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 

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

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

 Heliiry~VlII, 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 tiie-State should^seLaJimit 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 >pppnents_af 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. ^^hur_Young, for example, expounded the 

 meant more work done, and that therefore the 



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

 th'e~- State*: TEe ejcpr^rjalion_of the small holders and cottagers 

 walTsaid 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 tharTwhen 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 

 jtheir failu7e~~to~^raSpTEesocm makes 



morel : em~aTkable tFe change in their ideas which took place at the 



1 Price, op. cit. p. 393. 



2 E.g. The Causes of the Dearness of Provisions assigned, Gloucester, 1766, p. 21 ; and 

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



3 Young, Farmer's Letters, Vol. I, pp. 205 ff. ; see also p. 37. 



