In 1688 Gregory King,[352] who was much more accurate than most statisticians of his time, gave the following estimate of the land of England and Wales:—

Acres. Per acre.
Arable9,000,000worth to rent 5s. 6d.
Pasture and meadow12,000,000 " " 8s. 8d.
Woods and coppices3,000,000 " " 5s.
Forests and parks3,000,000 " " 3s. 8d.
Barren land10,000,000 " " 1s.
Houses, gardens, churches, &c.1,000,000
Water and roads1,000,000
—————
Total:39,000,000

He valued the live stock of England and Wales at £181/4 millions, and estimated the produce of the arable land in England at:

Million
bushels.		Value
per bushel.
Wheat14 3s. 6d.
Rye10 2s. 6d.
Barley27 2s. 0d.
Oats16 1s. 6d.
Peas7 2s. 6d.
Beans4 2s. 6d.
Vetches1 2s. 6d.

The same statistician drew up a scheme of the income and expenditure of the 'several families' in England in 1688, the population being 51/2 millions[353]:—

No. of
families
in class.		Class.Income.
160Temporal lords£3,20000
800Baronets88000
600Knights65000
3,000Esquires45000
11,000Gentlemen 28000
2,000Eminent merchants40000
8,000Lesser merchants19800
10,000Lawyers15400
2,000Eminent clergy7200
8,000Lesser clergy5000
Yeoman/ 40,000Freeholders of the better sort9100
\ 120,000Freeholders of the lesser sort5500
120,000(Tenant) farmers42100
50,000Shopkeepers and tradesmen4500
60,000Artisans3800
364,000Labouring people and outservants1500
400,000Cottagers and paupers6100

He calculated that the freeholder of the better sort saved on an average £8 15s. 0d. a year per family of 7; and the lesser sort £2 15s. 0d. a year with a family of 51/2. The tenant farmer with a family of 5, only saved 25s. a year, while labouring families who, he said, averaged 31/2 (certainly an under estimate), lost annually 7s., and cottagers and paupers with families of 31/4 (also an under estimate) lost 16s. 3d. a year. It will thus be seen that the tenant farmers, labourers, and cottagers, the bulk of those who worked on the land, were very badly off; the tenant farmer saved considerably less than the artisan. It will also be noticed that the rural population of England was about three-quarters of the whole.[354]

The winter of 1683-4 was marked by one of the severest frosts that have ever visited England. Ice on the Thames is said to have been eleven inches thick; by Jan. 9 there were streets of booths on it; and by the 24th, the frost continuing more and more severe, all sorts of shops and trades flourished on the river, 'even to a printing press, where the people and ladies took a fancy to have their names printed and the day and year set down when printed on the Thames.' Coaches plied, there was bull-baiting, horse and coach races, puppet plays and interludes, tippling 'and other lewd places'—a regular carnival on the water.[355] Altogether the frost which began at Christmas lasted ninety-one days and did much damage on land, many of the trees were split as if struck by lightning, and men and cattle perished in some parts. Poultry and other birds and many plants and vegetables also perished. Wheat, however, was little affected, as the average price was under 40s. a quarter. In 1692 a series of very bad seasons commenced, lasting, with a break in 1694, until 1698, always known as the 'ill' or 'barren' seasons, and the cause was the usual one in England, excessive cold and wet. In 1693 wheat was over 60s. a quarter, and in Kent turnips were made into bread for the poor.[356] The difference in the price of farm produce in various localities was striking, and an eloquent testimony to the wretched means of communication. At Newark, for instance, in 1692-3 wheat was from 36s. to 40s. a quarter, while at Brentford it touched 76s.; next year in the same two places it was 32s. and 86s. respectively. In 1695-6 hay at Newark was 13s. 4d. a ton, at Northampton it was from 35s. to 40s.

In 1662 was passed the famous statute of parochial settlement, 14 Car. II, c. 12, which forged cruel fetters for the poor, and is said to have caused the iron of slavery to enter into the soul of the English labourer.[357] The Act states, that the reason for passing it was the continual increase of the poor throughout the kingdom, which had become exceeding burdensome owing to the defects in the law. Poor people, moreover, wandered from one parish to another in order 'to settle where there is the best Stocke, the largest commons or wastes to build cotages, and the most woods for them to burn and destroy.'[358] It was therefore determined to stop these wanderings, and most effectually was it done. Two justices were empowered to remove any person who settled in any tenement under the yearly value of £10 within forty days to the place where he was last legally settled, unless he gave sufficient security for the discharge of the parish in case he became a pauper.

It is true that certain relaxations were subsequently made. The Act of 1691, 3 W. & M., c. 2, allowed derivative settlements on payment of taxes for one year, serving an annual office, hiring for a year, and apprenticeship; while the Act of 1696, 8 & 9 Wm. III, c. 30, allowed the grant of a certificate of settlement, under which safeguard the holder could migrate to a district where his labour was required, the new parish being assured he would not become chargeable to it, and therefore not troubling to remove him till there was actual need: but the statute acted as an effectual check on migration and prevented the labourer carrying his work where it was wanted.[359] It became the object of parishes to have as few cottages and therefore as few poor as possible. In 'close' parishes, i.e. where all the land belonged to one owner, as distinguished from 'open' ones where it belonged to several, all the cottages were often pulled down so that labourers coming to work in it had to travel long distances in all weathers. We shall see further relaxation in the law in 1795, but it was not until modern times that this abominable system was destroyed. The agricultural labourer's difficulty in building a house was aggravated by the statute 31 Eliz., c. 7, before noticed, which in order to restrain the building of cottages enacted that none, except in towns and certain other places, were to be built unless 4 acres of land were attached to them, under a penalty of £10, and 40s. a month for continuing to maintain it. This Act was not repealed until the reign of George III. However, it seems to have been frequently winked at. In Shropshire, for instance, the fine often was only nominal; in the seventeenth century orders authorizing the building of cottages on the waste were freely given by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and orders were also made by the Court for the erection of cottages elsewhere.[360]