedly great. The

wastes then became good pasture or tolerable tillage; and the common

fields, previously cut up into small plots, and worked on a wasteful

rotation, soon testified to the magic of individual ownership. A case in

point was Snettisham, near Sandringham, where, as the result of the new

wealth, the population increased by one fifth, while the poor-rate

diminished by one half. Young also declared that large parts of

Norfolk, owing to judicious enclosures, produced glorious crops of grain

and healthy flocks fed on turnips and mangolds, where formerly there had

been dreary wastes, miserable stock, and underfed shepherds.

 

The dearth of the year 1795 brought to the front the question of a

General Enclosure Act, for enabling parishes to adopt this reform

without the expense of separately applying to Parliament. To devise a

measure suitable to the wide diversities of tenure prevalent in English

villages was a difficult task; but it had been carried out successfully

in Scotland by the Act of 1695; and now, a century later, a similar boon

was proposed for England by one of the most enterprising of Scotsmen.

Sir John Sinclair was born in 1754 at Thurso Castle. Inheriting large

estates in the county of Caithness, he determined to enter political

life, and became member for Lostwithiel, in Cornwall. Differing sharply

from Pitt over the Warren Hastings affair, he adopted the independent

line of conduct natural to his tastes, and during the Regency dispute

joined the intermediate party known as the Armed Neutrality.

 

Above all he devoted himself to the development of Scottish agriculture,

and began in 1790 a work entitled "A Statistical Account of Scotland."

He also founded a society for improving the quality of British wool, and

in May 1793 he urged the Prime Minister to incorporate a Board of

Agriculture. Young bet that Pitt would refuse; for, while favouring

commerce and manufactures, he had hitherto done nothing for the plough.

He lost his bet. Pitt gave a conditional offer of support, provided that

the House of Commons approved. The proposal won general assent, despite

the insinuations of Fox and Sheridan that its purpose was merely to

increase the patronage at the disposal of the Cabinet. Sinclair became

president, with Young as secretary.[428] The Englishman complained that

Sinclair's habit of playing with large schemes wasted the scanty funds

at their disposal. But the Board did good work, for instance, in setting

on foot experiments as to the admixture of barley, beans, and rice in

the partly wheaten bread ordained by Parliament in 1795.

 

With the view of framing a General Enclosure Act, Sinclair sought to

extract from parochial Enclosure Acts a medicine suitable to the myriad

needs and ailments of English rural life. His survey of typical

enactments is of high interest. He summarizes the treatment accorded to

the lord of the manor, the rector or other tithe owner, and the

parishioners. Thus, in the case of three parishes near Hull, namely,

Hessle, Anlaby, and Tranley, the wastes and open fields, comprising

3,640 acres, were divided by an act of the year 1792 in a way which

seems to have given satisfaction. Commissioners appointed by the local

authorities divided the soil among the lords of the manors, the

tithe-owners, and the parishioners, the landlords retaining half of

their portions in trust for the poor. Other instances, however, reveal

the difficulty of the question of tithes. Young and Sinclair felt

bitterly on this subject, as their recent proposal to give a detailed

description of the lands of every parish in England was successfully

opposed by Dr. Moore, Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

Pointing out the need of a General Enclosure Act, Sinclair claimed that

of the 22,107,000 acres of waste in England and Wales, a large portion

could be afforested, while only one million acres were quite useless--a

very hopeful estimate.[429] In order to investigate this question, a

Select Committee was appointed, comprising among others Lord William

Russell, Ryder, Carew, Coke of Norfolk, Plumer, and Whitbread. The

outcome of its research was the General Enclosure Bill introduced early

in the session of 1796, which elicited the sanguine prophecy of its

author quoted at the head of this chapter.

 

The measure aroused keen interest. On 15th March the London Court of

Aldermen urged its members to assist in passing some such measure with a

view to increasing the food supply, and providing work for the poor, as

well as for soldiers and sailors discharged at the peace. The proposals

were as follows: The present method of enclosure would be extended so as

to enable the parties concerned to frame an inexpensive and friendly

agreement. In case of disagreement the Bill would enable the majority of

the parishioners, voting, not by head, but according to the value of

their rights, to decide on the question of enclosure. But, in order to

safeguard the rights of the poor, the choice of commissioners charged

with the duty of re-allotting the soil would rest with the majority,

reckoned both according to heads and value. The lord of the manor could

not veto enclosure; but his convenience was specially to be consulted in

the re-apportionment of the land. Sinclair also pointed out to Pitt

that, as tithe-owners were now "much run at," their interests must be

carefully guarded. As for the cottagers, they would find compensation

for the lapse of their fuel rights by the acquisition of small

allotments near to their cottages. The poor also would not be charged

with the expenses of enclosure, and might raise money on loan to fence

the plots awarded to them in lieu of their share in the waste and the

open fields. To insist, said Sinclair, on four acres being annexed to

every cottage was really harmful. Finally he expressed the hope that,

under his plan, the legal expenses of enclosure would on an average be

£5 per parish as against the present burden of £500.[430]

 

Pitt's treatment of the General Enclosure Bill is somewhat obscure.

Again and again Sinclair urged him to greater activity. In April 1796 he

begged him to consult with the judges so as to meet the objections of

tithe-owners. In May he warned him of the general disappointment that

must ensue if no measure of that kind passed in that session. He asked

him whether the Bill, as now amended by the committee, would not answer

its purpose. Pitt gave no encouraging sign. On the contrary, he

gratified the country gentlemen by opposing a Bill for the Reform of the

Game Laws. The proposer, Curwen, sought merely to legalize the killing

of game started on ground farmed by the occupier. But the squires took

alarm, asserting that every small farmer could then pursue hares and

rabbits from his ground into their preserves, and that country life, on

those terms, would be intolerable. Pitt took their side, averring that

sport was a relaxation well suited to the higher Orders of State, but

likely to entice farmers away "from more serious and useful

occupations." Much may be forgiven to a Prime Minister shortly before a

General Election, which, in fact, gave to Pitt a new lease of power.

 

To Sinclair the election brought defeat and chagrin. He travelled

northward to the Orkneys to seek a seat there, and, writing from

Edinburgh on 6th July, tartly informed Pitt of his rejection after a

journey of nearly a thousand miles. He must (he adds) either obtain a

seat elsewhere, or take no further interest in the Board of

Agriculture. If Pitt approves of his labour at the Board, will he show

it in some way? "If, on the other hand," he continues, "you feel the

least hesitation about giving it support, your candour, I am persuaded,

will induce you to inform me at once, that I may no longer be tempted to

waste so much time and labour in such pursuits.... I still flatter

myself, however, that you will see the object in such a light that you

will give the President of the Board of Agriculture a seat either in the

Upper or the Lower House, that he may be encouraged to carry on the

concerns of that useful institution with redoubled energy." Pitt's

comment on the back of the letter is suggestive: "That he has lost his

election, but flatters himself that a seat will be given him either in

the _Lower_ or Upper House, or he must decline taking further concern in

the proceedings of the Board of Agriculture." A little later