the noted Honest Toms was foaled in 1806. The Clydesdales, whatever their origin may have been, were not developed as a distinct breed at the time in question.

Down to the end of the eighteenth century, and for some time later, farm work was largely done by oxen; and the relative advantages of these animals and horses for such work formed a subject of keen controversy. Lord Kames, advanced agriculturist though he was, strongly advocated the continued use of oxen as draught animals; and many others recommended them for the plough, even when they admitted the superiority of horses on the road. The use of oxen for draught purposes was very slow to die out, and it is not certain that their use on farms in England is quite extinct, as teams of them were to be seen at work on the land in the south of Sussex and in the Cotswold district only a few years ago.

Young, in 1797, lamented the neglect of pigs, which farmers too commonly regarded as beneath their notice. Some efforts had been made, however, to improve local breeds by crossing them with the Chinese. Perhaps the Berkshires were the most famous breed of the period, but Young praised the Suffolk whites and the black or black and white pigs of Essex.

A few of the agricultural societies which have done so much to improve stock-breeding and implements were established in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. "The Honourable the Society of Improvers in the Knowledge of Agriculture in Scotland' was of much older date, as it was founded in 1723, and became extinct, as a result of the civil war, in 1745. Ten years later the ‘Edinburgh Society for Encouraging Arts, Sciences, Manufactures, and Agriculture' was established; this association was the outcome of the 'Select Society,' founded in 1754, of which David Hume, Adam Smith, and Lord Kames were members. These two societies became defunct in 1765, and apparently had no similar successor until the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland was founded, under the name of the Highland Society of Edinburgh, in 1785. The Bath and West of England Society had come into existence a few years before, in 1777; but there were earlier local associations of the kind, as, for example, the 'Society of Agriculture for the Counties of Nottingham and the West Riding of York,' which was offering premiums for various

classes of farming improvements in 1769.

In 1798 the

Smithfield Club was established. The first Board of Agriculture was formed in 1793, with Sir John Sinclair as president and Arthur Young as secretary.

The Board of Agriculture maintained its existence until 1822, but its usefulness was crippled throughout its existence by an insufficiency of funds, while its management, especially in its early years, was injudicious. Perhaps it is not too much to say that it did more for posterity than for the agriculturists of its own day; for its county surveys, good, bad, and indifferent, included some productions which are valuable historical records, with others that are simply misleading. These reports, so far as they were instructive to farmers, were prevented from being as useful as they might have been by the high prices at which they were published. They were noticed by the press, however, and excited a good deal of public controversy, which was beneficial. More good was done, perhaps, by the premiums offered by the Board for experiments, inventions, and essays, and more still by the engagement of Professor (afterwards Sir Humphry) Davy, to deliver lectures on agricultural chemistry. As professor of chemical agriculture to the Board, Davy delivered annual lectures for eleven years, from 1803 to 1813 inclusive, after which they were published in a volume.

The past century saw a great extension of the landlord and tenant system. The extinction of common rights in open fields and wastes began the process, and the steady absorption of the land of the yeomanry by the large proprietors went far towards completing it. The latter process had begun in 1795, especially near the manufacturing districts. Holt, in his report on Lancashire in that year, remarked that the yeomanry, formerly numerous and respectable, had greatly diminished in number of late, though they were not extinct. He added that the great wealth which neighbouring manufacturers had rapidly acquired had tempted the yeomen to invest their capital in trade and to place their children in the manufacturing line.' But in most other parts of England these influences did not operate, and the yeomanry continued to be a numerous class until the nineteenth century had well advanced. Kent, for example, John Boys found them numerous in 1796, many of them being owners of large farms.

Landowners and farmers were prosperous during the latter part of the eighteenth century. The enclosure of open fields and commons had done much to improve farming; and good farming paid in those times. Though rents rose rapidly, enterprising farmers became wealthy. Young, in his report on his tour through Essex, remarks that farming between Colchester and Malden was carried on with great spirit, and that farmers were rich. Some of them were worth £30,000 to £40,000, he added, and many over £20,000. There was much enthusiasm in relation to farming improvements among landowners, from the King downwards, and among the tenants who had acquired the occupation of large farms through the extensive enclosures. But the period was one of wretchedness for the agricultural labourers, many of whom had been small farmers under the open-field system; while others had enjoyed common rights for which they had not been adequately compensated when enclosure took place. Wages were extremely low, even when bread was dear.

It is by a comparison with the condition of agriculture in this country shortly before the past century began that the progress made during that period can best be estimated; and for that reason it has seemed desirable to devote a considerable proportion of the space available to this retrospect. Unfortunately the agricultural records for later periods are less comprehensive than those of the eighteenth century, and few are equally interesting.

There had been 'ups' and 'downs' in farming during the eighteenth century, but no such sudden and extreme fluctuations as occurred in the next hundred years, and especially in the first half of the century. There were bad harvests in the last two years of the eighteenth century and the first year of the nineteenth. The annual average price of wheat had risen from 43s. per quarter in 1792 to 78s. 7d. in 1796, fallen to 51s. 10d. in 1798, and recovered so far as 69s. by 1799, while in 1800 it rose to 113s. 10d., and in 1801 to 119s. 6d. This was the highest annual average ever yet attained, but the maximum was not reached till 1812, when it stood at 1268. 6d. During most of this period war was going on in Europe, to be ended only in 1815; and when the harvests were deficient, the prices of corn, helped by high duties on imports and

a depreciated currency, rose to extreme rates. Barley averaged 68s. 6d. in the first year of the nineteenth century, and this was its maximum. It had been only 26s. 3d. in 1790. Oats, like wheat, were highest in 1812, when they averaged 44s. 6d. per quarter, the average for barley being 668. 9d. The fluctuations were enormous, the ranges of annual average in the first twelve years of the century being from 58s. 10d. to 126s. 6d. per quarter for wheat, from 258. 4d. to 68s. 6d. for barley, and from 20s. 4d. to 44s. 6d. for oats. But the mean rates during the period were high enough to bring wealth to farmers, and to send rents up enormously. For example, the rental of the Northumberland agricultural estates of Greenwich Hospital rose from 69507. in 1793-4 to 15,5607. in 1814-15, an advance of 124 per cent. The rental of agricultural land in Scotland rose from two millions sterling, in round numbers, in 1795, to five and a quarter millions in 1815. Although wages rose, the advance was not nearly sufficient to enable labourers and their families to subsist upon them, with the price of food so high as it was during this period; and thousands were kept from starvation only by a lavish outlay in poor relief, used by farmers, in effect, as part payment of wages. It is not surprising to learn, then, that the total burden of rates in England and Wales rose from 5,848,000l. in 1803 to 8,164,000l. in 1815.

The new duties on imports of wheat, imposed in 1804, had little to do with the high prices of corn. From 1791 to 1803 the duty was 6d. per quarter when wheat was 54s. or more in price, 2s. 6d. when it was between 54s. and 50s., and 24s. 3d. when it was below 50s. The tariff of 1804 made the rate 6d. per quarter on wheat at 66s. or more, 2s. 6d. when it was between 668. and 63s., and 24s. 3d. when it was below 638. But from 1805 to 1814 inclusive the price was not once as low as 66s., the range of annual averages having been from 74s. to 126s. 6d. It is strange indeed, that in 1813, the year after wheat had reached its highest average of 126s. 6d., it was deemed desirable to increase the duties on imports, charging 18. per quarter at 80s., and higher rates on a sliding scale as prices decreased down to 648., at which price the duty was 248. In 1813 wheat averaged 109s. 9d. per quarter; barley, 58s. 6d.; and oats, 388. 6d. But the next year brought a fall to 74s. 4d., 378. 4d., and 258. 8d. for the three kinds of grain respectively; and

in 1815 the importation of corn was prohibited when the prices were below 80s. for wheat, 40s. for barley, 268. for oats, and 538. for rye, beans, and peas.

Peace brought a great fall in prices, wheat in 1815, for example, averaging 65s. 7d.; and, though there was an advance to 76s. 6d. in 1816, distress was so great in the agricultural as well as in other industries that the Board of Agriculture deemed it desirable to issue an enquiry into the condition of agriculture. It is difficult in these times, when prices for corn are much lower than those which prevailed even in 1815, to understand how distress could have come upon farmers so suddenly. It is true that rents and poor rates had doubled during the period of war prices; but it might have been supposed that the accumulations made while the war lasted would have sufficed to tide farmers over a few bad years. Nothing but the adoption of an extravagant scale of expenditure can account for the sudden distress of farmers; and there is no doubt that the standard of living had been raised inordinately. The explanation of the difficulties in which landlords were involved is easier, as rents fell more suddenly than they had risen, while many farms were thrown on their owners' hands. From the replies to the questions of the Board of Agriculture it appeared that, only a year after the end of the war, the rental of agricultural land had fallen to the extent of 9,000,000l. Such a fall-to say nothing of losses from farmers' bankruptcies, after landlords had burdened their estates with mortgages and annuities, in order to maintain an extravagant scale of expenditure—was a blow from which many of them were unable to recover. The general taxation and local burdens, moreover, had greatly increased.

The farm labourers were in great distress, numbers of them being thrown out of employment, and riots and incendiary fires were common in many districts. Wages fell, and yet wheat averaged 78s. 6d. in 1816 and 96s. 11d. in the following year. The abominable Poor Law of the period had sapped the labourers' independence, and encouraged them to marry recklessly, as it gave a premium upon a large family. A table of graduated relief in proportion to the price of bread and the size of a family is given as being in force in a Berkshire union in Dr Mavor's 'Survey' of that county, published in 1813. Beginning at 1s. per