intheexpensesoffivefamiliesoflabourers，thefuelvariesfrom£；1，
15s。0d。upto£；4，3s。0d。，withanaverageof£；2，8s。0d。per
family。Itmustberemembered，too，thatthesumof10s。forfuelfromthe
commoniscalculatedontheassumptionthatthemanwouldotherwisebeworking；
whereas，inreality，hecouldcuthisturfinslacktimesandinoddhours，
whentherewasnomoneytobemadebyworkingforsomeoneelse。
Therewasanotherrespectinwhichtheresourcesofalabouringfamily
werediminishedtowardstheendofthecentury，andthistoowasalossthat
therichthoughttrifling。Fromtimeimmemorialthelabourerhadsenthis
wifeandchildrenintothefieldstogleanorleazeaftertheharvest。The
profitsofgleaning，undertheold，unimprovedsystemofagriculture，were
veryconsiderable。EdensaysofRodeinNorthamptonshire，whereagriculture
wasina’wretchedstate，fromthelandbeingincommon-fields，’that’several
familieswillgatherasmuchwheataswillservethemforbreadthewhole
year，andasmanybeansaswillkeepapig。’(4*)Fromthispointofview
enclosure，withitsimprovedmethodsofagriculture，meantasensibleloss
tothepooroftheparish，butevenwhentherewaslesstobegleanedthe
privilegewasbynomeansunimportant。AcorrespondentintheAnnalsof
Agriculture，(5*)writingevidentlyoflandunderimprovedcultivation
inShropshire，estimatesthatawifecangleanthreeorfourbushels。The
consumptionofwheat，exclusiveofotherfood，byalabourer’sfamilyhe
putsathalfabushelaweekatleast；thepriceofwheatat13s。6d。abushel；
thelabourer’swagesat7s。or8s。Tosuchafamilygleaningrightsrepresented
theequivalentofsomesixorsevenweeks’wages。
Withtheintroductionoflargefarmingthesecustomaryrightswerein
danger。Itwasanuisanceforthefarmertohavehisfencedfieldssuddenly
invadedbybandsofwomenandchildren。Theearstobepickedupwerenow
fewandfarbetween，andtherewasariskthatthelabourers，husbandsand
fathersofthegleaners，mightwinkatsmalltheftsfromthesheaves。Thus
itwasthatcustomaryrights，whichhadneverbeenquestionedbefore，and
seemedtogobacktotheBibleitself，cametobethesubjectofdispute。
OnthewholequestionofgleaningthereisananimatedcontroversyintheAnnalsofAgriculture(6*)betweenCapelLofft，(7*)aromanticSuffolk
Liberal，whotookthesideofthegleaners，andRuggles，(8*)thehistorian，
whoarguedagainstthem。CapelLofftwasahumaneandchivalrousmagistrate
who，unfortunatelyfortheSuffolkpoor，wasstruckofftheCommissionof
thePeaceafewyearslater，apparentlyattheinstanceoftheDukeofPortland，
forpersuadingtheDeputy-Sherifftopostponetheexecutionofagirlsentenced
todeathforstealing，untilhehadpresentedamemorialtotheCrownpraying
forclemency。Thechiefargumentsonthesideofthegleanerswere(1)that
immemorialcustomgavelegalright，accordingtothemaxim，consuetudoangliae
lexestangliaecommunis；(2)thatBlackstonehadrecognisedtherightin
hisCommentaries，basinghisopinionuponHaleandGilbert，’Alsoithath
beensaid，thatbythecommonlawandcustomofEnglandthepoorareallowed
toenterandgleanonanother’sgroundafterharvestwithoutbeingguilty
oftrespass，whichhumaneprovisionseemsborrowedfromtheMosaiclaw，(iii。
212，1stedition)；(3)thatinIrelandtherightwasrecognisedbystatutes
ofHenryVIII’sreign，whichmodifiedit；(4)thatitwasacustomthathelped
tokeepthepoorfreefromdegradingdependenceonpoorrelief。Itwasargued，
ontheotherhand，bythosewhodeniedtherighttoglean，thatthoughthe
customhadexistedfromtimeimmemorial，itdidnotrestonanybasisof
actualright，andthatnolegalsanctiontoithadeverbeenexplicitlygiven，
Blackstoneandtheauthoritiesonwhomhereliedbeingtoovaguetobeconsidered
final。Further，thecustomwasdemoralisingtothepoor；itledtoidleness，
’howmanydaysduringtheharvestarelostbythemotherofafamilyand
allherchildren，inwanderingaboutfromfieldtofield，togleanwhatdoes
notrepaythemthewearoftheircloathesinseeking；’itledtopilfering
fromthetemptationtotakehandfulsfromtheswarthorshock；anditwas
deplorablethatonagood-humouredpermissionshouldbegrafted’alegal
claim，initsuseandexercisesonearlyapproachingtolicentiousness。’
Whilstthiscontroversywasgoingon，thelegalquestionwasdecidedagainst
thepoorbyamajorityofjudgesintheCourtofCommonPleasin1788。One
judge，SirHenryGould，(9*)dissentedinalearnedjudgment；themajority
basedtheirdecisionpartlyonthemischievousconsequencesofthepractice
tothepoor。Thepoorneverlostarightwithoutbeingcongratulatedbythe
richongainingsomethingbetter。Itdidnot，ofcourse，followfromthis
decisionthatthepracticenecessaryceasedaltogether，butfromthattime
itwasaprivilegegivenbythefarmerathisowndiscretion，andhecould
warnoffobnoxiousor’saucy’personsfromhisfields。Moreover，thedearer
thecorn，andthemoreimportanttheprivilegeforthepoor，themorethe
farmerwasdisinclinedtolargessthepreciousears。CapelLoffthadpleaded
thatwithimprovedagriculturethegleanerscouldpickupsolittlethat
thatlittleshouldnotbegrudged，butthefarmerfoundthatunderfamine
pricesthislittlewasworthmoretohimthanthecarelessscatteringsof
earliertimes。(10*)
Thelossofhiscowandhisproduceandhiscommonandtraditionalrights
wasrenderedparticularlyserioustothelabourerbythegeneralgrowthof
prices。Forenclosurewhichhadproducedtheagrarianproletariat，hadraised
thecostoflivingforhim。TheacceptedopinionthatunderenclosureEngland
becameimmenselymoreproductivetendstoobscurethetruththattheagricultural
labourersufferedinhischaracterofconsumer，aswellasinhischaracter
ofproducer，whenthesmallfarmsandthecommonsdisappeared。Notonlyhad
hetobuythefoodthatformerlyhehadproducedhimself，buthehadtobuy
itinarisingmarket。AdamSmithadmittedthattheriseofpriceofpoultry
andporkhadbeenacceleratedbyenclosure，andNathanielKentlaidstress
onthediminutioninthesupplyoftheseandothersmallprovisions。Kent
hasdescribedthechangeinthepositionofthelabourersinthisrespect：
’Formerlytheycouldbuymilk，butter，andmanyothersmallarticlesinevery
parish，inwhateverquantitytheyarewanted。Butsincesmallfarmshave
decreasedinnumber，nosucharticlesaretobehad；forthegreatfarmers
havenoideaofretailingsuchsmallcommodities，andthosewhodoretail
themcarrythemalltotown。Afarmerisevenunwillingtosellthelabourer
whoworksforhimabushelofwheat，whichhemightgetgroundforthree
orfourpenceabushel。Forwantofthisadvantageheisdriventothemealman
orbaker，who，intheordinarycourseoftheirprofit，getatleasttenper
cent。ofthem，uponthisprincipalarticleoftheirconsumption。’(11*)Davies，
theauthorofTheCaseofLabourersinHusbandry，thusdescribesthe
newmethodofdistribution。’Thegreatfarmerdealsinawholesalewaywith
themiller：themillerwiththemealman：themealmanwiththeshopkeeper，
ofwhichlastthepoormanbuyshisflourbythebushel。Forneitherthe
millernorthemealmanwillsellthelaboureralessquantitythanasack
offlour，undertheretailpriceofshops，andthepoorman’spocketwill
seldomallowofhisbuyingawholesackatonce。’(12*)
Itisclearfromthesefactsthatitwouldhaveneededaverylargeincrease
ofwagestocompensatethelabourerforhislossesunderenclosure。Butreal
wages，insteadofrising，hadfallen，andfallenfar。ThewriteroftheBedfordshire
Report(p。67)，comparingtheperiodof1730-50withthatof1802-6inrespect
ofpricesofwheatandlabour，pointsoutthattoenablehimtopurchase
equalquantitiesofbreadinthesecondperiodandinthefirst，thepay
ofthedaylabourerinthesecondperiodshouldhavebeen2s。aday，whereas
itwas1s。6d。NathanielKent，writingin1796，(13*)saysthatinthelast
fortyorfiftyyearsthepriceofprovisionshadgoneupby60percent，
andwagesby25percent，’butthisisnotall，forthesourcesofthemarket
whichusedtofeedhimareinagreatmeasurecutoffsincethesystemof
largefarmshasbeensomuchencouraged。’ProfessorLevyestimatesthatwages
rosebetween1760and1813by60percent，andthepriceofwheatby130
percent。(14*)Thusthelabourerwhonowlivedonwagesaloneearnedwages
ofalowerpurchasingpowerthanthewageswhichhehadformerlysupplemented
byhisownproduce。Whereashisconditionearlierinthecenturyhadbeen
contrastedwiththatofContinentalpeasantsgreatlytohisadvantagein
respectofquantityandvarietyoffood，hewassuddenlybroughtdownto
thebarestnecessitiesoflife。ArthurYounghadsaidagenerationearlier
thatinFrancebreadformednineteenpartsintwentyofthefoodofthepeople，
butthatinEnglandallranksconsumedanimmensequantityofmeat，butter
andcheese。(15*)Weknowsomethingofthemanneroflifeofthepoorin1789
and1795fromthefamilybudgetscollectedbyEdenandDaviesfromdifferent
partsofthecountry。(16*)Thesebudgetsshowthatthelabourerswererapidly
sinkinginthisrespecttotheconditionthatYounghaddescribedasthe
conditionofthepoorinFrance。’Baconandotherkindsofmeatformavery
smallpartoftheirdiet，andcheesebecomesaluxury。’Butevenonthemeagre
foodthatnowbecametheordinaryfareofthecottage，thelabourerscould
notmakeendsmeet。Allthebudgetstellthesametaleofimpoverisheddiet
accompaniedbyanoverwhelmingstrainandanactualdeficit。Thenormallabourer，
evenwithconstantemployment，wasnolongersolvent。
Ifwewishtounderstandfullythepredicamentofthelabourer，wemust
rememberthathewasnotfreetoroamoverEngland，andtryhisluckinsome
strangevillageortownwhenhiscircumstancesbecamedesperateathome。
Helivedunderthecapricioustyrannyoftheoldlawofsettlement，andenclosure
hadmadethatnetamuchmoreseriousfactforthepoor。Thedestruction
ofthecommonshaddeprivedhimofanycareerwithinhisownvillage；the
SettlementLawsbarredhisescapeoutofit。Itisworthwhiletoconsider
whattheSettlementLawswere，andhowtheyacted，andasthesubjectis
notuncontroversialitwillbenecessarytodiscussitinsomedetail。
Theoreticallyeverypersonhadoneparish，andoneonly，inwhichheor
shehadasettlementandarighttoparishrelief。Inpracticeitwasoften
difficulttodecidewhichparishhadthedutyofrelief，anddisputesgave
risetoendlesslitigation。Fromthispointofvieweighteenth-centuryEngland
waslikeachessboardofparishes，onwhichthepoorweremovedaboutlike
pawns。ThefoundationofthevariouslawsonthesubjectwasanActpassed
inCharlesII’sreign(13and14CharlesII。c。12)in1662。Beforethis
Acteachparishhad，itistrue，thedutyofrelievingitsownimpotentpoor
andofpolicingitsownvagrants，andtheinfirmandagedwereenjoinedby
lawtobetakethemselvestotheirplaceofsettlement，whichmightbetheir
birthplace，ortheplacewheretheyhadlivedforthreeyears，but，asa
rule，’apoorfamilymight，withoutthefearofbeingsentbackbytheparish
officers，gowheretheychoose，forbetterwages，ormorecertainemployment。’(17*)
ThisActof1662abridgedtheirliberty，and，inplaceoftheoldvagueness，
establishedanewandelaboratesystem。TheActwasdeclaredtobenecessary
inthepreamble，because’byreasonofsomedefectsinthelaw，poorpeople
arenotrestrainedfromgoingfromoneparishtoanother，andthereforedo
endeavourtosettlethemselvesinthoseparisheswherethereisthebest
stock，thelargestcommonsorwastestobuildcottages，andthemostwoods
forthemtoburnanddestroy；andwhentheyhaveconsumedit，thentoanother
parish；andatlastbecomeroguesandvagabonds；tothegreatdiscouragement
ofparishestoprovidestock，whenitisliabletobedevouredbystrangers。’
BytheActanynew-comer，withinfortydaysofarrival，couldbeejected
fromaparishbyanorderfromthemagistrates，uponcomplaintfromtheparish
officers，andremovedtotheparishwhereheorshewaslastlegallysettled。
If，however，thenew-comersettledinatenementoftheyearlyvalueof
