博士学位论文

郭爱民

论文题目：十八、十九世纪英国地产结构研究

指导教师：沈 汉 教授

答辩时间：2004年6月

论文摘要：

中文摘要
　　19世纪晚期，英国形成了以地块集中的大地产为主、自耕农及其他种类的小土地所有者广泛存在的地产结构。地产结构就是在地产所有者中，大土地所有者和小土地所有者各占多少比例、以及如何进行经营管理的局面。英国19世纪晚期地产结构的确立经历了一个长时间段的演变过程。这个过程肇始于1660年前后，大致终结于1914年。前一时期，英国地产结构尚未脱离其中世纪的母体，尽管有大土地所有者出现，但他们的土地零散地分布在多个教区，同时，中世纪的土地形态--敞田广泛存在。敞田有两大特征：一是敞田制下教区内土地所有者的土地由零星的小块土地构成，二是教区内的居民对整个教区的土地都享有公共权利。经过十八、十九世纪的演进，到了十九世纪晚期，英国基本消除了其土地的中世纪烙印，形成了以地块集中的大地产为主，小土地所有者并存的地产结构。十九世纪晚期英国地产结构是如何形成的呢？下面，从市场、社会心态、圈地的效应、小土地所有者、地产代理制、社会结构等方面入手，来勾勒十八、十九世纪地产结构演变的画面。
　　第一章是文章的导论部分，首先介绍19世纪中后期以来西方经济史学界关于英国19世纪晚期地产结构形成的争论。接着，以上述争论为基础，刻画出1660年前后英国地产结构：土地以敞田为主要形态，中世纪的风貌随处可见，土地分散是当时地产结构的主流。
　　第二章从市场的角度论证了1660-1914年英国地产的集中。首先指出了土地市场上众多卖方的形成，既有大地主，也有小土地所有者，既有旧的土地家族，也有新的土地家族。接着，说明了地产是财富贮存与升值的一种手段，南海泡沫事件之后，地产的这种特征更为明显。基于这样的原因，商业资本、工业资本、土地资本不断地涌入土地市场。尽管许多人购买土地的目的是为了使财富保值或增值，但其结果往往是土地家族的建立。
　　第三章以社会心态为线索揭示了1660-1914年英国土地的流动与集中。内战与王位复辟之后，土地成了人们获得名望、社会地位与政治权力的工具。因而，现有的土地家族为巩固家族既定的地位与社会利益而不断地进行土地购买，政府官员以及土地代理人、医生、牧师等其他职业者购买与自己地位相匹配的地产，工商业者为谋求社会地位而将财富投资于地产行业、建立土地家族。
　　第四章论证了圈地运动与十八、十九世纪英国地产结构演变之间的关系。具体而言，圈地运动始于13世纪，结束于20世纪初，分为早期协议圈地运动、议会圈地运动和一般法令下的圈地运动。在1660-1914年这一时期的前一阶段，前两种形式的圈地运动并存，1800年之后，第三种形式的圈地运动加入进来，三种圈地形式并驾齐驱。在单个的教区里，每种形式的圈地都是按照土地所有者的土地于圈地前在本教区所占的比例，重新分配土地，享有公共权利的茅舍农也分得一定的土地。因而，就单个的教区而言，圈地使土地所有者原先分散的土地集中到了一起，就整个英国而言，圈地运动为19世纪晚期地产结构的确立创造了条件。
　　第五章对1660-1914年间小土地所有者的土地持有状况进行了考察。对土地税征收册的研究表明；1660-1780年间，小土地所有者的数量及其拥有的土地呈现出下降的趋势；1780-1832年间，在圈地运动进行较为剧烈的时期，小土地所有者的数量则明显增多。1830年-19世纪晚期，由于农业衰落的缘故，小土地所有者遭受了严重的打击，但远未消失，就英格兰和威尔士而言，小土地所有者拥有的土地占其总面积的比例仍在10%以上。
　　第六章对地产管理的组织形式进行说明。大地产结构下，地产管理的组织形式以代理人为主要特征。地产代理人制度是中世纪庄园管理制度的延伸，是庄园管理制度适应十八、十九世纪的社会形势而产生的新型地产管理制度。代理人的职责相当广泛，涉及到地产的投资、土地家族的长远发展、账目的管理等，但地主在地产管理方面并不是被动的，他们常常通过干预代理人的方法对其地产进行间接的管理，也有的地主亲自充任自己地产上的代理人。
　　第七、八章对大地产下的社会结构进行分析。大地产下的地主和农场主之间的关系并不是直截了当的，二者之间既存在着纯粹的商业关系，同时又牵扯着社会、政治关系。通过固定资本和营运资本的投资、租佃条款、模范农场，地主和租地农场主之间的复杂关系得以展开，同时，随着时间的推移，地主对租地农场主的干预逐渐较少。大地产下的农业工人包括农场佣工、日工、少年工、季节工和临时工、流动性工人。在地产结构演变的过程中，大地产下农业工人的工资呈现提高的趋势，工作时间缩短，居住条件得以极大的提高。更为重要的是，农业工人受到了地主的恩赐，从地主手中的到了份地。
　　通常，人们强调圈地运动和小土地所有者的消失在英国19世纪晚期地产结构形成中的重要性，认为英国大地产的形成达是大土地所有者通过圈地运动对小土地所有者进行剥夺的结果。同时，人们对大地产下地主、租地农场主和农业工人之间的关系以及大地产的管理体系缺乏清晰的认识。本文旨在说明英国19世纪晚期地产结构的形成是多种因素的共同作用形成的。圈地运动的作用只是使土地所有者在单个教区内分散的土地几乎数量不变地集中到一起；小土地所有者不仅没有消失，而且在1780-1832年间圈地进行最为剧烈的时期出现了数量增加的状况；圈地运动为大地产的形成创造了前提，十八、十九世纪土地流动的主要动因和途径则是大众的心态和市场的激励；在19世纪晚期地产结构中，大、中地产的管理主要是通过代理人体系进行有效的运营；地主、农场主、农业工人三者之间相互影响、相互制约，充斥着温情。

Abstract
　　In the late 19th century, Britain had an estate structure that concentrated large estate was the major actor, while owner-occupiers and other small landowners existed extensively. The so-called "Estate structure" is the general situation that, among the landowners, how many proportion of land is owned by large and small owner respectively and how the estate is managed. The forming of the estate structure in Britain is a long course, which began around 1660 and finished in 1914. In the early part of this period, the estate structure of England boasted many traces of Middle Ages in which, though there were some large landowners, their land were scattering in many parishes. At the same time, open field system, a main field system of ancient time, existed extensively. The system had two characters: one was that the land in a parish was composed of many fragmented small pieces of field, the other was that the dwellers in the parish shared common right in the land of the parish. With the changes in the 18th and 19th century, the late 19th century witnessed the disappearance of the brand of estate in medieval times, thus the estate structure in Britain was formed. This dissertation makes an effort to deal with how the estate structure of Britain in late 19th century was established through market, social mentality, enclosure, small landowner, estate agent system and social structure.
　　Chapter 1 is the introduction of this dissertation, which firstly introduces the debates on this topic since the middle and latter time of the 19th century and which then describes the structure of estate around 1660 that was popular with open field and other estate character of medieval times and was marked by dispersed land.
　　Chapter 2 shows how the estate was concentrated from the point of market, which indicates firstly where the sellers of estate came from and then points out that estate was a means to keep and increase the value of their wealth. After South Sea Bubble, this character of estate as a means to keep and increase the value of wealth was more obvious. As a result, capital from commerce, industry and land entered into estate market. Many newcomers established a landed family in the end, though they at the beginning bought estate only to improve the value of their wealth.
　　Chapter 3 reveals the flow and concentration of estate between 1660 and 1914 in clue of social mentality. After Civil War and Restoration, estate became a means for people to obtain reputation, social position and political right. Therefore, old families bought estate in order to consolidate their position and advantage that they had already hold; Government officials and other professionals such as estate agent, doctor, lawyer，etc. got estate which was compatible with their position; newcomer from industrial and commercial circles put their capital into estate to establish landed family and social position.
　　Chapter 4 explains the relationship between enclosure and the change of estate structure in 18th and 19th century. The enclosure that happened between 13th century and early 20th century included early enclosure by agreement, parliamentary enclosure and the general enclosure act. In the first half period of the years between 1660 and 1914, the first two forms of enclosure acted along side by side and after 1800, the third one joined them. In a single parish, enclosure means that land was redistributed among landowners according to the estate proportion that they had taken before enclosure and that the dispersed field was put together. Through enclosure, cottagers who share common rights in the parish also got a small piece of field and tithe owner also got estate through tithe Commutation. Thus, enclosure in a single parish helped to put together the formerly dispersed fields owned by all kind of owners; Enclosure in Britain as a whole, however, was a precondition to the estate structure in the late 19th century.
　　Chapter 5 explores the small landowners and the estate owned by them. Research on the Land Tax assessments indicates that from 1660 to 1780 the number of small landowners and the estates that they owned took on a decreased trend and that the number of small landowners increased greatly in 1780-1832 during which enclosure was going on severely. Between 1830 and late 19th century, with the decline of agriculture, small landowners were hit heavily. Nevertheless, small landowners did not disappear, because in England and Wales, the estate owned by them was over 10% at late 19th century.
　　Chapter 6 is about the organization of the management of great estate. In great estate system, the organization of the management of great estate was charactered by agent system which was the stretch of manorial management in middle ages and which was the new creation of manorial management in medieval times in the situations of 18th and 19th century. The agent's responsibility was quite wide, which involved the investment in his lord's estate, the landed family's development in the future, the administration of account, etc.. However, the landowner was not passive in the management of his estate because he always intervened the agent and sometimes some landowner acted as the agent himself.
　　Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 analyze the social structure of great estate. The relationship between landowners and tenant farmer was not straightforward, which not only involved a relationship of commerce but also a relationship of society and politics. The complex relationship between landowner and tenant farmer was developed through the investment of fixed and working capital, covenant in lease, model farm and with time pushing on, the landowner's intervention decreased. Agricultural labour on large estate included farm servant, day labour, juvenile and child labour, casual and seasonal labour, migrant worker. In the course of the changing of estate structure, agricultural labour's wage took on a trend of increasing, their working hour got shorter and their living accommodation was improved. More important was that they got a gift from the landowner which was named allotment.
　　It is generally considered that enclosure and the disappearance of small landowner played an important role in the forming of estate structure in the late 19th century which, they believe, was the result that the large landowners deprived the small landowners of their land by enclosure. Meanwhile, many people lack clear understanding of the relationship between landowner, tenant farmer and labour and the managing system of great estate in the 18th and 19th century. The main purpose of this dissertation is to show that the estate structure in the late 19th century was the result of manifold factors which acted on each other. The function of enclosure was to enable the dispersed fields of a landowner in a single parish to be concentrated without increasing and decreasing in the proportion before and after enclosure; Enclosure was the precondition of the estate structure in the late 19th century, while the main motivation and approach of that was social mentality and estate market; In the estate structure of late 19th century, agent was the main actor to manage the large and middle estates; Landowner, tenant farmer and agricultural labour affected and restricted each other, which was full of tender feelings.

　[经济-社会史评论网首发] 2004年7月25日