A.D. 1776 
—1850. 
Fenerally 
peaking 
he 
labourer 
714 
LAISSEZ FAIRE 
Arthur Young, who had done so much in advocating 
snclosure, was greatly distressed to find that the labourers 
had suffered so severely. He set himself to collect evidence’ 
on this special point in 1800, and found that out of thirty- 
seven enclosed parishes for which he had full details, there 
were only twelve in which the labourers had not been injured. 
From the fact that there were twelve, he rightly argues that 
it was possible to carry out enclosure, and to obtain all the 
national benefit which it afforded, without perpetrating such 
injustice on the poor; but he urges that in all future acts of 
anclosure special care should be taken to insert clauses which 
would adequately protect the labourer in his accustomed 
orivileges®. Even if this had been attended to most strictly, 
< Annals, xxxVvI. 513. , 
t Sir G. Paul urged (General Report on Enclosures, p. 19) that it was possible 
0 do much to replace the labourer in his old position by granting allotments. 
[nvestigation as to different parts of the country showed that the panperism was 
much worse in some districts than in others; and a comparison of different 
sarishes served to bring out the fact that where the labourers had land of their 
ywn to work, they were much less likely to lose the spirit of independence ; sce 
specially Mr Gourlay’s long paper on the Lincolnshire cottagers in the Annals, 
gxxvir. 514; Arthur Young seems to have believed that the general formation 
Jf suitable allotments would enable the labourers to maintain themselves. The 
fesire of doing so would render them diligent and independent, while even the 
prospect of sooner or later obtaining such a cottage and allotment would give 
the labourer a prospect in life whiclt would have a beneficial effect. It was 
however a sine gua mon With Arthur Young that these allotments should be 
forfeited by men who became dependent on the rates (4dnnals, XXXVI. 641, and 
still more strongly XiI. p. 214), as he desired to make them the means of en- 
souraging independence and not merely a method of relieving the poor. Arthur 
Young was of course aware that many Irish cottiers and French peasants led 
1 miserable existence, despite the fact that they had little farms of their own. He 
was clear that the labourers’ allotments should be of such a size that they could 
ve really made to answer, and he therefore desired that the allotments should be 
rented. After his experience of the French peasantry he would not dare to trust 
the English labourer with the fee simple of the land, as he feared that this would 
‘nevitably lead to subdivision. This has not been sufficiently taken into account 
ay those who have quoted his phrases about the ‘magic of property,’ and repre- 
sented him as approving of a peasant proprietary. He advocated a system by 
which the peasantry might have the opportunity of using land on their own 
sccount, but he thought it was undesirable that they should own it. His remarks 
soincide in many points with those of Sir James Steuart (Works, 1. p. 112). 
It was by no means easy to lay down in general terms the size and nature of the 
allotment which would be really satisfactory. In the grazing counties, it was pro- 
nosed to assign the labourer a garden, and enough grass for a cow. A poor family