lectures on the industrial revolution in england-第7部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


tural　laws。　It　just　as　often　proves　them　to　have　been　brought　about　by　the　self…seeking　action　of　dominant　classes。　　　　　It　is　a　singular　thing　that　no　historian　has　attempted　an　adequate　explanation　of　the　disappearance　of　the　small　freeholders　who；　down　to　the　close　of　the　seventeenth　century；　formed　with　their　families　one…sixth　of　the　population　of　England；　and　whose　stubborn　determination　enabled　Cromwell　and　Fairfax　to　bring　the　Civil　War　to　a　successful　close。　This　neglect　is　the　more　remarkable；　as　economists　have　so　emphatically　dwelt　upon　the　extraordinary　difference　between　the　distribution　of　landed　property　in　England　and　in　countries　like　Germany　and　France。　The　modern　reformer　is　content　to　explain　the　facts　by　the　existence　in　England　of　a　law　of　primogeniture　and　a　system　of　strict　settlement；　but　the　explanation　is　obviously　a　superficial　one。　To　show　why　in　England　the　small　landed　proprietors　have　vanished；　whilst　in　Germany　and　France　they　have　increased　and　thriven；　it　is　necessary　to　carry　our　inquiries　far　back　into　the　history　of　law；　politics；　and　commerce。　The　result　of　a　closer　examination　of　the　question　is　a　little　startling；　for　we　find　that　the　present　distribution　of　landed　property　in　England　is　in　the　main　due　to　the　existence　of　the　system　of　political　government　which　has　made　us　a　free　people。　And　on　the　other　hand；　the　distribution　of　landed　property　in　France　and　Germany；　which　writer　after　writer　points　to　as　the　great　bulwark　against　revolution；　is　in　the　main　due　to　a　form　of　government　that　destroyed　political　liberty　and　placed　the　people　in　subjection　to　the　throne。　　　　　Evidence　in　support　of　this　conclusion　is　not　difficult　to　adduce。　The　first　fact　which　arouses　our　interest　is　that　at　the　conclusion　of　the　seventeenth　century　it　was　estimated　by　Gregory　King　that　there　were　180；000　freeholders　in　England；　and　that；　less　than　a　hundred　years　later；　the　pamphleteers　of　the　time；　and　even　careful　writers　like　Arthur　Young；　speak　of　the　small　freeholders　as　practically　gone。　The　bare　statement　of　this　contrast　is　in　itself　most　impressive。　A　person　ignorant　of　our　history　during　the　intervening　period　might　surmise　that　a　great　exterminatory　war　had　taken　place；　or　a　violent　social　revolution　which　had　caused　a　transfer　of　the　property　of　one　class　to　another。　But　though　the　surmise　in　this　particular　form　would　be　incorrect；　we　are　nevertheless　justified　in　saying　that　a　revolution　of　incalculable　importance　had　taken　place；　…　a　revolution；　though　so　silent；　of　as　great　importance　as　the　political　revolution　of　1831。　'The　able　and　substantial　freeholders；'　described　by　Whitelock；　'the　freeholders　and　freeholders'　sons；　well　armed　within　with　the　satisfaction　of　their　own　good　consciences；　and　without　by　iron　arms；　who　stood　firmly　and　charged　desperately；'　…　this　devoted　class；　who　had　broken　the　power　of　the　king　and　the　squires　in　the　Civil　Wars；　were　themselves；　within　a　hundred　years　from　that　time；　being　broken；　dispersed；　and　driven　off　the　land。　Numerous　and　prosperous　in　the　fifteenth　century；　they　had　suffered　something　by　the　enclosures　of　the　sixteenth；　but　though　complaints　are　from　time　to　time　made　in　the　seventeenth　of　the　laying　together　of　farms；　there　is　no　evidence　to　show　that　their　number　underwent　any　great　diminution　during　that　time。　In　the　picture　of　country　life　which　we　find　in　the　literature　of　the　first　years　of　the　eighteenth　century；　the　small　freeholder　is　still　a　prominent　figure。　Sir　Roger　de　Coverley；　in　riding　to　Quarter　Sessions；　points　to　the　two　yeomen　who　are　riding　in　front　of　him；　and　Defoe；　in　his　admirable　Tour　through　England；　first　published　a　few　years　later；　describes　with　satisfaction　the　number　and　prosperity　of　the　Grey…coats　of　Kent　（as　they　were　called　from　their　home…spun　garments）；　whose　political　power　forced　the　gentlemen　to　treat　them　with　circumspection　and　deference。　'Of　the　freeholders　of　England；'　says　Chamberlayne；　in　the　State　of　Great　Britain；　first　published　towards　the　close　of　the　seventeenth　century；　'there　are　more　in　number　and　richer　than　in　any　country　of　the　like　extent　in　Europe。　*40　or　*50　a　year　is　very　ordinary；　*100　or　*200　in　some　counties　is　not　rare；　sometimes　in　Kent；　and　in　the　Weald　of　Sussex；　*500　or　*600　per　annum；　and　*3000　or　*4000　stock。'　The　evidence　is　conclusive　that　up　to　the　Revolution　of　1688　the　freeholders　were　in　most　parts　of　the　country　an　important　feature　in　social　life。　　　　　If；　however；　we　ask　whether　they　had　possessed；　as　a　class；　any　political　initiative；　we　must　answer　in　the　negative。　In　the　lists　of　the　Eastern　Counties'　Association；　formed　in　the　Civil　War　（the　eastern　counties　were　the　districts；　perhaps；　where　the　freeholders　were　strongest）；　we　find　no　name　which　has　not　appended　to　it　the　title　of　gentleman　or　esquire。　The　small　landed　proprietor；　though　courageous　and　independent　in　personal　character；　was　ignorant；　and　incapable　himself　of　taking　the　lead。　There　was　little　to　stimulate　his　mind　in　his　country　life；　in　agriculture　he　pursued　the　same　methods　as　his　forefathers；　was　full　of　prejudices；　and　difficult　to　move。　The　majority　of　this　class　had　never　travelled　beyond　their　native　village　or　homestead　and　the　neighbouring　market…town。　In　some　districts　those　freeholders　were　also　artisans；　especially　in　the　eastern　counties；　which　were　still　the　richest　part　of　the　country；　and　the　most　subject　to　foreign　influence。　But；　on　the　whole；　if　we　may　judge　from　the　accounts　of　rather　later　times；　the　yeomen；　though　thriving　in　good　seasons；　often　lived　very　hard　lives；　and　remained　stationary　in　their　habits　and　ways　of　thinking　from　generation　to　generation。　They　were　capable　in　the　Civil　War；　under　good　leadership；　of　proving　themselves　the　most　powerful　body　in　the　kingdom；　but　after　constitutional　government　had　been　secured；　and　the　great　landowners　were　independent　of　their　support；　they　sank　into　political　insignificance。　The　Revolution　of　1688；　which　brought　to　a　conclusion　the　constitutional　struggle　of　the　seventeenth　century；　was　accomplished　without　their　aid；　and　paved　the　way　for　their　extinction。　A　revolution　in　agricultural　life　was　the　price　paid　for　political　liberty。　　　　　At　first；　however；　the　absorption　of　the　small　freeholders　went　on　slowly。　The　process　of　disappearance　has　been　continuous　from　about　1700　to　the　present　day；　but　it　is　not　true　to　say；　as　Karl　Marx　does；　that　the　yeomanry　had　disappeared　by　the　middle　of　the　eighteenth　century。　It　was　not　till　the　very　period　which　we　are　considering；　that　is　to　say　about　1760；　that　the　process　of　extinction　became　rapid。　There　is　conclusive　evidence　that　many　were　still　to　be　found　about　1770。　There　were　at　that　time　still　9000　freeholders　in　Kent。　　　　　Even　as　late　as　1807；　estates　in　Essex；　if　divided；　were　bought　by　farmers　at　high　prices；　and　there　was　some　prospect　of　landed　property　coming　back　to　the　conditions　of　a　century　before；　'when　our　inferior　gentry　resided　upon　their　estates　in　the　country'；　and　about　the　same　date　there　were　in　Oxfordshire　'many　proprietors　of　a　middling　size；　and　many　small　proprietors；　particularly　in　the　open　fields。'　They　were　especially　strong　in　Cumberland；　the　West　Riding；　and　parts　of　the　East　Riding。　In　the　Vale　of　Pickering　in　1788　nearly　the　whole　district　belonged　to　them；　and　no　great　landowner　had　been　able　to　get　a　footing。　But　in　1788　this　was　already　an　exceptional　case；　and　in　other　writers　of　that　period　we　find　a　general　lament　at　the　disappearance　of　the　yeoman。　Arthur　Young　'sincerely　regrets　the　loss　of　that　set　of　men　who　are　called　yeomen。。。　who　really　kept　up　the　independence　of　the　nation；'　and　is　'loth　to　see　their　lands　now　in　the　hands　of　monopolising　lords；'　and　in　1787　he　admits　that　they　had　practically　disappeared　from　most　parts　o*　the　country。　And　with　the　yeomen　went　the　small　squires；　victims　o*　the　same　causes。　　　　　These　causes；　as　I　stated　above；　are　to　be　sought　less　in　economical　than　in　social　and　political　facts。　The　chief　of　them　was　our　peculiar　form　of　government。　After　the　Revolution　the　landed　gentry　were　practically　supreme。　Not　only　national　but　local　administration　was　entirely　in　their　hands；　and；　as　a　natural　consequence；　land；　being　the　foundation　of　social　and　political　influence；　was　eagerly　sought　after。　We　may　contrast　France　and　Prussia；　where　the　landowners　had　no　political　power　as　such；　and　where；　in　consequence；　small　properties　remained　unassailed。　The　second　fact　is　the　enormous　development　of　the　mercantile　and　moneyed　interest。　The　merchants　could　only　obtain　political　power　and　social　position　by　becoming　landowners。　It　is　true　that　Swift　says　that　'the　power　which　used　to　follow　land　had　gone　over　to　money；'　and　that　the　great　Turkey　merchants；　like　Addison's　Sir　Andrew　Freeport；　occupied　a　good　position；　but　few　mere　merchants　were　in　Parliament；　and　Dr　Johnson　made　the　significant　remark　that　'an　English　merchant　is　a　new　species　of　gentleman。'　To　make　himself　a　gentleman；　therefore；　the　merchant　who　had　accumulated　his　wealth　in　the　cities；　which；　as　we　have　seen；　were　growing　rapidly　during　the　first　half　of　the　eighteenth　century　with　an　expanding　commerce；　bought　land　as　a　matter　of　course。　Hence　the　mercantile　origin　of　much　of　our　nobility。　James　Lowther；　created　Earl　of　Lonsdale　in　1784；　was　great…grandson　of　a　Turkey　merchant；　the　ancestor　of　the　Barings　was　a　clothier　in　Devonshire；　Anthony　Petty；　father　of　Sir　W。　Petty；　and　the　ancestor　on　the　female　side　of　the　Petty…Fitzmaurices；　was　a　clothier　at　Romsey；　in　Hampshire；　Sir　Josiah　Child's　son　became　Earl　of　Tilney。　The　landowners　in　the　West　of　England；　'who　now；'　in　Defoe's　words；　'carry　their　heads　so　high；'　made　their　fortunes　in　the　clothing　trade。　And　not　only　did　a　new　race　of　landowners　thus　spring　up；　but　the　old　families　enriched　themselves；　and　so　were　enabled　to　buy　more　land　by　intermarriage　with　the　commercial　magnates。　The　Fitzmaurices；　for　instance；　inherited　the　wealth　of　the　Pettys：　Child's　daughter　married　the　Marquis　of　Worcester；　and；　by　a　second　marriage；　Lord　Grenville　of　Potheridge；　Lord　Conway　and　Walpole　married　daughters　of　John　Shorter；　merchant　of　London。　'I　think　I　remember；'　said　Sir　R。　Temple　between　1675　and　1700；