VII. THEORY
What theory corresponds to this practical order? It implies, in the first place, a constant reference to tradition. The system has grown up without any reference to abstract principles or symmetrical plan. The legal order supposes a traditional common law, as the ecclesiastical order a traditional creed, and the organisation is explicable only by historical causes. The system represents a series of compromises, not the elaboration of a theory. If the squire undertook by way of supererogation to justify his position he appealed to tradition and experience. He invoked the "wisdom of our ancestors," the system of "checks and balances" which made our Const.i.tution an unrivalled mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy deserving the "dread and envy of the world." The prescription for compounding that mixture could obviously be learned by nothing but experiment. Traditional means empirical. By instinct, rather than conscious reasoning, Englishmen had felt their way to establishing the "palladia of our liberties": trial by jury, the "Habeas Corpus" Act, and the subst.i.tution of a militia for a standing army. The inst.i.tutions were cherished because they had been developed by long struggles and were often cherished when their real justification had disappeared. The Const.i.tution had not been "made" but had "grown"; or, in other words, the one rule had been the rule of thumb. That is an excellent rule in its way, and very superior to an abstract rule which neglects or overrides experience. The "logic of facts," moreover, may be trusted to produce a certain harmony: and general principles, though not consciously invoked, tacitly govern the development of inst.i.tutions worked out under uniform conditions. The simple reluctance to pay money without getting money"s worth might generate the important principle that representation should go with taxation, without embodying any theory of a "social contract" such as was offered by an afterthought to give a philosophical sanction.
Englishmen, it is said, had bought their liberties step by step, because at each step they were in a position to bargain with their rulers. What they had bought they were determined to keep and considered to be their inalienable property. One result is conspicuous. In England the ruling cla.s.ses did not so much consider their privileges to be something granted by the state, as the power of the state to be something derived from their concessions. Though the lord-lieutenant and the justices of the peace were nominated by the crown, their authority came in fact as an almost spontaneous consequence of their birthright or their acquired position in the country. They shone by their own light and were really the ultimate sources of authority. Seats in parliament, preferments in the church, commissions in the army belonged to them like their estates; and they seemed to be qualified by nature, rather than by appointment, to act in judicial and administrative capacities. The system of "self-government" embodies this view. The functions of government were a.s.signed to men already powerful by their social position. The absence of the centralised hierarchy of officials gave to Englishmen the sense of personal liberty which compelled the admiration of Voltaire and his countrymen in the eighteenth century. In England were no _lettres de cachet_, and no Bastille. A man could say what he thought and act without fear of arbitrary rule. There was no such system as that which, in France, puts the agents of the central power above the ordinary law of the land. This implies what has been called the "rule of the law" in England. "With us every official from the prime minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes" (as Professor Dicey explains the principle) "is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen."[26] The early centralisation of the English monarchy had made the law supreme, and instead of generating a new structure had combined and regulated the existing social forces. The sovereign power was thus farmed to the aristocracy instead of forming an organ of its own. Instead of resigning power they were forced to exercise it on condition of thorough responsibility to the central judiciary. Their privileges were not destroyed but were combined with the discharge of corresponding duties. Whatever their shortcomings, they were preserved from the decay which is the inevitable consequence of a divorce of duties from privileges.
Another aspect of the case is equally clear. If the privilege is a.s.sociated with a duty, the duty may also be regarded as a privilege.
The doctrine seems to mark a natural stage in the evolution of the conception of duty to the state. The power which is left to a member of the ruling cla.s.s is also part of his dignity. Thus we have an amalgamation between the conceptions of private property and public trust. "In so far as the ideal of feudalism is perfectly realised," it has been said,[27] "all that we can call public law is merged in private law; jurisdiction is property; office is property; the kingship itself is property." This feudal ideal was still preserved with many of the inst.i.tutions descended from feudalism. The king"s right to his throne was regarded as of the same kind as the right to a private estate. His rights as king were also his rights as the owner of the land.[28]
Subordinate landowners had similar rights, and as the royal power diminished greater powers fell to the aggregate of const.i.tutional kinglets who governed the country. Each of them was from one point of view an official, but each also regarded his office as part of his property. The country belonged to him and his cla.s.s rather than he to the country. We occasionally find the quaint theory which deduced political rights from property in land. The freeholders were the owners of the soil and might give notice to quit to the rest of the population.[29] They had therefore a natural right to carry on government in their own interests. The ruling cla.s.ses, however, were not marked off from others by any deep line of demarcation; they could sell their own share in the government to anybody who was rich enough to buy it, and there was a constant influx of new blood. Moreover, they did in fact improve their estate with very great energy, and discharged roughly, but in many ways efficiently, the duties which were also part of their property. The n.o.bleman or even the squire was more than an individual; as head of a family he was a life tenant of estates which he desired to transmit to his descendants. He was a "corporation sole" and had some of the spirit of a corporation. A college or a hospital is founded to discharge a particular function; its members continue perhaps to recognise their duty; but they resent any interference from outside as sacrilege or confiscation. It is for them alone to judge how they can best carry out, and whether they are actually carrying out, the aims of the corporate life. In the same way the great n.o.ble took his part in legislation, church preferment, the command of the army, and so forth, and fully admitted that he was bound in honour to play his part effectively; but he was equally convinced that he was subject to nothing outside of his sense of honour. His duties were also his rights. The naf expression of this doctrine by a great borough proprietor, "May I not do what I like with my own?" was to become proverbial.[30]
This, finally, suggests that a doctrine of "individualism" is implied throughout. The individual rights are the antecedent and the rights of the state a consequent or corollary. Every man has certain sacred rights accruing to him in virtue of "prescription" or tradition, through his inherited position in the social organism. The "rule of law" secures that he shall exercise them without infringing the privileges of his neighbour. He may moreover be compelled by the law to discharge them on due occasion. But, as there is no supreme body which can sufficiently superintend, stimulate, promote, or dismiss, the active impulse must come chiefly from his own sense of the fitness of things. The efficiency therefore depends upon his being in such a position that his duty may coincide with his personal interest. The political machinery can only work efficiently on the a.s.sumption of a spontaneous activity of the ruling cla.s.ses, prompted by public spirit or a sense of personal dignity. Meanwhile, "individualism" in a different sense was represented by the forces which made for progress rather than order, and to them I must now turn.
NOTES:
[26] Professor Dicey"s _Lectures on the Law of the Const.i.tution_ (1885), p. 178. Professor Dicey gives an admirable exposition of the "rule of law."
[27] Pollock and Maitland"s _History of English Law_, i. 208.
[28] A characteristic consequence is that Hale and Blackstone make no distinction between public and private law. Austin (_Jurisprudence_ (1869), 773-76) applauds them for this peculiarity, which he regards as a proof of originality, though it would rather seem to be an acceptance of the traditional view. Austin, however, retorts the charge of _Verwirrung_ upon German critics.
[29] This is the theory of Defoe in his _Original Power of the People of England_ (Works by Hazlitt, vol iii. See especially p. 57).
[30] The fourth duke of Newcastle in the House of Lords, 3 Dec. 1830.
CHAPTER II
THE INDUSTRIAL SPIRIT
I. THE MANUFACTURERS
The history of England during the eighteenth century shows a curious contrast between the political stagnancy and the great industrial activity. The great const.i.tutional questions seemed to be settled; and the statesmen, occupied mainly in sharing power and place, took a very shortsighted view (not for the first time in history) of the great problems that were beginning to present themselves. The British empire in the East was not won by a towering ambition so much as forced upon a reluctant commercial company by the necessities of its position. The English race became dominant in America; but the political connection was broken off mainly because English statesmen could only regard it from the shopkeeping point of view. When a new world began to arise at the Antipodes, our rulers saw an opportunity not for planting new offshoots of European civilisation, but for ridding themselves of the social rubbish no longer accepted in America. With purblind energy, and eyes doggedly fixed upon the ground at their feet, the race had somehow pressed forwards to ill.u.s.trate the old doctrine that a man never goes so far as when he does not know whither he is going. While thinking of earning an honest penny by extending the trade, our "monied-men" were laying the foundation of vast structures to be developed by their descendants.
Politicians, again, had little to do with the great "industrial revolution" which marked the last half of the century. The main facts are now a familiar topic of economic historians; nor need I speak of them in detail. Though agriculture was still the main industry, and the landowners almost monopolised political power, an ever growing proportion of the people was being collected in towns; the artisans were congregating in large factories; and the great cloud of coal-smoke, which has never dwindled, was already beginning to darken our skies. The change corresponds to the difference between a fully developed organism possessed of a central brain, with an elaborate nervous system, and some lower form in which the vital processes are still carried on by a number of separate ganglia. The concentration of the population in the great industrial centres implied the improvement of the means of commerce; new organisation of industry provided with a corresponding apparatus of machinery; and the systematic exploitation of the stored-up forces of nature. Each set of changes was at once cause and effect, and each was carried on separately, although in relation to the other. Brindley, Arkwright, and Watt may be taken as typical representatives of the three operations. Ca.n.a.ls, spinning-jennies, and steam-engines were changing the whole social order.
The development of means of communication had been slow till the last half of the century. The roads had been little changed since they had been first laid down as part of the great network which bound the Roman empire together. Turnpike acts, sanctioning the construction of new roads, became numerous. Palmer"s application of the stage-coaches to the carriage of the mails marked an epoch in 1784; and De Quincey"s prose poem, "The Mail-coach," shows how the unprecedented speed of Palmer"s coaches, then spreading the news of the first battles in the Peninsula, had caused them to tyrannise over the opium-eater"s dreams. They were discharging at once a political and an industrial function. Meanwhile the Bridgewater ca.n.a.l, constructed between 1759 and 1761, was the first link in a great network which, by the time of the French revolution, connected the seaports and the great centres of industry. The great inventions of machinery were simultaneously enabling manufacturers to take advantage of the new means of communication. The cotton manufacture sprang up soon after 1780 with enormous rapidity. Aided by the application of steam (first applied to a cotton mill in 1785) it pa.s.sed the woollen trade, the traditional favourite of legislators, and became the most important branch of British trade. The iron trade had made a corresponding start. While the steam-engine, on which Watt had made the first great improvement in 1765, was transforming the manufacturing system, and preparing the advent of the steamship and railroad, Great Britain had become the leading manufacturing and commercial country in the world. The agricultural interest was losing its pre-eminence; and huge towns with vast aggregations of artisan population were beginning to spring up with unprecedented rapidity. The change was an ill.u.s.tration upon a gigantic scale of the doctrines expounded in the _Wealth of Nations_. Division of labour was being applied to things more important than pin-making, involving a redistribution of functions not as between men covered by the same roof, but between whole cla.s.ses of society; between the makers of new means of communication and the manufacturers of every kind of material. The whole industrial community might be regarded as one great organism. Yet the organisation was formed by a mult.i.tude of independent agencies without any concerted plan. It was thus a vast ill.u.s.tration of the doctrine that each man by pursuing his own interests promoted the interests of the whole, and that government interference was simply a hindrance. The progress of improvement, says Adam Smith, depends upon "the uniform, constant, and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition," which often succeeds in spite of the errors of government, as nature often overcomes the blunders of doctors. It is, as he infers, "the highest impertinence and presumption for kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people" by sumptuary laws and taxes upon imports.[31]
To the English manufacturer or engineer government appeared as a necessary evil. It allowed the engineer to make roads and ca.n.a.ls, after a troublesome and expensive process of application. It granted patents to the manufacturer, but the patents were a source of perpetual worry and litigation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might look with complacency upon the development of a new branch of trade; but it was because he was lying in wait to come down upon it with a new tax or system of duties.
The men who were the chief instruments of the process were "self-made"; they were the typical examples of Mr. Smiles"s virtue of self-help; they owed nothing to government or to the universities which pa.s.sed for the organs of national culture. The leading engineers began as ordinary mechanics. John Metcalf (1717-1810), otherwise "blind Jack of Knaresborough," was a son of poor parents. He had lost his sight by smallpox at the age of six, and, in spite of his misfortune, became a daring rider, wrestler, soldier, and carrier, and made many roads in the north of England, executing surveys and constructing the works himself.
James Brindley (1716-1772), son of a midland collier, barely able to read or write, working out plans by processes which he could not explain, and lying in bed till they took shape in his brain, a rough mechanic, labouring for trifling weekly wages, created the ca.n.a.ls which mainly enabled Manchester and Liverpool to make an unprecedented leap in prosperity. The two great engineers, Thomas Telford (1757-1834), famous for the Caledonian ca.n.a.l and the Menai bridge; and John Rennie (1761-1821), drainer of Lincolnshire fens, and builder of Waterloo bridge and the Plymouth breakwater, rose from the ranks. Telford inherited and displayed in a different direction the energies of Eskdale borderers, whose achievements in the days of cattle-stealing were to be made famous by Scott: Rennie was the son of an East Lothian farmer. Both of them learned their trade by actual employment as mechanics. The inventors of machinery belonged mainly to the lower middle cla.s.ses. Kay was a small manufacturer; Hargreaves a hand-loom weaver; Crompton the son of a small farmer; and Arkwright a country barber. Watt, son of a Greenock carpenter, came from the st.u.r.dy Scottish stock, ultimately of covenanting ancestry, from which so many eminent men have sprung.
The new social cla.s.s, in which such men were the leaders, held corresponding principles. They owed whatever success they won to their own right hands. They were st.u.r.dy workers, with eyes fixed upon success in life, and success generally of course measured by a money criterion.
Many of them showed intellectual tastes, and took an honourable view of their social functions. Watt showed his ability in scientific inquiries outside of the purely industrial application; Josiah Wedgwood, in whose early days the Staffordshire potters had led a kind of gipsy life, settling down here and there to carry on their trade, had not only founded a great industry, but was a man of artistic taste, a patron of art, and a lover of science. Telford, the Eskdale shepherd, was a man of literary taste, and was especially friendly with the typical man of letters, Southey. Others, of course, were of a lower type. Arkwright combined the talents of an inventor with those of a man of business. He was a man, says Baines (the historian of the cotton trade), who was sure to come out of an enterprise with profit, whatever the result to his partners. He made a great fortune, and founded a county family. Others rose in the same direction. The Peels, for example, represented a line of yeomen. One Peel founded a cotton business; his son became a baronet and an influential member of parliament; and his grandson went to Oxford, and became the great leader of the Conservative party, although like Walpole, he owed his power to a kind of knowledge in which his adopted cla.s.s were generally deficient.
The cla.s.s which owed its growing importance to the achievements of such men was naturally imbued with their spirit. Its growth meant the development of a cla.s.s which under the old order had been strictly subordinate to the ruling cla.s.s, and naturally regarded it with a mingled feeling of respect and jealousy. The British merchant felt his superiority in business to the average country-gentleman; he got no direct share of the pensions and sinecures which so profoundly affected the working of the political machinery, and yet his highest ambition was to rise to be himself a member of the cla.s.s, and to found a family which might flourish in the upper atmosphere. The industrial cla.s.ses were inclined to favour political progress within limits. They were dissenters because the church was essentially part of the aristocracy; and they were readiest to denounce the abuses from which they did not profit. The agitators who supported Wilkes, solid aldermen and rich merchants, represented the view which was popular in London and other great cities. They were the backbone of the Whig party when it began to demand a serious reform. Their radicalism, however, was not thoroughly democratic. Many of them aspired to become members of the ruling cla.s.s, and a shopkeeper does not quarrel too thoroughly with his customers. The politics of individuals were of course determined by accidents. Some of them might retain the sympathy of the cla.s.s from which they sprang, and others might adopt an even extreme version of the opinions of the cla.s.s to which they desired to rise. But, in any case, the divergence of interest between the capitalists and the labourers was already making itself felt. The self-made man, it is said, is generally the hardest master. He approves of the stringent system of compet.i.tion, of which he is himself a product. It clearly enables the best man to win, for is he not himself the best man? The cla.s.s which was the great seat of movement had naturally to meet all the prejudices which are roused by change. The farmers near London, as Adam Smith tells us,[32] pet.i.tioned against an extension of turnpike roads, which would enable more distant farmers to compete in their market. But the farmers were not the only prejudiced persons. All the great inventors of machinery, Kay and Arkwright and Watt, had constantly to struggle against the old workmen who were displaced by their inventions. Although, therefore, the cla.s.s might be Whiggish, it did not share the strongest revolutionary pa.s.sions. The genuine revolutionists were rather the men who destroyed the manufacturer"s machines, and were learning to regard him as a natural enemy. The manufacturer had his own reasons for supporting government.
Our foreign policy during the century was in the long run chiefly determined by the interests of our trade, however much the trade might at times be hampered by ill-conceived regulations. It is remarkable that Adam Smith[33] argues that, although the capitalist is acuter that the country-gentleman, his acuteness is chiefly displayed by knowing his own interests better. Those interests, he thinks, do not coincide so much as the interests of the country-gentleman with the general interests of the country. Consequently the country-gentleman, though less intelligent, is more likely to favour a national and liberal policy. The merchant, in fact, was not a free-trader because he had read Adam Smith or consciously adopted Smith"s principles, but because or in so far as particular restrictions interfered with him. Arthur Young complains bitterly of the manufacturers who supported the prohibition to export English wool, and so protected their own cla.s.s at the expense of agriculturists. Wedgwood, though a good liberal and a supporter of Pitt"s French treaty in 1786, joined in protesting against the proposal for free-trade with Ireland. The Irish, he thought, might rival his potteries. Thus, though as a matter of fact the growing cla.s.s of manufacturers and merchants were inclined in the main to liberal principles, it was less from adhesion to any general doctrine than from the fact that the existing restrictions and prejudices generally conflicted with their plain interests.
Another characteristic is remarkable. Though the growth of manufactures and commerce meant the growth of great towns, it did not mean the growth of munic.i.p.al inst.i.tutions. On the contrary, as I shall presently have to notice, the munic.i.p.alities were sinking to their lowest ebb.
Manufactures, in the first instance, spread along the streams into country districts: and to the great manufacturer, working for his own hand, his neighbours were compet.i.tors as much as allies. The great towns, however, which were growing up, showed the general tendencies of the cla.s.s. They were centres not only of manufacturing but of intellectual progress. The population of Birmingham, containing the famous Soho works of Boulton and Watt, had increased between 1740 and 1780 from 24,000 to 74,000 inhabitants. Watt"s partner Boulton started the "Lunar Society" at Birmingham.[34] Its most prominent member was Erasmus Darwin, famous then for poetry which is chiefly remembered by the parody in the _Anti-Jacobin_; and now more famous as the advocate of a theory of evolution eclipsed by the teaching of his more famous grandson, and, in any case, a man of remarkable intellectual power.
Among those who joined in the proceedings was Edgeworth, who in 1768 was speculating upon moving carriages by steam, and Thomas Day, whose _Sandford and Merton_ helped to spread in England the educational theories of Rousseau. Priestley, who settled at Birmingham in 1780, became a member, and was helped in his investigations by Watt"s counsels and Wedgwood"s pecuniary help. Among occasional visitors were Smeaton, Sir Joseph Banks, Solander, and Herschel of scientific celebrity; while the literary magnate, Dr. Parr, who lived between Warwick and Birmingham, occasionally joined the circle. Wedgwood, though too far off to be a member, was intimate with Darwin and a.s.sociated in various enterprises with Boulton. Wedgwood"s congenial partner, Thomas Bentley (1731-1780), had been in business at Manchester and at Liverpool. He had taken part in founding the Warrington "Academy," the dissenting seminary (afterwards moved to Manchester) of which Priestley was tutor (1761-1767), and had lectured upon art at the academy founded at Liverpool in 1773. Another member of the academy was William Roscoe (1753-1831), whose literary taste was shown by his lives of Lorenzo de Medici and Leo X., and who distinguished himself by opposing the slave-trade, then the infamy of his native town. Allied with him in this movement were William Rathbone and James Currie (1756-1805) the biographer of Burns, a friend of Darwin and an intelligent physician. At Manchester Thomas Perceval (1740-1804) founded the "Literary and Philosophical Society" in 1780. He was a pupil of the Warrington Academy, which he afterwards joined on removing to Manchester, and he formed the scheme afterwards realised by Owens College. He was an early advocate of sanitary measures and factory legislation, and a man of scientific reputation. Other members of the society were: John Ferriar (1761-1815), best known by his _Ill.u.s.trations of Sterne_, but also a man of literary and scientific reputation; the great chemist, John Dalton (1766-1844), who contributed many papers to its transactions; and, for a short time, the Socialist Robert Owen, then a rising manufacturer. At Norwich, then important as a manufacturing centre, was a similar circle.
William Taylor, an eminent Unitarian divine, who died at the Warrington Academy in 1761, had lived at Norwich. One of his daughters married David Martineau and became the mother of Harriet Martineau, who has described the Norwich of her early years. John Taylor, grandson of William, was father of Mrs. Austin, wife of the jurist. He was a man of literary tastes, and his wife was known as the Madame Roland of Norwich.
Mrs. Opie (1765-1853) was daughter of James Alderson, a physician of Norwich, and pa.s.sed most of her life there. William Taylor (1761-1836), another Norwich manufacturer, was among the earliest English students of German literature. Norwich had afterwards the unique distinction of being the home of a provincial school of artists. John Crome (1788-1821), son of a poor weaver, and John Sell Cotman (1782-1842) were its leaders; they formed a kind of provincial academy, and exhibited pictures which have been more appreciated since their death. At Bristol, towards the end of the century, were similar indications of intellectual activity. Coleridge and Southey found there a society ready to listen to their early lectures, and both admired Thomas Beddoes (1760-1808), a physician, a chemist, a student of German, an imitator of Darwin in poetry, and an a.s.sailant of Pitt in pamphlets. He had married one of Edgeworth"s daughters. With the help and advice of Wedgwood and Watt, he founded the "Pneumatic Inst.i.tute" at Clifton in 1798, and obtained the help of Humphry Davy, who there made some of his first discoveries. Davy was soon transported to the Royal Inst.i.tution, founded at the suggestion of Count Rumford in 1799, which represented the growth of a popular interest in the scientific discoveries.
The general tone of these little societies represents, of course, the tendency of the upper stratum of the industrial cla.s.ses. In their own eyes they naturally represented the progressive element of society. They were Whigs--for "radicalism" was not yet invented--but Whigs of the left wing; accepting the aristocratic precedency, but looking askance at the aristocratic prejudices. They were rationalists, too, in principle, but again within limits: openly avowing the doctrines which in the Established church had still to be sheltered by ostensible conformity to the traditional dogmas. Many of them professed the Unitarianism to which the old dissenting bodies inclined. "Unitarianism," said shrewd old Erasmus Darwin, "is a feather-bed for a dying Christian." But at present such men as Priestley and Price were only so far on the road to a thorough rationalism as to denounce the corruptions of Christianity, as they denounced abuses in politics, without antic.i.p.ating a revolutionary change in church and state. Priestley, for example, combined "materialism" and "determinism" with Christianity and a belief in miracles, and controverted Horsley upon one side and Paine on the other.
NOTES:
[31] _Wealth of Nations_, bk. ii. ch. iii.
[32] _Wealth of Nations_, bk. i. ch. xi. -- 1.
[33] _Ibid._ bk. i. ch. xi. conclusion.
[34] Smiles"s _Watt and Boulton_, p. 292.
II. THE AGRICULTURISTS
The general spirit represented by such movements was by no means confined to the commercial or manufacturing cla.s.ses; and its most characteristic embodiment is to be found in the writings of a leading agriculturist.
Arthur Young,[35] born in 1741, was the son of a clergyman, who had also a small ancestral property at Bradfield, near Bury St. Edmunds.
Accidents led to his becoming a farmer at an early age. He showed more zeal than discretion, and after trying three thousand experiments on his farm, he was glad to pay 100 to another tenant to take his farm off his hands. This experience as a practical agriculturist, far from discouraging him, qualified him in his own opinion to speak with authority, and he became a devoted missionary of the gospel of agricultural improvement. The enthusiasm with which he admired more successful labourers in the cause, and the indignation with which he regards the sluggish and retrograde, are charming. His kindliness, his keen interest in the prosperity of all men, rich or poor, his ardent belief in progress, combined with his quickness of observation, give a charm to the writings which embody his experience. Tours in England and a temporary land-agency in Ireland supplied him with materials for books which made him known both in England and on the Continent. In 1779 he returned to Bradfield, where he soon afterwards came into possession of his paternal estate, which became his permanent home. In 1784 he tried to extend his propaganda by bringing out the _Annals of Agriculture_--a monthly publication, of which forty-five half-yearly volumes appeared.
He had many able contributors and himself wrote many interesting articles, but the pecuniary results were mainly negative. In 1791 his circulation was only 350 copies.[36] Meanwhile his acquaintance with the duc de Liancourt led to tours in France from 1788 to 1790. His _Travels in France_, first published in 1792, has become a cla.s.sic. In 1793 Young was made secretary to the Board of Agriculture, of which I shall speak presently. He became known in London society as well as in agricultural circles. He was a handsome and attractive man, a charming companion, and widely recognised as an agricultural authority. The empress of Russia sent him a snuff-box; "Farmer George" presented a merino ram; he was elected member of learned societies; he visited Burke at Beaconsfield, Pitt at Holmwood, and was a friend of Wilberforce and of Jeremy Bentham.
Young had many domestic troubles. His marriage was not congenial; the loss of a tenderly loved daughter in 1797 permanently saddened him; he became blind, and in his later years sought comfort in religious meditation and in preaching to his poorer neighbours. He died 20th April 1820. He left behind him a gigantic history of agriculture, filling ten folio volumes of ma.n.u.script, which, though reduced to six by an enthusiastic disciple after his death, have never found their way to publication.
The _Travels in France_, Young"s best book, owes one merit to the advice of a judicious friend, who remarked that the previous tours had suffered from the absence of the personal details which interest the common reader. The insertion of these makes Young"s account of his French tours one of the most charming as well as most instructive books of the kind.
It gives the vivid impression made upon a keen and kindly observer in all their freshness. He sensibly retained the expressions of opinion made at the time. "I may remark at present," he says,[37] "that although I was totally mistaken in my prediction, yet, on a revision, I think I was right in it." It was right, he means, upon the data then known to him, and he leaves the unfulfilled prediction as it was. The book is frequently cited in justification of the revolution, and it may be fairly urged that his authority is of the more weight, because he does not start from any sympathy with revolutionary principles. Young was in Paris when the oath was taken at the tennis-court; and makes his reflections upon the beauty of the British Const.i.tution, and the folly of visionary reforms, in a spirit which might have satisfied Burke. He was therefore not altogether inconsistent when, after the outrages, he condemned the revolution, however much the facts which he describes may tend to explain the inevitableness of the catastrophe. At any rate, his views are worth notice by the indications which they give of the mental att.i.tude of a typical English observer.
Young in his vivacious way struck out some of the phrases which became proverbial with later economists. "Give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock and he will turn it into a garden. Give him a nine years"
lease of a garden, and he will convert it into a desert."[38] "The magic of PROPERTY turns sand to gold."[39] He is delighted with the comfort of the small proprietors near Pau, which reminds him of English districts still inhabited by small yeomen.[40] Pa.s.sing to a less fortunate region, he explains that the prince de Soubise has a vast property there. The property of a grand "seigneur" is sure to be a desert.[41] The signs which indicate such properties are "wastes, _landes_, deserts, fern, ling." The neighbourhood of the great residences is well peopled--"with deer, wild boars, and wolves," "Oh," he exclaims, "if I was the legislator of France for a day, I would make such great lords skip again!" "Why," he asked, "were the people miserable in lower Savoy?"
"_Because_", was the reply, "_there are seigneurs everywhere_".[42]
Misery in Brittany was due "to the execrable maxims of despotism or the equally detestable prejudices of a feudal n.o.bility."[43] There was nothing, he said, in the province but "privileges and poverty,"[44]
privileges of the n.o.bles and poverty of the peasants.
Young was profoundly convinced, moreover, that, as he says more than once[45] "everything in this world depends on government." He is astonished at the stupidity and ignorance of the provincial population, and ascribes it to the lethargy produced by despotism.[46] He contrasts it with "the energetic and rapid circulation of wealth, animation, and intelligence of England," where "blacksmiths and carpenters" would discuss every political event. And yet he heartily admires some of the results of a centralised monarchy. He compares the miserable roads in Catalonia on the Spanish side of the frontier with the magnificent causeways and bridges on the French side. The difference is due to the "one all-powerful cause that instigates mankind ... government."[47] He admires the n.o.ble public works, the ca.n.a.l of Languedoc, the harbours at Cherbourg and Havre, and the _ecole veterinaire_ where agriculture is taught upon scientific principles. He is struck by the curious contrast between France and England. In France the splendid roads are used by few travellers, and the inns are filthy pothouses; in England there are detestable roads, but a comparatively enormous traffic. When he wished to make the great n.o.bles "skip" he does not generally mean confiscation.
He sees indeed one place where in 1790 the poor had seized a piece of waste land, declaring that the poor were the nation, and that the waste belonged to the nation. He declares[48] that he considers their action "wise, rational, and philosophical," and wishes that there were a law to make such conduct legal in England. But his more general desire is that the landowners should be compelled to do their duty. He complains that the n.o.bles live in "wretched holes" in the country in order to save the means of expenditure upon theatres, entertainments, and gambling in the towns.[49] "Banishment alone will force the French n.o.bility to do what the English do for pleasure--to reside upon and adorn their estates."[50] He explains to a French friend that English agriculture has flourished "in spite of the teeth of our ministers"; we have had many Colberts, but not one Sully[51]; and we should have done much better, he thinks, had agriculture received the same attention as commerce. This is the reverse of Adam Smith"s remark upon the superior liberality of the English country-gentleman, who did not, like the manufacturers, invoke protection and interference. In truth, Young desired both advantages, the vigour of a centralised government and the energy of an independent aristocracy. His absence of any general theory enables him to do justice in detail at the cost of consistency in general theory. In France, as he saw, the n.o.bility had become in the main an enc.u.mbrance, a mere dead weight upon the energies of the agriculturist. But he did not infer that large properties in land were bad in themselves; for in England he saw that the landowners were the really energetic and improving cla.s.s. He naturally looked at the problem from the point of view of an intelligent land-agent. He is full of benevolent wishes for the labourer, and sympathises with the attempt to stimulate their industry and improve their dwellings, and denounces oppression whether in France or Ireland with the heartiest goodwill. But it is characteristic of the position that such a man--an enthusiastic advocate of industrial progress--was a hearty admirer of the English landowner. He sets out upon his first tour, announcing that he does not write for farmers, of whom not one in five thousand reads anything, but for the country-gentlemen, who are the great improvers. Tull, who introduced turnips; Weston, who introduced clover; Lord Townshend and Allen, who introduced "marling" in Norfolk, were all country-gentlemen, and it is from them that he expects improvement. He travels everywhere, delighting in their new houses and parks, their picture galleries, and their gardens laid out by Kent or "Capability Brown"; he admires scenery, climbs Skiddaw, and is rapturous over views of the Alps and Pyrenees; but he is thrown into a rage by the sight of wastes, wherever improvement is possible. What delights him is an estate with a fine country-house of Palladian architecture ("Gothic" is with him still a term of abuse),[52] with grounds well laid out and a good home-farm, where experiments are being tried, and surrounded by an estate in which the farm-buildings show the effects of the landlord"s good example and judicious treatment of his tenantry. There was no want of such examples.
He admires the marquis of Rockingham, at once the most honourable of statesmen and most judicious of improvers. He sings the praises of the duke of Portland, the earl of Darlington, and the duke of Northumberland. An incautious announcement of the death of the duke of Grafton, remembered chiefly as one of the victims of Junius, but known to Young for his careful experiments in sheep-breeding, produced a burst of tears, which, as he believed, cost him his eyesight. His friend, the fifth duke of Bedford (died 1802), was one of the greatest improvers for the South, and was succeeded by another friend, the famous c.o.ke of Holkham, afterwards earl of Leicester, who is said to have spent half a million upon the improvement of his property. Young appeals to the cla.s.s in which such men were leaders, and urges them, not against their wishes, we may suppose, and, no doubt, with much good sense, to take to their task in the true spirit of business. Nothing, he declares, is more out of place than the boast of some great landowners that they never raise their rents.[53] High rents produce industry. The man who doubles his rents benefits the country more than he benefits himself. Even in Ireland,[54] a rise of rents is one great cause of improvement, though the rent should not be excessive, and the system of middlemen is altogether detestable. One odd suggestion is characteristic.[55] He hears that wages are higher in London than elsewhere. Now, he says, in a trading country low wages are essential. He wonders, therefore, that the legislature does not limit the growth of London.
This, we may guess, is one of the petulant utterances of early years which he would have disavowed or qualified upon maturer reflection. But Young is essentially an apostle of the "glorious spirit of improvement,"[56] which has converted Norfolk sheep-walks into arable fields, and was spreading throughout the country and even into Ireland.
His hero is the energetic landowner, who makes two blades of gra.s.s grow where one grew before; who introduces new breeds of cattle and new courses of husbandry. He is so far in sympathy with the _Wealth of Nations_, although he says of that book that, while he knows of "no abler work," he knows of none "fuller of poisonous errors."[57] Young, that is, sympathised with the doctrine of the physiocrats that agriculture was the one source of real wealth, and took Smith to be too much on the side of commerce. Young, however, was as enthusiastic a free-trader as Smith. He naturally denounces the selfishness of the manufacturers who, in 1788, objected to the free export of English wool,[58] but he also a.s.sails monopoly in general. The whole system, he says (on occasion of Pitt"s French treaty), is rotten to the core. The "vital spring and animating soul of commerce is LIBERTY."[59] Though he talks of the balance of trade, he argues in the spirit of Smith or Cobden that we are benefited by the wealth of our customers. If we have to import more silk, we shall export more cloth. Young, indeed, was everything but a believer in any dogmatic or consistent system of Political Economy, or, as he still calls it, Political Arithmetic. His opinions were not of the kind which can be bound to any rigid formulae.
After investigating the restrictions of rent and wages in different districts, he quietly accepts the conclusion that the difference is due to accident.[60] He has as yet no fear of Malthus before his eyes. He is roused to indignation by the pessimist theory then common, that population was decaying.[61] Everywhere he sees signs of progress; buildings, plantations, woods, and ca.n.a.ls. Employment, he says, creates population, stimulates industry, and attracts labour from backward districts. The increase of numbers is an unqualified benefit. He has no dread of excess. In Ireland, he observes, no one is fool enough to deny that population is increasing, though people deny it in England, "even in the most productive period of her industry and wealth."[62] One cause of this blessing is the absence or the poor-law. The English poor-law is detestable to him for a reason which contrasts significantly with the later opinion. The laws were made "in the very spirit of depopulation"; they are "monuments of barbarity and mischief"; for they give to every parish an interest in keeping down the population. This tendency was in the eyes of the later economist a redeeming feature in the old system; though it had been then so modified as to stimulate what they took to be the curse, as Young held it to be the blessing, of a rapid increase of population.
With such views Young was a keen advocate of the process of enclosure which was going on with increasing rapidity. He found a colleague, who may be briefly noticed as a remarkable representative of the same movement. Sir John Sinclair (1754-1835)[63] was heir to an estate of sixty thousand acres in Caithness which produced only 2300 a year, subject to many enc.u.mbrances. The region was still in a primitive state. There were no roads: agriculture was of the crudest kind; part of the rent was still paid in feudal services; the natives were too ignorant or lazy to fish, and there were no harbours. Trees were scarce enough to justify Johnson, and a list of all the trees in the country included currant-bushes.[64] Sinclair was a pupil of the poet Logan: studied under Blair at Edinburgh and Millar at Glasgow; became known to Adam Smith, and, after a short time at Oxford, was called to the English bar. Sinclair was a man of enormous energy, though not of vivacious intellect. He belonged to the prosaic breed, which created the "dismal science," and seems to have been regarded as a stupendous bore. Bores, however, represent a social force not to be despised, and Sinclair was no exception.
His father died when he was sixteen. When twenty years old he collected his tenants, and in one night made a road across a hill which had been p.r.o.nounced impracticable. He was an enthusiastic admirer of Gaelic traditions; defended the authenticity of Ossian; supported Highland games, and brought Italian travellers to listen to the music of the bagpipes. When he presented himself to his tenants in the Highland costume, on the withdrawal of its prohibition, they expected him to lead them in a foray upon the lowlands in the name of Charles Edward. He afterwards raised a regiment of "fencibles" which served in Ireland in 1798, and, when disbanded, sent a large contingent to the Egyptian expedition. But he rendered more peaceful services to his country. He formed new farms; he enclosed several thousand acres; as head of the "British Wool Society," he introduced the Cheviots or "long sheep" to the North--an improvement which is said to have doubled the rents of many estates; he introduced agricultural shows; he persuaded government in 1801 to devote the proceeds of the confiscated estates of Jacobites to the improvement of Scottish communications; he helped to introduce fisheries and even manufactures; and was a main agent in the change which made Caithness one of the most rapidly improving parts of the country. His son a.s.sures us that he took every means to obviate the incidental evils which have been the pretexts of denunciators of similar improvements. Sinclair gained a certain reputation by a _History of the Revenue_ (1785-90), and, like Malthus, travelled on the Continent to improve his knowledge. His first book finished, he began the great statistical work by which he is best remembered. He is said to have introduced into English the name of "statistics," for the researches of which all economical writers were beginning to feel the necessity. He certainly did much to introduce the reality. Sinclair circulated a number of queries (upon "natural history," "population," "productions,"