M— AGRICULTURE 255 



The story of land enclosure is well known and need only be mentioned 

 as an illustration of State intervention, operating first in one direction and 

 afterwards in another. In the sixteenth century, land enclosure, involving 

 ' the break-up of mediasval agrarian partnerships and a substitution of 

 private enterprise for the collective efforts of village associations,' was 

 opposed and partly arrested by legislation ; in the eighteenth century it 

 received from Parliament encouragement and support. Many individuals 

 suffered, but the ultimate benefits to agricultural production and to the 

 state as a whole cannot be denied. It is interesting to note that in 1589, 

 to relieve the labourers who lost their livelihood through the enclosure 

 of land for pastoral purposes, it was enacted that not more than one family 

 was to occupy each cottage, and to each cottage 4 acres of land were to be 

 attached. The recent movement to provide allotments or small pieces 

 of land for unemployed industrial workers seems almost like a faint echo 

 of that distant law. 



As an example of compulsion indirectly benefiting agriculture, one may 

 cite the law passed early in the seventeenth century making it a penal 

 offence for any person over the age of six not to wear on Sundays and 

 holydays a cap made of English cloth. Later, in 1666, the law did not 

 stop short even at the gates of the churchyard, for it required that the dead 

 should be buried in shrouds of home-grown wool. In passing, it may be 

 noted that about the same time the Government, ' for the sake of multiply- 

 ing seamen,' had ordained fast-days on which only fish was to be eaten. 

 With precedents of that sort before us, we are almost tempted to long for 

 an Act making the consumption of oatmeal, milk and herrings obligatory, 

 and the possession of a tin-opener a criminal offence ; it would solve 

 several current problems of Scottish agriculture and fisheries. 



Legislation of another kind prevailed throughout the eighteenth century, 

 when home production was encouraged by the placing of a duty 

 on the importation of foreign corn and the payment of a bounty on 

 exported corn, combined, however, with frequent prohibitions of exports. 

 Similar laws were enacted to encourage the raising of cattle, and importa- 

 tions from Ireland were prohibited. But legislation, says Lord Ernie, 

 did not raise prices ; it only succeeded in maintaining them. Increased 

 production at home counteracted the effect which limitation of imports 

 was designed to produce. It is unnecessary here to retell the story of the 

 corn laws and of their repeal, or to touch on more recent fiscal controversies. 



The earlier instances of State intervention that I have cited were all 

 English, but the Scottish parliament also provides us with some interest- 

 ing examples. With regard to labour, the extinction of serfdom having 

 been considered productive of indolence, a statute of 1424 required 

 cottage holders to perform a certain amount of labour on the land, a pro- 

 vision for which we have had an English parallel. At almost the same 

 date, 1426, we find parliament taking partial control of cropping. To 

 secure a greater variety of crop than the oats and here which were chiefly 

 cultivated, it was enacted that every man tilling with a plough of eight 

 oxen should sow every year at least a firlot of wheat, half a firlot of peas 

 and forty beans, ' under the payn of ten shillings.' At a much later date, 

 1703, a curious Act relating to cultivation was passed, forbidding any 



