Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/193

 a Treatise on the Designing of Farm Buildings (London, 1905); Clarke, Modern Farm Buildings (London, 1899); P. Roberts, The Farmstead, in the “Rural Science Series” (New York, 1900), and articles in the Standard Cyclopaedia of Agriculture, vol. 3, and in the Cyclopaedia of American Agriculture, vol. 1.

 FARMER, RICHARD (1735–1797), Shakespearian commentator, the son of a rich maltster, was born at Leicester on the 28th of August 1735. He was educated at the free grammar school of his native town, and at Emmanuel College, Cambridge. He graduated in 1757 a senior optime; three years later he proceeded M.A. and became classical tutor, and in 1775 master of his college, in succession to William Richardson, the biographer of the English bishops. In the latter year also he was appointed vice-chancellor, and three years afterwards chief librarian of the university. In 1780 he was appointed to a prebendal stall in Lichfield, and two years later to one at Canterbury; but the second office he exchanged in 1788 for that of a canon residentiary of St Paul’s. Cambridge, where he usually resided, was indebted to him for improvements in lighting, paving and watching; but perhaps London and the nation have less reason to be grateful for his zealous advocacy of the custom of erecting monuments to departed worthies in St Paul’s. In 1765 he issued a prospectus for a history of the town of Leicester; but this work, based on materials collected by Thomas Staveley, he never even began; it was carried out by the learned printer John Nichols. In 1766 he published his famous Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare, in which he proved that the poet’s acquaintance with ancient and modern Continental literature was exclusively derived from translations, of which he copied even the blunders. “Shakespeare,” he said, “wanted not the stilts of language to raise him above all other men.” “He came out of nature’s hand, like Pallas out of Jove’s head, at full growth and mature.” “One might,” he said—by way of ridiculing the Shakespearian criticism of the day—“with equal wisdom, study the Talmud for an exposition of Tristram Shandy.” The essay fully justifies the author’s description of himself in the preface to the second edition: “I may consider myself as the pioneer of the commentators; I have removed a deal of learned rubbish, and pointed out to them Shakespeare’s track in the very pleasant paths of nature.” Farmer died at Cambridge on the 8th of September 1797. He was, it appears, twice offered a bishopric by Pitt, but declined the preferment. Farmer was immensely popular in his own college, and loved, it was said, above all other things, old port, old clothes and old books.  FARMERS’ MOVEMENT, in American political history, the general name for a movement between 1867 and 1896 remarkable for a radical socio-economic propaganda that came from what was considered the most conservative class of American society. In this movement there were three periods, popularly known as Granger, Alliance and Populist.

The, or Order of the Patrons of Husbandry (the latter the official name of the national organization, while the former was the name of local chapters, including a supervisory National Grange at Washington), was a secret order founded in 1867 to advance the social needs and combat the economic backwardness of farm life. It grew remarkably in 1873–1874, and in the latter year attained a membership of perhaps 800,000. In the causes of its growth—much broader than those that issued in the financial crisis of 1873—a high tariff, railway freight-rates and other grievances were mingled with agricultural troubles like the fall of wheat prices and the increase of mortgages. The condition of the farmer seemed desperate. The original objects of the Grange were primarily educational, but these were soon overborne by an anti-middleman, co-operative movement. Grange agents bought everything from farm machinery to women’s dresses; hundreds of grain elevators and cotton and tobacco warehouses were bought, and even steamboat lines; mutual insurance companies were formed and joint-stock stores. Nor was co-operation limited to distributive processes; crop-reports were circulated, co-operative dairies multiplied, flour-mills were operated, and patents were purchased, that the Grange might manufacture farm machinery. The outcome in some states was ruin, and the name Grange became a reproach. Nevertheless these efforts in co-operation were exceedingly important both for the results obtained and for their wider significance. Nor could politics be excluded, though officially tabooed ; for economics must be considered by social idealists, and economics everywhere ran into politics. Thus it was with the railway question. Railways had been extended into frontier states; there were heavy crops in sparsely settled regions where freight-rates were high, so that—given the existing distributive system—there were “over production” and waste; there was notorious stock manipulation and discrimination in rates; and the farmers regarded “absentee ownership” of railways by New York capitalists much as absentee ownership of land has been regarded in Ireland. The Grange officially disclaimed enmity to railways; but though the organization did not attack them, the Grangers—through political “farmers’ clubs” and the like—did. About 1867 began the efforts to establish regulation of the railways, as common-carriers, by the states. Such laws were known as “Granger laws,” and their general principles, soon endorsed (1876) by the Supreme Court of the United States, have become an important chapter in the laws of the land. In a declaration of principles in 1874 Grangers were declared to be “not enemies of railroads,” and their cause to stand for “no communism, no agrarianism.” To conservatives, however, co-operation seemed communism, and “Grange laws” agrarianism; and thus in 1873–1874 the growth of the movement aroused extraordinary interest and much uneasiness. In 1874 the order was reorganized, membership being limited to persons directly interested in the farmers’ cause (there had been a millionaire manufacturers’ Grange on Broadway), and after this there were constant quarrels in the order; moreover, in 1875 the National Grange largely lost control of the state Granges, which discredited the organization by their disastrous co-operation ventures. Thus by 1876 it had already ceased to be of national political importance. About 1880 a renascence began, particularly in the Middle States and New England; this revival was marked by a recurrence to the original social and educational objects. The national Grange and state Granges (in all, or nearly all, of the states) were still active in 1909, especially in the old cultural movement and in such economic movements—notably the improvement of highways—as most directly concern the farmers. The initiative and referendum, and other proposals of reform politics in the direction of a democratic advance, also enter in a measure into their propaganda.

The carried the movement farther into economics. The “National Farmers’ Alliance and Industrial Union,” formed in 1889, embraced several originally independent organizations formed from 1873 onwards; it was largely confined to the South and was secret. The “National Farmers’ Alliance,” formed in 1880, went back similarly to 1877, was much smaller, Northern and non-secret. The “Colored Farmers’ National Alliance and Co-operative Union” (formed 1888, merged in the above “Southern” Alliance in 1890) was the second greatest organization. With these three were associated many others, state and national, including an annual, non-partisan, deliberative and advisory Farmers’ National Congress. The Alliance movement reached its greatest power about 1890, in which year twelve national farmers’ organizations were represented in conventions in St Louis, and the six leading ones alone probably had a membership of 5,000,000.

As with the Grange, so in the ends and declarations of the whole later movement, concrete remedial legislation for agricultural or economic ills was mingled with principles of vague radical tendency and with lofty idealism. Among the principles