1908 CONTENTS BOOK I MEDIEVAL ENGLAND 1066-1272 C H A P . PACK I. GENERAL SURVEY . 1 9 II. THE MANORIAL SYSTEM . 33 III. URBAN TRADE AND HANDICRAFT . .4 7 IV. NATIONAL CONTROL— TRADE, MONEY, TAXATION . 62 BOOK II THE ENGLISH NATION 1 2 7 2 -1 6 0 3 I. GENERAL SURVEY. 7 9 II. DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY . • . 90 III. TRANSITION IN AGRICULTURE . 108 IV. CULMINATION AND DECAY OF URBAN INFLUENCE . 122 V. THE GENESIS OF CAPITALISM . .141 VI. MONEY AND TAXATION . 162 BOOK III THE ANTECEDENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 1 6 0 3 -1 7 6 0 I. GENERAL SURVEY. .181 II. AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRY, AND FOREIGN TRADE . 2 0 0 III. FINANCE AND TAXATION . 215 vii M il CONTENTS HOOK IV THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 1 7 6 0 -1 9 0 0 CHAI\ l ‘ AGK I. GENERAL SURVEY. 230 II. THE GREAT INVENTIONS 242 ^ III. GOVERNMENT AND TIIE WAGE-EARNING CLASSES, 1 7 6 0 - 1 8 3 0 ..... 261 IV. THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF MODERN ENGLAND 273 f*tl V. THE STANDARD OF LIFE 288 VI. THE LAW AND THE WAGE CONTRACT 300 VII. MONEY, CREDIT, AND FLUCTUATIONS 316 VIII. FINANCE AND NATIONAL WELFARE . 334 APPENDIX (i) WAGES AND PRICES 349 ,, (il) BIBLIOGRAPHY 353 INDEX 357 Economic History of England INTRODUCTION I n common with other provinces of the Empire, Britain, during the Roman occupation, reached a considerable degree of economic development. Large urban centres were connected by an excellent system of roads, and along these roads the frequent remains of villas testify to the luxurious living of the wealthy classes. But between the economic organisation of Britain at that period and England in the nineteenth century there is an important difference. Hardly anyone in the country now produces any considerable proportion of the objects which he himself consumes. The produce of a rural village, like the produce of an urban centre, is marketed beyond the borders of the village, and the village draws from without the supplies consumed by its members. In Roman Britain, on the other hand, it seems probable that the workers in each small area produced locally the food and clothes and housing which they consumed, and that the goods which were drawn from them brought back no returns of material wealth, but provided only the luxurious expenditure of the governing class. The requirements of this class— native chiefs and Roman officials and speculators—and of subordinate bureau­ crats and soldiers produced the urban centres and the trade of the country. From the rural districts they drew supplies of food and raw materials by rents and taxation, in some cases also by the direct exploitation of slave labour. These supplies maintained their craftsmen and personal attendants, or were exported to pay for the luxuries which had to be provided from a distance. The economic effects of the Saxon conquest are in some respects clear, in others exceedingly obscure. In the first place it is evident that urban life and commerce were swept away. Where the 1 i—(1498) 2 ECONOMIC HISTORY OF ENGLAND fortifications of the towns protected them from direct attack, they bled to death by the interruption in their supplies from the country. But the disappearance of the towns under the circumstances would not necessarily lead to any considerable economic change in the country districts. Each locality could continue to produce for itself as it had produced before, with the simple difference that it would no longer have to part with some of its produce to the outside world. If a Saxon pirate stepped into the shoes of the Roman administrator or native chief there might be no substantial alteration in the economic position of the mass of the people. It is at least possible that this occurred in many districts ; it has been argued that it was the rule throughout the country. There is, however, evidence that over the greater part of England the Saxon conquest implied a far more serious upheaval. The suppression of the Celtic language and religion, together with the predominance of Teutonic place names, suggests an actual displace­ ment of population, not merely the introduction of foreign lords, and this view is supported by what little is known of the character of the Conquest. The new-comers spread gradually over the country during a period of centuries. Raids on the coast and up the rivers produced the first settlements, and from these settlements raids were made up country as new invaders arrived from the Continent or each generation reached maturity. Between Saxon and British areas at any one moment there must have existed an almost depopulated border, as between Scotland and England at a later date, and this border being pushed forward over the country genera­ tion by generation would involve, sooner or later, destruction and reconstruction in almost every district. The argument advanced by Gibbon that the conquerors would be careful to preserve everything that would be useful to them has its force. But in so far as the Conquest took place along the lines indicated, cattle, property, men and women would be seized by raids and incorporated in the recon­ struction, the society of which they had formed part being resolved into its prime elements. That the Conquest was at least a more serious matter for the British than some writers have suggested seems to be proved by their wholesale emigration to Armorica. Some weight also must be given to the traditions preserved by Bede. At the same time, our view leaves room for the survival in many districts of pre-Teutonic organisation. In many cases a brief INTRODUCTION 3 period of systematic conquest resulted in the rapid incorporation within the Saxon area of districts which had suffered little from border warfare and raid. Here, as seems to have been the case in Kent, little change may have occurred beyond a change of masters in the British villages, though doubtless colonies of Germans would be established in and amongst them. Especially in the later period of the Conquest, when considerable Saxon kingdoms were already established, this would be the more natural process. We should expect a larger survival of British institutions in the West generally, and in Cornwall and those parts of Cumberland and Westmoreland (Strathclyde) which were last incorporated we should anticipate a more complete survival than elsewhere. Meitzen’s1 comparative study of survey maps for this and other countries corroborates these views. His researches indicate that over the greater part of England types of village settlement, similar to those in Germany, predominate, the most common being the “ nucleated ” village. But in Cornwall and Devonshire, on the Welsh border, in Cumberland and Western Westmoreland a type of settlement predominant in Wales and Ireland, namely, “ the scattered homestead,” occurs. He concludes that whereas the greater part of the country was actually resettled by the Saxons, the districts indicated, together with smaller areas in other parts of the country, remained British in population and organisation. In addition it may be supposed that the Saxon settlements incorporated a proportion of subject British which would be higher generally speaking in the West than in the South and East. Whatever may be the bearing of Meitzen’s researches on the racial problem, it is certain that the two types of settlement by “ scattered homestead ” and “ nucleated village ” respectively indicate an important difference of economic organisation. The origin and cause of the “ nucleated village ” is to be sought in 4 4 open- field ” arable culture. Under this system there is no several ownership, but each family in one village has the right to cultivate and to crop a number of strips of land scattered over the common fields. From the point of view of the individual cultivator whose land is thus scattered it is more convenient to have his dwelling 1 Meitzen, “ Siedelung und Agrarwesen.” 4 ECONOMIC HISTORY OF ENGLAND and farm buildings at the centre than adjacent to any one of the tiny parts of his holding. From the point of view of the community it is easier to divide up the land if the fields stretch out unbroken from the central village than if they are broken here and there by permanent buildings. And, since the form of settlement is determined by the method of allotting arable land, it may be concluded that the production of cereals was already important at the time at which the settlement was made. A com­ munity, on the other hand, which established permanent settle­ ments, whilst pastoral husbandry was still its chief means of subsistence, would find its line of least resistance in settlement by scattered homesteads. As Abraham separated from Lot because the land would not bear them both, so one new family after another would plant itself forth, and the flocks of the tribe would be scattered in this natural way over the area available without its being necessary at first to delimit precisely the grazing rights of each family. Common ownership of land, however, would disappear more rapidly in settlements of the latter type than in those of the former. As will be seen later, the complicated arrangements of open-field arable culture opposed obstacles to the growth of several ownership which delayed it for centuries. We have seen that the village nucleus is a product of the open- field system. The origin of this system itself calls for some remark. The problem is to explain why each of the joint users of a certain area of arable land should be given the right to plough and to crop a large number (perhaps as many as 120) strips scattered all round the compass instead of a single area.