The story of Pittsburgh: Iron and steel

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1831622599

Document type:: Multivolume work

Title:: The story of Pittsburgh

Place of publication:: Pittsburgh

Publisher:: First National Bank

Year of publication:: 1919-1930

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1831622831

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-239739

Document type:: Volume

Title:: Iron and steel

Volume count:: Vol. 1, nr. 2

Place of publication:: Pittsburgh

Publisher:: First National Bank

Year of publication:: 1919

Scope:: [ca. 12] Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Title page

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Title page

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Access restriction

Copyright

Full text: The Industrial Revolution

Multivolume work

Volume

Title page

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation