In the years 1871-5 the United States held the first place, Russia came next, and Germany third with only about one-sixth of the American imports, and Canada was running Germany close. Other formidable competitors were now arising, and by 1901 the chief importing countries[711] were:

Since then the imports of wheat and flour from the United States have decreased, and in 1904 India took the first place, Russia the second, Argentina the third, and the United States the fourth. However, in 1907 the United States sent more than any other country, followed by Argentina, India, Canada, Russia, and Australia, in the order named.

It is probable in the near future that the imports from the United States will decline considerably, for in the last quarter of a century its population has increased 68 per cent. and its wheat area only 25 per cent. On the other hand, the population of Canada increased 33 per cent. and her wheat area 158 per cent. in the same time; while in Argentina an addition of 70 per cent. to the population has been accompanied by an increase of the wheat area from half a million to fourteen million acres. It is probable also that India and Australia will continue to send large supplies, and there are said to be vast wheat-growing tracts opened up by the Siberian Railway, so that there seems little chance of wheat rising very much in price for many years to come, apart from exceptional causes such as bad seasons and 'corners'.

McCulloch, writing in 1843,[713] says that, except Denmark and Ireland, no country of Western Europe 'has been in the habit of exporting cattle'. Danish cattle, however, could rarely be sold in London at a profit, and Irish cattle alone disturbed the equanimity of the English farmer.

For a few years after the repeal of the corn laws and of the prohibition of imports of live stock, the imports of live stock, meat, and dairy produce were, except from Ireland, almost nil[714]; since then they have increased enormously, and in 1907 the value of live cattle, sheep, and pigs imported was £8,273,640, not so great, however, as some years before, owing to restrictions imposed; but this decrease has been made up by the increase in the imports of meat, which in 1907 touched their highest figure of 18.751,555 cwt, valued at the large sum of £41,697,905.[715]

Forty years ago hardly any foreign butter or cheese was imported; to-day it is perhaps no exaggeration to say that not one hundredth part of the butter eaten in London is British; in 1907 the amount of butter imported was 4,310,156 cwt., and of cheese, 2,372,233 cwt. The increase in the imports was largely assisted by the fact that in the last half of the nineteenth century English farmers had directed their attention chiefly to meat-producing animals and neglected the milch cow. However, of late years great efforts have been made to recover lost ground, and in England the number of cows and heifers in milk or in calf has increased from 1,567,789 in 1878 to 2,020,340 in 1906.

The regulation of the imports and exports of live stock did not concern the legislature so early as those of corn. One of the earliest statutes on the subject is II Hen. VII, c. 13, which forbade the export of horses and of mares worth more than 6s. 8d., because many had been conveyed out of the land, so that there were few left for its defence and the price of horses had been thereby increased. A subsequent statute, 22 Hen. VIII, c. 7, says this law was disobeyed by many who secretly exported horses, so it was enacted that no one should export a horse without a licence; and 1 Edw. VI, c. 5, continued this. But after this date the export of horses does not seem to have occupied the attention of Parliament.

The importation of cattle was forbidden by 15 Car. II, c. 7, which stated that the 'comeing in of late of vast numbers of cattle already fatted' had caused 'a very great part of the land of this kingdom to be much fallen and like dayly to fall more in their rents and values'; therefore every head of great cattle imported was to pay 20s. to the king, 10s. to the informer, and 10s. to the poor after July 1, 1664. By 18 Car. II, c. 2, the importation of cattle was declared a common nuisance, and if any cattle, sheep, or swine were imported they were to be seized and forfeited. By 32 Car. II, c. 2, this was made perpetual and continued in force till 1842, though it was repealed as to Ireland, as we have seen.[716]

It appears from the laws dealing with the matter that in the time of the Plantagenets England exported butter and cheese. In the reign of Edward III they were merchandise of the staple, and therefore when exported had to go to Calais when the staple was fixed there. This caused great damage, it is said, to divers persons in England, for the butter and cheese would not keep until buyers came; therefore 3 Hen. VI, c 4, enacted that the chancellor might grant licence to export butter and cheese to other places than to the staple.

The regulation of the export of wool frequently occupied the attention of Parliament It has been noticed[717] that the laws of Edgar fixed its price for export, and Henry of Huntingdon mentions its export in the twelfth century, while during the reign of Edward I it was for some time forbidden except by licence, which led to its being smuggled out in wine casks.[718] The Hundred Rolls give the names of several Italian merchants who were engaged in buying wool for export, the ecclesiastical houses, especially the Cistercians, furnishing a great quantity, and the chief port then for the wool trade was Boston, The export was again prohibited in 1337, the great object being to make the foreigner pay dearly for our staple product: an object which was certainly effected, for when Queen Philippa redeemed her crown from pawn at Cologne in 1342 by a quantity of English wool, 1s. 3¹/₂d. a lb. was the price, and it was even said to sell in Flanders at 3s. a lb., a price which, expressed in modern money, seems fabulous.[719] However, in the next reign English wool began to decline in price, owing probably to changes in fashion, but the long wools maintained their superiority and their export was forbidden by Henry VI and Elizabeth.[720]

In the reign of James I it was confessed 'that the cloth of this kingdom hath wanted both estimation and vent in foreign parts, and that the wools are fallen from their stated values', so that export was prohibited entirely; and 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 18, declared the export of wool a felony, though 7 and 8 Will. III, c. 28, says this did not deter people from exporting it, so that the law was made more stringent on the subject, and export continued to be forbidden until 1825.[721] In a letter written in 1677 the fall of rents in England, which had caused the value of estates to sink from twenty-one to sixteen or seventeen years' purchase, is ascribed mainly to the low price of wool,[722] owing to the prohibition of export and increased imports from Ireland and Spain. It was now, said the writer, worth 7d. instead of 12d., and a great quantity of Spanish wool was being sold in England at low rates. These 'low rates' were 2s. and 2s. 2d. a lb. for the best wool, whereas in 1660 the best Spanish wool was 4s. and 4s. 2d. a lb.

We have seen[723] that Spanish wool was imported into England in the Middle Ages. In 1677, according to Smith,[724] England imported 2,000 bags of 200 lb. each from Spain[725]; in the three years 1709-11, 14,000 bags; in the three years 1713-14, 20,000 bags; and about 1730 some came from Jamaica, Maryland, and Virginia, and down to 1802 imports were free.[726] In that year a duty of 5s. 3d. a cwt. was imposed, which in 1819 was raised to 56s. a cwt., which, however, was reduced to 1d. a lb. on 1s. wool and ¹/₂d. a lb. on wool under 1s. in 1824. In 1825 colonial wool was admitted free, and in 1844 the duty taken off altogether, and imports from our colonies and foreign countries soon assumed enormous proportions. Down to 1814 nearly all our imports of wool came from Spain; after that the greater part came from Germany and the East Indies; but Russia and India soon began to send large quantities, and in recent times Australasia has been our chief importer, in 1907 sending 321,470,554 lb., while New Zealand sent 158,406,255 lb. out of a total import of 764,286,625 lb. About 1800 our imports of wool were 8,609,368 lb.![727] Of our enormous imports of wool, however, a very large quantity is re-exported.

In 1828 it was stated before the House of Lords that English wool had deteriorated considerably during the previous thirty years, owing chiefly to the farmer increasing the weight of the carcase and the quantity of wool, so that fineness of fleece was injured. The great extension of turnips and the introduction of a large breed of sheep also appeared to have lessened the value of the fleece, yet English wool to-day still commands a high price in comparison with that of other countries, though the price in recent years has declined greatly; in 1871 it was 1s. 5¹/₂d. a lb., in 1872 1s. 9¹/₂d., in 1873 1s. 7d. In 1907 Leicester wool was 12¹/₂d., Southdown 14d. to 15d., and Lincoln 12d. a lb.; Australian at the same date being 11d., and New Zealand 11¹/₂d.

However disastrous to the farmer and landowner, the increased quantities and low prices of food thus obtained have been of inestimable benefit to the crowded population of England. In 1851 the whole corn supply, both English and foreign, afforded 317 lb. per annum per head of the population of 27 millions. In 1889 the total supply gave 400 lb. per head to a population of 37¹/₂ millions at a greatly reduced cost.[728] The supply of animal food presents similar contrasts; in 1851 each person obtained 90 lb., in 1889 115 lb. The average value of the imports of food per head in the period 1859-65 was about 25s.; in the period 1901-7, 65s.[729] The products which have stood best against foreign competition are fresh milk, hay and straw, the softer kinds of fruit that will not bear carriage well, and stock of the finest quality. These islands still maintain their great reputation for the excellent quality of their live stock, and exports, chiefly of pedigree animals, touched their highest figure in 1906:

As arable land has suffered much more than grass from foreign imports, it was inevitable that this country should become more pastoral; in 1877 the arable land of England amounted to 13,454,017 acres, and permanent grass to 10,858,016. By 1907 this was practically reversed, the permanent grass amounting to 13,807,860 acres and the arable to 10,777,595. In corn crops the great decrease has been in the acreage of wheat, but barley, beans, and peas have also diminished, while oats have increased. In green crops there has been a great decrease in turnips and swedes, compensated to some extent by an increase in mangels, and a sad decrease in hops. The changes in thirty years can be gathered from the tables of the Board of Agriculture given on p. 331.

The number of live stock per 1,000 acres of cultivated land in the United Kingdom and other countries is:

CHAPTER XXIII

The Clydesdale, whose native home is the valley of the Clyde, is not so large as the Shire, but strong, active, and a fine worker. They are either derived from a cross between Flemish stallions and Lanarkshire mares, or are an improvement of the old Lanark breed.[734]

The Suffolk Punch looks what he is-a thorough farm horse. He stands lower than the two former breeds, but weighs heavily, often 2,000 lb. They are generally chestnut or light dun in colour, and their legs are without the feather of the Clydesdale and Shire. They have been long associated with Suffolk, and were mentioned by Camden in 1586. According to the Suffolk Stud Book of 1880, the Suffolk horses of to-day are with few exceptions the descendants in the direct male line of the original breed described by Arthur Young.

What was the original breed of cattle in this island is uncertain. The Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1887 favours the view that the herds of wild cattle, such as still exist at Chillingham, represent the original breed of Great Britain. It states that the 'urus' was the only indigenous wild ox in this country, and the source of all our domesticated breeds as well as of the few wild ones that remain, such as the Chillingham breed, which is small, white, with the inside of the ear red, and a brownish muzzle. Some, however, assert they are merely the descendants of a domesticated breed run wild, which have reverted somewhat to the ancient type.[735]

According to Thorold Rogers, the cattle of the Middle Ages were small rough animals like the mountain breeds of to-day, and at the end of the sixteenth century we have seen they had large horns, were low and heavy, and for the most part black.[736] The great variety of cattle in Great Britain may be due to their being the descendants of several species, or to difference of climate and soil, or to spontaneous variation, but the chief cause is the diligent selection of breeders. Marshall is quite positive[737] that the Hereford, Devon, Sussex, and the black mountain breeds of Scotland and Wales are all descended from the original native breed of this island, that the Shorthorns came from the Continent, and the Longhorns probably from Ireland. Bradley's division of cattle into black, white, and red tells us little.[738] There was very little attempt at improvement until the middle of the eighteenth century, for peace was necessary for long continued effort, and 1746, the date of Culloden, the last battle fought on British soil, may be taken practically as the commencement of the era of progress.

The origin of the Shorthorns is uncertain; they originated from the Teeswater and Holderness varieties, but where these came from is a matter of dispute. Young, in his Northern Tour,[739] says, 'In Yorkshire the common breed was the short-horned kind of cattle called Holderness, but really the Dutch sort'; and many have said the Holderness and the Teeswater breeds both came from Holland, and were practically the same, while others assert the original home of the Teeswaters was the West Highlands.[740]

John Lawrence speaks of the Dutch breed with short horns in 1726;[741] but, unless they were smuggled over, it certainly seems strange that any Dutch cattle should have been imported in the eighteenth century, for the importation of cattle was strictly forbidden during the whole century. It was George Culley's opinion that they came from Holland, because few were found except along the eastern coast; he also knew farmers who went over to Holland to buy bulls.[742]

Be this as it may, it was the cattle of the Teeswater district in Durham that the Collings improved, and they are still called Durhams in many parts. The work of the Collings[743] was carried on by Thomas Booth, who farmed his own estate of Killerby in Yorkshire, where he turned his attention to Shorthorns about 1790, and by 1814 he was as well known as the Collings. He improved the Shorthorns by reducing the bone, especially the length and coarseness of the legs, the too prominent hips, and the heavy shoulder bones. In 1819 he removed to Warlaby, and died there in 1835, having given up the Killerby estate to his son John, who with his brother Richard ably sustained their father's reputation. 'Booth strains' equally with 'Bates strains', the results of the work of Bates of Kirkleavington, whose cattle we have seen at the Oxford Show in 1839, and whose herd was dispersed in 1850, have been the foundation of many famous herds, and can be traced in many a pedigree animal of to-day.