raise a considerable part of his food himself. This system was a survival from the Middle Ages,
and was viewed with disapproval by modernminded men, who pointed out that from the point of
view of production it was wasteful. Accordingly there was a movement for enclosure of
commons, which began under Henry VIII and continued under Cromwell, but did not become
strong until about 1750. From that time onward, for about ninety years, one common after another
was enclosed and handed over to the local landowners. Each enclosure required an Act of
Parliament, and the aristocrats who controlled both Houses of Parliament ruthlessly used their
legislative power to enrich themselves, while thrusting agricultural labourers down to the verge of
starvation. Gradually, owing to the growth of industry, the position of agricultural labourers
improved, since otherwise they could not be prevented from migrating to the towns. At present, as
a result of the taxation introduced by Lloyd George, the aristocrats have been compelled to part
with most of their rural property. But those who also own urban or industrial property have been
able to hang on to their estates. There has been no sudden revolution, but a gradual transition
which is still in progress. At present, those aristocrats who are still rich owe their wealth to urban
or industrial property.
This long development may be regarded, except in Russia, as in accordance with Locke's
principles. The odd thing is that he could announce doctrines requiring so much revolution before
they could be put into effect, and yet show no sign that he thought the system existing in his day
unjust, or that he was aware of its being different from the system that he advocated.
The labour theory of value--i.e., the doctrine that the value of a product depends upon the labour
expended upon it--which some attribute to Karl Marx and others to Ricardo, is to be found in
Locke, and was suggested to him by a line of predecessors stretching back to Aquinas. As Tawney
says, summarizing scholastic doctrine:
"The essence of the argument was that payment may properly be demanded by the craftsmen who
make the goods, or by the merchants who transport them, for both labour in their vocation and
serve the common need. The unpardonable sin is that of the speculator or middleman, who
snatches private gain by the exploitation of public