Agricultural Revolution 41 



it was reduced by many of its advocates. The new movement meant 

 that a class hitherto independent was to fall to a position of mere 

 wage-earning, and that a new capitalist class was to be developed to 

 rule over them. To these results the writers in question were opposed. 

 Dr Price, for instance, referring to the legislation of Henry VII and 

 Henry VIII, which had protected the peasantry from expropriation, 

 said : "Such was the policy of former times. Modern policy is, indeed, 

 more favourable to the higher classes of people ; and the consequence 

 of it may in time prove that the whole kingdom will consist of only 

 gentry and beggars, or of grandees and slaves 1 ." Some writers pro- 

 posed that the State should set a limit to the size of farms 2 , though 

 naturally all such suggestions were fore-doomed to failure. It was 

 hardly likely that in a country ruled by the landed interest and a 

 Parliament filled by landlords a champion should be found able and 

 willing to carry through measures in opposition to a development 

 which filled the pockets of the owners of agricultural land. 



The opponents of large farming on social grounds were treated with 

 the same contempt which is even now meted out by many agricul- 

 turists to critics who are alleged to have no practical experience. 

 The representatives of the corn-growing interest occupied themselves 

 primarily with the economic side of the matter. They pointed out 

 the economic superiority of large holdings over small ones, which 

 was obvious so far as corn-growing was concerned ; they drew atten- 

 tion to the progress which agricultural technique had made under the 

 new system, and so forth. Many of them also managed to satisfy 

 their social conscience. Arthur Young, for example, expounded the 

 theory that low wages meant more work done, and that therefore the 

 deterioration of the labourer's standard of life might be profitable to 

 the State 3 . The expropriation of the small holders and cottagers 

 was said to be justified inasmuch as they would be better off in the 

 position of wage-labourers ; they would work less hard and would 

 have less anxiety than when they were working for themselves. By 

 arguments of this kind the weighty case developed against the large 

 farm system and the enclosures was set aside. 



The enthusiasm of these advocates of the large farm system and 

 their failure to grasp the social aspect of the new conditions makes 

 more remarkable the change in their ideas which took place at the 



1 Price, op. cit. p. 393. 



- E.g. The Causes of the Dearness of Provisions assigned, Gloucester, 1766, p. 11 ; and 

 also N. Forster, op. cit. pp. 94 ff. 



3 Young, Farmers Letters, Vol. I, pp. 205 ff. ; see also p. 37. 



