THE SMALL OWNER 259 



of the Revolution, marks an epoch in their history, for from 

 that time they began to diminish in proportion to the 

 population. Their number in 1688 is a sufficient answer 

 to the exaggerated statement of contemporaries in the 

 sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as to the depopulation 

 caused by enclosures. Chamberlayne, in his State of Great 

 Britain, published at about the same time as Gregory 

 King's figures, says there were more freeholders in England 

 than in any country of like extent in Europe : ' ;^40 or 

 £^0 a year is very ordinary, ;^ioo or ;^200 in some counties 

 is not rare, sometimes in Kent and in the Weald of Sussex 

 ;^5oo or ;^6oo per annum, and _;^3,ooo or ;^4,ooo of stock.* 

 ^In the first quarter of the eighteenth century he was a 

 prominent figure. Defoe ^ describes the number and prosperity 

 of the Greycoats of Kent (as they were called from their 

 homespun garments), 'whose interest is so considerable that 

 whoever they vote for is always sure to carry it.' 



Why has this sturdy class so dwindled in numbers, 

 and left England infinitely the weaker for their decrease? 

 The causes are several ; social, economic, and political. The 

 chief, perhaps, is the peculiar form of Government which came 

 in with the Revolution. The landed gentry by that event 

 became supreme, the national and local administration was 

 entirely in their hands, and land being the foundation of 

 social and political influence was eagerly sought by them 

 where it was not already in their hands.^ At the same 

 time the successful business men, whose numbers now 

 increased rapidly from the development of trade, bought 

 land to ' make themselves gentlemen '. Both these classes 

 bought out the yeomen, who do not seem to have been very 

 loath to part with their land. The recently devised system 

 of strict family settlements enabled the old and the new 



» Tour, i. (2), 37, 38. 



' Toynbee, Industrial Revolution, p. 62. 



S Z 



