POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



that wo get tho clearest insight into the uncial condition . f the 

 English people ; and I can, perhaps, speak with more otmtidi-iin: 

 than moat people on this subject, because I have made it a 

 pecial Btudy. 



In tl lose days there were not more than half-a-dozen laws on 

 tho statute book, and such laws as did exist were either 

 declarations of existing customs, or were enacted with peculiar 

 inn! hmit<''L objects. The country was governed by traditional 

 ..TV fow and very simple, and justice, in accordance 

 with those rules, was administered in every town and every 

 parish, or manor, as parishes wore generally called. The 

 process by which justice was done, waa by a local judge, 

 known as tho lord's seneschal or steward, and a jury, who 

 punished offences committed within the boundaries of tho 

 pariah, or manor, determined rights by evidence, and prepared 

 tho machinery for tho registration of all transactions, completed 

 in court, on tho parish or manor roll. 



In those days, again, everybody owned land, and no land was 

 without an owner. A man who had no land was an outlaw or 

 vagabond, to whom the law afforded littlo or no protection, 

 because he was not registered in tho record of those courts in 

 which alono the protection of law was ordinarily accorded. 

 Hence tho police of tho timo was Tory strict and searching. 

 However, as those who formed tho police were subject to the 

 effect of their own regulations, the machinery of local self- 

 government, though searching, was not oppressive. In brief, 

 the country was universally under municipal government, and 

 frovt'rninent was carried on by a- system in which very con- 

 siderable authority waa exercised under the control of very 

 effectual checks. 



The highest landowner was tho king. Everybody waa 

 supposed to hold under him, and ho could and did, in his 

 capacity as an individual, hold land under himself as monarch. 

 All that waa meant by this rule of law was, that since no land 

 waa without an owner, tho extinction of any owner involved an 

 immediate reversion to tho crown. Tho great barons held their 

 land from the king. Other barons held from tho king or the 

 greater barons. Other tenants held from the inferior barons, 

 the greater barons, or the king. There might, in short, be 

 any number of persons interposed between tho king and the 

 person who actually occupied tho soil ; though ultimately, and 

 just before tho date which I have taken, this power of creating 

 under-tenants was controlled, chiefly for political reasons. 



Aa all land was held from some superior, a licence to use 

 land was necessary. The terms of this licence constituted tho 

 rent of land, and tho rent might be paid in money, in produce, 

 or in labour. But if tho rent waa paid, no person could be 

 ousted from his tenancy, or, at least, could not be ousted unless 

 tho jury which I have referred to above were willing to agree 

 that he should bo ejected. I need hardly say that they would 

 bo very unwilling to agree to such a process, as it would tell 

 against themselves, and that, therefore, unless a tenant became 

 an intolerable nuisance to his neighbours aa well as to his land- 

 lord, he ran no risk of losing hia holding. Nor could the lord 

 get rid of him by raising hia rent. Tho peculiarity of all these 

 ancient rents was, that they were a fixed quantity. The rent 

 which the greatest baron paid to the king's exchequer waa 

 invariable, and the samo security which he had against an 

 arbitrary increase of rent, was accorded to tho poorest tenant 

 in a manor. It did not follow that, considering the times, these 

 rents were low. In point of fact they were frequently aa high 

 aa the tenant could afford to pay. But they were paid, and 

 therefore gave the tenant a sense of security that Ins enterprise 

 and diligence, if he had them, could not be used against him. 

 And I may add that there was, at tho timo I speak of, no 

 slavery. There was a class of cultivators who went by the 

 name of villains, and who were in theory serfs ; but they had 

 gained all the solid advantages of free men, a few traces only 

 being left of the condition which their ancestors had probably 

 occupied. Thus they generally hold their land by payment of 

 labour rents, were liable to a fine when their daughters married, 

 or their sons became monks or clergymen, and were obliged to 

 get a licence in order to live away from the manor, which free 

 tenants could leave at their discretion. 



Scattered over the country were the towns, most of which 

 had endured from the days of the Roman occupation, if, 

 indeed, they were not occupied originally by the ancient 

 British tribes. These towns carried on a few manufactures, 



, besides holding markets for country produce, and fairs toi tho 

 Bale of such merchandise a* oar forefather* bought. They Lad 

 ' generally obtained charters from king or baron, or bishop tit 

 abbot, and invariably secured by imch charters that self- 

 government which the manors or parishes had, together wit!) 

 the right of electing their own magistrates. Particular towct 

 had special manufactures for which they were famous. Thus, 

 at tho period which is before me, I find from a contemporary 

 document that Shorcham, Blyth, Beverley, and Colchester were 

 known as manufactories of cloth ; Lewes and Aylesham, for 

 linen ; Wilton, for needles ; Gloucester, for iron ; Shrewsbury, for 

 furs ; Bridport and Warwick, for cord and rope ; Haverhill, for 

 gloves ; Coventry, for soap ; Banbury and Ely, for beer ; and 

 other towns for other articles. 



The population of England was, in all likelihood, not more 

 than two millions, and nearly all the inhabitants were engaged 

 in agriculture. During the harvest time the whole town and 

 country folk wero occupied in the fields. In the winter, the 

 town population betook themselves to manufacturing their goodr, 

 and tiio country folk busied themselves with such domestic work 

 as the firelight would enable them to do. Candles were far too 

 dear for ordinary use. 



The success with which agriculture is practised is the measure 

 of the population which can exist in a country. In those day*, 

 this art was practised with very moderate success. Our fore- 

 fathers had no winter roota. Turnips, carrots, and, of conr-<_, 

 potatoes wero unknown to them, and unknown for ir.any a long 

 year after the period whoso economical condition I am sketch- 

 ing. Our ancestors knew nothing of thoee artificial grasses 

 which constitute the richness of a modern pasture, and give a 

 deep swarth to hay. Clover, trefoil, sainfoin, and lucerne were 

 undiscovered wealth. 



Aa there waa no stock of hay for winter food, other than 

 that which could be got from tho coarse and innutritions 

 pasture of the time, there was little winter stock kept. As 

 manure was scanty, the dressing of the farm was insufficient. 

 As the rotation of crops was unknown, and indeed impossible, 

 the land which had been exhausted by grain crops lay ir 

 fallow. As ploughing waa shallow, partly because cattle were 

 weak, partly because iron was excessively dear, the exhaustion 

 of tho soil waa still more rapid. Seven bushels of wheat to the 

 acre were held to be an average crop. At present the yield on 

 well-tilled land of ordinary quality is four times that amount. 



My readers will now see why it waa that the population wu~. 

 aa compared with that of our day, so scanty. Take one-fourth, 

 of tho wheat now produced in England, and recollect that this . 

 little crop could only be got half aa frequently as the present . 

 crop now is, and it is easy to see that a rate of production 

 which can keep sixteen millions now, could only maintain two 

 milliona nearly six centuries ago. And what held good in the 

 case of corn, was equally true in that of meat. I have said 

 that there was little or no winter feed. The stock which 

 survives! the winter waa half-starved, and needed most of the 

 summer in order to get into moderate condition. The greater 

 part waa killed in November, and salted for winter use. Our 

 forefathers found salt mutton and beef very indifferent faro in 

 winter, and therefore longed earnestly for spring. Nobles and. 

 great landowners had still less relish for this kind of food, anc 

 wo know how savagely they protected such game as theii 

 estates furnished. Nothing gives a better insight into tho 

 social economy of England five centuries ago. than tho fact 

 that fat was six times as dear as meat, and that tho price of a 

 pound of candles would have taken the wages of a whole day 

 from a labourer. 



Still, though our forefathers lived without the possession of 

 many among those conveniences which are familiar to the 

 poorest among us, and though their condition was almost 

 stationary, they were for from unprosperous. The excellence 

 of the village police made crime comparatively rare. As a rule, 

 the tenant was not only secure of his holding, but his property 

 was safe. Hence, other European nations not being possessed 

 of so effectual a police, English people alone could keep sheep 

 to advantage. English wool was the principal article of Eng- 

 lish wealth six centuries ago, not because Continental farmers 

 could not keep sheep, but because they wero far from being 

 safe that they should shear them when shearing-time came. 

 This English wool enabled the warrior-monarchs, Edward III. 

 and Henry V., to effect the temporary conquest of Franc*. 



