The home trade was still indeed much greater in proportion than now;but the exports had grown from about *7,000,000 at the beginning of the century to *14,500,000 in 1760.During that interval great changes had taken place in the channels of foreign commerce.In 1700 Holland was our great market,taking more than one-third of all our exports,but in 1760 the proportion was reduced to about one-seventh.Portugal,which in 1703 took one-seventh,now took only about one-twelfth.The trade with France was quite insignificant.On the other hand,the Colonies were now our chief markets,and a third of our exports went there.In 1770 America took three-fourths of all the manufactures of Manchester.In 1767 the exports to Jamaica were nearly as great as they had been to all the English plantations together in 1704.The shipping trade had doubled,and the ships themselves were larger.In 1732 ships 750 tons were considered remarkable;in 1770 there were many in Liverpool of 900 tons;but in this as in other branches of business progress was still slow,partial,local,thus presenting a striking contrast to the rapid and general advance of the next half-century.
The Decay of the Yeomanry It is a reflection that must have occurred to every one that the popular philosophy of the day,while in the region of speculation it has undermined ancient beliefs,has exerted in the practical world a distinctly conservative influence.The conception of slow development,according to definite laws,undoubtedly tends to strengthen the position of those who offer resistance to radical changes.It may,however,well be doubted whether the theory of evolution is really such a support as it seems to be to those who would uphold the existing framework of society.It is certainly remarkable that the most recent legislation has been at once revolutionary in its character and justified by appeals to historical experience.I do not forget that the most distinguished exponent of the doctrine of evolution as applied to politics has developed a theory of government opposed to recent legislative reforms,but that theory is an a priori one.Those,on the other hand,who have applied the historical method to political economy and the science of society,have shown an unmistakable disposition to lay bare the injustice to which the humbler classes of the community have been exposed,and to defend methods and institutions adopted for their protection which have never received scientific defence before.
The fact is,that the more we examine the actual course of affairs,the more we are amazed at the unnecessary suffering that has been inflicted upon the people.No generalities about natural law or inevitable development can blind us to the fact,that the progress in which we believe has been won at the expense of much injustice and wrong,which was not inevitable.Perhaps this is most conspicuous in our land system,and we shall find with regard to it,as with regard to some other matters,that the more we accept the method of historical inquiry,the more revolutionary shall we tend to become in practice,For while the modern historical school of economists appear to be only exploring the monuments of the past,they are really shaking the foundations of many of our institutions in the present.The historical method is often deemed conservative,because it traces the gradual and stately growth of our venerable institutions;but it may exercise a precisely opposite influence by showing the gross injustice which was blindly perpetrated during this growth.
The historical method is supposed to prove that economic changes have been the inevitable outcome of natural laws.It just as often proves them to have been brought about by the self-seeking action of dominant classes.
It is a singular thing that no historian has attempted an adequate explanation of the disappearance of the small freeholders who,down to the close of the seventeenth century,formed with their families one-sixth of the population of England,and whose stubborn determination enabled Cromwell and Fairfax to bring the Civil War to a successful close.This neglect is the more remarkable,as economists have so emphatically dwelt upon the extraordinary difference between the distribution of landed property in England and in countries like Germany and France.The modern reformer is content to explain the facts by the existence in England of a law of primogeniture and a system of strict settlement,but the explanation is obviously a superficial one.To show why in England the small landed proprietors have vanished,whilst in Germany and France they have increased and thriven,it is necessary to carry our inquiries far back into the history of law,politics,and commerce.The result of a closer examination of the question is a little startling,for we find that the present distribution of landed property in England is in the main due to the existence of the system of political government which has made us a free people.And on the other hand,the distribution of landed property in France and Germany,which writer after writer points to as the great bulwark against revolution,is in the main due to a form of government that destroyed political liberty and placed the people in subjection to the throne.
