HI605 Independent Documentary Study
Supervisor: Professor G.M. Ditchfield Student Name: Patricia Gibson Student Number: 04999516 Date: May 2012
Word Count: 10346 including footnotes
An Agricultural Depression in the late 19th century?
The case of the Townshend estate in Northwest Kent
circa 1830 to 1915
P. 1
Contents
Abbreviations
1. Introduction and Historiography
2. Who owned and farmed the land?
3. Improving the productivity of land
4. The impact of price fluctuations
5. Relations between landlord, tenant, and farm labourer
6. Conclusion
Appendices: I Extract of genealogical table of the Townshend family
II Map of Kent parishes with the Townshend estate marked
Bibliography
P. 2
Abbreviations used in Footnotes
AHEW, VI Joan Thirsk and G.E. Mingay, eds., The Agrarian History of England and Wales Vol. VI, 1870-1850, (Cambridge, 1989)
AHEW, VII Joan Thirsk and E.J.T. Collins, eds., The Agrarian History of England and Wales Vol. VII, 1850-1914, (Cambridge, 2000)
EFD Frederick Edlmann Farm Diaries 1876-1888 in the London Borough of Bromley Local Studies Archive.
MTES Marsham-Townshend estate papers in the London Borough of Bromley Local Studies Archive
ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
TITHE followed by parish name(s) Refers to the 1843 Tithe award schedule
Acknowledgements
Thank you to:
Professor G.M. Ditchfield for his advice and guidance.
All the Staff at Bromley Local Studies Library for their endeavours to satisfy numerous requests for archive material.
My Husband for his constant support.
P. 3 1. Introduction and Historiography In 1895 Robert Marsham-Townshend, great-grandson of first Viscount Sydney, Thomas Townshend (1733-1800, see Appendix I), called in Messrs Strutt and Parker, land agents, to report on his estate in Northwest Kent with a view to reducing expenses. They found the estate ‘desirable, with no difficulty in attracting good tenants and fair rents’ and that ‘the agricultural depression does not seem to have been much heard of: the tenants… pay their rents with regularity and practically carry out most of the repairs themselves’.1 This letter, written at the height of what has become known as the agricultural depression of the late 19th century is interesting for several reasons: firstly the use of the term ‘agricultural depression’ in a contemporary document which implies that the depression was perceived as a threat in these times; secondly that the tenants were not suffering unduly; and thirdly that the landlord, Robert Marsham-Townshend, found it necessary to review his expenses. It is the aim of this study to test the hypothesis raised by this letter: that there was little evidence of an agricultural depression on the Townshend estate in Northwest Kent, and to propose that regional and local variations existed countrywide during the late 19th century.
Historians remain divided on the existence, severity and regional effects of the late 19th century agricultural depression. F.M.L Thompson described the farming economy for the period from the mid 1870s to 1911 as variable across the country with most counties static, some flourishing, and some declining.2 E.J.T. Collins described the depression as an attitude of mind. The agricultural community was feeling anxious as agriculture’s role in the national economy diminished, the power of the land-owning classes declined, and farm labourers found higher rewards in the growing industrial sector.3 Other historians saw it as a period of adjustment. J.D. Chambers and G.E. Mingay believed that there was no general depression: that the acreage under wheat fell but the output of horticultural produce and livestock rose.4 Gordon Mingay, writing on the economy of Kent, points out the difficulty in relying solely on agricultural statistics. The calculation of gross farm output can give a vastly different picture for Kent in relation to other counties, depending on whether a constant base price or actual prices are used during the period 1873 to 1911. However, he states that, using either measure, it is clear that farming in Kent was hit by a price fall.5 E.J.T. Collins exposes another shortfall in these same statistics. They omit vegetables, fruit, poultry and horses, four of the fastest growing sectors in English agriculture at the time, thereby overstating the decline, and seriously understating the situation in such counties as Kent. He speculates that such was the growth in market gardening in Kent, the acreage tripling between 1875 and 1895, that had these figures been included, Kent might have been propelled to the top of the gross farm output table.6 In 1899 Charles Whitehead, who had been a member of the Royal Commission on Agricultural Depression which sat from 1894 to 1896, reckoned that but for its hops,
1 MTES:1080/1/1/3/7/36, 1895 2 F.M.L. Thompson, ‘The anatomy of English agriculture’ and 1870-1914, in Land, Labour and Agriculture, 1700-1920, eds. B.A. Holderness and Michael Turner, (London, 1991), p. 211-40 3 E.J.T. Collins, ‘Rural and agricultural change’ in The Agrarian History of England and Wales Vol. VII, 1850-1914, eds. Joan Thirsk and E.J.T.Collins, (Cambridge, 2000), p. 140 4 J.D. Chambers and G.E. Mingay, The Agricultural Revolution 1750-1880, (London, 1996), p. 209 5 Gordon Mingay, ‘Agriculture’, in The Economy of Kent 1640-1914, ed. Alan Armstrong, (Woodbridge, 1988), p.78 6 Collins, ‘Rural change’ in AHEW, VII, p. 161. The term ‘market gardening’ includes fruit throughout, which follows the current definition.
P. 4 fruit and vegetables, Kent would have felt the depression more severely.7 Its diversity was the key and the Townshend estate provides substantial evidence of that diversity.
Farming, in terms of land use, manpower and financial turnover, was the most important activity in Kent prior to the First World War. The 19th century was a period of significant population growth which led to more intense farming through extending crop rotation, productivity of livestock, enclosures, clearing of woodland, draining of land, a move to higher yielding crops, improved implements and machinery, and the understanding of the benefits of nitrogen. The agricultural economy had become increasingly commercialised. Marketing was generally via middlemen or the network of corn exchanges, and farming had moved from working with nature and husbanding to making a profit. However, innovation and commercialisation could not remove the susceptibility of farming to depressions. From 1815 prices fell sharply from a very high level during the Napoleonic wars. Nationally, prosperity dominated the 1850s and 1860s before a period when bad seasons and animal disease, which had traditionally resulted in high prices, coincided with a fall in prices. This price fall was caused by an increase in imports of cereals and meat after protective duties were removed and transportation improved between Britain and North America.
These changes in agricultural practices and the external economic influences will be examined with respect to the Townshend estate. Thomas Townshend’s father (another Thomas Townshend 1701-1780) was the second surviving son of Charles Townshend, second Viscount Townshend (1674-1738), the agricultural innovator, nicknamed Turnip Townshend.8 The Norfolk based Townshends and Walpoles, who were related by marriage, had long been improving rotations and experimenting with marling, swing wheat, and barley. This son of Charles Townshend acquired the estate in Northwest Kent by marriage in 1730.9 Through acquisition the Kent estate grew to almost 2,000 acres by the mid 19th century. Much is written about successful estates in favourable locations. In Northwest Kent these comprise the fertile valleys of the River Cray where the Chapman family farmed in the 18th century, and the River Darent where the Alexander family farmed in the 20th century.10 The Townshend estate is of interest as much of it was located in a less favourable location of North West Kent; and a different farming period, the 19th century, is being examined. In addition the second Viscount Sydney, John Thomas Townshend (1764-1831), and his heir Earl Sydney, John Robert Townshend (1805 –1890), who owned the estate in the 19th century, were among a small number of peers in Kent. Others, for example Lord Torrington of Hadlow and Lord Darnley of Cobham, are often cited by historians, whereas the Townshend family only get a mention in reference to the innovations of their ancestor.11
The Marsham-Townshend estate papers became publicly available in 2001, when they were purchased by the London Borough of Bromley with the aid of a grant from the
7 Charles Whitehead, ‘A Sketch of the Agriculture of Kent’ in Reports from the Royal Agricultural Society of England, 3rd series, Vol.10, part 3, (London, 1899), p. 57 8 Linda Frey and Marsha Frey, ‘Charles Townshend (1674-1738)’, ODNB/27617 9 E.A. Webb, G.W. Miller and J. Beckwith, The History of Chislehurst, (Buckingham, 1999), p. 106 10 G.E. Mingay, English Landed Society in the Eighteenth Century, (London, 1968), p. 93 and William G.G. Alexander, A Farming Century: The Darent Valley 1892-1992, (London, 1991) 11 Mingay, ‘Agriculture’, in Economy Kent, ed. Armstrong, p.79 and J.V.Beckett, ’Land Ownership and Estate Management’, in The Agrarian History of England and Wales Vol.VI, 1750-1850, eds. Joan Thirsk and G.E. Mingay, (Cambridge, 1989), p. 613
P. 5 Victoria and Albert Museum.12 This valuable and relatively unexplored archive material, which dates from 1356 to 1975, will be used to investigate the hypothesis raised by the letter, which Robert Marsham-Townshend received in 1895, by establishing how representative the Townshend estate is in reflecting agricultural change in Kent; and particularly its resilience under challenging agricultural conditions in the late 19th century. The smaller Townshend estate in Matson, Gloucestershire will also be examined for comparison purposes with respect to rents. Diaries from 1876 to 1888 of Frederick Edlmann, who owned a farm adjacent to the Townshend estate in Chislehurst, will be used particularly with reference to weather patterns and labourers’ wages. Although one or two estates cannot represent the entire county of Kent, they can indicate that the impact of the depression requires a regional or local approach. The internal influences (soil, aspect and the influence of landlord versus the attitude of tenant farmers), and external influences (market demands, price fluctuations, government controls, proximity to London and communications) will be examined. Did the Townshends pass on to their tenants any of their ancestor’s innovations, which may have increased the land productivity and improved the farmers’ chances of resisting depressed conditions? Did the Townshends’ wealth ensure their relative immunity to financial difficulties?13
One source, which focuses directly on the Townshend estate in Northwest Kent, is The History of Chislehurst, written in 1899 by E.A. Webb, G.W. Miller, and J. Beckwith at the request of the Rector of Chislehurst. Much of this book, which Robert Marsham-Townshend contributed to, concentrates on the parish church and landowners of the parish. Reports commissioned by agricultural boards and societies, and written by grass roots chroniclers, local farmers or land agents, offer an insight into issues and opinions of the time. John Boys, a farmer near Sandwich, was commissioned in 1796 to write a report on farming conditions and practices in Kent at the turn of the century and provide recommendations for change. In 1845 another Kent survey by George Buckland, a land surveyor, was written for the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England. He makes reference to Boys’s report, which provided a starting point for his analysis of change in the first half of the 19th century. Charles Whitehead, a fruit grower near Maidstone, neatly completes the century by his writing in 1899, which was again for the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England. These works and the Marsham-Townshend papers provide an opportunity to trace progress and changes in agriculture with particular reference to whether this estate supports the case for an agricultural depression in Britain in the late 19th century.
2. Who owned and farmed the land? The estate that passed to John Robert Townshend in 1831 included 1614 acres in the parishes of Chislehurst and St Paul’s Cray (see Appendix II).14 It also included landed estates in Gloucestershire, which Thomas Townsend had inherited in 1791, from his uncle George A. Selwyn (1719-1791); and other property in London, Norfolk, Wiltshire, Nottinghamshire and Hampshire.15 The ownership of land conveyed more
12 The main parishes, which the Townshend land occupied in the 19th century, are now within the responsibilities of the London Borough of Bromley. 13 Ian K.R. Archer, ‘Thomas Townshend (1733–1800)’, ODNB/2763, ‘Wealth at death: property in Kent, Norfolk, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Nottinghamshire, and Hampshire; plus interests in Whitchurch and Ludgershall, all left to eldest son; wife and other children received £34,300 in cash.’ 14 MTES:1080/1/1/3/7/30, 1830 and MTES:1080/1/1/3/7/31, 1830 15 Archer, ‘Thomas Townshend (1733–1800)’, ODNB/2763
P. 6 than wealth. It also conveyed political power and social status. The Selwyns and Townshends had these attributes in abundance. They achieved their wealth through holding public office, extensive land acquisitions, and financially advantageous marriages.
John Robert Townshend took advantage of low land prices following the Napoleonic Wars and acquired land and properties adjoining his. By the 1843 Tithe survey, his land had increased to 1961 acres and, in addition to land in Chislehurst and St Paul’s Cray, he owned small acreages in the neighbouring parishes of Foots Cray, Orpington and Bexley.16 The size of the Townshend estate changed very little for the next 45 years, with some acquisitions and disposals of adjoining farms. As was customary, a proportion of the Townshend estate was tenanted. Tenant farmers occupied 85% of the land area in England in 1850.17 The Townshends gradually increased the tenanted land of the estate from 50% in 1830 to 85% by 1903.18 This increase may be attributed to economic conditions, to the nature of the acquisitions being tenanted farms, a desire to increase income, and/or the decline in the Townshends’ farming interest when other industries and investment opportunities became available in the second half of the 19th century. At the 1843 Tithe survey John Robert Townshend had 49 tenanted holdings in Northwest Kent. Most of these were cottages with under ten acres of pasture, meadow or orchard; or they were business premises. Eight were farms of between 30 and 75 acres in size. Only two farms were over 200 acres.19
Rents reflected the annual value of the holding, and in Kent more was paid for market gardens, hop grounds and rich soils located near markets.20 The Townshends’ tenants certainly paid for their proximity to London and the suitability of the soil to market gardening. Unfortunately average rents established by James Caird in 1851 do not include Kent. However, for the bordering counties of Surrey and Sussex Caird shows an average rent of 18s. 6d. and 19s. per acre respectively.21 On the Townshend estate in 1851 two large tenanted farms fetched an average rent of 31s. per acre.22 This is closer to, but still above, Caird’s Essex figure of 26s. per acre.23 Rents on the Townshend estate had been high since the mid 18th century, consistently at 12s. per acre, from 1755 to 1786, for 200 acres farms, rising to 16s. per acre in 1826.24 By comparison, the 1833 Select Committee on Agriculture showed rents in Kent varied between 7s. and 16s. per acre.25 Even allowing for the inclusion of farm residences in the Townshend rents, the figures are high by comparison to neighbouring counties and the rest of Kent. In 1888 during the depression when rents had fallen, the archives show agricultural rents as high as 40s. per acre, little changed since 1854, thus illustrating the resilience of the estate to depressed conditions.26
It is difficult to a reach a firm conclusion as to the profitability of the estate, as throughout the Marsham-Townshend archives various accounting methods have
16 TITHE Bexley, Chislehurst , Foots Cray, Orpington, St. Paul’s Cray 17 G.E. Mingay, ‘Conclusion: The Progress of Agriculture’, in AHEW, VI, p. 944 18 MTES:1080/1/1/3/7/30, 1830 and MTES:1080/1/1/5/13, 1903 19 TITHE Bexley, Chislehurst , Foots Cray, Orpington, St. Paul’s Cray 20 Mingay, ‘Agriculture’, in Economy Kent, ed. Armstrong, p .70 21 A.H. John, ‘Average rents estimated by James Caird, 1851’, in AHEW, VI, p. 1113 22 MTES:1080/1/1/3/1/4/12, 1851 23 John, ‘Average rents’, in AHEW, VI, p. 1113 24 MTES:1080/1/1/3/1/1/11-27, 1755-1786 and MTES:1080/1/1/3/1/1/41, 1826 25 Mingay, ‘Agriculture’, in Economy Kent, ed. Armstrong, p. 73 26 MTES:1080/1/1/3/3/7/2, 1845-1856 and MTES:1080/1/1/3/5/29, 1832-1888
P. 7 been used. For example in 1895, when Robert Marsham-Townshend invited Strutt and Parker to make suggestions with a view to reducing expenses, they proposed a change to accounting practices for reporting purposes, which increased profit from £462 to over £2,000.27 This related to the running of Scadbury Park Farm, the home farm supplying produce to Frognal House, the Kent residence of the Townshends since 1749.28 Any surplus produce was sold. For the ten years after 1841 there are detailed accounts for this farm. For six of these years the enterprise was running at a loss, culminating in a £1,090 16s. loss over the ten-year period.29 Rents were marginally more profitable but fluctuated with the economy and rarely provided a return on the capital value of land of more than 3-4%.30 In 1887 the accounts of the Kent estate show a gross rental income of over £3,000 per year, with a balance after expenses of just £450.31 A few years later in 1890, when the tenants briefly experienced difficult conditions, the balance figure dropped to £90 due to an increase in rent arrears.32 For the farmer his profit was at the mercy of external factors (poor harvests, agricultural depressions, and increased commercialism), economies of scale, and his access to capital in order to stock the farm and invest in risky ventures such as drainage, new implements and artificial fertilisers. Gradually the occupiers of small farms were forced out of business. Larger neighbours bought up the small parcels of land, and gradually large farms increased at the expense of small ones. The Townshends typified this practice. For 36 years following 1832, John Robert Townshend purchased farms and woods surrounding his land.33 By the mid 19th century the growth of the London suburbs was underway and the value of land for purposes other than agriculture was being considered, as income from building rent outstripped agricultural rent. As a share of total domestic income in the United Kingdom agricultural rent fell more or less continuously from the early 1850s up to 1914 to a level less than a fifth that of building rent.34 Land in Chislehurst reflected this divergence between rental values as early as 1854, when there is speculation that land rented for 45s. per acre could fetch 60s. if it contained accommodation.35 Other examples of land speculation are evident in the archives. In 1876 £800 per acre was obtained for a plot that the previous year had been offered for only £500 per acre, and there was speculation that these figures could reach £1,000 in a few years.36 A letter of 1875 shows evidence of what is now called gazumping as the scramble for building land became more intense.37 However, by 1881 there is an indication that depression conditions were affecting the property rental market. Mr. Warren, John Robert Townshend’s land steward, advised that ‘There are a great many houses in the area unlet and it does not seem to be a propitious time to start building’.38 However, this does not halt the sell off of land for development. Eventually, the value of land for building increases to such a figure that the annual interest on the sale proceeds far outstrips the annual agricultural rent. In a letter of
27 MTES:1080/1/1/3/7/36, 1895 28 MTES: 1080/1/1/1/3/19, 1749 29 MTES:1080/1/1/3/3/1/11, 1841-1850 30 Mingay, Agricultural Revolution, p. 56 31 MTES:1080/1/1/3/6/1/25, 1887 32 MTES:1080/1/1/3/6/1/27, 1890. This example is expanded in Chapter 5. 33 MTES:1080/1/1/1/3/6/1/19, 1832-1868 34 E.J.T. Collins, ‘Food supplies and food policy’ in AHEW, VII, p. 7 35 MTES:1080/1/1/3/3/7/2, 1845-1856 36 MTES:1080/1/1/3/5/44, 1865-1881 37 MTES:1080/1/1/3/5/29, 1832-1888 38 MTES:1080/1/1/3/5/44, 1865-1881
P. 8 1888, Warren, expects to get £12,000 for approximately 61 acres of land. Interest rates of 3 or 4% are quoted in the letter. He advises Lord Sydney: ‘The difference between that income and £120 [the approximate annual rent] soon tells up’.39 The social and political prestige of land was starting to diminish as Britain moved into the industrial age, and as investments in land became inferior to interest, mortgages, and stocks. In 1909 Robert Marsham-Townshend invested the proceeds of land sales to the value of £5,250 in India stock, Cape of Good Hope stock and War bonds.40 Until the growth of the London suburbs, the most profitable venture on the Townshend estate was timber. Timber was the basic raw material of England until the second half of the 19th century, when coalfields were developed on a large scale. Even the coalfields required pit props, which were a major source of demand for timber. Woods were economic because their rateable value was low. In 1830 on John Robert Townshend’s land the rateable value for woodland was 6s. per acre whereas for pasture it was £5 14s.41 Auction catalogues from 1854 to 1868 show John Robert Townshend selling significant amounts of timber locally with an average sale value of over £500.42 There is a considerable amount of coppice being sold in the 1850s. However, by the late 1860s neither John Robert Townshend nor other sellers of timber at the auctions were selling coppice, which is a reflection of the reduced demand for coppiced wood, after the decline in hop growing in Kent following the repeal of import duties in the 1840s. So great was the value of timber, that John Robert Townshend not only retained all the woodland on his estate as was customary, he also retained the right to fell timber on all his tenanted land and on the commons, as Lord of the Manors of Chislehurst and Scadbury.43 This valuable commodity should have sheltered the Townshends from the depression. However, the woodland industry was in decline by the late 19th century due to the move to the use of coal and metal as commodities rather than wood, the decline in hop poles, and to foreign competition. Imported timber was preferred for many purposes due to poor forestry practice in the United Kingdom.44 There is no mention of timber in the archives after 1868.
3. Improving the productivity of land Gregory King, the late 17th century statistician, predicted that by 1900 the population of England would be 7.35 million. He based this on the assumption that the country had insufficient land to support more people and so only a gradual growth was possible and that circumstances would, as had happened in prior centuries, put a check on population growth. That check did not happen, and by 1900 the population had reached 30 million and had more than tripled since 1801.45 The transformation in agricultural output had enabled this phenomenal growth. One of the most important ways was through an increase in land productivity. This chapter is concerned with the changes that enabled productivity to rise, and hence agricultural output, which should have made farming more resilient to depressions.
Increased land production was achieved in many ways, including the enclosure of common land. However, 180 acres of commons in Chislehurst and St Paul’s Cray,
39 MTES:1080/1/1/3/5/29, 1832-1888 40 MTES:1080/1/1/5/14, 1909 41 MTES:1080/1/1/3/7/30, 1830 42 MTES:1080/1/1/3/3/2/8,12,13,15, 1854-1868 43 MTES:1080/1/1/3/3/2/8,13,14, 1867-1868 44 Gordon E. Cherry and John Sheail, ‘Woodlands’, in AHEW, VII, p. 1649 45 Mark Overton, Agricultural Revolution in England. The transformation of the agrarian economy 1500-1850, (Cambridge, 2006), p. 63
P. 9 listed in the 1843 Tithe schedule, remain largely intact today due to the activities of parishioners in the 1870s.46 Although opposed by John Robert Townshend, who as Lord of the Manor would lose valuable rights, the parishioners used the Metropolitan Commons Act of 1866 to assign the care and management of the commons to a body of Conservators in 1888.47 The economic value of the commons was lost to both John Robert Townshend and the poor. This loss was felt more acutely during periods of depression, particularly by the poor. The vigorous allotment movement attempted to allay the losses implicit in enclosure or conservation. During the late 19th century depression, in 1884, glebe land in Chislehurst was converted to allotments. It contained 52 plots of 2.5 acres each for which 10s. per plot or 4s. per acre was paid per annum.48 By 1915 30 acres of Townshend land had also been made available for allotments. Tenants included St Paul’s Cray Allotment Committee and Chislehurst Council at annual rents of £2 8s. per acre and £4 12s. per acre respectively. 49 By comparison to the glebe allotments and national average rents per acre of 20s. in 1912, these rents were excessive and it is unlikely that the charge per plot was affordable by the poor.50
One of the key factors in the move to increase productivity was the reduction in fallows and the change to crop rotations, which reduced the incidents of pest and diseases, and increased nitrogen in the soil. Unproductive fallow was replaced by a crop: a root crop or grasses. The move from the three-course rotation of two seasons of corn, or one of corn and one of beans, followed by a fallow or root crop to the Norfolk four-course rotation or the Kent round-course system (both systems omit fallows) required good soil. Chislehurst is mostly situated on downland, generally the preserve of the landed gentry, at 300 feet above sea level and above the chalk of the London Basin. The various beds, which occur in outcrops across the parish, comprise, sand, clay, clayey sand, and flint pebbles with sand.51 George Buckland wrote in 1846 that the strong loam topsoil of Chislehurst and its surrounds is what farmers call ‘good holding land’: that is, fertile but sticky, requiring the addition of manure to ameliorate its adhesiveness, good drainage, and ‘strength to get through the labour’.52 The parish of St Paul’s Cray, where 50% of the Townshend estate was situated in 1843, is located on the more fertile alluvial soils in the valley of the River Cray.53 The better soil here gave the tenants an opportunity to diversify and hence minimize the impact of the late 19th century depression.
It is not possible from the Marsham-Townshend archives to gain any understanding of how the crops and fallows were rotated. However, an 1830 list of crops on Scadbury Farm shows arable fields lying fallow as 10% of the arable land, higher than the 6% average for Kent.54 The value of ploughing the fallow as a method of cleansing the soil is recorded. Fallows were typically four times ploughed at Scadbury Farm in 1830, whereas by the end of the 18th century the farmers of Essex were ploughing
46 TITHE Chislehurst, St Paul’s Cray and Webb, Miller, Beckwith, History Chislehurst, p. 293 47 Ibid., p. 296 48 Ibid., p. 269 49 MTES:1080/1/1/5/15, 1915 50 Bethany Afton and Michael Turner, ‘Statistics: Rent and land values’ in AHEW, VII, p. 1926 51 Webb, Miller, Beckwith, History Chislehurst, p. 336 52 George Buckland, ‘On the farming of Kent: prize report’, in The Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, Vol.6, (London, 1846), p. 266 53 TITHE Bexley, Chislehurst , Foots Cray, Orpington, St. Paul’s Cray 54 Overton, Agricultural Revolution, p. 97 and MTES:1080/1/1/3/3/1/5, 1830
P. 10 fallows eight times or more.55 In 1830, on John Thomas Townshend’s ‘in hand’ land, fodder crops were supplemented by rye.56 The presence of rye on the farm, where in 1830 there were over 200 sheep, indicates that it was used for folding purposes. The folding of sheep was a vital means of manuring cereals particularly on downland and heath until the introduction of guano and artificial fertilisers in the mid 19th century. There is no evidence of the cultivation of turnips in 1830. Mark Overton suggests that turnips rapidly replaced fallows in the first 30 years of the 19th century. 57 However, Turnip Townshend’s great grandson, John Thomas Townshend was not a proponent. His successor John Robert Townshend was more innovative. As livestock became more profitable in the middle decades of the 19th century, folding, which was universal in the first half of the 19th century, became recognised as neither the best means of nourishing the land, nor the livestock. By the 1840s there is evidence that John Robert Townshend had recognised the importance of purchased feed in increasing the conversion to meat, milk and wool. The fodder crops evident in 1830, and the practice of folding, are supplemented in the 1840s by mangold-wurzels and carrots (however still no turnips), and bought in oilseed cakes as a supplementary feed.58 John Robert Townshend’s interest in alternatives to manure is evidenced by the presence in the archive of an 1840 circular on two different types of alkaline compositions as substitutes for manure.59
According to George Buckland, writing in 1845, many of Kent’s landowners tended to be conservative and preferred to cling to tried and tested ways. They were slow to abandon traditional tools in favour of factory made implements and machinery. Many of the details noted by John Boys 50 years earlier were still evident. For example, the four-horse turn-wrest plough was still in use across the county in spite of the availability of two-horse ploughs.60 In 1830 John Thomas Townshend still possessed a turn wrest plough. However, the yoke of ox evident in 1799 is replaced by carthorses, which were deemed more efficient animals for draught purposes.61 Of the new labour saving farm implements, horse hoes, seed drills, haymaking machines and turnip cutters, which started to appear frequently in inventories generally after 1830, only the haying machine is mentioned here. Many labour intensive tasks are in evidence in the 1830 inventory - sowing, rolling, ploughing, harrowing, and dung spreading.62 The presence of these labour intensive tasks and the lack of new implements are rather at odds with the prevalence of the Swing Riots, which started in Kent in 1830. They were an objection to the introduction of labour saving agricultural machinery during a period of unemployment. From 1840 there are several catalogues and advertisements for agricultural machinery in the Marsham-Townshend archives, some with hand written annotations.63 Maybe the young John Robert Townshend was keen to increase labour productivity.
The best way of improving soil structure and increasing oxygen to roots is to remove water saturation. However, like the importance of nitrogen, it took some time to
55 Jonathan Brown and H.A. Beecham, ‘ Farming practices’ in AHEW, VI, p. 287 and MTES:1080/1/1/3/3/1/5, 1830 56 MTES:1080/1/1/3/3/1/5, 1830 57 Overton, Agricultural Revolution, p. 101 58 MTES:1080/1/1/3/3/1/11, 1841-1850 59 MTES:1080/3/8/2, 1840 60 Buckland, ‘Farming Kent’, pp. 251-302 61 MTES:1080/1/1/3/7/19, 1799 and MTES:1080/1/1/3/7/32, 1830 62 MTES:1080/1/1/3/7/32, 1830 63 MTES:1080/1/1/3/3/1/1,6,7,23,24,26,27, 1840- undated
P. 11 recognise the importance of drainage. Successful under draining on a large scale had to wait until the 19th century and the introduction of tile draining. Tile draining was expensive and therefore was usually an initiative of the landlord rather than the tenant. In 1850, soon after cheap government loans were made available in 1845, there is evidence that John Robert Townshend recognised the value of underdrainage although his tenants took longer to be convinced. He offered drain tiles to a tenant, which the tenant declined, possibly because the farmer was not prepared for the disruption that the installation of drainage required.64 In the mid 1890s Robert Marsham-Townshend was allowing a deduction from rent for the installation of land drains. So great was the expense that in one half yearly rental period this reduced the rent by over a third for one tenant.65 In 1894/5 there is evidence of two tenants taking delivery of 45,000 land drain pipes in a five month period.66 A.D.M. Phillips in The underdraining of farmland in England during the 19th century suggested that landlords were prepared to invest more on improvements when rents were rising. He used estates in Devon, Northamptonshire, and Northumberland as examples and compared rental income to drainage outlay. Here the peak period for expenditure on drainage is the 1850s. From 1880, as rental income fell away during depressed conditions, so did the expenditure on draining.67 The Marsham-Townshend archives indicate a different pattern. Here tile drainage was delayed until the agricultural depression was at its worst in the mid 1890s, indicating that there was little evidence of depression conditions on the estate and possibly that a change in land use was planned at that time to meet market conditions.
4. The impact of price fluctuations This chapter looks at long term price fluctuations caused by political and economic changes. However, short-term price changes are also a problem for farmers. These are usually caused by unexpected weather leading to harvest failures. The late 19th century depression has been blamed on various factors, but historians seem to agree that extraordinary weather was one of the causes. Snow blizzards, persistent frosts, wet and cold summers, and droughts, on and off for 20 years following 1874, led to poor harvest, shortages of hay, and livestock losses. All these weather conditions are evidenced in Frederick Edlmann’s farm diary. It is clear from the diary that any unseasonal weather was a problem. He states that the harvest of 1881 was disastrous for England and that rain and cold in May 1878 was becoming serious for the county.68 He compares each year’s weather and harvest to the prior year and his summary for 1879 states that the year was much worse for farmers than 1878.69 Farmers have always been at the mercy of the weather. However, this period was unusual because the poor harvests were continuous; and instead of resulting in high prices as was normal, the removal of protection kept prices low.
A letter in the archives gives an insight into some of the issues for a tenant in the mid 19th century. John May was John Robert Townshend, Lord Sydney’s, most significant tenant with two farms totalling over 500 acres and a combined rental value of over £740 per annum.70 His letter, in April 1850, quoted Lord Sydney from a preceding
64 MTES:1080/3/2/26/10/2/1, 1850-1903 65 MTES:1080/1/1/3/6/9/26, 1894-1895 66 Ibid. 67 A.D.M. Phillips, The underdraining of farmland in the nineteenth century, (Cambridge, 1989), p. 128 68 EFD:999/1, May 29th 1878 and EFD:999/1, September 7th 1881 69 EFD:999/1, December 31st 1881 70 MTES:1080/1/1/3/1/4/12, 1851
P. 12 meeting, where he had stated that ‘prices would soon be better’. At that meeting May had requested an abatement of rent for the damage to seed by game. This was refused by Lord Sydney. May’s letter continues that in 1848 his income from the farms was £800 less than his expenditure. owing partly to the General Failure in our part of the County. And partly to protection being removed for at that time it was not actually removed it was virtually done away with and prices fell very low on that account. In 1849 instead of being superabundant crops we have scarcely an Average one – only 2Q 6bus [22 bushels] of Wheat per Acre on Greys Farm. …the yield is better at Pauls Cray. But on account of the very Low prices I shall be a Looser [sic] this year.
May goes on to discuss the misfortunes of previous tenants of these farms and describes their plight as ‘died almost Penniless’; ‘very Anxious to leave’; ‘Insolvent when he left’; ‘sunk very much money’.71 This letter gives an indication of the difficulties incurred by farmers pre-1850 and implies that not all farmers started the age of farming prosperity, 1850-1875, in the best of financial health. 1849, the year of the superabundant wheat crop mentioned in the letter, certainly was one of the best years for wheat yields in England in the first half of the 19th century with figures reaching an average yield of over 30 bushels per acre, considerably more than May’s 22 bushels.72 Wheat prices were unprofitable, as May found, virtually the same in 1845-53 as they had been in 1785-94.73 The removal of protection as a result of the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 led to cheap imports of wheat and a fall in prices. This led to a further decline in wheat production. By the 1877 Agricultural Parish Census there are only three acres of wheat grown in all the parishes in Northwest Kent where John Robert Townshend owned land, whereas it had been the major corn crop of the ‘in hand’ land from 1830-50.74
Prices across all farming produce had generally followed the rise in population. However, by the 19th century, while population growth surged ahead, price increases generally slowed as a result of agricultural output increasing. The increase in wheat prices during the Napoleonic Wars resulted in a change in the balance between arable and permanent pasture, such that arable land was replacing permanent pasture. Nationally between 1800 and 1850 the acreage of meadow and pasture fell by 30% while the arable acreage rose by 33%.75 Prosperity returned, for many farmers, in the 1850s and 1860s, when market prices for meat, wool, and dairy products improved. It was this buoyancy of livestock prices, fuelled by improved transport and a rise in living standards, which led to this being a boom period in English agriculture and favoured a swing away from arable to livestock production. This does not necessarily seem to be the case in Kent. Between 1840 and 1875 the proportion of Kent under grass decreased from 32.1 % to 23.3%.76 The farmers here were too geared to the London market to respond to the long-term advantage of pasture over arable. In the 1877 Agricultural Parish Census, 22% of the agricultural land in the parishes where John Robert Townshend owned land in 1843 was given over to orchards, market gardening, and nurseries.77 By comparison to all the parishes of Kent, where on
71 MTES:1080/3/2/26/10/2/1, 1850-1903 72 A.H. John, ‘Estimates of yields per acre, 1815-59’, in AHEW, VI, pp. 1046,1051 73 B.A. Holderness, ‘Prices, Productivity, and Output’, in AHEW, VI, p. 104 74 J.T. Coppock, Agricultural Census Parish Summaries, 1877 and 1931 [computer file]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], October 2005. SN: 3980, and MTES:1080/1/1/3/3/1/5, 1830 and MTES:1080/1/1/3/3/1/11, 1841-1850 75 Overton, Agricultural Revolution, p. 108 76 Hugh C. Prince, ‘The Changing Rural Landscape, 1750-1850’, in AHEW, VI, p. 49 77 Coppock, Agricultural Census, 1877
P. 13 average 13% of the agricultural land was given over to these crops, this indicates a significant specialisation in Northwest Kent.78
As early as 1825 William Cobbett noted that the country around St Mary Cray was a series of fruit gardens of cherries, apples, pears, plums, gooseberries, raspberries, and currants.79 By 1840 there were many specialist fruit holdings in the area while many large farms possessed a small acreage of fruit.80 Production of soft fruit in Kent increased rapidly from the 1850s partly owing to the coming of the railways and the falling cost of distribution; and also due to the rise in demand for jam when costs reduced after sugar duties were repealed in 1874.81 Northwest Kent had additional advantages: lower cost and speed of distribution countrywide due to its proximity to Covent Garden from where fruit was transported to northern England by rail; and little competition with hops, as was the case in other parts of Kent. A return for 1886 indicates that, in the previous 50 years, in eight parishes around the Cray valley, the area under fruit had risen by 130%.82 By 1900 fruit growing was considered one of the major forms of land use in the county and the adjacent parishes of Wilmington, Sutton-at-Hone, St Paul’s Cray, and St Mary Cray (See Appendix II) had grown into the centre of the soft fruit producing industry in Britain.83 For many farmers in Northwest Kent this early specialisation in fruit put them in a favourable position at the start of the agricultural depression and sheltered them from depressed conditions.
On the Townshend estate the 1843 Tithe schedule shows 8.5 acres of orchards, 1.5 acres of nurseries, and just under an acre of gooseberries.84 As land use categories are not consistent on the 1843 Tithe schedule, this may not be the complete picture. In 1881 there is evidence of strawberry cultivation on the estate.85 By 1915 the acreage of permanent pasture on the estate had dropped to 31% of the agricultural land, whilst Kent farmers generally had increased permanent pasture after 1875 to 45% by 1914.86 The Townshend tenants continued to favour valuable crops. Of the arable land 345 acres were given over to market gardening and nurseries. This included over 60 acres of currants, raspberries, and strawberries; over 140 acres of orchards; 2.5 acres of nurseries; and 83 acres of hops. One tenant had six heated greenhouses, each 200 feet in length.87 This was market gardening on a commercial scale. So advantageous was this location near the markets of London, that some of the hop and soft fruit production, and the nurseries were now on the more risky less fertile soils of Chislehurst. The introduction of hops is interesting. There are no hops evident in any of the parishes where John Robert Townshend owned land in 1877.88 Between 1877 and 1914 the acreage of hop gardens in Kent had dropped by over 50% owing to foreign competition, a depression in the brewing industry, and the move to lighter beer.89 In 1886 George May was cultivating hops but without success in selling
78 Ibid. 79 David Harvey, ‘Fruit growing in Kent in the nineteenth century’ in Archaeologia Cantiana, Vol.79, (Ashford, 1964), p. 104 80 Ibid., p.104 81 Collins, ‘Food’ in AHEW, VII, p. 46 and Harvey, ‘Fruit growing in Kent’, in Archaeologia Cantiana, Vol.79, p. 97 82 Ibid., p. 105 83 Ibid., p. 104 84 TITHE Bexley, Chislehurst , Foots Cray, Orpington, St. Paul’s Cray 85 MTES:1080/1/1/3/5/44, 1865-1881 86 Mingay, ‘Agriculture’, in Economy Kent, ed. Armstrong, p.77 and MTES:1080/1/1/5/15, 1915 87 Ibid. 88 Coppock, Agricultural Census, 1877 89 B.A. Holderness and G.E. Mingay, ‘The South and South East’ in AHEW, VII, p. 372
P. 14 them.90 Hops carried high capital costs and a high degree of risk, with high labour costs, price fluctuations, and changes to the Licensing Laws in 1872 (to fix the closing hours of public houses) affecting profits. May’s hops were competing for price during a period when there been a significant rise in imported hops.91 By 1915 three tenants, including Thomas May, with farms over 200 acres were each cultivating up to 30 acres of hops.92 So why did these tenants take up the cultivation of hops? Were they forced to diversify as the price of corn declined as discussed earlier or did they have sufficient diverse fruit and vegetables on their land to risk growing a small acreage of hops?
5. Relations between landlord, tenant, and farm labourer Landowners, labourers, and tenants felt the late 19th century depression more severely depending on fluctuations in farm profits, rents, and wages. Nationally wages fell in the early years of the depression from 1878 but rose steadily from the mid 1890s, whilst rent and output fell until the mid 1890s. From then output rose but rents only modestly recovered.93 In other words, the depression was felt initially by farmers and landlords. Later, as output rose faster than rents, the depression shifted away from farmers to landlords. Looking at farmers’ incomes, although output rose from the mid 1890s, recovery of prices was erratic. By 1910-12 their income had only returned to the 1860-2 figure.94 Effectively farmers’ incomes made no lasting progress for over 50 years. For the landlord the depression signalled a decline in rents and land values, which lasted to the end of the century. Loss of rental income can be an indicator of depressed conditions, either lack of capital among existing tenants or a shortage of new tenants due to a loss of confidence in the agricultural sector. This resulted in an increase in arrears or falling rents per acre. Kent landowners suffered a large drop in rental income during the depression. Between 1895 and 1912 assessed rents fell further in Kent than in any other county in England and Wales except Middlesex.95 Nationally, assessed rents hit their lowest point in 1903, and by 1914 were scarcely higher than in the early 1890s.96 As discussed in Chapter 2 the rents on the Townshend estate were consistently high in the 18th and 19th centuries although fairly static after 1854.97 There is no evidence that the Townshends had to reduce rents or suffered a loss of tenants on the Kent estate during the late 19th century. On the contrary, rents on the Kent estate were buoyant up to at least 1910, which implies that there was no shortage of tenants during the depression, and any arrears had been recovered. It is difficult to confidently quote rental income from the archives as this is variously adjusted by interest earned, tithes collected, shooting rents, bills, and repairs. However, it is evident that, from 1889 to 1904, the Townshends materially increased their rents collected on the Kent estate.98 On the other hand at the Townshends’ Matson estate in Gloucestershire, for the same period, the rental income dropped by 15%.99 The county of Gloucestershire, although it suffered marginally less than the county of Kent in rents collected from 1895 to 1912, its change in gross farm output saw a fall of 9% from 1873 to 1894, which was very
90 MTES:1080/1/1/3/5/29, 1832-1888 91 Bethany Afton and Michael Turner, ‘Statistics: The impact of foreign trade’ in AHEW, VII, p. 2112 92 MTES:1080/1/1/5/15, 1915 93 M.E. Turner, ‘Agricultural output, income and productivity’ in AHEW, VII, p. 306 94 Idid., p. 307 95 Collins, ‘Rural change’ in AHEW, VII, p. 219 96 Ibid., p. 216 97 MTES:1080/1/1/3/3/7/2, 1845-1856 and MTES:1080/3/1/6/10, 1890 98 MTES:1080/1/1/3/5/51, 1894-1910 99 Ibid.
P. 15 poor by comparison to Kent’s 4% gain.100 This indicates that Gloucestershire suffered more severely during the early years of the depression and this is reflected in the Matson rents. Later the rental income on both estates is quoted more reliably. In 1910 Strutt and Parker provided a summary of monies paid over to Robert Marsham- Townshend in the previous 5 years. From 1905 to 1910, both the Kent and Gloucestershire estates show an increase in rental income of 15% and 6% respectively. In Kent this is partly because ‘rents have been better paid’.101 In addition, during the period, land sales worth £29,653 and £3,595 occurred at the Kent and Gloucestershire estates respectively.102 Taking into account the loss of rental income resulting from these sales, this indicates a significant rise in rents per holding between 1905 and 1910, particularly on the Kent estate. This goes against the very poor figures for assessed rents in Kent in the period and indicates that this estate did not follow the trends in Kent during the depression.103 Although rents were better paid on the Kent estate from 1905-1910, earlier, around 1890, the estate suffered a considerable spike in rent arrears. This happened prior to the national low point for assessed rents in 1903, and was over by the time that Strutt and Parker were reporting in 1895. The rent arrears on the estate as a percentage of total rent due peaked at 15, 17, and 12.5 % in 1889, 1890, and 1892 respectively from lows of around 2% before (in 1886) and afterwards (in 1894).104 This evidence suggests that tenants suffered a loss of real income for a relatively short period from 1889 to 1892, material enough for them to pay after the due date, or not at all. Further evidence shows that arrears were paid up to 4 months late between September 1889 and December 1892.105 The 1895 letter from Strutt and Parker referred to in the Introduction approves of recent constructions as sound and substantially built, requiring minimal maintenance. It states that the tenants practically carry out most of the repairs themselves. The theory of the estate system was that the landlord should provide fixed capital, as in land and buildings, and finance permanent improvements, while tenants provide working capital and farmed the land. However, the maintenance of property and land, unless it was written into a covenant, was generally a point of negotiation between tenant and landlord. It was not until 1880 that tenants’ rights to compensation, for their improvements when they left a farm, was given recognition. Until then there was uncertainty for a tenant and little incentive to make improvements. Neglect of a farm can be an indicator of depressed condition due to lack of capital by either the landlord or the tenant. In 1894 there is an indication that the landlord had been neglecting his responsibilities. Prompted by the benefits of offsetting the cost of repairs against duties, which were due on Lady Sydney’s estate, Mr. Kenderdine the bailiff reported that both the Kent and Gloucestershire estates were in a poor state of repair. Nothing had been done with respect to repairs at Matson for 20 years prior to the death of Lord Sydney in 1890. On the Kent estate, although £4,500, or over 30% per annum of gross rental income, had been spent on repairs since Lord Sydney’s death, in Kenderdine’s opinion, it would take another 4-5 years at 20% of gross rental per annum to restore the estate to the required standard.106 Kenderdine’s assessment of the condition of the estate is contradicted by Strutt and Parker in their letter a year later, as mentioned
100 Collins, ‘Rural change’ in AHEW, VII, p. 161 101 MTES:1080/1/17/21, 1910 102 Ibid. 103 Collins, ‘Rural change’ in AHEW, VII, p. 219 104 MTES:1080/1/1/3/6/1/25,27,28,29, 1886-1894 105 MTES:1/1/3/1/3/15,16, 1889-1896 and MTES:1080/1/1/3/6/2/2, 1893 106 MTES:1080/1/1/3/5/51, 1894-1910
P. 16 earlier. This contradiction is an example of the friction between the bailiff, land agent, and steward appointed to manage the estate, which may have precipitated the neglect. Writers of the mid to late 19th century were critical of the competency of those appointed to run large estates. Kenderdine was appointed in 1889 after the previous bailiff was sacked.107 Six years later in 1895 Kenderdine persuaded Strutt and Parker that the management of the estate was hampered by dual control (Kenderdine and Warren) and subsequently Warren’s role was reduced to legal adviser only.108 In 1904 Warren wrote to Robert Marsham-Townshend, Lady Sydney’s successor, and questioned Kenderdine’s remuneration.109 By 1905 both the management issue and the repairs had been addressed. Kenderdine resigned and Strutt and Parker took on his responsibilities; and £24,844 of capital had been expended on improvements at Chislehurst and Matson.110 This use of capital indicates the presence of considerable non-agricultural income in the Townshend finances, and raises the question of the continuing viability of the agricultural sector as an investment. Landlords were reluctant to disturb existing tenants. In years of depression they turned a blind eye to neglect of premises and rent arrears. In addition, political conditions often warranted diplomacy especially if the tenant’s family had a long connection with the estate. In 1881, following another complaint about game by George May, Mr Warren suggested that May could be given three years notice at Michaelmas.111 Lord Sydney did not heed this advice. The Mays had been tenants since before 1843 and were still tenants in 1915.112 This letter also states that that the radical papers are reporting that a crusade is to be made against landowners based on the Irish model. This refers to Gladstone’s Irish Land Act of 1880 which, among other things, gave tenants rights against arbitrary eviction and ended the landowner’s absolute right to his land. As the political influence of land and its value and prestige declined, landowners started to sell off land, generally giving tenants first refusal. At least half of the sales on the Kent estate between 1905 and 1910 were to existing tenants.113 This shows a firm financial commitment by these tenants during the latter period of the depression, indicating that, for them, the depression had minimal impact.
Farm workers benefited from the fall in prices during the late 19th century. In 1893 the Assistant Commissioner for Kent described farm labourers as ‘better off now than they have ever been before’, even though here wages had fallen marginally.114 There is little evidence of the welfare and wages of labourers in the Marsham-Townshend papers. What there is raises issues for historians as it is unclear what other benefits are included: for example, accommodation, food, and ex-gratia payments at Christmas and when the haymaking is complete. There may also be additional piecework available during haymaking and harvesting, and piecework was often the favoured way of remunerating workers in fruit and hop farming. For these reasons it is difficult to compare wages in the Marsham-Townshend archives to published statistics. A better comparison on wages is available in the diary of Frederick Edlmann, which opens with a comparison of wages on four neighbouring farms in 1876. 15s. to 18s. per week was the range for labourers, which generally excluded a cottage. These were charged at 2s. 3d. to 3s. per week. The cowman, team man, and shepherd received
107 MTES:1080/1/1/3/5/47, 1889-1892 108 MTES:1080/1/1/3/7/36, 1895 and MTES:1080/1/1/3/5/51, 1894-1910 109 MTES:1080/1/1/3/5/51, 1894-1910 110 Ibid. and MTES:1/17/17, 1897-1905 111 MTES:1080/1/1/3/5/44, 1865-1881 112 TITHE St Paul’s Cray and MTES:1080/1/1/5/15, 1915 113 MTES:1080/1/17/21, 1910 114 Michael J. Winstanley, Life in Kent at the turn of the century, (Folkestone, 1978), p. 23
P. 17 similar wages but their cottages (normally letting at 5s. per week) were included. The lowest wage, 8s. per week, was for boy labourers.115 As they grew older their wage increased to the adult wage. The reverse happened to the half pensioners who were assumed as doing boys’ work. Their wage was cut to 9s.116 Assuming boys and half pensioners are omitted from the quoted statistics for labourers, the wages in farms surrounding the Townshend estate 1876-1888 appear to be generous compared to the published tables.117 Wages steadily rise throughout the period of the diary, which goes against the national trend of falling wages until 1895, which is another indication that this area of Kent was buoyant.118 However generous these wages were compared to other agricultural areas, they bore no comparison to wages in the expanding industrial sector. Railway navvies were paid twice as much as ordinary labourers. In the North Kent cement and brick making industries wages ranged from 24s. to 36s. per week in the late 19th century.119 Labourers found a voice in the introduction of agricultural trade unionism as early as the 1866 in the Maidstone area. Within two years this had collapsed in the face of farmer opposition.120 Joseph Arch (1826-1919) revived the union movement in 1872 in Warwickshire and this led to the formation of the National Agricultural Labourers Union (NALU). Revived by the news from Warwickshire, the Kent Labourers’ Union was formed.121 By 1879 after lockouts and blacklegging, almost nothing was left of the farmers’ unions. The agricultural depression weakened the resolve of the residual unions further and after a brief revival at the height of the depression in the early 1890s the NALU was dissolved in 1896.122 Meanwhile farmers were addressing their own political issues. Disillusionment with free trade set in for some agriculturalists at the end of the 1870s after the fall in grain prices, which prompted a small number of Conservatives to support a return to protectionism. In 1879 the Farmers’ Alliance was formed in order to oppose the return of protectionism.123 The Alliance was associated with the Liberals, who under William Gladstone won the election of 1880. The Liberal victory brought some agricultural reforms, the Ground Game Act and the Agricultural Holdings Act, which formalized the compensation of tenants for unexhausted improvements. This election was seen as a backlash against the Conservatives for the removal of protectionism and the ensuing plunge into an agricultural depression, and caused Benjamin Disraeli to bemoan the ‘insurrection of our old and natural friends, the farmers’.124 This was not the case in Kent where the Conservatives held 14 of the 19 seats, an achievement which Disraeli told the Queen merited a step in the peerage for Lord Sondes, a former Kent politician: ‘We owe to him the almost entire support of Kent in County & Boroughs. Cantia Invictia!’.125 This result for the Conservatives is a solid indication
115 EFD:999/1, May 11th 1876 116 Ibid. 117 Bethany Afton and Michael Turner, ‘Statistics: Wages’ in AHEW, VII, pp. 1993-2015, the tables published here are seldom clear on what skill level is included. 118 Turner, ‘Agricultural output, income, productivity’ in AHEW, VII, p. 306 119 Tom Richardson, ‘Labour’, in The Economy of Kent 1640-1914, ed. Alan Armstrong, (Woodbridge, 1988), p. 258 120 Alan Armstrong, Farmworkers, (London, 1988), p. 108 121 Ibid., p. 109 122 Alun Howkins, ‘Joseph Arch (1826–1919)’, ODNB/30433 123 Collins, ‘Food’ in AHEW, VII, p. 59 124 G.E. Mingay, Rural Life in Victorian England, (Gloucester, 1990), p. 67 125 Royal Archives, c.35.105, Disraeli to the Queen, April 8, in Robert Blake, Disraeli, (London, 1969), p. 712 and Brian Atkinson, ‘Conservative and Liberal: National Politics in Kent from the Late 1820s to 1914’ in Government and Politics in Kent, 1640-1914, ed. Frederick Landsberry, (Woodbridge, 2001), p. 151
P. 18 that the farmers of Kent may not have suffered depression conditions as severely as other counties. 6. Conclusion – a reaction to the depression, or the last hurrah? Was the late agricultural depression the cause or the symptom of the decline of the landed elite? John Robert Townshend, Earl Sydney, might have been distracted by his royal and political responsibilities. He served William IV in 1835 and was Lord-in- waiting to Queen Victoria from 1841 to 1846. During the second half of the 19th century, he held the positions of Lord Chamberlain or Lord Steward in the first three of Gladstone’s administrations.126 The majority of letters in the Marsham-Townshend archive are addressed to the Townshends’ house in Mayfair. Their absence from the estate in Kent possibly resulted in a lack of leadership and delegation to an estate management team, which was in disarray for much of the depression. Unlike their famed ancestor, the Kent Townshends came late to innovation and there is no evidence of them influencing farming technique amongst their tenants until improved drainage was promoted in 1850. There no evidence that the Townshends considered reducing rents, nor indeed is there evidence that the tenants asked for a reduction during the late 19th century. Rents on the estate were still very high compared to the national average.127 The fact that rent arrears were quickly covered by delayed payments implies that any financial difficulties for the Townshends’ tenants were short term and may be attributed to the continuous bad weather at that time, which no farmer is immune to. The symptoms of the depression, low rents and low land prices, are not evident on the estate; and the static rents and the short period of late rents, were unlikely to have had an impact on the Townshends as their income was not entirely dependent on agricultural rents. They had been investing in stocks since the 18th century, and had been mortgagors since the mid 19th century.128 The financing of repairs on the Kent estate for the 10 years following 1890 was 20-30% of gross rental income per annum. Fortunately, unlike other estates where similar or greater figures were being expended on repairs during this period, the Townshends had not suffered a drop in rental income.129 However, they were experiencing financial difficulties for a different reason.
The introduction of succession duties in 1853, which were reformed in the Finance Act of 1894, was more likely to be of concern to the Townshends than excessive expenditure on repairs, and rent arrears. These duties were based on the value of property. The 1853 act was succeeded by the more onerous act in 1894 when not only was the duty stiffened but the value of property had risen considerably. An estate duty was added which rose from 1% to 8% depending on the property value.130 Unfortunately between 1890 and 1914, the Townshend family experienced three deaths, which attracted considerable death duties. John Robert Townshend, Lord Sydney, died in 1890 and the estate passed to his wife.131 She died three years later and the estate passed to the son of John Robert Townshend’s half sister, Robert Marsham, who then took the additional name of Townshend.132 As the duty rate increased depending on the distance of the relationship between the deceased and the
126 Christie’s Auctioneers, http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/archive-of-the-townshend-family- 1471744-details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=1471744&sid=fece015d-645c-472a-a771- 8159ff973253 127 Afton and Turner, ‘Statistics: Rent’ in AHEW, VII, p. 1926-1928 128 MTES:1080/1/1/1/18/5, 1776 and 1080/1/1/1/33/10, 1858 129 Collins, ‘Rural change’ in AHEW, VII, p. 177 130 G.E. Mingay, ‘Agricultural taxation’ in AHEW, VII, pp. 932-3 131 MTES:1080/3/1/3/3/11, 1890 132 Webb, Miller, Beckwith, History Chislehurst, p. 169
P. 19 beneficiary, the duty on Robert Marsham’s inheritance was significant.133 The succession duties after the deaths of John Robert Townshend and his wife amounted to over £30,500.134 The tax implications of these deaths resulted in considerable selling activity, and attempts to cut expenses and increase income. After the death of Lord Sydney, there were numerous sales of the contents of Frognal House and the house in Mayfair.135 After the death of Lady Sydney there were attempts to limit expenses as referred to in the Introduction and several attempts to sell off land.136 By 1903 over 450 acres of the Kent estate had been put up for sale.137 In 1915, three months after the death of Robert Marsham-Townshend, a letter from Hugh Sydney Marsham-Townshend (1878-1967), the heir, to his son John Marsham-Townshend (1905-1975), states ‘I am going to try to sell most of the contents of this house [Frognal]…..in order to get hold of some money to pay all the death and estate duties……it is a bad time to get hold of any money while war is on’.138 However, auction details dated later that year include the entire the 1740 acres and the mansion at Frognal. The details contain ‘Four Market Gardening and Fruit Farms all let to excellent tenants’.139
The Townshends’ tenants in the mid 19th century had persisted with a preference of arable over pasture even as wheat prices plummeted and there is some evidence of depressed conditions pre 1850. The high farming period of 1850-75 was by no means uniformly prosperous especially on arable farms.140 And this may have forced the Townshend tenants to diversify and consider other crops. By 1915, sufficient confidence had returned to risk growing hops and a range of fruit, even on less fertile soil. Those that were prepared to take risks and diversify to meet changing patterns of demand appear to have made farming pay. During the recovery from the depression in the early 20th century some tenants had sufficient funds, and confidence in the future, to buy their farms. Others may have moved on to other industries along with their labourers. However, in the 1915 sale particulars every farm is occupied.141 Their ability to embrace market gardening and particularly fruit was the key. This gave the tenants a healthy independence from the more competitive market for grain, which was more likely to be affected by foreign competition as fruit and vegetables have a limited shelf life. And this, coupled with their proximity to the large expanding market of London and the benefits of an efficient transport system in the railways, which increased marketing opportunities, saw them through. For the Townshend family it was the succession of deaths that caused their financial issues during the late 19th and early 20th century, not the agricultural depression. The sale of the estate was not precipitated by depression conditions as befell many estates at that time; rather by a need to raise funds to cover unusually high death duties.
Evidence from the Townshend estate in Kent shows that the concept of wide regional variations in economic conditions that was prevalent across the country also existed within the county. The cultivation of fruit, vegetables, and hops may have boosted
133 Mingay, ‘Agricultural taxation’ in AHEW, VII, p. 933 134 MTES:1080/3/1/3/4/5, 1915 135 MTES:1080/3/1/3/3/11, 1890 and 1080/2/11/10,11,12,14,15,16, 1890-1894 and 1080/1/1/3/5/50, 1893-1914 136 MTES:10801/1/3/7/36, 1895 137 MTES:1080/1/1/5/8,11,12,13,14, 1893-1909 and 1080 1/17/17, 1897-1905 138 MTES:1080/3/2/32/11, 1915 139 MTES:1080/1/1/5/15, 1915 140 Collins, ‘Rural change’ in AHEW, VII, p. 150 141 MTES:1080/1/1/5/15, 1915
P. 20 Kent’s agricultural returns during the depression. However, these crops were limited to an area between the Thames and the lower slopes of the North Downs. Other farmers in Kent, on poorer soils particularly on the Weald, were forced out of business.142 Fortunately on the Townshend estate the soils of St Paul’s Cray and the land bordering it in Chislehurst, and the estate’s proximity to London, provided the tenants with the opportunity to diversify. Much of the other land on the estate had been built over by this time. Kent’s economic position during the agricultural depression continues to require further research. It is clear from the Marsham- Townshend estate papers that a more regional and local approach to the extent of the depression is required. The agricultural depression had minimal impact on this estate in Northwest Kent.
142 Holderness and Mingay, ‘ South and South East’ in AHEW, VII, p. 372
P. 21 Appendix I Extract of genealogical table of the Townshend family
Charles Townshend 2nd Viscount Townshend Line of estate (1674-1738), politician and inheritance agricultural innovator. Married Elizabeth Pelham (d.1711)
Charles Townshend Thomas Townshend 6 male and 2 female issue (1700-1764) 3rd Viscount (1701-1780), politician. Townshend, politician Married Albina Selwyn (1714-1739), sister of George A Selwyn (1719-1791), wit and politician.
1 female issue Thomas Townshend 2 male and 1 female issue 1st Viscount Sydney (1733-1800), politician. Married Elizabeth Powys (1736-1826)
2 female issue John Thomas Townshend 2 male and 2 female issue nd 2 Viscount Sydney (1764-1831), politician. Married Sophia Southwell (d.1795) Married Caroline Letitia Clements (1781-1805)
1 male and 1 female Mary Elizabeth Townshend John Robert Townshend issue (1794-1847) 3rd Viscount Sydney, and Married George James first and last Earl Sydney Cholmondely (d. 1830) (1805-1890), politician. Married Charles, 2nd Earl of Married Lady Emily Romney (d.1845) Caroline Paget, (1810- 1893)
Robert Marsham-Townshend, (1834-1914) Married Clara Catherine Paley (d.1931)
Hugh Sydney Marsham- 1 male issue Townshend (1878-1967) Married Cecelia Bunbury (d.1912)
John Marsham-Townshend 1 male issue (1905-1975)
Sources: Webb, Miller, Beckwith, History Chislehurst, p.157-8 and Linda Frey and Marsha Frey, ‘Charles Townshend (1674-1738)’, ODNB/27617 and Ian K.R. Archer, ‘Thomas Townshend (1733– 1800)’, ODNB/2763 and MTES:2/2/32,35, 1930-31 and MTES:3/1/1/53,1913
P. 22 Appendix II Map of Kent parishes with the Townshend estate marked
Source: Terence Lawson and David Killingray, eds., An Historical Atlas of Kent, (Chichester, 2004), frontpage
P. 23 Bibliography
Primary Sources Diaries of Frederick J. Edlmann, Hawkwood 1876-1888 in the London Borough of Bromley Local Studies Archive. Individual call numbers stated in footnotes
Marsham-Townshend Estate Papers in the London Borough of Bromley Local Studies Archives. Individual call numbers stated in footnotes
Printed Primary Sources Boys, John, General view of the agriculture of the county of Kent, (Brentford, 1796) Buckland, George, ‘On the farming of Kent: prize report’, in The Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, Vol.6, (London,1846) Webb, E.A., Miller, G.W. and Beckwith, J., The History of Chislehurst, (Buckingham, 1999) Whitehead, Charles, ‘A sketch of the agriculture of Kent’, in Reports from the Royal Agricultural Society of England, 3rd series, Vol.10, part 3, (London, 1899)
Secondary Sources (articles) Everitt, A.M., ‘The Making of the Agrarian Landscape of Kent’, Archaeologia Cantiana, Vol.92, (Tonbridge, 1976) Harvey, David, ‘Fruit growing in Kent in the nineteenth century’ Archaeologia Cantiana, Vol.79, (Ashford, 1964)
Secondary Sources (books) Alexander, William G.G., A Farming Century: The Darent Valley 1892-1992, (London, 1991) Armstrong, Alan, Farmworkers, (London, 1988) Armstrong, Alan, ed., The Economy of Kent 1640-1914, (Woodbridge, 1995) Atkinson, Brian, ‘Conservative and Liberal: National Politics in Kent from the Late 1820s to 1914’ in Government and Politics in Kent, 1640-1914, ed., Frederick Landsberry, (Woodbridge, 2001). Blake, Robert, Disraeli, (London, 1969) Chambers, J.D. and Mingay, G.E., The Agricultural Revolution 1750-1880, (London, 1966) Gardiner, Juliet and Wenborn, Neil, eds., The History Today Companion to British History, (London, 1995) Holderness, B.A. and Turner, Michael, eds., Land, Labour and Agriculture, 1700- 1920, (London, 1991) Lawson, Terence and Killingray, David, eds., An Historical Atlas of Kent, (Chichester, 2004) Mingay, G.E., The Agricultural Revolution: Changes in Agriculture 1650-1880, (London, 1977) Mingay, G.E., Rural Life in Victorian England, (Gloucester, 1990) Mingay, G.E., English Landed Society in the Eighteenth Century, (London, 1968) Overton, Mark, Agricultural Revolution in England. The transformation of the agrarian economy 1500-1850, (Cambridge, 2006) Phillips, A.D.M., The underdraining of farmland in the nineteenth century, (Cambridge, 1989) Stone, L. and Fawtier Stone, J.C., An Open Elite? England 1540-1880, (Oxford, 1984)
P. 24 Thirsk, Joan and Collins, E.J.T, eds., The Agrarian History of England and Wales Vol. VII, 1850-1914, (Cambridge, 2000) Thirsk, Joan and Mingay, G. E., eds., The Agrarian History of England and Wales Vol. VI, 1750-1850, (Cambridge, 1989) Winstanley, Michael J., Life in Kent at the turn of the century, (Folkstone, 1978)
Websites Ian K.R. Archer, ‘Townshend, Thomas, first Viscount Sydney (1733–1800)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2009 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27636, accessed 27 February 2012]
J.T. Coppock, Agricultural Census Parish Summaries, 1877 and 1931 [computer file]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], October 2005. SN: 3980, http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-3980-1, [accessed 01 February 2011]
Linda Frey and Marsha Frey, ‘Townshend, Charles, second Viscount Townshend (1674–1738)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27617, accessed 27 February 2012]
Alun Howkins, ‘Arch, Joseph (1826–1919)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/30433, [accessed 23 April 2012]
Bexley Tithe award schedule 1843 http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Maps/BEX/02c.htm [accessed 01 May 2011]
Chislehurst Tithe award schedule 1843 http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Maps/CHS/02.htm [accessed 01 May 2011]
Foots Cray Tithe award schedule 1843 http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Maps/FOO/02.htm [accessed 01 May 2011]
Orpington Tithe award schedule 1843 http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Maps/ORP/02.htm [accessed 01 May 2011]
St Paul’s Cray Tithe award schedule 1843, http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Maps/SAP/02.htm [accessed 01 May 2011]
Christie’s Auctioneers http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/archive-of-the-townshend-family-1471744- details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=1471744&sid=fece015d-645c-472a- a771-8159ff973253 [accessed 22 April 2012]
P. 25