II] AGRICULTURAL PROGRESS 47

§ 10. Peasant emancipation

was

regarded

by men who

took awide national view as only a part of the greater problem of agriculturalreform. Frederick theGreathadattackedthe tangle ofthefields

and

the problem ofthe

commons. They

wishedto imitate him. Inconnection with thechanges which took place in the fields,

on

the

commons, and

in the actual crops during the first half of the nineteenth century, certain considerations

must

be emphasisedattheoutset. Firstly,thatwherethe three- field system

had

broken

down,

as in parts of south-western

Germany

(see ante, _{§ 7),}the question ofreformincroppingwas the least urgent: crop rotations were already free. Secondly, that

where

the peasant was, or

was

incourse ofbecoming, the ownerof the greaterpart of the soil, as throughout ^allwestern

Germany,

his natural conservatism and the fact that he still

cultivatedprimarilywith an eye to themaintenance ofhis

own

family, rather than with an eye to the market,

made

it

most

unlikely that any agricultural change whatever

would

happen quickly. Thirdly, that the greatest extent of

common

pasture and

common woodland was

in the west, and that, as their

common

use

was

congenial to peasanthabits

and on

thewhole not uneconomical, there

was

littleeffectiveinducementto

make

a change in it. Fourthly, that, as a natural consequence, the chiefpioneersinchangeofallkindswerethe

numerous

farming squires of theeast,

who ^had

both aneye on themarketand the-

powerofinfluencing government.

It is

common

in

Germany

to date the agricultural, as dis- tinguished

from

the legal, reforms of the nineteenth century from the appearance in 1798 of AlhxechtTha.eii'sJntroduction

totheknowledge of EnglishAgriculture.'

Thaer

was aHanoverian

who

had atone time been^{a physicianatthe} Hanoveriancourt.

Called to Prussia,

where

brains were valued, he founded the first Prussian school ofagriculture in 1804, and subsequently he

became

a professor ⁱⁿ the

new

University of Berlin, from which he issued his greater

work

the Principles of ^rational agriculture in 1809-12. Before his death in 1828 he had been

largely responsible,

among

other things, for the law of 1821 which took

up

the question of

commons

and

common

rights in connectionwith ^that of peasant emancipation.

With

Arthur

48

AGRICULTURAL PROGRESS

^[ch.

Young

he held that

common

rightswere astandingobstacleto rational agriculture.

Where

holdings layscattered in the fields

and access to one

was by

right across another,

where

one cropping routine

was

enforced on a whole village,

and

where the right of stubble pasture^prevailed, reformswere blockedat the start. Before Thaer's day the eastern squires had been workingtogetas

much

landaspossible"outofthefields"and undertheir

own

control. Frederick'slegislation

had

encouraged

them

in this.

Now

^{all the} circumstances of the emancipation urged

them

to go forward,andthelawof 1821

came

in to help.

A

^lord

^who

^wasreceivinginnumerablescraps offormerpeasant land, inexchangeforthe rightsoverpeasants' bodieswhich he

was

called

upon

to abandon, naturally did not wish to have these scraps^alltilledfor

him

separatelyundertheold conditions.

Thereforeasemancipationprogressed,slowlyitwillberecalled,

what

was called"separation" progressedwithit.

The

lordhad hisfields,inwhich hecouldpractisea rational agriculture, and thepeasants hadtheirs,wherethey couldgo

on

inthe oldways

iftheyliked

—

^{asthey very}often did. Ifthere

was much common,

the lord might separate a part proportionate to his enlarged arable holding,and dowithitashepleased,leavingthe peasants tosharetherest.

They

might havedividedit, butgenerallydid not.

As

woodland was not generally

common

property in the east,nodifficultyarose here.

The

lordhad merelytoguarantee totheland-holding peasantryrights tocutfirewoodinhis forest.

"Land-holding^"raisesanimportant pointinconnectionwith

all these eastern readjustments of

common

rights.

Whatever

the rights were

—

^{^in}

wood

or pasture,

meadow

or stubble

—

they were treated strictly as appurtenances to the regular holdings in the fields, aview

which was no

doubt historically correct. But itsapplicationhad

much

the

same unhappy

effect ashadthatofthecorrespondingdoctrine inEngland.

The mere

cottager, that is to say,

who

had enjoyed customs of

common

rather than rights of

common,

just as in England, might find thatthe few geese,sheep orpigs,worsestill the cow, thatonce he had been able to keep, were

no

longer within his reach.

One

hears ofthe resultant hardships especially in Pomerania, wherethelabourerclasswas

most

fully developed.

ii]

AGRICULTURAL PROGRESS

₄₉

As

theseparationof squire'sland

from

peasants^'landproceeded

,

opportunities presented themselves for rearrangement of the peasant holdings.

These

opportunitiesweretakento aconsider- able extent.

Some

holdingswere consolidated,and frequently the

more

substantialpeasants

moved

outofthevillageandbuilt themselves

new

houses on the land

which

was

now

their own.

Butthere

was

not a complete rearrangementinthefirsthalfof the century. Ithas been seenthat the adjustment of relations betweenthe freed peasantsand their lordswas a slow business, far

from

completein 1848^; anduntiltheseprimarydetailswere

settled,questionsbetweenpeasants had to wait.

One

seesfrom the

numerous

very important Prussian laws dealing with the regulation of

common

rights, from 1850 onwards,

how much

remained to

do

inthe secondhalfofthecentury. But

by

1850 thebulk of thelargelandownersatanyratewerein a position to carryoutagricultural

improvement on

thegrandscale,not

much hampered by

ancientrights, customs and routines. Everything might not bein order; but theyusuallyhad their

own

grazing land,on

which

theirsheeporcattleneednot

mix

^withthemongrel

flocks

and

herds of thevillage, besides great stretches of arable

upon which

the croprotation

was

in their

own

control.

In illustration of the considerations emphasised at the be- ginning of this section,

some

facts

from

the history of west

German

states

may

be given. In Bavaria,

which

was mainly

,

tilled

by

peasants, nothing important

happened

before 1850, except a little voluntary rearrangement of fields. Inclosure of

commons was

started

and

then stopped.

Wurtemberg

had

much

"

the

same

history. Its peasantswerefree and fairlyprosperous.

They had no

specialwish to see theirfieldsrearranged, forthe routine of the oldagriculture

was

alreadyinpartbroken down.

Their

commons

^{were, and always}

^had

^been,

^communal

^pro-

perty. In

Baden

thefirstgenerallawto facilitatethe rearrange-

ment

of the^fieldsdates

from

1856^;it

was

notasuccesseventhen.

In the Prussian Rhine provinces a

good

deal had been done under

French

lawto get ridofthecompulsorycroppingroutine, and facilities

had

been provided for the abolition of stubble grazing

by

mutual consent. Prussia decided not to apply to these newlyacquired lands thelaw of 182_1, for twointeresting

c. 4