manors with the Saxon gafol-yrth, and the Saxon method of taking the tithe in the produce of every tenth acre strip in the open field as it was traversed by the plough.' The constantly mentioned service of fencing in the crops (messes) is another incidental mark of open field husbandry.

To my own mind, therefore, the documents of early French history are not wholly silent as to the prevalence of the open field system. They seem They seem to me to imply by their uniform phraseology, whether in charters or Formulæ, that the open field system was prevalent. The phraseology to my mind finds its best explanation in the existing remains of the open field system, in the scattered ownership shown upon the communal maps, and in the wide prevalence of the vaine pâture, of which the Usages Locaux of each district from Amiens to Brittany and elsewhere in France bear such ample witness.

Had M. de Coulanges added to his intimate knowledge of the texts an equally intimate knowledge of French husbandry, had he himself studied the communal maps, walked over the Chartrain or the still more primitive open fields of the coast communes of Brittany-had he in fact approached the texts from the point of view thus gained-I think he would have come to the same conclusion, and have recognized continuity, not only on the manorial side, but also in the methods of husbandry.

I must not dwell upon the importance of this continuity as a main factor in the economic history of the French peasant. I need hardly point out how the pictures of the peasant painter Millet breathe the very atmosphere of the open field, how his 'Sower' is sowing one of his own scattered strips in the wide plain far off from his homestead; how his Shepherdess' is leading the communal flock grazing over the stubbles of the open field in exercise of the vaine pâture; how his Gleaners' are gleaning on the same open field during the short interval between the removal of the last load of the harvest and the commencement of the vaine pâture; how in his Angelus' the potato diggers are working again on the same open field far away from the town, when the evening bell recalls them from their work. He is true to French peasant life, even in the recognition how completely the Church had made itself the centre of the open field husbandry. These pictures show how completely the open field husbandry forms even still the framework and environment of the peasant's whole life; whilst in the faces and attitude of his peasants there is touching evidence of how care is added to toil when the peasant is working on his own land, under a system

which allows him no room for free and independent action, which subjects his nominal proprietorship to constant communal control, and his husbandry to the jealous oversight of neighbours whose strips of land are intermixed with his own and whose cattle have common rights over it during part of the year. He still lives on in a sort of serfdom to immemorial usage enforced by sanctions the penalties of which he dare not brave. He lacks the spirit and the independence of the typical peasant proprietor, and therefore remains what he is from generation to generation.

Bearing this in mind, the question is not, I think, an unimportant one in French economic history, To what factor is mainly to be attributed the strange tenacity of feeling and of purpose which binds together the French peasantry in each commune in a solidarity so perfect that it has survived for a hundred years the legislation of the French Revolution?

Was it the long-continued manorial control, which, when abolished, left the peasantry free only in name, and still subject in habit and feeling to the restraints of what once had been serfdom? Or was it not much more the result of the open field system of husbandry, which, arising out of the peculiar needs and methods of earlier tribal life, was adopted under Roman and Frankish manorial management, and perpetuated itself in spite of the removal a hundred years ago of surviving manorial elements?

Surely the answer to this question must mainly rest upon another question, viz. to which system did these elements belong which have survived?

The answer is, the two elements which survive, and which to this day are perpetuated by the custom and common feeling of the peasant communities, are the two main elements of the ancient open field system, viz. the scattered ownership in the strips forming a holding and the vaine pâture over them after the removal of the crops, to the prevalence of which the communal maps and the Usages Locaux of the corn-growing districts of France so generally testify.

F. SEEBOHM

THE PROGRESS OF ECONOMIC DOCTRINE IN

ENGLAND IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

By universal consent Adam Smith stands out as the founder

of modern political economy. He so entirely recast it that the ordinary student of economic doctrine is satisfied to trace the progress from his time, just as the astronomer marks a new departure in the system of Copernicus, and modern philosophy took a new shape at the hands of Kant. In each of those cases, however, it is possible to note anticipations and suggestions in the thoughts of previous writers; and those, whose curiosity tempts them to go behind The Wealth of Nations on some tentative exploration, are not unlikely to be surprised to find that so many men of wide knowledge and accurate habits of thought had already devoted themselves to the study of economic phenomena. It is a literary problem of no little interest to discover how far these various writers led up to The Wealth of Nations, and to discriminate precisely wherein the secret of Adam Smith's marked superiority really lay. The impression he made upon his contemporaries, and the unique position which his book maintains at the present day, prove beyond dispute that he was incomparably superior to all his predecessors; but it is not easy to account for the difference. We cannot detect the characteristic feature in his work by comparing him, not always to his advantage, with some previous writer who wrote brilliantly upon a special point; and we can only hope to discover it by reviewing the progress of economic doctrine for many years before he wrote, and thus attempting to mark the precise nature of the new contribution which enabled him to transform the study so completely.

It is of course clear, that circumstances favoured a great advance in economic doctrine during the eighteenth century, since there was so much progress in industrial, commercial, and agricultural affairs. The phenomena connected with the increase of

wealth were more obvious, and a keen observer like Adam Smith who had frequent intercourse with practical men, was in an excellent position for reflecting on the causes of this progress; but after all, these changes, though decided, had been slow; other observers had noted and described the more important facts, and traced out the causes that were at work. A general condition of this kind, though it accounts for the progress of the study as a whole, does not help to explain the special eminence of Adam Smith. We shall find a better guide if we take the revolutionary period as a starting-point and look at the mere form and divisions of the subject in the treatises which were published then, and compare them with The Wealth of Nations.

1. Davenant and Petty were writers of extraordinary acuteness. Their works are full of careful statistics, and of accurate and ingenious remark. Numberless phrases can be culled from their works which anticipate the reasonings of later writers, but the very titles of their chief books show that their view of the subject is restricted. They deal with the expenses of government as the one important topic; Petty's great work is A Treatise of Taxes and Contributions, which was written with special reference to the fiscal administration of Ireland; Davenant compiled An Essay on Ways and Means of Supplying the War. The central thoughts with both are the expenses of government and the modes of defraying them; though from this starting-point they proceed to treat the subject with much judgment and skill, the form which all the problems take is affected by the point of view from which they look at them.

Since these economists dealt primarily with English revenue, there were three main funds to be considered; the increase of treasure which was necessary in order to defray the expenses of war and thus to render the Government secure against emergencies; the increase of commerce and of the customs; and the increase of the wealth of the landed class who contributed such a large proportion of the revenue of the country. Bullion gave the means of gathering and amassing treasure; and if trade were so managed as to afford an opportunity for accumulating treasure there seemed to be plain evidence that the Government was in good case; and the Balance of Trade apparently offered a simple means of estimating how far this was so. The customs had been an important source of revenue from the time of Edward III.; and the resources of the landowners as a fund for possible taxation had been kept in view since William noted the assessment of every estate in Domesday book.

The economists of the Revolution era also looked below the funds from which contributions were paid, and tried to analyze the causes which might keep the funds amply supplied; they were ready to look at the factors which go to the production of national prosperity-factors which facilitated the cultivation of land, and which worked up the manufactured goods which we exported to other lands. Locke laid stress upon the productive cause of value; while Gregory King and others insisted that labour depended for its effect on the fund which employed it, and studied the condition of various ranks of society with special reference to their ability to save capital. Capital, too, was able to utilize and send to market the results obtained through the productive power of nature; and thus attention was not exclusively given to the funds from which taxes were defrayed, but also to the factors by which these funds were brought into being and maintained.

When economists thus examined the factors which produced national prosperity it became possible for them to compare the working of these factors in various countries even though these countries presented many differences. The English method of

taxation from the land was repugnant to French subjects, who had, however, no strong objection to an excise which the English freeholder hated as the worst of tyrannies. Differences of national temperament1 rendered it difficult to compare the fiscal policy of the two Governments or to discuss the relative advantages of either method; but after all the source, from which revenue was ultimately derived in both cases, was the material wealth of the subjects. In both cases labour, capital, and land were the factors which went to produce it, though they might contribute in different proportions to the prosperity of different lands; and hence the respective advantages and disadvantages of two or more countries could be discussed and compared.

2. During the first sixty years of the eighteenth century the financial condition and the fiscal possibilities of England were still the chief topics to which economic writers addressed themselves, and not without reason. Although there had been as we now, a remarkable growth in many directions there were not a few causes for grave anxiety about the time of the Seven Years' War. The growth of the National Debt and the impossibility of finding new sources of taxation alarmed more than one statesman, and there were not a few economists

1 Sir James Steuart, Works, i. 17.