lty 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 L10, 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 This Act was not repealed until the reign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]

At the restoration of Charles II the corn laws had practically been
unaltered since 1571,[361] when it had been enacted that corn might be
exported from certain ports in certain ships at all times when
proclamation was not made to the contrary, on a payment of 12d. a
quarter on wheat and 8d. a quarter on other grain. Now both export and
import were subjected to heavy duties, but these caused such high
prices in corn that they were reduced in 1663; yet high duties were
again imposed in 1673, which continued until the revolution. Then,
owing to good crops and low prices, which brought distress on the
landed interest, a new policy was introduced: export duties were
abolished and the other extreme resorted to, viz. a bounty on export
of 5s. in the quarter as long as the home price did not exceed 48s. At
the same time import duties remained high, and this system lasted till
1773. Never had the corn-growers of England been so thoroughly
protected, yet, owing to causes over which the legislators had no
control, namely bountiful seasons, the prices of wheat for the next
seventy years was from 15 to 20 per cent. cheaper than in the previous
forty. Modern economists have described this system as one of the
worst instances of a class using their legislative power to subsidize
themselves at the expense of the community. As a matter of fact it was
the firm conviction of the statesmen and economists of the time, that
husbandry, being the main industry and prop of England, and the
foundation on which the whole political power of the country was
based, should receive every encouragement. At all events, in many ways
the policy was successful.[362] It encouraged investment in land, and
materially assisted the agricultural i