資本論 CHAPTER 27:

EXPROPRIATION

OF

THE

AGRICULTURAL

POPULATION

FROM

THE

LAND

In

England,

serfdom

had

practically

disappeared

in

the

last

part

of

the

14th

century.

The

immense

majority

of

the

population1consisted

then,

and

to

a

still

larger

extent,

in

the

15th

century,

of

free

peasant

proprietors,

whatever

was

the

feudal

title

under

which

their

right

of

property

was

hidden.

In

the

larger

seignorial

domains,

the

old

bailiff,

himself

a

serf,

was

displaced

by

the

free

farmer.

The

wage

labourers

of

agriculture

consisted

partly

of

peasants,who

utilised

their

leisure

time

by

working

on

the

large

estates,

partly

of

an

independent

special

class

of

wage

labourers,

relatively

and

absolutely

few

in

numbers.

The

latter

also

were

practically

at

the

same

time

peasant

farmers,

since,

besides

their

wages,

they

had

allotted

to

them

arable

land

to

the

extent

of

4

or

more

acres,

together

with

their

cottages.

Besides

they,with

the

rest

of

the

peasants,

enjoyed

the

usufruct

of

the

common

land,

which

gave

pasture

to

their

cattle,furnished

them

with

timber,

fire-wood,

turf,

&c.2In

all

countries

of

Europe,

feudal

production

is

characterised

by

division

of

the

soil

amongst

the

greatest

possible

number

of

subfeudatories.

The

might

of

the

feudal

lord,

like

that

of

the

sovereign,

depended

not

on

the

length

of

his

rent

roll,

but

on

the

number

of

his

subjects,

and

the

latter

depended

on

the

number

of

peasant

proprietors.3Although,

therefore,

the

English

land,

after

the

Norman

Conquest,

was

distributed

in

gigantic

baronies,

one

of

which

often

included

some

900

of

the

old

Anglo-Saxon

lordships,

it

was

bestrewn

with

small

peasant

properties,

only

here

and

there

interspersed

with

great

seignorial

domains.

Such

conditions,

together

with

the

prosperity

of

the

towns

so

characteristic

of

the

15th

century,

allowed

of

that

wealth

of

the

people

which

Chancellor

Fortescue

so

eloquently

paints

in

his

\"Laudes

legum

Angliae;\"

but

it

excluded

the

possibility

of

capitalistic

wealth.

The

prelude

of

the

revolution

that

laid

the

foundation

of

the

capitalist

mode

of

production,

was

played

in

the

last

third

of

the

15th,

and

the

first

decade

of

the

16th

century.

A

mass

of

free

proletarians

was

hurled

on

the

labour

market

by

the

breaking-up

of

the

bands

of

feudal

retainers,

who,

as

Sir

James

Steuart

well

says,

\"everywhere

uselessly

filled

house

and

castle.\"Although

the

royal

power,

itself

a

product

of

bourgeois

development,

in

its

strife

after

absolute

sovereignty

forcibly

hastened

on

the

dissolution

of

these

bands

of

retainers,

it

was

by

no

means

the

sole

cause

of

it.

In

insolent

conflict

with

king

and

parliament,

the

great

feudal

lords

created

an

incomparably

larger

proletariat

by

the

forcible

driving

of

the

peasantry

from

the

land,to

which

the

latter

had

the

same

feudal

right

as

the

lord

himself,

and

by

the

usurpation

of

the

common

lands.The

rapid

rise

of

the

Flemish

wool

manufactures,

and

the

corresponding

rise

in

the

price

of

wool

in

England,gave

the

direct

impulse

to

these

evictions.

The

old

nobility

had

been

devoured

by

the

great

feudal

wars.The

new

nobility

was

the

child

of

its

time,

for

which

money

was

the

power

of

all

powers.

Transformation

of

arable

land

into

sheep-walks

was,

therefore,

its

cry.Harrison,

in

his

\"Description

of

England,

prefixed

to

Holinshed's

Chronicles,\"

describes

how

the

expropriation

of

small

peasants

is

ruining

the

country.\"What

care

our

great

encroachers\"

The

dwellings

of

the

peasants

and

the

cottages

of

the

labourers

were

razed

to

the

ground

or

doomed

to

decay.

\"If,\"says

Harrison,

\"the

old

records

of

euerie

manour

be

sought...

it

will

soon

appear

that

in

some

manour

seventeene,

eighteene,

or

twentie

houses

are

shrunk...that

England

was

neuer

less

furnished

with

people

than

at

the

present...

Of

cities

and

townes

either

utterly

decaied

or

more

than

a

quarter

or

half

diminished,though

some

one

be

a

little

increased

here

or

there;

of

townes

pulled

downe

for

sheepe-walks,

and

no

more

but

the

lordships

now

standing

in

them...

I

could

saie

somewhat.\"

The

complaints

of

these

old

chroniclers

are

always

exaggerated,

but

they

reflect

faithfully

the

impression

made

on

contemporaries

by

the

revolution

in

the

conditions

of

production.

A

comparison

of

the

writings

of

Chancellor

Fortescue

and

Thomas

More

reveals

the

gulf

between

the

15th

and

16th

century.

As

Thornton

rightly

has

it,

the

English

working

class

was

precipitated

without

any

transition

from

its

golden

into

its

iron

age.

Legislation

was

terrified

at

this

revolution.

It

did

not

yet

stand

on

that

height

of

civilisation

where

the\"wealth

of

the

nation\"

(i.e.,

the

formation

of

capital,and

the

reckless

exploitation

and

impoverishing

of

the

mass

of

the

people)

figure

as

the

ultima

Thule

of

all

state-craft.

In

his

history

of

Henry

VII.,

Bacon

says:

\"Inclosures

at

that

time

(1489)

began

to

be

more

frequent,

whereby

arable

land

(which

could

not

be

manured

without

people

and

families)

was

turned

into

pasture,

which

was

easily

rid

by

a

few

herdsmen;

and

tenancies

for

years,

lives,

and

at

will

(whereupon

much

of

the

yeomanry

lived)

were

turned

into

demesnes.This

bred

a

decay

of

people,

and

(by

consequence)

a

decay

of

towns,

churches,

tithes,

and

the

like...

In

remedying

of

this

inconvenience

the

king's

wisdom

was

admirable,

and

the

parliament's

at

that

time...

they

took

a

course

to

take

away

depopulating

enclosures,and

depopulating

pasturage.\"

An

Act

of

Henry

VII.,1489,

cap.

19,

forbad

the

destruction

of

all

\"houses

of

husbandry\"

to

which

at

least

20

acres

of

land

belonged.

By

an

Act,

25

Henry

VIII.,

the

same

law

was

renewed.

It

recites,

among

other

things,

that

many

farms

and

large

flocks

of

cattle,

especially

of

sheep,are

concentrated

in

the

hands

of

a

few

men,

whereby

the

rent

of

land

has

much

risen

and

tillage

has

fallen

off,

churches

and

houses

have

been

pulled

down,

and

marvellous

numbers

of

people

have

been

deprived

of

the

means

wherewith

to

maintain

themselves

and

their

families.

The

Act,

therefore,

ordains

the

rebuilding

of

the

decayed

farmsteads,

and

fixes

a

proportion

between

corn

land

and

pasture

land,

&c.

An

Act

of

1533

recites

that

some

owners

possess

24,000

sheep,and

limits

the

number

to

be

owned

to

2,000.4The

cry

of

the

people

and

the

legislation

directed,

for

150

years

after

Henry

VII.,

against

the

expropriation

of

the

small

farmers

and

peasants,

were

alike

fruitless.

The

secret

of

their

inefficiency

Bacon,

without

knowing

it,reveals

to

us.

\"The

device

of

King

Henry

VII.,\"

says

Bacon,

in

his

\"Essays,

Civil

and

Moral,\"

Essay

29,\"was

profound

and

admirable,

in

making

farms

and

houses

of

husbandry

of

a

standard;

that

is,

maintained

with

such

a

proportion

of

land

unto

them

as

may

breed

a

subject

to

live

in

convenient

plenty,

and

no

servile

condition,

and

to

keep

the

plough

in

the

hands

of

the

owners

and

not

mere

hirelings.\"5What

the

capitalist

system

demanded

was,

on

the

other

hand,

a

degraded

and

almost

servile

condition

of

the

mass

of

the

people,

the

transformation

of

them

into

mercenaries,and

of

their

means

of

labour

into

capital.

During

this

transformation

period,

legislation

also

strove

to

retain

the

4

acres

of

land

by

the

cottage

of

the

agricultural

wage

labourer,

and

forbad

him

to

take

lodgers

into

his

cottage.

In

the

reign

of

James

I.,

1627,

Roger

Crocker

of

Front

Mill,

was

condemned

for

having

built

a

cottage

on

the

manor

of

Front

Mill

without

4

acres

of

land

attached

to

the

same

in

perpetuity.

As

late

as

Charles

I.'s

reign,

1638,

a

royal

commission

was

appointed

to

enforce

the

carrying

out

of

the

old

laws,

especially

that

referring

to

the

4

acres

of

land.Even

in

Cromwell's

time,

the

building

of

a

house

within

4

miles

of

London

was

forbidden

unless

it

was

endowed

with

4

acres

of

land.

As

late

as

the

first

half

of

the

18th

century

complaint

is

made

if

the

cottage

of

the

agricultural

labourer

has

not

an

adjunct

of

one

or

two

acres

of

land.

Nowadays

he

is

lucky

if

it

is

furnished

with

a

little

garden,

or

if

he

may

rent,

far

away

from

his

cottage,

a

few

roods.

\"Landlords

and

farmers,\"

says

Dr.

Hunter,

\"work

here

hand

in

hand.

A

few

acres

to

the

cottage

would

make

the

labourers

too

independent.\"6

The

process

of

forcible

expropriation

of

the

people

received

in

the

16th

century

a

new

and

frightful

impulse

from

the

Reformation,

and

from

the

consequent

colossal

spoliation

of

the

church

property.

The

Catholic

church

was,

at

the

time

of

the

Reformation,

feudal

proprietor

of

a

great

part

of

the

English

land.

The

suppression

of

the

monasteries,

&c.,

hurled

their

inmates

into

the

proletariat.

The

estates

of

the

church

were

to

a

large

extent

given

away

to

rapacious

royal

favourites,

or

sold

at

a

nominal

price

to

speculating

farmers

and

citizens,

who

drove

out,

en

masse,

the

hereditary

sub

tenants

and

threw

their

holdings

into

one.

The

legally

guaranteed

property

of

the

poorer

folk

in

a

part

of

the

church's

tithes

was

tacitly

confiscated.7\"Pauper

ubique

jacet,\"

cried

Queen

Elizabeth,

after

a

journey

through

England.

In

the

43rd

year

of

her

reign

the

nation

was

obliged

to

recognise

pauperism

officially

by

the

introduction

of

a

poor-rate.

\"The

authors

of

this

law

seem

to

have

been

ashamed

to

state

the

grounds

of

it,for

[contrary

to

traditional

usage]

it

has

no

preamble

whatever.\"8By

the

16th

of

Charles

I.,

ch.

4,

it

was

declared

perpetual,

and

in

fact

only

in

1834

did

it

take

a

new

and

harsher

form.9These

immediate

results

of

the

Reformation

were

not

its

most

lasting

ones.

The

property

of

the

church

formed

the

religious

bulwark

of

the

traditional

conditions

of

landed

property.

With

its

fall

these

were

no

longer

tenable.10

Even

in

the

last

decade

of

the

17th

century,

the

yeomanry,

the

class

of

independent

peasants,

were

more

numerous

than

the

class

of

farmers.

They

had

formed

the

backbone

of

Cromwell's

strength,

and,even

according

to

the

confession

of

Macaulay,

stood

in

favourable

contrast

to

the

drunken

squires

and

to

their

servants,

the

country

clergy,

who

had

to

marry

their

masters'

cast-off

mistresses.

About

1750,

the

yeomanry

had

disappeared,11and

so

had,

in

the

last

decade

of

the

18th

century,

the

last

trace

of

the

common

land

of

the

agricultural

labourer.

We

leave

on

one

side

here

the

purely

economic

causes

of

the

agricultural

revolution.

We

deal

only

with

the

forcible

means

employed.

After

the

restoration

of

the

Stuarts,

the

landed

proprietors

carried,

by

legal

means,

an

act

of

usurpation,

effected

everywhere

on

the

Continent

without

any

legal

formality.

They

abolished

the

feudal

tenure

of

land,

i.e.,

they

got

rid

of

all

its

obligations

to

the

State,

\"indemnified\"

the

State

by

taxes

on

the

peasantry

and

the

rest

of

the

mass

of

the

people,vindicated

for

themselves

the

rights

of

modern

private

property

in

estates

to

which

they

had

only

a

feudal

title,

and,

finally,

passed

those

laws

of

settlement,which,

mutatis

mutandis,

had

the

same

effect

on

the

English

agricultural

labourer,

as

the

edict

of

the

Tartar

Boris

Godunof

on

the

Russian

peasantry.

The

\"glorious

Revolution\"

brought

into

power,

along

with

William

of

Orange,

the

landlord

and

capitalist

appropriators

of

surplus-value.12They

inaugurated

the

new

era

by

practising

on

a

colossal

scale

thefts

of

state

lands,

thefts

that

had

been

hitherto

managed

more

modestly.

These

estates

were

given

away,

sold

at

a

ridiculous

figure,

or

even

annexed

to

private

estates

by

direct

seizure.13All

this

happened

without

the

slightest

observation

of

legal

etiquette.

The

Crown

lands

thus

fraudulently

appropriated,

together

with

the

robbery

of

the

Church

estates,

as

far

as

these

had

not

been

lost

again

during

the

republican

revolution,

form

the

basis

of

the

today

princely

domains

of

the

English

oligarchy.14The

bourgeois

capitalists

favoured

the

operation

with

the

view,

among

others,

to

promoting

free

trade

in

land,

to

extending

the

domain

of

modern

agriculture

on

the

large

farm-system,

and

to

increasing

their

supply

of

the

free

agricultural

proletarians

ready

to

hand.

Besides,

the

new

landed

aristocracy

was

the

natural

ally

of

the

new

bankocracy,

of

the

newly

hatched

haute

finance,

and

of

the

large

manufacturers,then

depending

on

protective

duties.

The

English

bourgeoisie

acted

for

its

own

interest

quite

as

wisely

as

did

the

Swedish

bourgeoisie

who,

reversing

the

process,

hand

in

hand

with

their

economic

allies,

the

peasantry,

helped

the

kings

in

the

forcible

resumption

of

the

Crown

lands

from

the

oligarchy.

This

happened

since

1604

under

Charles

X.

and

Charles

XI.

Communal

property

–

always

distinct

from

the

State

property

just

dealt

with

–

was

an

old

Teutonic

institution

which

lived

on

under

cover

of

feudalism.We

have

seen

how

the

forcible

usurpation

of

this,generally

accompanied

by

the

turning

of

arable

into

pasture

land,

begins

at

the

end

of

the

15th

and

extends

into

the

16th

century.

But,

at

that

time,

the

process

was

carried

on

by

means

of

individual

acts

of

violence

against

which

legislation,

for

a

hundred

and

fifty

years,

fought

in

vain.

The

advance

made

by

the

18th

century

shows

itself

in

this,

that

the

law

itself

becomes

now

the

instrument

of

the

theft

of

the

people's

land,

although

the

large

farmers

make

use

of

their

little

independent

methods

as

well.15The

parliamentary

form

of

the

robbery

is

that

of

Acts

for

enclosures

of

Commons,

in

other

words,

decrees

by

which

the

landlords

grant

themselves

the

people's

land

as

private

property,

decrees

of

expropriation

of

the

people.

Sir

F.

M.

Eden

refutes

his

own

crafty

special

pleading,

in

which

he

tries

to

represent

communal

property

as

the

private

property

of

the

great

landlords

who

have

taken

the

place

of

the

feudal

lords,

when

he,

himself,

demands

a

\"general

Act

of

Parliament

for

the

enclosure

of

Commons\"

(admitting

thereby

that

a

parliamentary

coup

d'état

is

necessary

for

its

transformation

into

private

property),

and

moreover

calls

on

the

legislature

for

the

indemnification

for

the

expropriated

poor.16

Whilst

the

place

of

the

independent

yeoman

was

taken

by

tenants

at

will,

small

farmers

on

yearly

leases,

a

servile

rabble

dependent

on

the

pleasure

of

the

landlords,

the

systematic

robbery

of

the

Communal

lands

helped

especially,

next

to

the

theft

of

the

State

domains,

to

swell

those

large

farms,

that

were

called

in

the

18th

century

capital

farms17or

merchant

farms,18and

to

\"set

free\"

the

agricultural

population

as

proletarians

for

manufacturing

industry.

The

18th

century,

however,

did

not

yet

recognise

as

fully

as

the

19th,

the

identity

between

national

wealth

and

the

poverty

of

the

people.

Hence

the

most

vigorous

polemic,

in

the

economic

literature

of

that

time,

on

the

\"enclosure

of

commons.\"

From

the

mass

of

materials

that

lie

before

me,

I

give

a

few

extracts

that

will

throw

a

strong

light

on

the

circumstances

of

the

time.

\"In

several

parishes

of

Hertfordshire,\"

writes

one

indignant

person,

\"24

farms,

numbering

on

the

average

50-150

acres,

have

been

melted

up

into

three

farms.\"19\"In

Northamptonshire

and

Leicestershire

the

enclosure

of

common

lands

has

taken

place

on

a

very

large

scale,

and

most

of

the

new

lordships,

resulting

from

the

enclosure,

have

been

turned

into

pasturage,in

consequence

of

which

many

lordships

have

not

now

50

acres

ploughed

yearly,

in

which

1,500

were

ploughed

formerly.

The

ruins

of

former

dwelling

houses,

barns,

stables,

&c.,\"

are

the

sole

traces

of

the

former

inhabitants.

\"An

hundred

houses

and

families

have

in

some

open-field

villages

dwindled

to

eight

or

ten....

The

landholders

in

most

parishes

that

have

been

enclosed

only

15

or

20

years,

are

very

few

in

comparison

of

the

numbers

who

occupied

them

in

their

open-field

state.

It

is

no

uncommon

thing

for

4

or

5

wealthy

graziers

to

engross

a

large

enclosed

lordship

which

was

before

in

the

hands

of

20

or

30

farmers,

and

as

many

smaller

tenants

and

proprietors.All

these

are

hereby

thrown

out

of

their

livings

with

their

families

and

many

other

families

who

were

chiefly

employed

and

supported

by

them.\"20It

was

not

only

the

land

that

lay

waste,

but

often

land

cultivated

either

in

common

or

held

under

a

definite

rent

paid

to

the

community,

that

was

annexed

by

the

neighbouring

landlords

under

pretext

of

enclosure.

\"I

have

here

in

view

enclosures

of

open

fields

and

lands

already

improved.

It

is

acknowledged

by

even

the

writers

in

defence

of

enclosures

that

these

diminished

villages

increase

the

monopolies

of

farms,

raise

the

prices

of

provisions,

and

produce

depopulation

...

and

even

the

enclosure

of

waste

lands

(as

now

carried

on)

bears

hard

on

the

poor,

by

depriving

them

of

a

part

of

their

subsistence,

and

only

goes

towards

increasing

farms

already

too

large.\"21\"When,\"

says

Dr.

Price,

\"this

land

gets

into

the

hands

of

a

few

great

farmers,

the

consequence

must

be

that

the

little

farmers\"

(earlier

designated

by

him

\"a

multitude

of

little

proprietors

and

tenants,

who

maintain

themselves

and

families

by

the

produce

of

the

ground

they

occupy

by

sheep

kept

on

a

common,

by

poultry,

hogs,

&c.,

and

who

therefore

have

little

occasion

to

purchase

any

of

the

means

of

subsistence\")

\"will

be

converted

into

a

body

of

men

who

earn

their

subsistence

by

working

for

others,

and

who

will

be

under

a

necessity

of

going

to

market

for

all

they

want....

There

will,

perhaps,

be

more

labour,because

there

will

be

more

compulsion

to

it....

Towns

and

manufactures

will

increase,

because

more

will

be

driven

to

them

in

quest

of

places

and

employment.This

is

the

way

in

which

the

engrossing

of

farms

naturally

operates.

And

this

is

the

way

in

which,

for

many

years,

it

has

been

actually

operating

in

this

kingdom.\"22He

sums

up

the

effect

of

the

enclosures

thus:

\"Upon

the

whole,

the

circumstances

of

the

lower

ranks

of

men

are

altered

in

almost

every

respect

for

the

worse.

From

little

occupiers

of

land,

they

are

reduced

to

the

state

of

day-labourers

and

hirelings;

and,

at

the

same

time,

their

subsistence

in

that

state

has

become

more

difficult.\"23In

fact,

usurpation

of

the

common

lands

and

the

revolution

in

agriculture

accompanying

this,

told

so

acutely

on

the

agricultural

labourers

that,even

according

to

Eden,

between

1765

and

1780,

their

wages

began

to

fall

below

the

minimum,

and

to

be

supplemented

by

official

poor-law

relief.

Their

wages,he

says,

\"were

not

more

than

enough

for

the

absolute

necessaries

of

life.\"

Let

us

hear

for

a

moment

a

defender

of

enclosures

and

an

opponent

of

Dr.

Price.

\"Not

is

it

a

consequence

that

there

must

be

depopulation,

because

men

are

not

seen

wasting

their

labour

in

the

open

field....

If,

by

converting

the

little

farmers

into

a

body

of

men

who

must

work

for

others,

more

labour

is

produced,

it

is

an

advantage

which

the

nation\"

(to

which,

of

course,the

\"converted\"

ones

do

not

belong)

\"should

wish

for...

the

produce

being

greater

when

their

joint

labours

are

employed

on

one

farm,

there

will

be

a

surplus

for

manufactures,

and

by

this

means

manufactures,

one

of

the

mines

of

the

nation,

will

increase,

in

proportion

to

the

quantity

of

corn

produced.\"24

The

stoical

peace

of

mind

with

which

the

political

economist

regards

the

most

shameless

violation

of

the

\"sacred

rights

of

property\"

and

the

grossest

acts

of

violence

to

persons,

as

soon

as

they

are

necessary

to

lay

the

foundations

of

the

capitalistic

mode

of

production,

is

shown

by

Sir

F.

M.

Eden,

philanthropist

and

tory

to

boot.

The

whole

series

of

thefts,

outrages,and

popular

misery,

that

accompanied

the

forcible

expropriation

of

the

people,

from

the

last

third

of

the

15th

to

the

end

of

the

18th

century,

lead

him

merely

to

the

comfortable

conclusion:

\"The

due

proportion

between

arable

land

and

pasture

had

to

be

established.During

the

whole

of

the

14th

and

the

greater

part

of

the

15th

century,

there

was

one

acre

of

pasture

to

2,3,

and

even

4

of

arable

land.

About

the

middle

of

the

16th

century

the

proportion

was

changed

of

2

acres

of

pasture

to

2,

later

on,

of

2

acres

of

pasture

to

one

of

arable,

until

at

last

the

just

proportion

of

3

acres

of

pasture

to

one

of

arable

land

was

attained.\"

In

the

19th

century,

the

very

memory

of

the

connexion

between

the

agricultural

labourer

and

the

communal

property

had,

of

course,

vanished.

To

say

nothing

of

more

recent

times,

have

the

agricultural

population

received

a

farthing

of

compensation

for

the

3,511,770

acres

of

common

land

which

between

1801

and

1831

were

stolen

from

them

and

by

parliamentary

devices

presented

to

the

landlords

by

the

landlords

The

last

process

of

wholesale

expropriation

of

the

agricultural

population

from

the

soil

is,

finally,

the

so

called

clearing

of

estates,

i.e.,

the

sweeping

men

off

them.

All

the

English

methods

hitherto

considered

culminated

in

\"clearing.\"

As

we

saw

in

the

picture

of

modern

conditions

given

in

a

former

chapter,where

there

are

no

more

independent

peasants

to

get

rid

of,

the

\"clearing\"

of

cottages

begins;

so

that

the

agricultural

labourers

do

not

find

on

the

soil

cultivated

by

them

even

the

spot

necessary

for

their

own

housing.But

what

\"clearing

of

estates\"

really

and

properly

signifies,

we

learn

only

in

the

promised

land

of

modern

romance,

the

Highlands

of

Scotland.

There

the

process

is

distinguished

by

its

systematic

character,

by

the

magnitude

of

the

scale

on

which

it

is

carried

out

at

one

blow

(in

Ireland

landlords

have

gone

to

the

length

of

sweeping

away

several

villages

at

once;

in

Scotland

areas

as

large

as

German

principalities

are

dealt

with),finally

by

the

peculiar

form

of

property,

under

which

the

embezzled

lands

were

held.

The

Highland

Celts

were

organised

in

clans,

each

of

which

was

the

owner

of

the

land

on

which

it

was

settled.

The

representative

of

the

clan,

its

chief

or

\"great

man,\"

was

only

the

titular

owner

of

this

property,

just

as

the

Queen

of

England

is

the

titular

owner

of

all

the

national

soil.

When

the

English

government

succeeded

in

suppressing

the

intestine

wars

of

these

\"great

men,\"

and

their

constant

incursions

into

the

Lowland

plains,

the

chiefs

of

the

clans

by

no

means

gave

up

their

time-honoured

trade

as

robbers;

they

only

changed

its

form.

On

their

own

authority

they

transformed

their

nominal

right

into

a

right

of

private

property,

and

as

this

brought

them

into

collision

with

their

clansmen,

resolved

to

drive

them

out

by

open

force.

\"A

king

of

England

might

as

well

claim

to

drive

his

subjects

into

the

sea,\"

says

Professor

Newman.25This

revolution,

which

began

in

Scotland

after

the

last

rising

of

the

followers

of

the

Pretender,can

be

followed

through

its

first

phases

in

the

writings

of

Sir

James

Steuart26and

James

Anderson.27In

the18th

century

the

hunted-out

Gaels

were

forbidden

to

emigrate

from

the

country,

with

a

view

to

driving

them

by

force

to

Glasgow

and

other

manufacturing

towns.28As

an

example

of

the

method29obtaining

inthe

19th

century,

the

\"clearing\"

made

by

the

Duchess

of

Sutherland

will

suffice

here.

This

person,

well

instructed

in

economy,

resolved,

on

entering

upon

her

government,

to

effect

a

radical

cure,

and

to

turn

the

whole

country,

whose

population

had

already

been,

by

earlier

processes

of

the

like

kind,

reduced

to

15,000,

into

a

sheep-walk.

From

1814

to

1820

these

15,000

inhabitants,

about

3,000

families,

were

systematically

hunted

and

rooted

out.

All

their

villages

were

destroyed

and

burnt,

all

their

fields

turned

into

pasturage.

British

soldiers

enforced

this

eviction,

and

came

to

blows

with

the

inhabitants.

One

old

woman

was

burnt

to

death

in

the

flames

of

the

hut,

which

she

refused

to

leave.

Thus

this

fine

lady

appropriated

794,000

acres

of

land

that

had

from

time

immemorial

belonged

to

the

clan.

She

assigned

to

the

expelled

inhabitants

about

6,000

acres

on

the

sea-shore

–

2

acres

per

family.

The

6,000

acres

had

until

this

time

lain

waste,

and

brought

in

no

income

to

their

owners.The

Duchess,

in

the

nobility

of

her

heart,

actually

went

so

far

as

to

let

these

at

an

average

rent

of

2s.

6d.

per

acre

to

the

clansmen,

who

for

centuries

had

shed

their

blood

for

her

family.

The

whole

of

the

stolen

clanland

she

divided

into

29

great

sheep

farms,

each

inhabited

by

a

single

family,

for

the

most

part

imported

English

farm-servants.

In

the

year

1835

the

15,000

Gaels

were

already

replaced

by

131,000

sheep.

The

remnant

of

the

aborigines

flung

on

the

sea-shore

tried

to

live

by

catching

fish.

They

became

amphibious

and

lived,

as

an

English

author

says,

half

on

land

and

half

on

water,and

withal

only

half

on

both.30

But

the

brave

Gaels

must

expiate

yet

more

bitterly

their

idolatry,

romantic

and

of

the

mountains,

for

the\"great

men\"

of

the

clan.

The

smell

of

their

fish

rose

to

the

noses

of

the

great

men.

They

scented

some

profit

in

it,

and

let

the

sea-shore

to

the

great

fishmongers

of

London.

For

the

second

time

the

Gaels

were

hunted

out.31

But,

finally,

part

of

the

sheep-walks

are

turned

into

deer

preserves.

Every

one

knows

that

there

are

no

real

forests

in

England.

The

deer

in

the

parks

of

the

great

are

demurely

domestic

cattle,

fat

as

London

aldermen.

Scotland

is

therefore

the

last

refuge

of

the\"noble

passion.\"

\"In

the

Highlands,\"

says

Somers

in

1848,

\"new

forests

are

springing

up

like

mushrooms.Here,

on

one

side

of

Gaick,

you

have

the

new

forest

of

Glenfeshie;

and

there

on

the

other

you

have

the

new

forest

of

Ardverikie.

In

the

same

line

you

have

the

Black

Mount,

an

immense

waste

also

recently

erected.

From

east

to

west

–

from

the

neighbourhood

of

Aberdeen

to

the

crags

of

Oban

–

you

have

now

a

continuous

line

of

forests;

while

in

other

parts

of

the

Highlands

there

are

the

new

forests

of

Loch

Archaig,

Glengarry,

Glenmoriston,

&c.

Sheep

were

introduced

into

glens

which

had

been

the

seats

of

communities

of

small

farmers;

and

the

latter

were

driven

to

seek

subsistence

on

coarser

and

more

sterile

tracks

of

soil.

Now

deer

are

supplanting

sheep;

and

these

are

once

more

dispossessing

the

small

tenants,

who

will

necessarily

be

driven

down

upon

still

coarser

land

and

to

more

grinding

penury.

Deer-forests32and

the

people

cannot

co-exist.

One

or

other

of

the

two

must

yield.Let

the

forests

be

increased

in

number

and

extent

during

the

next

quarter

of

a

century,

as

they

have

been

in

the

last,

and

the

Gaels

will

perish

from

their

native

soil...

This

movement

among

the

Highland

proprietors

is

with

some

a

matter

of

ambition...

with

some

love

of

sport...

while

others,

of

a

more

practical

cast,

follow

the

trade

in

deer

with

an

eye

solely

to

profit.

For

it

is

a

fact,

that

a

mountain

range

laid

out

in

forest

is,in

many

cases,

more

profitable

to

the

proprietor

than

when

let

as

a

sheep-walk.

...

The

huntsman

who

wants

a

deer-forest

limits

his

offers

by

no

other

calculation

than

the

extent

of

his

purse....

Sufferings

have

been

inflicted

in

the

Highlands

scarcely

less

severe

than

those

occasioned

by

the

policy

of

the

Norman

kings.Deer

have

received

extended

ranges,

while

men

have

been

hunted

within

a

narrower

and

still

narrower

circle....

One

after

one

the

liberties

of

the

people

have

been

cloven

down....

And

the

oppressions

are

daily

on

the

increase....

The

clearance

and

dispersion

of

the

people

is

pursued

by

the

proprietors

as

a

settled

principle,

as

an

agricultural

necessity,

just

as

trees

and

brushwood

are

cleared

from

the

wastes

of

America

or

Australia;

and

the

operation

goes

on

in

a

quiet,business-like

way,

&c.\"33

The

spoliation

of

the

church's

property,

the

fraudulent

alienation

of

the

State

domains,

the

robbery

of

the

common

lands,

the

usurpation

of

feudal

and

clan

property,

and

its

transformation

into

modern

private

property

under

circumstances

of

reckless

terrorism,

were

just

so

many

idyllic

methods

of

primitive

accumulation.

They

conquered

the

field

for

capitalistic

agriculture,

made

the

soil

part

and

parcel

of

capital,and

created

for

the

town

industries

the

necessary

supply

of

a

\"free\"

and

outlawed

proletariat.