per lb. for 60's. Gradually, however, about 1830, by coupling mules together and applying power to help the spinner with some of the motions, this last was materially reduced. By the introduction of Roberts's mule, self-acting in every movement, the cost became a mere fraction of the 5d., and the effect upon the trade may be easily understood. Roberts took five years to develop and complete Many other inventors took part in the improvement of the preparing and spinning machinery; and such men as Whytock, Smith of Deanston, and Evan Leigh contributed much towards its present perfection. ments, 1930-1851. After 1830, and up to 1851, progress in spinning was chiefly Improveobtained by continuous improvement in details of construction and accuracy of adjustment of the machinery employed, and by the steady increase in skill of the workers. In weaving machinery Kenworthy and Bullough made a noteworthy advance in 1841 by introducing the weft stop motion; while the invention of the double-acting Jacquard by Barlow, in 1849, was a real and most important improvement. By careful attention to the details of loom-construction the speed was R. E. PROTHERO. Agriculture, 1802-1832 Revolu Cion in greatly increased, and the use of automatic machinery was greatly extended in the manufacture of goods of increasing fineness and complexity. The progress of the trade was great and continuous. Thus, in 1835 the consumption of cotton was 318,000,000 lb.; in 1840 it had risen to 459,000,000 lb., while in 1851 it reached. 659,000,000 lb. The trade had thus increased eightfold in thirty-six years. There is a common feeling that England has lost by such free exposures of her best machinery and practice at the great Exhibitions, of which 1851 was the first; and there is no doubt that foreign spinners learnt from the English show in Hyde Park, and that valuable hints and ideas were carried home from the centre of the cotton trade. At the same time it is equally true that the English trade gained by the adoption of at least one foreign invention shown, which cheapened and greatly improved the production of fine yarns. This invention was the combing machine of Heillman, and to this extent the cotton trade of England gained by the great Exhibition of 1851. , p. Up to the close of the eighteenth century, it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find the cultivators of the soil dispossessed of all rights over the land they cultivated (Vol. V., 131). The characteristic feature of the period in review is that, within its limits, this exceptional condition became the almost exclusive rule. Between the years 1802 and 1832 the existing system of British farming, by which land is owned by landlords, occupied by tenants, and cultivated by labourers, became practically universal. In this country it has been so long established as to make the present generation forget that, in anything like its present extent, it is not yet a century old. We have already seen that the immense impulse given at the close of the eighteenth century to enclosures of wastes, commons, and open-field farms reduced a large number of cottagers, copyholders, and cultivators of village farms to the position of wage-dependent labourers (Vol. V., p. 624). In the reign of George III. alone, 6,288,810 acres were enclosed. Economically, there can be no question that the change was advantageous; it was, in fact, demanded by national necessities. Without it the soil would have remained undeveloped, its natural fertility neglected, its powers of supporting a growing population wasted. It was also urged, and with partial truth, that enclosures were a moral gain, because the commoners were an “idle, wretched class," who relied on a precarious subsistence, eked out by pilfering. On the other hand, it was contended that enclosures depopulated the country districts, and inflicted irreparable injury upon the poorer classes. So far from decreasing the rural population, experience proved that their numbers were rather increased by a change which extended tillage at the expense of pasturage. The real argument against enclosures was the injury they often inflicted on the poor. In 1772 a remarkable pamphlet on "The Advantages and Disadvantages of Inclosing Waste Land" was written by " A Country Gentleman." The writer strongly advocated a change which, as he showed, enormously profited the landlord, the farmer, and the nation. But he also recognised the loss which it inevitably entailed upon the "small common-field farmer," who must necessarily become a "hired labourer." To make the lot of these reduced farmers as easy as possible, he recommended that "a sufficient portion of land" should be “laid” to their cottages to enable them to keep a cow or two. 66 on the The predictions of "A Country Gentleman" were remark- Effect ably fulfilled, both as to the loss and the gain derived from Rural enclosures. Arthur Young, ardent advocate of the change Labourer. though he was, lamented its disastrous effect on the general condition of the labouring population. Many of the commoners failed to prove their legal rights; others were assigned too little land to maintain a cow; others were persuaded to sell. their allotments before, or after, the award was made; often the allotments were made to the owners and not to the occupiers of the cottages. Sometimes, on the other hand, the interests of the poor were carefully protected, strict legal proof was not required, and sufficient land was allotted for the summer and winter keep of their cattle. Young, in "The Question of Scarcity Plainly Stated" (1800), advises that every scrap of waste and neglected land should be converted into possessions for the poor, and that all labourers should be assigned gardens and grass-land for the keep of one or two cows. Another writer, Thomas Wright, in "The Monopoly of Small Farms a Great Cause of |