THE HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY of MIDDLESEX

Home , Chiswick Urban District, County of London, John Stow, Market garden, Middlesex, Middlesex County Council

• GIANUINI1.14- A4RI ATION CULTURAL O'Pr NOMICt LIBRAR

UNIVERSITY OF 1READING

Department of Agricultural Economics

THE

HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY of MIDDLESEX

L. G. BENNETT, Ph.D.

MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES No. 7

PRICE 10/-

Issued December, 1952 UNIVERSITY OF READING

Department of Agricultural Economics

THE

HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY

of MIDDLESEX

L. G. BENNETT, Ph.D.

MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES No.

PRICE 10/-

Issued December, 1952 CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD • • • •• • .. . •• • ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 5 PART I. HISTORICAL SURVEY I Origins ... ••• ••• ••. ••• ...• .•• ...... 6 II Development up to the end of the 18th century ••• ••• ••• 8 III Development during the 19th`century ... •• • • 10 IV Development in the 20th century- ••• ••• •.• ••• ••• ... 13 V Statistical evidence... .•. •• ••• ••. ••• ••• .•• 15 VI Labour and wages ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 20 VII Land tenure •• •• •• •• ••• • • . • . .. 24 VIII Marketing ... .•• ••• •• ••• •• .. . . 28

PART II. CONTEMPORARY SURVEY

I Size in terms of acreage ... .•• ••• ••• ••• ••. • 35 II Geographical distribution and types of production ••• ••• ••• 37 III Size in terms of capital ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 41 IV Size in terms of labour ••• . •• •• ••• ••• ••• 46 V Specialist market garden businesses .•• ••• •• • ••• 48 VI Specialist glasshouse businesses • •• • ••• •• ••• ••• 50" VII Non-specialist businesses ... • • 52 VIII Present-day tenure ... . 54 IX Marketing ...... • •• • 57 X Management • ••• • • ••• • • 61 XI Summary and conclusions •• .• • ••• • 65 St ATISTICAL APPENDIX ., • • •• . . 67 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 Changes in the number engaged in horticulture in Middlesex 1841-1931 ... ••• 16 2 Changing acreage of horticulture in 3 groups of parishes in Middlesex 1872-1947 19 3 Weekly wage rates for adult male workers in horticulture in Middlesex 1798-1947 22 4 Summary of the data on rent of horticultural land in Middlesex 1600-1947 ... 27 5 Summary of the data on freehold values of horticultural land in Middlesex 1883- 1939 ... ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 28 6 Distribution of 490 horticultural businesses in Middlesex in 1947 by acreage of land per business ... ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 35 7 Distribution of 490 horticultural businesses in Middlesex in 1947 by acreage of glasshouses per business ... ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 36 8 Distribution of 490 horticultural businesses in Middlesex in 1947 by acreage of frames per business ... ••• •.• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 37 9 Geographical distribution of horticultural land, glasshouses and frames in Middlesex in 1947 ••. ••• ••• •.• .•• ••. ••1 •••, . ••• 38 10 Relative importance of different types of production in Middlesex horticulture in 1947 ... ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••. ••• ••• ••• ••• 41 11 Capital invested in Middlesex horticulture in 1947 ... ••• ••• ••. ••• 45 12 Distribution of tenants' capital in the horticultural industry of Middlesex in 1947 45 13 Number of workers per business in Middlesex horticulture in 1947 ••• ••• 48 14 Distribution of 102 specialist market garden businesses in Middlesex in 1947 by acreage of land per business ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 49 15 Distribution of 166 specialist glasshouse businesses in Middlesex in 1947 by acreage of glasshouses per business ••• ••• ••. ••• ••• ••• 51 .., ' 16 Distribution of 179 non-specialist horticultural businesses in Middlesex in 1947,by acreage of land per business ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 52 17 Distribution of 179 non-specialist horticultural businesses in Middlesex in 1947 by acreage of glasshouses per business ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 53 18. Tenure of 561 agricultural and horticultural holdings in Middlesex in 1933 ..• 55 19 Distribution of the main forms of horticultural production in Middlesex by types of business organisation in 1947 ... ••• ••• ••• ••• •.• ••• 62

ILLUSTRATIONS

Location of hbrticultural holdings in Middlesex in 1754 9 Location of horticultural holdings in Middlesex in 1862-71 14_ Location of horticultural holdings in Middlesex in 1947... 14 1872-1947 ..- . , 19 Changes in the location of horticulture,- Strawberry woman 1805 ..• 32 Market van 1860 ... ., facing p. 34 Tractor-drawn van 1900 . . . facing p. 35 Improved tractor-drawn van 1910 ...... facing p. 35

The Parishes of Middlesex . . •• .1 39 FOREWORD The development of the London region has been a subject for much study and enquiry by social scientists but almost always their approach has been from the point of view of urban and industrial interests. From Stow to Abercrombie the majority of the works dealing with the London region have been the result of some social or town planning enquiry.' Two exceptions to this line of approach must, however, be noted. The agricultural aspect of Middlesex was dealt with by John Middleton in 1798 in his View of the Agriculture of Middlesex. In this report Middleton stresses the importance of hay-making and horticulture in the farming systems of the county and for over 100 years the report has been a monument to an industry coming ever more under the domination of urban interests. Then in 1936 the Land Utilisation Survey of Britain published E. C. Willatts' report Middlesex and the London Region. This work was carried out largely from a geographer's point of view but it is a notable contribution to the knowledge of the relationship between the physical features of the countryside and the form of land utilisation. The present report is again concerned with the rural aspect of Middlesex and the London region. It is limited, however, to a consideration of the horticultural industry of the area, how the industry was established, the forces which have moulded its development and its present importance. In making this study I received much help and encouragement from Pro- fessor Edgar Thomas and I wish to acknowledge that help with my grateful thanks. I also wish to thank Mr. J. Hardy, Assistant Agricultural Officer to the Middlesex Agricultural Executive Committee, for drawing my attention to certain official records and for allowing me to make use of his intimate knowledge of contemporary horticulture in Middlesex. Mr. E. W. Lobjoit gave freely of his long experience as a grower in the London region and provided much useful material for study and for this help I am most grateful. Lastly, I wish to thank Dr. E. C. Willatts and the Land Utilisation Survey of Britain for permission to reproduce the maps showing the location of horticultural holdings in Middlesex in 1754 and in 1862-71 given in Part 79 of the Land of Britain series. L.G.B. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Reading. 1952.

1. The most notable works from the urban viewpoint have been the following:— John Stow. A Survey ofLondon, 1598. Henry Mayhew. London Labour and the London Poor, 1861. Charles Booth. Life and Labour of the People ofLondon, 1902. Thomas Adams and Longstreth Thompson. West Middlesex Regional Planning Scheme, 1924. Adams, Thompson & Fry. North Middlesex Regional Planning Scheme, 1928. H. Llewellyn Smith. New Survey ofLondon Life and Labour, 1931. Douglas H. Smith. Industries of Greater London, 1933. J. H. Forshaw & Leslie Patrick Abercrombie. County of London Plan, 1943. Leslie Patrick Abercrombie. Greater London Plan, 1944. PART

HISTORICAL SURVEY

I. ORIGINS Horticulture•in the London region has had its commercial side from very early times. The Domesday Survey records that eight cottars in the manor of Fulham grew vegetables and Johnson, one of the historians of English gardening, states that they were grown "to supply the public demand-1. We also have no less an authority than Clapham for the statement that forty cottagers at Westminster paid 40s. for their gardens at the time of the Survey in 10862. Indeed, for close on 350 years after the Norman Conquest vegetables had an important place in the diet. Langland and Chaucer, for instance, referred to vegetables and herbs as if they formed the staple diet of the poor3. It would probably be safe to say that up to the closing years of the 14th century there was a close connection between the acreage of land devoted to horticultural crops (whether for sale or not) and the size of the population of London. There followed, however, a period extending from about the end of the 14th century to the closing decades of the 16th century during which the consumption of vegetables reached a low. ebb. Various reasons have been put forward to account for this decline in vegetable consumption4 but the fact that it did take place at once throws into prominence the re-establishment of vegetable growing which occurred towards the end of the 16th century. The re-establishment of vegetable growing in the 16th century took place initially outside the London region. This was due partly to an accident of geography and partly to expediency. The situation which existed at that time can readily be seen by examining the works of contemporary or near contemporary writers and the main features only are given here. During the reign of Henry VIII only very small quantities of vegetables were grown in England and the greater part of the supplies which were con- sumed came from the Continent. Even though. for most of the population vegetables of all kinds were -great wonders we having few or none in England but what came from Holland or Flanders"5 vegetables had come to take a place once more in the diet. The closing decades of the 16th century saw a rise in the religious persecu- tion of protestants on the Continent and Huguenot and Fleming refugees, many of them skilled gardeners, settled around Sandwich in Kent. One of the first things which these immigrant gardeners did was to exploit the fertile soil. of the district and send the produce of their gardens to London. Their ..... • 1. Johnson. A History of English Gardening, p. 39. 2. Clapham. A Concise Economic History of Britain, p. 53. 3. See The Vision of the World at Work" in Langland's Pier c Plowman (11)04CM VCTS1011 by N- evill Coghill) and The 'Clerk's Tale in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. 4. William Harrison, in the preface to I-Iolinshed's Chronicles of England (1807 Edn. p. 350), asserts that the decline in vegetable consumption was due to our engaging in foreign trade. This explanation is quite inadequate and it is more important to remember that during the 14th and 15th centuries England was racked by plague, by internal dissention and by external wars. The whole period was one of turmoil, for England was undergoing a transition which was to mark the end of the Middle Ages. In the Cantor Lecture to the Royal Society of Arts in 1938 Professor Drummond stated that the predisposition to disease which marked the 14th and 15th centuries was due to a deficiency of certain vitamins found only in fruit and vegetables. It is therefore logical to believe that there was a close connection between the cultivation of vegetables, the diet, the health of the population and the social and political conditions of the times. 5. Whitehead. A Sketch of the Agriculture of Kent-. .1.R.A.S.E., 1899, p. 435 quoting Hume`s History of England. enterprise was so successful that many left Sandwich and re-settled near London and it was in this way that the horticultural industry of the London region came into being. Samuel Smiles, writing in 1867, summed up the situation when he wrote that "many of the rich garden grounds first planted by the Flemings continue to this day the most productive in the neighbourhood of the metropolis '6 In many of the other occupations into which they entered the refugees encountered considerable antagonism from the established traders7. It is significant of the extent to which the Huguenots and Flemings broke new territory in setting up as market gardeners in the London region that no complaints were raised against them. The time of the re-establishment of the horticultural industry in the London region can be taken as the closing decades of the 16th century. Samuel Hartlib writing in 1651 said that "about 50 years ago the art of gardening began to creep into England, into Sandwich and Surrey, Fulham and other places". John Stow's Survey of London is also important in fixing the time of the establishment of the industry. Writing in 1603 Stow had little to say of the London gardens but he noticed an increased use of land for gardening. In describing Portsoken Ward he mentioned "a farme by the Minories wherein hath been sold 3 pints of milk for one halfe pennie in memorie of men liuing", and continued "one Trollop, and afterwards Goodman, were the farmers there and had thirtie or fortie kine to the paile. Goodmans sonne being heyre to his fathers purchase let out the ground first for grazing of horse, and then for garden plots and hued like a Gentleman thereby"8. Forty years before the time at which ,Stow was writing Hogge Lane had "fayre hedgerows and easie styles to pass over into the pleasant fieldes" but by 1603 it was made a "contin.uall building throughout, of garden houses and small cottages and the fieldes on either side be turned into garden plottes .. . and such like from Houndes ditch in the West so farre as White Chapel!, and further towards the East"9. It is clear, then, that market gardening was established in the London region in the closing decades of the 16th century and that it came into being as an industry by the enterprise of the Huguenot and Fleming refugees who settled in the area. In order to see the beginnings of the nursery branch of horticulture, on the other hand, we have to examine the situation in the times of Henry VIII. At the dissolution of the monasteries many estates in Middlesex fell into the hands of the Crown. They were then given to Court favourites, to merchants or to statesmen and it has been said that the occupation of an estate in the London region was incidental to the career of every man of distinction at that time". The ecclesiastical estates had long been interested in the cultivation of plants of all kinds and in introducing new and rare species. This tradition was carried on by the new secular owners or occupiers and gardeners employed in their service had abundant opportunities to acquire a wide knowledge of plants and great skill in their cultivation. Private estate gardening as a profession thus made rapid strides and the more enterprising private gardeners founded the nursery branch of the industry on the basis of theirexperience and the new market for rare and exotic plants which the mansions of the metropolitan area provided. 6. Smiles. The lluguenots, p. 106. - -7-- ibid. p. 111„ 8. Kingsford. A Survey of London by John Stow, Vol. 1, p. 126. 9. ibid. p. 127. - 10. Adams & Thompson. West Middlesex Regional Planning Scheme, 1924. II. DEVELOPMENT UP TO THE END OF THE 18th CENTURY The horticultural industry must have consolidated its position very rapidly. By 1605 it could only have been established for some 25 years at the most but in that year the Companie of Gardiners of London was formed under a Royal Charter of James I. This company incorporated all those persons within the "Cittie of London and six miles compas thereof who use and practice the trade, crafte or misterie of gardening.. . and of contryving the conveyances to the same belonging'''. The formation of the Worshipful Company of Gardeners was primarily for the purpose of stamping out fraudulent dealing by the gardeners. These abuses continued to exist, however, and a second charter in 1616 gave the company powers to stop the malpractices. The very existence of the Gardeners' Company, however, is evidence of the important place which horticulture had taken in a relatively short time after its introduction as an industry. As the 17th century progressed, the nursery branch of horticulture came more and more to the fore. The close connection between horticulture and the materia medica was recognised by the founding of the Chelsea Physic Garden in 1673 by the Apothecaries' Company. The Chelsea Physic Garden was to be the training ground for many notable nurserymen of later years and also the place from which they obtained rare plants. Thus, though its primary purpose was medicinal, the Physic Garden has an important place in horticultural history. The nursery garden was, perhaps, the most conspicuous feature of horticulture during the 17th and 18th centuries for the period saw the formation and growth of such businesses as the Brompton Park Nursery, the Kingsland Nursery and the Vineyard at Hammersmith. Loudon asserts that the early decades of the 18th century were most prolific of businesses of this type2. Many of these nurserymen advertised their products by catalogues in which the plants, trees, and shrubs were arranged according to the most acceptable botanical classification and many of these catalogues remain to demonstrate the extent of the businesses in which these nurserymen were engaged. The publication in 1730 of Catalogus Plantarum—a Catalogue of Trees, Shrubs, &c., for sale in the Gardens near London shows the extent to which nursery gardening had developed. Catalogus Plantarum was published by an informal group of the leading nurserymen known as the Society of Gardeners. Though this society had projected the publication of other works it seems to have discontinued its activities soon after its first publication was issued. Although there is little to show how market gardening had fared since the early years of the 17th century it must have been expanding steadily. In 1748 Kalm, the Swedish horticulturist, passed through England and was much impressed by the London market gardens. He commented upon the many kinds of vegetables which he saw and said of Chelsea that "there is scarcely anything else than either orchards or vegetable market gardens and large fields all planted full of all kinds of small trees for sale"3. One of the most important and convincing pieces of evidence on the extent of the industry at this time is John Rocque's Topographical Map of the County of Middlesex published in 1754. This remarkable map illustrates the land utilisation of the county in great detail and although it is questionable if the areas shown as gardens as far north as Enfield and in the west of the county were in fact devoted to commercial horticulture it nevertheless shows the great importance of horticulture between Pimlico and Isleworth.

1. From the original charter. 2. Loudon. Encyclopaedia of Gardening, p. 1,063. 3. Amherst. A History of English Gardening, 1896 Edn., p. 260, LOCATION OF HORTICULTURAL HOLDINGS IN MIDDLESEX IN 1754.

A Line A—A indicates probable limit of commercial holdings. (Adapted from Willats' Middlesex and the London Region after John Rocque)

Less than 50 years after John Rocque's map was published we have the description of the industry by John Middletoni. Some of the statistical material in Middleton's work is open to question5 but the descriptions of the different kinds of horticulture carried on are not on that account made. any the less valuable. By the end of the 18th century fruit growing was the most conspicuous branch of Middlesex horticulture and much of the land in the parishes of Kensington,'Hammersmith, Chiswick, Brentford, Isleworth and Twickenham carried orchards and soft fruit plantations. The Neat House Gardens at Pimlico were a conspicuous feature of market gardening at that time for they were very intensively worked and carried many crops in succession each year. The nursery grounds of Middleton's day were situated in Chelsea, Brompton and Kensington and at Hackney, Dalston, Bow and Mile End. Middleton's description is important in that he was concerned with the position of horticulture some 200 years after it had been founded as an industry in the London region. During these two hundred years it had been progressing steadily but by no means spectacularly. The next century, however, was to bring with it entirely new conditions for horticulture. Thus, the last decade of the 18th century not only marks the end of one phase of development, it also marks the beginning of a new and a more important period.

4. Middleton. View of the Agriculture of Middlesex. 5. See section V, p. 17. 9 • III. DEVELOPMENT DURING THE 19th CENTURY The early years of the 19th century saw the publication of two works which throw light on contemporary developments. Daniel Lysons published his Environs of London in 1811 and J. C. Loudon his Encyclopaedia of Gardening in 1824. Lysons could- hardly have been a better prophet of what was to happen in subsequent years when he noted that the "cultivation of asparagus and some of the more expensive vegetables has considerably diminished in consequence of the disinclination of landowners in the neighbourhood of London to grant such ;leases of garden-ground as would encourage the gardeners to bestow the necessary cost and care on the land for the cultivation of these vegetables"1. Nevertheless, for the first quarter of the century horticulture continued to flourish. Loudon comments that "the richest soils, and those in which gardening, as an_art of culture, and as a trade, has been carried to the greatest perfection, are those around the Metropolis"2. The descriptions of the industry which he gives amply support his contention for there were farmers' gardens, market gardens, orchard gardens, market flower gardens, florists* gardens and nursery gardens described in detail. The farmers' gardens marked the lowest level of horticultural technology while the nursery gardens were examples* of an art scarcely exceeded since. En 1801 the population of Greater London was just over 1 million. Twenty years later it had reached 11 millions and this increase was only a foretaste of what was to come. The remainder of the century was to see an expansion of the population of London at an accelerating pace. By 1901 it had risen to 6f millions. Up to about 1825 the extent of urban expansion had not been such as to press noticeably on the surrounding rural parts and the horticultural industry was thus relatively stable in its location. The increasing population, however, and the consequent expansion of the urban area which set in during the 1820's started in its train a migration of the gardeners away from the central districts of London. This migration has continued ever since. Few districts associated with the horticulture of London have been given so definite a location or have figured so prominently as the Neat House Gardens of Pimlico. Doubtless this is because they were so conspicuous for their fertility and the intensity with which they were cultivated. Another feature is that they were among the first of the horticultural areas to feel the impact of the expanding Metropolis. Between 1824 and 1828 the level of the soil of Pimlico was raised to make it suitable for house building by conveying to it the spoil resulting from the excavation of St. Katherine's Dock in the East End. In this way the gardens were obliterated at a stroke and one of the most intensively worked market garden districts lost to horticulture. In the following years a similar fate overtook other areas used for horticulture. There is, however, less evidence to show the actual places which were subjected to the growth of housing for no other area possessed the qualities which made the Neat House Gardens so important. Nevertheless, the growth of housing and its effect upon horticulture did not go unremarked. Writing on the farming of Surrey in 1883 Evershed notes that over the previous forty years many of the market garden areas near London had been covered with roads and buildings and the market gardens pushed farther into the country. A great part of north Surrey was in consequence occupied by market gardens at the time at which he was writing3. The nurseries and 1. Lysons. Environs ofLondon, p. 841. 2. Loudon. op. cit., p. 1,061. 3. Evershed. On the Farming of Surrey. J.R.A.S.E.. 1883, p. 405 10 market gardens east of London disappeared under bricks and mortar roughly about 1850 and there was a migration of growers from Hackney, Dalston, Kingsland and Hoxton to Tottenham, Whetstone and Edmonton. The second half of the century saw a speedier extension of urbanisation so that by 1890 gardens as far west as Fulham had disappeared. South of the Thames the city encroached on the gardens at Vauxhall in 1860 and by 1892 had overtaken those growers from Vauxhall who had in 1860 moved to Putney and Wandsworth so that they were again forced to seek fresh ground. At that time Heston, Isleworth and Hampton were considered to offer prospects of stability but within 40 years growers were again on the move from these districts. The changes in location which the expanding urban area forced upon the horticultural industry was accompanied by changes in the technicalities of cultivation. The first change to be noted was that the nursery industry which had once catered for the demand for choice and rare plants began, during the last quarter of the century, to see the possibilities which the expanding working- class market provided and to concentrate on the production of relatively cheap pot plants and cut flowers. Later, tomatoes and cucumbers became the main crop of the growers of the parishes of Tottenham, Edmonton and Enfield though the London markets were slow to take to these new crops4. Secondly, the glasshouse growers adopted the new methods of glasshouse construction pioneered by J. Sweet of Whetstone. These methods involved the use of much larger panes of glass than had been customary and a much lighter wooden structure was thus sufficient6. The introduction and general adoption of the new type of glasshouse was facilitated by the changes in location which were forced upon growers. Thirdly, there were profound changes in the market garden branch of the industry. Just after the turn of the century horticulture, pushed by the centrifugal force of expanding London, itself pressed on the agricultural holdings of south-west Middlesex in seeking room for expansion. Writing in 1869 on the farming of Middlesex Clutterbuck notes that though large farms were still to be found they were "gradually giving place to market garden cultivation called forth by the increasing area and requirements of London"6. When let to market gardeners, he said, the land was dressed heavily with manure and all sorts of market crops introduced so that the arable farm soon became a market garden. He rightly forecast that the expansion of market gardening would -more and more deprive the south-west limb of Middlesex of its agricultural character"7. During the closing decades of the century not only were farms being taken over for market gardening but farmers were themselves becoming horticulturists. Two forces helped to bring this about. First, there was the increasing demand of the London market which Clutterbuck had recognised. Secondly, the importation of cheap grain from the western hemisphere undermined the main support of arable farming throughout the country. Together these two forces were responsible for the changing character of the farming in south-west Middlesex. With the change in the economic climate farmers were wise enough to make the best of the new situation. Economic advantage was soon the paramount consideration and farmers situated within reach of the London markets could count themselves fortunate in having alternative crops to

4, Bear. Flower and Fruit Farming in England, J.R.A.S.E., 1899, p. 279. 5. ibid. J.R.A.S.E., 1898, p. 524. 6. autterbucic The Farming of Middle3ex, J.R.A.S.E., 1869. p. 18. 7. ibid, which to turn. For a time, however, the change from farming to gardening was considered to mean a lowering of social status and many one-time farmers continued to grow agricultural crops alongside the roads as a facade to conceal the new form of production. It is important to bear two things in mind in considering the expansion and changing location of Middlesex horticulture towards the end of the last century. First, the industry could not have expanded without the vast increase in the urban population of London for London provided a market almost on the very threshold of the gardens. In the hundred years following the first census of population London expanded six-fold; from 1,114,644 in 1801 to 6,581,402 in 1901. Secondly, this urban expansion brought in its train a great measure of improvement in the roads of the surrounding countryside. In the absence of this improvement horticulture could not have extended further into the country for it was dependent upon easy and rapid transport.8 Indeed, the development of transport of all kinds had important reper- cussions on the horticultural industry as well as for the general public. "No change in the last generation", says the New Survey of London Life and Labour, "has had more far-reaching effects upon the life of the whole com- munity in London than the improvement in travel facilities"9 . The importance of the improved facilities for travel lies in the fact that the pattern of communication first determined and was later determined by the growth of the urban area, and this in turn determined the location of the horticultural producing areas. In this way, south, east and north London expanded more rapidly than west London during the closing decades of the last century so that horticulture lingered longest on the western outskirts. We are indebted to W. E. Bear for a description of Middlesex horticulture at the end of the 19th centuryl° and this shows that Clutterbuck's prophecy had come true. Isleworth was noted for its fruit orchards and market gardens; Feltham for its violets, wallflowers and narcissi; Bedfont had one of the largest wallflower producers in the country; Hounslow was noted for its fruit trees and roses, Whitton for roses and narcissi. Along the Colnbrook road Heston, Cranford, Harlington and Sipson were all important horticultural districts. In the north of the county there were hundreds of acres of glass in the parishes of Edmonton and Enfield and the Hampton glasshouse area was just coming into existence through the breaking up of the Tangley Park Estate for residential and other development. These were days in which fortunes were made in horticulture by men able to take advantage of the conditions and bold enough to see their opportunity in the expanding market created by the growing metropolis, the virgin soils of the gravel terraces and brickearths of south-west Middlesex and the upper Lea Valley, the greatly improved road surfaces which allowed heavy loads to be transported to market with ease, the plentiful supply of relatively cheap labour and the absence of competition from abroad in the products of their industry. Taken on the whole, then, the 19th century expansion of London had been beneficial to the horticultural industry. It is true that some of the best land had been lost to urban development and that a very pronounced migration had been forced upon the growers. Further west and further north, however, there was ample room for growers to re-settle and increase the scope of their operations and as yet there was no pressure on suitable areas for horticultural production such as the 20th century was to witness.

8. See Feret. Fulham Old and New, Vol. 1, p. 39 for the statement that gardeners' waggons frequently got into difficulties on the road between Fulham and London in the early part of the century. 9. Smith (H. Li.),(Director). New Survey of London Life and Labour, Vol. 1, p. 171. 10. Bear. op. cit. 12 IV. DEVELOPMENT IN THE 20th CENTURY During the present century the London region has become an important industrial area and this has meant that there have been much more potent forces tending to expand the urban area than existed in the last century. In consequence horticulture has been subjected to pressure not only from housing development but also from manufacturing, processing and extracting industries. The growth of all these forms of industry has been due to the fact that London is the largest conurbation in the country and has the power to draw to itself still more people and industries to add further to its magnetic pull. The consequence has been that the shift in the location of horticulture which was seen in the 19th century has continued at an even faster rate over the past 50 years. Middleton, Loudon and Bear have given pictures of the industry at particular times and in particular locations and a conspicuous though gradual change in location has been noticed. Writing of rural Middlesex in 1933, however, Thomas saw the rising tempo of change as a conspicuous feature of the land use of the county and said that he was then attempting to take a statistical photograph of conditions but that the time taken to develop and print the photograph would have been sufficient to have witnessed a marked change in the original subject'. This is not the place to dilate upon the reasons for this marked industrial development nor upon the housing development which followed2. It suffices to say here that the general industrial and housing development impinged upon horticulture in the Lea Valley and on the western outskirts of London along the Great West Road and the Uxbridge Road. Growers from these districts have sought land farther north and farther west and contributed to the steady migration which has been taking place. Two aspects of the urbanisation of Middlesex, however, call for special comment here because they have an important bearing upon the horticulture of the county. The first is the extensive working of the land in the south-west of the county and in the Lea Valley for sand and gravel. Middlesex, in fact, is the most important gravel producing area in the country and has an annual output of some 4 million tons3. The very nature of the soil which renders it so suitable for horticulture provides the raw material for the gravel extracting industry. There is, thus, a conflict of interest between horticulture and gravel extraction. The latest figures which are available show that 980 acres of gravel pits were ,actively worked in Middlesex in 1947 and that a further 478 acres of pits had been abandoned and left in a derelict state. Much of the land now used for gravel excavation was at one time used for horticulture. It is well known, for instance, that land at Feltham where gravel excavation is largely carried on was once in the occupation of A. W.Smith, a noted grower at the beginning of the present century. While it is important to know the extent of the present acreage used for active gravel excavation or denied to other users by gravel winning in the past it is even more important to have an estimate of the future intake of land for the purpose. The Advisory Committee on Sand and Gravel reporting to the Minister of Town and Country Planning in 1948 estimated -that 262 acres

1. Unpublished material on Middlesex Agriculture in 1933, Edgar Thomas. 2. This has been adequately dealt with elsewhere. See in particular' D.•`14".:.Smith's Industries of Greater London; Abercrombie's Greater London Plan and the ,Report of the Royal Commission on the Geographical Distribution of the Industrial Population. 3. Report of the Advisory Committee on Sand and Gravel, Part 2. Ministry of Town and Country Planning. 13 LOCATION OF HORTICULTURAL HOLDINGS IN MIDDLESEX IN 1862-7i

•1 fo irlw r. i • *' Sc. -.• ea mai o' ifs • aL:'• ers . ..t.,4,;.

f .4 ;* '4•46:,:ip

(Adapted from Willatts' Middlesex and the London Region after the first 6" Ordnance Survey)

LOCATION OF HORTICULTURAL HOLDINGS IN MIDDLESEX IN 1947

(Prepared from the 1941 National Farm Survey with adjustments for changes between 1941 and 1947)

14 of land would have to be taken in annually west of London and in the Lea Valley in order to meet the needs of London4. On the basis of the estimated acreage workable for gravel approximately 92 acres per annum would need to be taken from the agricultural and horticultural land of the county. This fact must be a disturbing one for horticulturists whose land is suitable for gravel extraction. The second and most important single factor in the urbanisation of Middle- sex which has impinged upon horticulture is the establishment of London Airport. When the airport was projected in 1943 a total of 1,300 acres of horticultural land was appropriated and 20 growers displaced either wholly or partly from their holdings. The 1,300 acres of land concerned included 70 acres of orchards and 21- acres of glasshouses5. The original loss of land to the horticultural industry represented some 15 per cent. ofits former acreage. Since then there has been a gradual whittling away of further land to the east and to the west of the original site as extensions have been made. The most disturbing aspect at present, however, is the threat of dis-possession hanging over those growers with land between Cherry Lane, Harlington and the Bath Road for when the planned extensions to the airport are made a further 600 acres of land now used for horticulture will be taken. The changes which industrial and residential development have wrought upon horticulture have been very marked. Fifty years ago the main con- centrations of horticultural holdings were found in the parishes of Chiswick, Ealing, Brentford, Isleworth and Heston and in the parish of Enfield. Urban development over the last 50 years has been such that the main concentration is now found in the parishes of Hayes and Harlington, Stanwell and Bedfont with Enfield still ofimportance in the north of the county. This change in location has been accompanied by a reduction in the acreage of horticultural land in the county. The net result of approximately 50 years of movement has been a two-thirds reduction in acreage from the level at the beginning of this century. The effect upon horticulture of all the non-agricultural forces is strikingly shown by a comparison of the two maps reproduced here. The first gives the location of horticultural holdings as shown by the first 6 in. Ordnance Survey maps of 1862-18716. This was long before horticulture reached its peak but even so the picture contrasts strongly with that showing the location of horticultural holdings in 1947. The change in location and the reduction in acreage can both be clearly seen. In particular, the gap left by London Airport in the centre of the main concentration should be noted.

V. STATISTICAL EVIDENCE At this stage it is appropriate to review the statistics which are available to illustrate the course of the industry and to support the generalisations of the preceding sections. Despite the fact that much has been written about the industry since its establishment 350 years ago there is a marked dearth of statistical material which can be used to illustrate its size at various times. Fortunately, however, we are not left entirely without information for over the last 150 years two sources of information have been open. First there has been the series of 4. Report of the Advisory Committee on Sand and Gravel, Part 2, p. 120. Ministry of Town and Country Planning. 5. The result of the displacement of these growers was that 5 went out of business altogether and 3 carried on with what land remained to them of their former holdings. Of the remainder 2 re-established themselves on agricultural properties, 4 took over horticultural land vacated by other growers and 6 moved out of the county. 6. Reproduced from Willatts. The Land of Britain, p. 79.

15 Census ofPopulation reports which give an indication of the number of persons engaged in the industry. Secondly, at various times official and non-official estimates of the acreage of horticultural land have been made which, taken with the census reports, enable an informative picture of the changes in the size of the industry to be built up. The census reports of 1801 to 1831 inclusive make no mention of the number engaged in horticulture but the figures given are not entirely without value on that account. The data on agricultural employment which these early reports provide also reflect what must have been an expansion of the horticultural industry for the number classified as occupied in "agriculture" was increasing. This could only have come about if a more intensive system was taking the place of one less intensive. From 1841 onwards, however, we have much more reliable data and although some gaps remain the information available is sufficient to trace the subsequent growth and decline in horticultural employment. The number employed in horticulture in Middlesexl in 1841 was 5,291; by 1891 it had risen to the peak figure of 14,723. From then onwards the number declined until the level reached in 1931 was only 9,796. This trend, which is illustrated in more detail in Table 1, shows that during the 19th century there was a continuous expansion in the number engaged in the industry while the 20th century has seen a marked diminution in that number. This rise and subsequent fall is corroborated by the changes in acreage which will be shown to have occurred. TABLE Changes in the number engaged in horticulture in Middlesex 1841-1931

Numbers engaged in Census year extra-Metropolitan i intra-Metropolitan Total of the Middlesex 1 Middlesex ancient county

1841 1,187 4,104 5,291 1851 3,085 4,510 7,595 1861 3,639 4,145 7,784 1871 4,939 (a) — 1881 6,021 (b) 4,539 10,560 1891 9,492 5,231 14,723 1901 7,747 (c) — 1911 9,542 2,769 12,311 1921 (d) • (d) — 1931 8,617 1,179 9,796

(a) Not available. (b) The census figure has been adjusted. (c) Census figure obviously erroneous. (d) Not available on a county basis. Up until the 1870's the only statistical information on the acreage of land in horticultural use in Middlesex was that given by observers and this information consists of no more than estimates. Competent though these observers may have been their estimates cannot have been endowed with a high degree of precision. Indeed, the conflicting nature of the estimates shows that precision was, on occasion, sadly lacking. These estimates are, however, not without value.

1. The Middlesex of 1841 had a much greater area than the Middlesex of 1931 for in 1888 the County of London was formed from parts of Kent, Surrey and Middlesex. In this discussion of the information to be derived from the census reports the figures given relate to the ancient county throughout. Data for parts of London formerly in the ancient county of Middlesex have been added to those of the present administrative county of Middlesex. To distinguish the two parts of the county they have been termed intra-metropolitan and extra-metropolitan respectively. 6 The earliest estimate of significance is that made by Daniel Lysons in 1795. In his Environs of London Lysons estimates that 3,300 acres of land were devoted to horticulture within 10 miles of London. He amends this somewhat in the 1811 edition of his book where he says that within 12 miles of London there were some 5,000 acres used for horticultural crops2. The most obvious shortcoming in Lysons' figures is that they give no indication of the acreage in each of the counties surrounding London. It is important to mention, however, that Lysons noted the changes which were taking place in the industry. Between 1795 and 1811 there had been a reduction in the acreage close to London "in consequence of.. . the increase of buildings" but further out of London there had been increases in acreage more than sufficient to balance the loss3. Contemporaneous with Lysons' account is John Middleton's View of the Agriculture of Middlesex in which he says that some 6,800 acres were devoted to horticulture in the county of which approximately 3,000 acres were given up to fruit growing4. It is clear that the discrepancy between Lysons' and Middleton's estimates must be resolved if either the one or the other is to have any value. It is unfortunate that in resolving the discrepancy the value of Middleton's detailed figures, must be discounted. During the latter part of the 19th century more exact statistics of acreage became available for 23 consecutive years and during this period there appeared to be just over three persons employed for every two acres of horticultural land. At this level of employment Middleton's acreages would have required a labour force of some 11,000 workers, almost the whole of the 12,417 persons recorded by the 1801 census as being engage4 in and dependent upon agriculture and horticulture combined. Furthermore, Middleton states that 5 persons per acre were employed in the fruit orchards of the county5. At this rate the 3,000 acres of fruit alone would have employed more persons than the census recorded as being engaged in agriculture as a whole. It is necessary, therefore, to replace Middleton's figures with a more realistic estimate. It can be shown that between 1872 and 1895 there was a close correlation between the acreage of horticultural land in the county and the population of London- 6. Indeed, until the present century the industry was geared to supply the requirements of the London markets so that a fairly constant relationship between the population of London and the size of the industry throughout the 19th century can reasonably be assumed. On this assumption it is probable that the area concerned in the early 1800's was between 1,750 and 2,000 acres. Some confirmation of this estimate is to be had from Lysons for his 5,000 acres would have been shared between Kent, Surrey and Middlesex and a little over one-third would have been found in Middlesex. For the next 70 years no acreage statistics are available to show how the industry had developed. It has, however, already been shown that the number of persons employed had risen markedly over the period. Consequently, it

2. Lysons. op. cit., p. 840. 3. Lysons. op. cit., p. 841. 4. Middleton. op. cit., p. 254 et seq. He gives the acreage as made up of:- Fruit Gardens 3,000 acres The Neat House Gardens 200 acres Other intensive Gardens 325 acres Farmers' Gardens 1,800 acres Nursery Grounds 1,500 acres 6,825 acres

5. Middleton. op. cit., p. 256. 6. By reference to Agricultural ,Ftatistics Pt. 1., 1872 to 1895 and the Census of Population reports 1871 to 1901. 17 is not surprising to find that by 1872 no less than 8,076 acres were officially recorded as occupied by the industry7. By 1895 there was a further increase to 14,915 acres and although this increase may have continued for a few years the urban expansion of the 20th century was soon to reverse the trend. Between 1895 and 1945 there is again a break in the statistical information on the total acreage occupied by the industry though fortunately we are not left entirely without some indication of the changes which took place. The acreage of orchards has been given in an almost continuous series annually since 1872 and the acreage of soft fruit in a continuous series annually since 18968. It is from these acreages that we can deduce the trend in the total acreage occupied by the industry in the county. The soft fruit acreage reached its‘maximum in 1904 while the acreage of orchards continued to expand until 1911. It can be assumed, then, that the expansion in total acreage which was officia113'r recorded up to 1895 continued into the first decade of the present century and that the industry reached its zenith in that period. By the time that relatively complete statistics of acreage became available in 1945 the industry occupied no more than 5,784 acres; there was a further fall to 5,352 acres in 1947 and to 5,119 acres in 19509. .Published statistics of acreage, official and non-official, have therefore given little more than glimpses of the size of the industry. The available statistical evidence can be summarised as follows Year Acreage Source 1801 1,750 Estimated on population data 1872 8,076 Agricultural Statistics 1895 14,915 Agricultural Statistics 1945 5,784 Agricultural Statistics 1947 5,352 Agricultural Statistics 1950 5,119 Agricultural Statistics Despite their scanty nature these statistics are sufficient to trace with a broad brush the changes which have taken place in the size of the industry over a period of 150 years. Moreover their value is enhanced by the fact that they cover one of the most important periods in the history of the industry. It is now necessary. to examine the statistical evidence with a view to throwing some light on the migration of the industry westwards and northwards. The paucity of the statistical material limits this examination to the period since 1872. This, however, is an important period for it saw the industry reach the peak of its development and then decline and it has also been the period .of most active urban expansion. The acreage of horticultural land is known parish by parish from 1872 to 1894 from the parish statistics used in compiling the county totals". Further, the acreage of horticultural land in each parish in 1947 is known from data supplied by the County Agricultural Executive Committee. The data from these sources have been used to compile the following table and to prepare the map showing the parish changes in acreage. The ten parishes with a continuous increase in horticultural acreage are all located on the western extremity of the county while almost all of the ten parishes with a continuous decrease in horticultural acreage are within the

7. Agricultural Statistics, Pt. I for 1872 gave the acreage of orchards, market gardens and nursery grounds for the first time. This information was given annually up to and including 1895. 8. Agricultural Statistics, Pt. I for each year. 9. Agricultural Statistics. 10. The parish statistics for the last year of the series, 1895, were damaged during air raids and 'are incomplete for Middlesex. 18 TABLE 2 Changing acreage of horticulture in 3 groups of parishes in Middlesex 1872-1947 (a)

1872 1894 1947 acres acres acres 10 outer ring parishes with continuous increase in acreage ... ••• ••• ••• ••• 1,284 2,564 4,816 10 inner ring parishes with continuous decrease in acreage ... ••• ••• 1,435 412 24 17 intermediate parishes with increase in acreage followed by decrease ... •. • • • • 5,397 11,721 2,532

(a) The ancient county. The County of London had not been formed in 1872.

.PARISH ACREAGE OF HORTICULTURAL LAND

CONTINUOUS INCREASE

INCREASE AND SUBSEQUENT - DECREASE CONTINUOUS DECREASE INSIGNIFICANT CHANGE ON SMALL ACREAGE •

MIDDLESEX CHANGES IN THE LOCATION OF HORTICULTURE 1872-1947

19 present County of London or on the London fringe of Middlesex. Those parishes with an increase up to 1894 followed by a decrease between 1894 and 1947 come midway in location between the other groups of parishes. The movement of horticulture in a westward and a northward direction can also be illustrated by listing the 10 most important "horticultural" parishes in 1872, in 1894 and in 1947. The order of importance at these dates was as follows:- 1872 1894 1947 Heston and Isleworth Heston and Isleworth Harmondsworth Fulham Enfield Bedfont Enfield Feltham Hayes and Harlington Harmondsworth Edmonton Stanwell Hanwell and Ealing Hanwell and Ealing Heston and Isleworth Hayes and Harlington Hayes and Harlington Enfield Chiswick Harmondsworth Harefield Feltham Twickenham Sunbury Twickenham Sunbury Feltham Edmonton Stanwell Laleham Between 1872 and 1894 Fulham and Chiswick ceased to be numbered _ among the ten major horticultural parishes and between 1894 and 1947 Hanwell and Ealing, Edmonton and Twickenham similarly declined in importance. On the other hand, between 1872 and 1894 Enfield and Feltham in particular rose in the scale of importance while Sunbury and Stanwell became of sufficient importance to be included among the ten major parishes. In the same period the acreage of horticultural land in Harmondsworth actually increased but its relative importance declined due to the more rapid expansion of horticulture in Hanwell and Ealing, Hayes and Harlington, Feltham, and Edmonton nearer London. Between 1894 and 1947 Bedfont, Harefield and Laleham—three parishes on the western and south-western borders of the county—made their appearance for the first time among the ten major horticultural parishes. Another western parish—Harmondsworth—jumps to first place as the parish with most horticultural land in the county.

VI. LABOUR AND WAGES Three facts make it desirable to devote some space to a description of labour in Middlesex horticulture over the last 150 years. First, the period has been one of increasing competition for labour between urban and rural occupations. Secondly, there have been marked changes within horticulture for while market gardening was becoming less dependent upon manual workers the expansion of glasshouse cultivation was bringing about a greater demand for labour. Thirdly, for the greater part of the period the increasing acreage of horticultural land must have meant.a greater overall demand for labour by the industry. Little information exists on the methods of recruitment of workers on market gardens before Middleton's time. He notes, however, the large number of women, mostly from North Wales, who were employed by the farmers and the gardenersl. These women were employed on numerous cultivating and harvesting operations and "their industry", says Middleton, -is unequalled in Britain, or perhaps in the world"2. Not only did they work

1. Middleton. op. cit., p. 382. 2. ibid.

20 long hours in the gardens hut walked to market with loads of fruit on their heads. Trevelyan states that these women walked the whole of the way from North Wales to Middlesex for the casual work which they performed each summer3. The Welsh women were supplemented by women from Shropshire whose annual migration to Middlesex ceased just before the 1914-18 war. During the 19th century Irish workers—men and women—regularly came to Middlesex during the summer months and many are said to have settled permanently in the county4. Two other souices of labour must be mentioned for they illustrate the integration of the labour requirements of widely differing industries. During the 19th century men who were employed as stokers'in the London gas works and who were redundant in the summer months found employment in horticulture. With the development of furniture-making and brush-making at High Wycombe large numbers of tree fellers were employed in the Bucking- hamshire beechwoods during the winter. These men, too, moved into Middlesex in the summer months to find work in the market gardens and fruit plantations5. For the last 30 years the industry seems to have been entirely dependent upon local sources of labour. There is little information readily available to show the wages paid to horticultural workers over the last 150 years. Middleton, however, brought wages within the purview of his survey in 1798 and at the end of the 19th century Charles Booth made passing reference to wages paid in horticultural employment. During the course of this study an attempt was made to fill the gaps by collecting at first hand some information which would throw light on the conditions during the 19th century and during the last 50 years. This attempt was attended with some measure of success for two useful sources of docu- mentary information were tapped. First, a grower's account book covering the 1830's came into the hands of the writer6. Secondly, the Editor of the Middlesex Chronicle made available a collected series of cuttings which were of material assistance. In addition some of the more elderly persons associated with the industry provided much useful information on conditions over the last 50 years. These and other sources of information have been drawn upon to compile Table 3 and the following account of changing labour conditions. "The wages most generally paid to ordinary labourers in husbandry in this county", said Middleton in 1798, "is ten shillings a week during the winter half year, and twelve shillings a week during the summer half year"7 The hours of work were from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. with 1-1 hours allowed for meals. Piece work rates which Middleton noted were turnip hoeing at 5/- to 7/- per acre, pea picking at 1/- to 1/6 a sack of four bushels and beans at 6d. to 9d. per sack. In the early decades of the 19th century wage rates changed but little for by the 1830's 12/- per week was still general for adult male workers. Wage rates, however, have never been synonymous with earnings and the grower's account book already referred to is important in this connection. This book contains entries made between 1836 and 1839 such as "16 hands E9.8.0,"8 women 5 men £5.16.8" and "21 women 11 males £11.16.0". These entries show that the earnings of individual workers must have been very

3. Trevelyan. English Social History, p. 489. 4. Private communication on the horticultural industry of Middlesex and.Surrey. Mr. E. W. Lobjoit. 5. Private communication on the horticultural industry of Middlesex. Mr. T. Mann. 6. Lent by courtesy of Mr. E. W. Lobjoit. 7, Middleton. op. cit., p. 380.

21 low even though some of them were employed On casual work. Summer working hours were from 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. and winter hours 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. with the usual meal breaks of 14 hours a day. Information on piece work rates is. again scanty but occasional notes show that 13/4 an acre was paid for digging asparagus beds in 1841, 5d. a sack for cutting potatoes and 7d. a sack for planting. These figures give some indication of the piece rates paid at that time. Despite the fact that the industry was increasing in size and must have been calling for more and more workers there could have been no dearth of people willing to take up horticultural employment. This is shown by the fact that cash wages were steady during the first half of the century. More particularly, however, marginal notes in the grower's account book on the reasons for discharge of various workers show that employers had no hesitation in dispensing with the services of their workers for such things as "neglect", for "stopping on the road", for "idleness" and for being "unsatisfied with his wages-. 'TABLE 3 Weekly wage rates for adult male workers in horticulture in Middlesex 1798-1947

I Legal minimum rate for Year Usual weekly rate (a) Middlesex

1798 10/- to 12/- (h) 1830-1840 12/- (c) 1890 18/- (d) 1902 12/- to 20/- (e) 1902-1904 18/- to 20/- (c) 1914-1915 20/- to 22/- (c) 1917 25/-(1) 1918-1919 30/- to 36/6 (1) 1920 6-57- (c) 42/- to 46/-(1) 1925 '33/- to 34/41(g) 1936 34/- to 35/5 1937 35/- to 36/5i 1938 10/- to El (c) 37/- to 38/6-1- 1940 over the 39/- to 50/- 1941 legal minimum 52/- to 54/2 1941 rates 60/- 1943 65/- 1945 70/- 1946 80/- 1947 90/-

(a) Where two rates are given they refer to winter and summer rates. respectively. (b) Middleton. View of the Agriculture of Middlesex. (c) Contemporary records of growers. (d) Lucas. 'A. W. Smith", Middlesex Chronicle. (e) Booth. Life and Labour of the People ofLondon. (f) Venn. Foundations of Agricultural Economics. (g) These and all subsequent figures in column supplied by Ministry of Agriculture. By 1890 men's wages had risen to 18/- a week and women's to 12/-. The week was reckoned to be one of 62 hours. Overtime was paid at 4d. an hour for men and 21d. an hour for women. Foremen and carters were paid at the rate of 25/- per week but worked from 5 a.m. to 7 p.m.8. Piece work rates were in some cases much higher than those paid earlier in the century. Digging . was paid at the rate of 24d. to 4d. a rod which compared very favourably to

8. Lucas. "A. W. Smith". Middlesex Chronicle, 1945, October 20th. 22 the 13/4 an acre paid at the middle of the century. On the other hand, hoeing was paid for at the rate of 5/- to 7/6 an acre—no more than was paid in Middleton.'s day. Soft fruit growing was an important part of the industry towards the end of the 19th century and piece work rates for fruit picking have been recorded at 6d. per half bushel for gooseberries, 31d. per peck for red and black currants and id. per lb. for raspberries: strawberries were always picked at day rates. Although the market gardens in the days of Charles Booth were on or just beyond the boundaries of the Metropolis he included a reference to wages in horticulture in his survey of London labour. Booth was of the opinion that market gardening was embarking upon a period of expansion for its success seemed to him to depend on the cheapening of transport9 and this cheapening was then taking place. Booth put the wages of horticultural workers at from 12/- to 20/- a week with overtime at from 21d. to 44--d. an hour. Skilled workers on nurseries were paid as much as 26/- to 35/- a week. Hours of work were still long and 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. in summer was common. From the time at which Booth wrote up to the outbreak of the 1914-1918 war the usual wage paid was 18/- a week in winter and El a week in summer. Hours of work, however, were substantially reduced and by 1914 the normal day was from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Carters and van drivers were specially fortunate for they had opportunities for earning gratuities when collecting dung from the London stables or were paid journey money for their trips to market. With the outbreak of war in 1914 wages rose to El and 22/- a week and in August, 1917 a minimum rate of 25/- was introduced under the Corn Production Act. Between 1917 and 1921 there were further increases until the minimum stood at 46/- a week. Wages paid by growers, however, rose to some 65/- a week at the height of the war boom. Since 1924 there has been statutory machinery in being for the determination of minimum wage rates in agriculture and horticulture. Minimum wage rates haye, however, had little significance for growers, as the minimum rate has only served to measure the excess wage which has been paid above that minimum. Glasshouse growers and market gardeners have for many years been paying "premiums" of up to El per week to their best men. Growers assert that the average wage of all workers on their holdings is of the order of 10/- a week above the statutory minimum. These premium rates reflect the competition which exists between horticulture and the urban industries but even at these rates there has been a notable movement of workers from rural to urban ocoupations. Lately, however, growers have noticed a greater readiness to enter horticultural employment but it is of too recent occurrence to justify the belief that any reversal of the former trend is taking place. The above fragmentary information makes it clear that for the greater part of the last 150 years wages have been remarkably stable. Thus it took over 100 years for cash wages to increase by 80 per cent. Cash wages have, however, increased five-fold in the last 30 years. In assessing the corresponding increase in real wages, however, these figures of cash wages must be adjusted to take account of the change in the value of money which has also taken place.

9. Booth. Life and Labour of the People of London, 1902-3 Edn., Vol. VII, pp. 351, 352. , In fact Booth saw the industry at its zenith.

23 • VII. LAND TENURE Proximity to London has had notable effects on land tenure. Speaking in general terms it is true to say that most of the market gardens of the county are occupied by tenants and most of the glasshouse holdings are in owner occupationl. Land tenure and land value thus each have an important bearing on the horticultural industry and both have been markedly influenced by the proximity of London. More particularly, however, there is a three-fold reason for dealing with land tenure here. First, the spread of the urban area has meant that growers' tenancies have been terminated at short notice so that the land could be used for building or other non-agricultural purposes. This was made possible by the insertion in tenancy agreements of a clause, the so called "resumption clause", by which the landlord could resume possession at will. Secondly, the growth of the urban area has brought in its train a demand for land for non-agricultural purposes of such a magnitude that the market price of land has tended to reflect non-agricultural values to a greater extent than value for horticultural purposes. This has at once been a conspicuous and a paradoxical feature of the situation for the rent Of horticultural land has not necessarily reflected its freehold value. Rent has borne some relation to actual use while freehold values have tended to reflect potential uses for urban purposes2. This has been the environment in which horticultural land has been bought and sold. Lastly, over these purely local conditions there has been thrown the pro- tective legislation of the last 75 years; legislation for the express purpose of securing certain minimum rights for the tenant of agricultural and horticultural land3. An examination of the conditions of land tenure in Middlesex shows that for the last 150 years there has been little evidence of customary tenure. This follows from the early dominance of the urban area, with all its commercial practices, over the surrounding countryside. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the 19th century there was some copyhold tenure on the western borders of the county. The terms followed the usual pattern of manorial tenancies and need not be given here. It is more important to record that in one instance the tenants in 1824 were referred to as farmers but in a further copy of the Court Roll of Harmondsvvorth made shortly afterwards they are referred to as gardeners. This throws interesting light on the changing form of cultivation which was even then showing itself in west Middlesex. If there is little evidence of the existence of customary tenure over the last 150 years there is no dearth of information to illustrate the changes in the conditions associated with contractual tenure. The information given here has been drawn from a number of leases and tenancy agreements relating to

1. See p. 55 et seq. 2. This view is borne out by Thomas for, writing of Middlesex Agriculture in 1933, he says that "the limited information about purchase prices went to confirm the impression that in Middlesex the figures at which farms change owners bear only a remote relation to their agricultural values". Unpublished material on Middlesex Agriculture in 1933, Edgar Thomas. 3. The most important enactments have been:— The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act 1875, The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act 1883, The Market Gardeners' Compensation Act 1895, The Agricultural Holdings Act 1923, The Agriculture Act 1947 and The Agricultural Holdings Act 1948,

24 horticultural land in the county'. An examination of these agreements enables a fairly complete picture of the changes in the terms of tenancy to be presented. Agreements covering contractual tenancies fall into two classes, the dividing line between them being the first effective Agricultural Holdings Act, the Act of 18835. We are concerned here to set down some of the more important conditions. Three stand out as of prime importance,(a) the rent to be paid, (b) the compensation for tenant right and (c) the resumption clause. It can be stated that the rent payable has been relatively constant, that the tenant has had no more than the minimum legal protection for compensation at the end of his tenancy and that the resumption clause has for long cast the shadow of the growing urban area over the surrounding countryside. The rent of horticultural land can have changed but little over the greater part of the 19th century. Middleton, for instance, put the rent of ordinary horticultural land at from £4 to £8 at the beginning of the century and we have the evidence of an agreement of 1866 which stipulated a rent of £5 per acre. At the time of this agreement there was no statutory basis for tenant right compensation and it specifically excluded the tenant from any customary compensation at the end of his tenancy. There was no mention of taking land for building and consequently no resumption clause. As soon as we examine agreements for letting land in proximity to the built-up area we find the resumption clause. As soon as this clause appears there is also provision for compensation covering land taken for building. No compensation was payable, however, for the tenant right on the normal termination of the tenancy. Thus, an agreement made in 1869 for letting 220 acres at £700 per annum allowed the landlord to take "any or all of the said lands.. . by six calendar months'" notice if the land were required for building or brick making. The tenant was to be paid a customary valuation for growing crops and other produce and the amount of this coinpensation was to be fixed by two persons one representing the landlord and one the tenant. An agreement made in 1875 and covering 661 acres for an annual rent of £570 introduced a novel form of compensation. The tenant was required to pay £3,309 on taking over the land and to maintain stock to that value during his tenancy. He was to receive no compensation on quitting at the end of his 21 year term in consideration of the fact that for the first 14 -years the annual rent was to be reduced by £200. Both landlord and tenant must have had a firm faith in the stability of the value of money to have committed themselves to such a course. Immediately after the passing of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act of 1875 clauses were inserted in tenancy agreements contracting out of its provisions. It became common to find such terms as "none of the provisions of" the Act "or any part thereof shall apply to the tenancy hereby created". Despite the specific exclusion of the Act from operation in these agreements the tenant continued to enjoy compensation under the resumption clause. On occasion, however, compensation was limited to certain classes of crop. The agreements studied show that for long the tenant as a rule paid no "ingoing" and received no compensation at the end of his tenancy except when land was taken for building. The effect of legislation in improving the position of the tenant can be seen in agreements made after the Act of 1883 had passed through Parliament. It is true that these agreements went no further than the Act required but at least they made no attempt to circumvent its intentions. 4. The writer is indebted to growers and land agents in the county for details from numerous tenancy agreements. 5. The first Act passed in 1875 was permissive. 25 An agreement made in 1883 for letting 175 acres of garden ground for £350 a year illustrates the improved position of the tenant as a result of the new legislation. On giving 3 months' notice the landlord could take any of this land for building "paying for the crops then standing upon the said land". The agreement declared its intention and meaning to be that the tenant should "receive fair and reasonable compensation for the crops upon the land so taken". Furthermore, and here the point of the 1883 Act is seen6,the landlord agreed to pay at the end of the tenancy "such value as the tenant would be entitled to receive if the land were taken for building as herein provided". Thus, the 1883 Act gave tenants a statutory right to compensation on leaving their holdings. Towards the end of the 19th century accelerating urbanisation caused landlords to take a quickening interest in securing some of its benefits. Owners • of land near the built-up area had provided for this eventuality by means of the resumption clause and tenants of such land had for long accepted this clause as an inevitable condition of tenancy. There was thus a speeding-up in the migration of growers which the 1883 Act did nothing to mitigate. On the other hand, the resumption clause did not appear in agreements relating• to land near the outer boundaries of the county until the present century. The spread of the incidence of the resumption clause, in fact, foreshadowed the spread of urbanisation. By the time that urbanisation was proceeding most rapidly the right of market garden tenants to proper compensation had been secured by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1923. Some agreements made after 1923 con- tained no reference to compensation; others specifically mentioned the 1923 Act. But whether the Act was mentioned or not the. year to year tenant was assured of proper compensation at the end of his tenancy. This Act, like that of 1883, did nothing to secure the tenant against re-possession by the landlord if a resumption clause formed part of the agreement. Moreover, the compensation provisions of the 1923 Act could be circumvented by the so-called "364 day" tenancy which, being for a period of less than one year, was outside the orbit of the Act. The latest step forward has been the abolition of the "364 day" tenancy by the Agriculture Act, 19477. There remains, however, the insecurity resulting from the resumption clause. Though landlords naturally secured to themselves the possibility of reaping some of the financial rewards of urban development it is possible to over-rate the importance of the "resumption" clauses. Examples of re-possession have not been lacking, and especially along both sides of the Great West Road and at Ealing. But there is another side to the picture. Tenancies in Middlesex are, in general, of longer duration than in more rural parts of the country9 and many growers have remained undisturbed on their holdings for many years despite the existence of a resumption clause in their agreements. 6. The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883 repealed the earlier Act and made void all contracts under which a tenant deprived himself of the right to claim compensation. It was possible to contract-out of the 1883 Act only by substituting other forms or methods of compensation. Where landlords had adopted the provisions of the 1875 Act or where compensation was payable by custom or contract the 1883 Act did nothing to alter these arrangements. The Middlesex grower was not in that favoured position. The Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895 did not necessitate any alteration in the terms of existing agreements even though it marked a step forward in consolidating the rights of the market garden tenaht. It was mainly concerned with establishing a separate class of tenancies, market garden tenancies, within the legal framework covering agricultural tenancies in general. 7. The tenancy provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1947 have been consolidated with parts of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923 in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. The 1948 Act contains no new provisions. 8. Especially since the passing into law of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. But see footnote p. 65. 9. See National Farm Survey ofEngland and Wales. A Summary Report, Table A9, p. 99. 26 Before dealing with freehold values it will be well to summarise the known information on the rent of horticultural land in the county. The information already given is supplemented by data extracted from the writings of Hartlib, Fuller, Lysons, Middleton and Bear, from the Return of Owners of Land 1873, from an analysis of material collected in the 1933 survey of Middlesex agric-ulturem and information collected in the course of the Farm Management Survey". TABLE 4 Summary of the data on rent of horticultural land in Middlesex 1600-1947

Year Rent per acre Source , 1600 £6 to £8 Hartlib and Fuller 1798 £2 10s. to £10 Middleton 1811 £4 to £5 Lysons 1866-1869 £3 to £5 Tenancy agreements 1873 £6 15s. Return of Owners ofLand 1873 1873-1877 £5 10s. to £8 10s. Tenancy agreements 1880-1890 £3 to £6 Tenancy agreements 1898 £5 to £8 Bear 1933 £3 to £7 1933 Survey of Middlesex Agriculture (a) 1943-1947 £2 10s. to £7 10s. Farm Management Survey (a)

(a) Horticultural holdings only. The figures in Table 4 show that the annual rent per acre of horticultural land in the London region has varied from £2 10s. Od. to £10 or over and has averaged something in the neighbourhood of £5 per acre. Considered from an investment point of view the freehold value ofland is the capitalisation of the rental value at current rates of interest bearing in mind the expenses of estate management. When we examine conditions in Middlesex, however, we find that about 50 years ago this relationship between freehold* value and rental value began to break down. Bear, writing in 1898, put the rent of land at Whitton, for instance, at from £5 to £8 per acre and the freehold value at from £100 to £200 per acre. But where urban development was taking place relatively rapidly he put the freehold value as high as £600 per acre even though the rent which such land commanded was no more than £5 per acre12. Since the beginning of the present century the rents of horticultural land have remained at about £5 per acre but the freehold value of such land has risen very markedly. In 40 years land values increased ten-fold and by the end of the 1930's had, according to one writer, reached a value of no less than £1,000 per acre13. The cost of land to the factory owner or the housing estate developer is much less important than it is to the horticulturist. Situation, however, assumes such importance to the factory owners that high prices have been paid to secure land in suitable locations. It is, therefore, not surprising that landlords with land "ripe" for development sold out at enhanced values. This possibility of ultimate sale for urban purposes has influenced the market price of all horticultural land and as they have moved towards the outer boundaries of Middlesex growers have been accustomed to pay up to £300 or £400 per acre for land.

10. See previous notes on unpublished material by Edgar Thomas. 11. The Farm Management Survey is a national scheme under which financial data are collected from farmers and market gardeners by the Agricultural Economics Departments of the Universities. These data are used by the Ministry of Agriculture in the price fixing of agricultural products and in framing policy and by the University Departments for research into the management of farms and market gardens. 12. Bear. op. cit. p. 524. 13. Smith (D. HS. op. cit., p. 163.

27 The glasshouse grower is more concerned than the market gardener with buying his land and it is instructive to show the prices paid by growers for land in the Hampton district and in the Lea Valley. The majority of the growers at Hampton established themselves in a relatively short period 50 years ago and paid prices ranging from £260 to £400 per acre,for land ,on which to build glasshouses. On the other hand the Lea Valley growers have been migrating northwards over the last 50. years as London has expanded. Despite the fact that land values in immediate proximity to the built-up area have risen steeply over the period the growers have paid between £200 and ,£400 per acre for land on which to re-settle14. Those who had sold land for urban development were, of course, financially well placed to buy suitable land.further up the valley. TABLE 5 Summary of the data on freehold values of horticultural land in Middlesex 1883-1939

41111/111111111.11101.1=MON

Year Value per acre Source of information 1883 £80 Private sale of 5,000 acres 1892 ' £300 to £350 Private sales to growers 1898 £100 to £600 Bear. op. cit. 1897-1912 £260 to £400 Private sales to growers 1930-1939 £1,000 to £2,000 D. H. Smith, op. cit., Land Agents and private sale of 130 acres for building

At the present time land agents in Middlesex report that practically no market gardens are changing hands and there is thus no reliable guide to the freehold value of such holdings. There has, however, been a brisk demand for glasshouse holdings particularly in the Lea Valley and a number have been sold at an average price of just over £7,500 per acre of glass. The smaller units realised nearly £10,000 per acre while the larger realised no more than £6,250 per acre. Since these prices were paid there has been a recession in the fortunes of the horticulturist and it is questionable whether the demand is now so brisk or the prices paid are so high as in 1948-9. Moreover, since the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 came into force the possibility of ultimate re-sale of land for urban development at inflated prices has been ruled out. The Act materially altered the economic climate in which land changes hands in. the London region and insufficient time has elapsed since it came into operation for land values to have adjusted themselves to the new conditions.15

VIII. MARKETING The proximity of the largest consuming area in the world has given a unique advantage to horticulturists in the London region and their fortunes have been intimately bound up with the facilities for marketing which have developed. It is fitting, therefore, that this historical survey should end with some reference to the development of marketing so far as it has concerned Middlesex growers. Three historical aspects of marketing will be considered here—the markets, the containers used for produce and the developments which have taken place in the means of transport.

14. The writer is indebted to a number of estate agents in the areas for information on land values. 15. The conditions have now changed once more. See footnote p. 65.

28 Markets The sale of produce has not always been confined to markets in the general sense of the term. Early in the 18th century gardeners sold their produce on the streets near Westminster and near the Royal Exchange'. Much produce was also sold by itinerant vendors and the cries of these people were a well- known feature of London life for many years. The practice continued, in fact, into the 19th century and caused Middleton to remark upon the vast number of people who were engaged in producing fruit and vegetables around London and "crying it for sale"2. Reference to these methods, however, only serves to throw into prominence the fact that by far the greater part of the produce grown in the gardens of London and Middlesex has passed and continues to pass through the wholesale markets. Covent Garden Market is supposed to have been established in 1632 when the Earl of Bedford laid out the market square3. The market was not formally recognised, however, until 1670 when the Earl was granted leave by Royal Letters Patent to hold a market on three days a week. The establishment of Covent Garden Market in 1632 points to the fact that the compatatively recent establishment of the horticultural industry was giving rise to a demand for facilities for the disposal of produce. By 1689 Covent Garden had become well-known. Strype, for instance, writing in that year, remarked that the "south side of Covent Garden Square lieth open to Bedford Garden.. and on this side there is kept a market for fruits, herbs, roots and flowers every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday; which is grown to a considerable account, and well served with choice goods, which makes it much resorted to"4. The increasing importance of horticulture during the 17th century led to the establishment of Spitalfields Market in 1682. In 1754 the present Borough Market was set up to replace one of earlier establishment and in 1893 Brentford, the last of the four existing main markets, was established5. It is likely that the first users of the London markets were growers themselves selling their produce to retailers or direct to consumers. Prints of Covent Garden Market during the 18th century showing gardeners' carts laden with produce lend support to this probability. By this time, however, the gardeners were not the only occupants of the market. Regular salesmen had already set up in business and provided growers with facilities for the disposal of their produce. Writing in 1712, Steele described a journey he took from Richmond to London, the boat in which he travelled taking in melons at Nine Elms "consigned by Mr. Cuffe of that place to Sarah Sewell and Company at their stall in Covent Garden"6 . One hundred years later Loudon remarked that the main market for growers around Eondon was Covent Garden and that produce was sold by regular salesmen "to the retailers of the market, or to local green grocers, fruiterers and stall keepers from different parts of the town."7. There is little to record concerning the development of the older markets during the 19th century except that the retailing of which Loudon wrote ceased to be carried on. The practices at Covent Garden may fairly be taken as representative of those of the other markets. The last decade of the century 1. Johnson. op. cit., p. 158. 2. Middleton. op. cit., p. 256. The Cries ofLondon series of illustrations by F. Wheatley, R.A., are well-known. 3. Report on Fruit Marketing in England and Wales. Ministry of Agriculture Economic Series No. 15, p. 81. 4. Thornbury. Old and New London, Vol. III, p. 242 quoting Strype's Survey ofLondon. 5. Other London horticultural markets not now in existence were The Stocks (on the site of the present Mansion House), Hungerford, Fleet and Farringdon Markets. 6. Steele. The Spectator, 1712, No. 454. 7. Loudon. op. cit. p. 1,061. 29 is important, however, in that it saw the establishment of Brentford market. For some time growers from West Middlesex had been in the habit of con- gregating around the approaches to Kew Bridge in order to sell their produce to retailers. The obstruction to traffic which resulted caused the Brentford and Chiswick Urban District Council to set up the market in order to accommodate the growers. The establishment of Brentford market was the most significant attempt to break away from the central markets and cater for the parts of London now remote from the main markets. The unprecedented expansion of London in the 20th century meant that the market pattern was set immovably in a matrix of urban development. The result has been that the markets have become increasingly congested and to this extent have failed to meet the needs of both the urban consumers and the growers. This state of affairs prompted the Departmental Committee on the Whole- sale Food Markets of London to suggest in 1920 a number of alterations in the organisation of the fruit and vegetable markets8. Shor.tly afterwards the Linlithgow Committee reported that Covent Garden Market was "a confused and unorganised anachronism"9 but rejected a suggestion that the markets should be decentralised. The proposal to decentralise the markets was revived by the authors of the County of London Plan" and received the assent in principle of Westminster City Council in October, 1950. There the matter rests at present. The proponents of decentralisation do not seem to have been aware of the fact that the establishment of Brentford market was an excellent example of the success of such a plan. Brentford was clearly a natural nodal point at which a market would serve a useful purpose but the problem to• be solved before further decentralisation can be successfully accomplished is to find other natural nodal points for the new markets. National as well as local issues are involved in the proposal to decentralise the London markets. Provided, however, that the inherent problems can be successfully overcome the establishment of further markets in the London region , would seem to be of considerable advantage to local growers. Containers Up until the last decade of the 19th century the containers used in marketing were universally made of wicker. By the end of the first world war the wicker basket had been entirely displaced by the returnable wooden box. There was, in fact, a minor revolution in the type of container used so that it is important to set down some details of the types of basket which were once used and to record the circumstances in which they were replaced. Willow for basket making was readily available on the margins of streams and drainage channels which traversed the horticultural areas as well as on. the islets of the Thames. The Tithe maps and apportionment made in connection with the Tithe Act of 1836 show that in addition there were areas planted with osier for the express purpose of providing willow for basket making. J. T. Smith, writing in 1839, remarked that there were basket makers' huts along the banks of the Thames all the way from Fulham to Staines11.

8. Report of the Departmental Committee on the Wholesale Food Markets of London. (First Report) pp. 3 and 4. 9. Report of the Departmental Committee on the Distribution and Prices of Agricultural Produce, Pt. II, p. 75. 10. Forshaw & Abercrombie. County ofLondon Plan, p. 71. 11. Smith (J. T.). The Cries ofLondon, p. 55.

30 Chiswick Eyot was another well-known gathering ground for osiers. Reapers used to sharpen their knives on a whetstone which once hung at the door of the Red Lion in Chiswick Mall and which now reposes in Chiswick Public Libraryn. Numerous types of basket were made from osier. The following extract from a-grower's account book in 1843 refers to one type" Pottle Baskets Made by Brentford Girls at 3/9 per Grofs fine cones 3/3 do. • coarse. These pottles were used mainly for holding strawberries and were tapered containers holding about lb. of fruit. They were packed' into a basket known as a marne for carriage on the heads of women porters. Cabbages, marrows and other bulky products were packed in the bade or half-bade. The bade was a round basket 2 ft. 3 in. high and 3 ft. 6 in. in diameter. It tapered towards the bottom and was fitted with handles and a lid. Produce tied in bundles was packed in the barge. This was a rectangular basket 4 ft. long, 1 ft. 3 in. wide and 3 ft. 6 in. deep. Other types of container used were the bushel and half bushel baskets; the strike, holding 12 lbs. of fruit and the pad, a small rectangular basket with a hinged lid and used for peaches and other delicate fruit. Many growers at one time employed their own basket makers while others purchased baskets from those working on their own account. Basket making was, in fact, a small secondary industry dependent upon horticulture and traditionally associated with certain families, the skill 'passing from father to son.

One man, said to have been the last basket maker in Middlesex, has recalled for the writer that a skilled worker could make a bushel basket in an hour. The usual output of one man was ten such baskets in a day. Bushel baskets were sold to growers up to 1914 at E1 per dozen. The basket-maker spent 12/- on materials and was left with 8/- for his labour. Working on account his own the basket maker thus earned 6/8 a day as compared to the 18/- to El a week of the market garden worker. The death-knell of the wicker basket was sounded in the 1890's when Normandy potatoes were imported into this country and sold on the London Markets. These potatoes were packed in wooden boxes and it was immediately apparent to local growers that the wooden box was• superior to the wicker basket. Growers bought these boxes and, after repairing them, used them for marketing their own produce. The ease of handling, the saving of space by the universal use of rectangular containers and the standardisation which the wooden box allowed soon made the wicker basket a thing of the past. With the passing of the wicker basket there passed out of existence a secondary industry which must once have given employment to many people. The swan song of the basket maker, however, only marked a new phase for the horticultural industry for with the adoption of the wooden box as the standard container timber firms took up the making of these boxes relatively cheaply. ^

12. The Times, 1948, Jan. 10. 13. A note in an account book lent by Mr. E. W. Lobjoit. The writer is indebted to Mr. Lobjoit for a description of the baskets used and to Mr. W. Townsend some potties for the gift of and other baskets. These are now in the Museum of English Rural Life, University of Reading.

31 "Ft'u Strawberries r STRAWBERRY WOMAN, 1805 (Picture Post Library) Transport An important feature of the development of horticulture around London has been the changing form and method of transport which growers have used in marketing. In fact, the development of transport has been the one important factor which has tended to mitigate the disadvantages to growers of the increasing spread of London. There is some evidence that early in the 18th century garden produce was transported from Middlesex and Surrey to the London markets by water. Thus, it has been said• by one writer that on an early morning journey from Richmond to London by water "we soon fell in with a fleet of gardeners bound for the several market ports of London"14. For gardeners near the Thames this form of transport may have sufficed, but as the roads were improved and more suitable for easy and rapid transport, and as the holdings became more distant from the Thames road transport took the place of the boat. During the 19th century horse-drawn carts or vans were mainly used for carrying garden produce to market but one important exception to this otherwise universal mode of transport must be noted. While the fruit gardens were within walking distance of London women were employed to carry strawberries in baskets• on their heads from the gardens to the markets. Many of them were Welsh, Shropshire or Irish immigrants. They were a characteristic feature of the area for a long time15. At about midnight these women would leave the gardens of Fulham and elsewhere in groups of a hundred or more and walk to the London markets carrying baskets of strawberries on :their heads. Each woman carried about 40 lbs. offruit". The work must have beeniarduous and it caused beneficiently- minded persons to erect stone tables at intervals along the roads where these women stopped to rest. They were thus enabled to unload the baskets of fruit from their heads the more easily. As the gardens were farther removed from the markets thes'e strawberry women were physically incapable of traversing the distance involved in a reasonable time. They were replaced no more than 80 years ago by light well sprung horse-drawn vans but it was difficult to simulate the easy carriage which the strawberry women had for long provided". The main form of transport for the bulkier market garden produce was for a long time the so-called market van. This was a very heavily built waggon with extended sides so that the load could be built up with ease and the carriage of empties on the return journey facilitated. Even now the most up-to-date motor vehicles used by growers reflect the style of the old market van. The market van was a development from the two-wheeled cart. A print of Covent Garden in 1753 shows such a cart used for• transporting garden produce. Fifty years afterwards the use of raves to allow the load to be built out over the shaft horse was common and a second horse was used to draw the heavier load thus carried. This stage was completed by the 1830's. By the middle of the 19th century the market van had developed into a four- wheeled conveyance and numerous examples of this type may still be found abandoned in odd corners of holdings in Middlesex.

14. Steele. op. cit. 15. See ante p. 20. 16. Feret. Fulham Old and New, Vol. I, p. 24. 17. Many illustrations of these strawberry women are to be found in collections of prints covering the 18th and 19th centuries. In particular, the Crace Collection in the British Museum provides a number of examples.

33 Wheelwrights and van builders often specialised in the construction of the market van; one such firm was Page's of Turnham Green. Page's vans were much favoured by growers for their strength was combined with a light draught. While the wicker container was in use it was usual to build the vans of such a size that the length and width of the body were exact multiples of the Made. Up to the level of the raves two loades could be placed one upon another; over that height the baskets were built to overhang the body. Growers were always seeking some means of taking a greater quantity of produce to market in as fresh a state as possible. Thus, after the van had been in use for 50 years two lines of development emerged. One was to reduce the size of the vans • so that they were suitable for one-horse draught. Being more lightly sprung these vans could attain greater speed without damaging the produce. The second line of development resulted in larger vans being built. These large vans came into use at the same time that the potentialities of the steam tractor were realised. Thus, the steam tractors were used first to draw the old horse vans converted to the new form of traction but were later used with specially built waggons which could carry much heavier loads18. By the beginning of this century the internal combustion engine had developed so far as to make its use a feasible proposition. As early as 1906 at least two growers in the London region used motor lorries for transporting their produce to Covent Garden market". It was, however, not until after the 1914-18 war that motor transport came into general use because its early unreliability made growers hesitate to adopt it despite its evident potentialities. Up until the years following the 1914-18 war the grower who had not adopted the early motor vehicle or the steam tractor continued to use the market van. There were great attractions in the new modes of transport, however, for approximately twice as much produce could be carried by the use of mechanical.power. The introduction of reliable motor vehicles after the 1914-18 war allowed heavier loads to be carried with ease and other forms of transport passed out of existence. Moreover, as London was expanding only motor transport could convey the produce to market in reasonable time. The expansion of London has pushed many one-time Middlesex growers out of the county and they now take as long to reach the London markets by motor lorry as they once did from their Middlesex holdings by horse transport. The more distant from the markets the holdings have become, therefore, the greater has been the advantage which growers have enjoyed from the development of speedy transport. But, given that the introduction of the motor lorry was inevitable, it has only allowed some growers to keep pace with the growth of London and the advantage of quick access to the markets has been whittled away. The greatest advantage to those growers still situated in Middlesex has been the ease with which they can exploit favourable markets by bringing up further, supplies at short notice. This has particular application to the market gardeners for many of them have their own stands in the wholesale markets. The grower more distant from London, on the other hand, does not enjoy the advantage of the Middlesex grower for he cannot, even with fast motor transport, bring up supplies at short notice. Transport advances have thus been responsible at once for a greater stability of prices on the London markets and have given the Middlesex grower the chance to take advantage of favourable conditions of demand.

.• 18. The writer is indebted to the Keeper of Prints and Drawings, British Museum and to -Mr. E. W. Lobjoit for access to and the loan of prints and photographs by means of which the development of transport up to this stage has been traced. 19. The Marketing of Vegetables in England and Wales, Ministry of Agriculture Economic Series No. 25, p. 115. 34 MARKET VAN, 1860 (By courtesy of Mr. E. W. Lobjoit) TRACTOR-DRAWN VAN, 1900 (By courtesy of Mr. E. W. Lobjoit)

IMPROVED TRACTOR-DRAWN VAN, 1910 (By courtesy of Mr. E. W. Lobjoit) PART II • CONTEMPORARY SURVEY I. SIZE IN TERMS OF ACREAGE The sum of the acreages of all the horticultural crops grown in Middlesex in 1947 as given in Agricultural Statistics is 5,352 acresl. This figure alone is not very revealing and it has two well-known limitations. Firstly, the official June returns are not made for holdings of one acre or under. Secondly, the returns relate to crops grown on agricultural holdings as well as those on purely horticultural land. Fortunately, however, it has been possible to use statistical material in the possession of the Middlesex Agricultural Exebutive Committee to depict the industry in terms of acreage, and number and type of producer. Between 1941 and 1947 the Committee required all occupiers of horticultural land to make an annual return of (a) the total acreage of land occupied in Middlesex, (b) the number and size of any glasshouses and frames on that land, (e) the acreages of the crops to be grown in the following 12 months, • (d) the parish in which the holding was situated and (e) whether or not land was occupied in any other county and, if so, where. The above details are available for a total of 490 businesses occupying 7,530 acres of land on which there were 250.7 acres of glasshouses and 18.3 acres of frames. The following analysis is based on the details available for these 490 businesses2. The most striking feature revealed by the returns is the very great difference in the size of the businesses which constitute the industry. This difference is apparent in whatever terms size may be measured but it is well shown in Table 6 where the distribution of the 490 holdings is given by acreage. TABLE 6 Distribution of 490 horticultural businesses in Middlesex in 1947 by acreage of land per business

Acreage of land Number of Total per business businesses % acreage % • 1 acre and under 167 34.1 111 1.5 - 1+ --- 2 acres 87 17.8 143...... 1.9 2+ — 5 acres 104 21.2 364 5+ - 4.8 — 10 acres 47 9.6 • 333 4.4 10+ -- 20 acres 26 5.3 378 5.0 20+ -- 50 acres . 24 4.9 722 9.6 50+ -- 100 acres 16 3.3 1,160 • . 15.4 100+ — 150 acres 5 1.0 596 7.9 150+ — 200 scres • 4 • 0.8 695 • 9.2 over 200 acres 10 2.0 3,028 40.3 490 100.0 7,530 100.0

.1. Excluding the 1,490 acres of potatoes grown in the county. Since 1923 the figures for London and for Middlesex have been combined in Agricultural Statistics. Because of the present small importance of horticulture in London the term Middlesex will hereafter cover both Middlesex and London. • 2. There is reason to believe that 9 businesses occupying a total of 511 acres failed to make a return to the A.E.C. If these are taken into account the total number of horticultural businesses becomes 499 occupying a total of 7,581k acres of land.

35 It is illuminating to sub-divide the first group in Table 6 so as to show the number of extremely small businesses of which it is composed. Thus there are 30 growers with / acre each, 48 with acre each, 36 with /- acre each and 53 with 1 acre each. Moreover, approximately one-half of all the businesses occupy 2 acres or less though they account for a very small proportion of the total acreage. The position is as follows:- % of number % of acreage Businesses occupying 2 acres or less ... 51.9 3.4 Businesses occupying over 2 acres ... 48.1 96.6 100.0 100.0

It has already been stated that there are 250.7 acres of glasshouses and 18.3 acres of frames on the holdings concerned. A part of the glass, in fact, has the purpose of increasing the effective size of some, but only some, of the very small holdings. The contrast in size which has been shown to exist is, therefore, valid and comes about partly because horticulture embraces many different technical systems making different demands upon land for their prosecution3. Table 7 shows how the acreage of glasshouses is distributed between the 490 businesses. Middlesex provides examples of the extremes of size for the smallest is measured by a few hundred square feet of glass and the largest by 35 acres. TABLE 7 Distribution of 490 horticultural businesses in Middlesex in 1947 by acreage of glasshouses per business

Acreage of Total glasshouses per Number of % acreage of % business businesses glasshouses

r..1

, 20.6 - -

"1"0‘zrOVDV:)

None r. Under i acre 00V,")trIN,--4N 37.6 9.5 3.8 18- -I acre 12.3 10.3 4.1 /-1- -i acre 11.0 18.7 7.5 i+ -f acre 4.1 12.0 4.8 -1- - 1 acre 3.3 13.6 5.4 5.3 . 31.6 12.6

1+ - 11 acres , li+ -2 acres .ON 1.2 10.8 4.3 1.4 18.3 7.3 2+ -- 3 acres 00 1.6 31.2 12.5

3+ -5 acres 00 Over 5 acres 1.6 94.7 37.7 490 100.0 250.7 100.0

Frames take second place to glasshouses in the degree.to which they increase the effective size of the land they cover. Table 8 gives the distribution of the 490 businesses by acreage of frames per business. The numerical preponderance of the businesses with only a very small acreage of land together with the wide range of size which exists prompt two questions. First, to what extent do the businesses occupying a small acreage provide full-time employment for their proprietors? Secondly, how far, if at all, have the proprietors of horticultural businesses an interest in non-horticultural enterprises?

not to say that different technical systems make the size of the business 3. This is necessary to independent of the acreage of the holding. It means that the minimum acreage support one worker varies with the system practised.

36 TABLE 8 Distribution of 490 horticultural businesses in Middlesex in 1947 by acreage offrames per business

Total Acreage % offrames Number of % acreage of per business businesses frames

None 271 55.3 I — 4 4 Under T1-6 acre 168 34.3 , 16.1 -11-6 — * acre 23 4.7 11.1 -1-+ — f acre 18 3.7 17.4 1-1- — i acre 2 0.4 2.8

1-1- — i acre 3 0.6 7.1 00.A0u4Nt Over 1 acre 5 1.0 4)43Ciliv.0.0 45.5 490 100.0 18.3 100.0

It can be stated almost without qualification that the 490 businesses covered by this study are full-time businesses in the sense that they are capable of giving, and do in fact give, full-time employment to at least one person. The number of part-time businesses is so small as to be quite without significance. Such a categorical assertion calls for some explanation. Many of the growers have increased the effective size of their very small holdings by the use of glasshouses or frames. But there still remain some holdings of a fractional acreage which have no glasshouses or frames. It is still possible for one person to find full-time employment on these holdings by growing flower roots for sale as bedding plants. This is a form of production which necessitates a high input of labour per unit area and which has a high output in terms of money. Although it can be stated that all the horticultural enterprises are full-time businesses in the sense in which the term "full-time" is used above, by no means all of them are operated by persons whose only business interest is horticulture. Thus it is known that the secondary business interests of a minority of horticulturists range from that of the wholesale commission agency in the London markets to City interests4. Again it is not possible to give precise data but the wholesale commission agency appears to be the numerically predominant secondary interest. The following trades or professions are also represented:— Building estate developer Wholesale grocer Flower bulb merchant Engineer Horticultural builder Estate agent Haulage contractor Seed merchant Financier Coal merchant

II. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION AND TYPES OF PRODUCTION Two major forces have been responsible for determining the present location of the industry. First, the spread of the urban area has displaced horticulture from its early location and reduced the area available in which it could re- settle. Secondly, in those parts not taken up by housing and urban industries, the major factor determining location has been the kind and quality of the soil.

4. These interests are secondary only so far as the purpose of this study is concerned. They may be, and some certainly are, of primary interest to their proprietors.

37 TABLE '9 Geographical distribution of horticultural land, glasshouses and frames in Middlesex in 1947

Number ' Number Total Number Total Parish of holdings Tota l acreage with acreage with acreage (a) glass- of glass- frames offrames houses houses

Harrnondsworth • 15 1,001 8 1.3 7 Bedfont 0.5 .. .. 17 971 4 0-3 4 0.2 Hayes & Harlington 15 772 9 3.0 Stanwell 8 0.7 .. . . 17 734 7 0.4 4 0.1 Heston & Isiewort.h 41 612 33 5.4 29 Enfield 1.7 ...... 67 536 64 •84-5 23 1.5 Harefield ...... 3 453 , 3 1.6 1 Sunbury 0.1 ...... 24 368 19 11.2 10 0.6 Feltham ...... 26 333 18' '6.8 12 Laleham 0.5 ...... 3 316 1 0.8 1 '0.5 Hampton ...... • 54 236 54 57.7 Shepperton 12 0.7 ... 8 223 4 1.1 4 0.9 Uxbridge ...... 5 181 5 35.3 2 Hanworth 5.5 ••• . 21 119 18 8.3 4 0.7 Staines . . ... 7 113 5 0.5 West Drayton 1 0.1 , 12 105 9 1.0 6 0.1 Hillingdon ••• 7 86 7 ' 8.2 Norwood 6 0.9 Green ... 6 75 4 0.3 5 0.3 Ashford ...... 26 68 19 0.8 Harrow 8 0.1 ...... 14 33i 11 0-5 6 0.1 Ruislip ••• 12 33 9 2.0 Edmonton ••• 10 0.2 17 25 17 4.9 13 1.0 Twickenham 13 19 10 2.5 7 Hendon ... 0.1 ... 10 18 9 1.8 4 0.1 South Mimms ... 3 17 3 0.8 1 Littleton 0.0(b) ...... 3 16 2 1-4 3 0.1 Ealing ...... 10 14 9 2.4 . Southgate 4 00(b) ••• 8 13 8 2.3 6 0.5 Barnet ...... 4 9 2 0.5 - Finchley - ...... 8 8 7 1.4 4 Hornsey ...... 01 4 6 2 0.1 3 0.1 Wembley ... 4 5 3 0.6 Chiswick 3 0.1 ...... 2 3 2 0-2 2 0-2 Eltham ...... 1 3 1 0.0(b) Wood 1 0.0(b) Green ... 1 1 - - - - Hampstead ... 2 1 2 01 2 Teddington ... 0.0(b) 2 1 2 0.2 1 0.0(b) Brentford ...... 1 1 1 0.1 V - Paddington V - ... 1 Vi 1 0.1 1 0.0(b) Willesden ...... 1 i 1 01 1 Acton ... 0.0(b) .. 1 f 1 0.0(b) 1 0.0(b) Stoke Newington 1 f 1 0-2 - - V V 497 7,530 395 250.7 220 18.3

(a) The term 'holding' is used here to denote a unit of land for which a separate C.A.E.C. return was made to the in 1947. Seven businesses made two returns in 1947, the for a detached piece of land Vfl second either the same parish as, or a different one to, that where the main acreage was situated. This table thus deals with 497 'holdings'. (b) 0.0 means less than 0.05 but not nil.

There are three major soil zones in the county. On the more elevated parts the soil is mainly of London Clay; near the rivers Thames, Coln and Lea and below the 100 foot contour the soil consists of Floodplain. and Terrace Gravel. Between these two zones is one of Brickearth stretching in an arc from Hillingdon to Enfield. Much has been written on the nature of these

38 soils. Middleton, for instance, gives an extensive description of the different , types and their location'. Norden describes the "soyle" in the north of the county as "claiesh" and says that in the autumn it "waxeth both dyrtie and deepe"2. This description, while lacking in precision, nevertheless serves to illustrate why these soils have been avoided by the horticulturist. The grower uses the Floodplain, Terrace Gravel and Brickearth soils almost exclusively. Even in the heyday of horticulture in the county there was a conspicuous avoidance of the heavier soils by growers despite the fact that the London markets were as accessible from the heavier land in the north as from the lighter land of the south-west. Although the nature of the soil limits horticultural production to certain well-defined areas there was scarcely a civil parish in the county which did not contain some horticultural land within its borders in 1947. In fact, the 490 businesses were distributed over 42 civil parishes, 38 in the administrative county of Middlesex and 4 in the County of London. The advantage of a suitable soil, however, is shown by the fact that those parishes with the lighter soils account for the greater part of the horticultural land and for most of the businesses.

THE PARISHES OF MIDDLESEX 1. Middleton. op. cit. p. 18 et seq. 2. Norden. Speculum Britaniae, p. 11. 39 Table 9 gives the number of holdings, the number with glasshouses and the number with frames, together with the respective acreages by parishes3. Only 19 parishes have more than 50 acres of horticultural land but these account for 97.0 per cent. of the total acreage of horticultural land, 91.1 per cent. of the total acreage of glasshouses and 85.8 per cent. of the total acreage of frames. At this stage it is necessary to examine the broad technical outlines of the industry and to show that it has come to consist of certain well-defined types of producer. A classification into technical types is essential because the capital invested, the labour used, the form of tenure and the form of management all follow from the technical processes which are carried on. It is known from the cropping proposal section of the returns required by the Agricultural Executive Committee that at lea:st 41 different kinds of vegetable crop are grown in the open as well as top and soft fruit, flowers for cutting and nursery stock. The glasshouses carry as many as 31 different kinds of crop and the frames 18. In fact, nearly 100 different kinds of crop are grown, each with its own requirements of skill and experience on the part of the grower, its own season of growth and its own particular environment4. This wide range of crops has led many growers to take advantage of the fact that some crops are complimentary or supplementary to one another. This comes about because certain crops require similar skill and aptitude in their cultivation, require similar environment or because a certain range of equipment can be used to cultivate one or the other at will. In consequence, certain types of business have grown up and in each of these types, except one, a particular crop or a particular range of crops having similar requirements predominates. Seven different technical types of business can be distinguished, six relatively specialised and one somewhat diversified. The seven types are defined as follows:— A. Those mainly, concerned with producing vegetable and flower crops in the open. Specialist market garden businesses. B. Those mainly concerned with producing glasshouse crops not of an exotic nature. Specialist glasshouse businesses. C. Those producing vegetable and other crops in the open but also producing glasshouse crops. Non-specialist businesses. 3. In addition to the land occupied in Middlesex a total of 1,763 acres of land, 66.3 acres of glasshouses and 0.5 acre of frames is occupied by Middlesex growers in Surrey, Kent, Bucks., Herts., Essex, Berks., W. Sussex, Beds. and E. Sussex. Only 30 businesses is concerned in this extra-county scatter, the position being as follows:- 460 businesses have land in Middlesex only, 26 businesses have land in Middlesex and 1 other county, 3 businesses have land in Middlesex and 2 other counties, 1 business has land in Middlesex and 3 other counties. The occupation of land outside Middlesex is often a normal expansion of business in a favourable area. On the other hand, a number of growers have thus secured a footing in a suitable area against the contingency of their being driven from Middlesex by further urban expansion. 4. The 490 businesses are primarily concerned with crop production. Some livestock is kept but on only a few holdings has the keeping of livestock been developed into a secondary enterprise. The small importance of livestock, except draught horses on the larger holdings, is illustrated by data collected in 1941 by the W.A.E.C. This shows that on 79 holdings totalling 5,194 acres there were 121 horses, 750 pigs and 928 poultry. Approximately one- half of the holdings had no livestock of any kind. The distribution of the holdings by the kind of livestock kept was as follows:— No livestock 38 Horses and poultry 9 Horses only 22 Horses and pigs 2 Poultry only 3 Pigs and poultry 3 Pigs only nil Horses, pigs and poultry 2 On most of the holdings with livestock the pigs and poultry were kept mainly for domestic purposes; only 2 carried sufficient stock to justify their being considered a commercial enterprise. Since 1941 livestock production on these holdings has ceased altogether. 40 D. Nursery businesses producing nursery stock, ferns and exotic plants in the open and under glass. E. Businesses occupying fruit holdings. F. Businesses occupying holdings devoted to seed production and trial. G. Businesses engaged in producing mushrooms and mushroom spawn. The acreage of land, glasshouses and frames occupied by each of these seven types is given in the following table.

TABLE 10 Relative importance of different types of production in Middlesex horticulture in 1947

Number Gross acreage Acreage of Acreage of Type of of land glasshouses frames businesses occupied , A 102 5,230/ 4-51 2.18 B 166 7531 211.34 9-40 C 179 1,146 28.86 5.67 D 24 1044 5-63 0-73 E 16 190/ 0.24 0.01 F 1 75 0.10 0-15 G 2 301 0.02 0-15 490 7,530 250.70 18-29

Table 10 shows that the first three types are overwhelmingly important for together they account for almost 95 per cent. of the total acreage of land occupied, 97 per cent. of the acreage of glasshouses and 94 per cent. of the acreage offrames. In addition they account for 91 per cent. of the horticultural businesses. The subsequent discussion in this survey will lay special stress on the essential characteristics of each of the three main types. The remaining four types are by comparison so unimportant that they are given only passing mention.

III. SIZE IN TERMS OF CAPITAL This section consists mainly of estimates of the capital invested in each of the three main types of horticultural business in the county. Three major sources of information have been drawn upon in making these estimates. First, inventories of equipment on holdings of different types drawn up during a survey carried out by the War Agricultural Executive Committee in 1941. Secondly, information about recent valuations made available by valuers specialising in horticultural work in the county. Thirdly, data on the present- day and pre-war costs of erecting glasshouses and frames supplied by one of the most prominent firms of horticultural builders. The tangible capital goods used in horticultural production are land and permanent buildings, temporary or semi-permanent buildings such as glasshouses and frames,.cultivating and harvesting equipment and draught horses, growing crops and tenant right, harvested crops and consumable stores. It is conventional to divide these capital goods into landlords' capital .and tenants' capital, the former covering the land and permanent buildings and

41 the latter the remaining instruments of production. This conventional division is not strictly applicable to the capital goods of horticultural production because glasshouses are of a relatively permanent nature and are seldom built by a tenant on rented land. It is clear, however, from the rarity with which glasshouses are rented that they are built by owner-occupiers as occupiers, rather than as owners, of the land on which they stand. For this reason the conventional division is retained here and glasshouses included as tenants' capital. (a) Capital invested in specialist market gardens. Using the sources of information mentioned above it is estimated that the total capital invested in this branch of the industry is approximately £1,840,200 made up as follows:— Tenants' capital £ Implements and equipment and draught horses 94,500 Growing crops and tenant right •• • •• • 98,600 Consumable stores • •• .• • •• • ... 41,100 Livestock (other than horses) ... •• • •• • 16,700 Glasshouses • •• ••• •• • •• • ... 18,000 Frames ... •• • •• • ••• •• • .• • 2,200 Total tenants' capital •• • ••• ... 271,100 Landlords' capital 5,2301- acres of land ..• .•• 1,569,100 Total capital... ••• ••• •• £1,840,200

A striking feature of this statement is the overwhelming predominance of landlords' capital; tenants' capital, in fact, forms only a little over 14+ per cent. of the total. A second feature of note is the importance of the first two items of tenants' capital which together form 71 per cent. of the tenants' total investment. The value of implements, equipment and draught horses has been calculated at £1,807 per 100 acres, the earlier source of information, with suitable adjustments for time,corroborating the later in arriving at this figure. Growing crops and tenant right are valued at £1,885 per 100 acres, consumable stores at £786 per 100 acres and livestock, other than horses, at £319 per 100 acres. On the data available, the 41- acres of glasshouses on these market gardens have been valued at £4,000 per acre and the 2+ acres of frames at £1,000 per acre. For a number of reasons, of which the most important are the small amount of market garden land changing hands and the operation of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, it is not easy to place a value on the landlords' capital. It has already been pointed out that the possible re-sale of horticultural land for urban purposes markedly influenced the price which existing owners have paid for it. A value of £300 per acre, however, may fairly be taken to represent the capital originally invested in land by existing owner- occupiers and landlords. (b) Capital invested in specialist glasshouse businesses. The problem of estimating the capital invested in glasshouse businesses is made relatively easy by the fact that glasshouses are the one asset of major importance. By using building cot data together with other sources of information it is estimated that the total capital invested in this branch of the industry is £1,467,600 made up as follows:-

42 Tenants' capital E Glasshouses1 • • • • • .. • • • • • 788,100 Frames ... • • • ••• ••• • • • • • • 14,100 Growing crops and tenant right • • • 189,700 Fuel • •• • •• ••• ••• • • • •• • 152,000 Implements and equipment and draught horses 22,300 Total tenants' capital • • • • • • 1,166,200 Landlords' capital 753-1- acres of land • • • • • • • • • ... 301,400 Total capital... ..• ••• •• £1,467,600

There is a total of 211.3 acres of glasshouses on the specialist glasshouse holdings of the county mainly, as explained above, on land in owner- occupation. Broadly speaking, this acreage of glasshouses consists of two main types of structure one having a higher per acre cost of construction than the other. The two main types of structure follow from the main pre-war crop. Thus in the parishes of Hampton, Uxbridge and Hillingdon the loftier type of house suitable for carnation growing and for other types of plant growing predominates and together these parishes account for 97.1 acres of glasshouses. On the other hand the 77.7 acres of glass in the Middlesex part of the Lea Valley and the 36.5 acres of glass scattered over the county consists mainly of tomato type houses. A value of £4,000 per acre has been placed upon the first type of house and a value of £3,500 per acre on the second type. The 9.4 acres of frames on these holdings has been valued at £1,500 per acre. By 1947 very little post-war building or re-building of glasshouses and frames had been carried out except for the repair of war damage so that the pre-war cost very closely represents the capital invested. In addition to the glasshouses and frames there are three other items of tenants' capital which are of considerable importance. They are growing crops, fuel and equipment. The value of growing crops has been estimated from the known acreage of the main crops grown and their approximate cost of production at January 1st, 1947. The estimate of £189,700 is made up of plants for 160.8 acres of tomatoes, £21,000; plants for 18.3 acres of carnations, £161,120; vine rods for 9.9 acres, £7,180; and plants for 6.2 acres of cucumbers, £400. The value of fuel has been estimated from the known acreage of heated glass and the per acre allowance of fuel which was in force in 1947, viz. 180 tons per acre. The total stock of fuel would have been of the order of 38,000 tons. Implements, equipment and draught horses are a relatively small item on these holdings at a total value of £22,300 or £29 6s. Od. per acre of land occupied. The sum of the values of the individual items of tenants' capital at £1,166,200 represents no less than 79-1 per cent. of the total capital invested in this branch of the industry. This is a situation which contrasts strikingly with that on the market gardens. Moreover, no less than 541 per cent. of the total capital is accounted for by the glasshouses and -frames. 1. The building cost data used are as follows:— Cost per acre Type of structure Pre-war Present-day Tomato houses £3,500 £13,000 Carnation houses £4,000 £15,000 Frames with 6 ft. X 4 ft. lights £1,500 £5,000 Dutch lights £1,000 £3,500

43 The 201 per cent. of the total capital represented by the landlords' investment is made up of 7531 acres of land valued at £400 per acre. This is the price growers have been accustomed to pay when they have moved to new sites in the county and probably represents the capital invested in the kind and quality of land used for glasshouse production. (c) Capital invested in non-specialist businesses. The estimates of the capital invested in the two specialist types of business facilitate the estimation for this group. The total capital invested in non-specialist horticultural businesses is estimated at £584,600 made up as follows:— Tenants' capital £ Glasshouses ••• ••• •• • ••• •• • 101,100 Frames ... ••• ••• •• • ••• •• • 8,600 Implements and equipment and draught horses 20,100 Growing crops and tenant right • • • .•• 24,200 Consumable stores and fuel ... •• • .•• 29,500

Total tenants' capital •• • •• • ... 183,500 Landlords' capital 1,146 acres of land ••• ••• •• • ... 401,100 Total capital... • ••• • ... £584,600

Although the acreage of glasshouses on the non-specialist holdings is relatively small as compared with the acreage of open land used for market garden crops the value of the glasshouses and frames together is, nevertheless, the largest single item of tenants' capital investment. The 28.9 acres of glasshouses have been valued at £3,500 per acre and the 5.7 acres of frames at £1,500 per acre. Implements, equipment and draught horses have been valued at the figure used for the market gardens, viz. £1,807 per 100 acres. Growing crops and tenant right at a total value of £24,200 consists of two items. First, growing crops and tenant right for the 1,111-1 acres of land used for market garden crops are together valued at £1,885 per 100 acres, or a total of £21,000. Secondly, plants for the glasshouse crops are estimated to have cost £3,200 to produce at January 1st, 1947. The item of consumable stores and fuel is made up of consumable stores for the 1,1111 acres of open land at £786 per 100 acres or a total of £8,700 and stocks of fuel £20,800. The total tenants' capital invested in this branch of the industry at £183,500 consists mainly of capital in glasshouses, frames and associated items. A striking feature is that 34.6 acres of glasshouses and frames and associated items account for £133,700 of tenants' capital while 1,111-A- acres of open land require only £49,800 of tenants' investment. The presence of even a relatively small area of glasshouses on these holdings places them in an intermediate position as regards capital structure. Tenants' capital accounts for 31-i per cent. of the total capital as compared to 141 per cent. on specialist market gardens and 791- per cent. on the specialist glasshouse holdings. The landlords' capital invested in the non-specialist branch of the industry has been estimated at £401,100 by valuing the 1,146 acres of land at £350 per acre. (d). Capital invested in other types of business. The capital invested in the remaining types of business is estimated to amount to £160,000 of which the tenants' share accounts for £39,900 and the landlords' share £120,100. Glasshouses at £21,000 form the main item of tenants' capital.

44 (e) Total capital. The capital invested in the whole of the 490 businesses which form the subject of this study totals just over £4 million. Table 11 shows how this figure is made up.

TABLE 11 Capital invested in Middlesex horticulture in 1947

Type ofproduction Tenants' Landlords' Total capital capital capital £ £. £ Market gardens ...... 271,100 1,569,100 1,840,200 Glasshouse holdings ••• 1,166,200 301,400 1,467,600 • Non-specialist holdings ... 183,500 401,100 584,600 Nurseries Fruit holdings 1 . 39,900 120,100 160,000 Seed Grounds I Mushroom holdings ) • 1,660,700 2,391,700 4,052,400 • It is now necessary to show how the £13 millions of tenants' capital is distributed between the 490 businesses. In the absence of any other means the tenants' capital invested in each business has been computed from the known acreage of land or glasshouses, or both, occupied by each business and the average capitalisation rate for the type of production carried on. This method tends to underestimate the capital invested in some businesses and overestimate that of others. Bearing in mind the limitations of the method it nevertheless shows the striking differences which exist in the sizes of the individual businesses and corroborates the evidence of size distribution already given in terms of acreage.

TABLE 12 Distribution of tenants' capital in the horticultural industry of Middlesex in 1947

Capital per business Number of Total tenants' businesses capital(a) £ £500 or under ... ••• 198 .. 44,000 £501 to £1,000 ...... 83 58,500 £1,001 to £5,000 ••• ••• 134 314,000 'C5,001 to £10,000 ...... 40 271,500 ' £10,001 to £20,000 ...... 21 306,500 £20,001 to £50,000 ...... 12 375,000 Over £50,000 ...... 2 291,000 490 £1,660,500

(a) calculated to the nearest £500. An even more striking illustration of the relative importance of small-scale and large-scale businesses is provided by the following percentage distribution of tenants' capital between these scales. The capitalisation of medium-scale businesses is taken arbitrarily as between £1,001 and £10,000 per business, all below £1,001 being considered as small-scale businesses and all of £10,001 and over as large scale firms.

45 % of number of % of total tenants' Scale businesses capital Small • 57.3 0.1 Medium 42.6 , 41.3 Large 0.1 58.6 100.0 100.0

Less than one-half of the businesses, therefore, account for practically the whole of the tenants' capital and well over one-half of the tenants' capital is accounted for by an insignificant proportion of the businesses. This throws into startling prominence the very great disparity in the sizes of the businesses of which the industry is composed.

IV. SIZE IN TERMS OF LABOUR The census of population report of 1931 shows that there were 8,617 persons engaged in commercial horticulture in the administrative county of Middlesex. This figure, however, gives little indication of the size of the industry in 1947 for with the lapse of 16 years there have been marked changes in the horticulture of the county'. A further source of information, but again of a somewhat unsatisfactory nature for the present purpose, is that provided by the returns of the Ministry of Agriculture. In June, 1947 the total number employed in both agriculture and horticulture was 5,062 made up as follows:— Regular workers Males: 65 and over ...... 337 21 and under 65 ... 2,323 18 and under 21...... 160 under 18 •. • 303 Women and girls (exc. W.L.A.) 750 Women's Land Army ...... 115

Prisoners of War ••• ... 359

Total regular workers ••• ... 4,347 Casual workers

Males: 21 and over ••• ... 364

under 21 ••• ... 24

Women and girls ••• ... 327 Total workers •• • •• . ... 5,062

This classification excludes the occupiers and their wives but includes all other family workers. There is, however, no way of distinguishing at all accurately the number of workers in agriculture from the number in horticulture. The number must, nevertheless, consist mainly of horticultural workers for 76 per cent. of the 11,295 workers which the 1931 census recorded as engaged in the whole of agriculture in Middlesex were engaged in horticulture. One further' official source of information is the number of employment insurance books exchanged by workers at local offices of the Ministry of Labour in the county. The horticultural occupations are clearly defined in. the records of the Ministry of Labour but neither working employers nor old- age pensioners are taken into account. The number of horticultural workers in the county in 1947 as given by the Ministry of Labour was 3,201 as follows: 1. Some time will probably elapse before details are available from the 1951 census.

46 Age Number Age Number Men 21 to 64 .•• ... 1,920 Women 21 to 59 ... 656 Men 18 to 20 ...... 102 Women 18 to 20 .•• ... 126 Boys 16 to 17 ...... 156 Girls 16 to 17 •• . 62 Boys 14 to 15 ... 127 Girls 14 to 15 •• . •• . 52 2,305 896

It is clear, then, that the official sources of information on employment in horticulture are all inadequate for the purposes of this survey. The only means of obtaining a measure of the employment potential of the industry is to build up an estimate of the total labour force from the known level of employment on different types of holding. Two surveys assist in the construction of such an estimate, the first carried out in 1933 by the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Reading, and the second in 1941 by Middlesex W.A.E.C. These surveys show that the cultivation of outdoor crops required on an average one person for 51 acres of land and that glasshouse crops required almost 10 persons per acre of glass. On the assumption that the level of employment had not materially changed between 1941 and 1947 the total number engaged in the industry in 1947 would have been 3,837. The number engaged in each of the main branches would have been as follows:— Specialist market garden businesses ...... 1,035 Specialist glasshouse businesses •• • •• • ... 2,180 Non-specialist businesses •. • •• • ... 495 Other types of business ... •• • •• • .. 127

3,837

It is now possible to summarise the foregoing data and to use the official statistics to assess the accuracy of the estimated figures. A summary is given below. Source Year Number Census of Population •• • 1931 8,617 Ministry of Agriculture •• • •• . 1947 5,062 (a) Ministry of Labour 1947 3,201 (b) Estimated ... •• • • • • •• • 1947 3,837 (c) (a) Includes agricultural workers but excludes employers and their wives and workers on holdings of 1 acre or less. (b) Excludes employers and old-age pensioners. (c) Includes working employers, family workers and regular and casual hired workers. The figure given by the Ministry of Labour, having the fewest shortcomings for the present purpose, most nearly approximates to the estimated figure. The difference of 636 has to account for hired workers receiving old-age pensions and for working employers and we know from the Ministry of Agriculture returns that the number of old-age pensioners is in the region of 300. Thus, if it be assumed that the majority of the old-age pensioners were employed on horticultural holdings (as, indeed, the majority of all workers recorded by the Ministry of Agriculture were) then there must be at least 300 employers taking part in the manual work of their holdings. It is not possible to approach finality in the comparison between the estimate and the official figures any more closely. By no means all of the 490 occupiers, however, take part in the day to day manual work of horticulture2 and there are thus good • grounds for believing that the estimate of 3,837 persons fairly represents the employment potential of the industry.

2. It has been shown (p. 37 supra) that a number of growers have other business interests which make it unlikely that they perform any manual work on their holdings. 47 , The rate of employment on different types of holding mentioned above may be used to show how the total number of workers is distributed over the businesses and thus to obtain some indication of the size distribution of the businesses. As the number of workers is known with certainty on only a proportion of the holdings it has been necessary to calculate the number for the remainder at the average.rate of employment for the type of production carried on. But no business could function without one worker. The average rate of employment has, therefore, been calculated for all businesses over the minimum size necessary to employ one worker and some adjustment made to give the largest business its known number of employees. The figures given in the following table are therefore no more than a tentative approach to •showing the distribution of workers. , TABLE 13 Number of workers per business in Middlesex horticulture in 1947 Number of workers Number of Total number per business businesses of workers

1 217 217 2 to 5 145 330 6 to 10 41 270 11 to 20 45 560 21 to 50 24 730 51 to 100 16 960 101 to 200 1 170 Over 200 1 600 • 490 3,837

The data in Table 13 need little comment but attention can be drawn to the fact that businesses so small as to need no hired labour at all predominate numerically for they account for 44.2 per cent. of all the horticultural businesses in the county. Their small importance as businesses is shown by the fact that they account for only 5.6 per cent. of the total working horticultural population. At the other end of the scale the businesses employing over 50 persons each form only 3.6 per cent. of the businesses but employ 45.0 per cent. of the labour force. Even more striking is the fact that the two largest businesses between them account for one-fifth of the totql number of workers in the industry.

V. SPECIALIST MARKET GARDEN BUSINESSES The majority of the market gardens are situated in the parishes of Harmondsworth, Bedfont, Hayes and Harlington, Feltham, Heston, Sunbury and Stanwell, for these parishes provide the appropriate soil and other physical conditions for the successful cultivation of market garden crops. These parishes are situated in what has been called the Thames Market Gardening Plain'. To the observer the parishes concerned form a somewhat monotonously flat expanse of land of which the greater part appears to be laid out in very extensive holdings. This impression is heightened by the absence of trees and hedgerow timber and by the fact that the divisions between one holding and the next are not apparent to the casual observer. Nevertheless, the impression gained is correct and the large size of the holdings in these parishes is illustrated by the fact that 87 per cent. of the market garden land within their boundaries is accounted for by holdings of more than 50 acres each and over one-half by holdings of more than 200 acres each. 1. Willatts. op. cit. p. 192. 48 At the other end of the scale there are numerous small holdings chiefly in the parishes of Bedfont, StanWell, Feltham and Ashford. Middlesex County Council small-holdings estates are found in these parishes—Mayfield Farm, Bedfont (now almost absorbed by London Airport), an estate in Clock House Lane, Ashford and an estate in Spout Lane, Stanwell. The majority of the holdings on these estates are devoted to market garden crops and range in size from 5 to 20 acres. There is a fourth estate in Bedfont Lane, Feltham where the holdings are about 10 acres each. The whole of this estate is devoted to horticulture and mainly to market garden crops2. There are some market gardens outside the parishes of the Thames Market Gardening Plain and of these the few at Enfield are most like those of the main area for they are on soils of a similar nature. Other market gardens are found on the heavier soils of the north-west of the county but neither their number nor their size justify giving them more than passing mention. The 102 market gardens form 20.8 per cent. of the total number of horticultural businesses in the county and occupy 69.5 per cent. of the total acreage of horticultural land. They account for 1.8 per cent. of the total acreage of glasshouses and 11.9 per cent. of the total acreage of frames. The largest business extends to 411 acres and the smallest to acre. The size distribution in terms of acreage of land per business is given in Table 14. TABLE 14 Distribution of 102 specialist market garden businesses in Middlesex in 1947 by acreage of land per business

Acreage per Number of tii, Total 9/0 business businesses acreage ,

1 acre and under 14 13-7 101 0.2 1+ — 2 acres 9 8.8 17 0-3 2+ - 5 acres 17 16.7 59 1-1 5+ -- 10 acres 14 13-7 1051 2-0 10+ --- 20 acres 8 7.8 1144 2-2 20+ — 50 acres 12 11.8 370 7-1 50+ — 100 acres 13 12.8 . 9431 18.0 100+ — 150 acres 4 3.9 4551 8-7 150+ —200 acres 2 2.0 340 6.5 Over 200 acres 9 8-8 2,8151 53-9 102 100.0 5,2301 100.0

Most o" f the businesses have no glasshouses or frames and depend entirely upon the resources of the open land. A few have a small, usually a fractional, acreage of glasshouses as a supplement to the main form of production. The 4.51 acres of glasshouses are distributed as to 2.51 acres between 12 businesses which have no frames and 2.00 acres between 11 businesses which also have 0.82 acre of frames between them. The remaining 1.36 acres of frames is divided between 13 businesses leaving 66 with neither glasshouses nor frames. The 5,230/ acres of market garden land which these businesses used in 1947 were divided as to 5,2231 acres of open land on which 5,917-1 acres of crops were grown, 4-13 acres of glasshouses in which 6 acres of crops were grown and 21 acres Of frames which carried 5 acres of crops. The fact that 2. This does not exhaust the list of Middlesex County Council smallholdings estates. Agricultural holdings are provided in other parts of the county and Thomas and Elms in Farms and Estates of Buckinghamshire have shown that a Middlesex County Council estate exists at Denham in Buckjngjiamshirc, This estate is mainly devoted to horticultural crops.

49 crops totalling 5,9171 acres were grown on 5,2231 acres of land shows that 694 acres must have carried more than one crop; But even if some allowance is made for buildings (other than glasshouses and frames), roads and hedges it is clear that these holdings were by no means intensively cropped. Only a little over 13 per cent. of the open land carried more than one crop in the year. The picture thus presented shows that, generally speaking, the market gardens have become "farmers' gardens" in the sense in which the term was used in the 19th century. Glasshouses and frames had little importance on the market gardens but nearly 1 acres of glasshouses and the whole of the frames carried on an average two crops in the year. The more intensive cropping of the frames reflects the importance of French gardening on one holding. A significant feature of these market gardens is that they are used to grow a wide variety of crops. Over one-half of the growers in this group reported that they grew 16 or more different kinds of crop and one grew as many as 44 different kinds. The number of crops grown varied as follows Number of crops Number of grown . holdings 1 none 2-10 29 11-20 '47 21-30 - 19 31-40 6 Over 40

102

If there were an appreciable amount of double cropping on these holdings it would partly account for the diversity of the crops grown but it has already been shown that double cropping is by no means a feature of the market gardens. A much better reason is to be found in the predominant method of marketing for most of the market gardeners are grower-salesmen. That is to say, they sell their produce from a stand in one of the London markets and in order to attract and retain the custom of buyers they provide a relatively wide choice at all times. Moreover, once having obtained a connection with retailers these grower-salesmen consider it essential to have some produce to market throughout the year. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of the acreage of crops grown is accounted for by a relatively small number of crops. Thus, brassicas, lettuces, potatoes, beet, peas and beans, spinach, onions and leeks together form four- fifths of the vegetable acreage. It is noteworthy that 668 acres or just over 10 per cent. of the acreage of crops is accounted for by agricultural crops— mainly cereals3.

VI. SPECIALIST GLASSHOUSE BUSINESSES The glasshouse businesses show a well-marked concentration in three important districts which together account-for 83.6 per cent. of the glasshouse acreage in this group. The three districts are (a) Enfield, (b) Hampton and (c) Uxbridge and Hillingdon. There is no particular size of holding more important than others in the parish of Enfield but at Hampton the majority of the businesses have from 1- to acre of glasshouses each and two very large firms dominate the Uxbridge district.

3. The crops grown and their respective acreages are given in the statistical appendix.

50 • The 166 businesses concerned form 34 per cent. of the total number of horticultural businesses but they account for no more than 10 per cent. of the horticultural land of the county. They are outstandingly important, however, by reason of the fact that they utilise nearly 85 per cent. of the total county acreage of glasshouses and just over one-half of the total county acreage of frames and thus account for a very large part of the total tenants' capital in the industry. The acreage of glasshouses per business is the best measure. of size in terms of area and this is given in Table 15. TABLE 15 Distribution of 166 specialist glasshouse businesses in Middlesex in 1947 by acreage of glasshouses per business

Acreage of Number of Total acreage glasshouses per businesses % of 'Yo business glasshouses

Under i- acre 36 21.7 . 2.40 1-1 i — 1- acre 24 14.5 4-31 2-0 1-1- — I- acre 33 19.9 11.71 5-6 1+ — acre 16 9-7 9.72 4-6 f.-1- — 1 acre 10 6.0 8-54 4-1 1 + — 11 acres 20 12.0 24.14 11-4 11---1- — 2 acres 5 3-0 8.94 4-2 2 +-3 acres 6 3.6 15-64 7.4 3 + — 5 acres 9 5.4 31-25 14.8 Over 5 acres 7 4.2 94.66 44-8 166 100.0 211-31 100.0

At one end of the scale the businesses with +i acre of glasshouses or less make up just over one-half of the total number but their combined glasshouse acreage accounts for only 9 per cent. of the group total. At the other end of the scale well over one-half of the glasshouse acreage is accounted for by less than one-tenth of the businesses. The 7531-- acres of land occupied by this group were made up of approximately 211 acres used for glasshouses in which 2711- acres of crops were grown, 91- acres used for frames in which 121- acres of crops were grown and 533 acres of open land of which 178 acres were cropped and 355 acres uncropped. The importance of the glasshouses to these businesses is emphasised by two features of the above statement. First, no less than 28 per cent. of the total land surface occupied was covered with glass. Secondly, the greater part of the open land was left uncropped because it was used as standing-out ground for glasshouse crops or as a source of soil for potting and for re-soiling the glasshouses. As the 211 acres of glasshouses carried 2711- acres of crops then 601 acres or 28.5 per cent. must have been cropped more than once in the year. This is the more remarkable when it is remembered that many specialist glasshouse growers concern themselves with crops which last the greater part, or even the whole, of the year. The 9-I acres of frames, while of little importance, carried 12-I acres of crops during the year so that 34.0 per cent. of the frame acreage carried more than one crop. The small importance of the open land except for some purpose which contributes to the productivity of the glasshouses needs no emphasis. The specialist glasshouse growers produced only a limited range of crops, some grew one crop only. Many grew no more than 5 crops while the greatest number on any one holding did not exceed 20. The number of crops grown varied as follows:- 51 Aramber of crops Nunther of grown holdings 12 2-5 98 6-10 49 11-15 6 16-20 166

Concentration on the production of a strictly limited range of crops is possible on these holdings because so few of the growers attempt to sell their produce except by way of the wholesale commission agent and they thus have no need to provide a wide selection of crops to attract retail buyers as in the case of the grower-salesman market gardener. The greater part of the acreage of crops grown was accounted for by tomatoes, lettuces, carnations and chrysanthemums, other crops were of minor importancel.

VII. NON-SPECIALIST BUSINESSES The 179 businesses in the group have a very wide geographical distribution and are, in fact, scattered over no less than 40 parishes. A few parishes are, however, of greater importance than others; they are Hampton, Feltham, Ashford, Hanworth, Sunbury, Heston and Isleworth, West Drayton, Harrow and Enfield. The wide scatter of these businesses geographically is but another facet of the wide dispersal of the resources of the individual businesses over many different crops for these growers use their outside land for vegetable and flower crops and also grow a number of crops under glass. In fact, there is neither concentration in pre-eminently suitable districts nor concentration on a particular form of crop production. These non-specialist businesses occupy 15.2 per cent. of the horticultural land, 11.1 per cent. of the acreage of glasshouses and 31.0 per cent. of the acreage of frames in the county. The size distribution of the businesses in terms of acreage of land per business is given in Table 16. TABLE 16 Distribution of 179 non-specialist horticultural businesses in Middlesex in 1947 by acreage of land per business

Acreage of land Number of (":, Total per business businesses acreage

1 acre and under 68 37.9 471 4.1 1+ — 2 acres 45 25-1 73+' 6.4 2+ — 5 acres 40 22-3 139 12.2 5+ — 10 acres 11 6.1 75+ 6.6 10+ -- 20 acres 8 4.5 1111 9.7 20+ — 50 acres 3 1.7 88 7.6 50+ — 100 acres 1 0.6 77 6.7 100+ — 150 acres 1 0-6 1401 12-3 150+ — 200 acres 1 0.6 181 15.8 Over 200 acres 1 0.6 213 18.6 179 100.0 1,146 100.0

1: The kinds of crops grown and their respective acreages are given in the statistical appendix,

52 One measure of size is inadequate in dealing with businesses such as these all of which use both glasshouses and open land in the productive processes and some of which use frames as well. The distribution of the businesses by acreage of glasshouses per business is given in Table 17. TABLE 17 Distribution of 179 non-specialist horticultural businesses in Middlesex in 1947 by acreage of glasshouses per business

Acreage of Nunzber of Total acreage glasshouses per businesses % of % business glasshouses

Under I acre 116 64-8 5.92 20.1 -k — / acre 31 17-3 4.89 17-3 1+ — f acre 20 11-1 6.65 22.8 acre 4 2.2 2-25 7.6 I.+ — 1 acre 3 1-7 2.46 8-7 1 + — 11- acres 4 2-3 4.82 16.9 1H-- — 2 acres 1 0.6 .1.87 6.6 179 100.0 28-86 100.0

The 5.7 acres of frames were distributed between 113 businesses, the area per business ranging from a few square yards up to A- acre. Most of the businesses seem to have derived their present form from one or other of the specialist types. This, of course, is contrary to the more common process where specialisation grows out of initial diversification. Because of their small size in terms of total acreage many businesses have been forced to increase their effective size by the erection of glasshouses. On the other hand, many, starting as small glasshouse businesses with some open land at their disposal, have found it necessary to bring that land into cultivation even though such a course meant the abandonment of specialisation. A small minority, however, operating on a relatively large scale have pursued a policy of diversification from the start and each side of production, in the open and under glass, is sufficiently large to exist independently of the other. In the main, then, this group consists of small-scale businesses. It is a striking fact that each business grows a relatively large number of crops and this must call for the exercise of much technical skill. The 1,146 acres of land concerned was divided as to 1,111 acres of open land on which 1,224i acres of crops were grown, 29 acres of glasshouses which carried 55 acres of crops and 6 acres of frames which carried 12 acres of crops. Only 113I-- acres of the open land carried more than one crop in 1947 so that these growers cultivated their land even less intensively than the market gardeners. On the other hand the glasshouses appear to have been cropped more frequently in the year than those of the specialist glasshouse businesses. Given that in certain circumstances frequent cropping is desirable it must be pointed out in fairness to the specialists that the growers in this group attempt the production of a more rapid succession of crops in the hope of compensating for their technical shortcomings. The absence of technical specialisation is emphasised by the number of crops grown per business. The majority grew from 6 to 15 crops each, three grew over 40 crops each and one reached a total of 51 different crops. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that these businesses spread their resources over too great a range of products to do justice to any one of them. The distribution of the businesses by the number of crops grown is given below:-- Number of crops Number of per business businesses 1 None 2-10 97 11-20 50 21-30 22 31-40 7 Over 40 3

179

The most important outdoor crops on these holdings were top fruit, brassica.s, potatoes and letttices. Tomatoes and lettuces were the most important glasshouse crops.*

Vu!. PRESENT-DAY TENURE An earlier section in Part 1 has been devoted to the terms on which horticultural land has been rented in Middlesex-in the past and to-the way in which those terms have changed to the advantage of the tenant as a result of legislation. Here it is necessary to show to.what extent tenancy and ownership take a place in the industry at present. Before doing so, however, it is important to point out a radical difference in the circumstances attending the occupation of a horticultural holding in Middlesex and the occupation of agricultural holdings in general. It is usual for a dwelling house to be an integral part of a farm whether the farm is rented or in owner-occupation. On the contrary, except for a few of the larger holdings which were once of a predominantly agricultural character, it is unusual for a dwelling house to form part of a Middlesex horticultural holding. The grower rents or owns a house within reach of the land he cultivates. This situation has its advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand a grower who loses his land still has a home and he can re-commence production on any suitable land which becomes available within reach. On the other hand the possession of a separate dwelling makes growers disinclined, to say the least, to move far in search of a new site for production. A general picture of the relative importance of ownership and tenancy in the county can be obtained from the National Farm Survey report'. This shows that in 1941 no less than 79 per cent. of the agricultural and horticultural land of the county was rented and 21 per cent. owner-occupied whilst 73 per cent. of occupiers were tenants and 27 per cent. were owners. It would be a striking fact if the position on horticultural holdings were a complete reversal of this general position. As, however, holdings of less than 5 acres were excluded from the National Farm Survey and as these form so high a proportion of the horticultural holdings some divergence from the proportions given above is to be expected. A more detailed picture of the proportions of ownership and tenancy comes from data on Middlesex agriculture in 19332. The following table based on the tenure of 561 holdings shows that in that year ownership predominated on the smaller holdings but was much less frequent on the larger.

*. The crops grown and their respective acreages are given in the statistical appendix. 1. National Farm Survey ofEngland and Wales. A Summary Report, p. 93. 2. Unpublished material on Middlesex Agriculture in 1933. Edgar Thomas.

34 TABLE 18 Tenure of 561 agricultural and horticultural holdings in Middlesex in 1933

Size Owner-occupied Rented Part rented

/. /0 •1.— 5 acres 62-2 34.1 3-7 5 -- 20 acres 49.6 36.4 14.0 20 — 50 acres 23.4 61.3 15.3 50 -- 100 acres 20.4 59.2 20.4 100 -- 150 acres 14.8 66.7 18-5 150 — 300 acres 17.4 • 67.4 15-2 Over 300 acres 13.3 53.4 33-3 Average 38.7 47-6 13-7

By using the data available from the 1933 survey in conjunction with information taken from schedules used by the W.A.E.C. in 1941 it is possible to compile a fairly up-to-date picture of the situation. The result is to show a striking difference in the importance of ownership between market gardens and glasshouse holdings.. As a rule, tenancy predominates on the first and ownership on the second. It is clear, therefore, that any general statement is more misleading- than informative. Specialist market gardens.—The information available from the 1933 survey shows that in terms of acreage approximately one-half of the market garden land was rented and that substantially more holdings were rented than in owner-occupation. Thus, in a sample of 54 market gardens no less than 32 with a total of 1,207 acres were rented, 13 holdings of a total of , 1,005 acres were in owner-occupation and a further 9 holdings consisted of 647 acres owned and 461 acres rented by the occupiers. In 1933 approximately 39 per cent. of the market gardeners appeared to own the whole or part of their holdings. By acquiring the freehold of their land they had taken all possible steps to secure themselves against dispossession and had made sure that if dispossession were to be forced on them they could reap the reward of increased capital value. The 1941 survey shows an almost identical situation for nearly 41 per cent. of the market gardens surveyed were wholly or partly owned by their occupiers. In a sample of 31 market gardens 19 of them with a total of 2,222 acres were rented, 6 holdings totalling 424 acres were in owner-occupation and 6 holdings consisted of 262 acres owned and 771 acres rented by the occupiers. These figures contrast with those given above in one important respect. They show that a substantially greater acreage is rented than in owner-occupation but this is accounted for by the fact that the average size of the holdings in the 1941 sample was greater than that of the holdings in the 1933 sample. There is, in fact, no conflict between the results of these two surveys because, as Table 18 has shown, there is a relationship between form of tenure and size of holding. The conclusion can be drawn, therefore, that the market gardens of the county are mainly rented and that the smaller the holding the more prevalent is occupying ownership3. 3. Since the passing into law of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 and the Agriculture Act, 1947 the tenant of horticultural land owned by an investor waiting for an increase in capital value before selling is relatively safe from disturbance for the owner has had to seek his loss of development rights from the Development Fund and the tenant cannot be disturbed provided he follows the rules of good husbandry. Where the tenant is renting land from an owner who will ultimately require the land for building or gravel excavation and where a resumption clause forms part of the tenancy agreement the two Acts cited- above do not apply. Tenancy without a resumption clause is now almost as secure as ownership and has the advantage of relieving the grower of the need to provide the capital for land purchase. But see footnote p. 65. 55 in view of what has been written in Part I on insecurity of tenure it is interesting to record the length of occupation of the 1941 occupiers of the market gardens then surveyed. Year occupation Number of commenced holdings 1900 or earlier 4 1901-1914 5 1915-1930 9 1931-1939 12 Later than 1939 1 31

One business had occupied the same land for no less than 74 years and it would appear that despite all the hazards of the situation approximately one-third of the holdings had been in one occupation since before the first World War. It is clear that growers do not leave their holdings except for some compelling reason probably associated with urban expansion. Specialist glasshouse holdings.—The tenure of glasshouse holdings shows a marked contrast to that of the market gardens. Here, indeed, is a type of holding on which few who were not owners would care to make the necessary capital investment. In general, only the security of tenure which goes with ownership justifies investment in glasshouses. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that no less than 90 per cent. of the glasshouse holdings surveyed in 1933 were wholly or partly owned by the occupiers. Thus, in a sample of 50 glasshouse holdings 41 were in owner-occupation, 4 were partly owned and partly rented and 5 consisted of rented land only. A total of 597 acres of land was wholly in owner-occupation, 63 acres wholly rented and of the remaining 55 acres only 15 acres were rented. There is no information available to show the acreage of glasshouses on these holdings. More detailed information is available from the 1941 survey and this shows• that 15 holdings surveyed were wholly in owner-occupation, 6 wholly rented and 3 partly rented. In all known cases of part ownership the glasshouses are built on the part which is owned and the rented land used as a source of soil for the glasshouses or as a standing-out ground. The ownership of the land on which the houses are built is the important factor. That being so, three-quarters of the holdings surveyed in 1941 with a total of 116.4 acres of glasshouses can be considered to have been in owner-occupation. Neverthe- less, there is a considerable area of glass built on rented land, the 1941 survey, for instance, shows that 6 holdings having a total of 14.5 acres of glasshouses were rented. In such cases the land is usually held by a lease of not less than 21 years. So far, only one form of rented glasshouse holding has been considered, the land rented and the glasshouses built by and in the possession of the tenant. This form of tenure is relatively unimportant as compared with occupying ownership of both land and glass. Passing mention should also be made of a form of which even fewer instances are to be found, i.e. that of the tenant who rents both the land and the glasshouses. The complications arising from the repair and maintenance of such an asset as glasshouses with their potentially rapid physical deterioration make this form of tenure undesirable and of infrequent occurrence. The evidence on length of occupation goes to suggest that the glasshouse businesses tend to occupy their holdings for a longer period than the market garden businesses. The position in 1941 was as follows:-

56 Year occupation Numer of commenced holdings 1900 or earlier 7 1901-1914 3 1915-1930 9 1931-1939 5 24

Thus, nearly one-third of the proprietors of the 24 businesses surveyed had commenced occupation before 1900. In fact, one had started as early as 1864 without a change of holding while relatively few, and these the less important businesses, had commenced operations on their existing holdings after 1930. Non-specialist businesses.—Although this is the largest technical group of businesses there is little reliable evidence on the tenure of the holdings which the businesses occupy. Eleven holdings of this type were surveyed in 1941 and of these 4 were in owner-occupation, 5 were rented and 2 partly owned by the occupiers. The relationship between the acreage of land occupied and the acreage of glasshouses on that land mainly deterthines the degree to which these businesses resemble one or other of the two main specialist types. It has been shown that approximately 40 per cent. of the market gardens are rented and that occupying ownership, while not universal, predominates on the glasshouse holdings. It would be safe to conclude, therefore, that the form of tenure on these non-specialist holdings goes hand in hand with the dominant form of production. IX. MARKETING The historical treatment of marketing in Part I forms a background against which to view three aspects of marketing at the present time. This section deals in turn with the methods of marketing and the ownership of transport, the costs of marketing and with some marketing problems which, if not peculiar to the horticultural industry of Middlesex, are more important to it than to the industry in areas more remote from the markets. At the present time growers have four ways of marketing their produce: the first three are traditional and account for the bulk of the produce and one is relatively new. These methods are retailing direct to consumers, sale to retailers from a stand in one of the wholesale markets of London or by direct delivery to retailers' shops, sale.through the agency of a wholesale merchant and sale through a co-operative marketing organisation. There is little statistical evidence to show to what extent these different methods are used by growers in the county but the evidence available coupled with observation in the markets shows that many growers do, in fact, take an active part in the wholesale marketing of their produce. As a consequence, however, of economic investigations in which Middlesex growers have taken part there has been an opportunity to build up a body of information, statistical and otherwise, on marketing methods. This information has come mainly from the medium-scale and large-scale growers and can hardly represent circumstances on the much greater number of small-scale holdings in the county. The data, however, have more value than appears at first sight. Being drawn from the larger holdings the information must be representative of the ways in which the greater bulk of the produce is marketed. All the evidence goes to show that most market gardeners with a medium or a large acreage sell their own produce from a stand in one of the London markets. On the other hand, most glasshouse growers, large-scale and

57 small-scale alike, sell their produce through a wholesale commission salesman. Thus, out of a total of 51 growers 27 market gardeners sold from a market stand, I direct to shops, 6 through a wholesale merchant and 2 direct to consumers while in contrast 12 glasshouse growers used the services of wholesale merchants, only 2 had market stands, only 1 delivered direct to shops and none sold retail. Clearly, the grower-salesman predominates in market gardening but is relatively unimportant in the glasshouse branch of the industry. An account has been given elsewhere' of the one attempt at co-operative marketing which was made in the Lea Valley in 1938. It should, however, be mentioned here that, except for the few growers who participated, that attempt was of little significance until comparatively recent months. Nursery Trades (Lea Valley), Ltd, the co-operative concerned, has launched an ambitious scheme for the co-operative grading, packing, transport and sale of tomatoes which should be of material assistance to growers in the district. The fact that many market gardeners convey their produce to market in their own lorries has already been noted. Two questions, however, arise from this fact; how many growers own their means of transport and how do those growers who have no transport of their own get their produce to market? Inventories of equipment used in estimating the capital invested in different types of holding show that the ownership of the means of transport is closely linked to the method of marketing. Thus, 26 of the 31 market gardens for which inventories were available were equipped with motor lorries and had 46 lorries between 'them. On the other hand out of 23 glasshouse holdings for which details were available no less than 20 depended upon some outside transport agency. Despite the limitations of these figures they support the view that most of the larger-scale market garden businesses provide their own transport to market and that the bulk of the market garden produce is carried in this way. On the other hand, the small scale market gardener depends largely upon having his produce collected from the holding by a market salesman but a few rely upon the regular carrier. The glasshouse growers depend almost entirely upon regular carrier services between the glasshouse districts and the London markets and the provision of this service has developed into an important feature of the glasshouse industry of the county. The broad facts elicited above must be borne in mind when considering the costs of marketing for they determine the form of approach which must be made in order to assess those costs. The market gardeners who use the services of a wholesaler probably know less about the cost of marketing than any other type of grower in the county. It has become customary for the salesman to provide empties, to collect and to sell the produce and to return a 'net' amount to the grower2. In this way the cost to the grower is wrapped in the mystery of the 'net return'. Unfortunately, the grower-salesman is in little better position to give details of marketing costs and, indeed, shows little concern with this aspect of his business. He notes that costs are incurred in the provision of empties and deplores their high price but other costs such as lorry upkeep, driver's time, rent of the market stand and the value of the grower's time at the market are all taken for granted. From discussions with grower-salesmen the fact emerges that only very rarely is any attempt made to compare the costs actually

1. Co-operative Marketing of Horticultural Produce in England and Wales. Ministry of Agriculture Economic Series No. 49. 2. Unless the grower acquiesces voluntarily this practice has been illegal since the passing into law of the tiorlicultural Produce (Sales on Coninzission) Act, 1926, incurred in marketing with the probable costs of using the services of a wholesale commission agent. Data collected from grower-salesmen for the Farm Management Survey throw little light on marketing costs because these growers make no attempt to apportion the costs enumerated above between the marketing and production sides of their businesses. It is questionable, however, whether any figures would represent the real cost of marketing. The absence of economic specialisation resulting from the dispersal of activities over two dissimilar sides of the business is a costly item to the business as a whole and to the production side in particular. It is, however, an imponderable cost. The costs of marketing glasshouse produce are more easily determined. This is partly because marketing is performed by outside agencies but more particularly because glasshouse growers are more concerned than market gardeners about the magnitude of these costs. Glasshouse growers state that the cost of transport between the holdings and the London markets amounts to an annual bill of £200 per acre of glass and might be as high as £300 or as low as £100 depending on the kind of produce grown. Tomato growers, for instance, pay 21d. per basket for carriage from the Lea Valley to the London markets and this would amount to an annual cost of £100 per acre for a crop in the region of 50 tons per acre. The provision of empties costs on an average a further £200 to £300 per acre while the salesman's commission of 71 to 10 per cent. of the selling price has also to be met. One large glasshouse grower estimated his sales in 1947 to have been in the region of £10,000 per acre and stated that the salesman's commission and the charge for the use of empties represented 10.9 per cent of the gross selling price of the produce. In, addition he had to meet the cost of transport amounting to approximately £200 per acre of glass. While it has not been possible to compare the costs of the different methods of marketing, one important and more radical fact has emerged. It is that the glasshouse growers tend to be acutely aware of the costs of marketing and thus to draw comparisons between the value of the services rendered to them and their cost. The market gardeners on the other hand, are either indifferent to the costs or, if aware of them, tend to take them as inevitable. The problems associated with the marketing of horticultural produce are national in scope. and therefore too large to be dealt with here. Nevertheless, some of them are of particular importance to the horticulture of the county and must be mentioned. Two kinds of problem exist; one arises from the nature of the businesses and one from the location of the industry. The first problem has already been noted and there is no need to dilate here on the result of the absence of economic specialisation which is apparent in so many of the businesses. It is sufficient to say that little can be expected in the way of improved marketing unless the costs of present methods can be determined. This requires that growers bring some informed criticism to bear on their present methods. The second problem arises from the fact that most of the businesses are small-scale businesses and that it is usual for each business to produce many different kinds of crop. The situation which results is that each grower pro- duces such a small quantity of any one crop that efficient marketing is well-nigh impossible. If the production of many kinds of crop is a consequence of the method of marketing then that method imposes upon growers a system of production which is suspected of being less efficient than it might well be. Small quantities of produce receive scant attention on the markets unless they are of exceptionally high quality. Indeed, it is the need to provide a sufficiently large value of produce to excite the attention of the salesmen which is at the root of much re-consignment of produce from London to the Provinces.

59 Some of the largest glasshouse growers, for instance, have stated that to send less than £10,000 of produce to one salesman in a year (on which he would draw approximately £750 to £1,000 in commission) would- be to invite the salesman's inattention. The grower whose contribution to a salesman's turnover is measured only by hundreds of pounds, then, must suffer through his produce not receiving sufficient attention in the markets. This is not a criticism of the salemen but a formal statement of a problem which growers themselves could overcome by co-operative effort. Any effort in this direction, however, must be accompanied by greater specialisation on the holdings if it is to donfer the greatest possible benefit on growers. The sheer physical congestion of the London markets, however, is perhaps the most conspicuous marketing problem of the grower in the home counties especially if he be a grower-salesman. This is not a new problem for it was recognised and commented upon in no uncertain terms thirty years ago and even then it was of long standing. The reports of the various committees which have examined the working of the London markets have generally been taken to mean that the physical congestion of the markets betokens an economic congestion in the sense that there were obstacles in the way of prices truly reflecting the existing demand. Evidence in support of this view is difficult to find but there can be no doubt at all that the economic significance of the physical chaos lies in the additional costs which that chaos imposes on marketing. Although the system may function more smoothly than appears at first sight it is clear that the delay, duplication of function and kindred ills must make the system more costly than it would otherwise be. The second problem Of location is that which arises from the close proximity of the holdings to the markets. This proximity has endowed the producers with a great advantage but an examination of the situation discloses that this advantage has been by no means fully exploited. For instance, from the time when wicker baskets were in common use the market gardener has used returnable containers. This has come about because the short haul makes no great demands on secure packing and because much of the produce is carried in growers' own lorries. The consequence has been that in markets more and more characterised by non-returnable containers the local growers have been at an increasing disadvantage. The use of returnable containers necessitates the collection from the retailer of a deposit on each box and this deposit may at times exceed the value of the contents. The accounts of one grower-salesman in the county show that over a year's working retailers were charged no less than £59 as deposits on containers for every £100 of produce which they purchased from him. If there is a choice of produce the retailer will, for this and other reasons, avoid the home product and turn to the imported article attractively packed in non-returnable containers. The very proximity of the markets should have meant that local growers were abreast of all the latest developments in grading and packing even if they did not initiate some of those developments. The lack of appreciation of the significance of the economic and physical problems of marketing is,.however, the most fundamental of all the difficulties. This criticism can be levelled not only against the various official bodies which have been concerned with the London markets and their shortcomings but also against the growers themselves. The recent proposal of the Westminster City Council to decentralise Covent Garden Market met with immediate protest from local growers despite the fact that none could be more familiar than they with the congestion and delay which are a necessary consequence of the present situation. The only logical approach to the problems of marketing seems to have come from growers in the Lea Valley with its new co-operatively owned packing station to handle produce from the glasshouse holdings of the district. It is significant, however, that the motive force for this enterprise has come from a few of the larger-scale growers. An extension of this practice within the county would seem desirable but the initiative is not likely to come from those growers to whom it would be most beneficial.

X. MANAGEMENT The proximity of the expanding London urban area has been the direct cause of a dichotomy in the management of the horticultural businesses of Middlesex. The first branch is concerned with the maintenance of the physical continuity of the business in face of urban encroachment or with exacting as high a toll as possible in a somewhat unequal contest for the land of the county. The second is concerned with the economic success and continuity of the business as a business. Those engaged in the management of horticultural businesses in the area surrounding London are probably unique as a body in having to concern themselves with the first aspect of management as well as with the second. Before the last war the financial return to growers was such that only the more efficient made profits on a scale which allowed them to resist the high prices offered for their land. Naturally, growers who were owners of their land found offers of from £1,000 to £2,000 an acre a very great temptation. Moreover, at that time there was always the possibility of moving on to suitable land in the west of the county or in neighbouring counties and the grower who had sold his land for building was in a good position to tempt a farmer with suitable land to accommodate him. Up to the outbreak of war in 1939, then, the owner welcomed urban expansion as a nieans of increasing the capital value of his land and as providing the means whereby the increasing value could be realised. Tenants could well have raised some protest at land being taken from them for building but the 'resumption' clause had for long been accepted as a condition of tenancy and tenants could hardly object to its operation. The change in the attitude of growers to the loss ofland, for change there has been, has been due to three major factors. First, the greater prosperity of the horticultural industry during the war and some of the post-war years has made growers less inclined to move from their holdings. Secondly, the terms of compensation for land acquired for urban use have changed markedly to the disadvantage of the owner and especially since the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 came into force. Lastly, there has been the increasing difficulty of re-settlement on suitable land. Until the circumstances changed to their disadvantage, however, growers made no effort to stem the rising tide of urbanisation in the county. Any protests made before the last war had as much to do with the strengthening of the grower's position as a seller of land as it had with keeping land in the county in horticultural use. One advantage which the grower has derived from the close proximity of his holding to the commercial establishments of the urban region has been in business organisation. Thus, there is a relatively high proportion ofjoint stock companies in the horticultural businesses of the county and this has come about, albeit only partly, from copying the form of business organisation which predominates among the growers' closest rivals for the land of the county. A further factor tending to promote joint stock formation has been the large size and element of risk in some of the businesses. The following table gives the distribution of the different types of business organisation found in the three major forms of production.

61 TABLE 19 Distribution of the main forms of horticultural production in Middlesex by types of business organisation in 1947

Specialist • Specialist glasshouse Non-specialist . market gardens businesses businesses Acreage Acreage Acreage i Number occupied Number occupied Number occupied Joint Stock 6 7641 31 408 12 4401 Partnership 18 1,4771 24 1061 40 385 Individual Ownership 78 2,9881 111 2201 127 3201 102 5,2301 166 7351 179 1,146

One fact in the table given above stands out as of prime importance. it is that the average area of land occupied by joint stock companies is greater than the average area occupied by partnerships and still greater than the average area occupied by individual proprietors. Not only is this so in broad terms but where glasshouses form the most important productive unit the situation is exactly the same, the joint stock companies having the largest area, the partnerships the second largest and the individual owners the smallest area. It is mainly the element of size, in fact, which has been responsible for the joint stock structure. In the ordinary course of events joint stock organisation is adopted as a means of capital recruitment. This is not an important reason, however, in the horticulture of Middlesex. for all the companies with limited liability are private companies'. Administrative convenience seems to have weighed heavily in favour of joint stock organisation but the main reason appears to have been the safeguarding of the personal assets of the shareholders in the event of failure and in no case investigated has capital recruitment been put forward to explain the joint stock organisation2. It has been shown that the businesses of which the industry is composed vary widely in size, that there is a variety of forms of production and that these several forms make different demands upon labour and capital for their promotion and propagation. It is not surprising, therefore, that the industry provides examples of different types of management. There appears to be a clear-cut difference in the managerial methods used on the two main specialist types of holding. On the one hand there are the market gardens the proprietors of which usually have their own market stands, take an active part in the technical operation of their holdings and make their managerial decisions by rule of thumb or by intuition. The glasshouse growers, on the other hand, usually sell their produce through a wholesale commission agent, mainly devote their time to management and make their decisions in the light of data derived from past or current records. But just as the technicalities of the market gardener and the glasshouse grower merge on the non-specialist holding so also do the management policies of the specialists become merged. Nevertheless, it is clear that differences in managerial methods follow the technical production processes.

1. The adoption of limited liability may well have facilitated the investment of capital by members of the promoter's family and his business associates. 2. Five companies adopted joint stock for reasons unconnected with their horticultural enterprises; a seed merchant, a firm selling flower bulbs, a market salesman, a wholesale grocery firm and a firm of building estate developers.

6Z An indication of the different business outlook of the two main classes of grower is given by a comparison of the frequency with which they adopt the joint stock form of organisation. Table 19 shows that just over one market garden business in twenty is a limited liability company. In contrast nearly one glasshouse business in five is a joint stock business. The commercial aspect of production is thus relatively widely recognised by .glasshouse _growers. It is not possible to see in the market garden businesses more than the rudiments of the type of management adopted in manufacturing industry, i.e. authority delegated to qualified persons and the use of records to assess the progress of the business and as a guide to policy. To a great extent delegation of authority is unnecessary because the grower himself frequently takes part in the manual work of his holding and can therefore set the pace of his workers and closely direct their work. At the same time he has the opportunity to assess the significance and commercial value of technical processes which he has instituted. Despite the relatively slow tempo of production on the market garden the varied types of decision which are called for in management call for equally varied aptitudes on the part of the grower. There would thus seem to be good grounds for expecting that some delegation of authority would have beneficial consequences. Only by force of circumstances, however, has there been any delegation of authority in the management of Middlesex market garden businesses. Thus, a grower who occupies more than one holding may invest the manager of one of them with a certain degree of authority. It rarely extends, however, beyond the day to day allocation of work to the staff, but it may include power to engage or dismiss labour in certain circumstances. The long experienced market gardeners tend to rely on empirical methods of crop planning. Such growers believe that they should grow the same crops year after year in roughly the same proportions because, it is asserted, experience teaches the grower which crops can be expected to make high prices on the market on occasion. This is an idea which would be difficult, if not impossible, to justify especially under the changing conditions of today. On the other hand, the younger generation of market gardeners shows signs of attempting to replace empirical methods of crop planning by rational methods. First, the grower may regularly consult his market salesman as to the proportions which the kinds of crop he grows should form of his total acreage. Secondly, he may record the quantity and value of the crops he grows so as to be able to select those which seem to him to be the most profitable. Records of this kind not only act as a guide to current policy but also form the means whereby the correctness of earlier decisions can be tested. The adoption of proper techniques for the control of pests and diseases and for the compounding of proper fertilisers for the different crops grown is an important aspect of horticultural management in general. The conditions under which market garden crops are grown, however, are much less conducive to a rapid spread of pests and diseases than those of the glasshouse. This and the further fact that the reduction in quantity which does follow an attack frequently results in scarcity prices means that the market gardener is little concerned with this aspect of his work. Moreover, there is the too ready assumption that the cost of control measures is an unwarranted addition to production costs because it is unlikely to be recouped in better prices. The market garden crops grown in the county are relatively unexacting in their fertiliser needs. Sewage sludge is widely used and is supplemented by artificial

63 fertilisers and no exact compounding is called for. It is probable that the skill which is shown in this aspect of technical management is adequate to meet the demands made upon it. In marked contrast to the market gardeners the glasshouse growers recognise the value of policy planning. This planning is based on an objective analysis of past performance supplemented, nevertheless, by the experience and judgement of the grower. Indeed,it is true to say that the glasshouse businesses are run by men more concerned with commercial practices than they are with the technicalities of production. These business-men growers know that they can buy the services of the technically competent. But business acumen is beyond price. Some of the glasshouse businesses show a high degree of delegation of authority. Even if the owner is interested in the technical conduct of the holding there is frequently a manager upon whom the responsibilities of management fall in the grower's absence. The manager thus has a fairly free hand in the day-to-day conduct of the holding. Moreover, delegation of authority is usually carried to the stage of giving foremen or charge hands a predetermined range of responsibility such as a section of the glasshouses, a section of the labour force or a certain crop or number of crops. Foremen as a rule have no power to engage or dismiss labour but because they are familiar with the capabilities or failings of workers they may be called into consultation before engagement or dismissal takes place. The delegation of authority is carried furthest where more than one holding is occupied. The manager of the second holding usually has complete autonomy in everything except the kinds and varieties of crops to be grown and the destination of the produce when marketed. In the number of workers employed and their recruitment, the ordering of supplies of materials and in the technicalities of production the manager has a free hand. Because employees on glasshouse holdings do not, as a rule, work under the immediate direction of and in company with the grower it is common to find that bonuses and incentive payments are given to them. There is, however, no system for computing these payments except in the case of workers in positions of special responsibility. Managers and foremen may be paid bonuses related to sales but other workers are given sums ex gratia at the end of each year. The fact that glasshouse produce is marketed in standardised units makes accurate crop recording relatively easy. Crop planning is facilitated for this reason provided the necessary records are kept. Thus, many glasshouse growers record the productivity of their crops for the express purpose of obtaining a clear and objective guide to crop planning and as a means of testing the correctness of earlier decisions. Where crop recording forms the basis of crop planning the decisions on the kinds and quantities which are grown rests with the proprietor because decisions of this kind cannot be entirely removed from personal judgement. Recording, however, materially narrows the field in which judgement has to be exercised. In fact, it is usual for the glasshouse grower to use recorded data, physical and financial, in the day-to-day conduct of his business. In general, glasshouse growers recognise the importance of keeping pace with developments in the use of insecticides and fungicides and in the proper compounding of fertilisers. Glasshouse crops, in fact, are exacting in their demands on the growers' skill. Foremen are usually responsible for the early detection of pests and diseases and for their control, with the grower or the manager giving general guidance on the control methods to be used. It is noteworthy that growers rely on trade travellers for information on the

64 newest control methods as more up-to-date information is obtained in this way than any other. This fact, in itself, emphasises the importance which glasshouse growers place on the technical aspect of management. This review of management in Middlesex horticulture could never do justice to the industry if it failed to mention the special circumstances prevailing in two of the leading glasshouse businesses. These two firms surpass all others in the technical and scientific aspect of management for qualified scientists form an integral part of the businesses and deal with all the biological and biochemical problems which arise. The need for such a high degree of specialisation in management has come about because of the rapidity with which financial loss can follow inadequate pest and disease control but more particularly because of new techniques of cultivating glasshouse crops. Only a strictly limited number of businesses in the county, however, are of such a size as to allow them to follow the example set by these two firms.

XI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study has reviewed a number of aspects of the development and structure of the horticultural industry of Middlesex and the London region. The way in which the industry was established, how it expanded and how it later declined in importance have been dealt with and an attempt has been made to analyse the forces which have been responsible for the decline. Finally, the study has been concerned with the present structure of the industry—its geographical distribution, its size and its form of management. Horticulture in Middlesex has been characterised by constantly recurring 'challenges' and 'responses'. The 'challenge' has come from the urban area and one 'response' which horticulture has made has been to retreat geographically until its present acreage is no more than one-half that which was occupied 50 years ago. But there hp.s been a 'response' of a different kind. Certain growers have developed a form of management which, while having in it the elements of the form common in manufacturing industry, has been moulded to fit the special biological, physical and commercial needs of horticulture. This management response has come mainly from one section of the industry but there are signs that even in the least commercially-minded section an attempt to replace empiricism with organisation is slowly gaining ground. What, then, is the likely future course of the industry? The 'challenge' has not become any the less since the last war even though the grower has been shielded from its full force by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.1 Is the industry going to make no better 'response' than it made before the war? Should it, perhaps, bow to the possible fate of ultimate extinction while making the best and most comfortable terms for its demise? As a result of the 1947 Act fully effective powers to plan land use have been placed in the hands of the County Councils. The County Development Plan recently published provides for urban expansion on a considerable scale in the important horticultural parishes. If put into effect, therefore, the Plan will mean a serious reduction in the present horticultural acreage. Much land is said to be needed in west Middlesex for school playing fields, public open spaces and house building, the claims of the gravel extracting industry cannot be denied and London Airport will apparently continue to expand for some years. In the face of these claims alone how can those of horticulture also be met from a strictly limited area of land? On the assumption that the industry will have to be content with less land than it now occupies it is faced with two alternatives. First, some growers must move out of the county leaving others more fortunate in undisturbed possession. This would merely perpetuate the pre-war trends and can be 1. The decision announced on November 18th, 1952 to amend the provisions of the Act in relation to development charge and compensation for loss of development rights places tenants in very much the same position as they were in before the Act came into force. 65 summarily dismissed. Secondly, all growers could intensify their methods of production so that the present level of production is obtained from a reduced acreage. It may well be thought that the land of Middlesex is too valuable to be used for producing little more than one crop a year and market gardeners could hardly bring a reasoned case against such an opinion. The answer, then, must surely lie with the industry itself. It should co- operate with the planning authority so as to secure that urban development takes place so far as this is possible on land on which farming only can be carried on (if it can be shown that this land is any less productive than some market garden land). If urban development has to take place on the horticultural land of the county then room should be reserved first for the glasshouse growers and the more intensive types of production leaving the residue for the least intensive producers. Such a step would call for growers .with a higher standard of technical and managerial ability, would place a burden upon the technical advisory services of the county and call for the acceptance by growers of some intelligent direction by the planning authority. It is inevitable that growers accept direction if they also seek protection. The success of any plan to maintain the commercial status of the industry within the county would depend upon the co-operation of all concerned— the planning authority, the growers, landlords, and the advisory services. No plan, however, can take theY place of a resurgence of enterprise and initiative from within the industry. Indeed, any rigid plan is likely to produce an industry• which would slowly die of inanition. Many growers have accepted the 'challenge' of urban expansion with a 'response' which has demonstrated their full appreciation of the significance of that challenge, 'looking over the fence' should prove both instructive and salutary to the remainder. STATISTICAL APPENDIX STATISTICAL DETAILS OF THE HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY OF MIDDLESEX IN 1947 , Number of horticultural holdings ... ••• ••• 490 Total acreage of horticultural land ••• ••• ••• 7,530 acres Total acreage of glasshouses on that land ••• ••• 250i acres Total acreage of frames on that land ... ••• • • 18i acres Total acreage of land occupied outside Middlesex 1,763 acres Total acreage of glasshouses on that land ••• •• 66i acres Total acreage of frames on that land ... •• •• i acre Number of persons employed ••• ••• • •• 3,837 Capital invested:— Tenants' capital ... ••• ••• ••• ... £1,660,700 Landlords' capital ••• ••• ... £2,391,700 Total capital ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ... £4,052,400 Crops grown:—

Outdoor crops ... • •• • • • •• ... 7,684 acres

Glasshouse crops ... •• • • • •• • • • ••• 334i acres

Frame crops •• • • . . ••• 30-i acres

Total crops grown on 7,530 acres • • • ... 8,049 acres

ACREAGES OF CROPS GROWN IN 1947 • (all types of holding combined) OUTDOOR CROPS GLASSHOUSE CROPS acres VEGETABLES acres acres Tomatoes ... •• • • •• •• • 190-86 Brassicas •• • ••• ... 2,037 Lettuces •• • •• •• • 53-91 Lettuces ... • • •• ••• 894 Carnations ... 19.08 Potatoes • •• •• • •• • 524 Chrysanthemums 14-65 Beet ••• ••• •• • •• • 451 Grapes ••• 9-91 Beans and Peas ... •• • ••• 373 Bedding Plants ••• 6-82 Spinach .•• ••• •• • ••• 369 Cucumbers ... ••• 6-32 Onions and Leeks •• • ••• 336 Asparagus Fern ••• 2-47 Rhubarb ••• ••• ••• 224 Vegetable Plants ••• 2-09 Swedes and Turnips ... ••• 210 Geraniums .•• ••• 1-76 Marrows and Cucumbers ••• 166 Radishes • ••• 0-95 Parsnips ... ••• ••• ••• 139 Orchids ••• ••• 0-72 Radishes ••• •• 118 Arums 0-61 Outdoor Tomatoes 117 Mushrooms ••• • • • 0-60 Parsley, Thyme, etc. 54 Pot Plants ••• ••• 0-34 Seed Crops •• ••• 52 Bulbs ... 0-29 Carrots ... ••• ••• 50 Stocks ... • • • 0-25 Mushrooms ... • • 3 Camellias ••• ••• 0-19 Other Vegetables ••• 152 Ferns ••• ••• 019 .••••••••••••••• 6,269 Other Flower Crops ... 12-63 FLOWERS Other Food Crops ... 9-99 Annuals ... •• • 86

Perennials •• •• • ••• 84 334-63

Bulbs ... • •• •• • ••• 13 183 FRUIT Top Fruit • 407 FRAME CROPS Soft 23 Fruit ••• ••• ••• Tomatoes and Tomato Plants •• • 8-78 430 Lettuces ••• ••• ••• 5-16 NURSERY STOCK Bedding Plants •• ••• •• • 3-99

Alpines •• • ... •• 20 Bulbs ... ••• ••• . •• • 2-00 Fruit Trees ••• •• ••• 11 Marrows ••• ••• •• • 1-73

Ornamental Shrubs ... ••• 8 Vegetable Plants •• • 0-80 Other decorative ••• plants 19 Cucumbers ... ••• •• • 0-57

58. Chrysanthemum Plants ••• •• • 019 AGRICULTURAL ••• CROPS ... 744 Other Crops ... ••• •• • 7-47 7,684 30-69

67 ACREAGES OF CROPS GROWN ON 102 SPECIALIST MARKET GARDENS IN 1947 OUTDOOR CROPS GLASSHOUSE CROPS acres VEGETABLES acres acres Tomatoes ••• ••• • • • 4-47 Brassicas: Summer and Spring 987 Lettuces ••• • • • • • 0-07 Winter ••• ••• 829+ Cucumbers ... 0-01 Lettuces ••• ••• ••• 761 Other Food Crops .• • • • • • • 1-23 Potatoes ••• ••• 387+ Carnations ... •• • • • 0-03 Beet ... .• ••• 3841 Chrysanthemums 0-11 Beans and Peas ••• 3231 Bedding Plants 0-04 Spinach ••• ••• Onions and Leeks ... ••• 259+ 5-96 Swedes and Turnips ... ••• 1811 Rhubarb ••• ••• 161+ FRAME CROPS acres Marrows and Cucumbers 1464 Lettuces • • • 1-45 Parsnips ••• ••• 1281 Marrows • • • 0-52 Radishes ••• 105+ Cucumbers ... • • • • • • 0-09 Carrots ••• ••• ••• 37 Tomato Plants • • • 0-07 Garnishing and Flavourin Bedding Plants •• • 0-08 Crops ••• ••• ••• 364 Other Crops ... • • 2-72 Outdoor Tomatoes ••• ••• 10-4 Other Vegetables ••• ••• 734 4-93 5,1161 FRUIT Top Fruit ••• ••• Soft Fruit ••• ••• 3/ 921 FLOWERS

Annuals •• • •• • •• • 14/

Bulbs ... •• • •• • • •• 44 Perennials •• • •• • 19 384 NURSERY STOCK

Fruit Trees ... ••• •• •

Ornamental Shrubs ... ••

Other Decorative Plants •• • 14 21 AGRICULTURAL CROPS 668 5,9174

68 ACREAGES OF CROPS GROWN ON 166 SPECIALIST GLASSHOUSE HOLDINGS IN 1947 GLASSHOUSE CROPS act es OUTDOOR CROPS Tomatoes ... ••• ••• ••• 160.79 VEGETABLES acres acres Lettuces ••. ••• ••• ••• 39.80 Outdoor Tomatoes ••• ••• 561 Carnations ... ••• 18.29 Lettuces ••. ••• ... l2 Chrysanthemums ••• 10.30 Onions and Leeks ••. 11-A- Grapes ••• • • ••• ••• 9.91 Beet ... ••• ••• 10 Cucumbers ... ••• •• ••• 6 21 Potatoes ••• ••• ••• 6A Bedding Plants ••• ••• ••• 426 Brassicas ••• ••• ••• 2 Asparagus Fern ••• .•• 247 Other Vegetables ••• 141.- Vegetable Plants .•• 2.09 112 Geraniums ••• ••• ••• 1.61 FLOWERS Radishes ••• ••• .•• 0.95 Annuals ••• ••• ... 15i Orchids ••• ••• 0.70 Bulbs ... ••• ... 3 Mushrooms ••. ••• ••• ••• 0.60 Perennials ••• ••• ... 26i Arums ••• ••• ••. ••• 0.49 45/ Pot Plants ••• ••• ••• ••• 0.34 NURSERY STOCK Bulbs ... ••• ••• •• 0.26 Fruit Trees ... ••• I Stocks ... ••• ••• •••. 0.25 Alpines ••• ••• i Camellias ... ••• ••• 0.19 Ornamental Shrubs ... it Other Food Crops ... ••• ••• 2.89 Other Decorative Plants ••• i Other Flower Crops ... ••• 9.14 — _11 TOP FRurr - ... ••• 271.54 rkGRICULTURALAGRICULTURAL CROPS •• • 18 FRAME CROPS- acres _ Tomatoes and Tomato Plants ••• 5.49 1.78 • .Bedding Plants ••• ••• ••• 2.07 • Bulbs ... ••• ••• ••• ••• 2.00 Lettuces ••• ••• 1.67 'Vegetable Plants ... ••• . 0.80 • Chrysanthemum Plants ••• 0.19 Marrows ...... 0.01 cucumbers .. ••• .• 0.01 Other Crops ... • . 0.37 12-61

69 ACREAGES OF CROPS GROWN ON 179 NON-SPECIALIST HOLDINGS IN 1947 OUTDOOR CROPS GLASSHOUSE CROPS acres VEGETABLES acres acres Tomatoes ... ••• •• • Brassicas • • • 24.40 ••• • • • 2021 Lettuces ••• •. • • Potatoes • • • • • 13.11 ••• • • • 1131 Chrysanthemums .. •• • Lettuces 4.18 ••• • • • 111 Bedding Plants ••• •• • 2-26 Onions •• • and Leeks •• • 631 Cucumbers ••• • •• ••• • • • 1.04 Spinach ••• • • • 63 Carnations .•• ••• • • • Rhubarb 0.70 ••• •• • 581 Ferns ... ••• • • • ••• •• • 0.16 Bed ... ••• • • • 57 Geraniums ••• • •• •• •• • Beans and 0.15 Peas ••• • • 47t Arums . • • • ••• • •• Outdoor Tomatoes 0.12 ••• •• 451 Bulbs ... •.• • ••• • ••• •• Swedes 0.03 and • • Turnips ... • 26 Orchids ••• ••• • • • •• • 0.02 Marrows and Cucumbers 191 Other Food Crops •• • ... • • • 5.66 Garnishing and Flavouring- Other Flower Crops ... •• • •• • 3.29 Crops ••• ••• •• • 161 Radishes ••• •• • 121 Carrots 55.12 ••• ••• •• • 11f Parsnips ••• ••• •• • 10i FRAME CROPS acres Other Vegetables ••• 651 Tomato Plants •• • • • 2-88 9231 Bedding Plants •• • •• • 1-57 FRUIT Lettuces ••• •• • 1.97 Top •• • Fruit • • • •• • 178f Marrows •• ••• • • • • •• • 1.20 Soft •• • Fruit •• • 31 Cucumbers ... •• • •• • 0.46 182 Other Crops •• • ... •• • FLOWERS • • • 3.68

Annuals •• • • •• 54i 11-76 Bulbs •• • ... • • • 5f

Perennials • • • • • 33i 931 IshMUERY STOCK

Fruit Trees ... ••• •• • 31 Ornamental Shrubs ••• •• • 3 Alpines ••• ••• 13 Other Decorative Plants 21 ---- 22 AGRICULTURAL CROPS 3 1,224