« ForrigeFortsæt »
in a right direction by giving the married as well as unmarried the franchise, and that it would not materially alter their social standing. Might and right will always go together; and although there may be a majority of women in the country, this fact would he neutralised by man's stronger position intellectually and physically. Woman must always remain the weaker vessel, and as such will be able to exact the deference and respect she now receives in all educated societies. The wider scope given to her faculties, and her deeper interest in human affairs, need not distract her nor lead her to desert her true mission in the world.
Let her make herself her own
All that harms not distinctive womanbood; for, says the Laureate,
Woman is not un leveloped man
M. A. A. GALLOWAY.
An exceedingly curious “survival' of the old condition of land tenure in England was still to be found up to 1845, in a Buckinghamshire village. The manor belongs to the charity of Ewelme for poor brethren, and had continued in the same condition as when given to the charity in 1441.
The account, in Domesday Book, of the parish shows an earlier phase of ownership. Edward the Confessor had bestowed one bide (120 acres) of very good land “to Christ and St. Peter at Westminster, by which the Dean, their successor, still profits. A man called ‘Bondus the Standard-bearer,' his name showing that he or his father had been a bond-slave, held a large portion under the Earl of Morton: • Alric held under him, and had four hides for his manor. Graviter miserabiliter is added—not an engaging description. The manor of Marsh Gibbon was taken possession of by the Conqueror, and bestowed on his son, the Earl of Cornwall. After passing through two or three other hands, it was given by the Earl of Suffolk to Ewelme; but under all the changes above, the subordinate manner of culture and of holding continued apparently the same. The property consisted of 2,752 acres, which were divided into 3,509 strips of land set at every possible angle, from nine to thirty feet wide and about nine or ten chains long, with a grass path called a balk between each. As a number of lots belonged often to the same holder, each ownership was marked by some sign, such as a pitchfork, a pair of pincers, a hook, or a letter: The allotments were an acre or half an acre in size, the clerk by right of his office holding about six acres in seven or eight strips at the time of the last change.
The number of farmers had much diminished, and some had as much as three " yard lands' (a yard land is thirty acres). The whole parish was entirely upinclosed, and the agriculture most primitive. A threefold course was enforced on the arable land, which was divided into three portions, on each of which a sequence of corn, beans (or potatoes), and then a fallow, was rigorously carried out. No man was allowed to cultivate his pieces as he pleased ; the succession of crop, or no crop, on each parcel must be complied with by all alike. The village chronology was calculated by the rotation, e.g. "The child as were born two year sin the lower field was in beans,' &c. Another portion was in pasture, half of which was alternately mown and fed, “the lands' being apportioned by lot, and an old man who gave the account said that a ' land was one swathe of the scythe and a bit wide, and may be nine or ten chains long. When the grass was cut for hay, the boundaries were marked out by stones, at the head and tail of the strips. Outside the apportioned land lay common, where the cattle and sheep were tethered to prevent their wandering over and destroying the crops, as there were no fences, ditches, or walls in any direction, and no roads, only muddy ways across the strong clay soil, and a right of turning the ploughs on a cross strip at the end called the headland.' "Many as had no claim to the arable bad rights of pasture for so many sheep and cattle on the common.' In order to secure a fair distribution of the ploughing you had the shady side of the balk one year, an he sunny side the next; so that there was little temptation to improve land which would not be in your possession for more than a year.
No tradition or memory remained in the village as to the reasons or the history of the numerous, perplexing, and most inconvenient customs, restrictions and laws of the manor. But when we turn to the different account of Village Communities, all is clear.
The oldest discoverable forms of property in land were collective. A number of families inhabited a village, held the land of the village in common, and cultivated the arable lands in lots. The cattle grazed on the common pasture, the householder felled wood in the common forest, the cultivated land of the community was divided into three great fields, with a rude rotation of crops, corn, beans, and a fallow once in three years. Each householder had a lot in each of the three fields which he tilled for himself with his sons and his claves, but he could not cultivate as he pleased : le must sow the same crop as the rest, ard let his lot lie fallow with the rest, he must not interfere with the rights of other householders to pasture their sheep and oxen on his fallow and on his stubble,
says Sir Henry Maine.
The number of minute and intricate rules, of what they might and might not do, constituted a pure despotism. To insure equality the lots were shifted from year to year. These common fields were divided into long strips, separated by green balks of turf, the pasturage on these, which were not more than three yards wide, amounted in one manor to eighty acres. "The waste and inconvenience of such an arrangement may be still seen in parts of Germany. There is but one voice as to the barbarousness of the agriculture in the common arable field, and as to the quarrels and heart-burnings of which the shifting severalties' in the meadow land have been the source.
At length, in 1845, the much abused Inclosure Commissionerswho did good service in the case of Marsh Gibbon at least-consolidated the whole of the strips, giving to each holder a piece of ground equal to that of their several parcels, minus a fixed portion which had to be sold to pay for the expenses of the redistribution, fencing, &c.
Mr. Seebohm describes how the evidence for twelve hundred years from the seventh century, in the laws of King Ine quoted by King Alfred, shows a similar state of things. The yard land was the unit—the normal holding, and consisted of a bundle generally of thirty scattered acres, ten in each of the three divisions, in strips of acres and half acres, tilled by work rendered to the manorial lord of the ham or tun. The acre was a furlong-furrow-long, i.e. the length of the drive of the plough before it is turned, which by long custom was fixed at forty rods—two or four rods or roods in widtb, lying side by side. Access was given to these by the headland, at right angles to the strips, on which there was a right to turn the ploughs; the owner of the headland must, therefore, wait to till his land till all the strips are ploughed. Each yard land was bound by lot to provide two oxen fis the co-operative village plough-team of eight, yoked four in a line, the ploughman in front going backwards to keep the team straight. The lots seem to have been shifted perpetually, till at length the pieces were scattered all over the fields. The yard land of thirty acres in one case contained eight half-acre strips of arable land, three rood-strips of arable land, two doles, one acre of pasture, three half-acres of pasture, and one half-acre of meadow. "If the holding continued of the same size from one generation to another, it was a sign that it was servile and did not belong to a free village.' As time went on there was a gradual tendency,' says Seebohm, “to greater freedom.'
The slaves the Theows bought and sold in the market and exported across the sea were far below the villeins, predial serfs, bound to the soil. Lastly, tenants at will, becoming by custom adscripti gleba, and therefore tenants for life, gradually gaining the right of undivided succession. The freedom of iddividual enterprise and property, which marked the new order, shows a rebellion against the communism and forced equality of serfdom and tribal communities. Such systems are not likely to be the economic goal of the future.
The course which the tenure of land has passed through seems to be as follows:-In the earliest times property did not apply to land which was common to all, but only to the possession of slaves, sheep, and cattle, the proof of which is,' says Mommsen, that, amongst the Romans, fortune was called pecunia, from pecus, a flock. The earliest metallic money bore the stamp of an ox. Each family had a right of common pasturage, so that cattle could be received as payment, which would have been useless to a landless man.
When society became more settled, and the land belonged to a village or a community, it was cultivated jointly; but 'the exceeding quarrelsomeness of these little societies, and the frequency of war between the tribes, soon brought about a change, as the conquerors after a fight either took the land or forced the conquered to hold it as serfs under them. A large share was often given to the chief of the clan or to a successful leader in war.
Some form of collective property seems to have been common to all countries, and it is still to be found among wild tribes such as the Afghans, where Colonel Stewart, when on the Frontier Commission, found it in full force. The system produces, he says, frightful blood-feuds, the man whose lot had fallen to him in pleasant places, such as rich land near a stream, often refusing to give it up at the end of his rightful term (which in Afghanistan lasts from ten to fifteen years), for the stony mountain bit, which may be his next share, and he fights rather than yield. Intermarriages are almost obligatory from the necessity of keeping the family together, and losing none of the rights belonging to the sept.
The inconveniences and disputes entailed by the minute rules and interferences with free action, which were necessary to carry out the intricate system of collective culture, at last produced everywhere, at least in Europe, a division of the soil among the different families. In the middle ages, however, says Laveleye, These communities seem to have been universal, for the cultivation of the soil, the association of a great number of the same family under the same roof and on the same property, having their work and their profits in common, was the characteristic feature of France at that period. Agriculture was then carried out all over the country by co-operative associations of peasants-work, indeed, of all kinds was performed in common—by the religious communities, peasant communities, trade corporations. The benefits especially which were conferred by the monks in cultivating waste places, and furning purts of the country desolated by war, hare been imonense. Probably in the middle ages less was talked of the spirit of association, but that spirit was far stronger than now.
A great number of instances of these family ownerships are then given, some of which still exist in such isolated provinces as Auvergne and Brittany.
Family communities were also very general in Italy, and there still exist traces of them in the different provinces. A landowner prefers them to small isolated holdings, as an association has more resources for the payment of rent and the execution of contracts, it is more capable of undertaking cultivation on a wider scale, of resisting loss in bad years, and the other inseparable accidents of farming. The communities consist generally of four or five households living in common, under a chief who regulates the work, buys and sells, &c., and of a female head called massara, who looks after the domestic economy. But they are dying out. The taste for independence, the desire to grow rich, the modern spirit in one word, have undermined these ancient institutions, as on the borders of the Danube, and as of old in France. Count Jacini (says M. Laveleye) has well analysed the feeling which will bring about their entire disappearance. Men begin to say, Why should we remain with our families under the authority of a chief ? It would be much better that each one should work and think for him.self. If each individual works for his own profit, the common revenue suffers, and dissensions and quarrels about money destroy the unity. The women also cannot stand the authority of the massara. They all want to have an household to themselves.
A socialist farm in Hampshire-Queenwood-came to an untimely end, greatly because the women would not endure the co-operative teapot. “We like to make our own tea in our own pot,' they said. VOL. XIX.—No. 112.