122 THE AGRICULTURAL CLUB. 



the necessity for some higher form of organisation, due to the 

 wars between the different tribes and with the Welsh and after- 

 wards the Danes, leads to the need for every man to be com- 

 mended to some lord and to be associated with a number of other 

 free citizens as security for his duties. It is a mistake to suppose 

 that this implies any loss of freedom by necessity. It is merely 

 the growth of citizenship with its usual accompaniment of mutual 

 responsibility. But under the influence of the Norman lawyers 

 the position of the villein, which was originally a privileged 

 one, becomes in theory at least a subservient one. But as far 

 as his tenancy is concerned he is never worse off at any one period 

 than at another. The obligation to feed the king changes to 

 an obligation to work for the lord and finally to pay a rent in 

 commutation of the services due to him. The status of the 

 villein merely seems lower because that of the other classes 

 has improved faster. It is simply a question of relative progress. 

 This is the first point I have attempted to make. Of course, I 

 am quite aware that this is a very sketchy and one-sided picture. 

 If there is any professed historian here to-night, and I hope 

 there is not, I must explain that I realise fully that I have 

 omitted all reference to fifty other influences that were at work 

 all the time, that much of what I have said is disputable and 

 unproved, and that some of it is frankly conjecture. But I 

 would reply that I am not trying to write an historical essay, 

 but provide a theme for discussion, and that in order to bring 

 out certain points I have been obliged to give undue emphasis 

 to them, even, perhaps, distort them. 



Having thus attractively dealt with the history of his 

 subject Mr. Rogers, in conclusion, referred briefly to what he 

 termed his second point, which was deliberately challenging : 



The progress of events we have just examined is marked by 

 a curious change in what is private and what is common. In 

 the earliest days, the means of production the land was held 

 common, but the produce was the property of the individual. As 

 civilisation advances the means of production become the pro- 

 perty of the individual, while the produce is the property of the 

 community, for everything which is produced by a farmer, or for 

 matter of that by a manufacturer, beyond what he can consume 

 himself, is the property of the community, which each member 

 can obtain for himself by the surrender of his labour or the 

 labour of others which he has acquired, and is epitomised in that 

 peculiar token we call money. It is interesting to see how this 

 development has arisen, but we cannot live on academic dis- 

 cussions alone, however interesting they may be. It is practical 

 problems of everyday life that we want if we are to keep our 



