Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924079597336 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
In compliance with current 
 
 copyright law, Cornell University 
 
 L ibrary produced this 
 
 replacement volume on paper 
 
 that meets the ANSI Standard 
 
 Z39.48-1992 to replace the 
 
 irreparably deteriorated original. 
 
 1997 
 
BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 FROM THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 Eictirg m. Base 
 
 1891 
 
 A,XL:1>OoL :;: :- 4.\i>rii:2„.. 
 
 »I357 
 
COiMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited 
 
 LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA 
 MELBOURNE 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 NEW YORK BOSTON CHICAGO 
 DALLAS ■ SAN FRANCISCO 
 
 THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. 
 
 TORONTO 
 
COMMON LAND 
 
 AND 
 
 INCLOSURE 
 
 BY 
 
 E. C. K. CONNER 
 
 BRUNNER PROFESSOR OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE IN THE 
 ONIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED 
 
 ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON 
 
 1912 
 
AZb300b 
 
 COPYRIGHT 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The main object of the present work is to trace the 
 process whereby the land of this country came into 
 agricultural use under full individual control. That 
 movement, as will be seen, is treated as continuous and 
 as due in the main to the operation of large economic 
 and, so to say, normal causes. While the rapidity and 
 extent of inclosure varies from time to time, and while 
 its kind undergoes certain changes, progress continues. 
 Moreover, despite the particular features which appertain 
 to different periods, the movement owes its impetus and 
 direction to certain dominant though often undetected 
 influences. Hence the emphasis laid in the following 
 pages on such factors as the soil, the effect of the addition 
 of new agricultural land on the use of that already in 
 cultivation, the date of inclosure from the wild state, the 
 influence of progress in farming, and of the new demands 
 arising from an advance in industrial development. The 
 connection of these with the progress of inclosure and 
 with its results, differing as these often do from epoch to 
 epoch, are treated of in detail. 
 
 But there is one subject touched on, with regard to 
 which I may be blamed for not attempting any definite 
 and general conclusion. I refer to the effect of the 
 eighteenth century inclosures upon the condition of 
 the labouring class. As a matter of fact the controversy 
 of that period is subjected to very careful examination, 
 and conclusions are reached which may be employed in 
 support of varying views ; but when it comes to a ques- 
 tion of general approval or condemnation, I find a simple 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 one-sided decision difficult. Inclosure is so much a part 
 of a wider economic movement, and so often a consequence 
 rather than a cause, that to set out its results as wholly 
 bad or wholly good seems to jne quite impossible. Some 
 results, indeed, are fairly clear, but they do not point 
 uniformly in the same direction. 
 
 Thus, on the one hand, it is pointed out that in certain 
 parts of the country the inclosures of that century facili- 
 tated the operation of the forces whicly led to larger 
 farming and so to the diminution and partial extinction 
 of the yeomen and small farmers. Similarly, it seems 
 probable that a considerable amount of common field 
 inclosure in a district often led to a temporary pressure 
 on poor relief 
 
 On the other hand, the beneficial effect on farming 
 taken as a whole is undoubted. This displays itself on 
 all sides, and particularly in the increased utilisation of 
 what is, after all, the distinctive agricultural wealth 
 of England, rich grazing and dairy lands. Again, the 
 examination attempted and the tables adduced seem to 
 me to prove that rural population at the end of that 
 century did not vary with inclosure, and that this move- 
 ment was not at any rate the main cause of the increase 
 in poor relief expenditure. Nor does the accusation of 
 general arbitrary or unfair treatment of the small farmer 
 or the poor owner appear to me tenable. 
 
 In my view the inclosure movement was an inseparable 
 part of a much wider movement, and hence an estimate of 
 its results must take into account not only the local 
 disturbance and the individual consequences it entailed, 
 but the broad general effects which it achieved or 
 rendered possible. But for this, regard must be paid to 
 certain facts or aspects which for one reason or another 
 have received inadequate attention. Among such are the 
 importance of inclosure to progressive farming, the strict 
 geographical limits within which inclosure occurred, and 
 the close connection between inclosure from the wild state 
 and the waste and inclosure of land under arable. Of 
 
PREFACE vii 
 
 even greater importance was the change whereby agri- 
 culture from being a means of subsistence to particular 
 families had become a source of wealth to the nation, a 
 change in progress alike in the seventeenth and eighteenth 
 centuries, and one which made improvement in its pro- 
 ductivity momentous in a national sense. From this 
 point of view the retention of a system which withheld 
 land from its best use was an obstacle to general progress 
 only to be defended by arguments equally applicable to 
 any improvement or invention in a productive process. 
 
 On the other hand, the consequences of the alteration 
 were manifold. Owing in the main to the circumstances 
 of the time, and principally to the mechanical change 
 which led to the disappearance of industries allied to 
 and plied with agriculture, the allotments to the small 
 holders were often inadequate as a sole means of liveli- 
 hood, and in a large number of instances soon sold. As 
 a consequence, small independent holders grew rapidly 
 fewer, and in agriculture as in industrj' the proportion 
 of those who work for and live by wages increased. But 
 this occurred, it should be remembered, not only in 
 counties or districts subject to inclosure in the eighteenth 
 century, but in those where there was little trace of such ; 
 not only again in regions where at some time or other the 
 open field had existed, but in those where there is reason 
 to believe open field either never existed or played a very 
 insignificant part. 
 
 I have purposely abstained from dwelling at length 
 on the incidents of a few cases. Such a method, while 
 it may make things more picturesque, is misleading 
 when the instances are few out of many thousands, and 
 not necessarily typical. 
 
 To touch further on this point would travel outside the 
 province of a preface, and lead to a discussion of what 
 forms the subject of the text itself 
 
 A few words are needed as to the maps and tables 
 appended to or included in the present work. 
 
 Of the five maps three require little or no explanation. 
 
viii PREFACE 
 
 The one based on Ogilby's Britannia has been traced 
 from the road plans and descriptions given in that book. 
 The map may be taken as illustrating the condition of the 
 country, open or inclosed, shortly after the Restoration, as 
 far as that is reflected in the hedged, fenced, and walled 
 or open condition of the roads. I think it is a reliable 
 index, though no doubt some modification is necessary for 
 reasons set out elsewhere. The two which depict actual 
 inclosure by act, respectively of wastes and open field, 
 need little comment. It must, however, be remembered 
 that a certain proportion of so-called open field inclosures 
 consisted of commons. The remaining two are attempts 
 to represent the condition of the country towards the 
 close of the seventeenth and the sixteenth centuries re- 
 spectively. To arrive at them I have worked backwards, 
 starting from the land inclosed in the eighteenth century 
 and so open before, and making similar additions for 
 other recorded inclosures, much on the lines of the 
 tabular statement on pp. 268-9. Of course the treatment 
 has been according to the registration district and not 
 the county. In showing land as open they do not dis- 
 tinguish between waste or wild and open field. After 
 some consideration I gave up any such attempt as too 
 uncertain. 
 
 The main tables may be divided into three groups 
 according to the particular aspect with which they deal. 
 
 Firstly, there are two treating of the progress of in- 
 closure from the beginning of the sixteenth century either 
 in general (pp. 268-9) o"" i" respect of direct inclosure 
 into individual use from the wild state (p. 285). These 
 two tables should be read in conjunction with the state- 
 ments offered as to the development in the separate 
 counties in Book II., Appendix A. Thus studied it is 
 hoped that they will afford some brief indication of the 
 very important matter which constitutes the subject of 
 Book II. 
 
 Secondly, there are the tables which attempt the 
 geographical allocation of the recorded inclosures by 
 
PREFACE ix 
 
 act. For reasons given in the text the data on which 
 these are based, though approximately accurate, are only 
 approximately accurate, and therefore too much impor- 
 tance must not be attached to decimal points. Further, 
 ■the mass of detailed computation involved in the tables in 
 Book IL, Appendices B and C, is so great that the occur- 
 rence of some error is possible. I believe them, however, 
 to be substantially correct. In Appendix C, the per- 
 centage of townships affected is added in round figures. 
 To do this the list of parishes or civil townships given 
 in the Census Return is employed. As compared with 
 the percentage of land this indicates the degree in which 
 inclosures were widely spread over the district, a matter, 
 as it seems, of considerable importance in interpreting the 
 evidence furnished by the tables as to the previous 
 condition of the land. This calculation was difficult, and 
 cannot claim to be precise. One thing more, it must 
 be remembered that where percentages of land are given 
 these are calculated on the whole acreage of the county 
 or district as if the whole area had been open to 
 inclosure. As a matter of fact some deduction must be 
 made for the site of the villages and for the surface 
 occupied by road or water. Hence the percentages of 
 available land brought under inclosure are greater than 
 those stated. 
 
 Thirdly, the tables giving the comparisons between 
 inclosure, population, and poor relief need a word. In 
 certain cases towns had to be excluded. When this 
 was done, it was done impartially ; and I consider that 
 the case is under rather than overstated with regard to 
 the greater density or increase of population, and the 
 less increase 'in poor relief expenditure in the inclosed 
 parishes. The large number of tables constructed with 
 reference to this general matter is due, I ought to add, 
 to my surprise at the absence of evidence as to any 
 effective relation between inclosure and both population 
 and poor relief But further calculation only corroborated 
 the results already ascertained. 
 
X PREFACE 
 
 I have to thank Messrs. Longmans, Green & Co. for 
 permission to use the chapter on the seventeenth century, 
 originally published in the English Historical Review, 
 and also the map prepared from Ogilby's Britannia. 
 
 In conclusion, I wish to express my sincere acknow- 
 4edgment of the opportunities for study offered by the 
 various libraries in which I have worked. In Liverpool 
 I received much assistance from the officials in the 
 .Public Reference Library and the Athenaeum Library, 
 the University Library, partly by reason of its newness 
 and partly owing to its inadequate funds, possessing few 
 of the books or papers which I had to consult. But it 
 is difficult to estimate my obligations to the officials of 
 the British Museum Library and the Public Record 
 Office. In this, as in other cases, I have found them 
 not only willing but anxious to afford and extend 
 facilities to the genuine worker. 
 
 E. C. K. GONNER. 
 
 Undercliff, West Kirby, 
 , lUh Jan., 1912. 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 BOOK I 
 COMMON ANp INCLOSURE 
 
 I 
 
 COMMDN AND INCLOSURE 
 
 PAGE 
 
 A. Difference between popular conception of common and its 
 
 early nature - - I 
 
 B. Description and nature of system of common cultivation — 
 
 1. Description 2 
 
 2. Nature of common and common right — 
 
 (a) Pasture 8 
 
 (i) Common of pasture on the waste 8 
 
 (ii) Common of shack 12 
 
 (iii) Other intermixed rights - 13 
 
 {b) Estover, turbary and miscellaneous rights - 14 
 
 3. Common as supplementing arable - 16 
 
 C. Widespread permanence of incidents of common — 
 
 1. General illustrations 18 
 
 2. Illustration of leading features 22 
 
 D. Significant tendencies towards adaptation - 29 
 
 1. In respect of common and especially pasture, common 
 
 in gross and stints - - 29 
 
 Effect as leading to general claims - 31 
 
 2. Methods of cultivation of land - - ^2 
 
xii ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 E. Change and reasons for change - - 33 
 
 1. Basis of system, its suitability - 33 
 Conditions of suitability - - 35 
 
 (a) Universal importance of arable. 
 
 (6) Uniformity of method. 
 
 {c) Relation between arable and stock. 
 
 2. Alteration in these resptcts - 36 
 
 F. The eighteenth century — 
 
 1. Illustrating causes of disintegration while witnessing 
 
 to strength of system - - 40 
 
 2. Difference between various parts of country 41 
 
 II 
 
 EXTINCTION OF COMMON AND COMMON RIGHTS 
 
 Extinction of common and so indosure the most effectual means 
 
 of meeting defects in the common system - 43 
 
 Several methods — 
 
 A. Extinction of common in ordinary process of law 43 
 
 Its chief forms 43 
 
 B. Withdrawal from common by sufferance 46 
 
 C. Approvement - - 48 
 
 1. Nature and enactments - - 48 
 
 2. Importance - 49 
 
 3. Use made of it at different times 50 
 
 (a) Eighteenth century. 
 (6) Seventeenth century. 
 {c) Sixteenth century. 
 
 D. Agreement — 
 
 1. Nature and variety - 51 
 
 2. Use made of it — 
 
 (a) Eighteenth century 52 
 
 (b) Seventeenth century 53 
 Chancery suits - 54 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS xiii 
 
 E. Private acts and parliamentary enactments — pack 
 
 1. Parliamentary enactments before eighteenth century - 56 
 
 2. Extension of parliamentary activity at end of seven- 
 
 teenth century - 57 
 
 3. Development of private act - - 58 
 
 (a) Aim of inclosure illustrated 60 
 
 (6) Need of safeguards revealed - 62 
 
 As to general provisions - 62 
 
 As to procedure 63 
 
 (c) Growth of uniformity - - 65 
 
 4. Demand for a general act - 65 
 
 (a) Early suggestions and projects - - 66 
 
 (6) Struggle at end of eighteenth century 66 
 
 (c) Act of 1 801 ... 69 
 
 III 
 
 THE METHOD OF INCLOSURE IN THE EIGHTEENTH 
 AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES 
 
 A. Inclosure under private act - 71 
 
 1. Matters outside the proceedings of the commissioners — 
 
 (a) Influence of large proprietors - - 73 
 
 (i) On determination to inclose - 73 
 
 (ii) On drawing up the act ■ - 73 
 
 (iii) In appointment of commissioners 74 
 
 {6) Commissioners — 
 
 (i) Method of appointment 74 
 
 (ii) Powers - 75 
 
 (iii) Exercise of powers - - 76 
 
 General fairness. 
 
 (c) Publicity of proceedings 77 
 
 2. Proceedings of the commissioners — 
 
 (a) Holding of meetings and appointment of officials 7j 
 The survey and valuation. 
 
xiv ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PACK 
 
 (i) Claims to be met and methods of meeting them 78 
 
 (i) Expenses of inclosure, how met - 78 
 
 (ii) So-called abstract claims - 79 
 Of lord of manor. 
 Of tithe owner, 
 
 (iii) Claims of those entitled to common - 79 
 Variety of methods of estimate. 
 (c) Other functions with regard to claims or otherwise 82 
 
 (i) Roads — Public and private 83 
 
 Road making 85 
 
 (ii) The poor — Their needs - 86 
 
 Methods of meeting these, 
 
 (iii) Fencing and hedging 87 
 Expense. 
 Different methods. 
 
 3. Expenses 87 
 
 (a) Various classes of expense 88 
 
 (6) General estimates 89 
 
 {c) Complaints go 
 
 4. The award 91 
 
 B. Inclosure under the act of 1845 91 
 
 1. Central body of commissioners 91 
 
 2. Sketch of proceedings 91 
 
 C. System of inclosure and partition — 
 
 1. Its evolution 93 
 
 2. Its fairness considered 94 
 
 APPENDICES . 
 
 A. Legal nature of common 96 
 
 B. Admeasurement - 100 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS xv 
 
 BOOK II 
 PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 I 
 
 PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 FACE 
 
 A. Nature of inclosure complex ; chiefly of three kinds 107 
 
 1. Firstly, as a part or adaptation of open field cultivation 107 
 
 (a) Closes taken in and inclosed 108 
 
 (J)) Temporary inclosures out of waste 108 
 
 {f) ' Severals ' or inclosures out of arable open field - 108 
 
 2. Secondly, extension of cultivation led to new land 
 
 coming into cultivation inclosed 109 
 
 (a) Hill and moor 1 10 
 
 (6) Woodland and forest - 1 1 1 
 
 (c) Fen and bog - 113 
 
 3. Thirdly, inclosure of arable open-field - 114 
 
 Circumstances of its earlier occurrence. 
 
 B. Factors controlling and influencing inclosure 115 
 
 1. Natural features of land 115 
 
 (a) Soil 115 
 
 (6) Topography - 115 
 
 (c) Position with regard to water supply - 116 
 
 2. Urban and industrial growth 1 16 
 
 Effect of this in several ways. 
 
 3. Effect of introduction of new land on use of old - 118 
 
 (a) Such new land often used as arable 1 19 
 
 (i) Open field inclosures as a rule include waste 120 
 
 4. Progress of agriculture 12 1 
 
 (a) Exhaustion by incessant cropping in open field - 121 
 (6) Differences in skill manifest themselves, si.\teenth 
 
 century - - 121 
 
 (c) Convertible farming and new crops 121 
 
 5. .Alterations and improvements in transport 122 
 
 d. 
 
xvi ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 C. In dealing with the above the extent of settled open field an 
 
 important question 123 
 
 1. Counties with few inclosures in eighteenth century 124 
 
 2. Extent in seventeenth century 125 
 
 3. Reasons for excluding certain counties considered 125 
 Causes affecting early agricultural settlement 125 
 Causes affecting desire to inclose 129 
 
 D. General course considered 13° 
 
 1. To middle sixteenth century 132 
 
 (a) New factors 132 
 
 (^) Their influence i33 
 
 (c) Locality of inclosures i33 
 
 ((/) General effect 135 
 
 2. From middle sixteenth centurj' to end seventeenth 
 
 century 137 
 
 (a) New factors 138 
 (i) Agricultural progress, 
 (ii) Transport and locomotion, 
 (iii) Additions to cultivated area, 
 (iv) Growth of towns, etc. 
 
 {6) Their influence 138 
 
 (f) Their locality 139 
 
 This period continues into the eighteenth century 140 
 
 E. Bearing of above considerations - 141 
 
 1. The connection with general factors - 141 
 
 2. Applied to general conclusions 143 
 Especially as affecting different regions — 
 
 West Midlands - 143 
 
 South-west - 143 
 
 Western counties 143 
 
 Southern counties - 144 
 
 East Anglia - - 144 
 
 The North 145 
 
 3. Extent to which course of inclosure explained 145 
 
 4. The same compared with and illustrated by the record 
 
 of inclosures by act in eighteenth centurj' - 147 
 
 5. Summary of conclusions 150 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS xvii 
 
 II 
 
 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 
 
 PACR 
 
 A. The close of the sixteenth century 153 
 
 1. New economic forces 154 
 
 2. Attempts to repress inclosure 1 55 
 
 3. Memorials and other proposals - 156 
 
 B. Movement in seventeenth century - - 158 
 
 1. Literary references : books, pamphlets, etc. 158 
 
 (a) First quarter - 159 
 
 (6) Second quarter 1 60 
 
 (c) Third quarter 160 
 
 (d) Fourth quarter 162 
 Above supplemented by survey of literature in early 
 
 eighteenth century 162 
 
 2. Official and legal notice 163 
 
 (a) First half century - 164 
 
 Especially commissions - 165 
 
 and compositions - 166 
 
 (6) Second half century 167 
 
 Especially Chancery decrees - 167 
 
 and Parliamentary proposals - 168 
 
 3. Comparison of accounts of condition of country at 
 
 beginning and end 169 
 
 (a) Comparison between Leland and Ogilby 169 
 
 {d) Other comparisons 171 
 
 (c) Ogilby's Britannia 1 72 
 
 C. Locality of inclosure in seventeenth century 175 
 
 1. Foregoing evidence summarised 175 
 
 2. Certain features considered - 176 
 Especially inclosure from wild state 178 
 
 3. General outline traced 179 
 
 D. Method in seventeenth century l8i 
 
 1. Methods i8i 
 
 2. Development towards acts - 182 
 
 E. Nature - 183 
 
 1. Apprehension of depopulation and lack of grain not 
 
 realised - - - 183 
 
 2. Conversion to grass not the chief feature 184 
 
xviii ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 III 
 
 EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 
 
 PAGE 
 
 A. Inclosure in early eighteenth century other than that by act 187 
 
 1. Testimony of books, pamphlets, etc 187 
 
 2. Natureofearly acts, largely confirmatory of agreements 188 
 
 3. Sporadic distribution of inclosures under act - 189 
 Inclosure by agreement during century discussed 190 
 
 B. Introduction and increase of private acts 190 
 
 1. Leads to development of inclosure 190 
 
 2. Controversy in this century 191 
 
 3. Points of agreement between the advocates and 
 
 opponents of inclosure - 192 
 
 C. Statistics of inclosures under act - 193 
 
 1. Necessity of taking into account inclosure of waste 
 
 and commons, as well as of open field 193 
 
 (a) Occurrence of former of much influence 193 
 
 (i) Open field inclosures often include commons 193 
 
 2. Accuracy of figures in acts examined - - 193 
 
 (a) Difference between them and those in awards 194 
 
 (i) Occasional inclusion of roads and old inclosures 195 
 
 (c) Amount of waste in open field inclosures con- 
 sidered - 195 
 
 3. Statistics tabulated 195 
 
 (a) By decades, showing different waves of inclosure 197 
 
 Different districts differently affected- - 197 
 
 (6) In registration districts, in order to obtain a 
 
 smaller unit to calculate percentages on 200 
 
 4. Certain preliminary considerations before applying 
 
 above 201 
 
 (a) Aspects of different waves or periods - - 201 
 
 (6) Expense of inclosure - 201 
 
 (c) Distribution of inclosures over areas 202 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS xlx 
 
 PAGS 
 
 D. Certain factors and forces needing consideration 203 
 
 1. Soil and physical features 203 
 
 (a) Influence in different regions examined - 203 
 
 East Anglia 205 
 
 Western counties 209 
 
 Middlesex and Hertford 216 
 
 Cambridge - 218 
 
 Midlands 219 
 
 Northern parts 219 
 
 Southern parts - - 223 
 
 (3) General conclusions as to influence of soil and 
 
 physical conditions - 225 
 
 {c) Relation of soil and inclosure traced in outline 228 
 
 2. Industrial growth and stage of development - 231 
 
 3. Enlargement of area in strict cultivation - 232 
 
 E. Summary of inclosures under act as affecting general view 
 
 of movement 233 
 
 1. Inclosures before eighteenth century - - - 233 
 
 2. Inclosures mainly in eighteenth century - 234 
 
 (a) General purposes and arable 234 
 
 (b) Lands suited to pasture 236 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 A. Progress of inclosure in the various counties 238 
 
 B. Tabular statement indicating progress of inclosure 268 
 
 C. Percentage of land inclosed by act in various counties 
 
 according to registration districts (to 1870) - - 270 
 
 D. Percentage of land inclosed by act in the counties, given in 
 
 decades and periods as well as totals (to 1870) - 279 
 
 E. Inclosure from the wild state - - 282 
 
XX ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 BOOK III 
 EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 I 
 GENERAL EFFECT OF INCLOSURE 
 
 PAGE 
 
 A. While inclosure a general movement its effects far from 
 
 uniform 293 
 
 They require investigation in respect of 294 
 
 . I. Cultivation 294 
 
 (a) Agriculture in general. 
 (^) Particular products. 
 (c) Animals and grain. 
 i^^ 2. General features, especially of rural life 294 
 
 ^ 3. Condition of people - 294 
 
 (a) Population. 
 {F) Employment. 
 
 B. Certain general causes of difference in result 294 
 
 J. I. Waste or open field - 294 
 
 ^2. Soil - 297 
 
 „ 3. Management of the inclosure 298 
 
 j_4. Circumstances of the district or period 299 
 
 {a) Local employment, rural or mixed 299 
 
 {b) Facilities for transport 299 
 
 1/ C. Some minor advantages or disadvantages attributed to in- 
 closure enumerated 299 
 
 II 
 
 EFFECT ON AGRICULTURE 
 
 A. General advantageous effect on agriculture - 302 
 
 J I. This very apparent during whole term of progressive 
 
 agriculture - ■ - 302 
 
 2. Before sixteenth century, and even in its early years, 
 
 the open field system compares more favourably 304 
 Defect of this system, its growing unsuitability 306 - 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS xxi 
 
 PARK 
 
 ^^ 3. Value of commons and common right considered. 
 Cases where inclosure less advantageous than 
 
 expected 306 
 
 B. Chief advantages under three headings 308 
 
 1. Improvements in arrangement and management 308 
 
 (a) Land put to use for which best suited 308 
 
 (i5) Compact farms and estates enable better control 308 
 
 (c) Economy in working - 309 
 
 (d) Manure used to more purpose 310 
 {e) More thorough use of plough and other implements 310 
 (/) Occasional and special advantages 311 
 (g) Utility or detriment of hedges 31 1 
 
 2. Relief from vexatious restrictions 313 
 
 (a) Less injury from negligent neighbours 314 
 
 {!>) Less liability to trespass and litigation 314 
 
 {c) Exoneration from tithe 315 
 
 (i) Importance of this 315 
 
 (ii) Reasons why not invariably adopted - 316 
 
 3. Improvements in cultivation 318 
 
 (a) In many different ways 318 
 
 (b) Rotation of crops 318 
 
 (c) Drainage 320 
 
 (i) Reclamation 320 
 
 (ii) Ordinary drainage 321 
 
 C. Extent to which above experience varies from time to time 
 
 and place to place : largely dependent on certain 
 
 features in inclosure 322 
 
 1. Special suitability of land 322 
 
 2. Nature of inclosure, waste or open field 323 
 
 3. Stage of agiiculture 323 
 
 4. Local growth and requirements 323 
 
 5. Facilities for transport 324 
 
 6. Particular circumstances 324 
 
 D. Interaction of these, and part played by inclosure in agri- 
 
 culture briefly indicated - 324 
 
 1. Fifteenth and early sixteenth century - 324 
 
 2. End of sixteenth and seventeenth century 326 
 
 3. Eighteenth century 328 
 
xxii ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 III 
 
 EFFECT ON PARTICULAR PRODUCTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 A. Minor and miscellaneous products 330 
 
 1. Horses 33° 
 
 2. Pigs 33 « 
 
 3. Poultry 33' 
 
 4. Flax, hemp, etc. - 33' 
 
 5. Cattle foods and roots 331 
 
 6. Fruit 331 
 
 B. Trees and timber - 332 
 
 1. Importance of these 332 
 
 2. Open field detrimental to them. Evidence as to this 
 
 considerable 332 
 
 3. Hedges as affording wood for fuel 333 
 
 4. Effect of inclosure on planting 334 
 
 C. Cattle and sheep 335 
 
 1. General improvement of cattle, cows and sheep - 335 
 
 2. Reasons and nature of this 336 
 
 (a) Poor and starved condition of commons 337 
 
 {b) Better pasture lands put to their use 338 
 
 {c) Careful breeding becomes possible 339 
 
 (rf) Security from infection . ,-. 339 
 
 3. Improvement in quality of products, as milk and butter 340 
 
 4. On other hand, alleged deterioration in quality of wool 340 
 
 IV 
 
 EFFECT ON AMOUNT OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS 
 AND GRAIN 
 
 A- Influence of inclosure on amount of animal product and 
 grain important as involving use of land and its pos- 
 sible conversion from one use to another 343 
 
 This must be viewed apart from that as to effect on quality - 343 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS xxiii 
 
 i>acf: 
 
 B. Eifect with regard to stock - 344 
 
 1. Fifteenth and early sixteenth century - 344 
 
 2. Later sixteenth and seventeenth century - 345 
 
 3. Eighteenth century 347 
 
 {a) Opinions in early part 347 
 
 (6) Figures as to the latter part 348 
 
 C. Effect with regard to arable and grain 349 
 Reasons for great importance attached to this 350 
 
 1. Fifteenth and early sixteenth century - 350 
 The tillage laws - 352 
 
 2. Late sixteenth and seventeenth century 353 
 Continued controversy - 354 
 
 3. Eighteenth century 356 
 Some general conclusions possible — 
 
 (a) Much change in use of land 356 
 
 (6) Wheat acreage in some counties decreased 357 
 
 (c) Increase in yield of corn 357 
 
 (rf) No general diminution of total arable 357 
 
 V 
 
 EFFECT ON CONDITIONS OF RURAL LIFE i' 
 
 •^ A. Effect of inclosure on conditions of rural life, apart from 
 
 amount of employment, and examination in respect of 359 
 
 General conditions of life 359 
 
 Conditions of employment 359 
 Before this certain other points noticed — 
 
 1. Influence on mutual relations and litigation 359 
 
 2. General effect of commons, whether beneficial or 
 
 othern-ise 360 
 
 B. Effect on general conditions 361 
 
 I. The effects much discussed in eighteenth century 361 
 {a) On those owning or occupying common right 
 
 cottages - 362 
 
 (i) Allotments very small 362 
 
 (ii) Expenses on inclosure great 362 
 
 (iii) In case of occupants, owners often take 
 
 allotment where occupants had enjoyed 
 
 previous rights of common 363 
 
xxiv ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PACK 
 
 (d) On poor living near commons - 363 
 
 (i) Instances of loss 364 
 
 (ii) Difficulty in making good their claims 364 
 
 The claims not legal 364 
 
 Attempts at remedy 365 
 
 (iii) Compensation not uniform and only occa- 
 sional - 365 
 Cowkeeping and fuel considered 365 
 
 2. Allegation that inclosure led to increase in poor rates 
 
 considered 366 
 
 ^ 3. Effect on small owners, cottagers, and general poor 
 
 very different at different periods - 367 
 
 (a) Prior to private acts, etc, small owners little 
 
 consulted or considered 367 
 This remedied in proceedings under act. 
 Still they may suffer as a class. 
 
 {ff) Poor more prominent in later than in early con- 
 troversies - - 368 
 
 v^ C. Effect on system of employment - - 368 
 
 I. General and steady disappearance of small farmers 
 
 and yeomen in eighteenth century 369 
 
 a) Special reasons apart from inclosure - 369 
 
 (i) Change in this respect general - 369 
 
 ^ 2. Connection of this with inclosure examined 370 
 
 (a) Some influence generally admitted - 371 
 
 (d) On other hand, change proceeding where little 
 
 inclosure occurs 374 
 
 73. Much change in this direction prior to eighteenth 
 
 century uncertain - 374 
 
 y 4. The change in eighteenth century - 376 
 
 (a) Alleged connection with poor law system 376 
 
 (d) Growth of capitalistic farming - - 378 
 
 (c) Growth of wage-paid class - 379 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS xxv 
 
 VI 
 EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION 
 
 PAGE 
 
 yy A Decrease of employment, and so of population, a general 
 
 charge against inclosure for at least three centuries 380 
 
 1. Its examination entails an examination of the country 
 
 at different periods and in different localities 381 
 
 2. It rests in the main on the contention that much land 
 
 was converted from arable to pasture 38 1 
 
 {a) Evidence of this in the general admission that 
 inclosure of wastes, etc., was not to public 
 detriment 381 
 
 (b) The direct evidence bearing on conversion 381 
 
 3. The usual argument is threefold - - 384 
 
 (a) Conversion of land to pasture. 
 (J)) Detrimental effects of this on employment and 
 population. 
 
 (c) Lack of compensating industries and employment. 
 Opinions on this point vary at different times - 385 
 
 (i) As to new agricultural labour, 
 (ii) As to other industries. 
 
 (iii) As to absolute or relative decline in popu- 
 lation. 
 
 B. Fifteenth to middle of sixteenth century - 387 
 
 1. The alleged increase of sheep farming at expense of 
 
 the plough 387 
 
 2. Grounds for this belief - 387 
 
 3. Connection with unprogressive state of agriculture 388 
 
 C. Middle of sixteenth to end of seventeenth century 390 
 
 1. Apprehension as to depopulation on part of the State 390 
 
 2. Little actual attempt at remedy 390 
 Reasons for this - 391 
 
 {a) Recognition of difference of result in different 
 
 places - 391 
 
 (V) A more general and less local view taken 392 
 
 \j 3. Improbability of detrimental conversion and decline 
 
 in population in seventeenth century - 395 
 
xxvi ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PAGC 
 
 D. Eighteenth centur>' and afterwards 396 
 Assertions of absolute decline less frequent. 
 Better evidence exists in this period for testing the accuracy 
 
 of alleged detrimental effects 397 
 
 1. A priori probability - 397 
 
 (a) Amount and nature of inclosure at this time. 
 
 Limited area in which it could be effective 397 
 
 (J>) Against conversion and diminution of wheat land, 400 
 
 If or when such occurs, must be put — 
 
 (i) Other crops and uses - 401 
 
 (ii) Great increase of stock 402 
 
 {c) Large additions to area of the land in regular use 402 
 
 (i) Inclosures of commons, etc. 
 
 (ii) Inclusion in open field inclosure of some 
 commons, etc. 
 
 (iii) Utilisation of fallow. 
 
 Application of this to inclosure statistics - 404 
 
 {d) Attempted classification of counties as to initial 
 
 probability 405 
 
 2. Statistical tests described and discussed - 407 
 
 (a) Comparison of whole counties - 407 
 
 {b) Inclosed parishes compared with others and with 
 
 total respective counties 409 
 
 3 So-called _^?'fi5<2/J/^ counties compared, also others 410 
 
 {a) In respect of population statistics 411 
 
 (i) 1750-1801 412 
 
 (ii) 1S01-1811 414 
 
 {b) In respect of poor rates 415 
 
 (i) Comparison 416 
 
 (ii) Significant variations 417 
 
 Some uncertainty of work 417 
 
 This irrespective of conversion - 41& 
 
 Old inclosed counties not affected 419 
 
 General conclusions - . - 41^ 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS xxvii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 4. Inclosed parishes compared with other places in the 
 
 so-called probable counties, as to 42 1 
 (a) Increase in population, 1801-181 1 - 421 
 (S) Density of population, 1801 424 
 (c) Density where wheat acreage reported as in- 
 creased or decreased 425 
 {d) Poor rates (five counties) 426 
 
 5. Certain counties and special areas considered sepa- 
 
 rately with regard to these various tests 427 
 
 (a) The so-called ^ro^ai/e counties examined 427 
 
 Rutland 427 
 
 Nottingham - 428 
 
 Bedford 428 
 
 Buckingham - 428 
 
 Northampton - 430 
 
 Warwick 431 
 
 Leicester 432 
 
 Berkshire and Oxford 432 
 
 Cambridge and Huntingdon 433 
 
 (b) Two special areas examined - 434 
 
 North Midland area 434 
 
 Thames Valley 435 
 
 6. General conclusions 436 
 
 {a) Tendency to conversion where such existed 
 subject to certain modifying and counter- 
 acting influences - 437 
 {b) Diminution of population and decrease of em- 
 ployment not a general feature 440 
 Inclosure, however, must be considered not only as a 
 
 cause but as a consequence - 441 
 
 A part of a general change 444 
 General remarks. 
 
 BOOK III 
 APPENDICES 
 
 A. Table showing inclosure, population, and poor rates for the 
 
 counties during and at end of eighteenth century 448 
 
xxviii ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PAGB 
 
 B. Increase of poor rates in percentages for latter half of 
 
 eighteenth centuiy and first decade of nineteenth 
 century 449 
 
 C. Baptisms in inclosed parishes and those without inclosure 
 
 in certain counties according to returns received by 
 Hewlett 450 
 
 D. Rate of increase of population, 1801-1 1, comparing parishes 
 
 with inclosure before 1800 and the respective counties, 
 
 for certain counties 45 ' 
 
 E. Parishes with decrease in population, 1801-11, distributed 
 
 according to parishes inclosed and others, for certain 
 counties 45' 
 
 F. Increase of population, 1801-1811, in inclosed parishes and 
 
 registration districts of certain counties 452 
 
 G. Density of population per 100 acres, 1801, for inclosed 
 
 parishes, other parishes and whole counties, for certain 
 counties 455 
 
 H. Density of population and increase of population for inclosed 
 parishes, other parishes and whole district, for two 
 special districts, i.e. North Midlands and Thames Valley 456 
 
 J. Increase per cent, of poor rates in five counties during 
 certain periods in eighteenth century, distinguishing 
 county and parishes inclosed 457 
 
 LIST OF TABLES IN TEXT AND 
 APPENDICES 
 
 Progress of inclosure according to counties from sixteenth to 
 
 nineteenth century - - 268 
 
 Percentage of land inclosed by act in certain counties according 
 
 to registration districts (to 1870) 270 
 
 Percentage of land inclosed by act in the counties given in 
 
 decades and periods, as well as totals (to 1870) - 279 
 
 Progress of inclosure from wild and common from sixteenth 
 
 to nineteenth century - - 285 
 
LIST OF TABLES xxix 
 
 I'AGE 
 
 Decrease in wheat acreage in inclosures before 1800, for which 
 
 returns were received, in counties (from General Report) 401 
 
 Effect on growth of barley and oats of inclosures for which 
 
 returns were made, in same counties (from General Report) 401 
 
 Effect on cattle, dairy cows, and sheep of inclosures as above 
 
 (from General Report) 403 
 
 Estimate of land inclosed out of land actually in arable or not 
 before 1800, in percentages, for chief counties with much 
 open field inclosure 404 
 
 Classification of counties according to inclosure before 1800, 
 
 and its nature and circumstances 406 
 
 Open-field inclosure before 1800, and increase of population 
 (1750-1801) for certain counties, with increase and decrease 
 of wheat acreage - 412 
 
 Counties with increase in wheat acreage or not, showing open 
 field inclosure before 1800 and 1801-11, and also poor rate 
 expenditure per capita in 1803 and 1813 - 416 
 
 Inclosure, population, and poor rates (per capita) for the coun- 
 ties during and at end of eighteenth century - 448 
 
 Increase of poor rates in percentages for latter half of eighteenth 
 
 and first decade of nineteenth century 449 
 
 Baptisms in inclosed parishes and those without inclosure in 
 
 certain counties according to returns {Howlett) - 450 
 
 Increase of population (1801-1811) comparing parishes with 
 inclosure before i8co, and the respective counties, for 
 certain counties - 45 1 
 
 Parishes with decrease in population (1801-11) distributed 
 according to parishes inclosed and others, for certain 
 counties - 45 1 
 
 Increase of population (i 801 -11) in inclosed parishes and in 
 
 registration districts, for certain counties - - 452 
 
 Density of population per 100 acres (iSoi) for inclosed parishes, 
 
 other parishes and whole counties, for certain counties 455 
 
 Density of population and increase of population, etc., for inclosed 
 parishes, other parishes and whole districts, for two special 
 districts, i.e. North Midlands and Thames Valley 456 
 
XXX LIST OF TABLES 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Increase of poor rates in five counties during certain periods in 
 eighteenth century, distinguishing county and parishes 
 inclosed - - 457 
 
 Index 458 
 
 MAPS 
 {At end of volume) 
 Open and inclosed condition towards end of sixteenth century. 
 Open and inclosed condition towards end of seventeenth century. 
 Open field inclosure under Act. 
 Common inclosure under Act. 
 Open and inclosed country according to Ogilby. 
 
BOOK I 
 COMMON AND INCLOSURE 
 
COMMON 
 
 Common, which now is present by way of exception 
 from the system under which land is held and worked, 
 was once, so far cis a lai^e part of England was con- 
 cerned, an essential part of j^^culture and inseparable from 
 the life of the time. It is not too much to say that its 
 early position was in almost every way in entire contrast 
 to the ideas associated with it in the present day. The 
 common is comparatively rare now, but then the common 
 and the equally important rights of common were among 
 the usual, and in most places the necessary, circumstances 
 of a village or a manor. Its existence now is taken as 
 denoting the claims, somewhat vague and precarious, of 
 the public as against those holding the land and engaged in 
 its cultivation. But this finds no sanction in a time when 
 over very many, if not most, cultivated districts common 
 was a result of a claim to land, and formed a necessary 
 condition of its proper management The popular disuse 
 of the term rights of common, and the circumstances of the 
 large open tracts termed commons in the neighbourhood 
 of towns and of the small open village greens, mark the 
 distinction. The early rights of common were anything 
 but vague, and were invariably vested in those employed 
 in cultivation, or their representatives ; they were anything 
 rather than a general claim on the part of the public. 
 The use of a common now is regarded mainly from the 
 point of view of recreation, and when any more directly 
 utilitarian considerations creep in they relate only to the 
 
4 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 small chance gains or casual profits which accrue to those 
 living round the common or green, mainly to the cottagers 
 and the poor. But in early times the common right was an 
 essential part of agriculture, and it was only as owing to 
 changes in circumstances this became less apparent that 
 casual profits and gains and the so-called rights of the 
 poor, these latter being in many instances a trespeiss and 
 not a right, came to be important. Common rights, it may 
 be repeated, were a necessary element in the agricultural 
 system, they were involved in the ownership and cultiva- 
 tion of the land, and they were largely the source of the 
 profits obtained from the land and the means of rendering 
 its cultivation effective. 
 
 It is possible to go further and, in respect of much of the 
 cultivated country, to treat the common as necessary to 
 the general life as well as to the agriculture of the village 
 or manor, since from it were obtained many of the things 
 required both to make the home habitable and for the 
 general purposes of living. 
 
 The common, then, so far "from being an incidental or 
 occasional feature, or a separate and auxiliary means 
 of small gains, was an integral part of a system. What 
 that system was has often been described. The unit of 
 the agricultural manor was the yardland, that is, the strip 
 or strips in the arable fields of the manor or community, 
 but that strip was associated with the ownership of a 
 tenement in the village, for it is only in later times that 
 these agricultural tenements were in many instances dis- 
 sociated from the necessary holding of land. 
 
 The tenants of the manor lived in houses built for the 
 most part along the road which was the one means of 
 connection between the village and the outer world. On 
 each side of this, and extending in some cases for a con- 
 siderable distance, were the dwellings of the tenants or 
 cultivators destined ultimately to develop into the free- 
 holders and copyholders. These houses, which became 
 known to later ages as ancient tenements and in some 
 cases as houses of husbandry, stood within or had in close 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 5 
 
 contiguity, a curtilage or small courtyard, "a little croft 
 or court or place of easement to put in cattle for a time or 
 to lay in wood, cole, or timber." Here cattle might be 
 secured during the winter, and here the stores, the imple- 
 ments, and the moveable property of the owners could 
 be placed, and his smaller stock inclosed under his eye 
 and kept safe from depredation of man and inclemency 
 of weather. 
 
 Connected with the tenement was the occupation of 
 the yardland in the arable fields, which lay near to the 
 village. These, in later times as a rule three, were 
 devoted to different crops in successive years, according 
 to the course of cultivation of the manor, so that each year 
 the crops grown on the manor were all represented, one 
 field, however, being in fallow. In cases where there were 
 but two fields, fallow and crop followed one another. 
 
 The possession, however, of the tenement and the yard- 
 land, that is, of the arable strips in the fields carried 
 with it certain other definite rights. Of these the first 
 was the occupation of a corresponding strip in the 
 meadows or hayfield of the community. In general, these 
 fields would lie very near to the arable fields, but as time 
 went on and as the pressing need for such contiguity dimin- 
 ished or altogether passed away, the nature of the soil and 
 the presence of water became powerful factors in deter- 
 mining their situation. Thus meadows, and especially 
 water meadows, might be at some little distance. Again 
 there was the right to a share in the inclosed pasture 
 of the manor, where such existed. Inclosed pasture,^ 
 however, is a later rather than an early feature of the 
 agricultural manor. But closely allied in their main 
 purport to the occupation of the meadows and the share 
 in inclosed pasture lands were the rights of common over 
 the waste and on the lands of the manor, likewise attached 
 to the yardland and the tenement To understand them 
 it is necessary to consider the circumstances both of 
 cultivation and of the cultivator. The manor as it is 
 ^ Inclosed pasture in this sense must be distinguished from private pastures. ' 
 
6 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 presented to us in early history is a group of houses and 
 a small area of cultivated land surrounded on all sides by 
 long stretches of land under little or no cultivation. The 
 early agricultural community, no doubt, was a little band 
 of settlers who built themselves houses and took a little 
 land into cultivation from amidst the great wastes, marshes 
 and forests ; and though their isolation is modified by 
 time and the growth of population with its natural increase 
 in the number of villages or settlements, the cultivated 
 area of the manor evidently remained for a long time 
 partially surrounded, if not surrounded on every side, by 
 bare commons and heaths, and by marsh and forest. This 
 uncultivated land, whether in plain or wood, constitutes the 
 waste. Again, by the simple agricultural methods then 
 pursued a part of the cultivated lands lay every year in 
 fallow, while after the crops and hay were gathered in the 
 fields and meadows were for the rest of the year without 
 any specific use. In the arable fields themselves the 
 distinction between what belonged to one man and what to 
 another was marked by lines of turf left uncultivated, and 
 variously called meers or hades or balks or even mire- 
 balks. On the other hand the cultivators in pursuing 
 their arable tasks were under sundry necessities. They 
 had to provide for their cattle required to plough and to 
 carry, as also for the animals needed to manure their land. 
 This need was imperative, and its satisfaction at a time 
 when inclosed pasture was scant could only be obtained 
 in one ^vay. Common rights or other like rights of 
 pasture over the land not in use for grain or hay offered 
 the required feed. In one way such rights furnish a 
 counterpart to the share in the hayfields, since from these 
 latter was largely derived the means of maintaining during 
 the winter the beasts thus required for agriculture. They 
 came in later years to be supplemented, though at first to 
 but a small extent, by pasture used in common and tem- 
 porarily inclosed. In another way they correspond to 
 certain other forms of common as common of estover 
 and common of turbary, required, the one for wood to 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 7 
 
 repair implements, hedges and even houses and for the 
 supply of fuel, the other solely for the supply of fuel in 
 the homestead. 
 
 Viewed thus the purport of common, while mainly 
 connected with the needs of agriculture, is in general 
 adapted to the wider and more general needs of the cul- 
 tivator living from and on the land. It provides the 
 necessary means of carrying on arable cultivation and 
 makes this provision from the use of lands other than those 
 immediately under crop. It enables the supply of fuel 
 and of wood for this and other purposes, and must have 
 undergone important extension on account of the sheep 
 which yielded the wool wanted for clothing. 
 
 The nature of common rights and the mode in which 
 they were exercised, require description. Closely re- 
 sembling the strict common rights were other rights, often 
 reciprocal and joint rather than commpn, originating in the 
 same or like necessities, employed under like conditions, 
 and ultimately treated as these in ordinary practice if not 
 in law. For the sake of convenience the one word 
 common is often used to include these. 
 
 Common is " a right which one or more persons have 
 to take or use some portion of that which another's soil 
 produces." It is a right to part of the profits of the soil, 
 and to part only, the right to the soil lying with another 
 and not with the person who claims common. But this 
 definition, while no doubt accurate in respect of common 
 at the time when it became the subject of legal discussion 
 and decision in the later middle ages and in more modem 
 times, needs careful explanation so far as its original con- 
 ditions are concerned. The position of early common is 
 best seen by its treatment in the pages of Bracton, where 
 it is regarded as a servitude imposed upon certain land. 
 Its particular character as a servitude, as has been pointed 
 ■out by later writers, enables it to be troadly distinguished 
 from other servitudes as rights of way and the like by the 
 feature present in its case of the enjoyment by those 
 in whose favour it is, of part of the profits. But as it is a 
 
8 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 servitude imposed on land so it seems to be at this time 
 a servitude attached almost invariably, if not invariably, to 
 land. In other words it is the feature attached to the 
 possession of certain lands of having rights over some 
 part of the yield of other lands, in most cases over the 
 lord's waste. 
 
 Common may be distinguished according to its kind 
 into Common of Pasture, Common of Estover, Common 
 of Turbary, Common of Piscary, and other miscellaneous 
 rights of common. 
 
 Matters falling under the last two headings, while often 
 of considerable interest, are not of much importance from 
 a practical point of view. Their existence, however, throws 
 some light upon the origin or early history of common. 
 Far more attention is due to the rights of Estover and 
 Turbary, as these serve to indicate the place of common 
 as essential to the general life and well-being of a manorial 
 community. Still even these sink into practical insigni- 
 ficance beside common rights of Pasture. 
 
 In common rights of pasture can be traced best 
 the varying development of common from the early 
 ' days when its place in the agricultural system and its 
 relation to the occupation of arable land was generally 
 accepted to the time when in response to the need of 
 change it became a right severed from arable farming, and 
 so a source of separate and incidental gain. Between 
 these extremes occur many stages leading by slow 
 gradations from the former into the latter. The pre- 
 valence of common pasture of the first type in the early 
 manor is put beyond doubt by the particular form which 
 it assumes in Common Appendant, one of the forms 
 adopted in the legal classification of common rights. Such 
 common appendant was the right in the freehold tenants 
 of the manor, existing independent of grant or of proof by 
 usage, of feeding their beeists used in agriculture upon the 
 lord's waste. This right was universally assumed in the 
 case of all original manors, existing, that is, before the 
 statute of Quia Emptores, and was held to be a necessary 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 9 
 
 part of their tenure. The claim to it was in virtue of 
 their position as freeholders of the ancient manor and did 
 not require to be proved either by deed or by prescriptive 
 usage. It was thus regarded as a universal element in 
 their tenure. It originates clearly in the early stage of 
 the agricultural society, when, owing to the scarcity of 
 inclosed pasture, a tenant would otherwise have found 
 himself without sufficient pasture for his beasts when the 
 crops were in the ground. Its strict relation to agricul- 
 ture is without doubt. It was held to attach to arable land 
 only, and it was only for beasts required in its cultivation. 
 When claimed, as it subsequently was, as appendant to a 
 cottage or other tenement, the claim if allowed was 
 allowed on the presumption that the possession of such 
 betokened or had betokened the possession of a yardland. 
 The separation was the incident of time and the mark of 
 the decadence of the early and strict common field system. 
 Even when the ancient arable came, as in some cases, to be 
 converted into pasture, the common appendant still re- 
 mained attached to the land on account of its original 
 character. Thus in theory at any rate it could not be 
 detached from the ancient arable or from the sign of such 
 as a cottage. Again, it is restricted to bejists used in 
 agriculture, that is, oxen and horses to plough, and sheep 
 and cows to manure the soil in conjunction with these. A 
 further point is as to the number of beasts for which such 
 common right existed. In theory, and doubtless in 
 ancient practice, it was limited to those required for the 
 purpose, and it would seem probable that in any suits for 
 its recovery or assurance, such were to be ascertained by 
 comparison and admeasurement both of the arable lands 
 entitled to such common in the waste and latterly of 
 the waste or lands over which the rights were claimed 
 as such diminished. But when further definition was 
 required, the test used was that of the beasts levant 
 and cotichant on the inclosed land, or to put the matter 
 still more simply, the number which that inclosed land 
 and its product would maintain during the winter. Lastly, 
 
lo COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 it was right of common in only the lord's waste or 
 lands. 
 
 The historical importance of this kind of common rests 
 rather in its more general existence in connection with the 
 freehold arable tenure than in any superior antiquity which 
 it may possess as compared with other kinds of common 
 necessarily connected with or appertaining to landed pos- 
 session. These may possibly have been in certain cases 
 ■of very early origin, but they were not so universal as to 
 be assumed without proof by way of grant or prescriptive 
 usage. They were thus not involved to the same extent 
 in the origin of the agricultural society. 
 
 Such other rights of pasture which attached to land are 
 legally known as Common Appurtenant. Such common 
 affects large classes whose common rights cannot be 
 ■deemed so ancient or so universal or so exclusively 
 agricultural as those which have been described. It 
 originates, it may be pointed out, by grant or by peaceful, 
 uninterrupted and known usage, and could be proved 
 either by deed or by prescription. Thus it occurs in the 
 case of freehold tenures on manors created subsequently 
 to the statute Quia Emptores, and includes agricultural 
 beasts. But it extends much further. It includes com- 
 mon held by copyhold tenants of the manor or by others 
 to whom it may be granted. Again it extends to beasts 
 -other than those necessarily used in agriculture, forming a 
 marked contrast in this respect to the former kind of 
 common. For whilst that was for beasts to plough and 
 compester the land, this extends to others, and is largely 
 for sheep, swine, goats, and even geese. This difference is 
 a natural one, inasmuch as it is a matter of grant made to 
 the tenant or another for his advantage, and so it may vary 
 according to his circumstances. But in respect of number 
 for which the right is enjoyed there are interesting points 
 of resemblance and contrast It was either for a number 
 limited by those levant and couchant or actually fixed, 
 and it is said " ought not to be enjoyed by any proprietor 
 with more cattle than are proportionate to each piece of 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE ii 
 
 land." When made without number (sans notnbre) it was 
 usually assumed that this left the number not unlimited, 
 but unlimited save in so far as a limit was held to be 
 naturally imposed by the presumption of winter main- 
 tenance or of those levant and couchant. But this was not 
 invariable, as in some cases this rule was definitely set 
 eiside so far cLs maintenance from the land to which the 
 grant was attached was concerned. In any case it would 
 seem that in contrjist to the rule in the case of common 
 appendant when the needs of the holding were interpreted 
 in this particular way, here the terms levant and couchant 
 rather imply the extreme advantage which might be made 
 of the grant. Even this lost much of its importance in 
 the case of grantees holding other lands or when the usage 
 grew of killing and salting down stock before^ winter. 
 When the grant was made for a definite number it could 
 be attached to a dwelling-house or cottage without land. 
 But the origin in grant or specific and acknowledged per- 
 mission as shown by undisturbed usage, the greater 
 latitude as to numbers, the partial severance from the land 
 and from any definite agricultural purpose open the way to 
 the more complete severance of later times, to the grant to 
 strangers wholly without land in the manor and to the 
 emergence of Common in Gross. The fixing of the number 
 leads to yet another consequence wholly alien to the original 
 purport of common, namely, the use of the common for 
 sheep and beasts not belonging to those who possessed 
 the right of common. This which might sometimes occur 
 for the sake of preventing a right of common from falling 
 into disuse, however temporary, could hardly be gainsaid 
 when the grant was for a specified number. Under such 
 circumstances it could not be to the detriment of the 
 other proprietors or of the lord, whilst it was to the obvious 
 advantage of the tenants on whose behalf the grant was 
 made. 
 
 '^ Common rights thus made might be limited in respect 
 of time as well as place and qusmtity. They might be 
 restricted whilst land was temporarily inclosed on the 
 
12 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 demesne for hay, or even it would seem while it was used 
 by the lord for other purposes. Thus on the lord's lands 
 tenants might have their right of common on hay in- 
 closures after such time as the hay was carried during the 
 autumn and winter. Common granted in general terms 
 on the manor was further limited by reasonable assump- 
 tion even if not in actual words. It could not be exercised, 
 for instance, in orchards or on the gardens or curtil^es, 
 or in the recognised arable under crop. 
 
 With the foregoing must be placed the common which 
 arose from the reciprocal action of the tenants. This was 
 of different kinds. After the hay harvest the fences were 
 thrown down, and the proprietors were entitled to drive in 
 their commonable beasts to feed till in the spring it became 
 necessary once more to fence for hay. When a pro- 
 prietor had strips of meadow definitely assigned, such a 
 common was due to mutual agreement extending to very 
 early times. Similarly common of shack, as it was called, 
 or the right of letting the beasts of the proprietors go 
 at liberty or go shack in the arable fields after the corn 
 was harvested, arose from a mutual agreement The 
 nature of the common right thus created has been the 
 subject of much discussion. Its probable origin lay in the 
 impossibility of each proprietor in the common arable 
 field restricting his own beasts to his own unfenced strip. 
 Hence arose a common almost, as it would seem, of 
 vicinage,^ where there is a mutual agreement to disregard 
 trespass. By custom such a common became very similar 
 in nature to the other common necessarily attaching to the 
 possession of such land.^ 
 
 ^ There were certain differences, since while common by vicinage might 
 be and often was over waste, common of shack is held to be limited to arable or 
 to arable and meadow. Elton, Commons, p. 72, Woodrych, p. 59. That 
 certain claims of common might be over arable is clear from Britton, Book II., 
 xxvi. 4, according to which a tenant resisting claim might say, " the soil is 
 his several, which he may plough or enclose at his pleasure and at all times 
 keep enclosed." 
 
 ^ In Corbet's case it was held that common of shack might become by custom 
 common appurtenant. Coke's Reports, vii. 5a. (Ed. 1826, iv. p. 57.) 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 13 
 
 Closely connected with such common rights were other 
 rights which, though differing in origin and l^al aspect, 
 were akin to them in their general economic result. Like 
 them they enforce the necessity of common action, and 
 bar by their existence the assertion of separate and diverse 
 individual interests. Like them, too, they take their rise 
 in a state of society when and where arable was the im- 
 portant interest, and when provision was made for 
 adequate pasture by claims, servitudes and reserved rights. 
 Among such must be ranked the rights of pasture existing 
 on Lammas or half-year lands, where the possession of the 
 herbage was really separate from the possession of the 
 crops.^ Here, there is considerable diversity of usage ; 
 the land, after the crop was gathered, being given in some 
 cases to certain persons as well strangers as those who 
 have a right to the crop, while in other cases these latter 
 are specifically excluded. Again the cattle gaits or stints 
 existing in a pasture, not in the waste, served a similar 
 purpose to the rights of common. The herbage was 
 owned ^ by a certain number of persons having stints or 
 limited rights, the lord of the manor, if amongst them, 
 being equally stinted with his tenants or any others. 
 But these rights, so far from appertaining to the land or 
 being common are really freehold or copyhold property 
 and capable of being transferred as such. With the 
 growth of inclosed pasture they became of increasing im- 
 portance, and the agricultural villages of later centuries 
 had, in very many cases, their separate pasture or closes 
 or leys appropriated to different beasts, as cows, horses, 
 and sheep, arid held by the tenant cultivators in their 
 various stints. They are, however, of importance rather in 
 later than in early times. Lastly, there were in sundry 
 
 ^ This is the view laid down in law and in legal text^books. Lammas fields 
 recognised 2 and 3 Vict., c. 62 § 13. They were so-called because generally 
 open from Lammas Day (ist August) till Lady Day next (Elton, p. 36). "The 
 Lammas Lands of Middlesex are generally laid up to be mowed on the Sth 
 of April, and are common again on August 12th"; Agric. Survey Middlesex 
 (by Peter Foot, 1794). 
 
 * Elton, Commons, p. 64. 
 
14 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 cases certain and by no means valueless rights reserved to 
 the lords or gradually acquired by them. Two are 
 sufficiently important to require particular mention. On 
 the one hand there is the right of sheep walk, which 
 gave the lord of the manor the sole right of feeding sheep 
 over the lands, or certain lands, of the tenants during^ 
 certain seasons of the year, as from Michaelmas to Lady 
 Day. This right was sometimes farmed out to flock- 
 masters. On the other hand, in certain districts, chiefly 
 in Norfolk and Suffolk, there existed the right of foldage, 
 or freefold, or the privilege of having the flocks of the 
 tenants folded in the demesne fields for the sake of their 
 manure.^ 
 
 In addition to the pasturage rights for cattle and other 
 animals, there were some rights, of herbage, as it were, 
 which might be granted to and enjoyed by the tenants of 
 the manor in respect of other products to be used, often for 
 the food of beasts, as nuts, acorns, mast and even flowers. 
 Of these pannage and the right of mast were obviously the 
 most frequent and the most valuable. By means of these 
 swine could be kept. In some other cases litter, it may 
 be surmised, was provided. But rights of these kinds were 
 not assumed as usual, and in Fitz Herbert's time, at 
 any rate, had to be proved either by direct grant or by 
 usage implying such, " for there is no man that can claim 
 to have the mast, which is a fruit, save the lord, except his 
 free tenants have it by special words in his deed." ^ 
 
 Common of estover was a right of common to take 
 wood from the waste or forests of the manor for sundry 
 purposes, some directly connected with agriculture, others 
 with the general mode of life of the tenant or other person 
 enjoying the privil^e. It was of the following kinds. 
 Plough bote was the privilege of taking timber and other 
 wood for the repair of carts, ploughs, and other instruments 
 of husbandry. Hedge bote or hay bote related to the 
 
 ' Importance of fold courses was great. It is emphasised and its method 
 described. Booi o/SusianJry, Sloa.ne'M.SS., 3S1S, {. 127. 
 * Fitz Herbert, Surveying, p. 19. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 15 
 
 wood needed for the repair of gates, or for erecting 
 and mending the fences of the curtilage or required for 
 the temporary inclosures needed in the hay meadows or 
 even in the open arable fields in some instances. Lastly, 
 there was the house bote, which was of two kinds, the 
 greater, which gave the right to timber for repairs or even 
 for rebuilding of a tenement, provided that the new build- 
 ing was the mere reproduction of that previously existing, 
 and not by way of general extension ; and the less for 
 taking sticks, tops, and clippings for fuel. Of the an- 
 tiquity of this right to share in the wood of the manor 
 there is no doubt, even though a lack of universality be 
 held to deprive it of the character eissigned to it by some, 
 as an inherent or appendant right of common in the case 
 of the freehold tenants of the ancient manor. It was, 
 however, obviously exercised under considerable restric- 
 tions as to time, and as a matter of course as to the parts 
 of the waste whence it might be taken. But it was further 
 restricted as to amount, in early times, to " resisonable 
 estovers," that is, in proportion either to the require- 
 ments of the tenant for his agricultural purposes or to the 
 size of his house and the repairs reasonably required to 
 make it habitable. It is only with the progress of time 
 that it becomes defined as consisting of a certain quantity, 
 till when it is obviously a right of common pertaining to 
 an agricultural tenement as a common appurtenant, and 
 incapable of separation from it. 
 
 Common of turbary was the right of cutting peat or 
 turf for fuel; and is similar in its incidents to those 
 occurring with regard to common of estover. Like it, it 
 is restricted as to place ; like it, too, it was to be exercised 
 to an extent corresponding to the needs of the house; and, 
 like it, it comes to be a right of common for an actual 
 amount, and so able to be separated from a tenement, and 
 to be held as a common in gross. 
 
 The other and miscellaneous rights of common to which 
 reference has been made, whilst like those already de- 
 scribed in many of their characteristics, and especially in 
 
1 6 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 their legal tenure, are different in other respects, and more 
 particularly by reason of their occasional nature. They 
 correspond to particular circumstances, and so cannot be 
 taken as entering into the necessary system of life, or 
 as being an inseparable element from the main occupation 
 upon which depends the life of the people. Even common 
 of piscary, important though it was under certain circum- 
 stances, and finding its origin in the needs of the tenants 
 for the sustenance of the family, was rather the source of 
 additional gain than a part of the chief means of livelihood. 
 It added to the comfort of life, but it was no condition of 
 living. The like may be said of common of fowling, com- 
 mon of warren, and of such other common rights as those 
 to take or dig sand, gravel, stones and clay, or even to 
 mine in certain parts of the manor. Rights such as these 
 grew up where special circumstances pointed to them as of 
 particular advantage, and on the analogy of the main 
 common rights which existed, they too came to be enjoyed 
 in common. They do not form part of the general 
 system of common in the country. 
 
 The main common rights, that is of pasture, estover 
 and turbary, the incidents resulting from or associated with 
 common, and even in some instances the miscellaneous 
 rights of common, are alike in two important economic 
 respects. Taken together they supply the means whereby 
 the system of cultivation was maintained, the wants of the 
 tenants other than those met by the product of the arable 
 and the meadow were supplied, and full use made both of 
 the waste and of the land in cultivation at such time as the 
 crops were not in the ground. Again they compose an in- 
 tricate mesh of mutual privil^es and obligations, which at 
 once gave permanence and stability to the system of cultiva- 
 tion and rendered its alteration and improvement difficult 
 They affect, as has been said, the village society both in 
 its work and in its life. Altogether in the case of common 
 appendant and to a large extent in the case of other 
 common, they supply the means or the conditions whereby 
 the ploughing, manuring, and other agricultural acts are 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 17 
 
 carried on. Further, they furnish in large measure the meat 
 which is eaten, the wool which is woven, the wood required, 
 and the fuel for heat and cooking in the homestead. 
 
 Nor are we left without indication of the method in 
 which they were enjoyed.. Thus we hear^ of the cattle 
 going before the herdsman in numbers proportioned to 
 their holdings or subsequently stinted, the herdsman 
 receiving 2d. a quarter for each beast and the swineherd 
 id., to feed upon the waste or fields lying open. When 
 the crops are cut, even in cases where some tenants have 
 enclosed their strips or plots, the beasts entitled to common 
 are driven over the fields and into the parts inclosed, the 
 bars or gates being opened for this purpose.^ It is an 
 advantage, it is said, to plough with horses rather than 
 oxen, since the former can be tethered on the balks or 
 meers to get their feed.^ Some proprietors indeed are 
 accused of lengthening the ropes or tethers so that the scant 
 grass might be augmented by mouthfuls of the grain 
 belonging to neighbours in the open fields. In the' lord's 
 outwoods the tenants have bite of mouth, in return for 
 which it is urged the lord, unlike the tenants, should not 
 be stinted in the number of beasts which he might send 
 in.* Again, some land might be rented for common, or 
 rather joint, use ; thus in Elizabeth's reign the inhabitants 
 of Lowestoft kept their sheep on the Deans, evidently 
 lying open, by their private shepherd, for which they paid 
 an acknowledgement of 6s. 8d.* 
 
 1 Fitz Herbert, Book of Husbandry, c 123. (Engl. Dialect Soc, 1882, p. 77.) 
 
 ^ This is the point raised in Corbet's case, v. supra. It is clear that an ancient 
 inclosure might be free of shack. 
 
 ' This noted as desirable where there is no several pasture (Fitz Herbert, 
 Husbandry', p. 15). 
 
 'Fitz Herbert (Surveying, p. II) enumerates three kinds of common : (i) 
 where there is a common close where each man is stinted, (2) a tended common 
 open to the common field where the cattle go before the herdsman, also stinted, 
 (3) the lord's outwoods. History of Witney, by A. J. Giles, gives an instance 
 of a common at Gold Clift, etc., where, in 1647, after 22 Sept., the lord is to 
 put in his cattle in the morning if he pleases and the tenants in the afternoon. 
 
 ^S\i<^va%, History if Suffolk, Xi. p. 5. 
 
1 8 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 While the above description applies, at any rate in 
 its main outlines, to a great part of the country, there 
 were not only large regions, but also considerable tracts 
 scattered through the land, where an early open field 
 system was little in evidence. Thus in the so-called 
 forest districts, whether woodland or moor, common when 
 it came to exist was very different, being in the main 
 somewhat general pasture and other rights participated 
 in by the various neighbouring townships. Again on the 
 west the open field system is of comparatively infrequent 
 occurrence ; and much the same may be said of large 
 parts of the north.^ 
 
 But even apart from such districts there is evidence as 
 to the great diversitj' of usage characterising the position of 
 commons during the late years of the middle ages ; with 
 the beginning of more modem times, with inclosure and in 
 some cases no doubt on account of the growing unsuitability 
 of the system to the altered needs and in others from 
 ignorance of the real purport of the common, diversity 
 from the original type and variation increased. 
 
 Despite this, however, so deeply was this feature ingrained 
 in the method of cultivation and in the daily habits of life 
 that it continued as the system under which much of the 
 country was farmed in the eighteenth century. Though 
 a large portion of the land was withdrawn by inclosure 
 and though much land taken from the waste or from a wild 
 state was added to the cultivated area, this method of agri- 
 culture was of remarkable permanence and fully recognised. 
 
 The description of the township of Pickering^ in York- 
 shire as it was in the early part of the eighteenth century 
 supplies a sketch of a parish which was thoroughly typical 
 
 ' As to such districts ; Marshall, On the App-opriation and Inclosure of 
 commotmble atid intermixed lands ; also Book II., Appendix E. "Inclosure 
 from the wild state," and in general Book II., Chapter I. 
 
 ' Marshall, Yorkshire, i. 48, etc. After this description some account is 
 given of the progress of inclosure in thb parish and district prior to date, i.e. 
 1783-87. According to this, inclosure occurred in three ways: (l) by exchanges 
 and transfers in some common fields and common meadows, (2) by private 
 agreements or commissions in case of stinted meadows, (3) by Act. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 19 
 
 of the open field system as it existed at that time. In 
 Pickering there were two hundred and sixty common right 
 houses or sites of houses, which retained some rights, though 
 in the process of time they had become separate from any 
 necessary connection with a share in the arable open fields. 
 These, which comprised in all 2,376 acres, lay in two lots, 
 one on each side of the brook which divided the township. 
 Each lot consisted of three fields for the unvarying round 
 of wheat or other grain, beans or some like product, and 
 fallow. They were divided into oxgangs, distributed in 
 such a way that every occupier might have similar shares. 
 The oxgangs on one side of the brook comprised 24 
 acres, those on the other only 12. Each division had its 
 common meadow laid up for hay, of which each occupier 
 of an ox gang had his due share. Then there were stinted 
 pastures which appertained wholly to those holding common 
 field land, each having in proportion to his oxgang a 
 limited number of cattle gaits for cows and working oxen. 
 Further, each had a right of common for sheep or cattle. 
 
 At the end of that century, or rather in the early years 
 of the nineteenth century, we have a good picture of the 
 same system in Rothwell in Northampton.^ " The parish 
 of Rothwell is supposed to contain about 3,000 acres, of 
 which 600 acres may be inclosures near the town ; and 
 2,400 acres open land in three district fields of about 800 
 acres each ; these fields contain a- considerable breadth of 
 grass land never in tillage ; for the sake of round numbers 
 I will suppose 600 acres of arable land in each field and 
 200 acres of grass land. The nature of the soil varies 
 from a brown or snuff-coloured to a reddish brown light 
 loam, more or less tenacious ; some inclined to sandy and 
 others more loamy. About one-third of the whole is 
 also a grey or darker coloured loam, stronger or more 
 tenacious than the red land ; in the familiar dialect the 
 former is called the red land, the other the black land. . . . 
 The course of the cropping is thus : of the fields one is 
 always in fallow or turnips and two in crops. The fallow 
 
 ^Agric. Report, Northampton (1809), pp. 64-68. 
 
20 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 field is thus conducted : about one-half of the red land is 
 annually surrounded with a temporary fence of coppice 
 underwood and fallowed for turnips, the other half of the 
 red land being fallowed for wheat, and this alternately, the 
 course upon the red land being, — i, turnips ; 2, barley ; 3, 
 promiscuous crops at the pleasure of the occupier, beans, 
 peas, barley, rye, oats, or vetches ; 4, fallow for wheat ; 5, 
 wheat ; 6, promiscuous crops as before and then turnips 
 again. 
 
 "The black land is invariable in the course, (i) fallow, 
 
 (2) wheat, (3) beans or other pulse or grain 
 
 ■ " Grain is sometimes grown in the inclosed land, but in 
 no great quantity: no clover or grass seeds sown in the 
 open field. A large live stock is kept as follows 
 
 " The common field is occupied in what are called yard- 
 lands The parish consists of about eighty yardlands, 
 
 each comprehending about thirty acres of the common 
 field with a right of pasturage for four heads and a half of 
 cattle and twenty-four sheep to every yardland. The cattle 
 are kept in distinct herds, of about a hundred and eighty in 
 each, and pastured on different sides of the parish, attended 
 each by a herdsman and assistant . . . They are driven 
 home at night through the summer, separated to each one 
 his own, confined in yards or home closes during the night 
 and sent out again in the morning to pasture in the grass 
 lands of the common field. After harvest they are left at 
 large in the common field till wheat seed time. Notwith- 
 standing the attendance of the herdsman, depredations 
 upon the skirts of the corn are sometimes committed. . . . 
 The sheep attached to the common field consist of one 
 thousand nine hundred and twenty, or twenty-four to every 
 yardland. These graze promiscuously in the grass plots 
 of the fallow fields." 
 
 Like pictures might be furnished from many districts, as 
 for instance from the country surrounding Royston^ where 
 we hear of villages as " being groups of a few inclosures 
 and wood, with houses and a steeple and surrounded by the 
 
 ' AtiTials of Agriculture, iv. p. 145. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 21 
 
 common fields" ; or from Stewkley^ in Buckingham- 
 shire, where the three field system held sway, " with roads 
 very difficult for a stranger to distinguish, having no 
 characteristical mark, distinct from drift ways to the 
 different properties in the field " ; or from Wilts * where 
 the yardlands vary in amount in different parts of the 
 district; or to choose a later instance from Cambridgeshire, 
 where of the fields one was in a uniform crop, another 
 cultivated according to the owner's wish, and the last lay 
 " a vast open pasture." * 
 
 In each of the above descriptions, while the general 
 outline of the ancient system is preserved, certain later 
 features, by no means uniform in every case, present them- 
 selves. Thus we find attempts at separate cultivation 
 according to the individual desire of the tenant, and the 
 use of turnip husbandry as at RothwelL But more im- 
 portant and more common is the disassociation between 
 the ancient houses and the arable strips which is seen very 
 clearly in many cases. Though by no means invariable, 
 and though in practice often counteracted by the two 
 being separately held by the same occupier, this severance 
 was important in divers ways. It led, as we know, in some 
 
 '"Stewkley is a vill^e of farmers and labourers, upon an eminence, 
 surrounding one of the completest and best specimens of a Saxon church to 
 be seen in this island, environed by three extended fields, the one fallow, 
 the second wheat, and the third beans, etc." Agric. Report, Buckingham 
 (i8io), p. 358. 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, Wiltshire (1813), p. IS, etc This refers to South or 
 South-East Wilts. 
 
 ^ Notes and Queries, Third Scries, vol. iii. p. 28 (1863). Within the 
 memory of the writer of the passage " The parish or manor mainly consisted 
 of three large tracts, all uninclosed. The first, arable, was required by custom 
 to be cultivated in each year in one stated kind of crop. The second, also 
 arable, might be cropped according to the various owners' pleasure. The 
 third, a vast open pasture, owned in various and rather small portions, which 
 were cut yearly by each owner for hay ; but the whole grazed in common of 
 pasture by the cattle of all the commoners between appointed days. 
 
 *' There were besides ancient homesteads or sites of such, each conferring a 
 right of common. The number I forget, it was some multiple of 4 — say 48 ; 
 and there were also just as many ancient enclosures, four acres each, of old 
 pasture as there were common rights." 
 
22 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 cases to legal disputes as to the common rights respectively 
 enjoyed by the ancient tenements and the lands ; it marks 
 the dissolution of the necessary connection between the 
 common and arable ; and it stands in no distant relation 
 to the general claim to common rights raised by those who 
 dwelt near a common or even by the general public. It 
 was part of the attempt to adapt the common right system 
 to a time when agriculture and rural life was no longer 
 uniform or necessarily based on arable cultivation. 
 
 This is not the place to discuss the extent to which the 
 open field system, with its concomitant rights of common, 
 predominated or existed in different parts of the country 
 but the illustrations selected come from such different 
 counties as Yorkshire, South Wilts, Cambridge, Bucks 
 Northampton, and Hertford, and could easily be supple- 
 mented^ to show that (whether widely practised or not) 
 this system was at any rate in its general features a 
 recognised system in the country at large, and not merely 
 a local survival in a particular district. 
 
 Its leading features, often indeed marked by some 
 variation, either by way of adaptation or by reason of 
 ignorance of their original import, find frequent mention 
 in contemporary records. 
 
 The farmhouses, barns, and curtilages* occupied by 
 the cultivators of open fields still lie close together in 
 villages. At Naseby, we are told, " these open fields are 
 very inconvenient farms on account of distance as well as 
 ■want of contiguity. The farmhouses and barns are all in 
 the village, which is two miles from a great part of the 
 
 '^ Agric. Report, East Riding (1812), p. 92, of the villages of the wolds. 
 Stone, Suggestions, p. 7, dealing with open field cultivation on clay and good 
 lands. 
 
 'Stone, Suggestions, p. S- "There are but very few parishes (generally 
 speaking) considered as totally uninclosed, or in an open field state, which 
 have not a cluster of small pieces of inclosure near or adjoining to the 
 farmhouses in their respective parishes, by way of homestead, or stowages, 
 for cattle employed in the cultivation of the land ; or which are not applied to 
 the purposes of shelter and for the convenience of foddering cattle and sheep 
 in inclement seasons. " 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 23 
 
 field." ^ In Gloucester a distinction was drawn between 
 the manor or "court" farms,* which "are very entire and 
 lie well round the homesteads. But farmhouses in general 
 stand in villages." This fact is noted elsewhere as in- 
 dicating their early erection ; * as being a necessaty con- 
 sequence of common cultivation;* and as not taking place 
 in new inclosures.* A like distance separated the 
 meadows from the village farmhouses.* 
 
 The arable fields were large, sometimes very large 
 indeed, as between Wantage and Wallingford, where 
 Arthur Young saw "a sandy field, an open one, more 
 than two miles across" with such crops,'^ and often marked 
 with very high ridges, the result of immemorial ploughing 
 and of common cultivation;* the strips in them being 
 freehold, copyhold, or let out in leases ^ of varying length, 
 or even let without lease for a time determined by custom.^" 
 These strips were in some few cases interchangeable,^^ but 
 
 ' Annals of Agriculture, vi. 464. 
 
 ' Marshall, Rural Economy of Cloticestershiri, i. 49. 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, Worcester, p. 19. 
 
 * Agric. Report, Middlesex (1798), p. 40. 
 ^ Agric. Report, Nottingham (179S), p. 9. 
 ^ Agric. Report, Oxford {iSi 2), p. 205. 
 
 '' Annals of Agriculture, vi. 139. 
 
 * This most noticeable in strong soils and attributed to a belief that by such 
 means land was rendered drier. Agric. Report, Leicester (1809), p. 89: On 
 strong lands in Leicester, and particularly in ancient common fields, ridges much 
 broader and higher, i.e. one to three feet deep in hollows. Oxford (1813), 
 p. 103 : Very high ridges in some of the old open fields. East Riding (1S12), 
 p. 109 : " Formerly the arable land in the open common fields, where each 
 occupier seldom possessed more than one or two contiguous lands or ridges, was 
 raised remarkably high by continually ploughing towards the middle either 
 with the view of keeping the soil and manure from the neighbouring ridges or 
 from the mistaken motive, that the land would in moist situations be thus 
 rendered drier." Gloucester (1807), 103. 
 
 ' Marshall, Rural Economy of Gloucester, i. 20-21 ; Agric. Report, Wilts 
 <l8l3), pp. 31, i6t, Agric. Report, Worcester, p. 38. 
 
 " As to custom, A. R., Worcester, p. 38. 
 
 '^ Agric. Report, Lincoln (1799), p. 21 ; Oxford (1813), p. 205; Notes and 
 Queries, Third Series, iii. 28, at Over. 
 
24 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 this probably was not frequent at so late a period. The 
 course of cultivation, which depended on the number of fields, 
 was usually a rotation of either three or four years. When 
 four field the course as a rule was fallow, wheat, beans or 
 pease or oats, barley. When three field it consisted of two 
 crops and a fallow, the crops as a rule being wheat and barley 
 or beans. In many counties the eighteenth century records 
 the transition from the three to the four field system. Thus 
 in Nottingham,^ " The old way in Oxton fields was the 
 usual one of two crops and a fallow, there being only three 
 fields. In consequence of the act for the cultivation of 
 common fields of 1773, they have now sown broad or red 
 clover with their wheat or barley (except a few who chose 
 to have their old crop of pease and beans the next year)." 
 To admit of this one of the old fields was divided into two. 
 The attempt to introduce turnips led sometimes to a 
 more extended and varied course, as may be seen from 
 the instance of Rothwell.^ 
 
 The meadow and pasture were, in some districts at any 
 rate, duly proportioned to the arable ; ^ a relation ordi- 
 narily observed in the possession of common rights where 
 such were attached to land at all. Thus in Yorkshire we 
 are told of the right of pasture and of common associated 
 with arable for the stock necessary to the land. But, of 
 course, with the growth of inclosed pasture and the sever- 
 ance of ancient houses from the arable, the observance of 
 this through the right of commonage for as many beasts as 
 could be maintained through the winter was no longer 
 possible. Still, in general, this measure was understood to 
 exist,* the difficulty in its application arising in cases where 
 the summer rights of pasture were such that each owner 
 
 ''■ Agric. Report, Nottingham, (1798), p. 37. 
 
 ' Cf. Agric. Report, Rutland (lic&), p. 49, as to courses in open fields at North 
 Luffenham. 
 
 'Thus in Worcestershire: "In our unenclosed hamlets the meadow and 
 pasture are fairly proportioned to the arable." Agric. Report, p. 56. Cf. 
 Observations on a pamphlet entitled an E?iquiry into the advantages and dis- 
 advantages resulting from Bills 0/ Enclosure, 1781, pp. 9-10. 
 
 * See Observations, pp. 9-10. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 25 
 
 strove to obtain in some way or other as much winter 
 fodder as could be procured from any source. In the 
 laws and orders of the Mendip miners it was provided " that 
 the commoners of Mendip should turn out their cattle at 
 their outlets as much the summer as they be able to 
 winter," a right which in Westmorland made it " a princi- 
 pal object " with every occupier " to provide for them 
 plenty of winter food." ^ Some, after putting cattle on the 
 common in summer, sold them before winter.* In other 
 cases, we are told, they managed as best they could in the 
 winter.* This difficulty, which it may be surmised was the 
 original cause of stinted commons, is here seen in operation: 
 As many beasts are put on the common as possible and 
 winter food procured in all possible ways, with the result 
 that the common is overstocked. The reasonable con- 
 clusion, which was affirmed in a case tried at the York 
 Assizes in 1795, was that the number, in addition to its 
 relation to summer feed, must also be proportioned accord- 
 ing to the size and power of the common,* a decision 
 carrying out the proposition laid down by Bracton. At 
 Beccles in Suffolk* both stinted and unstinted commons 
 existed "and even the rated are overstocked." Speaking 
 broadly, it may be said that where the open field system 
 was maintained in good order a definite restriction on 
 numbers had been introduced, and all the rights of 
 herbage were duly attached to arable lands. A yardland 
 in some parts included, as it were, a number of what were 
 called cattle gaits ; in other parts they were stinted to 
 what was called a leased but the rule of limitation by 
 number was observed. Where, however, no such method 
 had come to be adopted the common was actually un- 
 limited, since tlie ancient methods once employed of 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, Somerset (1798), p. 23. ; Westmoreland, p. 314. 
 
 " Agric. Report, Bedford {\%a%), p. 224. 
 
 ' Agric. Report, Bedford (1808), p. 224 ; Essex (1807), i. p. 166. 
 
 * Agric. Report, North Riding (1800), p. 200. 
 
 ' Agric. Report, Suffolk, p. 149. 
 
 « Agric. Report, Dorset (1815), p. 171. 
 
26 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 restriction according to beasts levant or couchant or to 
 winter feed had become inapplicable under the new condi- 
 tions.^ In many parts of the country land in great quantities 
 still lay in sheep walk, as in Norfolk at the beginning of 
 the eighteenth century,^ a condition which gave way as im- 
 provements progressed. Connected with it, as indeed with 
 common in general, were curious and particular individual 
 privileges. In . one parish in Suffolk the chief proprietor, 
 who had two-thirds of the whole property, had " a right of 
 sheep walk over the whole parish, except about 40 acres." ^ 
 At Ferraby in Lincoln Sir John Nelthorpe had the right 
 to turn in horses in the common meadows saved for hay.* 
 But in general the rights were reciprocal, and r^ulated 
 in cases where custom admitted of change, by common 
 agreement* 
 
 'Young, Easlem Counties, i. 469, etc; Agrk. Report, Gloucester (1807), 
 104-5 ; Suffolk, p. 149 ; Westmoreland, p. 321. 
 'Young, Eastern Tour, ii. 150, etc 
 ^ Annals of Agriculture, ii. 449. 
 
 *Agric. Report, Lincoln (1799), p. 21. Cf. Marshall, Rural Economy of 
 the West of England, ii. 135, as to commons where the lord and his tenants 
 have rights over commons, the other freehold lands being without rights. Cf. 
 Agric. Report, Suffolk, p. 9. Rights of foldage often a matter of special grant : 
 good instances given, CuUum, History of Hawsted, p. 92 ; Notes and Queries, 
 Seventh Series, x. 250. Some curious and interesting rights had been the 
 subject of grant in early times. CuUum, History of Hawsted, mentions right 
 apri et verris, sometimes tauri et apri; Thoroton, Notts, right of bull 
 and boar at Keyworth "free to go and eat in the corn, meadows, or 
 any other place in the said town." Probably a reference to the common 
 ownership of such animals ; thus Googe, Four Books of Husbandry, p. 122, 
 "In some places they have common bulls and common boares in every 
 town." 
 
 "Thus privilege or permission to make temporary indosures. Elton, 
 Commons, 277. Agric. Report, Cornwall (1794), 56: Tenants allowed to 
 break up furze crops for a crop or two of agriculture. Nottingham {1794), as 
 to similar action in Forest of Sherwood. Collins' History of Somerset, iii. 
 585, gives an interesting account of the lot or dole meadows at Congresbuiy. 
 In Congresbury were two large pieces of common land, called dole-moors, 
 divided into single acres, each bearing a peculiar and different mark cut in the turf, 
 as a horse, a hare, etc. On a certain day in the year, the proprietors and their 
 tenants assembled on the common ; a number of apples were marked in the 
 same way as the acres aforesaid, and then distributed to the commoners 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 27 
 
 Of incidents closely connected in practice with the 
 exercise of common right of pasture there were many. 
 Meers and balks were still in grass, sometimes fed off by 
 cattle but often of little value.^ The beasts, either cis to 
 kind and number or ownership, could be determined by a 
 majority of the occupiers or proprietors, or by the lord of 
 the manor with consent of his tenants or homage.* 
 Curious cases of usage occur, as at Kidlington where " the 
 cow common is a horse common, after harvest till 5 th 
 November, then the sheep and cows go in common 
 meadows and stubbles."^ At Chamwood, the small 
 commoners and cottages enjoyed a common of fern, " they 
 had their fern harvest, at which the fern wcis gathered and 
 burnt to make ash balls." * The parish ilockmaster acted 
 in places as of old. ^ 
 
 Turbary was still a well recognised common right, as 
 may be seen from the provision made in its place by the 
 
 from a ba^. After the distribution, each repaired to his allotment and took 
 possession for the ensuing year. Cf. somewhat similar custom, Hutory of 
 Brampton, by Rev. J. A. Giles, 1848, pp. 79-80. Dole meadows frequently 
 occur in Awards, etc 
 
 ■■ In some cases, land might be in common field without balks : thus round 
 Toringhoe in Bucks, " no rein," i.e. acre rein, " between the lands.'' They 
 were separated by water furrow : Kahn's Account of his Visit to England, tr. by 
 J. Lucas, 1892, p. 266. According to the author of An Inquiry into the 
 connection between the present price of provisions and the size of farms, etc, 
 (1773)1 P- 87> '^'I'J i° balk was largely wasted : "balks are of different widths, 
 from two to sixteen feet ; they are never ploughed, but are kept in grass under 
 pretence of their being common field pasture. They are literally of no benefit 
 to either the occupier or the Poor ; for they are too narrow either to mow, 
 or to graze without a boy to attend to each beast with a halter ; and when the 
 corn is off them, their grass is too old to feed ; nor ought the common field to be 
 kept open till it is consumed, for that must prevent putting in wheat in the 
 proper season and is a total prohibition of turnips and cabbages." 
 
 '^ History of Tottenham, by William Robinson, i. 139-141, vestry determines 
 rights of common, etc. Cf. T. Faulkner, Chelsea, L 74 ; History of Hertford, 
 by L,ewis Turner; History oj Hampstead, pp. 130, 131; Agric. Report, 
 Leicester, 283. 
 
 ^Agric. Report, Oxford [iSl^), 231-2. 
 
 * Chamwood Forest, by T. R. Potter, p. 23. 
 
 'Agric. Report, Hertford {jSo^), 73. 
 
28 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Inclosure awards. ^ On the other hand the general rights 
 of Estover, once of such great Importance, find little men- 
 tion ^ except so far as connected with fuel. Miscellaneous 
 and other minor rights find place in accounts and records, 
 but they play an unimportant part ; even the right of 
 fishing or piscary, formerly so highly prized in view of 
 fast days, and especially by religious houses, is obviously 
 an interesting survival of small practical importance. It 
 is probable that the right to take clay and gravel from 
 pits on the estate is of greater value. 
 
 Instances of divided ownership, and of other incidents 
 connected with a system of cultivation carried on under 
 common direction, and within a network of closely inter- 
 woven rights and duties are not rare. The mentions made 
 of Lammas lands and half-year lands show the many kinds 
 of divided ownerships which existed.* Again, foldage or 
 the right of having the ilocks of others folded in the land 
 of any individual for the sake of manure was so much 
 valued that at times it was reckoned as an equivalent for 
 their feed, " a farmer keeping his sheep on the common land 
 in return folding a certain number of acres for the other 
 tenants." * In some cases it was the privilege of the lord of 
 the manor. Joist or so-called ley cattle are taken in to 
 meet the wants of those who have insufficient pasture,® 
 
 '^ Agric. Report, Norfolk, 176. As to abuse of this right Agric. Report, 
 Middlesex (1793), by Baird. 
 
 ' Inclosure Award of Forest ot Salcy in Northampton maVes allotments to 
 commoners for " sere and broken wood." Incl. Awards, Com. Pleas Recovery 
 Rolls, ID Geo., iv. Easier, f. 7. Marshall, Rural Economy of Gloucester, p. 44, 
 gives a good instance of a common wood appropriated to the messuages of the 
 township it belongs to, but not divided. He adds, " this is a species of property 
 I have not met with elsewhere." It is not merely the waste, but apparently an 
 appropriated common. 
 
 ^See above p. 13, note I. Cf. as to divided ownership or divided rights. 
 Agric. Reports, Oxford, 205, 231-2, Somerset {IJ^Z), 273; Dorset (iZie,), 307, 
 
 * Agric. Report, Suffolk, 2nd edition, p. 15. Cf. Annals of AgricuUure,\\. 149. 
 
 ^Annals, as above ; also Agric. Report, Derbyshire (181 1), p. 197. A good 
 instance of this as an admitted practice in earlier times is shown by the mention 
 in a will of 1493 of a legacy of 'all such sheep as I have at geyst' cited by 
 CuUum, History of Havisted, p. 140. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 29 
 
 though it is difficult to say if the practice had in- 
 creased. 
 
 There are certain significant changes noticeable in the 
 comparison of village economy in the eighteenth century 
 with that existing at the end of the middle ages. The 
 severance of the ancient tenements from their connection with 
 the land has already been mentioned. Equally important 
 was the substitution, when the right of pasture had not 
 become unlimited, of stints or definite numbers of beasts 
 for those formerly entitled to common according to some 
 assumed connection between the necessities of the soil and 
 the beasts which could most wisely be kept The way was 
 opened to the creation of common ingress, or rights of 
 common which might belong to anyone, wholly irrespective 
 of his occupation of either land or tenement, or even the 
 possession of a toftstead signifying hypothetical possession. 
 Such rights could be bought and sold or even let Two 
 other changes rank with these in importance and combine 
 with them in effect On the one hand there is the great 
 increase in permanent or inclosed pasture lying in common ; 
 on the other there are the claims to common raised on 
 behalf of those who live near the waste, especially in respect 
 of small gains which might accrue to cottages. 
 
 In Fitz Herbert's time pasture in common was of three 
 kinds : the common close where each man is stinted, the 
 tended common where the cattle go before the herdsman 
 and where stints prevail, and lastly the lord's outvvoods 
 where, in that writer's view, the lord should not be stinted 
 though the tenants should.^ But this threefold division, 
 with the importance attached to the first two kinds, marks 
 an advance from early village economy. Inclosed pasture, 
 as distinct from the hay meadow, increased as time passed. 
 Nothing indeed is more striking than the great dispropor- 
 tion in early manors between the amount of land in arable 
 and that lying in either meadow or pasture.^ The growth 
 
 * Fitz Herbert, Surveying, p. 12. 
 
 * See CuUum, Hawsted, pp. lo^, 205. The same author cites (p. 236) from 
 a lease of 1593 the prohibition of a tenant from breaking up pasture land. 
 
30 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 of meadow and pasture may be due in part to the 
 reclamation, as it were, of some part of the waste from its 
 wild condition, though in some cases it seems to have 
 taken place side by side with a reduction in the arable 
 acreage. Be the cause what it may, it all tends to sub- 
 stantiate the importance of inclosed permanent pasture, 
 the common closes of Fitz Herbert By the eighteenth 
 century these had become an ordinary feature of the 
 villages Ijdng in common, and from all appearance features 
 not novel but of long standing. Inclosure records give 
 many instances of ley pastures and of fields which, as 
 betokened by name, are allotted to the use of particular 
 beasts as Cow Down, Sheep Down, Pig Marsh, and the 
 like : it is evident that by mutual agreement such common 
 pastures could be fairly well utilised. Such fencing for 
 common pasture did not necessarily imply severalty, but the 
 division into smaller fields, and especially the assignment 
 of such fields to different classes of animals, mark the 
 importance attached to live stock as a source of wealth 
 wholly apart from the arable. The untended common 
 becomes more scarce with the advance of time. It 
 appears, moreover, that in certain cases temporary in- 
 closures were allotted to individuals for their sole use.^ 
 
 ' Pasture under inclosure was of three kinds. Firstly, there were in many 
 open field villages common closes such as these to which Fitz Herbert alludes. 
 These existed in the sixteenth century ; the need for them increases with the use 
 made of stock in places where inclosure to severalty did not occur. As is said in 
 the text they are often of importance in the eighteenth century. Cf. Agric. Report, 
 Wilts (\%\'^, p. 4. Secondly, there were tempoiaiy intakes sometimes definitely 
 for pasture and held for this in severalty, see p. 26, note S- Probably the 
 so-called shifting severalty in lot meadows was of this nature, but cf. Elton, 
 Copyholds, p. 15. Compare also stocking closes, though these were less temporary ; 
 thus the writer of a letter from Leicester (BiUiotheca Topop-aphica Brit. vii. 
 p. 620) desires to get " my stocking closes inclosed upon the same considera- 
 tions my father had." Thirdly, there were private pastures which might 
 originate in different ways. There were inclosores for winter feed ; thus at 
 Wandesley the owners of these were to make " reasonable hedges and fences 
 about their winter feed in their assarts." Thoroton, Nottingham, ii. 261. 
 Possibly, however, these were not always fenced in. With the development of 
 sheep farming and inclosure they necessarily increase. It seems that private 
 pastures, in conjunction with common, existed in the sixteenth century. In the 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 31 
 
 Claims of common on the part of those dwelling near 
 ensue almost inevitably as the connection between these 
 rights and arable agriculture becomes obscured. One 
 such claim in Hertfordshire, advanced by the dwellers in 
 new tenements, met with the decision that whilst allowed 
 for the life of those concerned it should cease afterwards.] 
 In Tottenham the inhabitants, bona fide residents, appear tc 
 have obtained a declaration from the vestry supporting 
 their claim. But it is in the case of the cottagers 
 and the poor living round the open commons that these 
 privileges were most often asserted. Throughout the 
 country it may be said that often the poor living near the 
 commons, wholly without question of the occupation of 
 ancient cottages, came by usage to enjoy the minor rightsl 
 of common.^ They turned out their pigs and geese, they! 
 
 ! 
 
 time of Henry VIII. among the lands of the Abbey of Selby there were closes) 
 subject to common, and closes not so subject. Dugdale, Mon. iii. 505. In 
 the seventeenth century this was also true (M. Stevenson, The Twelve 
 Months (l66l), p. 47 : in October "you may spare your private pastures and 
 feed up your cornfields and commons "). 
 
 Of the temporary inclosures some were for arable, see above p. 26, note 5 ; 
 also Annals of Agriculture, viii. 438 ; Agric. Reports, Cornwall, p. 46 ; 
 Lincoln (1799), p. 21 ; Nottingham (1798), p. 21. 
 
 Either use may have been made of the intakes from the common or common 
 field which were more permanent. In Tusser's day, these would appear to be 
 well known from the lines — 
 
 Now sow and go harrow, where ridge ye did draw, 
 
 The seed of the bramble with kernal and haw 
 
 Which covered overlie, soon to shut out. 
 
 Go see it be ditched and fenced about. 
 On this passage the editor, apparently D. Hillman, writes (Tusser Redivivus, 
 1710, Februarj', p. 9): "This, I take it, to be meant of a way of quick 
 setting or fencing enclosures out of the common field they had in the days of 
 our author ; they ploughed or drew round the ground they intended to inclose, 
 a very large ridge, commonly a rod wide and sometimes much more ; this they 
 sowed with hips or the fruit of the bramble, with hazel nuts, haws, and such 
 like to produce their kind ; they carefully harrowed it and weeded it for two 
 years, and in a few years time they had a pretty coppice, and are what we call 
 shaws and in some places springs. This is an excellent way to improve bleak 
 grounds, and it is a pity it is not continued." 
 
 ^See Agric. Report, Bedford (1808), p. 224 ; Cambridge (1813), p. 76, etc. ; 
 Norfolk, p. 107, etc. ; Worcester, pp. 52-53 ; General Report, Appendix iv. 
 
32 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 gathered fuel, and in some instances found pasture for a 
 cow. In some cases they acted as though possessing 
 common shackage,^ that is, pastured geese and pigs in the 
 stubbles of the open fields after harvests. These privileges, 
 though in the main by sufferance rather than of legal origin, 
 were, whatever their ultimate effects, often of a substantial 
 character, and their loss by inclosure occasioned much 
 complaint and were met sometimes by special allotments. 
 They were in reality a trespass and an encroachment. 
 
 If we turn from matters affecting pasturage to the 
 circumstances of arable cultivation we find there, too, 
 attempts to adapt a system of cultivation complicated by 
 rights of common and mixed ownerships to the changes 
 in need and opportunities. The temporary inclosures 
 from waste and forest are probably due, at any rate in 
 part, to the need of supplementing arable too hardly 
 worked, by supplies of fresh soil. Where these intakes 
 were cultivated in severalty, as seems to have been the 
 custom, an opportunity is offered for new developments, 
 of which the better farmers would willingly take 
 advantage. Still more important were the agreements 
 made in places to enable the introduction of clover, 
 turnips, and other crops. Thus, in South Wiltshire 
 tenants in many common fields came to an agreement to 
 introduce clover, or ray grass, in place of fallow, and in 
 some cases carried this out by making four fields instead 
 of three ; this when unaccompanied by a good sheep down 
 made a four field system desirable, as follows : i, wheat ; 
 2, barlej' with clover; 3, clover, mown ; 4, clover fed till 
 time to plough for wheat. " But in the course of this 
 some farmers have thought some land too good to lie for 
 two years, and so in place of sowing the whole barley 
 field with clover, they have reserved one-third or one- 
 fourth of it for veitches, pease, beans, to keep under these 
 for two years, but to come in again for wheat. This part 
 of the land is called a hookland or hitchland field, and 
 
 'This is mentioned in the General Rtport. The poor enjoyed the privilege 
 of feeding in the stubbles. Compensation was sometimes given for this.- 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 33 
 
 where thus applied it is discharged from commonage."^ 
 Likewise in open fields, as at Brampton, in Oxfordshire, 
 " hitching the field " was often adapted, and variations in 
 the ordinary course were introduced by consent Efforts 
 were made to introduce turnips in the open field, but 
 without general success. The difficulties of turnip cultiva- 
 tion in the open field are dwelt upon by many writers ; 
 and both agreements and the Act passed to facilitate the 
 practice met, speaking broadly, with but little success. 
 
 Between the system of cultivation and common thus 
 sketched in the eighteenth century and that existing 
 under the manorial system prior to or even at the 
 time of the changes taking place in the fifteenth and early 
 sixteenth centuries there is much resemblance, and there 
 are also many differences. These latter are due indeed in 
 many instances to local circumstances, to the alterations 
 sure to occur when the original purport of an institution 
 is obscured, and lastly to the selfish advantage taken by 
 individual members of those jointly, but not always, 
 similarly interested in the land ; but putting differences 
 such as these aside, the remainder, and they form by far 
 the larger part, are to be accounted for on two grounds. 
 On the one hand, there was the growing lack of suitability 
 between the system and the circumstances ; on the other 
 there were fresh efforts to accommodate the system to these 
 new circumstances, efforts which, if successful at the 
 moment, usually ended in producing a condition lacking the 
 old stability, and inadequately realising the new need for 
 elasticity and individual management. Underlying these 
 differences, however, the system in its main broad outlines 
 continues. The reasons for its permanence as also those 
 which tended to produce change, call alike for attention. 
 
 The origin of the manorial system itself has been the 
 subject of much controversy, but this controversy rather 
 concerns tenure than the subject of interest here, namely 
 the system of cultivation. That system may be held to be 
 reconcilable with the different theories of early tenure, 
 
 ^Agric. Report, Wtiis (1813), p. 59; cf. Oxford (iZl^i), 122. 
 C 
 
34 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 which have been propounded, though certain of its 
 incidents may lend their weight to arguments adduced 
 on different sides. The cultivating village, whether 
 originating in a free comnnunity or in servitude, was alike 
 subject to the pressure of the necessities and dangers 
 attending settlement in a country largely uncultivated and 
 sparsely populated, amid forest and morass, and exposed 
 to depredation and attack. The concentration of the 
 houses with closes and barns in villages marks the force 
 of external circumstances. So, too, the contiguity of the 
 arable fields and the meadows to • the little settlement 
 While these facts have been frequently emphasised, 
 sufficient attention has not been given to the advantages 
 presented by the open field system of cultivation in respect 
 of the internal circumstances of the village. These pro- 
 bably were of equal, and in later years, of even greater 
 weight It has been surmised that the frequent absences 
 of the men on warlike expeditions must have made con- 
 centration a necessary condition of cultivation. The lands 
 were only too liable to be deserted by their occupiers and 
 left to the care of women and of the aged and the young. 
 Under these circumstances, with the whole village or town- 
 ship in one common system, management and cultivation 
 were rendered easier. Again, as was noticed even at later 
 times, a common system of cultivation, though possibly an 
 obstacle to the improvements which the more energetic 
 might wish to introduce, was equally a safeguard against 
 bad husbandry and extreme negligence. Carelessness and 
 bad practices could be more easily detected by the steward of 
 the manor under a system of uniformity. Mere uniformity 
 of practice, indeed, tended to preserve a certain though not 
 necessarily a very high level of agriculture. Again, under 
 the circumstances which then existed, common rights of 
 pasture, of estovers and the remaining incidents enabled the 
 community to get the most that was possible out of or 
 from the soil. It must be remembered likewise that the 
 village was, of necessity, substantially self-subsistent, that 
 conditions of cultivation were almost invariable, and that 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 35 
 
 little opportunity existed for the exercise of skill, either on 
 the part of the cultivators or by the use of better appli- 
 ances. But these facts, while amply sufficient to account 
 for the early cultivating village, are not by them- 
 selves adequate reasons for its permanence. In many 
 particulars change creeps in and becomes considerable. 
 Four things, however, must be noted. Such changes were 
 apt to be local. Throughout a long period the dependence 
 of a community for its main necessities on local supplies 
 continues little impaired, at times being reinforced by 
 political turmoil. Again, the scarcity of population left large 
 tracts of land available for herds and flocks. Lastly, the 
 rights of common once introduced formed a complex 
 of intermixed and mutual rights which, consecrated by 
 immemorial usage, made conscious change well nigh im- 
 possible, save under the pressure of strong forces. 
 
 Yet the seeds of decay artd the causes of change early 
 and widely manifested themselves. 
 
 The ba^is of the system as a permanent system was its 
 suitability, and that suitability rested in its turn on the 
 presence of certain fairly well defined conditions. But 
 these conditions were sweeping. The pursuance of the 
 open field and common right system could be reasonably 
 expected, provided, firstly, that arable was the necessary 
 basis of English agriculture ^hd the chief source of profit ; 
 secondly, that the methods of (?ultivation were fairly uniform, 
 and not such as to admit of great differences by reason of 
 skill and capital ; thirdly, that the relation between stock 
 and the arable was fairly stable in different districts, and 
 given to but gradual alteration with the lapse of time ; 
 lastly, that there was a supply of land as yet outside the 
 area under strict cultivation. Granted these conditions, 
 and, on the whole, they held good in early manorial 
 days, the system was admirably adapted to the wants of 
 the time. As they weakened its suitability grew less, a 
 fact strongly accentuated when any great current of change 
 set in in any one direction. However adapted to early 
 circumstances, a system dependent on conditions such as 
 
36 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 those enumerated above, could not afford permanent 
 satisfaction in a changing and progressive country, particu- 
 larly when that country differed, as England differed, so 
 greatly in the special advantages offered by various 
 districts for particular branches of agriculture, and above 
 all when history combined with climatic considerations to 
 make pursuits other than arable pursuits a substantial 
 and, in some localities, a chief source of gain. By the 
 beginning of the eighteenth century altered circumstances 
 had achieved many changes, the particular features of which 
 will require some account Much land had been inclosed, 
 and that which remained in open field or liable to the inci- 
 dents of common did so under modified conditions, which 
 by their very nature witnessed to the tendencies at work. 
 To some extent the causes of inclosure may be judged 
 from the character of the changes effected in the open field 
 system. What these were has already been indicated so 
 far as their general aspect is concerned. It remains to 
 point out their significance with reference to the conditions 
 which have been laid down as determining the suitability 
 of the system in question. 
 
 With the growth of means of communication arable 
 culture had ceased to be necessary in all villages alike 
 whether the land was suited or unsuited to it. That it 
 was no longer the one recognised basis of agriculture is 
 shown both by the accounts we have of the agriculture 
 and of the results of inclosure in different districts. In 
 some farms we find that farmers are beginning to turn to 
 other sources of profit and require inclosure for that 
 reason.^ When the land was inclosed, in some districts 
 there was a positive increase in the com area, while 
 in others, as in Leicester and Northampton, a large 
 amount of land was converted almost at once to pasture.'' 
 But both these tendencies, and especially the latter, were 
 of old standing. They were after all but part of the 
 
 ' As, for instance, in time of Considtraiions, cattle are a source of profit, etc. 
 ^Agric. Report, Leicester (1807), pp. 67, 70, etc. On the other hand, new 
 inclosnres in Essex, Agric. Report, Essex, i., p. 123 ; Worcester, p. 55. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 37 
 
 general progress towards differentiation of ehiployment 
 which becomes possible as one result of improved loco- 
 motion and transport It is worthy of notice that where 
 the soil was not particularly suited to pasture, even the 
 advocates of inclosure admit that in 9uch cases inclosure 
 is less profitable and open field less' unprofitable to the 
 owner than elsewhere.^ It was pointed out that under the 
 open field land will be put to other uses ^ than would be 
 the case if its owners were free to choose ; and in the eyes 
 of some this was clearly undesirable. In some districts the 
 advantages sought by inclosure were, others contended, 
 attained by the laying together of intermixed lands 
 coupled no doubt with their relief from some of the 
 incidents of common.' 
 
 It is equally clear -that the early uniformity of culti- 
 vation had vanished. The general complaints that skill 
 was impeded and new courses rendered impossible are 
 the commonplaces of controversial literature during the 
 sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and those urging them 
 did not attach corresponding importance to certain 
 counteracting allegations which were probably true. Some 
 who were by no means opponents of inclosure gave it as 
 their opinion that the open field system, while dis- 
 advantageous to the skilful treatment of the soil, had at 
 least the advantage of restraining extreme negligence. 
 " Although the common field husbandry," writes one from 
 experience, "does not make the land better, it keeps it 
 from becoming much worse." Quite apart, however, from 
 the evidence of controversial writers, or from a knowledge 
 of the extent to which invention had affected the imple- 
 ments and methods of agriculture, the recorded condition 
 of the open field land bears testimony to the need felt of 
 
 ^Agric. Report, East Riding (1812), 93-4; Worcester, 53-4; Addington, 
 An Inquiry, 38-39. 
 
 ' " The fields of the unenclosed parishes have a certain proportion always in 
 tillage ; but the enclosed &rms are employed sometimes in tillage and some- 
 times in pasture." Agric. Report, Worcester, p. 26. 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, Cambridge (1813), p. 92; Oxford (l%iz), p. 96. 
 
38 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 doing something to enable progress to be made. Illustrative 
 of this were the temporary inclosures held in severalty for a 
 time, and also the so-called ancient inclosures which were 
 often found scattered throughout the open fields. These 
 inclosures, which often lay intermixed with the strips of 
 the tenantry or village freeholders, and were the property 
 frequently of the lord of the manor or the holder of glebe, 
 are a very frequent feature of inclosures. Th«y are to be 
 noticed in the plans attached to Awards, and* are referred 
 to there, as elsewhere, as ancient inclosures. Some of these 
 originated in the action of the individual who had taken his 
 way and made it good. It does not follow, however, that 
 land even when so inclosed would escape all incidents of 
 common ; indeed, the contrary must have been true in 
 many cases, as where shack beasts being turned on to 
 the arable after harvest had a right of entry into the 
 inclosed plots through the bars or by the gates. Of 
 equal moment are the instances of agreements to intro- 
 duce new crops which but for these could not be taken 
 from the land. Some of these have been cited already. 
 They refer to the use of the land for clover, for vetches, 
 and for other crops of one kind or another ; but in the 
 great majority of instances for the introduction of the 
 turnip. They were fairly common ; but despite the 
 hesitating verdict given in their favour by some, their 
 success in general seems to have been small. More was 
 anticipated from the Act (13 G. III., c. 81) passed for 
 a like purpose ; but it too was without adequate result 
 According to some accounts it was "too generally 
 neglected," according to others much improvement was 
 impossible without inclosures, since, as one writer says, 
 the agreement necessary to the adoption of the Act was 
 difficult to procure '^ It is possible, as has been suggested 
 before, that an Act passed when opinion was running 
 strongly in favour of inclosure did not receive a fair trial. 
 But even had it been a remedy for this one inconvenience, 
 others, it must be remembered, remained. 
 
 ^ Stone, Suggestions, pp. 11, 13. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 39 
 
 The increase of sheep and cattle over a very lai^e part 
 of England and in particular in some districts, which 
 b^an even in early times, had disturbed the proportion 
 between the land in grass and that in tillage This 
 movement was greatly assisted, on the one hand, by the 
 severance between ancient tenements and lands ; on the 
 other, by the supersession of the law proportioning beasts 
 according tcwlevancy and couchancyor winter fodder by 
 either definite stints or unlimited ' rights. By the first, 
 rights of herbage were in some cases separated from land 
 and attached to houses ; by the other, so far as the intro- 
 duction of stints was concerned, the way was opened 
 both to the creation of common in gross, and to the 
 letting of common rights. Of course, this was not the 
 intention with which the practice of stinting was intro- 
 duced. It was in the main an attempt to give reality to 
 means of admeasurement, which were very difficult of 
 application. But once the number for which common was 
 due was defined, it was possible to claim that any exercise 
 of common right was permissible, which, while benefiting 
 the proprietor, was without injury either to his fellows or 
 the lord of the manor. By the creation of common 
 in gross, coupled with the right of taking in the beasts 
 of others at hire, some of the difficulties inherent in the 
 original system of common were overcome. It became 
 possible to maintain large herds and flocks irrespective of 
 the amount of land cultivated ; and so a variable pro- 
 portion between stock and land is attained.^ The demand 
 for additional pasture, too, was met to some extent 
 by the unlimited rights which were claimed over com- 
 mons which were not stinted or rated greatly to their 
 injury ; as also by the extensive rights of sheep walk, 
 though these probably were of early origin. The growth 
 of inclosed pastures lying in common and stinted, 
 
 ^ Thus Horner, speakii^ of rights of pasture on the commons, and property 
 in the open field, saj-s, "It is now no uncommon thing to find the former 
 without the latter and the latter without the former and neither in any 
 proportion to each other." {JEssax, etc, p. 68.) 
 
40 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 was undoubtedly beneficial both as r^ards the quantity, 
 if not the quality, of sheep and cattle. The increase in 
 sheep, and the increased demand for pasture for them, was 
 an early source of weakness in the strict system of common 
 right It began to display itself at a very early date, and 
 probably originated in the greater multiplicity of clothing 
 and the consequent greater need for wool. Food, fuel, 
 house, manure,, repairs, and the service of the ^plough, were 
 provided for ; but by the original common right only an 
 inadequate provision was made for clothing. Hence the 
 early modification in rural economy and the increase of 
 pasture, even by grants which expressly disregarded the 
 recognised limitations imposed by manorial custom. Pro- 
 bably the growth of the clothing districts and the large 
 foreign demand for English wool but accentuated a 
 tendency already in existence. Further, the gradual 
 utilisation of land well fitted for stock but unsuited for 
 arable, and especially open field arable, played a part in 
 the change.^ 
 
 '" With the lapse of time efforts were naturally made to 
 increase the cultivated area. The arable must often have 
 been enlarged, and land, as we learn, while remaining in 
 common, became inclosed pasture. Another mark of the 
 demand for more land under strict cultivation has been 
 seen in the privilege enjoyed in many places of taking up 
 temporary inclosures on the waste or in the forest 
 
 In every particular, then, the open field system in the 
 eighteenth century bears testimony to the strength of the 
 forces which had led, and which were leading, to its dis- 
 integration. Yet it must not be supposed that weakness 
 had exhibited itself in every direction at the same time, or 
 that its development took place with necessary uniformity. 
 At one time one cause was most prominent, at another a 
 different one ; but the pressure was constant, and it is 
 probable that, from the fifteenth to the middle of the 
 nineteenth centur)', with some few intervals, the conversion 
 of commonalty into severalty was in active progress. 
 
 'Bk. II., Appendix E. Inclosure from the Wild State. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 41 
 
 Sometimes the movement was faster, sometimes more 
 slow. This, however, will require investigation and further 
 discussion. 
 
 Apart from these causes which were operative in the 
 case of land already within the area of cultivation, or at 
 any rate in its contiguity, there were others of equal 
 importance arising from the essential differences in the 
 soil of different districts and counties, and due to the 
 extension of cultivation over the country. Some dis- 
 tricts, either by reason of soil alone or by reason of soil 
 in conjunction with position, were obviously unsuited to 
 agricultural communities. They offered opportunities for 
 sheep and, to some extent, for cattle farming, but not for 
 much arable development This is a matter to be dealt 
 with elsewhere, but here it may be pointed out that in 
 these regions there are but slight traces of any exten- 
 sive settlement or growth of villages and communities 
 dependent in the main on an arable basis. Some 
 arable, no doubt, there was. Common fields for- crops 
 existed in some measure, but rather by way of addition 
 to than as the basis of occupation and life. Again, in 
 many regions the existence of forest or fen or marsh 
 rendered land unsuited for arable, till previous changes 
 had been effected. Woodland and forest yielded but 
 slowly, and a large expenditure was required before 
 much rich land could be drained and fitted rather than 
 reclaimed for cultivation. When this takes place, it 
 does not follow that they pass into cultivation under the 
 same intricate conditions as to common right, and in 
 particular as to common of shack, as existed elsewhere. 
 Common, no doubt, was often annexed, but intercom- 
 moning was a custom and not a grant. Of course, the 
 extent to which such land was subject to common, as also 
 the nature of the common, depends very much on the date 
 at which such additions were made. The utilisation of land 
 of such kinds had an influence hostile to the maintenance 
 of the regular common right system. New opportunities 
 of profit were offered, and new conditions of advantageous 
 
42 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 cultivation exhibited. Where new arable was added the 
 effiscts were the more considerable, since not only did the 
 addition of new rich arable areas tend to restrict the use 
 of old arable, often little suited for its purpose, but the 
 greater advantage of farming under less onerous con- 
 ditions rendered the lot of other formers less easy as soon 
 as the development of transport brought about farming for 
 distant sale, and so a new degree of competition. 
 
 As will be pointed out further on the existence of such 
 non-arable areas and the gradual extension of cultivation 
 place limits on the common field system and do much to 
 explain the lack of uniformity of various regions and 
 counties in respect of subsequent inclosures. 
 
 The sketch given above of the common field system, 
 and of the causes occasioning and the incidents associated 
 with its decay, exhibits common right in three stages. 
 In early times it was an int^ral part of the rural economy, 
 necessary, that is, to its completeness and the means of its 
 effective practice. Later on differences manifest them- 
 selves between different districts and in different cases and 
 whilst common rights are still associated with arable 
 agriculture, the inevitable feature in their relation has 
 gone and they exist in large measure as a source of special 
 profit Moreover arable comes into use without inter- 
 commoning and with common attached, as it were as a 
 means of additional gain. During this period, too, arable 
 common right and open field cultivation begin to be 
 regarded, at any rate by some, as an obstacle to improve- 
 ments and good farming. These features are emphasised 
 as time passes till by some the system of common is 
 valued only as a means of chance gains. Others treat it 
 as a mischievous and cumbrous survival. In the nine- 
 teenth century, if not in the eighteenth, the idea of a 
 public interest or right manifests itself The common is 
 a cause of profit to those dwelling in its vicinity ; but the 
 local public has a further claim over it, for purposes of 
 recreation and exercise. 
 
II 
 
 EXTINCTION OF COMMON AND 
 COMMON RIGHTS 
 
 The most effectual means of meeting the defects alleged 
 against the system of common field cultivation and com- 
 mon was found, however, not in any modification of that 
 S3rstem but by the inclosure of land. Inclosure was the 
 recognised mode of supplanting champion or common by 
 several, and so entailed in general the closing of the land 
 inclosed against all rights save those of the individual 
 owner. But there was a further advantage, in addition to 
 that thus achieved, which might lead to inclosing. 
 Economy of labour in the case of pasture led in some cases 
 to the hedging and fencing of land under the common 
 field system without any real destruction of common rights, 
 despite their more rigid regulation ; it was often the 
 real end sought by inclosures which were carried out in 
 such a way as to bring in individual or several ownership. 
 
 The ways in which this change might be accomplished 
 were various and where important must have been; of 
 varying importance at different epochs. They may be 
 classified under the following heads : (i) Extinction of 
 common in the ordinary process of law. (2) Withdrawal 
 from common by sufferance. (^3) Approvement (4) In- 
 closure by agreement either voluntary or under compulsion. 
 ( 5 )» Private Acts and other parliamentary powers. 
 
 (i) Extinction of common in the ordinary process of law. 
 A large variety of ways exist wiiereby rights of common 
 once existing might be extinguished and cease in the 
 
44 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 ordinary course of law and without any exceptional action 
 on the side of any of the parties involved. They have 
 been enumerated as follows : (a) Unity of possession where 
 the land over which common Wcis exercised and the 
 privilege of common came into the same hands and where 
 in consequence common would necessarily cease. (jb) 
 Severance of the rights of common necessarily attached 
 to and determined by a tenement or holding from that 
 tenement or holding. This, though ordinarily occurring 
 in the case of common for a number of beasts undeter- 
 mined save by the needs real or assumed of the holding, 
 might take place in cases where common for a definite 
 number was specifically attached to the holding, {c) 
 Release by the commoner, (d) Disuse, (e) Destruction of 
 the commoner's estate. (/) Alteration of the commoner's 
 tenement in such manner as to severely impair the con- 
 ditions under which and the purpose for which common 
 was acquired, {g) Destruction of the product which was 
 the subject of common. 
 
 Of these ways in which common might be extinguished, 
 few are of importance save in their purely legal aspect, 
 and it may well be doubted if any occurred at any time 
 in sufficient amount to seriously affect the conditions of 
 life or cultivation over a considerable area. They affected 
 individual commoners or occasionally the tenants of a 
 particular manor rather than the inhabitants of any district 
 or districts. It must also be remembered that in early 
 times at least, they were in part or wholly counterbalanced 
 by the new grants of common which occurred under certain 
 circumstances. There are two, however, which may be 
 thought of some little general importance at periods of 
 civil disorder, or where the forfeiture of manors and their 
 regrant, as during the Civil Wars of the fifteenth century or 
 at the dissolution of the monasteries, offered opportunity 
 for a rapacious new lord of the manor to turn to his 
 own advantage any legal defect. Disuse of common is 
 one of these. It seems highly probable that such disuse 
 might occur not infrequently and, however slight, it might 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 45 
 
 offer an easy pretext to a new owner anxious to obtain 
 the full benefit of his possession. On the other hand it is 
 quite possible that at a time of disorder considerable 
 encroachments might take place, and that the rights thus 
 acquired by what is, strictly speaking, illegal use might 
 outweigh those falling into desuetude or extinguished on 
 that pretext ; further, any sudden inclosures on this 
 ground would certainly startle those with rights of common 
 out of any negligence as to their use. In any case, 
 however, the extent to which this cause operated must be 
 a matter for surmise. The other of the two causes 
 referred to is of a very different kind. Unity of possession 
 would almost certainly have been of great consequence 
 had it not been subject, so far as law was concerned, to 
 many exceptions which went far to deprive it of im- 
 portance. The only question is, if these exceptions, which 
 are the outcome of careful legal decision, were adequately 
 enforced in such centuries as the fifteenth and sixteenth. 
 Extinction owing to unity of possession did not occur in 
 the case of common appendant, where the ancient, necessity 
 of common remained, save when the commoner acquired 
 the whole waste, or of common of shack where the 
 acquisition by one commoner of the whole land could not 
 debar other commoners from their rights over his own 
 portion of land or of copyhold estates since these, even if 
 they came into the hands of the lord, would if granted 
 out to another tenant by the court roll necessarily have 
 the customary rights of common. This latter exception 
 was held to extend to rights of common over the lord's 
 demesne. But it may well be doubted if these exceptions 
 were sufficiently recognised at times earlier than the 
 seventeenth century, or indeed even then, to effectually 
 preclude inclosure when by such unity of possession the 
 land claiming common came into the personal possession 
 of the lord of the manor or the owner of the soil.^ 
 
 ' Instances of inclosure on unity of possession occur at times in the 
 eighteenth century. The National Debt no material grievance (1768), p. 61 : 
 "Most of the small tenements and farms having fallen into the lord of the 
 
46 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Opportunities of this kind were not of infrequent occurrence, 
 but it is difficult or impossible to ascertain how far they 
 were taken advantage of That would probably depend 
 on the advantage anticipated and on the weakening of the 
 strict manorial system. To cases under conditions such 
 as these may be attributed some of the sporadic inclosures 
 of ancient origin lying among the open fields of the 
 seventeenth and eighteenth century. 
 
 (2) Withdrawal front common by sufferance. There 
 were certain kinds of common far less strictly ascertained 
 and much more open to interruption than those which 
 have chiefly occupied our attention. A large part of the 
 lord's demesne, so far as that was under arable, lay in the 
 common field of the village. Here, too, were the lands of 
 the tenants hopelessly intermixed and in contiguous 
 strips. Over these, as has been said, a custom of common 
 after harvest or when the crops were carried obtained in 
 many parts of the country. Such common use of each 
 other's herbage, which as has been said, arose rather out 
 of convenience and of a mutual disregard of trespass than 
 from any grant, was in one sense a common by vicinage 
 and in any case a common the guarantee of which was 
 usage. Its early existence has indeed been called in 
 question, but though it is proved by early manorial 
 accounts, as well as by the words of early law books,^ it is 
 far from clear how far such common could prove a barrier 
 to inclosure. The fact that late in the sixteenth century 
 the judges before whom a case of common of shack came 
 
 manor's hands, he has let the whole to one or two substantial farmers." 
 Marshall, East Norfolk, ii. 365-71, gives history of Felbrigg inclosure, 
 where the chief landowner, being sole proprietor of the land with exception of 
 one small man, bought him out and made inclosures, reserving some land for 
 common for the poor. The rest was parcelled out among his tenants and 
 inclosed. Agric. Report, Oxford (1813), p. 91: "The parish of Clifton, 
 thirty-nine years ago, was allotted by Mr. Hucks, being a private arrangement 
 of his own." 
 
 ^ In answer to a claim of common rights the tenant resisting the claim might 
 say — the soil is his several, which he may plough, sow, or inclose at his 
 pleasure, and at all times keep inclosed. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 47 
 
 seemed dubious as to the nature of such common, and 
 that Lord Coke from his comments shows considerable 
 lack of knowledge as to its extent, is evidence at any rate 
 that cases were not frequent in the courts and that 
 common of shack was not a universal legal incident. The 
 real matter of importance to determine is the power of such 
 mutual rights to bar inclosure. The issue raised before 
 the court was whether freeholders having land in common 
 field and intercommoning could inclose against each 
 other/ This was held to be a matter of custom. It was 
 further stated that common of shack, arising, as we may 
 suppose, out of mere convenience, and so being of tem- 
 porary sufferance, might by usage become attached to the 
 land and appendant or appurtenant to it. In the very 
 case in question there were several inclosures in the field 
 into which, after the crops were taken, the neighbours 
 claimed right of entry with their beasts for pasturage. 
 While this was stated to be good, it was, however, held 
 that an ancient inclosure out of arable field can be free of 
 shack. These words throw considerable light on a phe- 
 nomenon which presents itself from the sixteenth century 
 onward, namely, the presence in the open fields of 
 inclosures known as a rule, to distinguish them from any 
 inclosing taking place at the time in question, as " ancient 
 inclouseres." These are mentioned here^ and by other 
 writers of the century, references to them occur in the 
 seventeenth century, while in the eighteenth century, alike 
 in the account of the villages and districts and in the 
 Awards of the inclosure commissions, they are very 
 familiar objects. Such inclosures find their origin in 
 different ways. In some cases they may be due to 
 
 ^Corbet's case. Coke's Report, (ed. 1826), iv. 57. Colte adds, the like 
 intercommoning is in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, and other counties, as well as 
 Norfolk. 
 
 ° In the comment on the same case, it is said an ancient enclosure can be 
 free of shack. Tusser's reference to the fact that in Norfolk, where Ket's 
 rebellion was, "to this day they take the liberty of throwing open all 
 enclosures out of the common field," relates, it is probable, to the same class of 
 inclosure. Tusser, July 9. 
 
48 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 extinction of commons, in others again, as we shall see, to 
 approvements of waste, but in many instances, especially 
 when contiguous to or amidst arable, to the inclosing of 
 land under conditions fairly plainly indicated by the above 
 case. The arable of the lord, if lying separated from the 
 tenantry land, was undoubtedly easy to inclose. If 
 tenants held land which they might plough or sow or 
 inclose at pleasure, so certainly did he. The case was 
 different, it is true, when his demesne lay in open strip 
 intermixed with the lands of his tenants. Here, indeed, 
 difficulties from a custom of common might arise, but 
 that he could inclose, at least partially, seems almost 
 certain. Those cases are the most doubtful where his 
 action would injuriously affect those to whom" he might 
 have made actually grants of common over his demesne. 
 Still it may be said that without violation of law he could 
 hedge and ditch much of his arable land. His action 
 might be supported on the analogy of the legal right 
 of approvement. But the case commented on raises the 
 further question as to the possession of like powers by 
 the freehold tenants in the common fields. Theoretically 
 they were held to have such power save when bound by 
 long custom. But this power, even if it could be 
 employed to any large extent owing to the prevalence of 
 custom, only touched freehold and not copyhold tenants. 
 That during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the lords 
 often inclosed demesne lands once in arable is beyond 
 doubt, that their lands often lay intermixed is equally 
 clear, and that inclosures exist bordering on the open fields 
 or breaking into their continuity is also certain. The case 
 already cited shows that their example was being followed, 
 though to what extent it is difficult to say, by freehold 
 tenants. The movement among these latter was checked 
 probably owing to the attention thus directed to what 
 was already occurring, though very probably in no great 
 amount 
 
 (3) Approvement. Approvement is the right of the 
 owner of the soil of making such use of his property as he 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 49 
 
 may think fit, provided that his action does not interfere 
 with the legitimate claims of others to share in any part 
 of its profits. In most cases of importance the owner was 
 the lord of the manor, and thus it was in their interest, as 
 well as in the interest of effective cultivation, that the 
 Statute of Merton, and the second Statute of Westminster 
 operated. The view which has been supported by many 
 authorities, that approvement was a right by common law 
 antecedent to these statutes, is certainly strengthened 
 by the fundamental conception of property and common 
 right in the manorial system. The land was burdened by 
 certain servitudes in the case of common, implying a 
 claim to certain parts of the herbage and other products, 
 and granted that sufficient was left to satisfy these claims, 
 the power of the owner either to grant rights of common 
 to others or to make what use he could of the soil yielding 
 such product seems indefeasible. By the statutes mentioned 
 it is specifically attached to the waste, a fact which 
 certainly seems to indicate an original difference be- 
 tween the position of the lord with regard to this and 
 that which he occupied in the case of his own demesne. 
 It seems difficult to doubt that he had power to approve 
 when he could certainly make new grants of common, 
 except on the theory that the waste was set apart and, as 
 it were, permanently dedicated to common use. 
 
 The approvement of common was of direct importance 
 where the growth of population and its requirements 
 rendered the fuller utilisation of the land desirable. It 
 afforded a means for the formation of new arable and 
 meadow, and these thus formed were liable to inclosure at 
 the will of the lord. That use was made of the power 
 is shown by its rapid extension by the second statute. 
 The Statute of Merton either created or confirmed the 
 right to approve cis against the tenants of the manor, but 
 this was found to be insufficient, and to meet the needs of 
 the time approvement was further empowered by the 
 Statute of Westminster, II., against neighbours, that is, 
 against the rights of common acquired by vicinage, and 
 
 D 
 
so COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 probably reciprocal on the part of the lord and tenants 
 of adjacent manors. But inclosure by means of approve- 
 ment was hindered in certain ways. In the first place, as 
 specifically determined, sufficient common had to be left to 
 satisfy the legitimate claims of commoners. In the 
 second place, the growth of common in gross offered a 
 more definite barrier than that existing in cases where the 
 right of common was attached to and determined by the 
 general extent of the land ; in many cases it amounted to 
 common for a definite number, in some it was in practice, 
 however, only limited by the beasts which the commoner 
 could maintain.^ Overstocking of commons is a com- 
 plaint in the sixteenth century, and from the language of 
 Fitz Herbert, a widespread habit. Lastly, rights of estover 
 and turbary must have impeded its easy use. Though the 
 statement made by some to the effect that approvement 
 was impossible when a common of turbary or estover 
 existed was inaccurate, it is obvious that they might hinder 
 the process. In face of these facts it is not surprising to 
 find the authoritative statement at the end of the 
 eighteenth century, that the statutes of approvement were 
 little used.* " It was seldom," we are told, " that any 
 common was sufficiently extensive to afford a surplus of 
 any moment after the claims of those who had rights of 
 common in it were satisfied. It was hardly possible, in many 
 cases, to ascertain what was a sufficiency of pasture." 
 There is no doubt as to the general truth of this assertion 
 at the time it was made. It was approximately if not 
 equally true of the condition of things for some time 
 previous to that date. Throughout the copious literature 
 dealing with commons and inclosure, approvement, if re- 
 ferred to at all, is never mentioned as a means whereby 
 inclosures are being effected or could be effected to any 
 considerable amount ; and the repeated demands on the 
 
 ^Agric. Report, North Riding (1800), p. 200, case tried at York Assizes, 
 mentioned where this limitation was laid down. 
 
 ^ Appendix to Report of Committee of 1795 gives Sinclair's address in which 
 this is stated. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 51 
 
 part of those favouring them for easier parliamentary means 
 of effecting them in the case of wastes, no less than over 
 open fields, supports this view of its inoperative character 
 throughout that century. Somewhat the same may be 
 said of the seventeenth century, as far as actual literary 
 mention is concerned, though during that period there are 
 more indications of arbitrary inclosure, which may have 
 been a kind of unlicensed and quite indefensible imita- 
 tion of what was a strict legal operation. The text-book 
 on the Law of Commons and Commoners does not treat of 
 approvement at any length or as though it had been a 
 power of importance or greatly exercised. The reverse 
 may be gathered from its pages. Evidence in the six- 
 teenth is different, since we hear that " the lords have 
 enclosed a great part of their waste grounds and straitened 
 their tenants of their commons therein."^ In connection 
 with this the re-enactment of the Statute of Merton must be 
 read. In ordinary circumstances the re-enactment of a 
 statute frequently points to its small effect ; but in this 
 instance the new statute reads like the definite reassertion 
 of a right, which otherwise might have been deemed in 
 suspense owing to Somerset's proclamation. Should this 
 be correct, corroboration is afforded that approvement 
 had been taking place, while, in addition, there is clear 
 evidence that further occasion for its exercise is thought 
 desirable. 
 
 (4) Agreement. Inclosure by agreement was of very 
 many kinds, varying from genuine voluntary agreements 
 to agreements where consent was obtained by hard 
 pressure, or even to agreements concluded by Chancery 
 suits, in which the consenting parties by collusive action 
 sought to enforce inclosure upon those who dissented, or to 
 distribute the land in severalty among the consentient 
 
 ' Fitz Herbert, Surveying, p. 20 : " And then was their tenements much 
 better cheap than they be now, for the most part of the lords have inclosed 
 their demesne lands and meadows and keep them in severalty, so that their 
 tenants have no common with them therein. And also the lords have inclosed 
 a great part of the waste grounds,'" etc. 
 
52 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 parties, to the exclusion of others. The menace of such 
 suits was at one time a powerful instrument to procure 
 voluntary consent With regard to agreements in general, 
 the assertion that private agreements were practically im- 
 possible, must be treated as only applicable, if applicable 
 then, to the time after the great inclosures, that is, to the 
 later eighteenth century. 
 
 Earlier in that century, when inclosing by act was a 
 recognised procedure, and when in consequence there must 
 have been a rather general tendency to resort to that 
 method as having greater finality, inclosure by consent 
 with, in some cases, subsequent resort to parliament, was 
 well known. Both Arthur Young and Marshall refer to it 
 as within their knowledge and of importance, the former 
 writing that entire townships and many stinted pastures 
 have been laid out by agreement, or proprietors possessing 
 large interests, have inclosed land after procuring the 
 necessary assents on the parts of those interested, while 
 the latter refers to it as a general means in more places 
 than one. Both agree in eulogising such proceedings as 
 being cheaper, and so more beneficial, and Marshall adds 
 that it takes place without the hazard and inconvenience 
 attending application to Parliament. But as a rule some 
 legal intervention was required, particularly in the case 
 of unstinted commons. These general statements are 
 corroborated by particular facts recorded in particular 
 districts. Several took place in Leicester, Nottingham, 
 and Durham, and are duly recorded by writers who 
 give something like a full list of all the lands inclosed, 
 distinguishing in two of the counties those dealt with by 
 act from those dealt with by agreement, while in other cases 
 allusions by contemporary authors point to a like exist- 
 ence in other districts, as Yorkshire and Norfolk, to single 
 out two counties. Though no close estimate as to the 
 amount of land thus inclosed is possible, the facts referred 
 to above, especially when corroborated, as they are, by the 
 incidental agreements which find their way into the various 
 lists of inclosures, and even among the awards, justify the 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 53 
 
 statement that it forms an appreciable addition to that 
 dealt with by act.^ 
 
 During the seventeenth century agreements were even 
 more important. The testimony as to their prevalence is 
 strong, and spread throughout the period. They find 
 mention in the record of the action of the Privy Council, 
 between 1630 and 1640, which illustrate the difficulties 
 which beset those anxious to agree, and also the methods 
 whereby a reluctant consent was often wrung from those 
 
 'With regard to agreements to inclose, the following references are im- 
 portant. As to general facts, General Report, p. 70, etc.; Marshall, Yorkshire, 
 i. 99 ; On the Appropriation and Inclosure of Commonable and Intermixed 
 Lands (1801), p. 11. 
 
 As to Midlands, i.e. Marshall's central district, Marshall, ii. 204, the 
 parts of Warwick, Stafford, Derbyshire, and Leicester, which border on each 
 other, stand low in inclosure by act during the whole period of acts ; thus 
 Leicester, Ashby-de-la-Zouch district, 10 p.c. ; Warwick, Atherstone, 2 p.c. ; 
 Meriden, 12 p.c. ; Nuneaton, however, 22 p.c. Both Stafford and Derby 
 exhibit extremely small amount of inclosure, prior to Marshall, who writes, 
 " Half a century ago the district was principally open, now it is mostly 
 inclosed." 
 
 Leicester, a list of inclosures in Leicester (Agric. Rep. ) gives several that are 
 not by act. 
 
 Nottingham, here again lists are given, and this time good lists with details, 
 Agric. Report, Nottingham, p. 23, and Appendix iv. p. 180. Reckoning 
 from these, inclosure by agreement form about 10 p.c. of total inclosures before 
 
 1798. 
 
 In Durham, according to list given in the Agricultural Report, about 2 
 or 3 p.c. of the inclosed land during period prior to 1813 inclosed by 
 agreement. 
 
 In Yorkshire, see Marshall, Yorkshire, i. 48-105, and references in Young, 
 Northern Tour, ii. 179. For Norfolk, Agric. Report, Norfolk, p. 31, etc., 
 gives date of north-west inclosure, 1 730-60, before much took place by act ; 
 see also Eastern Tour, ii. 150-163 ; Southern Tour, i. 22-23. 1° Berks 
 Agric. Report, Wallingford is in severalty by agreement if not fully inclosed, 
 p. 150. In Worcester, s^eements also occur, Agric. Report, Worcester, 
 p. 58 ; also in Bedford, Agric. Report, 225. 
 
 To this evidence as to existence of inclosure by agreement during the period 
 of active parliamentary means, there should be added the testimony of the 
 early acts which are often confirmatory of agreements already concluded and 
 sometimes executed. 
 
 While any estimate must be conjectural, some such addition as 3 to 5 p.c. of 
 the area inclosed, after 1750, might be made to allow for private inclosures, 
 or inclosure by agreement. 
 
54 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 who were unwilling.^ Again, in the controversy which 
 raged a little later as to the effect of the inclosures in the 
 Midlands, and particularly in Leicester, we are told of 
 the lords of the manors and others anxious to inclose that 
 if they cannot persuade, they commence a suit in law ; 
 and Mr. John Moore writes bitterly of the persecution 
 occasioned, and the pressure brought to bear upon those 
 who refuse to join in inclosures, by long suits in Chancery. 
 This is amply borne out by the very large number of 
 Chancery suits duly enrolled. In some cases these are 
 rather by way of record and so public confirmation ; in 
 other instances the proceedings may have acted as a 
 menace. That these cases were frequent is obvious from 
 the reference to them in the legal text-book published at 
 the end of the century. Again, according to Houghton, 
 writing in i68i, many inclosures had been made of late, 
 or were in process. He adds, " the more, I dare say, would 
 quickly follow, would they that are concerned and under- 
 stand it, daily persuade their neighbours." This though a 
 little indefinite, seems to point to action by general 
 agreement, since application to Parliament had not yet 
 begun. 
 
 It may indeed be urged that these inclosures by Chancery 
 suit require separate treatment. This is true in a sense, 
 as they obviously introduce an element of constraint alien 
 to the idea of general consent or free agreement. They 
 are mentioned here for three reasons. Firstly, as has 
 been already pointed out, lengthy legal proceedings were 
 held out as a menace to procure the voluntary assent 
 
 ^ P.C. Register, vii., Charles I., pp. 506-7: A case, where the petitioners, 
 being the inhabitants and landlords of Croft in Leicester, had made some 
 division of lands, setting aside lands for a general cow pasture and sheep 
 pasture. Against them were two who wished for a general inclosure, and to 
 procure this ploughed up the common closes thus set aside, and threatened to 
 turn their cattle into the com in the division for tillage, etc. Cf. P.C. 
 Reg., ju 197 (1634, 31 October). Hallhead, Inclosure thrown open (p. 8), " if 
 they who wish to inclose cannot persuade they commence a suit in law " ; they 
 ditch in their own land to make others go round (p. 9), or breed rabbits (p. 9). 
 Also Moore, The Crying Sin of England (^. 13), as to long suits in Chancery. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 55 
 
 of commoners to an inclosure. Secondly, in. some cases 
 they were resorted to in order to obtain an authoritative 
 record of agreements entered into without any legal com- 
 pulsion. Thirdly, the proceedings were often collusive, 
 hence indicative of assent on the part, at any rate, of some 
 of those concerned. They form a stage in a process which 
 in the main was in the direction of agreement, though they 
 obviously are in one aspect a means of compulsion, and 
 resulted incidentally in depriving some of their rights to 
 common. The extent to which they are recorded shows 
 how frequent was the resort to them, and how constant 
 the process to which they gave certainty. 
 
 Many of them were of the nature of collusive suits, 
 whereby two or more parties having concluded an agree- 
 ment to inclose, other parties applied to the court to 
 restrain the agreement until their rights were duly satisfied. 
 This brought out declarations as to the nature of the 
 common which existed, and as to those entitled to share 
 in it, and further gave the opportunity for requiring other 
 parties besides those thus acting in concert to put in an 
 appeara,nce and make their claim. By itself the method 
 would almost inevitably occasion some to consent and 
 some to withdraw from their rights, since the trouble 
 and expense would prove a great obstacle in the way of 
 the poorer commoners. There was an attempt to push 
 things further, and to consider the decision of the suit a 
 legal bar to claims of common on the side of those who 
 ■were not parties to it, since the author of the text-book 
 referred to, mentions this view only to refute it. He points 
 out that the decree would not affect rights which were 
 claimed by others than the parties to the case ; in other 
 words, apart from its coercive nature, and the general effect 
 it might produce on people not prone to legal proceedings, 
 it would be a mere registration of an agreement between 
 -certain parties. In some instances it was such avowedly. 
 It may be suggested that it was the recognition of this 
 limitation which led to the disuse of this particular method. 
 Its inability to procure anything like a binding or 
 
56 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 universal consent, together with the difficulty attending 
 purely voluntary, and even registered agreements, led to 
 the open and steady demand for powers to prevent ob- 
 struction which could be obtained only by application to 
 Parliament 
 
 No doubt the constitutional development which was 
 bringing into clear view the difference between the royal 
 power, whether exercised in the council or in chancery, 
 and that of actual sovereignty, increased the tendency 
 to consider Parliamentary sanction necessary. This 
 feeling found expression in the bill introduced into the 
 House of Lords, in 1 666, " for confirming of inclosures 
 made by decrees in Courts of Equity." After being read 
 a second time, this bill was sent to a committee and was 
 dropped. Had it passed into an Act, it is possible that 
 the most active period of inclosure, would have been 
 anticipated by nearly a century, while on the other hand 
 it may be doubted if resort would have been had to 
 private acts for this particular purpose. Another mark 
 of the growing parliamentary spirit as also of the im- 
 portance of the question of inclosure, was the abortive 
 attempt in the Commons, in 1664, to pass a bill "to inclose 
 and improve commons and waste lands." 
 
 (5) Private Acts and Parliamentary Enactments. So 
 far as the mere reference to Parliament was concerned, 
 inclosure under Act of Parliament was not a novel idea 
 when it came into constant use in the eighteenth century. 
 From the time of the Statute of Merton the regulation of 
 inclosure, sometimes in the direction of extension, some- 
 times by way of curtailment, finds not infrequent place in 
 the statute book. This was more particularly the case 
 after the accession of Henry VH., when, owing to the 
 large forfeitures, many manorial properties came into the 
 hands of new owners, and much inclosure took place, 
 which resulted, or was expected to result, in depopulation. 
 Hence the attention of Parliament to its regulation. It 
 would be a mistake to assume that the invariable object of 
 legislation was the mere preservation of commons or even 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 57 
 
 of the common field system. This view is impossible in the 
 face of such statutes as that which re-enacted and enforced 
 the power of approvement or those which especially em- 
 power small inclosures to be made near agricultural houses 
 or for other minor purposes. On the whole, certain kinds 
 of inclosure, especially inclosure from waste, were distinctly 
 encouraged. But statutes such as these were of general 
 importance. More closely akin to the private acts of the 
 eighteenth century were acts such as that whereby all 
 having rights of common in the waste within Bedford 
 level might improve, divide, and sever their resjjective pro- 
 portions.^ Elsewhere grants were made permitting inclosures 
 of lands reclaimed from the sea where such otherwise might 
 have been held subject to some common rights.* But 
 these, it may be argued, were of a particular nature. They 
 were certainly rather by way of exception than of rule. 
 
 After the middle of the same century the need 
 obviously felt on the part of many for inclosure or some 
 restriction on the system of common found expression in 
 various parliamentary efforts. During the Commonwealth 
 a bill " for improvement of waste grounds and regulating 
 of commons and commonable lands and preventing de- 
 population " was brought forward in the Commons, but 
 rejected after being read a first time (1656). In 1661 a 
 bill was introduced into the Commons "for making orders 
 and bye laws for well ordering and governing of common 
 fields." It was read a third time, 1662, but seems to have 
 proceeded no further. In this latter year another dealing 
 with commons was read twice, and another which aimed 
 at their improvement was read once. In 1664 the bill 
 already referred to, which permitted inclosure, was intro- 
 duced and negatived, though only by a majority of 105 to 
 94. In 1666 the bill to confirm decrees of inclosures in 
 
 ' The permission thus given by 15 C. II., t. 17 § 38, was revoked by i J. II., 
 c. 21 § 4, on the ground that such severance had led to diminution of stock and 
 decay of houses. 
 
 ^ Such a grant asserted in case of Hulcey Common. P.C. Reg. xiL, 455, 
 27 Nov., 1636. 
 
58 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Chancery was read in the House of Lords. The idea of a 
 general act dealing with inclosure was advocated in 1681 
 by Houghton, this time taking the form of a general per- 
 missive act to inclose, a suggestion pressed by the same 
 writer in 1700 and also advocated by others. Two bills 
 brought forward in the Commons during the last decade 
 of the seventeenth century went some distance in the same 
 direction. In 1696 a bill was introduced "to explain the 
 Statute of Merton and other statutes in regard to the 
 improvement of common,'' but on a division it was rejected. 
 In the following year, 1697, leave was obtained to bring 
 in a bill for making the statutes of Edward I. and Edward 
 VI. against burning and destroying inclosures more 
 effectual. After it was read a first time, a petition was 
 presented against it which alleged that it was being 
 promoted in the interests of a party to a particular dispute, 
 and either on this or on general grounds no further steps 
 were taken. A long time was to elapse before any general 
 change in the law was made; and it was not till 1801 
 that a general act for inclosure was passed. Even then 
 the act, it must be observed, was very different from that 
 suggested by Houghton, being nothing more than a 
 general and uniform enactment of certain clauses which a 
 long experience of private acts had shown to be necessary, 
 thus facilitating inclosure by private act and not obviating 
 the need for them. 
 
 Inclosure by private act begins systematically with the 
 Acts of Anne, as for instance the one confirming the 
 agreement for enclosing Ropley Commons in the county 
 of Hampshire. There had, it is true, been an early 
 precedent, dating so far back as 4 James I., when an act 
 was passed for the inclosure in severalty of one- third of 
 the land at Harden and Bodenham ; but this act remained 
 an isolated instance of this particular method of dealing 
 with the difficulties of common field cultivation for more 
 than a century. With the enactment of the acts for 
 inclosure in the early years of Anne a new epoch begins. 
 These acts were followed by several in the reign of 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 59 
 
 George I. With the next reign the acts increase till at 
 the close they swell into a very large number in each year. 
 
 The intervention of Parliament in this sphere coincides 
 with the general extension of its activities which marks 
 the end of the personal rule of the crown. Here, as else- 
 where, as for instance in the case of monopoly and other 
 companies, parliamentary sanction is sought where 
 formerly the authority of the crown exercised through the 
 council or otherwise, as in the specific instance of 
 inclosures, was deemed sufficient. The decree in Chancery 
 and the private act have this element in common, that 
 they both record the action of the crown in regard to a 
 petition brought forward by certain parties desiring relief 
 from the difficulties in which they find themselves. Hence, 
 indeed, the growth of private acts and their substitution 
 for other forms whereby assent is announced to the 
 humble petition of the subjects of the crown marks no 
 sudden change save so far as the form of the procedure 
 changes whereby redress is sought. Constitutionally, of 
 course, the change is of the utmost moment, for it signifies 
 the recognition of the Houses of Parliament as an 
 integral element in the sovereign's assent ; but so far as 
 action in a particular sphere is concerned, it is not of 
 great importance. In both cases some sort of agreement 
 among some, at least, of the parties concerned usually 
 preceded the application. 
 
 This new stage on which inclosure enters under parlia- 
 mentary authority admits of division into three periods. 
 During the first, which extends through the eighteenth 
 century to the general act of 1801, the growth of the 
 private acts may be traced from the very rudimentary 
 form of the earlier acts to that high degree of develop- 
 ment where, by reason of the very uniformity and 
 complexity of the provisions included on each occasion, a 
 general act was rendered not only feasible and useful but 
 essential. The second period is from 1801 to 1842-5,^ and 
 includes the private acts which were passed in accordance 
 * That is, to the general act of 1845. 
 
6o COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 with the provisions of the general act. After 1845 the 
 powers hitherto exercised directly by parliament, and 
 through commissioners specially appointed by act, were 
 delegated to different permanent bodies established by 
 act, and subject to parliamentary control inasmuch as their 
 decisions or orders had to remain on the table of the 
 Houses before becoming operative. 
 
 The gradual development of the private inclosure act 
 during the first period is interesting from many points of 
 view. In the first place light is thrown on the ends 
 sought by inclosure, and in particular on the reasons 
 which instigated the applications to Parliament. In the 
 second place, with time and experience the need of 
 particular safeguards and of particular methods is revealed ; 
 while, thirdly and lastly, we find the various local efforts 
 and experiments growing into a uniform method and well 
 recognised procedure. 
 
 With regard to the first point, the close connection 
 between the inclosure by agreement and that now sought 
 by private act is clear even in detail. Not only from 
 the earliest time is there a reference to some agreement 
 on the part of the petitioners, a feature which of course 
 continues throughout, but in some instances during the 
 earlier part of the eighteenth century the act is often 
 little more than a recital and a re-enactment of an agree- 
 ment already made, and of a scheme of inclosure adopted 
 and partly carried out. Though in most cases the act 
 includes the appointment of commissioners who are to do 
 something in the way of inclosure, there are cases when it 
 is so purely confirmatory that further action even of this 
 kind is not provided for. In the earlier years the inclosure 
 of Ropley, Overton Longville,^ and Thurnscoe,^ are of 
 this kind, the last named indeed reciting an agreement 
 of 1 7 1 7 and confirming it. Later in the reign of George 
 II. we have good instances of such confirmatory acts in 
 the case of Culceth^ and Yatton.* In the former 
 
 ' I G. I. * 2 and 3 G. II. York. 
 
 = 23G. II. Lancaster. "240.11. Somerset. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 6i 
 
 instance the articles of agreement indented in 23 George 
 II. having been recited, the act proceeds: "and whereas 
 the executing and effecting the said agreement would be 
 for the mutual benefit of all persons interested in the said 
 commons and waste lands and be of public utility ; yet 
 the same cannot be established and rendered effectual to 
 answer the intention of the parties without the aid and 
 authority of an Act of Parliament." Confirmation of the 
 agreement then follows. Such confirmatory acts occur in 
 sufficient number^ to warrant the assertion that in its early 
 stages the private act was often a form of recognising 
 agreements which formerly had been registered in the 
 Court of Chancery or carried out without dispute. In 
 most cases certain safeguards are taken to give some 
 security to the rights of those who are not petitioners, 
 that is, where a unanimous assent is not shown. Some- 
 what akin to such acts are those where agreement is 
 announced on the part of some, but where the dissent or 
 opposition of some few is alleged as a reason for coming 
 to Parliament This is shown in the instance of Little 
 Rissington, where it is announced that there have been 
 letters of agreement, " but for want of the consent of some 
 few people . . . the same cannot be done effectually without 
 the authority of Parliament." ^ Even in the early 
 decades, however, there are instances of the form of act 
 which becomes predominant with the progress of the 
 century, that is, instances where, after the announcement 
 
 ' In addition to the number as shown by words of act, the following 
 passage may be cited from Agric. Report, Derby (iSll), p. 78: "In Duck- 
 manton, Temple-Normanton, and some other places, the division was made by 
 consent and acts obtained, for confirming the same." 
 
 In the case of Ridley, 25 G. II., the act required for Confirming the 
 Articles of Agreement. It recites the agreement and process, and then 
 enacts and confirms it. Cf. Compton Bassett. 
 
 The Award at Oaksey in Wilts, 1802-3, where there is only one commis- 
 sioner, accepts survey made before the passing of the act (Close Rolls, 1802-3, 
 PL 10, No. 10). 
 
 ''Cf. Claughton, 2 and 3 G. II., where an agreement by deed poll, 1729, is 
 recited, and then it is stated that owing to the execution of this being obstructed 
 by some, the authority of Parliament is invoked. 
 
62 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 of a desire on the part of some of those interested, steps 
 are taken to proceed by the appointment of com- 
 missioners. These, which become the normal type, are at 
 first among the least usual. Their growth may be taken 
 as indicative of the change whereby inclosure by act 
 becomes an ordinary method of agricultural improvement. 
 One particular reason for inclosure remains to be noticed. 
 Cases occur of inclosure of commons or rather of parts of 
 commons which are separated into individual property 
 and handed over to the lord of the manor or a wealthy 
 proprietor in return for a yearly payment to be applied 
 for the relief of the poor and in reduction of the poor 
 rate.-"- Such inclosures of commons or waste land are 
 undertaken on account of the burden incurred in reliev- 
 ing the poor. 
 
 On turning to the actual development of these acts, as 
 shown in the nature of the different clauses, it is remark- 
 able to notice how speedily the attention of the committees 
 to which the bills were sent was directed to the main 
 features of importance, with the result that the work of 
 legislation in the latter part of the century is mainly 
 confined to elaborating and supplementing leading pro- 
 visions laid down in outline in the early years. To some 
 extent this supports the view taken above that private 
 acts were largely by way of formal embodiment of agree- 
 ments which had come into fairly frequent use, and which 
 consequently provided a usage and a series of precedents 
 for the legislature to follow. 
 
 The points of importance in the acts as finally shown 
 by the provisions incorporated in the general act of 1 80 1 
 relate to the appointment of commissioners, the method 
 of procedure and work of the commission thus appointed, 
 the laying out of roads, the mode of division, provisions 
 as to hedging and ditching, the apportionment of the 
 expenses, and the enrolment and custody of the award. 
 
 'As at Chipping Bamet, -^ G. II., an act to inclose 135 acres of common 
 by Duke of Chandos. A rent to be paid in relief of charges for the poor j 
 Hadleigh, 2 G. II. ; East Wellow, 2 and 3 G. II. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 63 
 
 The first few acts, while mentioning some of these 
 matters, are very general in character ; but with their 
 exception, careful provisions are early introduced for 
 effective security in the various directions. Such progress 
 can be sketched under the separate headings. Speaking 
 broadly, by the end of the decade, 1 761- 1 770, the in- 
 sertion in the acts of the requisite safeguards had been 
 secured by experience, while in many respects an even 
 earlier date may be taken. 
 
 With regard to the appointment of commissioners, the 
 bill naturally follows the agreement when such is recited, 
 but they are bidden to act with impartiality, an exhorta- 
 tion which is finally embodied in the oath which is 
 prescribed. The oath was generally adopted about 1760,* 
 and after that date is usually stated in the provisions of 
 the act. 
 
 The method of procedure and work is more intricate in 
 its development. In the first place, there is a gradual 
 growth of prescription as to the publicity to be given to 
 the application for inclosure and of the times and places of 
 the meetings to be held for its determination. This need 
 manifests itself at an early date, and in the Sunningwell 
 inclosure elaborate care is taken to secure public notice.^ 
 From the beginning of the reign of George II., clauses as 
 to the notice to be given and other like matters are 
 common. There was another point of importance which 
 is determined by much the same date. The commissioners 
 are to take notice of the quality of the lands held as well 
 as of the quantity : ^ and to enable their inquiry to be as 
 complete as possible, in certain acts, as at Crofton, they 
 are bidden to examine lands already held in separate 
 ownership — that is, the so-called " old inclosed " land. A 
 regular survey is soon enjoined, and at a comparatively 
 early date the commissioners are empowered to appoint a 
 surveyor. This practice appears to have been very 
 general, and is treated by Homer as essential. On the 
 
 ^Horner, p. 60. 'Cf. Chenington, I G. II. 
 
 ' See above, Chenii^ton. 
 
64 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 other hand, the early acts themselves do not contain any 
 very definite instructions as to the way in which claimants 
 are to make their claims. By the end of George II. it 
 has been found necessary to state a limitation on the 
 powers of the commissioners. These are not to extend to 
 any decision as to the actual titles of the claimants, such 
 titles being transferred to the new allotments.^ 
 
 The laying out of roads is very early designated as a 
 first duty of the commission, and instructions to this 
 effect, though at first confined to public roads, are soon 
 extended to meet the case of private roads.* The width 
 of the roads and conditions as to fencing form part of 
 many acts. 
 
 The actual allotment occupies considerable attention, 
 and is fully dealt with in many early acts, with some one 
 or two minor exceptions. Thus, they are to be made 
 without any undue preferences, they are to be accepted in 
 full compensation, their acceptance is to be signified 
 within a certain limit of time, and the consent of guardians 
 may be taken on behalf of minors, or those incapable of 
 managing their own affairs. On this latter point, a reser- 
 vation is finally made so far as such acceptance is con- 
 cerned, since in the case of minors a power of acceptance 
 comes to be reserved. 
 
 Again, the provisions as to hedging and ditching of 
 allotments soon acquire a fairly regular form, though here 
 a number of small points both as to time and manner 
 occasion a certain amount of variation as they present 
 themselves through experience. Thus the ownership of 
 trees and hedges in land transferred claims attention. For 
 some time the original owners have the right of removal, 
 but by the general act (iSoi) they are to be transferred 
 and paid for. Temporary fences for the protection of 
 newly planted boundary hedges are allowed for a limited 
 period of time, ultimately fixed at seven years. 
 
 The division of expenses and the financial responsibility 
 
 ' See Farthingstone (Northampton), 24 G. II. Cf. p. 75. 
 ° This finds place in the case of Cheningtcn. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 65 
 
 of the commissioners become more important features as 
 time goes on. 
 
 So far as the general structure of these private acts are 
 concerned, a fairly constant form seems to have been 
 attained by the end of the reign of George II., by which 
 time a considerable number of acts had been passed, 
 many during the active inclosure years beginning with 
 1 751- Horner's treatise amply confirms in this respect 
 what may be gathered from an inspection of the acts 
 themselves. No doubt the method adopted from the first 
 of sending the bill to a committee led to this uniformity 
 in usage.^ The experience thus gained soon shows itself 
 in this way. It is also manifest in certain standing orders 
 passed by the House of Commons towards the close of 
 what may be called the first section of the first period 
 of inclosure acts — that is, the years from 1751 to 1 780. 
 Three such standing orders are important. In 1774 all 
 bills are to include a clause compelling the commissioners 
 to account in full for all monies laid out and assessed by 
 them. In 1781 it is laid down that there are to be pro- 
 visions as to the fencing of the carriage roads which must 
 include a regulation as to the distance within which trees 
 must not be planted ; and also as to the appointment of a 
 surveyor, whose first work shall include the fencing of 
 such roads. His salary is to be provided either by the 
 sale of some part of the lands, or by a rate levied on those 
 interested in the inclosure. 
 
 The approach to uniformity, together with the differences 
 in many points, mainly, it is true small points, served to 
 bring into prominence the need for a general act which 
 should contain general regulations. But a general act 
 was urged on other grounds than this. It was advocated 
 with fervour in the interests of inclosure and in order to 
 secure its greater rapidity. The warmest advocates of any 
 
 1 The procedure in the case of Ropley can be traced in the Journals. The 
 bill was received from the Lords, and referred to a Committee who heard the 
 petitions for and against it. ( C. Journals, xvi. 385. ) It was passed by the 
 Commons, 27 March 1 7 10. 
 
 E 
 
66 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 such measure supported it as a means of securing that 
 which they desired, universal inclosure of the lands that 
 lay open throughout the country. It was in this spirit 
 that the project of a general act was put forward by 
 Houghton in 1681, though the form of enactment as 
 suggested by him was permissive. Similarly, the more 
 continued support given to any such measure towards the 
 end of the eighteenth century was largely inspired by a 
 like desire. Thus one writer,^ just one century later than 
 Houghton, urges on this ground a general act to be ad- 
 ministered by permanent commissioners. His suggestions 
 largely confine themselves to the commons, thus ignoring 
 the open fields. In respect of the commons he advises 
 the appointment of commissioners for each county who 
 shall proceed to apportion and inclose the commons. 
 Their action might be directed first to cases where special 
 requests were made, but otherwise it should be exerted 
 generally throughout the county, though he admits that, 
 on opposition by a majority of five-sixths of those con- 
 cerned, their powers should lapse and the commons be 
 allowed to remain. The attitude of such well-known 
 reformers and expert writers as Arthur Young and 
 Marshall was in favour of some general measure, and a 
 like aim can be traced in the parliamentary efforts in the 
 closing decade of the century. But the effect of a general 
 act in procuring uniformity in inclosure receives much 
 notice both by these as well as by other writers. Thus it 
 is pointed out that a general act with general provisions 
 would do much to lessen the complaints due to the bad 
 methods adopted in certain instances.^ Furthermore, it 
 would be a means of decreasing expense. 
 
 With the year 1795 began a serious parliamentary 
 struggle to introduce changes into the law which might 
 facilitate inclosure, on the one hand by the reduction of 
 
 ' Observaiums on a pamphlet entitled an Enquiry into the advantages and 
 disadvantages resulting from Bills of Inclosure, etc., 1781, pp. 56-7. 
 
 * An Enquiry into the advantages and disadvantages resulting from Bills of 
 Inclosure, 1780, p. 27. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 67 
 
 the attendant expenses, and on the other hand by the 
 provision of means whereby the obstinate opponents of 
 the improvement should be deprived wholly or in part of 
 their powers of resistance. The attempt was keenly con- 
 tested, though the weight of the new Board of Agriculture 
 and of its president, Sir John Sinclair, was exerted in 
 favour of the proposed change. The course of events 
 may be traced. 
 
 On I ith December, 1795, a committee, including the 
 indefatigable Sir John, was appointed "to take into con- 
 sideration the cultivation and improvement of the waste, 
 uninclosed, and unproductive lands of the Kingdom." Its 
 report, presented 23 rd December in the same year, treats 
 of the general position of common and common right, and 
 of the difficulties and expenses attending inclosure. On 
 2nd February, 1796, it was read and a bill brought "for 
 facilitating the division and inclosure of waste lands and 
 commons, by agreement among the parties concerned, or 
 a certain proportion thereof, and for removing certain legal 
 disabilities that might otherwise stand in the way of such 
 agreement." On 22nd February it was read a second 
 time and sent to a select committee. It was brought into 
 the House on March i8th and again sent to a select 
 committee. The report stage was reached on April 22nd, 
 when the consideration was deferred till May 4th. When 
 the Speaker took the chair on that day the House was 
 counted out, the bill consequently falling through. As 
 may be judged from this rather remarkable record the 
 bill met with steady opposition, due, it may be, to its 
 failure to meet the considerable difficulties of the position. 
 The most controversial clauses were those empowering a 
 majority to decide and compel inclosure and appointing 
 commissioners. Together with these there were proposals 
 of a much less disputed nature, and it was no doubt with 
 the aim of drawing a line of separation between these very 
 different proposals that a motion was made (March 21st) 
 to allow the committee to cut the bill into two. This, 
 however, was negatived. 
 
68 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 A new attempt was made in 1 797, when on March 27th 
 another committee, with a like reference and including 
 Sinclair, was appointed. Its report was followed by 
 resolutions which were moved and then embodied in two 
 bills ; both of which were brought in on 5 th May. This 
 to some extent shows an attempt to carry out the idea of 
 separating the less from the more controversial aims of 
 those anxious to forward inclosure. One bill met with a 
 fair amount of support. It sought to facilitate the power 
 of agreement, and especially provides that in cases coming 
 under it all those interested should be agreed ; in other 
 words, it furnishes a uniform method of formal agreement.^ 
 This bill passed the House of Commons, being read a 
 third time 7th July, and was read a first time in the 
 Lords ; a motion, however, to commit the bill (14th July) 
 was negatived, and the bill itself rejected. The other 
 measure was far more extreme. Its aim and its methods 
 may be judged from its title. It enabled any person or 
 persons entitled to any waste, uninclosed, and unproductive 
 lands, common arable fields, common meadows, or common 
 of pasture, in that part of Great Britain called England, 
 to divide, inclose, and hold the same in severalty.'' But 
 this fails to represent adequately the very drastic nature 
 of its proposals. It almost gratuitously emphasises points 
 on which controversy was sure to arise, going in this respect 
 far beyond the bill of the preceding year. By that a 
 majority could compel inclosure ; by this a minority, how- 
 ever small, could require a separation and allotment in 
 severalty of that which was determined to be theirs. 
 The rest of the land would remain in common. The 
 clause as to the appointment of the commissioner also 
 deserves a word. A commissioner was to be appointed by 
 both assenters and dissentients. These two might agree, 
 
 '- " For dividing, allotting, and inclosing the waste lands, commons, common 
 fields, and the commonable lands in that part of Great Britain called 
 England, by agreement amongst the parties interested therein, and for removing 
 any legal disabilities that may stand in the way of such agreement." 
 
 From the body of the bill it applies to England and Wales. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 69 
 
 if they could, upon a third. If they failed to agree, they 
 were to draw lots, and the one who was successful was to 
 have the right of appointment. It is surprising to find 
 that this measure received a second reading (iSth May) 
 and went so far as to be sent to a committee. On May 
 24th its further consideration was deferred for three 
 months. 
 
 The account of these two attempts brings into clear 
 relief the different motives instigating the parliamentary 
 campaign. On the one hand was the desire to introduce a 
 much needed administrative reform ; on the other a desire 
 to force inclosure in all directions and on all lands. The 
 unstatesmanlike pertinacity of those who clung to the 
 more extreme hindered for some time the practical relief 
 which could be obtained by an alteration in the legislative 
 method of dealing with inclosure. 
 
 A new campaign opens in 1800, but this time the 
 more moderate party was obviously in the ascendant. 
 On 8th March in that year a third committee was 
 appointed. Its report, which was presented to the House 
 of Commons on 17th April, dealt mainly with the 
 difficulties and expense attending inclosures. In view of 
 these certain resolutions were agreed to, and with more 
 caution than on previous occasions sent up to the Lords. 
 After consideration the Lords passed resolutions in much 
 the same sense, which were duly sent down to the 
 Commons (9th July). The main point thus dealt with 
 was the desirability of incorporating in one measure the 
 general provisions requisite on inclosure. A bill for this 
 purpose was brought into the Commons, i6th July, and 
 read a third time, 23rd July. It was read a first time in 
 Lords on the same day, but there it stopped, its further 
 progress being cut short by the prorogation on 29th July. 
 
 Next year a bill " for consolidating in one act certain 
 provisions usually inserted in Acts of Inclosure" passed 
 both Houses,* and received the royal assent on 2nd July. 
 
 ^ Its passage was rapid : thus in the Lords, First Reading, 25th June ; 
 Second Reading, 27th June ; Third Reading, 30th June. 
 
70 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 The circumstances occasioning the demand for the 
 general act relate to the marked increase in inclosure 
 taking place during the last decade (1791-1800) of the 
 century. A steady growth, largely to be attributed to the 
 rising price of provisions, was manifesting itself, and with 
 this growth the desire for a more uniform and less 
 expensive method gathered strength. On the other hand, 
 to the enactment itself may be attributed much of the 
 continued activity manifested in the early years of the 
 nineteenth century. So this measure, while originating in 
 the prominence given to the need for better machinery, by 
 the improvement it introduces in this respect lends new 
 force to the movement. Private acts were simplified, 
 though, unfortunately, there is little ground for believing 
 that the heavy exf)enses were diminished greatly, if at all. 
 
 In another sense an important result was achieved. 
 The passage of the act, aided by the results of the first 
 census, really marks the defeat as a party that counted 
 of those who had been opposing inclosure and denouncing 
 its results. 
 
Ill 
 
 THE METHOD OF INCLOSURE IN THE 
 EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES 
 
 Prior to the eighteenth century the method of inclosure 
 was so much a matter of voluntary assent or arbitrary 
 action that little uniformity or principle could be expected 
 in the division of the land concerned. Land was allotted 
 and the fields were inclosed in a manner which was 
 agreeable to those acting together or in such fashion as 
 the stronger might determine. But with the systematic 
 development which took place in that century a fixed 
 method and certain principles of apportionment manifested 
 themselves. As the years passed, and as the acts multi- 
 plied, these became stereotyped in practice to such an 
 extent that on the one hand the method followed in 
 inclosures conformed to certain definite and almost 
 invariable principles, while on the other hand the adminis- 
 tration of the law grew to be nearly as important as the 
 law itself. So large was the discretion of the com- 
 missioners entrusted with the actual determination and 
 carrying out of the inclosure that a sketch of the way in 
 which they proceeded is a necessary basis to any attempt 
 to estimate the fairness of the division and the general 
 effect of the great change. Fortunately the materials for 
 such a sketch are not wanting. On the one hand we 
 have the statements of able contemporaries, especially 
 Horner and Marshall ; ^ on the other hand the awards 
 
 ' The best account of the process of inclosure is undoubtedly to be found in 
 Horner's treatise, An Essay upon the nature and method of ascertaining the 
 
72 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 drawn up by the commissioners furnish interesting informa- 
 tion as to the way in which their functions were performed. 
 
 In the main the matters requiring attention relate to 
 the steps whereby the acts were carried out, but in one or 
 two aspects the process of obtaining an act is of at any 
 rate equal importance. 
 
 The application for an act involved expense, and 
 though this may for one purpose be regarded as part of 
 the general expense, from another point of view it requires 
 separate notice by reason of certain particular effects. 
 Some one or more people had to be found prepared 
 to undertake this initial expenditure, in case of failure 
 to obtain an act and to carry out the project. In such 
 case this expense would fall upon the promoters of 
 the scheme. When the application was successful, it, 
 together with other expenses, was defrayed out of a fund 
 raised in the course of the inclosure. No doubt, as time 
 went on, the matter became largely one of routine, but 
 though the probability of failure was comparatively small, 
 it could not be overlooked. Even in the latter half of 
 the eighteenth century failure was a possibility to be 
 taken into account. Sometimes the attempt to promote a 
 petition broke down, sometimes the private bill failed at 
 some point in the proceedings prescribed by the standing 
 orders, and had in consequence to be withdrawn.^ 
 
 specific shara of proprietors upon the inclosure of common fields, 1761. Next 
 to this may be placed Marshall's Appropriation and Inclosure of Covtmonable 
 Lands, 1801. This, however, is less sj-stematic and complete for this par- 
 ticular purpose. The process itself is illustrated in the awards. These, taken 
 together with the acts in pursuance of which they are made, give an authorita- 
 tive picture, but one which needs some interpretation. 
 
 ^ In the case of Sancton, an antagonistic petition was presented and 
 referred to the committee with instructions to hear counsel (Com. Journals, 
 xxxii. 1, xxxii. 182). Cf. case of Ryslip, 1768-9. In the case of North 
 Littleton the petition was ordered to lie on the table (8th Feb. 1770, Com. 
 Journals, xxxii. 674). The bill for Ereswell was not brought in (loth Feb. 
 1770, Com. Journals, xxxii. 688). Petitions might be opposed ; thus the 
 attempt at Weston Zcvland was opposed and defeated by Bishop of Bath and 
 Vi^ells. Agric. Report, Somerset (1798), p. 199. Cf. North Riding, 201, bill 
 dropped on opposition of lord of manor. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 73 
 
 This need for preliminary outlay combined with other 
 causes to give the large proprietors of land a very 
 dominant interest in the case of any application. Their 
 assent was necessary, and their wishes and interests 
 largely determined the particular form of the application. 
 The part played by the small proprietor was, at any rate 
 at first, insignificant. During the controversy in the latter 
 part of the century, mainly indeed from those opposed ^ to 
 inclosure, comes complaint as to the power placed in 
 the hands of the great proprietors. In one case a bill 
 is dropped on the opposition of the lord of the manor ; 
 in others we are told that the application is determined 
 by the wishes of a few great proprietors. These instances 
 might seem to confine their influence to determining 
 whether or not there should be inclosure ; but it went 
 further. The petition might be drafted to suit their 
 interests. After drafting it had to be submitted un- 
 doubtedly to a meeting of those interested, but in that 
 case the meeting often could do little but either -accept 
 the proposal without alteration or reject it entirely. Often, 
 we are told, the small owners were practically unable to 
 resist,^ even though opposed altogether to inclosure. 
 With regard to this matter it should be remembered that 
 the part thus played by the large proprietors and lords 
 of the manor was less dominant than in earlier days when 
 the action of the lord of the manor, either alone or in 
 concert with some few large owners, was unchecked by 
 the consideration of the rights of others. It was subject 
 in theory to some assent of a certain proportion of those 
 interested, and as time passed this assent became a more 
 real factor. Further, the question of expenses must be 
 borne in mind. From another point of view, that is 
 with regard to the general interest of the country and the 
 
 ^ Thus Addington, An Enquiry inic the reasims, etc., p. 21 ; An Enquiry into 
 the advantages and disadvantages resulting from Bills of Inclosure, p. 1 8. 
 Among those favouring inclosure Young bears testimony to much the same 
 effect (Northern Tour, i. 222-233). 
 
 Agric. Report, Lincoln (1799) p. 85. 
 
74 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 improvement of cultivation, the enterprise of the large 
 proprietors was required. They were more alive to what 
 was taking place in other districts, and keener to share in 
 the advantages offered by new methods. But for them 
 and their interest, inspired though the latter might be by 
 the hope of personal advantage, the progress of inclosure 
 would have been much slower. Still, it is no doubt true 
 that in the first two-thirds, and to a considerable extent 
 throughout the whole eighteenth century, the real power 
 in determining on inclosure and in devising the particular 
 form and detail of the petition lay with the few and not 
 with the many. One matter was held to be of great 
 importance. In most cases the commissioner or com- 
 missioners were named in the preliminary agreement or 
 petition, and the appointment merely ratified by act. In 
 others the choice was to be made at a public meeting to 
 be held subsequently. In practice, however, it does not 
 seem correct to assert that this appointment of the com- 
 missioners, in which the promoters undoubtedly exercised 
 great influence, resulted in substantial injustice to those 
 possessed of legal rights. Their duties were defined by 
 practice, while in many districts the office became almost 
 professional in its character, the same individuals pro- 
 ceeding from one inclosure to another. 
 
 As has been said the commissioners were appointed in 
 different ways. They were in most cases named in the 
 petition or draft bill, but sometimes they were elected at a 
 public meeting held under conditions laid down by the 
 act. In the case of vacancies caused by retirement or 
 death the surviving commissioners often had power to 
 appoint a successor after due public notice. Their 
 number varied. In most instances three were appointed, 
 but sometimes one man was chosen to act alone, largely, 
 no doubt, on ground of expense.^ Nor are instances 
 
 ' Only one commissioner was appointed in the following, for instance : 
 Oatsey, VS/ilts (Close Rolls, 1802-3, Pt. 10, No. 10) ; Iken, Suffolk (Close 
 Rolls, 1804-S, Pt. 15, No. 14); Damerham, Wilts (Close Rolls, 1841, Pt. 69, 
 No. l). At Goring (Close Rolls, 1812-13, Pt. 26, No. 3), there were two com- 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 75 
 
 wanting where a neighbouring gentleman acted without 
 payment.^ This, however, was not usual, and it may be 
 doubted if it was desirable, since, as will be seen, the task 
 was one of considerable intricacy and such that both time 
 and experience were required for its equitable perform- 
 ance. Probably the best commissioners were practical 
 men with knowledge of farming and surveying, who 
 gained experience from being employed in inclosure after 
 inclosure. The commissioner was bound by oath to 
 administer the work with justice. 
 
 The powers of the commissioners were very consider- 
 able ; and against this excessive power considerable 
 complaints were raised. Except so far as the actual 
 decision of the title to property was concerned the award 
 of the commissioners was final. It determined at once 
 the claim to common, the amount of that claim, and the 
 allotment to be made in respect of it ; and from this 
 decision, provided all forms were complied with, there was 
 no appeal. Against this unrestricted but inevitable 
 power it was protested that the decision of the com- 
 missioners ought to be subject to appeal to a court of law, 
 that there was frequent mismanagement,^ and that the 
 powers thus entrusted were, at any rate in some cases, 
 exercised in an arbitrary manner. With regard to the 
 complaint, it is of course clear that any attempt to 
 supplement the inquiry and decision of the commissioners 
 
 niissioners. These occasional instances taken from the Close Kolls show that 
 at times in small or rather small inclosures less than three were chosen. One 
 commissioner instead of three at Staverton and Boddington in Gloucester, 
 and consequent saving in expense (Agric. Report, Glotuesler, p. 92). 
 
 The usual number was tliree, and the author of An Ettquiry into the ad- 
 vantages and disadvantages, etc., argued that there should be more than three 
 (pp. 46-7), that they should be legally qualified (p. 48), and that an appeal 
 (p. 36) should be allowed from their decision. Such a system, had it been 
 adopted, would have made proceedings almost impossible by reason of delay 
 and expense. 
 
 ' General Report, p. 98. Agric. Report, Hertford, p. 44. 
 
 - Stone, Suggestions for rendering the inelosure of common fields attd waste 
 lands a source of population and riches, 1787, is very emphatic as to frequent 
 mismans^ement, p. Si. 
 
76 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 by a subsequent legal appeal would have proved a grave 
 obstacle to the reform which it was desired to promote. 
 In this instance, as so often, protest against special powers 
 was with many a mere veil for the desire to obstruct the 
 very purpose for which those powers were conferred. But 
 whilst this was true of many it was not of all. There 
 was mismanagement in many cases, and there was 
 much that was arbitrary in the action of some of the 
 commissioners. One strong advocate of inclosures 
 accounts for the undoubted disfavour attending them in 
 some parts on the ground of mismanagement. Nor was 
 he alone. Again, as to the charge of arbitrary conduct, 
 some confirmation can be found in the statement of some 
 of the commissioners themselves. One, for instance, said 
 that it was his custom when he found that additional 
 expenses had been incurred by what he deemed unreason- 
 able opposition, to take that into account in apportioning 
 allotments to those guilty of such conduct.^ Another, 
 with an equally rough attempt at equity, made it his 
 business to consider the allotments to the smaller pro- 
 prietors first and favourably because they, as he said, had 
 little power to decide on the inclosure or to control its 
 course.* But instances such as these show a desire to 
 act with fairness. Again, the claims of the poor were 
 very differently dealt with by different commissioners, 
 principles admitted in some cases being ignored in others. 
 Still, taking the conduct of the inclosures and the awards 
 as a whole, there seems to be no ground for alleging 
 a general partiality on behalf of any particular class. The 
 work appears to have been honestly, if not always well, 
 done, and to have been marked by a rough and ready 
 fairness. The defects lay not so much in the com- 
 missioners as in the absence of any general body of rules 
 to guide them or of uniformity in the acts they had to 
 carry out, a defect more noticeable in the earlier years 
 and cured by the growth of precedent ; and, further, in 
 
 ^ An En^iry into tie advantages atid disadvantages, etc., p. 40. 
 ''■ Agric. Report, Lincoln (1799), p. 85. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 77 
 
 the want by some of an adequate appreciation of certain 
 almost inevitable though unintentional consequences. But 
 these will concern us more elsewhere. 
 
 The local proceedings were obviously arranged with a 
 view to publicity, a feature more marked with time and 
 distinctly emphasised in Parliament. As a rule they 
 opened with a public meeting called by advertisement, 
 which either considered a petition, in many cases already 
 prepared, or empowered such to be drawn up. After that 
 notices of the intended application had, by the standing 
 orders of the House of Commons, to be affixed to the 
 church door in each parish affected for three Sundays, 
 these falling as a rule in August or September. The 
 draft was then prepared, and signatures obtained, showing 
 consent or degree of consent. With regard to this point 
 the committee demanded proof by witness. The bill then 
 was brought in and passed through its various stages. 
 
 But the act obtained, and the commissioners thus 
 appointed, the real work began. As a rule the com- 
 missioners held a public meeting in the district and then 
 appointed the officials required to assist them. Apart 
 from a clerk these consisted of a surveyor and a valuer, 
 both of whom had work of considerable importance. 
 Before anything could be effected two things were 
 necessary, the survey and the valuation. The survey, of 
 course, was the simpler of the two. It was a measured 
 plan of the lands and fields to be inclosed, and of the 
 separate parcels belonging to the various proprietors. 
 As a rule existing or ancient inclosures were also 
 measured. If a general exoneration of tithe was involved, 
 a money payment would have to be made on their behalf. 
 The valuation required to be made by some one possessed 
 of good farming knowledge and judgment, who could 
 estimate the real value and capacity of the different acres 
 and parcels of land according to the crops they could bear. 
 " There should be," we are told, " a critical examination of 
 the soil, as well as of the herbage which it produces, an 
 enquiry into its latent qualities, whether it contains 
 
78 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 anything noxious to any species of profitable cattle? 
 Whether particular seasons are not adapted to it, and how 
 far it is affected by the present ? What management it 
 has been under for a course of years past, and the like ? 
 To these should be added a due regard to its situation 
 for convenience ; and a consideration of the different 
 expense of inclosing according to its greater or less 
 intrinsick value." ^ The object was to ascertain the value 
 of all the land and each part of the land when put to its 
 proper use, that is, after inclosure. With the survey, the 
 valuation, and the present rent roll before them, the com- 
 missioners had the materials necessary for the serious 
 work of allotment. The difference between the present 
 value of the land as shown by the existing rents and by 
 the valuation was the improvement of the field and the 
 sum of the advantages to be expected from inclosure. 
 
 The problem which then presented itself was the fair 
 division of this advantage between the different parties 
 concerned. This may be treated under three headings. 
 First of all rank the expenses of the inclosure and other 
 payments due rather out of a common fund than in any 
 proportion to a right or claim. Secondly, the general, or 
 as they were sometimes termed the abstract, rights of the 
 lord of the manor and the owner of tithe had to be met. 
 Thirdly, the respective claims of those possessing rights 
 required satisfaction. 
 
 The general expenses were heavy ; but their estima- 
 tion presented little difficulty. Land had to be set aside 
 for roads, and means provided for their making. In some 
 cases common drainage works were undertaken,^ and in one 
 celebrated case an irrigation system' was provided for. 
 Very often land for a gravel pit might be put aside for 
 road repairs. Again in many inclosures a fund is pro- 
 vided for the poor, though in other instances these receive 
 
 ^ Horner, Essay, pp. 48-49. 
 
 ''Thus special drainage scheme in Maulden {Agric. Report, Derbyshire 
 (1813), ii. 485, etc.). 
 
 ' At Ridgemount" ( General Report, 93-5). 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 79 
 
 a common, apportioned, it would seem, as a matter of grace. 
 Finally a deduction was to be made for the expenses 
 entailed by the passage of the act and its administration. 
 But these various forms of expenditure are interesting 
 rather from other points of view than in respect of the 
 work of apportionment. 
 
 The abstract rights,^ such as those of the lord of the 
 manor, or it may be the forest ranger, or of the tithe owner,^ 
 ranked next. With the exception of the last mentioned 
 their determination presented little trouble. Certain 
 deductions were made on a rather arbitrary basis. In the 
 CcLse of tithe there was difficulty. The burden of tithe 
 was heavily felt, and there is little doubt that exoneration 
 from tithe was in some cases a sufficient ground by itself 
 for inclosure.* Under these circumstances the claim of 
 tithe to share in the improvement of the field was naturally 
 debated. On the whole this claim was conceded ; but 
 the way of giving it effect was by no means uniform. In 
 many instances the share of tithe was reckoned at one- 
 seventh of the land to be allotted, a proportion, Homer 
 contends, sometimes too great and sometimes too small. 
 The other way, and that which was commended both by 
 him and others, was to allot to tithe an amount equal to 
 its former value together with an increase proportionate 
 to the general increase over the whole inclosure, subject 
 to deduction of its equivalent share in the expenses.* 
 
 It was after these deductions had been made that the 
 real difficulty presented itself Allowing for expenses and 
 other matters, the rest of the improved value, together with 
 the unknown land or commons, remained for distribution 
 
 ' Marshall, Appropriation and Inclosure of Commonable Lands. 
 
 ^ As to position of tithe holder see Argumentative Appeal addressed to the 
 Right Rev. the Bishop, by the Rev. Baptist Noel Turner (1788). 
 
 ' This seems undoubted. Unfortunately allotments in lieu were not alwaj's 
 made, and land notalways exonerated. See Agric. Report, Hampshire, 121-2. 
 Gen. Report, p. 20, as to neglect of this in Norfolk. 
 
 * Horner, An Essay, etc., pp. 82-83 = Marshall, Appropriation and Inclosure, 
 etc., pp. 22-25. 
 
8o COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 among all those who had common rights.^ Further, inas- 
 much as they were not to retain their original holdings, 
 one object of inclosure being the consolidation of property 
 and the separation of what belonged to one individual 
 from that belonging to others, an entire redistribution had 
 to take place. At first sight the method of apportion- 
 ment might see;m simple, since the share of each in the 
 estate as it now stood might have been assumed to be the 
 same as that previously enjoyed. The one could be 
 ascertained from the value of each prior to consideration 
 of inclosure values, taken together with that of the whole 
 under like conditions ; a like proportion of the estate at its 
 improved estimate would seem the amount due. But 
 this assumes that the relations between yardland and 
 yardland on the one hand, and yardland and pasture rights 
 on the other, remained in their original state, or, to put the 
 matter from another point of view, that the property of 
 each individual had risen in value in the same ratio as the 
 entire parish or area. This was far from being the case. 
 Some land, such as meadow, was prior to inclosure more 
 nearly rated at its real possible value than other land ; 
 and the various holdings did not consist of uniformly 
 proportioned amounts of meadow and arable. Again, 
 small holdings were more highly rented as a rule than 
 large holdings. Lastly, in the pre-inclosure values or 
 rents a quite inadequate difference was made between 
 lands with large common rights and lands with small 
 common rights. As a result, holdings or yardlands 
 might differ not only in value and amount, but also in the 
 rights of pasture attached to them or in its effective use.^ 
 In the earlier inclosures in the eighteenth century this 
 difference was largely disregarded, and the proprietors of 
 
 ' Such common rights did not necessarily attach to, and if attached to, did 
 not necessarily correspond to, holdings in the open field. 
 
 ^ It is pointed out in Agric. Report, Norfolk, p. 440, that the proprietors 
 living close by a common make the most of the profit from it, and that 
 hence their interest may be against that of those further off. In one case this 
 led to the refusal to give a lease of common land by joint agreement, those 
 living near objecting. Cf. Marshall, Appropriation, etc., p. 31. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 8i 
 
 the yardlands shared in the improved value and had 
 allotments made in proportion to the value of their 
 holdings. No deductions were made save in the case of 
 land which for some reason or other had no right of 
 common. The lack of justice in this method is obvious, 
 and was soon perceived. To remedy it a modification 
 was introduced. The average value of the lands was 
 taken, and in the case of yardlands or arable holdings in 
 excess of this a deduction of four or five shillings in the 
 pound was made from their real value, that amount 
 carrying with it a diminution of the allotment made to them. 
 This was given to those proprietors whose yardlands fell 
 below the average. By this means it was sought to 
 correct the injustice involved in the assumption that 
 pasture rights corresponded to the value of the arable ; 
 whereas, as a matter of fact, the more valuable arable did 
 not necessarily carry with it larger common rights than 
 existed in the case of poorer lands. This modification, 
 however, clearly only served for this one purpose. Even 
 with it the system of apportionment assumed that the 
 yardland had something like a uniform pasture right. 
 Another and very different system was introduced, and 
 was approved by Horner. In the case of each holding 
 subject to common rights a deduction is made from the 
 value in proportion to the nature of the right in question ; 
 in other words, an attempt is made to arrive at the real 
 value of the individual property apart from the rights 
 which, before, inclosure, were shared in common by the 
 body of the commoners. The value of these deductions 
 was added to that of the commons and like common 
 property, and the fund thus formed was, after needs and 
 claims coming under the two previous headings had been 
 satisfied, divided among the proprietors, either according 
 to the yardland as a unit where each yardland possessed 
 equal stock, or according to the actual number of different 
 beasts^ for which common right was enjoyed. The 
 
 ^ As to differences between rights of common for horses, cows, and sheep, 
 see Horner, Essay, pp. 70-2. 
 
 F 
 
8a COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 allotment to each was made according to the total 
 composed of (a) the value of his several property, and 
 {p) the amount thus ascertained.^ 
 
 When the gravity and delicacy of the task undertaken 
 by the commissioners is considered, the existence of com- 
 plaint against them is not astonishing. It is rather a 
 matter for wonder that the complaints were not far louder 
 and universal. Apart from the mere matter of quantity 
 and the situation of the respective allotments, the change 
 entailed in the new arrangement of the fields and the con- 
 sequent alteration of old customs must often have led to 
 dissatisfaction. The commissioners had, as it were, to lay 
 out the village anew. In place of the old fields, cultivated 
 in strips and according to a common order, each man was 
 allotted now a small or large several piece. The new 
 inclosures were as a rule regular and compact, thus differ- 
 ing from the ancient inclosures.* They lay, in the case of 
 
 ' The question of title to common, especially as between ancient houses and 
 sites and lands, was sometimes raised as a legal issue. 
 
 ^Agric. Report, Cumberland (1805), p. 214, observes that the ancient fields 
 are small and irregular, and those divided within the last thirty years are laid 
 out in straight lines ; MaxshaW, Rural Ecotumy of PVest of England, u. 169-70, 
 states of the Vale of Taunton that the fields are "of various form and size." 
 In some places fields difier ; thus about Little Gaddesden, in Hertford, an 
 observer in 1748 says the arable fields are nearly all in small inclosures, most 
 of which are quadrilateral, some square, some oblong, a few curved, and the 
 meadows likewise (Kahn's Account of his Visit, etc., pp. 215-6). The curved 
 shape of hedges is said by some to arise from the sweep of the plough, and it 
 has been pointed out that it was the custom to plough round the field in which 
 the strips lay. It has also been attributed to the line of division following 
 water-courses, etc. (Notes and Queries, Second Series, vii. 373-4, viii. 19, 32, 
 440). If we take Tusser's account of the way in which fields were formed out 
 of the waste or common, another reason for a curvilinear shape and an irregu- 
 larity of size is given ; above, p. 30, note l, giving account from Tusser 
 Redivivus. 
 
 A considerable difference is to be expected between inclosures according as 
 these occur sporadically and in early times, or by way of uniform treatment of 
 a towndip and in later times. The inclosures of later date often involve the 
 treatment of a considerable area, even the old inclosures within that area being 
 sometimes brought into the division. 
 
 There are certain tests, though not necessarily invariable tests, of early 
 inclosure. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 83 
 
 some, at a considerable distance from the little village of 
 farmhouses, while others had the advantage of having 
 their holdings conveniently near. Roads had to be made, 
 hedging and ditching done ; while in some instances little 
 or no increase in value could be perceived for many years. 
 Some of the allotments might be unprofitably small. 
 Some land as meadow highly valued before the inclosure 
 might even undergo some diminution through having to 
 contribute to the expenses. No doubt the individual 
 proprietor was indemnified by a rise in the value of 
 other land, but the absence of immediate and invariable 
 advantage was enough to try his faith. That discontent 
 was so small and satisfaction so generaj is the greatest 
 testimony which can be adduced as to the advantage of 
 the change. 
 
 One of the most important duties imposed on the com- 
 missioners from a public point of view was the laying out of 
 roads. Though inclosure did not escape criticism in this 
 respect, which alleged that existing roads were interfered 
 
 Firstly, there is the irregularity in the form of the fields, alluded to above. 
 The fields often small. 
 
 Secondly, in old inclosed country the hedges were often more thickly filled 
 with trees. Marshall points to the old coppice hedges in Deron, Dorset, and 
 Somerset. Rural Economy of West of England, i. 65, large mounds topped 
 with coppice wood. The age of these fences is great beyond memory, ii. 108, 
 in vale of Exeter even older than in other districts, as shown by smallness 
 of fields, and the mounds topped by hedges, in general furnished with trees. 
 Iceland, Itinerary, ii. 65, as to elms in hedge rows of Somerset. These 
 trees, elms and oaks, as in Kent and other districts. Cf. ii. 136, 169- 
 170; Agric. Report, ICent^ citing from Halsted's Kent: "The inclosures in 
 the hills are small, and furnished with thick hedgerows of elms." See also 
 as to fruit trees in hedges, Nourse, Campania Felix, p. 28 ; England's 
 Remarques, as to Worcester, p. 21 1, etc. 
 
 Thirdly, inclosures of villages formerly in arable common field usually 
 preserve some trace of the early village of farmhouses and of the high ridge 
 and furrow, whereas those lacking in cases of inclosure from the forest state 
 (Marshall, Rural Economy of West, ii. 137-8, as to houses; also see notes 
 on chapter i. ). 
 
 Probably much land marked fay these features was inclosed from the 
 wild state. (Marshall, Gloucester, ii. 190 ; On the Appropriation and Incl., 
 etc., pp. 9, 10.) High banks are regarded by some as an indication of 
 this. 
 
84 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 with, complaint of this kind was rare ; ^ and the general 
 effect of the movement was undoubtedly to develop and 
 improve the means of locomotion. The roads mentioned 
 in the act were of two kinds, public and private ; a dis- 
 tinction which accurately describes the twofold object 
 which had to be borne in mind. On the one hand, 
 thoroughfares were to be maintained, regulated, and, if 
 need be, provided. On the other hand, access to the 
 various buildings or allotments was required. From the 
 public standpoint, the former were undoubtedly the more 
 important. The increasing attention paid to them may 
 be traced through the acts of the eighteenth century. 
 This work precedes the division of the land. It appears 
 as a duty and first charge, as it were, in early acts ; forms 
 the subject of a standing order in 178 1 ; while by the 
 general act of 1801 it was the first duty of the com- 
 missioners to lay out public roads and prepare a map 
 which should be open to inspection. These roads were 
 to be constructed at the common charge of the inclosure. 
 In some cases their fencing is provided for, but that might 
 be part of the charge of the allotments. In addition, in 
 many cases, as has already been noted, provision was 
 made of gravel pits or quarries ^ to be at the disposal of 
 
 ^Addington (.^n Inquiry, 1767, pp. 17-18) complains that roads were often 
 interfered with in inclosvire. Cf. Agru. Report, Rutland, 155-156, as to bad 
 methods of making roads in some cases ; Agric. Report, hunts, pp. 277-8, as to 
 bad methods of maintaining roads when made. The writer of the last says 
 roads sometimes good and sometimes bad. Speaking of the private roads, he 
 says that many of them were bad ; but where concave he deems that this occurs 
 not by intention, but by subsequent neglect. 
 
 In early times, inclosure and hedging may have been harmful, since many 
 roads then were little other than tracks unmade and without foundation. In 
 such cases openness was a saf(^uard ; and if the word " lane " be rightly inter- 
 preted as a road the following passage from Fitz Herbert indicates some 
 apprehension: "Also it may fortune men wyl say, that if all should be in- 
 closed, that there would be many foul lanes as there be in Essex" (Bk. of Sur- 
 veying, p. 98.) But when roads were made this danger becomes less real. 
 As inclosures ordered and provided means for the laying out of roads, they 
 ensured many roads where otherwise there would have been fewer. 
 
 = Thns Award at Chilton Foliat (Close Rolls, 54 G. III., Pt. 8, No. i). 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 85 
 
 the local surveyor for their maintenance. The case of 
 private roads was somewhat different As these were for 
 the benefit of individuals, though their course was to be 
 determined and they were to be laid out by the com- 
 missioners, the expenses were to be apportioned by the 
 individuals among the interested parties. The herbage 
 along their sides belonged to the adjoining proprietors. 
 There is no doubt that the roadmaking performed under 
 the inclosure acts co-operated with the increase in and 
 improvement of roads under the Turnpike Acts^ in 
 effecting the great change in the means of locomotion 
 which marks the end of the eighteenth century. The 
 complaints of Arthur Young and of others as to the 
 condition of the roads are familiar: if not the cause 
 of, inclosures often accompany improvement Not the 
 least evidence as to this development is the curious and 
 active discussion as to the form of roads. The form 
 was important, because many roads were in the process 
 of construction. As against the arguments of those who 
 urged that roads should be made concave in shape, with 
 a gutter, as it were, down the centre, the slightly convex 
 form was generally adopted. Of even greater importance 
 than the uniform adoption of this method, which appears 
 to have been general where roads were made at all, and 
 something more than mere tracks worn by traffic and 
 occasionally repaired, was the system of roadmaking 
 introduced by Macadam. Prior to him, stones of unequal 
 size, together with gravel and soil, were thrown down. 
 They seldom welded together into a uniform surface. 
 
 'Turnpike Trusts originated in the desire to maintain and improve roads. 
 In many cases, however, they are directed to the provision of new roads (see 
 P. P. 1 85 1, xlviii. County Report, Kent). While the first act was in the 
 seventeenth century, such acts are scarce till Anne, and not really plentiful 
 till towards the end of G. II., thenceforward they are very numerous. The 
 Trusts were usually for limited periods, but these were open to renewal. 
 By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the length of road under Turnpike 
 Trusts was about 17,000 miles (in 1818, 17,601, Pari. Papers xvi. ; in 1821, 
 17,329, Pari. Papers, 1821, iv.), of course the majority of roads were not under 
 such Trusts, other roads being given in 1818 at S6, 116 miles. 
 
86 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Frost destroyed cohesion, and heavy rain washed away 
 the gravel or sand till too often the roadway consisted 
 of a bed of uneven boulders set in mire, clay and gravel. 
 The introduction by Macadam of stones broken small and 
 into like sizes, and then spread evenly over the surface, 
 was an invention of the greatest utility.^ 
 
 Another respect in which the public interest is mani- 
 festly sought is in the provision made for the poor in 
 many of the awards. Without discussing the general 
 effect of inclosure upon either the small owners or the 
 poor, it may be pointed out here that in a large number 
 of cases special action is taken to obviate the hardship 
 which might be felt by the poor where strict legal rights 
 alone were taken into account From that point qf view they 
 had little to expect when the common lands were inclosed, 
 though custom had enabled them to participate to no 
 small degree in the profits of the common, or even in 
 those of the open field. The loss of these chance gains 
 would have been a grave blow to them, and in a real 
 sense a public injury. Provision for the poor was 
 frequently made, sometimes by the reservation of a 
 common, sometimes by letting some land — the proceeds 
 going to a common fund to provide coal.^ It is difficult 
 to say how far this provision was made out of a sense of 
 fairness to the individuals otherwise injured, or in view of 
 the public interest. Probably the first motive was there, 
 but the circumstances of many of the inclosures and 
 the motives which underlay them make it probable 
 
 ^ Macadam's evidence before the Commons Select Committee in 1819 (Report, 
 1819, pp. 17-34, Pari. Papers, 1819, v.), contains his own description, which 
 is fully corroborated by other experts. His contention was that by this means a 
 road was made solid, consistent and yet flexible. 
 
 "At Shemboume, allotment was made for the poor; Close Rolls, 1769- 
 70, Pt. 17, No. IS ; of. Agric. Report, Norfolk, p. 169, at Stokesby. As to 
 a common, ib, p. 162, 176 ; Agric. Report, Oxford, 27-9. As to land let for 
 a fund for coals, Agric. Report, Norfolk, 94-5 ; in several cases also (Agric. 
 Report, p. 92) a case of payment of a sum for turbary, probably turbary customs, 
 not for turbaiy attached to land, cf. Gentral Report ; and as to need of compensa- 
 tion to poor without rights, Horner, Essay, p. 25. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 87 
 
 that the latter was not without force. From an early 
 time the dangers of depopulation and popular distress had 
 been the most cogent arguments alleged against inclosure. 
 They were treated as deserving serious consideration by 
 the crown, the privy council, or the parliament as the 
 case might be. Again, at a later time, opportunity was 
 taken of the occasion of an inclosure to reserve a 
 portion of the land for public purposes and for recreation. 
 Care for the poor ranks with these as a matter of public 
 interest. 
 
 Another matter relating to the conduct of an inclosure 
 requires some notice. 
 
 Fencing or hedging* was required to be done, and 
 regulations were made as to the time when such work had 
 to be complete. In one way it complicated the work of 
 apportionment, since, as was obvious, some allotments 
 involved more expense in this direction than did others. 
 As was pointed out by one writer, the expense of fencing 
 small allotments was proportionately greater than that 
 incurred in the case of large allotments. Hence, he argues, 
 their share of the general expenses should be diminished.' 
 This was one of the matters which the commissioners 
 had to bear in mind when determining the respective 
 allotments awarded to the various proprietors. Horner 
 emphasises this point with particular relation to the case 
 where the size of the allotment is large, because of the 
 inferior nature of the soil.' Again, the expense of fenc- 
 ing land invested the whole question of the best and 
 cheapest methods with much importance. Several technical 
 treatises and reports bear witness to this. 
 
 Finally expense was an unfortunate and an inevitable 
 
 "^ General Report, section v., treats of fences, etc., which are said to be very 
 expensive, p. 8i ; in an average inclosure this came to something like seven or 
 eight shillings an acre. Annals of Agric., viii. 103, the expense of fencing 
 one of the great obstacles. This sometimes unnecessary, quicksets being 
 cheaper than posts and rails, " when wood is scarce." 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, Gloucester, p. 92. 
 
 ' Homer, Essay, pp. 9098. 
 
88 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 feature of inclosure.^ Quite apart from any cost incurred 
 in the improved* management which became possible when 
 once properties were separated into several ownership, 
 itself no light matter to small proprietors if they were to 
 enter into competition with large owners or their tenants 
 with large capital, there were the expenses involved in 
 procuring and administering the acts. Of these, the 
 expenses required for fencing or hedging and ditching, 
 and for general drainages, where such were carried out 
 in pursuance of, or in conjunction with inclosing, rank 
 as charges for improvement, and are analogous to those 
 mentioned above, except in so far as the performance 
 of the work under the auspices of the commissioners 
 enacts a difference. In all probability this did not lessen 
 the expense, though it may have ensured better methods. 
 In addition, however, there was a large body of general 
 expenses. The cost of obtaining the act was heavy, 
 Again, the work of the commissioners in laying out roads 
 and performing the incidental work, caused a considerable 
 deduction from the anticipated value of the improvement. 
 The commissioners and their officials required payment, 
 and public liabilities involved had to be met. 
 
 These latter expenses must be distinguished from 
 those more immediately concerned with improvement. 
 They are equally inevitable, but the work in respect of 
 which they are incurred, is not in itself beneficial or, at 
 any rate, directly remunerative to the individual proprietor. 
 
 ' It was, however, no novel incident nor confined to inclosures by private act. 
 At the beginning of the century, before these were in use, reference is made to 
 "the great quantities of lands which in our own time have laid open in 
 common, and of little value ; yet when enclosed have proved excellent 
 good and suddenly repaid the present great expense incident to enclosures " 
 (Dictionarium Urbanicum Kustiatm et Botanicum, under Enclosures). The 
 probability is that by the system of agreement then in operation, the cost 
 was much the same as under the earlier acts, except in respect of parliamentary 
 expenses. E. Lawrence gives a form of agreement which he recommends 
 (Duty of a Steward to his Lcrd, 1727, p. 37). 
 
 * General Report, pp. 32-3, states that inclosure is sometimes opposed by 
 farmers because it will cost more in cultivation, especially in outlay of capital 
 at the beginning. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 89 
 
 Hence it was that against these expenses a natural outcry 
 arose. In many cases the prospect of them led to the defeat, 
 or at any rate the postponement of the projects, where 
 otherwise such would have been favourably considered. 
 The general burden indeed was admitted on all hands, 
 even by those most desirous of urging on the change.^ 
 
 The more practical minded of these turned their 
 attention to the consideration of the best way of lessening 
 them. Passing over the local and occasional economies 
 effected, as for instance where the number of commissioners 
 was lessened, or where the free services of local gentlemen 
 were obtained, this requires some attention. First of all 
 it is necessary to realise both the magnitude and the 
 nature of the expense. The Board of Agriculture, taking 
 the average of a considerable number of acts, calculated 
 that the average number of acres involved in each act was 
 1 162, and that the average expense of each act was as 
 follows. In connection with obtaining the act, £\<^7 ; 
 the survey and valuation, -^259 ; commissioners, etc., 
 ;^344 ; fences, ;^5 50 7s. 6d. Of these items, the latter three 
 would obviously vary very greatly with the size, and further 
 with the nature of the questions involved. An inclosure 
 of a common was less intricate than where open fields as 
 well as commons were concerned. The estimate is quoted, 
 not as showing the average cost proportioned to the size 
 of the inclosure, but to afford some idea of the amount, 
 and of the items comprised. An examination of the cost 
 affixed to many of the awards, shows that this so-called 
 average does not exaggerate the burden, and that the 
 complaints of expense were not unnatural.^ Where was 
 reduction possible? It does not seem that the cost of 
 
 'As to this Agric. Report, Oxford (1798), by R. Davis, p. 28; Somerset 
 (1798), pp. 55-62 ; General Report, p. 98, etc. An instance given of a case 
 at Haltwhistle, where expense has proved the only, but a sufficient deterrent. 
 But there is no difference of opinion among writers as to the great expense. 
 
 *The Ashton Keynes inclosure (Recovery Rolls, 19 G. III., Hilary, 115), 
 in which there was little charge for fences or roads, and where the acreage 
 was 1980, cost £y2\. This was executed very cheaply, the cost of the act 
 being only ;^320. 
 
90 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 fencing was too great, if that was to be done in a satis- 
 factory and permanent manner. Again, the expenses and 
 payment of the commissioners, though heavy, were not 
 successfully impugned in the complaints made. On the 
 whole, the indignant repudiation by Mr. Davis of the charge 
 of extravagance on the part of the commissioners was 
 probably justified.^ Certainly the accusation occurs rather 
 as a general complaint against expense. Again, the legal 
 expenses in connection with procuring the act were high, 
 but this was common to the system of private acts, and 
 was not peculiar to the case of inclosure acts. These 
 indeed appear to have been promoted and obtained at 
 the lowest cost, owing to the uniformity of treatment 
 secured by the standing orders passed with regard to them. 
 It was, however, urged that economy might be achieved 
 by a General Inclosure Act Granted the feasibility of 
 such, this was probable. But in this case the real economy 
 would have lain in an act, compulsory at least on the 
 assent of a majority, and administered uniformly by 
 special local officials. This was suggested more than 
 once. Against it was ranged the feeling of those who 
 disapproved of compulsion, and also the opinion of those 
 who urged that a general act would not take account 
 of local circumstances. Another suggestion was more 
 successful. The general act of 1801 contained the various 
 clauses necessary and common to all the private acts ; but 
 though it may have lightened the expenses in some 
 measure, the parliamentary cost continued high, while the 
 administrative cost remained undiminished. The expense 
 was met in different ways. In a great many cases part of 
 the land was sold ; in other cases a rate was levied on the 
 land of all those interested. Sometimes other expedients 
 of meeting part at any rate of the cost were attempted. 
 Thus some of the land might be temporarily let, or during 
 
 ' General Report, 331-3. From the constant repetition of the same names 
 in awards, it is clear that the office of commissioners was professionally 
 discharged in many cases. Thus Mr. Davis was at one time engaged in 
 sixteen inclosxires (General Report, 332). 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 91 
 
 the period of inclosure ley or joist cattle might be taken 
 in at so much a head.^ 
 
 Some other duties presented to the commissioners. 
 When all the land was not the subject of apportionment, 
 exchanges of land had to be arranged and authorised in 
 order to make holdings compact ; mineral rights had to 
 be dealt with ; while in some cases the herbage along the 
 roads was specially awarded. It belonged, as a rule, to 
 the neighbouring lands. 
 
 The commissioners having laid out the land and effected 
 the division, embodied their decision in what is known as 
 an Award, to which a map was often appended. Of these 
 Awards a copy had to be deposited with the clerk to the 
 county. In addition copies were often enrolled, these 
 latter finding a place most often in the Recovery Rolls. 
 There are some in the Close Rolls and the Plea Rolls. 
 
 After the passage of the act of 1801, while the private 
 acts were simplified and the process made more uniform, 
 the actual business of the inclosure proceeded in much the 
 same way; and when by 8 and 9 Victoria, c. 118, Inclosure 
 Commissioners were appointed, the former procedure was 
 obviously copied. The method under this may be briefly 
 summarised.^ An application on a particular form has to 
 be made to the commission and signed by the owners of 
 one-third in value of the interests in the land. Unless the 
 project is manifestly objectionable an assistant commis- 
 sioner is then sent down to inspect the land, to inquire into 
 the accuracy of the statements, and to hold a meeting to 
 hear any objections to the proposals. On his report a 
 provisional order for inclosure would be issued setting out 
 certain conditions as to allotments of land for exercise or 
 
 • At Knowie, in V(rarwick, 307 acres sold to defray expenses (Recovery Rolls, 
 I and 2 G. IV., Hilary 61). Agric. Report, Derby, ii. 79-80: At Ashby 
 Wolds, in Leicester, the commissioners after declaring extinction of common 
 rights, let the fields for the next two years, and the rent went to expenses, 
 ii. 197 : At Brassington, the commissioners during inclosure took in ley or 
 joist cattle at so much a bead. Elsewhere some of the land was sold, or a rate 
 levied. 
 
 2 The machinery is sketched by Cooke {Inclosure, pp. 85-88). 
 
92 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 recreation and for the labouring poor, specifying the pro- 
 portion due to the lord of the manor and the means to be 
 taken for the protection of public rights, and determining 
 the ownership of minerals. By the first act active steps 
 could then be taken in certain cases, some, however, re- 
 quiring parliamentary sanction, but by the fifth amendment 
 act the need of such sanction was applied to all cases. The 
 provisional act or order was then deposited in the parish, 
 and an assistant commissioner sent down to hold a meeting 
 for obtaining assents and dissents. On the assent of two- 
 thirds a special act was obtained. A valuer was then 
 elected, who had to value, to determine claims, and to lay 
 out allotments, his decisions being subject to the commis- 
 sioners, and, in the case of claims, to the courts by way of 
 appeal. After this, a meeting was held by the assistant 
 commissioner to hear objections in general to the report, 
 and these being disposed of, the report was embodied in 
 an award signed by the valuer, which, on confirmation by 
 the commissioners, became final. 
 
 Apart from other matters this act is of interest as 
 illustrating the development of central control, shown in 
 the Appointment of Commissioners, whose powers ulti- 
 mately pass to the Board of Agriculture. But there is 
 another point deserving notice. Allotments for public 
 exercise and recreation are recognised, as also those for the 
 labouring poor ; these latter might indeed be subject to 
 a rent charge not exceeding the value of the land so 
 allotted prior to inclosure. The former recognition of 
 public interests was in fulfilment of the policy embodied 
 in a resolution of the House of Commons of 1837 
 (March 9), " that in all Inclosure Bills provision be made 
 for leaving an open space suflScient for purposes of 
 exercise and recreation of the neighbouring population." 
 In the discussion on this resolution it was fully recognised 
 that such allotments were in view, not of legal, but of 
 what might be termed moral, rights.^ It was also urged 
 by one member that a distinction must be made between 
 
 '^Hansard, Third Series, xxxii., pp. 162-4. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 93 
 
 commons with open fields and stints, and those dealing 
 only with wastes, a distinction embodied in the act. By 
 a return made in 1 841, it was shown that this order had 
 been complied with in all but 9 cases out of 63.^ In 
 1 869, a select committee of the Commons reported ^ that 
 since the act of 1845, 618,800 acres had been inclosed 
 of which 368,000 could be assumed to be waste of manors, 
 not subject to stints, and so falling under sections 30 
 and 31 of the said act; out of this 368,000 acres, the 
 allotments to the labouring poor amounted to 2223 
 acres and those for purposes of recreation to 1742 acres. 
 As the committee considered these amounts inadequate, 
 a bill was introduced to secure their extension. The 
 discussion which took place showed an almost grotesque 
 misunderstanding of the early nature of common. 
 
 As the system laid down under the Inclosure Commis- 
 sioners grows out of that gradually formulated in the Private 
 Acts, so this latter was very probably a development of 
 the methods adopted in the agreements of the early 
 eighteenth and of the seventeenth century,^ that is of the 
 agreements referred to by experienced men like the 
 Lawrences. These methods probably involved some 
 method of representative assent by the interested parties. 
 If so, they carry into effect the interesting proposals* of 
 Alderman Box with respect to the division and allotment 
 of wastes. " And therefore your Lordship's orator desireth 
 some good order, law or decree to be had or made between 
 the lords and the tenants for their assurance. That every 
 lord of any manor, where such wastes are, with four or five 
 of the gravest tenants, appointed and chosen by the tenants 
 of the same manor, upon a pain by a day assigned to him 
 and them, to appoint and divide the wastes of the same 
 manor orderly to every tenant of the same manor a portion 
 
 '^ Far/. Papers, 1S41, xxva. ^ Pari. Papers, iS&g, n. 
 
 'In early seventeenth century D. Lupton writes (ffarl. Misc., vol. 9), 
 against the landlords inclosing their villages. "The surveyor is his quarter- 
 master which goes like a bear with a chain at his side, and his two or three 
 parishioners who walk with him help him to undo themselves." 
 
 *lAnsdown MSS., cxxxi., 22 (1576). 
 
94 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 of the same waste grounds according to the rent he now 
 payeth ; and the same so appointed, divided and set out to 
 remain and continue to the tenement for the same tenant, 
 and the same tenant to have and occupy the same tene- 
 ment with the waste ground so appointed and all the 
 appurtenances to the same tenement belonging during the 
 estate he hath in the same tenement, without any more 
 rent paying for the same but only his labour and cost, to 
 grub, cleanse and sow the same within two years following 
 or else to lose the portion of the waste to him allotted." 
 
 The circumstances giving rise to the introduction of a 
 commissioner are a matter for conjecture. Possibly mutual 
 convenience may have led to the appointment of an 
 arbitrator in agreements, and out of such an office that of 
 commissioner may have grown. But this is surmise. 
 
 So far as the worl^ of division and allotment is con- 
 cerned there is little or no ground for any charge of 
 unfairness. The influence of the large proprietors and of 
 the lord of the manor, to which allusion has been made 
 before, no doubt determined the application for inclosure 
 and may have decided the nomination of the commis- 
 sioners, but so far as the latter point is concerned, the 
 choice was much restricted by "the necessity of peculiar 
 qualifications as well as a reputation for experience and 
 integrity in powers employed for this purpose," ^ while 
 there was ample opportunity for protest against any undue 
 exercise of power in this respect In the latter part of 
 the century, at any rate, the parliamentary requirements 
 in the case of inclosure were exacting and the procedure 
 in committee seems to have been careful and well con- 
 sidered. Direct allegations of general unfairness are rare.* 
 
 ' Gemral Report, p. 1 19. 
 
 ' The writer who emphasises this risk is the author of An Enquiry into the 
 advantages and disadvantages resulting from Bills of Inclosure, 1780. Even 
 his language is vague. 
 
 The value to be attached to his criticism in this respect is considerably dis- 
 counted by his own su^estions that there should be more than three commb- 
 sioners, that they should be legally qualified, and that there should be an 
 appeal from their decision. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 95 
 
 The most doubtful matter was the action of commissioners 
 with regard to the claims of the neighbouring poor, that is, 
 with regard to the recognition of claims which were not 
 based on legal right. Some greater uniformity would have 
 been desirable. Two things must, however, be borne in 
 mind. Private agreements to inclose were equally free 
 from a legal obligation to recognise them. In the second 
 place, in a large number of awards these are given fair 
 treatment, the commissioners, in other words, being guided 
 by equitable as distinct from purely legal considerations. 
 Taken as a whole, the work of division and apportionment 
 appears to have been discharged conscientiously and fairly. 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 LEGAL NATURE OF COMMON 
 
 The legal distinction of common into common appendant, common 
 appurtenant, common of gross, and common by vicinage is of great 
 importance as marking different stages not only in the conception 
 of common, but in respect of the part it appears to have played in 
 the agricultural system and the life of the people. From this view 
 common by vicinage perhaps should be excepted, since it arises 
 rather by way of convenience and in imitation of common as it 
 otherwise exists. Of the remaining forms the two first, common 
 appendant and common appurtenant, are by way of both contrast and 
 comparison ; they differ in form, often in matter, and largely in 
 incident. They are alike in being attached in some way or other 
 to the possession of a holding or a tenement. Common appendant 
 is the right to common on the part of the possessor of a freehold 
 created prior to the Act Quia Emptores. It is limited in respect 
 of kind to pasture for animals necessary to plough and manure 
 the soil, and is proved not by prescription or grant but by the mere 
 possession of such an estate. Its extinction through unity of 
 possession is only possible on the purchase of the whole waste. 
 Common appurtenant consists of rights attached either by grant 
 or prescription to holdings either freehold or copyhold. It 
 includes pasture for beasts other than these mentioned above, 
 and also estovers and turbary. Proof may be required of its 
 existence. 
 
 With regard to these, the main difference lies in the distinction 
 thus drawn between common necessarily and invariably involved 
 in the ownership and cultivation of early property, and that which 
 exists partly through need and partly as supplement. Common 
 appendant, that is, points to the view early held that common of 
 a particular kind was practically involved in the very early stages 
 of the village or manor. Without it cultivation was impossible. 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 97 
 
 Therefore it is proportioned to the holding and equally of necessity 
 restricted to animals whose use weis essential in early agricul- 
 ture. The very circumstances of its existence assume actual 
 uniformity in cultivation. Arable is the central feature of the 
 agriculture. With common appurtenant other elements come into 
 sight. The circumstances of the time are viewed as changed. 
 New holdings, some freehold and some copyhold, have been 
 created, while on the other hand, variation in the methods of 
 cultivation has made its appearance. Thus both in character and 
 amount the common attached to cultivating tenements varies very 
 much. The change in the nature of common reflects with much 
 accuracy the change which necessarily occurs with agricultural 
 progress and development. Common varies because cultivation 
 is no longer carried on in an invariable way, and because the 
 proportion of arable and stock is not constant. Common 
 is not throughout to be regarded as a means of maintaining the 
 land in efificiency, because some part of it exists for the profit it 
 directly yields, and not for the profit which it assists the plough- 
 land to yield. In other words, though no doubt still a part of a 
 system, it is not solely as such that it is granted or enjoyed. 
 
 These conceptions are distinct, eminently reasonable, and their 
 growth may be traced through legal decisions and writings. But it 
 is difficult to point to a definite recognition of the difference thus 
 portrayed in very early times. Even when Fitz Herbert ventured on 
 definition his language is anything but precise. According to 
 him, "Common appendant is when a lord of old time hath 
 granted to a man a meseplace and certain lands, meadows and 
 pastures, with their appurtenances to hold of him. To this 
 meseplace, land and meadows, belongeth common, and that is 
 called common appendant," while "common appurtenant is when 
 a man hath had common to a certain number of beasts or with- 
 out number belonging to his meseplace in the lord's waste, this is 
 common appurtenant by prescription, because of the use time out 
 of mind.'' If we go back to Bracton it is quite clear, firstly, that 
 a marked distinction is drawn between rights of herbage which 
 are held without a tenement and these which appertain to any 
 such tenement, and secondly, that in the case of common without 
 number, theyr« tenant claims according to his free holding in the 
 vill (539). Even then, however, there were differing rights 
 both as to kinds of pasture and kinds of cattle. Legal decisions, 
 however, early assumed the existence of the limited agricultural 
 
 G 
 
98 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 common described above under common appendant. The con- 
 ception based on this usage treats common appendant as an incident 
 of socage tenure, and hence universal in the case of lands 
 in original socage and as applicable only over the lord's waste in 
 respect of arable holdings. Service is thus the basis of such 
 common rights and its proof carries with it a claim to them. That 
 service as shown by outward sign was a basis of common is 
 obvious from the pages of Britton (II. xxviii.), which treat of the 
 proceedings where common over a manorial waste is claimed by 
 those who are not tenants of the manor. Here their lord is sued, 
 and he must reply by showing on their behalf either that there is 
 reciprocity between the manors in this respect or that they 
 yield some sign of service. Common of this kind is in a different 
 category to that which arises from grants. The refusal of some 
 writers to include common of estover and turbary under common 
 appendant rests on the ground that these are not, and through 
 their nature cannot, be universal. That they were very variable 
 in amount and that they appear to have been by no means 
 universal is true, but on the other hand it should be observed that 
 their treatment by early writers as Bracton and Britton gives no 
 ground for their separation from ancient rights, as of pasture, and 
 further that right of estover and fuel seems as essential to the early 
 constitution of the vill, as those of pasture for beasts actually em- 
 ployed on the land. So far as actual grants are concerned, a 
 greater diversity is to be observed as to amount and kind, thus 
 marking the different conditions of cultivation adopted in different 
 districts and in different manors. 
 
 To the historian a far more vital distinction than that between 
 common appendant and appurtenant is that between common 
 measurable by its relation to the holding or tenement, and that 
 which is determined in amount by grant or by usage. It is the 
 gradual development of this latter which marks the change in the 
 position of common from a means of cultivation to a separate 
 source of profit, and much of the special importance of common 
 appurtenant rests on the fact that such common was increasingly 
 of this kind. It paves the way to a further stage in the history of 
 common. 
 
 Common in gross is a not unnatural result of the definition of 
 common by number or amount instead of by immediate reference 
 to the needs or capacity of the arable land. It stands in startling 
 opposition to that early condition when common was an inalien- 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 99 
 
 able element in agriculture, and necessarily proportioned to the 
 amount of the cultivated land ; and yet the change whereby rights 
 once thus held merged into common iii gross, is so gradual and 
 continuous that it is almost impossible to point to any particular 
 stage in the development as marking the alteration. Common 
 apportioned to land merges into common for a limited number, 
 and that comes to be attached to dwelling houses or cottages 
 without land, presumably because these mark the former pos- 
 session of the land in respect of which the amount of common 
 had been previously determined. It is a step further, but a great 
 one, to sever the attenuated tie which still remains to indicate the 
 relation between the restricted common and the arable. Common 
 in gross obviously could not come into existence save in cases of 
 stinted or numbered common; and till usage had obscured the 
 primary nature of common, it was not to be recognised as part of 
 common. This, at least, would seem the natural interpretation of 
 Bracton's words, " It ought not to be considered a right of common 
 which one person has in another's ground by paying for it or by 
 purchase, when he has no tenement to which the right of common 
 can appertain, but it ought rather to be called a right of herbage 
 than of common." The legal recognition of common in gross, 
 even though the actual change to this form was not frequent, is a 
 significant sign. The essential unity of the system of cultivation, 
 based on the relations of arable and common right, was at an end. 
 In some instances, and in some districts, it could no doubt be 
 argued that common right was a necessary adjunct to the plough ; 
 but in the main this contention could no longer be maintained. 
 Common was a separate form of property, and time was to decide 
 how far property of this kind was profitable. 
 
 The interest of common by vicinage lies in the evidence it 
 affords of the extent to which convenience ruled the common. 
 Technically speaking, such commons arose rather in a mutual 
 agreement to disregard trespass than in any definite creation. 
 There are two points of interest. 
 
 On the one hand, the claims to common by the tenants of one 
 manor on the waste of another were a matter of sufficient import- 
 ance to receive separate legal treatment, and are explained at 
 some length in the handbooks of Bracton and Britton. Here 
 the question of reciprocity plays an obvious and important part ; 
 though, as has been already said, such claims might rest on a basis 
 of service. 
 
loo COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 On the other hand, the common of shack, which was a feature 
 of the common field and its customary cultivation, evidently 
 originated in a kind of common by vicinage. Britton says : 
 " Between neighbours resident in one fee such common is 
 more properly called vicinage than common, as where one 
 neighbour allows another to common with him provided the other 
 allow the same " (II. xxvii. p. 389). This and other passages seem 
 to show that the practice was at that time far from universal. 
 Again, as is shown elsewhere, the extent to which common of 
 shack prevailed in the sixteenth century is doubtful ; but then by 
 that time a large quantity of new land must have been taken in 
 from the wild state with the result that inclosed arable existed, 
 quite apart from arable with incidents of common. It may be 
 doubted if it prevailed uniformly in those parts where the 
 common field was small in comparison with the commons and 
 pasture grounds. 
 
APPENDIX B 
 
 ADMEASUREMENT 
 
 In all early common and also in later creations, save where the 
 common to be enjoyed was precisely determined by number of 
 beasts or some other numerical test, the amount was held to 
 be apportioned to the free arable holding, the tenement, or yard- 
 land of the commoner or tenant. The method, or rather methods, 
 whereby this was carried out are a matter of considerable interest. 
 In Bracton's time there were, in many instances at any rate, two 
 elements to take into account. One of course was the arable 
 holding itself. If a man claimed more than his due, as Bracton 
 tells us (33s), either the lord of the manor might impound his 
 surcharge, or others possessing rights which were infringed by his 
 claims might proceed against him. The matter is put very clearly 
 by Britton, who laid it down that a right of common was limited 
 by that to which it was appurtenant (383). Thus, he adds, if 
 a man possessing common appurtenant to 100 acres alienate all 
 but one, he should retain right of common proportioned to that 
 one acre only. The other element was the capacity of the 
 common itself. As Bracton says, if a grant be without number 
 enquiry must be made as to the number of cattle the pasture 
 might suffice for at the time of feoffmenL But in the earlier 
 period the limit would be reached no doubt by the needs of 
 the land, since the waste was large. Hence came the lord's right 
 of approvement, which was a right of using the waste as he chose, 
 providing only that sufficient was left to the commoners. It 
 is only as common or waste diminishes that the limit thus 
 imposed by the capacity of the common itself begins to be 
 effective. The suggestion that the early rights of common 
 necessarily consisted of the whole herbage or other yield of the 
 common divided in due proportions among the various holdings 
 without r^ard to the needs of these, does not seem tenable 
 
I02 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 in the face of the circumstances under which a lord might 
 make new grants of common over the waste, of the fact that 
 an action against him for over-burdening the common had to 
 allege injury to the commons and of the passages referring to 
 the actual requirements of the land. As to this latter, Britton 
 states that at a trial of a claim of common the jurors would 
 determine how many beasts the commoners may common there 
 in respect of every acre. This, it may be remarked, points to the 
 actual needs of the particular land as determining the amount 
 of common due to the individual holder. As a matter of fact, 
 even after the general allotment of the land to common and the 
 original feoffment of the tenants, subsequent grants and feoffments 
 might so reduce the common available that the whole might have 
 to be remeasured and the superfluous claims made on different 
 sides reduced (Bracton, 539 ; Fleta, 263) ; in other words, the 
 common rights acquired would be proportionally curtailed in the 
 case of all commoners. But this would only occur as population 
 and holdings alike increased. What, it may be asked, would 
 measure the needs' of the land. It is clear, as has been said, that 
 the amount of common was proportionate to the arable land. It 
 seems equally clear that this amount bore some relation to the 
 general requirements of arable. But the words already cited from 
 Britton carry us further. They suggest, though somewhat vaguely, 
 that the requirements early taken into account were those 
 which actually existed in the case of each holding. If this were 
 so land would claim according to the labour really required to 
 work it in each case. Some acres would require more, some less. 
 It is not unreasonable to suppose that this was actually the case at 
 first, and that in early times the beasts for which common pastur- 
 age was due were those needed on the particular acres in question. 
 An analogy is presented in the case of common of estover, where 
 the quantity of timber depends on the actual house (Bracton, 55 1). 
 Such actual correspondence, if ever definitely recognised, could 
 not last \Vhen Bracton wrote, in most cases the quantity of the 
 tenement, apart from its nature, determined the common, and 
 Britton, when writing elsewhere of claims of common by usage, 
 says that the pasture " then should be in hotchpot and so divided 
 that aU there might share alike in such a way that every acre 
 might be put on equal terms." 
 
 The abandonment of the test of actual need rendered necessary 
 some other practical means of determining the amount of common 
 
COMMON AND INCLOSURE 103 
 
 pasture due to the arable land. This was sought in the number of 
 cattle or beasts levant and couchant on the land ; that is to say 
 the number kept habitually on the acres in question, it being 
 apparently assumed that the number so kept were required for 
 the general purposes of cultivation. The method thus adopted 
 amounted to the right of common for as many beasts as could 
 be supported from the land during the winter. In a certain sense 
 this would depend on the particular land, but it would rest on 
 the quality and yield of the land, and not, as formerly, on its need. 
 In this form common of pasture, so far as it does not give way to 
 definite numbers, continues. The test at best was a rough one, 
 and was obviously open to a good deal of evasion. Undue 
 claims find a particularly ready place when common of pasture in 
 gross comes into being, and when in cases of stinted common, 
 where the number of beasts for which common is due is stated, 
 the practice grows of taking beasts at joist to make up the 
 number. It is hardly too much to say that by the sixteenth 
 century the unstinted common had become a claim of common 
 for an unlimited number of beasts. Hence the unstinted common 
 was almost invariably overburdened, a fact which is not surprising 
 when we read that there are grave complaints of the overstocking 
 of even stinted commons. This state of things was largely to the 
 advantage of rich commoners or the lord of the manor, who 
 got together large flocks and herds and pastured them in the 
 common lands to the detriment of the poorer commoners, who, 
 unlike them, could do little in the way of providing winter feed, 
 and now found themselves ousted even from their slender privileges 
 in the commons. 
 
 The limitation of common of pasture by the need of providing 
 winter feed becomes wholly vague and impracticable with the 
 breaking down of uniformity in cultivation. Rights restricted 
 only in this way become practically unlimited, and thus stand 
 in contrast to those where a stint is established of definite 
 numbers. Thus it is that a curious change occurs in the meaning 
 of common without number. Where this phrase is used in 
 early times, as for instance in Fleta (262) "sine numero" or by 
 Bracton, the statement of such common is to be taken as re- 
 stricted by considerations of acreage and needs as given above. 
 When it comes to be used later it reflects the actual result 
 experienced then. Such common has become right of pasture 
 for an unlimited number. Cases of grant, it is true, occur at 
 
I04 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 earlier times when in response to the need, as it would seem, for 
 more pasture than is required for the beasts engaged in culti- 
 vation, there is the specific statement that other than these or 
 than those levant and couchant are included. Thus in a grant to 
 the convent of Armethwaite the common of pasture is for their 
 tenants with all their beasts. Still more unrestricted was the 
 grant to the prior and monks of Beauvale by N. de Cantelope in 
 1343 to "have common for all manner of cattle whatsoever, 
 wheresoever they couched, or from whencesoever they came, 
 through his whole dominion or lordship " (Thoroton, Noiiingham, 
 ii. 242). 
 
BOOK II 
 PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 
 
THE GENERAL PROGRESS OF INCLOSUREi 
 
 In tracing the progress of inclosure it is necessary to bear 
 in mind the extremely complex nature of the movement. 
 Inclosure was no simple and uniform process. Further, 
 it arose from agricultural causes and formed part of an 
 agricultural development, acting thus as a means of 
 adapting the land to the needs of the time, either wisely 
 where the interests of the community at large were served, 
 or unwisely where individual agricultural profit, though 
 opposed to the general interests, yet dictated the course 
 pursued. But to say that it was part of the agricultural 
 development necessitates the consideration both of the 
 nature of inclosure and also of the factors determining and 
 the conditions attending it. 
 
 So far as the character of inclosure is concerned, it is 
 pointed out elsewhere that this differed very considerably, 
 the term itself being applied to three very different actions. 
 It took place sometimes as a part or adaptation of the 
 ordinary system of common or common field; sometimes as 
 the means whereby land wholly outside cultivation or but 
 
 ^ This chapter attempts a summary of the general progress of inclosure, and 
 consequently includes much dealt with in the two next chapters. Detailed 
 references are to be found in Appendix A, p. 238 et seg. This, as also 
 Appendices B and C, should be consulted throughout. 
 
 It should be remembered in dealing with the amount or percentage of land 
 inclosed, both in the text and the tables, that a. certain amount of the land 
 in any district or county was occupied by the actual villages, the public roads 
 and the inland waters. Hence the percentage would be higher if only land 
 open to use were taken into account. 
 
io8 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 partially affected by incidents of common was brought 
 within the area of effective cultivation ; while lastly there 
 was the inclosure movement which superseded the common 
 field system, and so forms a further stage in the cultivation 
 of the particular land in question. 
 
 In the first place, as cultivation developed, some 
 inclosure almost necessarily occurred. Not only was such 
 not subversive of the open field system, but in some cases 
 it was essential to its effective and practical working. 
 
 Thus closes were taken in and doubtless increased for 
 various purposes till we find them existing to the con- 
 siderable extent described and advocated by Fitz Herbert 
 Such or similar to these are the stocking closes occurring 
 in different places, possibly as the necessary means of pro- 
 viding feed at times when common was either not available 
 or present in insufficient amount. No doubt in certain 
 places particular needs for some inclosed lands arose, as, 
 for instance, in fruit districts as in Worcester, Hereford, 
 Gloucester, and elsewhere. 
 
 Again temporary or even permanent inclosures were 
 sometimes made out of the commons or wastes, as described 
 by Tusser, and alluded to in different cases. These plots 
 might be used for different purposes but often came into 
 arable, this in particular being the object of temporary 
 intakes. When these were permanent, they formed some 
 of the " ancient " inclosures which often present themselves 
 in eighteenth century awards. In some cases they are 
 numerous, constituting a considerable amount of the land 
 of the townships. 
 
 Another and not infrequent source of such ancient 
 inclosures was the practice of some land in the field being 
 inclosed forming " several in open." The extent of this 
 practice can hardly be estimated. It was evidently not 
 infrequent, to judge from the references of both Coke and 
 Fitz Herbert, and from the various legal cases which 
 arose ; and equally evidently it did not imply the cessation 
 of the open field system, though clearly tending to its 
 modification. When practised on a small scale, such 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 109 
 
 inclosure probably strengthened the existing system by 
 making room for new or increasing needs. 
 
 Taken together, these varying forms of inclosure 
 tended to the development of the common field system 
 and probably did not lead to conversion of a kind which 
 occasioned serious complaint The last mentioned kind 
 was inconvenient, no doubt, and owing to this formed the 
 occasion for legal action. Two out of the three forms 
 would seem to be more probable where the common field 
 villages were firmly established and where an agricultural 
 population was widely settled on the land. The same, 
 however, cannot be said of the other, that is the second 
 form. 
 
 The quantity of land inclosed for these various purposes 
 was often considerable, to judge from the plans attached 
 to the awards of the eighteenth century. 
 
 In the second place, the gradual growth of popula- 
 tion in a sparsely peopled land led to the extension of 
 cultivation over land either in a wholly wild state or 
 forming part of a large waste employed to little purpose. 
 Such waste or wild land consisted of three main kinds, hill 
 or moor land, forest, and fen. Where these existed the 
 opportunity for approvement, with or without new grants, 
 and inclosure presented itself. 
 
 The first question which naturally occurs is as to the 
 conditions under which such approvement or such use 
 occurred. In this connection the distinction legally drawn 
 between common appendant and common appurtenant has 
 some significance. In the latter case the right to common 
 had to be proved, a feature which shows that in grants 
 made after Edward I. the common might and would vary. 
 Still less would the common field system of cultivation 
 with common in shack, that is, mutual rights over arable 
 after harvest, necessarily prevail. As the Statute of 
 Merton was of this date, approvement, when it took place, 
 brought land under cultivation under conditions different 
 from those prevailing in the earlier settlement. No doubt 
 in many cases the established system was imitated and 
 
no COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 extended, but in other cases, and very likely in the 
 majority of cases, land thus treated was free from the 
 incidents of common which tended to frustrate and delay 
 the assertion of individual ownership. Sometimes the 
 land was inclosed directly, but it would seem probable 
 that in others the actual inclosure might be delayed ; but 
 here the land none the less lay ready to inclose. It was, 
 that is, separated in ownership. In Marshall's view this 
 was the case with much of the land in the west, and the 
 high banks in the extreme west and elsewhere have been 
 interpreted by some as the necessary means of protection 
 adopted when land was directly inclosed from a wild state 
 and required defence against the depredations by wild 
 animals. In addition to land so distinctly marked as 
 unsutted to cultivation by reason of hill, forest, and fen, 
 there was much that was poor, and though within the range 
 of some agricultural use, employed to comparatively little 
 profit, as for instance the poor sands of Norfolk and Suffolk. 
 The locality of such land, and the date of its reclamation 
 or inclosure are matters of very great importance. Evi- 
 dence as to the first exists in the character and features of 
 the land itself, and in the evidence of early agricultural 
 settlement 
 
 A view of the country shows that in general the Central 
 Plain and its extensions into Lincoln and the East Riding, 
 and into East Anglia, presents the greatest surface of open 
 land. Despite the occasional elevations and ranges which 
 break its monotony, it is a level surface as contrasted 
 with the hill districts which surround it on the north, down 
 the west, in the south-west, and along the line of the 
 downs. Consequently these bordering regions offer the 
 opportunity for inclosure from the hills and rising uplands. 
 Speaking broadly, the record of the eighteenth century 
 shows by far the highest percentage of inclosure in the 
 district thus environed. The regions of broken land with 
 hill and dale are little inclosed during this period. The 
 generalisation is a rough one. Much inclosure took place 
 at the end of the century in the Cotswold, which had 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE iii 
 
 remained in the main a rich open sheep pasture till late. 
 Again there was considerable inclosure in the Mendips. 
 The chalk hills came under the influence of the movement 
 late, as is shown in the progress of inclosure during 
 the eighteenth century ; but at the very beginning of the 
 seventeenth century a distinction is drawn between the 
 Chiltern district of Buckingham and that which was less 
 hilly ; in the former there were many inclosures while the 
 latter lay champaign. As a rule, hill districts show a lower 
 percentage of inclosure than do the plains during the 
 eighteenth century. This is curiously illustrated by 
 counties divided between hill and plain. It is traceable 
 in Buckingham. In Leicester the registration districts of 
 Ashby and Market Bos worth are inclosed only to lo and 
 14 per cent, respectively,^ while the centre and east 
 show a much higher ratio. The part of Gloucester west 
 of the Severn is very little inclosed, that on the east very 
 much more. 
 
 Forest regions in many cases coincide with those of the 
 hills ; but in certain cases these are the major and the hills 
 the minor feature. In other instances there are great 
 forests or woods on comparatively level ground. Thus 
 there is the forest land on the west of Nottingham, the 
 forests in Hampshire, the woodland in the north of 
 Warwick. Where comparison is feasible, much the same 
 features present themselves as in the case of the hill 
 districts, that is, land where much forest remained to be 
 broken up in the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries 
 shows a less percentage of inclosure in the eighteenth than 
 the neighbouring land. This is the case in Nottingham 
 where the east and the west are in considerable contrast ; 
 thus, of the three registration districts on the west, Basford 
 is inclosed to 26 per cent, Mansfield to 34,* and Worksop 
 to 12, while of the four adjoining, Radford is inclosed 
 to 30 per cent., Bingham to 40, Southwell to 26, and East 
 Retford to 38. Again the difference between the north 
 
 ^ That is, exclusive of common or waste. 
 '14 per cent, being of common. 
 
112 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 of Warwick and the south is not only visible in the same 
 way, but definitely recorded by Leland and succeeding 
 writers. Bishop Gibson in his additions to Camden 
 wrote of the inclosure which had occurred in the forest 
 districts as the wood was diminished. The case of the 
 forests is of peculiar importance, since these became 
 accessible to cultivation from reasons apart from agri- 
 culture, that is, owing to the destruction of the woods 
 for fuel and building. As woods vanish, the lands pass 
 into agricultural use under conditions which evidently 
 diminish the need of future legal action. In these cases 
 the number of inclosures under act are out of all proportion 
 to their extent. This can be seen from comparing the per- 
 centage of the townships in any district in which inclosure 
 occurs with the percentage of the land affected in the same 
 district. The disproportion is conspicuous in the particular 
 districts concerned in the counties mentioned, Gloucester, 
 Warwick, and Nottingham. A large number of the 
 inclosures are of common as distinct from open field. A 
 comparison of the neighbouring districts is all that is 
 needed to make these features evident. 
 
 Nor are these instances alone. The same results in the 
 eighteenth century records occur in respect of the Forest 
 of Dean, the New Forest, Savernake, and Marlborough, in 
 Hertfordshire, in the Weald, and in Rockingham. In all 
 cases and localities where old forest land had gradually 
 yielded and been cleared, inclosure by act is less than in 
 the surrounding country, this holding true in the main of 
 both common field and common. Of course where forest 
 land had lingered on, even though partly denuded of wood, 
 as in Charnwood, inclosure by act takes place in this 
 very period. But where change occurred previously it 
 could be achieved either by approvement or by actual 
 inclosure from the wild where rights of common did 
 not exist either for forest product or for pasture. This 
 particular conversion of land, at one time inaccessible to 
 cultivation, to active use is the more important, because in 
 the case of much of this land the alteration was achieved 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 113 
 
 only when some actual clearing, arising not because the 
 land was sought but because the timber was wanted, had 
 occurred. The connection of woodland and inclosure was 
 recognised by several writers in the seventeenth century. 
 Thus Gibson and Morton write of changes from wood- 
 land recently in progress. Trigge (1604), in the Hmnble 
 Petition of Two Sisters, specifically exempts from con- 
 demnation " the inclosure of Essex, Hertfordshire and 
 Devonshire and such woodland counties," while Blith 
 {Improver, p. 83), in rebutting the assertion that inclosure 
 necessarily means pasture, says " consider woodlands which 
 now inclosed are grown as gallant cornfields as be in 
 England," and instances the western parts of Warwick, the 
 northern parts of Worcester, Stafford, Shropshire, Derby- 
 shire, Yorkshire. 
 
 The position of the fens is well defined, and the history 
 and conditions of their reclamation clearly ascertained. 
 The great fen drainage schemes affected several counties, 
 Lincoln, Northampton, Cambridge, Huntingdon, and 
 Norfolk. Though on reclamation a considerable parti- 
 tion to individual ownership and to inclosure took place, 
 some parts remained subject to some rights of common, 
 a feature which led to the passing of inclosure acts in the 
 eighteenth century even for areas already dealt with in the 
 preceding century. In addition to these the marshlands 
 in Somerset were evidently to some extent reclaimed 
 before their final treatment under act, and here too a new 
 area was introduced into cultivation under altered con- 
 ditions. As a rule, both here and elsewhere, inclosure 
 acts deal mainly with common. Here, too, a general dis- 
 proportion exists between the number of the inclosures 
 under act and their extent. 
 
 Turning next to the date of such reclamations, parti- 
 tions, and inclosures, that of the fen districts is the 
 seventeenth century. The forests, no doubt, had under- 
 gone contraction from early times, but this became very 
 pronounced in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 
 when the increase of towns seriously threatened the 
 
 H 
 
114 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 existence of the supply of timber and wood. Outcry as to 
 the future finds utterance. The encroachment on the 
 waste hill lands is less easy to date. Probably it was 
 more continuous. 
 
 In the third place, inclosure takes place on the agri- 
 cultural lands, lands, that is, of mixed open field and 
 commons. Here the object is either change in use or 
 more effective use. The extent to which arable use and 
 advantage led to common field inclosure in the early 
 sixteenth or fifteenth centuries is open to debate. That 
 it did so in some cases seems quite clear, not only from 
 instances given by Mr. Leadam, and from Fitz Herbert's 
 argument in their favour, but from the significant 
 references of Leland to the results in many cases. As is 
 pointed out elsewhere, Leland in his Itinerary makes 
 mention of inclosed land some sixty times. In some 
 twenty-six of these cases he adds references to the corn 
 in these inclosures, sometimes noting that the land is 
 abundant or fruitful of corn. On the other hand, it is 
 true that very few of these instances affect the Central 
 Plain, and that most lie in counties where there was hill 
 land. But taking into account the position of these lands 
 and their contiguity to champaign ground, it cannot be 
 assumed that inclosure in all such cases had occurred out 
 of the waste. In any case, however, the fruitfulness to 
 which he calls attention indicates an advantage of inclosure. 
 So far, indeed, as the later sixteenth century itself is con- 
 cerned, not only do writers like Standish advocate change, 
 but tenants inclosing against each other claim that their 
 land is free from the entry of each other's cattle after 
 crop. Whilst this no doubt can be well substantiated, it 
 is not sufficient, of course, to make good the proposition 
 that arable profit was the chief, or even a chief object in 
 the changes occurring in the open fields in the early 
 part of that century or in the preceding century. 
 Certainly Fitz Herbert's words do not bear this inter- 
 pretation. During those years arable profit would seem 
 rather a not very infrequent result than a constant 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 115 
 
 consequence and aim. On the other hand, the custom of 
 intakes, and Tusser's references to inclosure on wastes and 
 the like, point to a concurrent arable development on such 
 lands. 
 
 The factors attending and the conditions influencing 
 inclosure are varying both in their nature and their 
 importance. Not only so, but the importance of these, 
 and especially of some, is by no means constant ; it 
 changes from time to time according to the presence of 
 and the correspondence between different causes and con- 
 ditions, and especially by reason of changes taking place 
 in the agricultural system. 
 
 In the first place, there are certain factors relating to 
 the land both in respect of its soil and suitability. 
 
 Firstly, the soil itself requires attention. In dealing with 
 the inclosures under act, this particular feature will be 
 treated at length. During that period, in the chief regions 
 concerned, the progress of the movement was largely 
 dependent on the nature of the soil, inclosure being deter- 
 mined by it, chiefly of course because it was in consequence 
 of some special feature that land could be utilised to greater 
 or less profit when inclosed, or had in some instances 
 remained uninclosed till that time. But in a wider sense 
 there is some correspondence between the great drift belts 
 of soil and inclosure of the last three centuries as a whole. 
 To realise this it is only necessary to compare an inclosure 
 map with the drift or even solid geological maps. The 
 coincidence is rendered the more emphatic by the corrobora- 
 tion afforded by the map devised from Ogilby's Book 
 of Roads. 
 
 Secondly, the topography of the country is of import- 
 ance. As that has been already alluded to less need be 
 said here. To some degree it stands in relation to the 
 geological structure of the country. It is of importance 
 in two ways. On the one hand it influenced the course 
 of agricultural settlement, making land suitable by reason 
 of accessibility or unsuitable owing to remoteness. On the 
 other hand, it was the obvious reason why some land 
 
ii6 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 remained long unfamiliar with i^ricultural use owing to 
 exposure either to the malign influence of the weather or 
 to the no less dangerous attacks of neighbours. One very 
 important result arises from the effect produced on land 
 already in cultivation by the agricultural use of land 
 previously in a more or less wild state. 
 
 Thirdly, the position of land with regard to a water 
 supply counts for something. Early settlement was 
 almost of necessity in the neighbourhood of water, and 
 nearness to the village meant suitability for cultivation. 
 It is to the abundance of water-bearing strata that the 
 early agricultural development of Northamptonshire has 
 been attributed. But, of course, as agriculture became 
 more diversified, the abundance of this feature in a country 
 like England pointed in a particular direction, namely, in 
 the direction of rich pasture. This suitability tended, 
 it may be suggested, to that development of closes near 
 the settlement, which manifested itself even under the 
 authentic open field system ; but as time went on it 
 naturally increased the growth of inclosure, and of in- 
 closure for a particular purpose. 
 
 In the second place, with the growth of towns and in- 
 dustries an increased demand arose for food products side 
 by side with an increased demand for industrial labour. 
 Ogilby's account of the roads shows a great tendency for 
 the development of inclosure in the neighbourhood of 
 towns and in town areas. This, though not invariable, 
 appears as very frequent from the map. But if we take 
 the area within reach of the metropolis, and also the two 
 industrial districts in the eastern counties and in the west, 
 there are distinct signs that at the end of the seventeenth 
 century, if not before, a considerable part of the land was 
 already inclosed. This is strengthened by the words of 
 Moore, who, writing in the middle of the seventeenth 
 century, is careful to say that he does not complain of 
 inclosure in counties where there are other occupations. 
 
 The influence of town development was felt in several 
 ways. The new population increased the demand for 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 117 
 
 food supplies, as indeed for raw material, where in- 
 dustries were established. A good instance of this occurs 
 in the cloth-working district in Devonshire, where not only 
 was wool required from other counties, as Cornwall, Dorset, 
 Warwick, and Worcester, but food had to be imported. 
 In other words, there was a pressure on the home supplies. 
 The demand was not only for grain, but also for animal 
 products. This was fully recognised in a later century ; 
 but even in the seventeenth century it is evident from the 
 words of Gibson and Morton that cheese, butter, and flesh 
 were needed. Land had to be utilised with the object of 
 increasing as much as possible the net produce. Under 
 these conditions the tendency to inclosure in the case of 
 wastes and commons was naturally strengthened, a feature 
 which might, and in some cases did, react upon the par- 
 ticular use made of the lands till then mainly devoted to 
 arable. Further than this, it seems probable that the 
 lands near the towns would be largely turned to pasture. 
 This would be so obviously in the case of dairy products. 
 It is more difficult to say how far the item of carriage, in 
 respect of corn on the one hand and beasts on the other, 
 would affect its use. Both in the sixteenth and seven- 
 teenth centuries there was a considerable trade in the 
 carriage of grain, but then cattle were also transported. 
 On the whole, the balance seems in favour of a new 
 demand for pasture within easy reach of the towns or 
 industrial districts, at least in the case of the provincial 
 towns. London, however, was largely sustained by cattle 
 from a distance. The demand for meat foods certainly 
 increased, and probably out of proportion to that which 
 took place in respect of grain. 
 
 Again, town labour tended to withdraw people from 
 agricultural labour. This tendency, which was fully recog- 
 nised in the eighteenth century, leaves some trace in 
 writings and legislation of an earlier date, as, for instance, 
 in the care taken in the Statute of Artificers to restrict 
 rigidly the classes entitled to enter crafts and mysteries. 
 The development of the domestic system of industries. 
 
ii8 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 with a population occupied, to some extent in manufac- 
 ture, and to some extent in agriculture, had particular 
 effects. Such a population was almost inevitably driven 
 to resort to those branches of agriculture which made the 
 least call on their labour, namely, to pasture, agriculture, 
 when plied as an auxiliary and on very small holdings, 
 being less suited to grain production. 
 
 Lastly, the very presence of the town with its novel 
 and less stable conditions was subversive of the mere 
 rule of custom. The traditional methods of cultivation 
 went for less, and profit, and increased net profit in 
 particular, went for more. This latter feature, indeed, 
 requires emphasis. In districts where town populations 
 were growing the demand on the land was great, and 
 the capacity for absorbing labour was great Taken 
 together these constituted a very strong ground for 
 inclosure, and their effect increased with every change in 
 method which made the full utilisation of the soil more 
 dependent on individual ownerships. 
 
 In the third place, the effect of inclosures and the 
 agricultural utilisation of wastes and moors, of hill land, 
 and of land once in forest and fen, on the settled 
 agricultural land, needs consideration. Under any circum- 
 stances the extension of cultivation over a large quantity 
 of land hitherto comparatively neglected may result in 
 changes in the use made of land already farmed. The 
 relative suitability of the old land for any particular use 
 may be, and very often is, changed. But of course 
 the extent of the alteration depends very much on 
 the nature of the soil brought into use, and the 
 circumstances under which this so-called reclamation — 
 more accurately this introduction — of fresh land takes 
 place. A gradual extension, due in the main to constant 
 causes and to the increase of demand, would have less 
 effect than that which occurs when a considerable 
 amount of land previously inaccessible or unsuited is 
 brought within the range of careful agricultural use, or of 
 some particular agricultural use, especially when such occurs 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 119 
 
 owing to reasons partly, at any rate, disconnected with 
 agriculture. In other words, the supply is new, and not 
 mainly evoked in response to demand. In the case of 
 land which was hilly, broken, and at one time distant, 
 it seems probable that extension took place from very 
 early times and proceeded with some degree of constancy. 
 But the effect of the Civil Wars and the Dissolution of 
 ■ the Monasteries, with the consequent changes in the owner- 
 \ ship of manors, must not be ignored. Again, the deliberate 
 I re-enactment of approvement under Edward VI. is a 
 matter of importance. Unfortunately, it is open to more 
 than one explanation. It may mark the triumph of those 
 against whom Somerset's anti-inclosure proclamation and 
 actions had been levelled, and whose powers in consequence 
 were doubted. If so, it was a re-affirmation of rights, and 
 of rights which were of very practical importance. On 
 the other hand, it may be due in part to a desire to 
 introduce new arable in the place of that which had been 
 converted to pasture. In this case it is analogous to the 
 subsequent proposals of Alderman Box for partitioning and 
 employing wastes as arable. Even where this was the aim, 
 and it may have been the aim in part, the course thus 
 proposed would lend itself to purposes outside and in 
 excess of the particular need. The woods and forests, 
 however, have a particular and somewhat different bearing, 
 inasmuch as in their case it was the gradual disappearance 
 of the woods through a demand for timber which opened 
 up land to cultivation. Likewise, the inclosing of fens 
 and marshes in the seventeenth century occurs when the 
 knowledge of methods of drainage and the supply of 
 capital render possible somewhat costly and adventurous 
 schemes of reclamation. 
 
 It seems quite certain that arable use was often made 
 of these various lands. Putting aside any argument from 
 the analogy of what occurred at the end of the eighteenth 
 century, when much inclosure took place on the Cotswolds 
 and the Chilterns and neighbouring chalk, there is im- 
 portant contemporary evidence. Arable was the object 
 
I20 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 put forward by Alderman Box, and although his scheme 
 was not adopted, it clearly indicates some realisation of 
 such possibilities. Again, the references by Leland to 
 corn in inclosure, though, as said above, these may refer 
 in part to previous open field, often relate to land in the 
 outlying districts surrounding the Central Plain. They 
 prove, at any rate, the use of inclosures for corn. In the 
 case of woodlands in the seventeenth century, Gibson, in 
 his additions to Camd.6n, definitely attributes the con- 
 version to pasture of land in the fielden or south of 
 Warwickshire to the development of arable and the 
 growth of corn in parts of the north as these were 
 denuded of timber and left open to agriculture. This 
 explanation is adopted by Morton with reference to 
 Northampton. It is asserted by Blith. The reclaimed 
 fen lands presented a very large tract of rich arable. In 
 the case of the seventeenth century, some effect must 
 have been produced by the reconversion to arable of land 
 converted to pasture some time before, and inclosed and 
 restored to fertility by its rest from the plough. 
 
 In addition the inclosure of open field had an effect 
 upon the area available for cultivation, not only by reason 
 of the more effective use of the fallow, but because when 
 such took place over the land of a township, waste and 
 commons might also be included. This of course was 
 very frequent in the eighteenth century when all or most 
 of the lands of a township are dealt with, being put 
 together and then allocated to those variously interested. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the quantity of waste or 
 wild land of which little use had been made, and which 
 passed into the area of cultivation during the sixteenth 
 and seventeenth centuries, was large. If the statements 
 made about it in earlier years of the period are correct, 
 it is certain that it was not dealt with after private 
 acts became common. In other words much comes into 
 use without specific account or legal process other than 
 approvement or some like form of action. And of course 
 this is obviously more frequent where such land abounds. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 121 
 
 In the fourth place, the progress of agriculture and 
 the condition of farming had much to do with inclosure 
 both in relation to its object and also to the nature of 
 the land affected. Different periods can be discerned. 
 
 Firstly, the incessant cropping of land unskilfully farmed, 
 and varied only by wasteful fallowing, led in many places, 
 and particularly on the less strong lands, to exhaustion. 
 When this was accompanied by a great demand for wool, 
 and a disturbance in the labour, market due in part to 
 the effect of the plagues and pestilences of the fourteenth, 
 and to the civil discords of the fifteenth century, the 
 partial abandonment of cultivated land to sheep, and 
 even to a by no means careful system of sheep farming, 
 was initially profitable. The change was hardly pro- 
 gressive. In some cases it meant slight use of the land 
 and a corresponding degree of desolation. 
 
 Secondly, in the sixteenth century new tendencies and 
 new possibilities "manifest tliemselves, very different from 
 the foregoing. Agriculture passes into a new . stage. 
 The skilful farmer wishes to be freed TrotrT hisslovenly or 
 less skilled neighbours. From Fitz Herbert on there is 
 a constant succession of writers advocating inclosure from 
 the farming point of view. Fitz Herbert himself, it must 
 be remembered, lays stress on the advantages for breeding 
 and grazing as much as for arable ; but this aspect must 
 be carefully distinguished from that dealt with above. It 
 implied careful use of the land, and provided occupation, 
 if not to the same extent as arable, still to a greater 
 extent than the earlier system of sheep farms. 
 
 Thirdly, with the seventeenth century and the develop- 
 ment of convertible and also specialised farming, a new 
 impulse is experienced. Not only is there a general 
 motive for inclosure, but at different times there are 
 special motives for the inclosure of particular soils. 
 Dairy land is in demand in this century, as may be seen 
 from the encomiums passed on inclosure for this purpose, 
 by Houghton, for instance. The more inclosed state of 
 the great dairy districts when the epoch of private acts is 
 
122 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 reached relegates their initial inclosure to much about the 
 same time. This of course meant the inclosure of rich 
 pasture and valley land. When grasses, clover, and 
 particularly roots come into use, land of a different type 
 is capable of a new use provided that it be inclosed. 
 Roots indeed invest light soils with a wholly new value. 
 They seem to have become a prime feature in the move- 
 ment towards the end of the seventeenth and in the early 
 years of the eighteenth century. In the middle of the 
 latter century scientific breeding affects large areas of 
 land, and particularly the North Midlands, whilst at its 
 end the progress of farming and the pressure on land 
 brings the chalk belt of the Midlands and the Cotswolds 
 into the prevailing practice. 
 
 In the fifth place, the effect of inclosure, and to some 
 degree its course, depended upon the facilities for transport 
 at any given time. As long as there was very little 
 opportunity for the carriage of goods, the things needed 
 in a particular locality had to be produced in that locality ; 
 and while facilities were incomplete, to that extent much 
 land was prevented from being put to the agricultural 
 use to which it was by soil and climate best suited. Its 
 employment depended more on its accessibility to other 
 markets or its comparative isolation than on natural 
 circumstances of fertility. As the means of carriage 
 improved, this obstacle to a division of production accord- 
 ing to the nature of the soil diminishes. But, of course, 
 when this occurred, and when inclosure was the step 
 whereby change was accomplished, a very considerable 
 alteration might be occasioned in the occupation of a 
 district, and when widespread conversion took place, the 
 remedy to those thrown out of work lay at a distance. It 
 is the difference between the mobility of population and 
 the mobility of goods which at times made alterations 
 in agricultural use a hardship, and occasioned complaint 
 not unreasonable if based on fact Again, if one thing 
 could be carried and another thing could not, the one 
 which could not, had to be produced where it was wanted. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 123 
 
 Wool, of course, was easily carried and was a usual article 
 of transport even in early times. Grain__could be carried, 
 though less easily ; but apparently, save where means of 
 water transport presented themselves, it Wcis usually carried 
 to markets within a comparatively short distance of the 
 place of growth. With the end of the sixteenth century, 
 it became an article Tor mc^e distant markets, and 
 
 supplies for these, _and the_growing industrial districts 
 
 were obtained from ajconsiderable distance. Thus a writer 
 inrT530 "speaks of the necessary import into Devonshire 
 of food from outside ; and in the seventeenth century a 
 corn trade was evidently fairly well established. Animals 
 for food, and animal food products were largely of local 
 consumption, a feature which remained on in the case of 
 the latter till the eighteenth. Even in that century the 
 local demand of the town and industrial populations for 
 meat and animal products is mentioned as a reason 
 for inclosure for their production within a reasonable 
 distance. Probably in early times the poorer classes in 
 a town were very badly off in this respect. The area, 
 however, from which a town was served increased in 
 the seventeenth century. The grazing butchers, whose 
 occupation of inclosed pasture is complained of, marked 
 a development. 
 
 Any attempt to apply these various considerations 
 and to trace the general course of inclosure raises a 
 preliminary question as to the extent to which certain 
 parts of the country were, either in early times or late, 
 really subject to a system of open field cultivation. The 
 matter can be put in another way. It is quite evident 
 that the great mass of the common field inclosures in 
 the eighteenth century was on a belt of land narrow in 
 the south-west and broad in the east and north-east, 
 extending from Somerset and Dorset, through the Mid- 
 lands and North Midlands to East Yorkshire, Lincoln 
 and Norfolk at the wider end. In the main this consists 
 of the Central Plain, the north of the East Anglian Plain, 
 Lincolnshire and the East Riding. From the evidence of 
 
124 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the seventeenth century much the same area is that mainly 
 affected. There are additions, it is true. It may well be 
 asked how it was that this region remained uninclosed and 
 little affected so late. The search for a satisfactory answer 
 to this question brings out one or two possibilities. The 
 earlier inclosed condition of other districts may be due 
 either to special local causes affecting these and occasioning 
 alteration in the arable system and the inclosure of open 
 fields, or to the absence, complete or partial, of the common 
 field system of cultivation in these parts. Undoubtedly 
 the chief technical difficulty in the way of complete 
 individual separation and use lay in the intricate mutual 
 rights affecting the arable. The attachment to arable 
 lands of a right to pasture for a certain or uncertain 
 number of beasts in the commons or the lord's waste 
 presented, in comparison with this, little obstacle. Now 
 with regard to this point there are certain points to be 
 noticed. 
 
 Firstly, the counties where there is but little common 
 field inclosure in the eighteenth century vary in respect 
 of inclosure of common or waste. They may be placed 
 under the following headings : North, Lancashire and 
 Cheshire, West, South- West, South-East 
 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 
 Per Cent 
 
 
 inclosed.^ 
 
 
 inclosed.^ 
 
 North— 
 
 
 West— 
 
 
 Northumberland, 
 
 10-8 (1-7) 
 
 Shropshire, 
 
 5-1 ( -3) 
 
 Cumberland, 
 
 237 ( -2) 
 
 Hereford, 
 
 - 1-3 (3-5) 
 
 Durham, 
 
 17-7 ( -I) 
 
 Somerset, 
 
 IO-9 (i-8) 
 
 Westmoreland, - 
 
 i6o(.3) 
 
 South-East — 
 
 
 North-West— 
 
 
 Kent,- 
 
 •5(-) 
 
 Lancashire, 
 
 5-7(?) 
 
 Sussex, 
 
 1-9 (1-7) 
 
 Cheshire, 
 
 3-0 ( -4) 
 
 Essex, 
 
 - 1-2 (l-9) 
 
 South-West— 
 
 
 
 
 Devon, 
 
 1-7 (-) 
 
 
 
 Cornwall, 
 
 •s(-) 
 
 
 
 With the exception of the northern counties and of 
 Somerset there is not much inclosure of any kind in these 
 
 ' Per cent, inclosure : waste outside, and common field within, brackets. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 125 
 
 counties. To study the matter more fully reference should 
 be made to the detailed percentage list of inclosures. 
 
 Secondly, while a good deal of inclosure no doubt 
 occurred during the seventeenth century, without record, 
 there is ho reason for assigning such disproportionately 
 to the counties which figure hardly at all in the in- 
 closure of the eighteenth. Perhaps it would be more 
 correct to say that few, if any, of such counties can be said 
 to have been mainly inclosed in that century. Indeed 
 there is a good deal of reference to many of these as 
 inclosed at its beginning or in its early years. The following 
 are referred to as inclosed : Shropshire, Hereford, Somer- 
 set, Kent, Essex, Worcester, Devonshire, Hertford, Surrey, 
 Sussex, Berkshire, Hampshire, Wiltshire. To this list 
 there is good general ground for adding Cornwall, where 
 inclosure went on at the end of the sixteenth century. The 
 north, with exception of Durham at the end of the seven- 
 teenth century, is practically left out of count at the time. 
 In other words, the counties given above, or most of them, 
 if inclosed from ordinary common field, were so inclosed 
 before the seventeenth century. 
 
 Thirdly, with regard to several regions, including many of 
 the above counties, reasons have been adduced at different 
 times for the belief that the agricultural system or the 
 system of tenure was in great part, at least, responsible 
 for the absence of perceptible inclosure. This has been 
 the traditional view with regard to Cornwall and Devon- 
 shire, and Dr. Slater has suggested that the counties 
 bordering on Wales owed their early appearance as inclosed, 
 and their absence from the records of inclosure, to differ- 
 ences in the agricultural system, due to an assimilation of 
 their condition in this respect to that prevailing over the 
 border. Co-aration, which was not practised in Wales, 
 did not, he considers, prevail in these counties. With this 
 absence, one of the features which must have stood in the 
 way of effective inclosure, namely, common right after crop 
 over the various strips in the arable fields, also vanishes. 
 There are traces, but the traces are comparatively 
 
126 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 slight. On the other hand there are other districts 
 where a like cause cannot be alleged, as for instance 
 Lancashire, and such counties as Kent. Cheshire has been 
 allowed to stand as a border county. Kent was accounted 
 for at one time on the ground that the system of common 
 was incompatible with gavelkind, but this explanation was 
 dismissed. 
 
 As a matter of fact the question is not as to common 
 existing as attached to lands, but as to common rights over 
 arable, and a custom or system of common cultivation. 
 Shackage, or common of shack, was evidently not a 
 uniform feature, at any rate in the sixteenth century. 
 As has been pointed out in another chapter this is not 
 strict common, but a species of common custom originat- 
 ing in a mutual forbearance as to trespasses, which, when 
 long established, became of legal force. It is recognised 
 as an ordinary feature by Bracton and others, though 
 not laid down, it must be remembered, as a necessary 
 and uniform feature. Britton, for instance, speaking of 
 claims of common over arable, writes, " the tenant re- 
 sisting it might say, the soil is his several, which he may 
 plough, sow, or inclose at his pleasure, and at all times 
 keep inclosed." It it quite clear that in Coke's time it 
 was by no means invariable ; the decision in Corbet's case is 
 decisive on this point. Coke's note is also of importance ; 
 " the like intercommoning," he adds, " is in Lincolnshire, 
 Yorkshire, and other counties, as well as Norfolk." 
 
 Taking these points into account, it is impossible to 
 regard the system as restricted to the counties in the old 
 kingdom of Mercia. The instance of Dorset, which falls 
 well outside this region, and shows more than 8 per cent, of 
 common field inclosures, is also a distinctive fact. Further 
 than that, the somewhat startling differences between the 
 northern counties, in respect of common inclosure, and 
 those on the west and elsewhere requires explanation. It 
 is also clear that open field with intercommoning was 
 established in parts of East Anglia — probably at one time 
 through the agricultural and early settled district. The 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 127 
 
 position of Hertford is of interest here. There is no 
 doubt that that county was, with the exception of the 
 north on or abutting on the chalk hills and particu- 
 larly the north-east, early in an inclosed condition, the 
 amount of inclosure under act in the rest of the county 
 being small and very like that taking place in Hereford.^ 
 Though some weight may be attached to the influence 
 of Celtic customs upon the March counties and upon 
 Cornwall, and possibly some portion of Devonshire, this 
 explanation is insufficient by itself in their case, and is 
 evidently inapplicable when applied to Lancashire and the 
 neighbouring districts of Cheshire, or to East Yorkshire 
 and the north. 
 
 Another explanation is that a difference in system was 
 due to the different nature of the land, either by reason of 
 hill, or because of the uncleared forests and long moors, 
 which were unfavourable to agricultural settlements in 
 which arable was the central feature. A large part of these 
 districts came into effective use late from a wild or nearly 
 wild state, either by direct inclosure or under a system of 
 cultivation free from the more complicating forms of com- 
 mon, and in particular from intercommoning over arable. 
 But mere lateness of treatment does not seem sufficient to 
 account by itself for the curiously slight traces of the open 
 field system. Though that was present in some places 
 and to some extent, several influences evidently join to 
 restrain its more general establishment Among these the 
 nature and circumstances of the land, reinforced on the 
 Celtic side by the reasons alluded to, may be held to 
 occupy a very prominent place. The case of forest by 
 itself has been adequately dealt with ; but on hill land, 
 interspersed with forests or covered by moors, the pros- 
 pects of arable were unfavourable, and, relatively, the 
 advantages for sheep and cattle, not carefully pastured but 
 wandering with little supervision, were great In addition 
 the triassic formation on which the land rests appears to 
 
 ^ Thus the percentage of land inclosed is disproportionately low compared 
 with the number of the inclosnres, see Appendix C. 
 
128 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 have been more suited to herds and flocks under these 
 conditions. Further, so far as the two border regions are 
 concerned, the unsettled conditions of the country and its 
 exposure to hostile raid made settled agriculture perilous. 
 If it be remembered that the great early advantages and 
 economies of inclosure were associated rather with sheep 
 and cattle than with arable, an early inclosure from the 
 wild or waste state in districts devoted to such use 
 appears as probable and even normal. As soon as such 
 advantages are realised and can be obtained, inclosure 
 ensues, at any rate, to a large extent. Moreover, the 
 difference between the north and the west in respect of 
 the inclosures of common and waste under act and 
 in the eighteenth century is in part explicable by the 
 earlier introduction of order and security on the Welsh 
 marches, as also by the superiority of the land and its 
 less exposure. Inclosure, or rather partition of this kind, 
 takes place in a different way from the inclosure due to a 
 desire to convert the land from one use to another. It is 
 obstructed by fewer obstacles, and in early times it occurs 
 largely over pasture ; of course the poorer lands, even if 
 partitioned, remain open to a great extent by reason of 
 the cost. 
 
 Evidence as to the difference in the state of the country 
 between the more settled agricultural regions and those 
 lying to the west and the north is to be found in the 
 results on the comparative wealth and population. The 
 order of the counties given by Thorold Rogers^ shows con- 
 clusively the superiority of the counties where industrial 
 development had progressed or where settled arable agri- 
 culture was of old standing. It shows also the very low 
 position in respect of assessable wealth of the counties in 
 the north and the west in 1503. Between 1341 and 
 1503 both Shropshire and Hereford rise in the order. 
 Somewhat similar evidence is exhibited in the position of 
 the parishes in the Tudor times. This can be best seen 
 from the maps of the various dioceses prepared from the 
 
 ^ History of Agriculture and Prices, esp. iv. p. 89. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 129 
 
 returns in the time of Henry VIII. It can be roughly 
 judged by a comparison between the number of parishes 
 in the counties, as given by Camden, and the respective 
 acreage. This calculation is open to the criticism that the 
 position of some counties though high is disproportionately 
 and unduly depressed by areas of very poor land ; while 
 counties of more equable characteristics show to greater 
 advantage. It affords, however, a rough general guide as to 
 the distribution of population at the time, and, further, some 
 indication as to the development of settlement in even 
 earlier times. 
 
 The features dealt with in the preceding pages may 
 be summarised under two headings. On the one side are 
 those affeHin g~aFd~^eterm inmg__th& -course -taken in the 
 e arly s ettlement, an^ In particuIar~The~rourse~~&f~ that 
 settlement which dependeB^orTandjwasemTDodied in the 
 arablejvillages. Where such were comparatively rare, the 
 area of land lying in waste, and often, probably, in an 
 absolutely wild state, was correspondingly great ; and 
 though incidents of common existed in differing degrees 
 of importance, such land was liable to approvement, and 
 was made the subject of new grants or inclosure. Nor 
 must the influence of such inclosure and partition on the 
 land already under the common field system be overlooked, 
 whether exercised by direct competition through a supply 
 of corn or by indirect competition and the force of 
 example. On the other side are the causes affectin g the 
 desire_J;p_Jnclose. These, of course, varied from time to 
 time and from place to place, being due in the main to 
 industrial growth, the character of the land, and the state 
 of agriculture. The progress of the movement as defi- 
 nitely recorded in history relates to the action of these 
 causes, and in the main to the later stages of their action. 
 
 In comparing the condition of the land in respect of 
 cultivation at different times one point requires emphasis. 
 No doubt at all times land in common field or under 
 developed common right was but a portion of the land. 
 In early times, however, the other land was in the main 
 
 I 
 
I30 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 waste or in forest or absolutely wild ; but in later times, 
 as for instance in the sixteenth century, much was in 
 cultivation. This partly explains the difference between 
 the position of common of shack in Bracton's time and in 
 Coke's time. When Bracton wrote he was dealing with 
 manorial arable, and though inclosure did exist, inter- 
 commoning on . the lands was usual ; but from Coke's 
 account of Corbet's case, as indeed from his Institutes, it 
 is evident that though rights of common of pasture and 
 otherwise over waste and commons was well known, a 
 great deal of arable existed unaffected by common of 
 shack ; some inclosed and some possibly in open field free 
 from shackage. 
 
 With these features in mind, some attempt may be 
 made to summarise the movement towards inclosure and 
 to trace its progress through its various stages. 
 
 During the years before the fifteenth century there is 
 little sign of anything but very gradual change and develop- 
 ment save in districts characterised by town and industrial 
 growth. In the country at large inclosure is a feature of the 
 expansion of the area under cultivation and its adapta- 
 tion to the ordinary needs of the district and of an 
 agriculture undergoing no striking change. As may be 
 concluded both from the language of legal authorities and 
 the descriptions given by writers on agriculture towards 
 the end of this period, many closes were inclosed for 
 cattle, while, in some instances, intercommoning on the 
 arable was disused ; but on the old lands the early 
 common field system continued. Further cultivation was 
 gradually extended either by approvement of common or 
 on land being taken in from the wild state, the most im- 
 portant scene of this latter movement being in the west. 
 Moreover the settlement of the country proceeding from the 
 east the western districts were less affected for some time. 
 Not only so, but their very nature and formation presented 
 obstacles to wide-spread agriculture, while the unsettled 
 condition of the border acted as a further discouragement. 
 But as the country developed, and as order was secured, 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 131 
 
 much really good land in this region was made accessible. 
 As a rule its use was accompanied by inclosure, and 
 hence its early cultivation was largely unattended by 
 incidents of common affecting the actual arable or by co- 
 aration. Possibly, to some extent it may be true that 
 agriculture in this part of the country was affected by 
 the usages across the border, a possibility which might 
 seem strengthened by a like absence of open field in 
 Devon and Cornwall. On the other hand, the condition 
 of counties like Lancashire and Cheshire shows that 
 this, if an influence, was not the sole or the chief 
 influence. The nature of the land, and the very character 
 of much inclosure with high banks, point to concurrent 
 introduction of cultivation and inclosure over much of its 
 area ; and where there was some common field, the 
 addition thus made would affect its continuance. The 
 west, in other words, seems to have been inclosed into 
 use. Further, it seems probable that stock and sheep 
 played a large part in farming operations in this district. 
 
 A distinction may be drawn between the circumstances 
 of the west and the north. Insecurity continued much 
 longer on the northern border, while the land in itself was 
 less suited to arable agriculture. 
 
 But in certain districts a new factor was beginning to 
 operate. The growth of towns and industrial occupation 
 affected the use of the land by reason of the new demand 
 for local supplies, and because of its effect on the local 
 supply of labour. Added to the need of food, and of 
 animal food, was the demand in textile centres for wool. 
 It must be remembered that the advantage of inclosure 
 on the farming side was early recognised in respect of 
 animals; and of stock as well as sheep. The detailed con- 
 siderations advanced in the account of the various 
 counties give some ground for assigning to this period the 
 beginning of the inclosure in the East Anglian Plain, in 
 the clothing districts of the west, these being somewhat 
 later, and probably in other places, as for instance the 
 land near Newbury in Berkshire. 
 
132 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 (a) From the fifteenth century to middle of sixteenth century. 
 
 In the fifteenth century the growth of sheep farming 
 begins to exert a dominant influence on farming in many 
 places. That this in some cases took the form of conver- 
 sion of arable open field to pasture by means of inclosure 
 is undoubted. The testimony of Rossus as to the actual 
 facts within his knowledge in Warwickshire is sufficient as 
 to that district in the early or middle of the fifteenth 
 century, and his view is substantiated by Latimer, 
 who refers to the early sixteenth, and by such a careful, 
 though not contemporary, writer like Dugdale, who, it 
 should be remembered, when he wrote in the seventeenth 
 century, was not opposed to inclosure in general, which he 
 regarded as one of the chief means of improvement. 
 Writers who deal with the matter in general add their 
 almost unanimous evidence. Nor does Fitz Herbert really 
 contravene this view, though he considers the advantages 
 in farming undoubted and great The real question is as 
 to the extent and locality in which results such as these 
 would occur. Now, with regard to the growth of sheep 
 farming, several points require notice. Firstly, it might 
 well occur under circumstances where no conversion of 
 arable and no inclosure of this order occur ; in other 
 words, there was much land not lying to arable and either 
 wild or waste. Use of the former, whether by inclosure 
 or not, was no disadvantage, and approvement of the latter, 
 though doubtless a grievance to individuals, was not 
 necessarily a cause of evil. Secondly, when sheep were 
 multiplied in districts where there was local demand for 
 the raw material, wool, any disturbance was compensated 
 for in some mejisure. In the eastern counties there were 
 inclosures and inclosure risings in the sixteenth century, 
 but the risings may have been by way of resentment at 
 private loss of common, while further it is evident that 
 very large numbers of sheep were pastured in the open. 
 Thirdly, much of the inclosure, as indeed Fitz Herbert tells 
 us, occurred on demesne. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 133 
 
 The effect, then, on the inclosure movement, was three- 
 fold. In the first place, wool was a product which could ' 
 be carried, and which in many places was produced for 
 distant and not local use. In the second place, commons, 
 as distinct from open field, were often interfered with. In 
 the third place, demesne was frequently inclosed while 
 other land previously brought into cultivation from the 
 wild was changed in its use. This latter feature needs to 
 be borne in mind since in some counties and regions it 
 adds considerably to the area over which change was 
 possible. It seems doubtful if such land would be included 
 in the returns to inclosure commissions. Certainly the 
 figures of these do not seem very striking. Possibly this 
 was the case in Warwick, where the gradual disappearance 
 of forest must have brought and been bringing much new 
 land into cultivation. 
 
 On the other hand it by no means follows that the 
 movement implied national or widespread evil. It meant 
 local disturbance, and local disturbance where the mobility 
 of labour was slight, entailed individual injury ; but on 
 the other hand much land was exhausted and the rest 
 enjoyed brought about an increase when later on it was 
 reconverted. Further, the material was the basis of the 
 prosperity of parts of the country. Lastly, there was 
 much demand for arable products and, as Leland shows, 
 many of the inclosures, especially on the western side of 
 the country, were " plentiful of com " ; Somerset, a county 
 with inclosure, was "good for wheat," and Suffolk was 
 " full of styles." 
 
 As to the locality, there was no doubt considerable 
 increase in general inclosure. Next in the fifteenth century 
 inclosure in the textile districts probably advanced very 
 considerably. Thirdly, in the sixteenth century parks and 
 demesnes were often inclosed and commons or land over 
 which people had exercised common rights of pasture and 
 the like curtailed in many counties. Lastly, in the later 
 fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries, a definite advance in 
 inclosure appears in (a) Warwick, Northampton, Leicester; 
 
134 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 (fi) Buckingham, Oxford, Berkshire; (c) Bedford. These 
 indosures being the cause of disturbance, or recorded by 
 commissions, were not, obviously, merely inclosures of land 
 otherwise but little used or wild or sporadic. 
 
 In the first named group, evidence as to inclosure comes 
 from various sources, Leicester and Northampton occu- 
 pying a very marked place in Dr. Gay's lists for 1517 
 and 1607, and Warwick, though less conspicuous, still 
 prominent. All these are mentioned by Strype. Inclo- 
 sure in Northampton is also complained of by the author 
 of Certain Causes, etc. It seems probable that the inclosure 
 in Leicester was mainly in the south, and in Warwick in 
 the north. Standish speaks, it should be added, of the 
 inclosures existing in Warwick. 
 
 The second group are also conspicuous in the list for 
 1517, while Bucks ranks among the five counties dealt 
 with in 1 607. All three are mentioned by Strype, and the 
 inclosures in Buckingham and Oxford are the subject of 
 complaint in the tract Certain Causes, etc. Both Stow and 
 Speed record risings in Buckingham. The land affected 
 in Berkshire was apparently in the north-west, that is the 
 Abingdon region. By the end of the sixteenth century, 
 there was almost certainly much inclosed land in the south 
 of Oxford and Buckingham, while in addition there were 
 in the latter county many inclosures in the Chilterns. 
 These may have occurred from a forest or wild state and 
 thus be in addition to those forming a grievance. None 
 the less they may have been connected with these latter 
 as a cause. 
 
 A considerable amount of inclosure occurred in Bedford, 
 as is shown by its position in the lists for 1517 and 1 607, 
 and also in Strype, and from the records of the acts there 
 is some ground for placing such in the centre, the 
 Ampthill district 
 
 Inclosure was frequent in Middlesex in the earlier part 
 of the period, as the list for 15 17. proves. 
 
 In addition to the above, inclosures were evidently a 
 factor in the growth of Somerset, some leading to risings. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 135 
 
 some occasioned by the development of the wool industry 
 which existed in Taunton ; in the districts neighbouring on 
 Wiltshire and Gloucester; and also in all probability near 
 North Devon, where there was industrial development 
 by the beginning of the seventeenth century. By the 
 end of the sixteenth century Somerset was considered 
 inclosed. Also the development of the Great Weald 
 district proceeded, and addition was made to the inclosed 
 ground, leading to the appearance described by Aubrey. 
 Of course more may have occurred in the early seven- 
 teenth century. Further, the fruit hedges and orchards of 
 Gloucester, Worcester and Hereford must be ascribed to 
 this period. Probably in the west border country the 
 process continued, whereby cultivation was enlarged and 
 the rich pasture lands of the region utilised. 
 
 During this period, that is, till past the middle of the 
 sixteenth century, inclosure probably tended to change in 
 occupation in some districts. It must of course be looked 
 at from two sides. The area of possible cultivation was 
 no doubt increased, much land being brought in both on 
 the west and also in places where woods were being 
 cleared. In such parts arable was increased as well as 
 pasture, a feature affecting the neighbouring districts 
 where agriculture had been established at an earlier date. 
 On the other hand, within the area of cultivation lands 
 had been inclosed. This occurred in the case of demesne ; 
 while further there seems ground for believing that wastes 
 over which common right had been in active use were 
 interfered with to the loss and discontent of the com- 
 moners. Even from Fitz Herbert inclosure in these cases 
 seems to have been initiated mainly for sheep or for 
 other stock. The aim was not better arable use or 
 even dairy developments. In some instances a like 
 process manifested itself on the land of the tenants. 
 The result in some places was calamitous. Some land 
 slipped back into what was little more than inclosed 
 sheep walk. Sometimes the cause was the exhaustion of 
 the soil, sometimes the competition of new land, sometimes 
 
136 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the requirements of the neighbouring textile . industries. 
 In many cases these co-operated. The districts which 
 suffered most were those where compensating develop- 
 ments were slight, that is, which produced and sent to 
 some distance wool requiring little labour in its production ; 
 and these were chiefly to be found in counties with good 
 agricultural settlement. Such disturbance in occupation 
 must be carefully distinguished from the more strictly 
 local disturbances which were compensated for by neigh- 
 bouring industrial use of the wool, or associated with 
 increase in arable in the immediate vicinity. In North 
 Devon both features manifested themselves, the district 
 finding it difficult to keep itself supplied both with 
 wool and corn. In the west, much land seems to have 
 been inclosed either from wild or from large wastes where 
 common, if it existed, was not an integral part of an agri- 
 cultural and arable settlement. In the eastern counties 
 wool was needed locally, as also were animal products. 
 
 There are three particular features which require notice 
 with reference to this period. 
 
 In the first place, improvements in arable farming, though 
 they may have resulted in some cases, are not of much 
 account as an aim of inclosure at this time. Fitz Herbert's 
 language by itself seems to justify this as a general 
 statement of fact. The popular literature is much more 
 emphatic. The reconversion of inclosed land falls mostly 
 g>Utside the time, and is rather a consequence than a cause. 
 *?:■;; iln the second place, side by side with the oft cited 
 husbandry acts, important as evidence if not in result, 
 whichVseek to regulate the supply of arable land, must be 
 placed the- clauses of the Statute of Artificers and of 
 various Po6JFi>Law enactments which seek to maintain 
 a supply of a^icultural labour. 
 
 In the third) '|jlace, the popular discontent and risings 
 in the middle ofth^ century .were not necessarily associated 
 with the conversioii , of,^table. They were probably just 
 as much due to the inclosures of commons, with the 
 consequent deprivation of common rights. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 137 
 
 (fi) From the middle of sixteenth century to the end 
 of the seventeenth century. 
 
 Towards the end of the sixteenth century a new 
 period in the history of inclosure begins, marked byjthe 
 steady_^rowth-of ..farming_JunpxQyement-as — aa_^ctiye 
 motive, by the develop ment of locomotion and transport, 
 and by additions fro m uncu ltivated land cnore^definite 
 and with more deliberate purpose than in earlier years. 
 These features combine together "~to~givF a dififerent 
 character to the movement. Thus the inclosure of arable 
 occurs for many other purposes than conversion. It is 
 needed to allow of skill and to permit the cultivation of 
 new crops ; and these taken together with the more 
 general advantages of individual possession and full control, 
 render conversion from arable to pasture an occasional 
 rather than a frequent consequence. Further than that, 
 where such does occur, it is often caused by the desire to 
 rput land to the use for which it is best fitted, a process 
 not necessarily leading to hardship where labour can 
 move freely, and when the area within which exchange 
 takes place, and men live and move, is enlarged. Local 
 industrial growth adds force to this consideration. Both 
 raw material and food are required by a population 
 increasing in many districts. The very reclamation of 
 land emphasises the demand of the time. Land is brought 
 in from an unused condition, not as hitherto largely 
 without cost and often owing to the diminution of woods, 
 but with purpose to employ it in cultivation and at a 
 large expense, as in the fens. Nor is this all; different 
 branches of farming develop, and, as is evident from writers 
 during the century and especially Houghton, dairy pro- 
 ducts offer a new opportunity of profit and one to which 
 the open field system is repugnant The result is in- 
 closure, and inclosure for farming purposes, and, as is 
 elsewhere emphasised, on a large scale. To this period, 
 too, may be assigned the inclosure of a great quantity of 
 land hitherto wholly wild or in scant use, as in Cornwall 
 
138 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 and probably along the west. The inclosure acts of 
 the eighteenth century quite inadequately account for 
 what was in this condition at the end of the sixteenth 
 century. Inclosure was further occasioned by the growth 
 of towns and industries and their influence on the agricul- 
 tural land surrounding them, by reason of both the new 
 demands of the town populations and the effect produced 
 on labour. 
 
 The contrast with the earlier period was great. The 
 inclosures of the seventeenth century are essentially con- 
 nected with the growth of farming. This character is due 
 not only to the change in method and in crop, both tending 
 to augment the desire of the more skilful farmers to be 
 freed from the harassing yoke of their more indifferent 
 neighbours, and the latter making change necessary 
 because undeviating custom was the great obstacle in the 
 way of improvement, but also to the nature of the new 
 land brought into cultivation. That was largely arable. 
 In some cases land inclosed in the previous century was 
 reconverted to grain, having profited greatly by a rest from 
 tillage. In some cases, again, the land where forest had 
 once stood was peculiarly suited to crops,^ and the corn 
 thus raised supplanted that of surrounding districts. This, 
 according to Bishop Gibson in his additions to Camden, 
 was the case in Warwickshire, an explanation which Morton 
 applies to his own county. But the district of the new 
 dj^nage areas is the most conspicuous. The reclamation 
 of these lands added many thousands of acres of excep- 
 tionally rich corn land to the arable, and thus rendered 
 necessary some alteration in the purpose to which other 
 lands should be put 
 
 Viewed from the farming standpoint, two features stand 
 out after the middle of the period. The one is the growing 
 importance of the dairy, the other the enormous importance 
 of inclosure on light lands where new grassy jjid__rgpt 
 crops were of the greatest rvalue. Thus we hear from 
 Houghton of the effects produced on the sands of Norfolk. 
 
 ' On this in geneial, see Blith, Eng. Tmprover, pp. 83-4. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 139 
 
 Of course, in districts already inclosed, these crops were 
 introduced without difficulty, a fact which accounts for the 
 early cultivation of the turnip in Hertford, a county early 
 inclosed except in the north, eis the normal result of its 
 former position as a royal forest On the other hand, in 
 Norfolk, inclosure was undertaken to allow of such culti- 
 vation. 
 
 While the inclosure was widespread during this period, 
 and very considerable in amount, there are three 
 stages deserving mention. During the last years of the 
 sixteenth and the early part of the seventeenth century the 
 progress of the movement was a matter of great concern 
 to the State. Thus we hear that inclosure is worse than 
 in the time of Henry VII., and the sheep figures as a 
 destroyer of farms and devourer of men in the pages of 
 various writers. Further, the proceedings of the Privy 
 Council, with letters to the Sheriffs, and the levy of com- 
 positions, emphasise the anxiety. On the other hand, 
 the very record of these proceedings shows that, in many 
 cases at any rate, the complaints were unfounded from the 
 public point of view, and other writers begin to point to 
 the actual agricultural advantages. The counties most 
 concerned are in the North Midlands, Leicester, Lincoln, 
 Northampton, Rutland, Nottingham, Derby, and in the 
 west Gloucester and Somerset, to which may be added 
 Wiltshire on Aubrey's testimony. Next come the fen 
 and marsh reclamations, not only effecting inclosure in their 
 own area but a cause for change in use and so for inclosure 
 in the surrounding land. Here the most prominent 
 counties are Lincoln, North Cambridge, West Norfolk, 
 Huntingdon, Northampton, and in the west Somerset. 
 Possibly the inclosures so bitterly complained of in 
 Leicester, Northampton, and Warwick were partly due to 
 this development, though they may in part be of an earlier 
 date, and may be due, as has been pointed out, to the 
 thinning out of woods owing to the growth of the iron 
 trade. Lastly, in the latter half of the seventeenth cen- 
 tury we have the considerable movement which it was sought 
 
I40 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 to legalise by parliamentary means, and which is referred 
 to by many, and especially by Houghton. This would 
 seem to have been very general. Probably it was at this 
 time that the dairy districts of Gloucester, Wiltshire, and 
 Buckingham, no doubt affected before, underwent further 
 inclosure. During the later years light lands are inclosed 
 to allow of the new crops, and show a very marked increase 
 in fertility. The cultivation of grasses, clover and roots 
 introduces new elements into inclosure of great and 
 growing importance. Not only is a fresh source of profit 
 disclosed which can be attained only by inclosure, but the 
 effects of the change are different, especially as regards the 
 quantity of employment. Even before this, the result of 
 inclosure often was to increase the amount of land in some 
 form of use, owing to the disuse or decrease of fallow, a 
 consequence to be set against the real or alleged conversion 
 of arable to pasture. But with new crops, and 
 especially with roots, the total yield is augmented and 
 the total occasion for agricultural employment increased. 
 Root crops require labour, and the labour in this direction 
 is just as important and just as profitable as if employed 
 in producing grain. Not only so, but the better rotation 
 means an improvement in the permanent fertility of the 
 soil. In some districts little advantage is taken of these 
 new possibilities, since in the beginning of the eighteenth 
 century, as one writer says, some of the inclosed lands of 
 Stafford produced seven successive crops of grain. But, as 
 is elsewhere pointed out, the results on the question of 
 employment become of great importance. This factor, 
 which by itself would distinguish later from early inclosure, 
 comes into operation, even if partial operation, in the 
 seventeenth century. 
 
 The earlier years of the eighteenth century cannot be 
 separated from the latter part of the seventeenth century. 
 The movement is continuous, and all testimony points to 
 its widespread nature in the agricultural districts. There 
 is but slight indication of its locality, though light land was 
 undoubtedly affected, and amongst this prominently North- 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 141 
 
 West Norfolk. On the other hand, the early date of 
 many acts in Warwick, Northampton, Leicester, and 
 Rutland may be taken as generally indicative of much 
 other inclosure by agreement In these counties some 
 land was very probably laid to grass. But it would seem 
 that this, if it occurred, was concurrent with an increase 
 in the general yield. To this may be attributed com- 
 parative absence of complaint during the first half of that 
 century. 
 
 (t) Eighteenth century. 
 
 After 1750 the Midland inclosures increase rapidly. 
 Without doubt the increased demand for animal products 
 and the improvements in breeding and feeding combine to 
 associate inclosure from 1750 to 1780 with frequent con- 
 versions to pasture. This tendency decreases after 1780, 
 partly because much of the land most suited to such 
 treatment had been turned to grass, but partly also because 
 in the last two decades a new inclosure wave displays itself 
 Improved methods made it possible to cultivate more 
 highly soil of a poorer nature, while the demand for grain 
 made such cultivation profitable. With 1800 and the 
 new act, this merges into inclosure for general pur- 
 poses. Expense is a little decreased, and land formerly 
 left by reason of it in open is now inclosed. Probably the 
 great demand is for arable, but there is evidence that this 
 did not rule in the great grazing and breeding districts. 
 
 The sketch thus given of the direction and progress of 
 inclosure throughout the country is interesting not only in 
 itself, but because of the explanation it offers of the 
 geographical position of the land in open field cultivation 
 at the commencement of the period of private acts. To 
 follow it out necessitates a return to certain of the factors 
 considered in the opening pages of this chapter. 
 
 Firstly, agricultural settlement based on arable was, it 
 is contended, determined in its locality by certain very 
 definite causes, and its easy extension in earlier centuries 
 
142 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 restricted by opposing influence. Among such causes and 
 influences, the geolc^cal basis of the country and the soil 
 characteristics are prominent. Water and soil assist, 
 while hills, woods, and fens restrict and control. /To this, 
 however, must be added the effect mainly, perhaps, in 
 Devonshire and Cornwall, but also on the Welsh border, 
 of other systems of cultivation and tenure which allow of 
 common but minimise the element of common involved 
 where co-aration habitually occurs, and also the fact 
 that the wave of incursion and immigration presses from 
 east to west Within the area of settlement, the woods and 
 fens, the downs and sterile heaths, impose limits to villages 
 and manors with arable field. Outside the area there was 
 arable, of course, but scattered and often different in type, 
 a common field, in some places, lying at some distance 
 from the settlement, and forming an adjunct, however 
 essential, rather than the basis of the whole system of 
 cultivation and life. 
 
 Secondly, as land previously inaccessible or for some 
 other reason unused comes into the area of cultivation, 
 open field does not, after a certain time, necessarily present 
 itself. There was much inclosure from the wild state, 
 especially on the west, where abundant soil for arable 
 existed amid much other land unsuitable for any such 
 purpose. In this connection the circumstances of the 
 neighbourhood were important, owing to the influence of 
 custom. The presence or absence of much land under 
 the open field system affected the system of cultivation 
 applied to that coming into use. But the time was 
 still more important. As the inconveniences of the open 
 field system manifested themselves and came to outweigh 
 the early necessities leading to it, the application of any 
 such system to land brought in became increasingly im- 
 probable. In other words, inclosed cultivation was adopted. 
 Grants of common in the remaining waste and outwoods 
 were attached often to grants of land made by approve- 
 ment or in other ways, but these did not necessitate an 
 open field system. As to date ; there is no means of 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 143 
 
 fixing date. But it certainly seems improbable that land 
 taken in after the practice of approvement would be sub- 
 ject to open field incidents as a rule. This, however 
 is a conjecture. 
 
 Moreover, the introduction of new land into cultivation, 
 particularly when the quantity is great, affects the land 
 already under cultivation, especially as population grows 
 and moves and production takes place for sale and not for 
 home use. 
 
 Thirdly, the growth of population and of towns and 
 industries affects the use of land in their vicinity ; and from 
 early times, the advantages of inclosure where animals were 
 in question was recognised ; but this was even truer in 
 the case of cattle than of sheep. 
 
 These factors have been given their place in the fore- 
 going sketch as also in the attempt made to interpret the 
 inclosure movement in the various counties.* When both 
 accounts are reviewed some general, even though tentative, 
 conclusions are possible. 
 
 The West Midlands pass into inclosure silently and 
 early ; its inclosure was largely of land in a wild state or 
 of waste subject to little use; but there was cultivated land, 
 some indeed little affected by the complicating common 
 rights involved in the ordinary open field system, and some 
 forced into inclosure owing to the competition and example 
 of land directly inclosed. Some little open field lingers 
 on. An equally noteworthy feature is the comparative 
 absence in these counties of commons when the eighteenth 
 century opens. This also points to inclosure from the 
 wild state. 
 
 In the extreme west (Cornwall and Devonshire) both 
 custom and the character of the land are potent There 
 is much wild, there is little or no cultivation in open field. 
 Here a movement to inclosure is recorded in the end of 
 the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth 
 century. 
 
 The other western counties, Somerset, Gloucester, Wilt- 
 
 ' Appendix A. 
 
144 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 shire, and Dorset, have a large amount of infertile waste 
 or wild land, while in the central districts, as indeed in the 
 Vale of Taunton, industrial forces are at work from the 
 fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 
 
 The southern counties and the south-east are largely 
 under down or dominated by the great forest As the 
 weald is exposed to cultivation inclosure develops normally 
 from the wild. Kent on the coast is possibly affected by 
 industry. On the other hand, the absolute absence of 
 common field and the nearly complete absence of common in 
 Kent excites attention in the sixteenth century, and it is 
 possible that gavelkind tenure had some share in bringing 
 about this result, though in a slightly different way from 
 that alleged at the time. The power of inclosure of land 
 under such tenure was free from the restrictions which 
 existed elsewhere. A large part of the county remained 
 woodland in the sixteenth century. 
 
 The condition of the East Anglian counties presents 
 certain difficulties, the chief being the very marked differ- 
 ence between Norfolk on the one hand and Suffolk and 
 Essex on the other. Excluding some districts, as for 
 instance Flegg, there was more open field awaiting in- 
 closure in West than in East Norfolk. Still even on the 
 east there is more than in the main part of Suffolk and 
 Essex. Taking the whole tract of the East Anglian plain 
 certain features are present. On the west, especially in 
 Essex, was forest and poor land ; on the coast there was in 
 Essex and to some extent in Suffolk land rather unsuited 
 to early and regular cultivation, the best tillage land being 
 in the centre. Thus much land in Mid Suffolk is, according 
 to Marshall, little suited for pasture. Again, the develop- 
 ment of towns and industries affect this part of the country 
 at a very early date, while in addition, the southern part 
 of this district, as also the home counties, had to furnish 
 much of the London supplies. The land undergoes a 
 change from open to inclosure at an early date. From 
 Reyce's account of Suffolk conversion to pasture does not 
 follow necessarily, since, in his description of that county. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 145 
 
 the main district for tillage is Middle Suffolk, while the 
 greatest number of flocks are in the champaign. Apparently 
 there was good grazing in both East and Middle Suffolk. 
 The plain is mainly inclosed, but this is less true of 
 Norfolk than of the other counties. 
 
 The north, comprising the four northern counties, the 
 greater part of the North Riding and the north of the 
 West Riding and North Lancashire, has certain features 
 in common with the West Midlands, but there are certain 
 important differences. In the first place, unsettled con- 
 ditions continue longer ; in the second place, the amount 
 of wild land permanently unsuited to arable is greater. 
 Hence, though traces of open field in the eighteenth century 
 are few, the amount of inclosure from common by act is 
 great. In other words, part of the land continues wild 
 and part remains in a nearly wild condition with some 
 common rights of pasture till such a late period that 
 its inclosure occurs under circumstances which give it 
 publicity. At an earlier date a like inclosure would have 
 escaped record. 
 
 Circumstances and influences such as those described 
 above account in a general way for the earlier separation 
 of lands and inclosure in districts which occupy little place 
 in the record of the eighteenth or even in that of the 
 seventeenth century. During the seventeenth century 
 there is not only considerable inclosure in the great open 
 area but a contraction in its extent and towards its 
 confines by inclosure, for instance, in North Wilts, in 
 Worcester, in Derby and Nottingham, in South and East 
 Durham, in the fens, and in West Suffolk. The con- 
 tinuance of the open field in the region mainly affected by 
 private acts is due, it is true, in part to the greater pre- 
 valence of arable open field in early times, but also and not 
 less to the belated operation or appearance of forces which 
 tended to its extinction elsewhere at an earlier date. For 
 both there are several causes ; amongst these the position 
 and topography of the land and the nature of the soil are 
 very prominent 
 
146 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Of the regions treated above the most difficult to 
 account for is that which comprises the greater part of 
 the Anglian Plain and extends over Suffolk and Essex, 
 with the exception of the western portions of these 
 counties. In both the southern and western counties, 
 where the detailed record of inclosure is very incomplete, 
 certain definite features explain the absence of common 
 and go far to make the course of development clear. 
 Inclosure from the wild into strict individual ownership 
 and its effects was recognised by Marshall as an important 
 factor in the agricultural history of the west, but of course 
 its importance is not confined to this region. It was 
 potent elsewhere, and needs notice in the case, not only of 
 regions but of parts of regions, as counties. Of equal 
 importance are the later settlements on wild land and the 
 waste, as in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but this 
 feature has received little attention, save by Hasbach. 
 Here, though rights to common existed, the complex 
 system of open field seems not to have been established as 
 a general rule. But these factors cannot have greatly 
 affected the Anglian Plain. Further, taking the record in 
 the eighteenth century, with the exception of the extreme 
 west, the traces of common field are very slight, and the 
 traces of common, though more abundant, are not marked. 
 In both Suffolk and Essex the individual inclosures in these 
 parts are small as a rule. It is also shown by early 
 descriptions that these counties were largely inclosed by 
 the middle or end of the sixteenth century. It may well be 
 asked then what signs there are that this district was ever 
 largely affected by the open field system. With regard 
 to this several facts may be noticed. There is evidence 
 of inclosure of some kind, probably to a fair extent, in the 
 sixteenth century ; this may have been inclosure of com- 
 mons and not of open field. Reyce's account of the 
 west of Suffolk as " wholly champion or neer " 
 certainly indicates a larger open extent of land than is 
 accounted for subsequently ; and he further states that 
 Mid Suffolk was mainly in tillage. Additional information 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 147 
 
 is given by his description of the demesnes of the 
 manors as "proportioned into several farms" which are 
 "hired and occupied by farmers for rent" The ex- 
 planation offered above is that this district was early 
 converted from open to several, owing to the very early 
 development of industry and the growth of population 
 with its demands and necessities. In other words it had, 
 by the sixteenth century, passed through a stage of 
 development which occurred in many other districts at a 
 later date. It may be added that, though traces of open 
 and common are scant in the eighteenth century, there are 
 grounds for the belief that they were considerably more 
 numerous in the sixteenth century. So far as the land 
 along the sea was concerned this probably was little fitted 
 for any intensive use. The validity of this explanation is, 
 it must be frankly said, a matter of surmise. Nor is it 
 much affected, one way or the other, by the possibility 
 that some land was in some form of one field system and 
 not in the three field system. The extent of this is 
 doubtful in face of the condition of Norfolk, in the 
 eighteenth century, when rotation was usual ; and that 
 county was singled out by Coke as a place where com- 
 mon of shack was frequent. Shackage, with its attendant 
 incidents, was the great obstacle in later times to inclosure. 
 On the other hand, the denser population of the east 
 seems undoubted, and is shown in the great multiplicity 
 of townships yet apparent and proved to be of old stand- 
 ing by the Valor Ecclesiastica. 
 
 As to the light thrown by a knowledge of the inclosures 
 of the eighteenth century on the previous condition of the 
 country in respect of this movement some few words 
 require to be added. The percentage of the land inclosed, 
 both in the counties and also in their districts, is evidence 
 of a particular kind more valuable for some purposes than 
 others. It is valuable as regards the general progress of 
 inclosure, as showing roughly and broadly the extent of 
 land which remained to be dealt with during the later 
 period ; but if considered as an indication of the course 
 
148 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 taken by inclosure previously, or of the earlier conditions 
 afiFecting agricultural settlement, it needs to be supple- 
 mented. For these purposes it is desirable to know in 
 what numbers the townships of any given district were 
 touched by these later inclosures. The same percentage 
 of inclosure in a county may be attained under widely 
 different circumstances. A lesser number of townships 
 and parishes may be inclosed, but mostly or wholly 
 
 Table showing approximate percentage of townships affected by 
 inclosure either of open field or commons in certain regis- 
 tration counties. The percentage of land inclosed in the 
 counties proper also given. Inclosures by Act to 1870. 
 
 
 Percentage of townships 
 (minimum) affected by 
 
 Percentage of land included 
 in counties. Round 
 
 
 inclosure in registration 
 
 numbers. 
 
 
 county. 
 
 
 
 Open field. 
 
 Commons. 
 
 Open field. 
 
 Conunons. 
 
 Bedford - 
 
 54 
 
 2 
 
 44 
 
 •I 
 
 Berkshire 
 
 36 
 
 4 
 
 30 
 
 4 
 
 Buckingham 
 
 46 
 
 5 
 
 3S 
 
 I 
 
 Cambridge 
 
 52 
 
 9 
 
 34 
 
 4 
 
 Derby 
 
 19 
 
 12 
 
 16 
 
 5 
 
 Dorset - 
 
 IS 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 S 
 
 Essex 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 1-2 
 
 Gloucester 
 
 26 
 
 5 
 
 17 
 
 I 
 
 Hampshire 
 
 11 
 
 17 
 
 6 
 
 s 
 
 . Hereford 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 3 
 
 1-3 
 
 ' Hertford - 
 
 37 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 3 
 
 Huntingdon 
 
 63 
 
 
 SS 
 
 
 Leicester 
 
 40 
 
 3 
 
 41 
 
 6 
 
 Lincoln - 
 
 30 
 
 6 
 
 29 
 
 10 
 
 Middlesex 
 
 41 
 
 8 
 
 19 
 
 7 
 
 Norfolk 
 
 28 
 
 IS 
 
 19 
 
 6 
 
 Nottingham - 
 
 33 
 
 6 
 
 27 
 
 4 
 
 Northampton - 
 
 52 
 
 I 
 
 SI 
 
 3 
 
 Oxford - 
 
 39 
 
 3 
 
 40 
 
 3 
 
 Rutland - 
 
 36 
 
 
 46 
 
 
 Shropshire 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 •3 
 
 6 
 
 Somerset 
 
 6 
 
 18 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 Stafford 
 
 S 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 Suffolk 
 
 6 
 
 II 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 Surrey 
 
 12 
 
 18 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 Sussex - 
 
 6 
 
 18 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Warwick 
 
 39 
 
 9 
 
 23 
 
 2 
 
 Wiltshire 
 
 27 
 
 7 
 
 22 
 
 4 
 
 Worcester 
 
 22 
 
 
 13 
 
 5 
 
 Yorkshire, E.R. 
 
 31 
 
 8 
 
 33 
 
 S 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 149 
 
 inclosed, or a larger number may contain small or partial 
 inclosures. In the former case, if the distribution be fairly 
 uniform over the area, an early well-established system of 
 common field agriculture is indicated, interspersed with 
 later settlements or inclosures from the waste probably 
 by exercise of approvement. 
 
 On the other hand, the sporadic distribution of 
 small open-field inclosures among a large number of 
 parishes indicates a different state of things, namely, 
 small settlements among wild conditions with much 
 subsequent added inclosure without incidents of the open 
 field system. As a matter of fact, however, the first 
 system is almost uniformly associated with a much higher 
 percentage of inclosure than the latter ; in other words 
 it seems to show that these areas, whether counties or 
 districts, were at one time somewhat generally under the 
 open field system. But "this relates to inclosures in which 
 open field is involved. Where common alone is con- 
 cerned ; a wide distribution of small commons, however, 
 may indicate the last process in a course of inclosure 
 where remaining small pieces of common are divided. 
 So far from pointing to the earlier absence of a common 
 field or three field system, it might result from the 
 existence of such and their inclosure at an earlier date. 
 It cannot be said, however, to be an evidence of such, as 
 other causes for its presence in the eighteenth century are 
 not excluded. 
 
 To draw up a table showing the proportion of the 
 townships and places in a county, or any of its districts, 
 means the acceptance of some list of villages, places, or 
 townships. In the foregoing table, as also in those in the 
 appendix, these as set out in the Census Enumeration 
 have been taken. This of course involves the acceptance 
 of the registration county, and this must be borne in 
 mind when comparison is made between the percentages 
 of villages or townships affected and the percentage of 
 land, since the latter is given for the county proper. 
 Comparison can only be of the most general kind. 
 
I50 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Further, as an inclosure in some cases laps over the limits 
 of one township into another, the number or percentage 
 of townships given in the table shows the minimum. 
 No doubt a fuller and more accurate table could be con- 
 structed, but that would be a very long and arduous under- 
 taking. As a general guide the data are sufficient. The 
 northern counties and the North and West Ridings are 
 omitted, because the inclosures were chiefly of moors, as 
 also Lancashire, Cheshire, Devon, Cornwall, and Kent, 
 because of their great paucity in inclosure of any kind. 
 
 Having regard to these particulars, and especially to 
 the differences indicated in the table between the inclosures 
 by act of commons and of open field, certain conclusions 
 seem tenable. 
 
 Firstly, in the great common field districts, the inclosure 
 which takes place in the eighteenth and nineteenth cen- 
 turies is mainly of the lands of tR^ village and township, 
 including commons and open field., and extending over 
 the greater part of the whole area. By its side, and in 
 other townships, there is inclosure of small or moderate 
 sized pieces of common. This latter, when taken with the 
 former, points to a wider extension of the open field system 
 in earlier years. It is at any rate a concomitant of an 
 open field system ; and its occurrence in the eighteenth 
 and nineteenth centuries indicates a probable earlier 
 inclosure in the same district. This view is further 
 strengthened by the many instances in which such com- 
 paratively small inclosures of commons succeed larger 
 inclosures of open field and common by act. 
 
 Secondly, in certain other counties, the amount of open 
 field inclosed by act is small, while the inclosures themselves 
 are relatively small as compared with the area of the 
 township. In other words, the land preserving traces of 
 common field is a verj' small part of the respective land 
 of the village. This, especially when accompanied by 
 inclosures elsewhere of commons, in greater parcels 
 though not necessarily greater in total amounts, appears 
 to indicate small early open settlements under circum- 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 151 
 
 stances which are unfavourable to arable, or such as to 
 render a large part of the land inaccessible to use at 
 that time. 
 
 Thirdly, small and well-distributed inclosures of com- 
 mons often follow on and indicate an inclosure movement 
 in earlier times. 
 
 The inclosure of large wastes when occurring in the 
 eighteenth century are recorded, whereas at an early date 
 they escape notice ; so, of course, their appearance is rather 
 due to continued infertility or inaccessibility. 
 
 ; The application of these conclusions to the various 
 r^ions under discussion points to certain differences 
 between the eastern counties and the west. In the 
 former, there is little appearance of the small common 
 field inclosure, and the inclosures of common are these 
 which might be expected to ensue on a previous general 
 inclosure of lands in open field. On the west, with the 
 exception of Hereford, the inclosures of commons are on 
 the average larger, while in Somerset, Shropshire, and 
 Hereford the open fields as compared with village areas 
 are smaller. 
 
 Further, Middlesex and Hertford show very plainly the 
 effect of woods and forest land on early arable settlement 
 in open field. 
 
 The position of the south-eastern counties, Surrey and 
 Sussex, with which must be associated Kent, is more 
 doubtful. Surrey, indeed, shows small commons and 
 open fields of a moderate size. These latter, however, 
 fall mainly in the north, leaving the Weald district with 
 bare traces. As for Sussex, open field inclosures are 
 small and commons small. As a matter of fact, the 
 Weald is little touched by eighteenth century inclosure 
 of any kind, singularly void of traces of open field, and 
 with few commons, those that there are being small. 
 As compared with Mid and East Suffolk, this region 
 is even less touched by inclosure by act. The statistical 
 criteria, however, are not adequate by themselves to 
 differentiate clearly between these districts. They point 
 
152 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 in different directions, but they require to be taken in 
 conjunction with the positive knowledge we have that the 
 east counties were under early cultivation of some kind, 
 and that the great Weald district was under wood. With 
 these facts added, the conclusions that the former was in 
 early open field, and that the small common inclosures are 
 an after sign of early inclosure seem probable. On 
 the other hand the very occasional and scattered 
 small commons in the Weald point to an inclosure of 
 this district from the wild, at a time when common 
 would not be created. Furthermore, this very feature 
 indicates a difference in soil and suitability for cultivation 
 between this district and the west, as, for instance, 
 Shropshire or Hereford or Somerset. The land in the 
 Weald was not so much infertile as inaccessible for 
 cultivation. When cleared it was fertile. To all appear- 
 ance it comes into use as the woodland diminishes, and at 
 a time when common is not likely to be created. More- 
 over as it is fertile land, there is comparatively little to 
 be left idle and so to be treated as common. But this is 
 widely different from the case of the western counties. 
 
 Taken as a whole, the statistical material set out con- 
 siderably strengthens the account previously given of the 
 course of inclosure. 
 
II 
 
 INCLOSURE DURING THE SEVENTEENTH 
 CENTURY 
 
 Though the view which regards inclosure of common and 
 common right land as taking place mainly at two epochs, 
 in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries respectively, and 
 as due to causes peculiar to these particular times, is 
 certainly less firmly held than was formerly the case, it is 
 nevertheless not yet realised that thus stated it gives an 
 almost entirely false presentation of what occurred. No 
 doubt it is true that particular circumstances or combina- 
 tions of circumstances at certain times accelerated the 
 movement or invested it with some special character, but 
 inclosure was continuous, and a very considerable mass of 
 evidence as to its reality and extent exists, spread over 
 the long intervening period of a century and a half Some 
 part of this evidence has been indicated by different 
 writers, and particularly by Professor Gay^ and Miss 
 Leonard,^ but as yet its mass and continuity, and so the 
 extent of the progress to which it testifies, have not been 
 fully stated.^ When that is done it will be seen not so 
 
 1 " Inquisitions of Depopulation in 1517," Transactions of the Royal His- 
 torical Society, N.S. vol. xiv. ; "The Midland Revolt and the Inquisition of 
 Depopulation in 1607," ibid. vol. xvxii. ; " Inclosures in England," Quarterly 
 Journal of EcoTiomics, 1903. 
 
 ' " The Inclosure of Common Fields in the Seventeenth Century," Transac- 
 tions of the Royal Historical Society, 1905, N.S. vol. xix. pp. 101-46. 
 
 ' Possibly some additional weight is due to the condusions of Miss Leonard 
 and myself, when they coincide, as is often the case, because they were arrived 
 at quite separately. This, of course, is obvious in her case. The materials 
 
154 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 much that the earlier view was inadequate as that it was 
 actually the very reverse of the true state of the case, that 
 inclosure continued steadily throughout the seventeenth 
 century, and that the inclosures of the eighteenth and 
 nineteenth centuries were no new phenomena but the 
 natural completion of a great continuous movement. In 
 dealing with this movement throughout the seventeenth 
 century attention must be directed to certain matters 
 besides continuity and extent. The districts, the character, 
 and the mode of inclosure require to be dealt with. 
 
 If we turn to the later years of the sixteenth century^ 
 the frequent statutes dealing with tillage and houses of 
 husbandry afford considerable evidence of the efforts of 
 the government to secure adequate attention to arable 
 cultivation, and to prevent land suited to corn being 
 used for pasturage. To some extent these acts were 
 directed to remedy conversions to pasture which had 
 taken place in earlier years, and, taken by themselves, 
 they do not, despite their stringency and frequent re- 
 enactment, prove much more than the difficulty of 
 reversing by state action a movement which, whatever 
 its consequences, had at its base great economic causes. 
 But this would be a very imperfect view of the condi- 
 tion which prevailed at the time. Economic causes were 
 still at work, and inclosure was the natural response. 
 No doubt they were somewhat changed in character. 
 Even if the demand for pasture was still effective, the 
 increased population, with its growing need of corn, and 
 the new possibilities of improved methods of cultivation 
 added new reasons for inclosure, though obviously for 
 inclosure with different results, against which the old 
 reproaches of depopulation and the diminution of the 
 
 for the present paper were collected and pnt together before her very valuable 
 paper was published. The chief points of difference between us are noticed, 
 but often our views agree and the different evidence presented fits together in 
 a very interesting way. With Dr. Gay my agreement, as will be seen, is not 
 so great. 
 
 ' The end of the sixteenth century and the earlier years of the eighteenth 
 century are here treated alongside of the strictly seventeenth century. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 155 
 
 food supply could not be alleged.^ In respect of this 
 tendency the evidence of writers like Tusser and Fitz- 
 Herbert seems conclusive, and it is probable that it was 
 due to a like perception that, despite the very obvious 
 anxiety about inclosure, the statute was enacted ^ which 
 so specifically repeated the power of approvement enacted 
 in the Statute of Merton.* 
 
 That inclosure from which such detrimental results as 
 those mentioned above might be and were apprehended 
 was, however, steadily progressing is obvious from circum- 
 stances attending the later statutes of tillage, as from 
 other evidence. The words of the statutes are very 
 significant. Thus the preamble to 39 Eliz. c. 2 runs : — 
 
 " Whereas from the XXVI I year of King Henry the 
 Eighth of famous memory until the five-and-thirtieth year 
 of her majesty's most happy reign there was always in 
 force some law which did ordain a conversion and con- 
 tinuance of a certain quantity and proportion of land in 
 tillage not to be altered ; and that in the last parliament 
 held in the said five-and-thirtieth year of her majesty's 
 reign, partly by reason of the great plenty and cheapness 
 of grain at that time within this realm, and partly by reason 
 of the imperfection and obscurity of the law made in that 
 case, the same was discontinued, since which time there 
 have grown many more depopulations by turning tillage 
 into pasture than at any time for the like number of years 
 heretofore." 
 
 ^In connexion with this reference may be made to Conferctue between 
 Plough matt mid Clothier, by John Green, written in Wilts in the time of 
 Henry VIII. (Royal MS. 7, C. xvi. f. 238), where it is stated that whereas 
 landlords at one time could not find tenants, and therefore resorted to wool 
 and sheep, now the case is altered through the increase of population, and 
 tenants want landlords. It is suggested (f. 239) that the sheep and clothiers 
 might be removed to Ireland and the land under pasture converted to tillage, 
 which, as compared with clothing and sheep, is estimated to support people 
 in the ratio of five to one. See also the proposals by Thomas Dnckett (Sloane 
 MS. 2404) for the improvements of commons, f. 15. 
 
 ■■'3&4Ed. VI. c 3. 
 
 * So far as I know no attempt was made during the seventeenth century to 
 repeal the statute thus re-enacted. 
 
156 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Like language is to be found in 39 Eliz. c. i, which 
 states, " where of late years more than in time past there 
 have sundry towns, parishes, and houses of husbandry been 
 destroyed and become desolate." A like condition of 
 things is stated in the tract Certain Causes gathered 
 together, ivherein is shown the Decay of England, if it may 
 be assumed that this was written in the later part of the 
 century. It relates to inclosures in Oxfordshire, Bucking- 
 hamshire, and Northamptonshire, and complains that 
 there has been a change for the worse since the days of 
 Henry VII. 
 
 Additional light on the time and on the aims of 
 Elizabeth's ministers is thrown by a letter^ from Sir 
 Anthony Cope to Lord Burleigh concerning the framing 
 of the new bill against the ill effects of depopulation, 
 written with the draft of the bill before him. In this 
 criticism the writer says, " Where every house is to be 
 allotted twenty acres within two miles of the town I 
 dislike the limitation of the place, fearing the poor man 
 shall be cast into the most barren and fruitless coyle, 
 and that so remote as altogether unnecessary for the 
 present necessities of the husbandmane's trade." He 
 then proceeds with other grounds of objection,^ very 
 pertinent to the working of the act, and important as 
 showing the difficulties obviously experienced in certain 
 
 1 Lansdown MS. 83, f. 68. 
 
 ^ These may be summarised. Secondly, the draft is defective, in that there 
 is by this law no limitation of common or meadow, without which no limitation 
 of common can be maintained. Thirdly, albeit the allowance is thus scant as- 
 before, there is no limit set down either for fine or rent. " But the poor that 
 are to be restored are in both left to the will and hard conscience of him that 
 hath destroyed the town or of him that hath unconscionably purchased the town 
 so destroyed." Fourthly, that some immediate relief should be given for the 
 pressing necessities of those who are to be ultimately restored, " who, being 
 driven out of their habitations, are forced into the great cities, where, being 
 very burdensome, they shut their doors against them, suffering them to die in 
 the streets and highways." This is due partly to the fact that the law restricts 
 the duty of maintaining the poor to the place where they are born and bred. 
 Fifthly, that though the bill aims at restoration and not at a new condition, it 
 should apply in cases where title is recent. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 157 
 
 places. The very definiteness of statement is sufficient 
 to show that inclosures were taking place, and that they 
 were attended in some places at leeist with bad results. 
 He specifically urges that recent titles ought not to hinder 
 the immediate application of the statute. 
 
 The foregoing evidence, which bears directly on the 
 conversion to pasture and the existence of inclosure at the 
 time, and also on the remedy of the former by law, can be 
 supplemented by that of the writer of 1 607, whose careful 
 comparison of inclosed and open lands, especially as illus- 
 trated by the counties of Somerset and Northampton, has 
 often been quoted. He deals not only with the two 
 systems but with the remedy for inclosing when that results 
 in depopulation. Here he considers the expediency of 
 offering a remedy at a time when, as he says, the mere 
 offer or attempt may serve as an encouragement to violent 
 attempts at redress. Inclosure, he writes, was made the 
 pretended cause for the late tumults. However he over- 
 rules this scruple and suggests that, so far as inclosure is 
 harmful, which in general he may be taken as denying or 
 doubting, action must be taken not only with regard to 
 that which has been but also in prevention of that to come. 
 To prevent or to stay harmful inclosure he recommends that 
 existing laws should be maintained and that new measures 
 should be taken against ingrossing of lands. Briefly 
 stated, no one is to hold more than one-fourth of the land 
 of any manor, the remaining three-fourths to remain in 
 tenantries none of which is to exceed one hundred acres. 
 Side by side with this as testimony to the real existence of 
 the movement is the inquisition of 1607.^ 
 
 Though it is not intended to deal at this point with the 
 nature of the inclosures, it should be added that further 
 testimony as to inclosure of wastes is afforded by a memo- 
 rial addressed in 1576 to Lord Burleigh by Alderman 
 Box.* This memorial is interesting by reason of the 
 information it gives as to the condition of the land, and its 
 
 1 " Depopulation Returns " ; see Professor Gay's article, ttbi supra. 
 'Lansdown MS. 131, f. 22. 
 
158 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 general breadth of treatment The writer urges the 
 necessity of increasing the tillage lands, a necessity arising 
 from, firstly, the large amount of good and fruitful land 
 " Ij'ing waste and overgrown with bushes, brambles, ling, 
 heath, furze, and such other weeds " ; secondly, the amount 
 converted from arable to pasture, which he states has been 
 estimated at one-fourth of that at one time agreeable to 
 maintain the plough. That there has been decay of arable 
 is assumed, and equally he has no doubt in stating that 
 laws made in redress have been inefficacious. The decay 
 and putting down of ploughs have not been stayed, " but 
 are rather increased, and nothing amended." His own 
 remedy is to leave the land in pasture alone and devote 
 all efforts to the cultivation of the wastes. But here 
 he points out a difficulty, which evidently was a real one. 
 While the wastes existed the herbage and other profits 
 belonged to the tenants ; when divided and separated 
 their division was at the lord's pleasure. Hence he 
 advocates the introduction of a regular system of inclosure 
 of wastes, the lord of the manor, together with four or five 
 of the gravest tenants, appointed and chosen by their 
 fellows, to be empowered to proceed to a division and 
 allotment, each allotment to be according to the rent paid 
 and to be granted on condition of clearing and cultivating 
 in two years. His object was not only to supply the lack 
 of tillage land but to prevent division taking place under 
 conditions which placed the land at the pleasure of the 
 lord ; it became his and the tenant lost the free profit which 
 he formerly possessed in herbage, etc. Here, however, the 
 memorial is instanced as evidence that inclosure of waste 
 to the lord's advantage was taking place, at any rate to 
 some extent. Of course the writer's recommendation,, 
 had it been enforced by law, would have increased the 
 amount inclosed, though it would have removed or 
 modified the objection felt by the tenants and people 
 in general and evinced in the discords referred to, as alsa 
 later at the time of the Diggers. 
 
 On turning to what occurred during the seventeenth 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 159 
 
 century it will be convenient to examine the evidence as it 
 presents itself under three headings — general references in 
 tracts, pamphlets, and the like, official records, and lastly 
 the evidence afforded by comparisons between the state of 
 the country in the sixteenth and towards the end of the 
 seventeenth century. So far as the first two bodies of 
 evidence are concerned the century may be divided into 
 periods of twenty-five years. One thing, however, must 
 be remembered. Literary references frequently are to 
 movements which have been in progress for some little 
 time and have grown to sufficient dimensions to impress 
 themselves as a general grievance in a district and within 
 the knowledge of the writer, and yet not so long-standing 
 as to have lost their aggressive character. A tract on 
 inclosure does not merely deal with the events of the last 
 year or so, bat covers a much wider range. 
 
 So far as the first quarter of the century is concerned 
 reference has already been made to the analysis of the 
 relative advantages of inclosure and open which distinctly 
 favours inclosure as conducing to (i) security from foreign 
 invasion and domestic commotion, (2) increase of wealth 
 and population, (3) better cultivation through land being 
 put to its best use. In the Geographical Description of 
 England and Wales (1615) complaint is made in respect 
 of Northamptonshire that " the simple and gentle sheep, 
 of all creatures the most harmless, are now become so 
 ravenous that they begin to devour men, waste fields, and 
 depopulate houses, if not whole townships, as one hath 
 written." The passage is of course copied from the Utopia. 
 The Commons' Complaint (16 12) and New Directions of 
 Experience to the Commons' Complaint (16 13), both by 
 Arthur Standish, advocate inclosure in every county of the 
 kingdom. In the preface to the earlier tract he refers to 
 " a grievance of late taken only for the dearth of corn 
 in Warwickshire, Northamptonshire, and other places." 
 Since this as well as the other tract is largely a defence, or 
 rather advocacy, of inclosing there can be no doubt that 
 the suggested cause was the inclosing. Of Cornwall 
 
i6o COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Carew writes in 1602, "They fall everywhere from com- 
 mons to inclosure." Again, Trigge in The Humble Peti- 
 tion of Two Sisters ( 1 604) condemns inclosure.^ 
 
 In the second quarter the literary treatment of the 
 subject is not very full. Depopulation Arraigned {162,6), 
 by R. P. (Powell), of Wells, was occasioned by the issue of 
 the royal commission to inquire into inclosures, and deals 
 in a hostile spirit with the subject. The author specially 
 condemns what he describes as " a growing evil of late 
 years" — namely, grazing butchers taking up land, — and 
 gives some details of inclosure accompanied by depopu- 
 lation.^ 
 
 In the third quarter and at the very beginning there is 
 much more to be referred to under this heading. Inclosure 
 Thrown Open ; or. Depopulation Depopulated, by H. Halhead 
 (1650), is a vigorous attack on those desirous of inclosing, 
 who are accused of resorting to any means to secure their 
 object. As to the district referred to, the authorship of 
 the preface by Joshua Sprigge, of Banbury, affords some 
 slender ground for the conjecture that it refers to the 
 South Midlands. That the Midlands formed a conspicuous 
 area is clearly shown by other writings. In these a definite 
 controversy centres round the inclosures of Leicestershire, 
 Northamptonshire, and the adjacent Midlands, while it 
 comprises also references to other parts of the country. 
 The first publication in this series was The Crying Sin of 
 England of not Caring for the Poor, wherein Inclosure, viz. 
 such as doth Unpeople Towns and Uncorn Fields, is 
 Arraigned, Convicted, and Condemned by the Word of 
 God, by John Moore, minister of Knaptoft, in Leicester- 
 shire (1653). ^° ^'^ there appeared an answer. Con- 
 siderations Concerning Common Fields and Inclosures (1653). 
 Moore replied in a printed sheet which apparently is lost. 
 To this the author of the Considerations published a 
 
 ' The treatment in Norden's Surveyor and in Burton's Anatomy certainly 
 suggests that inclosure was proceeding. 
 
 ^See also D. Lupton, London and tki Country Carbonadoed, 1632 (Harl. 
 MS. 9) ; Fuller, Holy State, 1642. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE i6i 
 
 Rejoinder, written in 1653, but not printed till 1656. In 
 this latter year Joseph Lee, the minister of Cotesbatch, 
 published A Vindication of Regulated Inclosure. A final 
 retort to both the foregoing by Moore in A Scripture 
 Word against Inclosure (1656) concludes the controversy. 
 By its side must be placed The Society of the Saints 
 and The Christian Conflict, both by Joseph Bentham, 
 of Kettering. With regard to all these some few points 
 require notice. The controversy begins with the in- 
 closures in Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, and the 
 counties adjacent, and then extends somewhat to other 
 inland counties in general, one writer alluding to the inland 
 counties " where inclosure is now so much inveighed 
 against" References in particular are made to inclosure 
 in Warwickshire, and to the existence of inclosed districts 
 in Essex, Kent, Herefordshire, Devon, Shropshire, Worces- 
 tershire, and even Cornwall, though it cannot be concluded 
 that the allusion is to recent inclosures in these latter 
 counties. In the second place even Moore is careful 
 to distinguish between inclosure which depopulates and 
 that which has no such effect When hard pushed he 
 goes further, writing, " I complain not of inclosure in Kent 
 or Essex, where they have other callings and trades to 
 maintain their country by, or of places near the sea or 
 city." Thirdly, a very important consideration as to the 
 ultimate effect of the movement is raised by those in its 
 favour in the assertion that very often inclosure is laid to 
 pasture and then after a rest returned to arable use greatly 
 enriched. This assertion is accompanied by a consider- 
 able number of instances. Probably the references to 
 the large inclosures in North Wiltshire by John Aubrey in 
 the Natural History of Wiltshire were written during this 
 period, for his studies began in 1656, though his preface 
 was not written until 1685. The same period saw the 
 publication of what was one of the most important seven- 
 teenth century works dealing with the subject, Blith's 
 English Improver (1652). In 1664 Forster in England s 
 Happiness Increased prognosticates a rise in the price of 
 
 L 
 
1 62 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 corn from inclosure which he deplores, stating, " more and 
 more land inclosed every year." 
 
 During the last quarter of the century we have the many 
 definite assertions by Houghton in his valuable Collections. 
 In 1 68 1 he writes of the many inclosures which "have of 
 late been made, and that people daily are on gog on 
 making, and the more, I dare say, would follow would they 
 that are concerned and understand it daily persuade their 
 neighbours." He instances the sands of Norfolk as an 
 example of what they may effect and urges the need of a 
 bill of inclosure. In 1692, in arguing against the common 
 notion that inclosure always leads to grass, he adduces 
 instances to the contrary from Surrey, Middlesex, and 
 Hertfordshire. In 1693 he gives some account of inclosed 
 land in Staffordshire, and adds, " I cannot but admire that 
 people should be so backward to inclose, which would be 
 more worth to us than the mines of Potosi to the king of 
 Spain." In 1700 he argues again in favour of a general 
 act which should be permissive. Equally significant testi- 
 mony is borne in 1698 by The Law of Commons and 
 Commoners, which devotes a special section to the matter 
 of legal inclosure. Campania Felix, by Timothy Nourse 
 (1700), deals with the advantages of inclosure, as also 
 does Worledge in the Systema Agriculturae (third edition, 
 168 1 ). General references of this kind during the latter 
 part of this century multiply as literature dealing with 
 agricultural systems increases. 
 
 But to illustrate the condition of things during the last 
 quarter of the seventeenth century, or even during the 
 latter half, we must turn also to books and tracts published 
 shortly after its termination. In The Whole Art of 
 Husbandry; or, the Way of Managing and Improving 
 of Land, by J. M., F.R.S. (John Mortimer), published in 
 1707, inclosure is treated as obviously beneficial, as with 
 reference to it the writer adds, " I shall only propose two 
 things that are matters of fact, that, I think, are sufficient 
 to prove the advantages of inclosure, which is, first, the 
 great quantities of ground daily inclosed, and, secondly. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 163 
 
 the increase of rent that is everywhere made by those who 
 do inclose their lands." Again, the editor of Tusser in 
 Tusser Redivivus (17 10), commenting on a reference by 
 Tusser, says, " In our author's time inclosures were not 
 as frequent as now."^ John Lawrence in A New System of 
 Agriculture (1726) contrasts the inclosed and open fields 
 in Staffordshire and Northamptonshire to the advantage 
 of the former, and says as to the north that the example 
 of Durham, the richest agricultural county, where nine 
 parts in ten are already inclosed, is being followed by the 
 more northern parts. He expresses surprise that so 
 much of the kingdom is still open. Edward Lawrence in 
 The Duty of a Steward to his Lord (1727) gives a form of 
 agreement which he recommends to proprietors anxious 
 to inclose. Equal testimony to the reality of the move- 
 ment is offered by J. Cowper in An Essay Proving that 
 Inclosing Commons and Common Fields is Contrary to the 
 Interests of the Nation, in which he seeks to controvert 
 the opinions of the Lawrences. Writing in 1732 he says: 
 " I have been informed by an ancient surveyor that one- 
 third of all the land of England has been inclosed within 
 these eighty years." Within his own experience of thirty 
 years he has seen about twenty lordships or parishes 
 inclosed. An 0/^.(4/;«a«a:£^, which was written and printed 
 in 1 7 1 o, though it has a postscript bearing date 1734, urges 
 the need of a general act and expresses the opinion that 
 the consent of the lord with two-thirds of the tenants 
 should bind the minority in any inclosure. Again, in the 
 Dictionarium Urbanicum (1704) we read of "the great 
 quantities of lands which in our own time have laid open, 
 in common and of little value, yet when inclosed . . . have 
 proved excellent good," etc. 
 
 Turning from this kind of evidence to that of an official 
 and legal character, it is fortunate that the comparative 
 weakness of the testimony of tracts and pamphlets during 
 
 ' However this be taken whether as referring to a movement in progress or 
 as referring to the amount of inclosed land, it indicates a difference between 
 the two periods. 
 
1 64 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the first half-century can be otherwise strengthened. The 
 inquisition into inclosures in 1607 refers obviously to 
 what had taken place in the latter period of the preceding 
 century,^ but during the reigns of the first two Stuarts the 
 anxiety as to depopulation and scarcity which are appre- 
 hended as a probable if not a necessary result displays 
 itself in almost undiminished force, as it may be seen from 
 the Register of the Privy Council. In the reign of 
 James I. there are some few references to cases of in- 
 closure,^ the most interesting of which deals with the case 
 of Wickham and Colthorpe, in Oxfordshire, in respect of 
 which a bill in chancery for inclosure had been exhibited 
 by Sir Thomas Chamberlain.* Lord Say, however, had 
 pulled the hedges down with considerable disturbance, and 
 thus the matter came to the attention of the council. In 
 a letter to the lord-lieutenant from the council it was 
 pointed out that, owing to Lord Say's action being known, 
 " there is very great doubt, as we are informed, of further 
 mischief in that kind, the general speech being in the 
 country that now Lord Say had begun to dig and level 
 down hedges and ditches on behalf of commons there 
 would be more down shortly, forasmuch as it is very 
 expedient that all due care be taken for the preventing of 
 any further disorder of this kind, which, as your lordship 
 knoweth by that which happened heretofore in the county 
 of Northampton and is yet fresh in memory, may easily 
 spread itself into mischief and inconvenience." There 
 are, however, but isolated instances of intervention. 
 
 More systematic attention to inclosure is shown during 
 
 ^ Thongh no conviction for depopulation was obtained, the evidence as to 
 inclosure is unaffected. 
 
 'Vol. iv. p. 100 (9 February, 1617-8) refers to a case in Warwickshire; cf. 
 p. 127. Vol. v. p. 700 (13 May, 1622-3), '° Oxfordshire, a lord pleads that 
 he has done no harm to the commoners, having left sufficient for their use, 
 apparently an instance of approvement. 
 
 ^ Privy Council Register, vol. iii. pp. 111-5, July 1617. It is alleged, how- 
 ever, that Lord Say's action was not altogether due to chivalrous public 
 spirit, and that he took this course to bring pressure to bear on Sir Thomas 
 Chamberlain to induce him to refer a suit to him. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 165 
 
 the second quarter of the century. The great adminis- 
 trative activity of the council in the fourth decade found a 
 sphere here. On 26th November, 1630, a letter^ was 
 directed to be sent to the sheriffs and justices of the 
 peace for the counties of Derby, Huntingdon, Nottingham, 
 Leicester, and Northampton, calling for an account of 
 inclosure or conversion during the past two years or at 
 that time in progress. In the replies from Leicestershire 
 and Nottinghamshire^ many great inclosures were reported, 
 and directions were accordingly despatched as to the course 
 to be taken ; some, as tending to depopulation or the 
 undue diminution of arable, were to be thrown open. 
 That this was deemed unnecessary in other cases is 
 evident from a subsequent letter of 25th May, 163 1, 
 whereby inclosures begun might proceed on due under- 
 takings that the houses of husbandry be not restricted 
 injuriously or the highways interfered with.* That con- 
 siderable care was exercised in the matter is evident from 
 further references in the proceedings of the council.* On 
 
 '^ Ibid. vi. 199. 
 
 '^ Ibid. vi. 385. Letters addressed to sherifis, etc., of Derby, Nottingham, 
 and Huntingdon, reminding them of the letter of 26 November, and calling 
 for a speedy return. Ibid. vi. 544 ; certain inclosures in Huntingdonshire to 
 be laid open. 
 
 ^ Privy Council Register, vi. 540 (25 May, 1631). " Whereas their lordships 
 did write themselves in November last and since to divers counties in the 
 kingdom concerning the laying open of new inclosures and conversions of 
 arable grounds into pasture and prohibiting the like for the time to come, 
 forasmuch as divers noblemen," etc, "praying for the continuance and per- 
 fecting of inclosure begun in grounds," and undertaking that as much land be 
 left in husbandry and that the highways be kept passable, and agreeing to give 
 fitting security for the observances of such conditions, the board therefore order 
 that their former orders be put in operation, save where owners agree in writing 
 to conditions as the foregoing, " whereon a bill in chancery or exchequer to be 
 exhibited by the attorney-general or other counsel charging the said owner, 
 with his consent, to prevent depopulation or decay of husbandry or annoying 
 the highways." Then follow provisions as to the due form of the undertaking, 
 etc. 
 
 ^Ibid. vii. 506-7, 6 April; also p. 532. At Croft, in Leicestershire, an 
 inclosure is regarded as generally profitable, and some who have sought to 
 destroy it are bidden and made to desist. Ibid. viii. 194, 31 August Another 
 
1 66 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 9th October, 1633, the judges of assize were ordered to 
 attend the board on the 1 8th to give an account of their 
 doings and proceedings in the matter of inclosures. Un- 
 fortunately in the account of the meeting on this date and 
 of the interview with the judges no definite reference is 
 made in the Register to what transpired in the case of 
 inclosures. In general it is said that the justices of the 
 peace do not nieet often enough to carry out the Book of 
 Orders and that the returns of the sheriffs are defective. 
 Among the State Papers ^ is a copy of a warrant to the 
 attorney-general to prepare commissions touching de- 
 population and conversion of arable in the counties of 
 Lincoln, Leicester, Northampton, Somerset, Wilts, and 
 Gloucester.^ 
 
 While it is doubtful if much was done directly to stay 
 inclosure, and while with the approach of the Civil War 
 the time of the council was necessarily devoted to other 
 matters, the existence of an inclosure movement is certain. 
 It is equally clear that information was obtained of which 
 some use was made, though possibly for other ends than 
 the benefit of the agricultural interest and the people. In 
 1633-4 we find a proposal* that all inclosures made since 
 16 James I. should be thrown back into arable on pain of 
 forfeiture, save such as be compounded for. The sugges- 
 tion was not lost sight of, and from 1635 to 1638 
 compositions were levied in respect of depopulations in 
 several counties of which an account is fortunately pre- 
 
 inclosure in the same county to be laid open, and land actually tilled. Ibid. 
 ™i- 3S'« 19 December 1632. The same course followed in a case in Notting- 
 ham. Ibid. ix. 301, 31 October 1633. A letter addressed to the president and 
 council of the north calling their attention to an inclosure in Yorkshire. Cf. x. 
 40 and X. 50, where it is admitted that as yet the results are not so prejudicial 
 as feared. Some few other cases dealt with in different parts of the country. 
 
 ^ State Papers, Dom., ccxxix. p. 112. Cf. Miss Leonard, ubi supra, p. 129, 
 note I, where this document is more fully described. 
 
 ^Detailed returns to the letters of the privy council are to be found in Miss 
 Leonard's paper, pp. 130-4, so far as some of the counties, and especially 
 Leicester, are concerned. 
 
 ^S.P., D., cclx. 106, 1633-4. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 167 
 
 served.^ Some 600 persons were fined during this period, 
 the amounts in some cases being considerable. The follow- 
 ing is a summary of the sums obtained from compositions 
 in the several counties affected during these years : 
 
 - 
 
 1635. 
 
 1636. 
 
 1637. 
 
 1638. 
 
 TotaL 
 
 
 I 
 
 £ 
 
 & 
 
 I 
 
 £ 
 
 Lincoln, 
 
 3.130 
 
 8,023 
 
 4,990 
 
 2,703 
 
 18,846 
 
 Leicester, - 
 
 1,700 
 
 3.560 
 
 4,080 
 
 8S 
 
 9.42s 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 3,200 
 
 2,340 
 
 • 2,875 
 
 263 
 
 8,678 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 — 
 
 680 
 
 1.837 
 
 230 
 
 2.747 
 
 Rutland, - 
 
 — 
 
 150 
 
 1,000 
 
 — 
 
 1,150 
 
 Nottingham, 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 2,010 
 
 78 
 
 2,088 
 
 Hertford, - 
 
 — 
 
 2,000 
 
 — 
 
 
 2,000 
 
 Gloucester, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 170 
 
 340 
 
 510 
 
 Oxford, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 580 
 
 153 
 
 733 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 412 
 
 412 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 71 
 
 71 
 
 Kent, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 Having regard to the size of the counties and the number 
 of instances in each, this may be taken as indicating a 
 considerable amount of inclosure in the case of the first 
 six counties — Lincoln, Leicester, Northampton, Hunting- 
 don, Rutland, and Nottingham. Only inclosures leading 
 to depopulation were supposed to be included. 
 
 To the evidence thus given in official records as to 
 inclosure during the first half of the century must be 
 added that of the drainage inclosures.^ 
 
 A large body of evidence as to inclosures and their dis- 
 tribution, mainly affecting the latter part of the century, 
 
 1 Chancery Petty Bag, Miscellaneous Roll 20. During the last year it is 
 ■doubtful if many of the compositions were paid. 
 
 " These were very considerable, that of the Bedford Level and the Holland 
 Fen affecting parts of several counties. Of course waste still remained in 
 the area, and by 15 Charles II., c 17, § 38, all lords and all having rights of 
 common in the waste within Bedford Level might improve, divide, and sever 
 their respective proportions. This permission however was revoked by 1 James 
 II., c 21, on the ground that such severance had led to diminution of stock and 
 decay of houses, a fact which accounts for the appearance among the private 
 acts of the succeeding century of some dealing with wastes and commons in this 
 ■district. 
 
1 68 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 lies in the Chancery Enrolled Decrees, where cases of 
 inclosure suits and agreements occur in large numbers.^ 
 These are of different kinds. In some instances agree- 
 ments were enrolled to secure record and to bind the 
 parties concerned ; in other instances the object was to 
 bind a minority who were not consenting parties to the 
 case. For this purpose what seems to have been a collu- 
 sive suit was brought against certain persons proceeding to 
 inclose and a decree obtained giving allotments to the 
 petitioners. This was used, though obviously illegally, to 
 prevent third persons not parties to and probably often in 
 ignorance of the action from disturbing the division of the 
 ground in question. That this was illegal is clearly stated 
 by the author of the legal text-book on the Law of Com- 
 mons and Commoners (1698), but his language leaves no 
 doubt as to its occurrence. Probably in the then state of 
 the rural districts the method was efficacious. Not only 
 so, but the threat of a suit at law was used frequently, we 
 are told by others, to secure assent to a proposed agree- 
 ment to inclose.^ The mere menace would inevitably cause 
 many to assent and others to withdraw from their rights. 
 But the defect as against those who stubbornly adhered to 
 their opposition, and who had sufficient means to give 
 expression to their opposition, doubtless strengthened the 
 growing desire for some parliamentary action, a full 
 account of which has been given already.^ By this it 
 will be seen that no fewer than eight general bills dealing 
 
 ^ The number of these decrees b very great. There is little doubt that a 
 careful examination would throw great light on some part of the inclosure. 
 The most cursory survey of a few rolls is sufficient to show that the inclosures 
 therein recorded are not confined to one part of the country, as will be seen 
 from the following instances, taken at random : Settringham, in Yorkshire 
 (1669); Shiivenham, Berks (1658); Great Coxwell, Berks (1658): Long 
 Sutton, Somerset (1616); Claypoole, Lincolnshire (1614) ; Cradley, Worces- 
 ter (1621). Miss Leonard's view as to the wide area affected coincides with 
 mine. So far as Durham is concerned she shows conclusively that inclosure took 
 place to a large extent, thus bearing out the statement of John Lawrence. 
 
 * Moore, The Crying Sin of England, p. 13 ; Halhead, Inclosures Thrown 
 Open, pp. 8, 9. Cf. pp. 54-5. 
 
 ' See above, pp. 57-8. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 169 
 
 with commons or common land were introduced into 
 Parliament during the last half of the century. 
 
 The allusions to tumults in Northamptonshire at the 
 beginning of the century, a repetition of which was feared 
 at the time of Lord Say's destruction of an inclosure, to- 
 gether with the movement of the Diggers, add the testi- 
 mony of public disorder to the very considerable array of 
 evidence adduced. A. further supplement is to be found 
 in the references made both by contemporary writers and 
 by those of the earlier part of the next century to specific 
 inclosures. Thoroton mentions some in Nottinghamshire. 
 A list of the inclosures in Leicestershire, drawn up in the 
 eighteenth century, notes some as effected in the previous 
 century. A few instances in Northamptonshire beginning 
 with 1 600 are given by Bridges. The list might be further 
 multiplied. Isolated instances are chiefly useful as filling 
 up and strengthening the more general assertions made 
 elsewhere. By themselves, however, they are too few to be 
 of great value. 
 
 On turning to another kind of evidence and attempting 
 some comparison between the state of the country, or 
 rather of different districts, as described at approximately 
 the beginning and approximately the end of the century, 
 very obvious difficulties present themselves, except in one 
 instance. The terms used are general and not precise, while 
 further the obvious aim of the writer at any date is to 
 compare the state of any particular district with that of 
 adjacent districts or of the country at large at the same 
 date. Hence the meaning of the terms " champion " or 
 " inclosed " varies a good deal. But this feature, which 
 renders the various descriptions so good for a comparison 
 of the different parts at the same time, takes away from 
 their value as a means of comparing the condition of one 
 district at one time with its condition at another time, 
 save when the change has been so great that the main 
 character of the district is transformed, or when the 
 change has been very irregular in its distribution. 
 
 In one instance, however, this difficulty does not present 
 
I70 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 itself, and a good deal as to the progress of inclosure may 
 be learnt from a comparison of the Itinerary of Leland with 
 the road maps of Ogilby. Out of the references by Leland 
 to the condition of the land along the road traversed, 
 counting as one each case where there is a practically con- 
 tinuous account of a uniform character, about one-half can 
 fairly be identified with a route described by Ogilby.^ Of 
 these in twenty-seven cases the land is apparently in much 
 the same condition. In the case of fourteen ^ the amount 
 
 ^ My attention was drawn to the importance of Ogilby's Britannia in this 
 respect by the reference in Macaulay (M'rfwy, vol. i. ch. iii., cabinet ed. p. 210, 
 note). The landscapes to illustrate the Travels of the Grand Duke Cosimo, 
 bearing date 1669, are not only interesting in themselves but afford some useful 
 corroboration and illustration of the state of the country. In general, except 
 in the drawings of the country near Rochester, Chelmsford, and Thomdon, and 
 to some degree that near Exeter, there is much open country. It must, of 
 course, be remembered that the illustrations are not very numerous and do not 
 represent the whole country. So far as they go they illustrate three points : — 
 (l) the villages lying closely together aloi^ the roads, as may be gathered also 
 from Ogilby ; (2) the general absence of scattered farmhouses ; (3) the con- 
 siderable extent of land without hedges and not divided into small separate 
 fields. Careful study has led me to attach very great importance to Ogilby's 
 testimony. As a rule the marking of the roads is very obvious, but in certain 
 plates no distinction is attempted, as is stated in his preface. Some little care 
 and discrimination is therefore required. The same method of distinguishing 
 between inclosed and non-inclosed roads is employed elsewhere, e.g. in The 
 Historical Antiquities of Hertfordshire, by Sir Henry Chauncey, 1700, which 
 shows conclusively the great extent to which that county was inclosed and the 
 small region in which open land still existed. This is also treated of in his text. 
 ' The fourteen referred to are as follows : — 
 
 Cambridge to Eltesley . . Cambridgeshire. 
 
 Wellingborough to Northampton Northamptonshire. 
 
 Stanton to Leicester . . . Leicestershire. 
 
 Uppingham to Harringworth . Rutland, Northamptonshire. 
 
 Higham Ferrars to Bedford , Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire. 
 
 Hinksey to Faiingdon . . Berkshire. 
 
 Southam to Banbury . . . Warwickshire, Oxfordshire. 
 
 Droitwich to Brom^rove . . Worcestershire. 
 
 Winchester to Southampton . Hampshire. 
 
 Alscote to Torrington . • . Devon. 
 
 Fowey to Liskeard . . . Cornwall. 
 
 Helegh to York .... Yorkshire. 
 
 Kingston to Beverley . . . Yorkshire. 
 
 Malton to Skirbume . . . Yorkshire. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 171 
 
 of inclosure however has obviously increased, sometimes 
 very greatly increased. Some two or three other cases, 
 though indications point in the same direction, have been 
 put aside on the ground that the evidence is inadequate. 
 It ought to be added that in no case does land stated to 
 be inclosed on the earlier tour appear to have fallen back 
 into an open condition. Taking these fourteen cases, two 
 occur in Devon and Cornwall, and so the inclosure is of 
 waste or open common, three in Yorkshire (E. and N. 
 Ridings), one in Hampshire, one in Worcestershire, while 
 the remaining seven are in the Midlands. Three of these 
 last seven are in Northamptonshire. The route taken by 
 Leland in South Leicestershire runs from Stanton 
 (Stoughton) to Leicester, and the traveller adds " all by 
 champain land." The neighbouring route described by 
 Ogilby from Glen to Leicester runs through inclosed 
 ground, a fact which suggests that there had been some 
 increase of inclosure in this district.^ Turning from the 
 particular instances analysed above, a careful comparison 
 of the two itineraries, to give a common name to both, 
 certainly leaves an impression of a general and marked 
 increase in inclosed land, though, except in the Midlands, 
 it seems that inclosure rather tends to increase in areas 
 and to extend along lines already affected by the move- 
 ment than to break out in wholly new districts. 
 
 Turning to the general comparison of descriptions and 
 records at different times, for reasons already given great 
 care must be exercised. Certain instances occur, however, 
 where a definite conclusion seems possible. Leicestershire 
 is described as " champion" in the Geographical Description 
 of England and Wales (1615), while Burton (1622) 
 specially says that the south-east is " almost all champion." 
 On the other hand according to Ogilby's road maps there 
 
 ^ As a matter of fact a private act in 1761 deals with Evington and Stoughton, 
 but this confirms the fact of an earlier inclosure, as it is merely for a division of 
 land left in common, as may be seen from the award. For reasons given 
 further on, however, I think that this district was less inclosed than would 
 appear from Ogilby. 
 
172 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 was a large amount of inclosed ground in the south-east. 
 Again, we have in Aubrey a definite comparison of North 
 Wilts at an early date and towards the end of the century, 
 the latter state being confirmed by Ogilby. Of Durham 
 the east is " most champain," according to the Geo- 
 graphical Description, a condition apparently continuing 
 in 1673, when, Blome writes in Britannia, the east 
 is champain. On the other hand, according to John 
 Lawrence in 1726 nine parts in ten are inclosed. In 
 North Wilts, according to Leland, the route from 
 Cirencester to Malmesbury was after the first mile all by 
 champain, which continues to Chippenham. But by the 
 latter part of the century much in this district was 
 inclosed, a state of things very clearly shown in the roads 
 passing through Malmesbury by Ogilby. Again, if 
 Norden is accurate in describing Dorset, Wilts, Hamp- 
 shire, and Berks as being champion m 1607, the state of 
 the roads in Ogilby indicates that in Berkshire as well as 
 in Wiltshire a considerable amount of inclosing had taken 
 place during the seventeenth century. The same, though 
 probably to a less extent, is true of Hampshire. 
 
 Before summarising the foregoing some account may be 
 attempted of the condition of the country in respect of 
 inclosure at the time of Ogilby 's road book Britannia} 
 which bears date 1675, supplementing that with references 
 of the same time or a little later. Such an account 
 requires considerable additions to make it applicable to 
 the end of the century, since there can be no doubt that 
 the movement progressed considerably during the last 
 two decades. 
 
 If we follow Ogilby's description of the land ^ lying at 
 
 iWith regard to the annexed map, prepared from Ogilby, certain points 
 require notice. In the first place the map does not attempt to represent 
 the general state of the country, e.g. in respect of towns. In the second place, 
 to avoid confusion, it has been necessary to omit the roads in which distinction 
 of open and inclosed country is not specified. 
 
 ^ The following is a. summary of the amount of open or uninclosed road as 
 compared with the total amount of road described by Ogilby in each county, 
 given in percent^es. Of course the calculation is necessarily imperfect, and 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 173 
 
 the side of the routes he traversed as fairly illustrating 
 the country, the area in which open land chiefly con- 
 tinued at that time forms an irregular triangle, the apex of 
 which lies in South Wilts, somewhat south and midway 
 between Warminster and Salisbury, and the sides extend 
 in a north-easterly and easterly direction respectively to 
 the east coast. Of these the north side may be roughly 
 figured as passing through Warminster and Devizes to 
 Highworth ; thence almost direct north to Stow, whence 
 it makes a detour in a north-westerly direction through 
 Pershore almost to Worcester, thence by Alcester, 
 Coventry, Kegworth, Mansfield, Blyth, Doncaster, Ponte- 
 fract, York, to Gainsborough, and thence to the coast 
 The more southerly side runs through Salisbury, Hunger- 
 ford, Oxford, Aylesbury, Newport Pagnel, thence with a 
 
 it must be remembered that the result, for reasons stated below, cannot be 
 
 assumed to do more than very roughly represent the avers^e throughout the 
 
 county. Some few roads are omitted as unspecified. 
 
 Percentage of Open Road — i.e. Road by the side ofwkuh the Country is Open 
 
 or Uninclosed. 
 
 Huntingdon 
 
 Rutland 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 Cambridge 
 
 Oxford . 
 
 Northampton 
 
 Northumberland 
 
 Nottingham 
 
 Cumberland 
 
 Bedford 
 
 Wilts . 
 
 Norfolk 
 
 Warwick 
 
 In Dorset no 
 
 67 
 
 64 
 61 
 60 
 58 
 S6 
 56 
 54 
 54 
 SI 
 47 
 42 
 
 39 
 
 Leicester 
 
 . 38 
 
 Salop . 
 
 Gloucester . 
 
 • 37 
 
 Cornwall 
 
 Yorks . 
 
 • 36 
 
 Stafford 
 
 Berks . 
 
 • 32 
 
 Cheshire 
 
 Westmorland 
 
 ■ 31 
 
 Devon . 
 
 Suffolk 
 
 • 3> 
 
 Worcester 
 
 Derby 
 
 • 30 
 
 Lancashire 
 
 Hants . 
 
 • 29 
 
 Middlesex 
 
 Buckingham 
 
 . 28 
 
 Hertford 
 
 Surrey 
 
 • 27 
 
 Hereford 
 
 Durham 
 
 ■ 23 
 
 Kent . 
 
 Somerset 
 
 . 21 
 
 Essex . 
 
 19 
 19 
 18 
 
 14 
 13 
 13 
 
 12 
 II 
 
 9 
 
 trustworthy road is marked, and in Sussex the amount is too 
 small for notice. In some cases the particular road or roads is one through 
 particularly open or inclosed country, but this is less important when several 
 roads enter into the calculation. It must, of course, be remembered that land 
 by the side of the roads or within access, like land in the neighbourhood of 
 towns and districts undergoing industrial development, was more subject to 
 inclosure than that more remote. Also hedges and walls would often occur 
 along the road and not on the land. Agsun, unfenced roads may in some 
 cases run through land in individual or separate holdings. For these reasons 
 the calculation can only be taken as an estimate. It is somewhat excessive. 
 
174 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 southerly ddtour through Luton to Biggleswade, thence by 
 Royston, Linton, Newmarket, to Bury St. Edmunds, and 
 thence by Thetford, Hingham, Norwich, southerly to 
 Great Yarmouth. The triangular area thus roughly 
 delineated consists of the following counties : all or very 
 nearly all of Cambridge, Bedford, Northampton, Hunting- 
 don, Rutland, Lincoln, and Leicester, also S. and E. 
 Warwick, S. Wilts, W. Norfolk, E. Yorks, a considerable 
 part of Oxford, Buckingham, Nottingham, some part of 
 Worcester, and small portions of Berks and Suffolk. 
 There was, of course, open land outside, in addition to 
 that lying in down, moor, heath, and hill,'^ but if Ogilby 
 can be taken as indicating the average character of the land 
 it was in this area that open field and commons con- 
 stituted a widespread feature. On the other hand, it is 
 equally clear from Ogilby that there was a very large 
 amount of inclosed land in the area described, a feature 
 particularly conspicuous in Northamptonshire, S. Leicester- 
 shire, W. Norfolk, S. Nottinghamshire, S. Lincolnshire, 
 and Yorkshire. Elsewhere the inclosed land presents 
 itself more intermixt and in less continuous amounts, as in 
 Bedfordshire.^ There is little doubt that by the end of 
 the century the proportion of this had increased. The 
 tendency for inclosure to prevail near towns of any size is 
 marked and important.* But this suggests the need of 
 some allowance in our account for a larger amount of 
 open land more distant from roads and so less accessible 
 to or more distant from towns. 
 
 'As, for instance, the Cotswolds (Nourse, Campania Felix (1700), p. 45). 
 
 * According to the author of Englamts Remarqius in 1678, Bedfordshire 
 was "generally champion.'' 
 
 ' There is a good deal of evidence which generally corroborates the sketch 
 here given. On the other hand cases of error, either by omission or com- 
 mission, need correction. In South Leicestershire the impression of the 
 country as ju<^ed by the land on the route described by Ogilby requires con- 
 siderable modification. There is little doubt that a considerable amount of the 
 land in the Market Harborough district remained open, though there were 
 many inclosuies. The large amount of land inclosed under private acts in this 
 district seems conclusive. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 175 
 
 Summarising the evidence which has been adduced, it 
 is clear that inclosure had been going on with some 
 activity in the latter part of the sixteenth century. When 
 the seventeenth century opens inclosure is attracting con- 
 siderable attention, some part of which is no doubt due to 
 the menace of disorder, or even to actual disturbances as in 
 Northamptonshire. Complaint, however, is not confined to 
 that county, but extends into Warwickshire and elsewhere. 
 At the same time in Cornwall wastes are being inclosed 
 for the purpose, it may be assumed, of cultivation. With 
 time the movement in the Midlands, so far from being 
 stayed, gathers force and extends over the adjacent 
 districts to such an extent that the fear of depopulation 
 leads to official inquiry into what was happening in the 
 counties of Northampton, Leicester, Derby, Huntingdon, 
 Nottingham, Gloucester, Wilts, Somerset, and Lincoln. 
 Redress in certain cases is attempted, but not, it would 
 seem, often, the most systematic use of the information 
 obtained by these or other inquiries being the exaction of 
 compositions from offenders, a course which obviously 
 assisted the king in his effort to avoid dependence upon 
 parliamentary supplies, though it might not remedy the evil. 
 The chief counties affected by such compositions were 
 Lincoln, Leicester, Northampton, Huntingdon, Notting- 
 ham, and Rutland. They certainly do not do much to 
 stay the movement in the Midlands, which leads to con- 
 siderable local controversy as to the results occasioned. 
 Whatever be thought of these there can be no doubt that 
 inclosure in the Midlands was both continuous and wide- 
 spread, though it probably was most severe in the border 
 district between Warwickshire, Leicestershire, and North- 
 amptonshire.^ Meantime there are marks of like change 
 elsewhere, as in North Wilts, where the inclosures 
 extend over a considerable area, and in other districts 
 where the mentions which survive are of separate 
 instances. During the latter half of the century there is 
 
 1 For this see the controversy from 1653 to 1656 (above pp. l6o-l). Nearly 
 all the townships mentioned lie in this district. 
 
176 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 a great body of evidence as to the extensive nature of 
 the movement, which evidently increases during the last 
 two decades. As to this latter period, the evidence goes 
 to show that very large quantities of land were regularly 
 inclosed.^ The question of inclosure is now not in any 
 sense local, its advocates going so far as to seek to obtain 
 parliamentary sanction to remove the difficulties which 
 seem to have impeded though they could not check 
 its course. 
 
 As can be seen from a comparison of this summary 
 with the account drawn from Ogilby the chief area in 
 which inclosure is mentioned as taking place coincides 
 roughly with the region in which there still remained 
 a large quantity of open. But inclosure also took place 
 just on the borders, and the inclosures in Durham and the 
 north must be treated as additional. But it must be 
 remembered that inclosures which created no grievance, 
 public or private, which, that is, did not threaten the 
 realm with depopulation or dearth, or dispossess in- 
 dividuals of rights or of all opportunity of earning a 
 living, were little likely to attract attention. What we 
 know of the north or of Wilts, or of the sands of Norfolk, 
 is due to rather casual notices. Even Moore, the 
 vehement censor of the movement, writes, " I complain 
 not of inclosure in Kent or Essex, where they have other 
 callings and trades to maintain their country, or of places 
 near the sea or city." By the side of this passage may 
 be put his remark that "the great manufacture of 
 Leicestershire and many (if not most) of the inland 
 counties is tillage." Probably this attempt at discrimina- 
 tion is due to a desire to distinguish between what was 
 occurring in his neighbourhood and what was taking place 
 elsewhere. The reference may be restricted intentionally 
 to Essex and Kent, in neither of which is it probable 
 that there was inclosing during this century, but on the 
 whole a wider application seems more probable. Towns, 
 it must be remembered, were growing and manufacture 
 
 ' Specific reference is made at this time to the sand district of Norfolk. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 177 
 
 was on the increase, and, to judge from Ogilby and other 
 sources, inclosure in the neighbourhood of the towns was 
 of usual occurrence. Some further evidence to this effect 
 is offered by the complaint that the poor, deprived of the 
 chance of labour in the field, were driven into towns.^ 
 The material conclusion is that additional inclosure, 
 which, far from being complained of, was regarded with 
 favour, took place round the growing cities and towns. 
 The growth of industries had undoubted influence in this 
 direction. The weaving districts both in ,the east and in 
 the west had been gravely affected in the early part of 
 the sixteenth century, when the need of local supplies led 
 to a considerable alteration in the cultivation of the land. 
 It must not be assumed that the conversion, when it 
 occurred, from arable to grazing was wholly in view of 
 wool. The increase in the need for food, and especially 
 animal products for consumption, must be taken into 
 account.^ In some districts no doubt both wool and corn 
 were largely imported, as was the case in part of Devon- 
 shire at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the 
 seventeenth centuries, when, as we hear in an account in 
 1630, the country was so full of cloth-making that food 
 was imported.^ The wool used was not only local, or 
 even from the neighbouring counties of Cornwall and 
 Dorset, but brought from elsewhere, as from Worcester- 
 shire and Warwickshire. Probably this was true also of 
 Somerset. Though tillage was still the great interest in 
 the Midlands in the seventeenth century, town growth 
 and the spread of industry were beginning, and these had 
 a necessary effect upon inclosure. 
 
 ' This complaint is not novel in the seventeenth century ; thus Cope writes 
 of "the poor who, being driven out of their habitations, are forced into the 
 great towns, where, being very burdensome, they shut their doors against 
 them, suffering them to die in the streets and highways," etc 
 
 ''The reference in Depopulation Arraigned, p. 40, to grazing butchers 
 taking up land is suggestive. It is termed a growing evil practised in recent 
 years. 
 
 " In early times probably a near supply of grain was also very important, but 
 this need would diminish with improvements in locomotion and transport. 
 
 M 
 
178 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Again, the inclosures in the north and in Cornwall have 
 been mentioned. But these were not the only districts 
 where wastes existed. To judge from the accounts of 
 England towards the end of the sixteenth century there 
 was a vast quantity of wild, uncultivated ground, of heath, 
 moor, fen, and forest. To this Leland bears testimony in 
 his Itinerary, while the already cited memorial by Alderman 
 Box lays stress on its amount, as also on the desirability 
 of its cultivation. Now any such quantity of waste land, 
 as may be estimated from these and other sources, is, save 
 in some districts in the north, quite inadequately accounted 
 for in the inclosures by private act in the eighteenth and 
 nineteenth centuries, or in the other recorded inclosures. 
 Considerable ground was brought into cultivation by the 
 drainage of the fens, and to this, it is contended, must be 
 added the land recovered as it were from a wild condition. 
 It is probable, indeed, that some portion was inclosed and 
 cultivated during the earlier years of the eighteenth cen- 
 tury. But, granting this and making allowance for the 
 condition of the country in the late sixteenth centurj^ 
 the conclusion that a very considerable quantity of inclosure 
 from a wild condition took place in the seventeenth or 
 early eighteenth century is necessary. It may be con- 
 tended that' in a large number of cases such a course did 
 not imply technical inclosure, inasmuch as the land may 
 not have been under any common right servitude, and 
 further that in such an event there would be nothing to 
 tell of its inclosure, if the term be employed, even during 
 the period of private acts. This may be true or partially 
 true in the more outlying regions, but so far as much 
 wild land is concerned the testimony of Box is in the 
 opposite direction, since one object of the particular 
 method suggested by him is to prevent tenants having 
 rights from being deprived of them, as they evidently were 
 being deprived on inclosure. But even in the case of land 
 where rights either had not existed or had fallen into 
 desuetude, from the early middle of the eighteenth century 
 our knowledge of the movement is sufficiently complete to 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 179 
 
 preclude its inclosure in large quantities without some 
 notice. The enlargement of the whole region of or near 
 cultivation after the middle of the sixteenth century seems 
 to justify the conclusion that much inclosure of this kind 
 must have taken place during the seventeenth century, 
 possibly during the latter years. 
 
 During the long period dealt with, extending from the 
 later years of the sixteenth to the beginning of the 
 eighteenth century, there seems abundant evidence as to 
 the progress of inclosure in the following counties : — 
 Warwick Derby Norfolk 
 
 Leicester Nottingham Durham 
 
 Northampton Rutland Cornwall (early) 
 
 Hunts Wilts 
 
 There is also testimony as to some inclosure in certain 
 other counties, though not of so definite a character or in 
 such great amount — 
 
 Buckingham Hampshire Gloucester 
 
 Berkshire Somerset Yorkshire (part of) 
 
 — to which might possibly be added other counties in the 
 north to which inclosure had spread from Durham. In 
 addition both from the Decree Rolls as also from scattered 
 instances occasional inclosure was taking place throughout 
 the country generally. But as to this it should be remem- 
 bered that some counties were in a highly inclosed state 
 when the period opened. Among these were Suffolk, 
 Essex, Hertford, Kent, "Devon, Herefordshire, Shropshire, 
 Cheshire. Both Cornwall and Somerset, different in 
 character as their inclosures are, were probably highly 
 inclosed. Whether much inclosure went on during this 
 period in Bedfordshire is difficult to decide. According 
 to Ogilby a good deal of inclosure had been achieved 
 by that time.^ It seems probable that the northern 
 
 ' The omission of any mention of inclosed land by Celia Fiennes in Bedford- 
 shire and Northamptonshire is very far from being conclusive. Her references 
 are very uncertain, as may be seen in the case of Hertfordshire, most of 
 which was certainly highly inclosed. Against it we have a large variety 
 of evidence in the case of Northamptonshire. According to Ogilby, whose 
 
i8o COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 part of Cambridgeshire was inclosed at the end of the 
 century.-' 
 
 Leaving, however, the more special cases on one side the 
 general outlines of the seventeenth-century inclosure seem 
 clear and sufficiently distinctive to permit of certain con- 
 clusions. Firstly, there is evidence of inclosure continuing 
 from earlier times through the Thames district. The 
 Norfolk inclosures probably arose from new causes and at 
 the end of the period. In Durham and the north the 
 movement rises and develops. Probably much the same 
 may be said of the whole district round the Wash. In 
 the Midlands we have a movement which, though not new, 
 since the north of Warwickshire was already inclosed to a 
 great extent, increases very rapidly. Secondly, the coun- 
 try in the regions of early industrial and town growth was 
 already largely inclosed. Thirdly, a considerable amount 
 of land was reclaimed from an uncultivated state by fen 
 or draining inclosures, and in some cases from encroach- 
 ment by the sea.^ Fourthly, the development of inclosure 
 
 observations are systematic and carefdl, there was much inclosed land in 
 both counties. Miss Leonard's view that Northamptonshire, at the close of 
 the century, was "comparatively" open maybe interpreted in various ways 
 according to the meaning of the word "comparatively." As compared with 
 many other counties this was no doubt the case. Even allowing for an over- 
 estimate in respect of inclosure of a district on the basis of that along the road 
 Ogilby's evidence is very strong, and so far as Northamptonshire is con- 
 cerned it is amply supported by abundant positive evidence, thus inter alia 
 Geographical Description, England and Walfs (1615) under Northampton ; 
 Certain Cases Gathered Together (end of i6th century), complaint of inclosure in 
 Oxford, Buckingham, and Northampton ; Aubrey's North Wiltshire, p. 104 ; 
 New System of Agriculture, by John Lawrence (1726), p. 45; Bentham's 
 Christian Conflict, p. 40 ; A Scripture Word against Inclosure, p. 10 ; Agric. 
 Report refers to ancient inclosures (ii., pp. 36-37, III, 129); Morton's 
 Northampton, pp. 13, 14. As to earlier inclosures there are references for 
 the l6th century. 
 
 ' This is inferred, firstly, from the very marked difference between the per- 
 centage of land inclosed nnder private act in the north as compared with the 
 south of Cambridgeshire ; secondly, from the general character of the land and 
 its neighbourhood to the fens. 
 
 - While drainage schemes and other reclamations did not necessarily involve 
 the division and inclosure of all the ground affected, commons being left in 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE i8i 
 
 in the northern Midlands attacks a region, little affected 
 hitherto, under very particular conditions. The soil of a 
 large part of the district under the old common field 
 system could not be devoted to the use for which it was 
 best adapted — namely, grazing. Again, during that cen- 
 tury a considerable quantity of land was reclaimed, thus 
 adding to the area of cultivation much new and good com 
 land. Transport was developing and security of loco- 
 motion was greater. On the other hand towns were 
 beginning to develop, and to some extent at any rate it 
 would seem probable that inclosure took place owing to 
 their development, and it may have been to supply their 
 needs. 
 
 The method and nature of the inclosures during this 
 period now call for some notice. The mode whereby these 
 were effected at once follows in due sequence on that 
 pursued in earlier times, and prepares the way for that 
 which was employed in the next century. In the first 
 place approvement was still in force, and there is evidence 
 that the powers thus at the disposal of the lord of the 
 manor^ were in use. Among the answers to the inquiries 
 set on foot by the privy council are references to sufficient 
 land being left to others, in one case the lord alleging 
 that he has left as much '' as by law he ought to do."^ 
 That this means became of less use as time passed and 
 with the decrease of the land in waste seems evident both 
 from the nature of the case and also from the attempts in 
 
 many cases, and in others common rights continuing to exist, as a general rule 
 there would be a large amount inclosed. Land liable to be overflowed by the 
 sea or reclaimed from the encroachment of the sea and subject to common 
 right received special treatment by statute. An attempt by Lady Wainsford 
 to inclose Hulcey Common, in Suffolk, on the ground of a grant to inclose 
 lands overflowed by the sea, is ordered to be not pursued till the case be 
 determined either by the commissioners or at law (Privy Council Register, xii. 
 4S5, 27 November, 1636). Cf. reference to such land in Humble Petition. 
 
 ' Approvement, it must be remembered, was a power belonging only to the 
 lord of the manor. It is also limited to inclosures from waste. 
 
 ^ Privy Council Register, v. 700, 13 May, 1623, at Garsington, in Oxford- 
 shire. 
 
1 82 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 1696 and 1697 to revive or even extend old powers. 
 In the second place, while arbitrary inclosures no doubt 
 took place, they seem, so far as their direct character is 
 concerned, to have yielded to the development in the 
 administration of the law. Agreements take their place, 
 though not necessarily to the prevention of arbitrary 
 action. That is removed one stage further off, and 
 manifests itself in the kind of pressure exerted to secure 
 assent to these agreements. Unwilling commoners are 
 threatened with the risks of long and expensive lawsuits ;^ 
 in other cases they are subject to persecution by the great 
 proprietors, who ditch in their own demesne and force 
 them to go a long way round to their own land, or 
 maliciously breed rabbits and keep geese on adjoining 
 ground, to the detriment of their crops.'' In addition, to 
 some extent, though until the records of the decrees in 
 chancery have been fully examined it will be impossible 
 to say to what extent, advantage was taken of the 
 ignorance of the small commoners to make an illegal use 
 of judgments obtained in their absence against their right 
 of common. Thus agreements real or fictitious were 
 secured. Probably where but few were concerned it was 
 not difficult to bring people to a voluntary assent, and in 
 other cases by mingled cajolery and pressure dissent could 
 be prevented. But the complexity of rights which existed 
 in the larger number of open fields and the growing 
 knowledge that decrees obtained in chancery did not bind 
 a dissentient minority rendered resort to parliamentary 
 sanction desirable. 
 
 Hence arose the movement which began in the pro- 
 motion of a bill to make such decrees valid, and ended in 
 the resort to private acts. These must not be regarded as 
 involving a novel system of inclosure. They became 
 necessary in order to carry out the system of agreements 
 on a large and uniform scale, supplying both a means of 
 
 ' Moore, Crying Sin, etc., p. 13 ; Halhead, Inclosures Thrown Open, p. 8 ; 
 cf. Considerations, etc., p. 25. 
 
 * Halhead, Inclosures Thrown Open, p. 9. Cf. pp. 53-4. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 183 
 
 registering them, where unanimous, more convenient than 
 that previously employed, and further a legal method of 
 enforcing agreements arrived at by a large majority upon 
 a small and very often an ignorant minority. In many 
 cases the early acts do little more than give l^al assent 
 and force to a division and inclosure already agreed upon 
 and apparently in the process of execution. Nor were 
 they without precedent In addition to the acts passed 
 for the inclosure and division of lands under particular 
 conditions, as, for instance, those reclaimed by drainage or 
 needing protection from encroachments by the sea, there 
 is at least one early act ^ of this very nature. The pre- 
 cedent was not, indeed, followed at the time, owing, at any 
 rate in part, to the other means which presented themselves 
 for the ready accomplishment of the end in view. At the 
 close of the period matters had changed. These means 
 had been exhausted or found ineffective for further use. 
 So gradually recourse was had to the system of private 
 acts.^ Their use, however, coincides in an interesting way 
 with the growing assertion of parliamentary methods as 
 contrasted with the action of the crown by ordinance or 
 decree. A private act is the answer by the king in parlia- 
 ment to the petition by a subject. But the decree in 
 chancery is the answer by the king to such a petition 
 in his court of chancery. In this sense continuity is 
 exhibited in form as well as in substance. 
 
 Though it is not possible here to attempt a discussion 
 
 i 4 James I., c. II, "Act for the Inclosure of One-Third of the Land in 
 Harden and Bodenham," really an act for the separation of certain parts of the 
 land. 
 
 ^ Their introduction into use was very gradual before about 1750. Till then 
 private acts are employed somewhat sporadically and taken all together in but 
 few cases. There is little doubt that during this time inclosure was going on 
 steadily. Evidence of this is elsewhere adduced and can be supplemented 
 in the case of different localities. A very good instance occurs in the case of 
 Norfolk. Much inclosure took place in the north-west angle in the first half 
 of the eighteenth century, as we know from different sources. It is dated by 
 Young as occurring from 1730 to 176a But if did not take place by private 
 act. From references elsewhere cited it b^an much earlier than the date 
 assigned by Young, though continuing on into that time. 
 
1 84 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 of the nature of the inclosures of this period or of their 
 consequences, one or two remarks may be added. Taking 
 the century as a whole the grave apprehensions expressed 
 as to depopulation or diminution of arable were not 
 fulfilled. In large measure inclosure was promoted in 
 view of agricultural or even arable necessities. The relief 
 of these inspired the support of the movement by its 
 strongest advocates, as Standish, Lee, the author of the 
 Considerations, and Houghton. The opportunities which 
 were offering for skilful farming made some alteration 
 imperative. Again, at the very close of the century there 
 is the positive assertion that less land is devoted to stock 
 than was recently the case, while the Records of the Privy 
 Council show that these results were often absent in the 
 very cases selected for inquiry. It will be remembered 
 that writers like Moore admit that a good deal of inclosure 
 might occur without such consequences. On the other 
 hand it is clear that at certain times and in certain districts, 
 particularly in the Midlands, conversion from arable to 
 pasture took place. Diverse influences were at work. 
 Of these the most important are the growth of towns, 
 which, while making better farming imperative, tended 
 towards inclosure in the neighbourhood and the local 
 increase of stock ; the improvement in farming methods, 
 which made the difference greater between the good and 
 the bad farmer ; and, lastly, the growth of locomotion. 
 The skilful farmer required freedom for the exercise of his 
 skill, and it was to the benefit of the nation that land 
 should be put to the use for which it was fitted. 
 
 Speaking generally, the notion that the sole aim and 
 result of inclosure during this period was the conversion of 
 arable to pasture must be abandoned. No doubt this took 
 place in many cases. No doubt, too, that in the earliest 
 stage of the movement conversion was an important though 
 possibly an exaggerated feature. But the description 
 does not apply to the later sixteenth and seventeenth 
 centuries as a whole. In Leland's Itinerary, as has been 
 already pointed out, there is mention of inclosed land in 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 185 
 
 some sixty instances. In twenty-six of these notice is defi- 
 nitely made of corn. Sometimes the land is termed "goodly 
 corn land " ; sometimes it is said to be fruitful and plentiful 
 of grass and corn, and at other times fruitful of. grass and 
 corn. But in each case the corn is sufficiently obvious to 
 be noted.^ Again, in the Properties of the Shires, printed 
 with the Itinerary, we hear of Somerset, a much inclosed 
 county, that it is " good for whete." If we turn to Suffolk, 
 also a very early inclosed county, we learn from Reyce 
 that in Mid Suffolk there is both pasture and tillage, but 
 mainly the latter, and this is not the district which he 
 treats as champion. On the contrary, the greater number 
 of flocks are in the champion district, the west. There is, 
 of course, much other evidence so far as many cases are 
 concerned. Lee, in Regulated Inclosure, while claiming 
 that hedges provide shelter for cattle also argues that they 
 are good for crops, an opinion which, though probably 
 erroneous, shows that the inclosure movement was de- 
 finitely viewed as acting favourably on arable cultivation. 
 Reconversion after a rest is evidence as to result, if not 
 intention.^ If at the end of the century we turn to Celia 
 Fiennes's record of her journeys, despite the sporadic 
 
 'A good deal of contemporary evidence in writers like Tusser and Blith 
 points in the same direction. 
 
 ^ Inclosure from waste is of course always exempt from the charge of occa- 
 sioning depopulation. It must however be remembered that such inclosure, 
 when accompanied by tillage, as was often the case, almost necessarily led to 
 the withdrawal of some other land from arable. The law that the most 
 suitable land comes first into cultivation, as laid down by Ricardo, received 
 severe criticism at the hands of writers like Carey and Rodbertus, who pointed 
 out that in the course of historical development land at one time waste, fen, 
 nndrained, or distant from a centre often becomes the chief arable — that is, after 
 reclamation. The truth of this is obvious, but it hardly affects the substantial 
 meaning underlying Ricardo's words. As it becomes more suitable other land 
 loses its superiority and becomes by comparison less suitable. This is impor- 
 tant in estimating the results of inclosure, and particularly in the seventeenth 
 century, when, as has been stated, much inclosure took place which added to 
 the land under cultivation, either because waste was reclaimed and fens drained 
 or because poor land could be subjected to treatment which changed its position 
 in the scale of fertilitj-. Such a result was further enforced by the loss of 
 fertility through too frequent ploughing and too little manure in the old arable. 
 
1 86 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 character of her references, which invalidates her testimony 
 with regard to the condition of the land, whether open or 
 inclosed, her mention of inclosures makes it clear that these 
 had not necessarily resulted in the substitution of pasture 
 for arable. Her distinct references to inclosure are some 
 thirty in number. In about half these instances there is 
 nothing said to indicate the use made of the land. Of the 
 remainder in some six instances she specifically mentions 
 the corn, while in the rest the ground is styled fruitful, or 
 good, or the like. 
 
 It will not be out of place to conclude with a brief 
 statement of the chief matters dealt with and the con- 
 clusions reached, or at any rate indicated. In the first 
 place it has been contended that during this century 
 inclosure proceeded steadily and over a wide area, and 
 that a very large amount of land from being open passed 
 into several ownership and was inclosed. In the second 
 place, these inclosures form part of a general movement 
 which during this period of a century and a half extends 
 into and then becomes very marked in a particular area, 
 while doubtless still continuing, though to a much less 
 extent, outside that area. In some districts it would 
 appear that for the time it had reached its limits. In the 
 third place, the movement was continuous not only in 
 itself but in the means adopted to give it effect. These 
 means follow each other in natural and explicable 
 sequence. Lastly, the condition of the Midlands attracted 
 particular attention. This area was affected for different 
 reasons, and especially because, firstly, towns and industries 
 were beginning to develop, secondly, in certain districts 
 the old common field system had kept under grain land 
 peculiarly suited for pasture, and thirdly, better land for 
 grain had been added by means of drained and reclaimed 
 or improved land. 
 
Ill 
 
 INCLOSURE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 
 
 On turning to the eighteenth century, when inclosure was 
 rendered conspicuous not only by its general prevalence 
 but also by the new form which it took, that of private 
 acts, it is necessary to avoid the assumption that this form 
 in any sense marks the beginning of the movement, and 
 that therefore inclosures were infrequent in the earlier half 
 of the century. On the contrary there is abundant reason 
 to believe that inclosures, so far from being few in the 
 earlier period, were many. 
 
 In the first place, the testimony of writers already cited 
 to show the activity at the close of the seventeenth can be 
 referred to as evidence that this activity was undiminished. 
 In ■ this connection the words of the editor of Tusser 
 Redivivus and of John Mortimer are emphatic so far as 
 the opening years are concerned. According to the one, 
 inclosures seemed, in his opinion, to be more frequent 
 than was the case in the time of Tusser, while the other 
 writes of the great quantities of land inclosed daily. 
 A little later J. Cowper writes of what had happened in 
 his own experience of some thirty years, while the 
 Lawrences add their very valuable testimony. To one of 
 them it was a matter of astonishment that even more did 
 not take place, while the other, turning to the question of 
 practice, adds the draft of a form of agreement which he 
 recommends proprietors anxious to inclose to adopt He 
 also refers to partial inclosure, which, in his view, was 
 bad, for the lord of the manor at any rate, since 
 
1 88 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the tenant would seek to use all the manure from the 
 beasts feeding on the common for his inclosure. Again, 
 Arthur Young, writing later of the inclosures in Norfolk, 
 divides these into two periods, the one, that of the 
 celebrated sand district, taking place, according to him, 
 between 1730 and 1760. Though he was apparently 
 mistaken in the earlier of these dates, as is seen from 
 Houghton's reference to the inclosure of the " sands of 
 Norfolk," his testimony is quite sufficient to prove the 
 existence of very considerable activity in this district 
 during the first half of the century. But this is not 
 recorded in the private acts. 
 
 In the second place, the very nature of the earlier acts 
 is evidence of agreements. Thus the act for inclosure of 
 Overton Longville confirms an inclosure made by consent, 
 as also that of Thurnscoe, which recites the agreement 
 made in 17 17. In the case of Claughton the act, after 
 reciting the agreement made by deed poll in 1729, goes 
 on to state that this being objected to by some, recourse 
 was had to parliamentary sanction. The same may be 
 said of acts later in that reign, as for instance that of 
 Yatton, in Somerset ; but they are less frequent. On the 
 other hand, even in the earliest years some acts are 
 evidently obtained in the very first stages, as for instance 
 in the case of Chenington, which resemble in much of the 
 detail the form finally adopted when private acts became 
 common. Instances need not be multiplied. In general, 
 the acts show a gradual development from acts confirma- 
 tory to acts which are obtained to direct the method and 
 as a necessary preliminary to action. In other words, 
 acts obtained after a fairly general agreement had settled 
 the division, and often because of subsequent difficulties, 
 give place to acts which embody the agreement and seek 
 means to carry it out. Possibly they became the normal 
 course because the cases of difficulty remained over ; but it 
 is possible, too, that their convenience and certainty recom- 
 mended them to those who knew of the troubles experienced 
 when voluntary and general consent had to be sought 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 189 
 
 In the third place, the sporadic distribution of these 
 early acts, which are far from being confined to one area 
 or one county or even one group of counties, points to the 
 same conclusion. The following table shows broadly the 
 percentage of land inclosed under act in the eighteenth 
 century before 1760 : 
 
 Counties where percentage of area inclosed under act before 1760 is 
 I per cent, or over. 
 
 Leicester 
 
 7.9 
 
 Lincoln - 
 
 1-6 
 
 Warwick 
 
 7-4 
 
 Oxford - 
 
 i-S 
 
 Rutland 
 
 6 
 
 Durham 
 
 ••5 
 
 Northampton 
 
 6 
 
 Berkshire 
 
 1-4 
 
 Northumberland 
 
 2 
 
 Yorkshire 
 
 '■3 
 
 Gloucester 
 
 1-7 
 
 Hampshire 
 
 l-i 
 
 Hunts 
 
 1-6 
 
 
 
 Other counties -where there is some sporadic inclosure under act 
 
 
 
 perceptible before 1760. 
 
 
 Wiltshire 
 
 •9 
 
 Dorset - 
 
 •3 
 
 Stafford 
 
 -9 
 
 Hertford - 
 
 ■3 
 
 Nottingham 
 
 ■9 
 
 Worcester 
 
 •3 
 
 Derbyshire 
 
 •8 
 
 Somerset 
 
 ■3 
 
 Bedford 
 
 ■6 
 
 Norfolk 
 
 .1 
 
 Buckingham 
 
 "5 
 
 Suffolk 
 
 •2 
 
 Lancashire 
 
 •4 
 
 
 
 It will be seen by comparison with the chapter on the 
 seventeenth century that nearly all the counties in the 
 first group were subject to inclosure in that period, and 
 much the same may be said, though to a less degree, of 
 the counties heading the second group. The cases of 
 Bedford and Oxford are exceptional. In this respect the 
 two pieces of evidence are mutually corroborative. But 
 the wide distribution of these early inclosures under act, 
 which is emphasised by the fact that they are scattered 
 within the separate counties themselves, must be taken as 
 strengthening the view that they are but instances of in- 
 closure, growing in number with the advance of time, and 
 especially after 1750, when the former method of agree- 
 ment came to be embodied in private acts. After the 
 
I90 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 middle of the century the private act as the rule 
 supersedes the agreement, and by its certainty and defin- 
 itely ascertained method opens the way to the great 
 increase which follows. 
 
 Inclosures without act, either by agreement or by sole 
 possession, evidently still occur from time to time, as may 
 be seen from the comparison of lists given in some of the 
 Agricultural Reports issued at the end of the century, with 
 the inclosures under act, but naturally their number 
 decreases, since parishes and land which could be inclosed 
 without an act would be treated earlier. As against the 
 difficulties, such as uncertainty and so forth, somz of the 
 legal expenses involved in inclosure under act were escaped. 
 That inclosure even under these conditions was expensive 
 is seen from the Dictionariuni Urbanicutn, where in the 
 article on Enclosures and their value, the following passage 
 occurs, " The differences also and profits thereof are plainly 
 to be discerned by the Severals or enclosed Parcels of Land 
 that have formerly been taken out of the Field Land or 
 Common, and how much they excel the others in every 
 respect, though of the same soil and only an Hedge 
 between, and what a yearly value they bear above them, 
 as also by the great quantities of lands which in our own 
 time have laid open, in common and of little value, yet 
 when enclosed, tilled and well ordered have proved 
 excellent good, and suddenly repaid the present great 
 expense incident to Enclosure." 
 
 But with the general adoption and recognition of the 
 method of inclosure by private act the movement received 
 an enormous impetus. After making all due allowance 
 for the acreage inclosed by agreement or in any other way 
 during the earlier part of the century, the quantity affected 
 by act after 17 50, and especially after 1760, when such 
 became much more widespread, affords very strong 
 evidence as to this. As will be seen from the table given 
 later, not only does the acreage thus treated increase 
 greatly in most of the counties placed in the first group 
 above, but other counties, as Bedford, Cambridge, Cumber- 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 191 
 
 land, Derby, Dorset, Norfolk, hitherto little touched, if 
 touched at all, so far as private act inclosures are con- 
 cerned, become prominent. Corroboration is afforded by 
 the inclosures of the next decade. Further, the discussions 
 arising at this period as to the effects of the movement 
 emphasise the conclusion. Broadly speaking, this was 
 the period (1760-90) of the great controversy to which 
 frequent allusion has been made, and the prominence of 
 which has done so much to colour opinion as to the time 
 of inclosure, and also as to its nature. 
 
 The controversy, which called forth several books of 
 real merit, assumes its true proportion in the Essay by 
 Horner, thus like its precursor originating in the Midlands, 
 since both Horner and Addington, his immediate opponent, 
 were Warwickshire clergymen. Among other writers of 
 importance were Lamport, Stone, Pennington, Arthur 
 Young, and Howlett, as well as others who veil their per- 
 sonality under such titles as " A Country Gentleman,'' " A 
 Farmer," and the like. In the beginning concerned mainly 
 with the general nature and results of the movement, it 
 soon assumes a particular aspect through the assertions by 
 Dr. Price and others of a consequent decline in the popu- 
 lation. As both aspects are dealt with elsewhere, they re- 
 quire little detailed notice here. But apart from these there 
 are points deserving attention. Over and above their differ- 
 ences on definite points and their recriminations in matters 
 of detail, the two parties of advocate and opponent are ob- 
 viously divided in attitude. On the one side are the writers 
 who, while often admitting though usually minimising the 
 hardships involved, look on these as incidental, if indeed 
 incidental, and as but temporary drawbacks to a course 
 attended by certain particular advantages and an inevitable 
 condition of progress. This attitude is seen clearly in 
 Horner, who distinguishes between the conditions of the 
 past and the present, and points out as to the former that 
 " undertakings in husbandry were then generally small, 
 calculated rather to be a means of subsistence to particular 
 families than a source of wealth to the public," and in 
 
192 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Howlett, who throughout insists on the need of adapting 
 the agriculture of the country to the supply of its needs. 
 On the other side are those like Addington and the author 
 of the Political Enquiry into the consequences of enclosing 
 waste lands and the causes of the present high price of 
 butcher's meat, to add an extreme opponent, in whose eyes 
 present grievances loom large, and who do not see any 
 adequate reason for interference with the past. The con- 
 cessions made by Addington, for instance, are yielded in 
 the spirit of one who altogether fails to see any alteration 
 in conditions, and so regards the change as not only 
 accompanied by injury but really unnecessary. 
 
 The best examination of the whole question at this time 
 is to be found, not in any of the foregoing, but in the 
 Suggestions for rendering the inclosure of common fields and 
 waste lands a source of population and riches, by Thomas 
 Stone, a pamphlet which, though distinctly in favour of 
 inclosures, is less partisan in tone than was the case with 
 the more brilliant productions of Howlett, and is moreover 
 marked by strong common sense and wide practical know- 
 ledge. 
 
 Despite differences, it is possible to arrive at some.points 
 of fairly general agreement, and to indicate certain other 
 matters with regard to which the divergence is due to 
 opposing views as to fact rather than to any difference of 
 opinion as to whether certain results are bad in principle. 
 
 Thus it is generally agreed, though not without reser- 
 vation on the part of some, firstly, that the inclosure of 
 waste and commons is, on the whole, advantageous ; and 
 secondly, that advantages are to be gained by inclosing 
 common fields where the soil is light and sandy ; and, 
 thirdly, that rapid conversion from arable to pasture, if 
 not safe-guarded, may be attended by a diminution of 
 employment so far as the district is concerned. But more 
 doubtful questions arise when the main difficulty is to 
 determine the extent to which a particular danger is 
 realised in practice or to weigh opposing considerations. 
 Thus there is great divergence of view as to the extent to 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 193 
 
 which conversion to pasture is met by additions elsewhere 
 to the arable area, and again as to the compensation for 
 a lack of agricultural employment by increased local 
 industries in the district Both Young and Stone take the 
 view that the new system of agriculture provided in many 
 respects additional work, even if diminishing some part 
 of that previously plied. But these and other matters 
 are treated in more detail in another chapter. 
 
 Here the main importance of the controversy is the 
 evidence it affords of a considerable upward bound in the 
 movement 
 
 But now it will be necessary to turn to the actual 
 record of the inclosures in the eighteenth and nineteenth 
 centuries. Before taking the statistics as contained in the 
 acts or as stated by various writers, there are certain , 
 important points requiring notice. 
 
 In the first place, in dealing with inclosure as a move- 
 ment, it is necessary to take into account the waste lands 
 and commons as well as the common fields, and this for 
 several reasons. Firstly, even in inclosures of common 
 fields so-called there is usually common included, a fact 
 which certainly destroys some part of the point sought 
 by the exclusion of commons and waste. Secondly, 
 the inclosure of common is important because when 
 brought into cultivation it added a considerable amount 
 of land to the cultivated area and often displaced some 
 part of the existing arable. Thirdly, while the con- 
 version of arable to pasture is an important feature, the 
 conversion of pasture to arable is no less so. Fourthly, if 
 inclosure is a movement towards better cultivation and 
 the production of more product with less labour, the one is 
 no less significant than the other. On the other hand, 
 it may be urged that the two are different in effect To 
 some extent and in certain aspects this is true. To meet 
 the diflSculty it will be well to take both and to indicate 
 the difference as far, indeed, as that be possible. 
 
 In the second place, the accuracy of the acreage as 
 given in the acts is open to some criticism. Firstly, it 
 
194 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 must be remembered that strictly speaking the area stated 
 in the act does not constitute a final measurement. That 
 is provided in the award which constitutes the legal record 
 of the inclosure. In early cases, however, where the act 
 is in the main confirmatory of an agreement which in 
 some cases apparently was either in process of fulfilment 
 or already carried out, the act would state the amount 
 of land as finally measured. Again, when the act goes 
 into great detail as to the size of the various parcels of 
 land to be dealt with the difference is usually inconsider- 
 able. In other cases there is frequent variation between 
 the acreage given in the act and in the award. Taking 
 the case of Leicester where comparison between the 
 estimate of the act and the measurement of the award has 
 been made in sixty-one cases, there is no case where 
 there is not some difference. In some few cases the 
 difference is very considerable, but this is the exception 
 and not the rule. On the other hand no general conclu- 
 sion is possible as to whether the quantity in the act is an 
 over or an under-estimate. In the Leicester instances 
 where over 8o,000 acres is covered by the inclosures 
 compared, in twenty-eight the statement in the act is an 
 over-estimate while in thirty-three cases it is an under- 
 estimate. As a rule over-estimate is more frequent in the 
 earlier years and under-estimate in the later years. In 
 Northampton, where comparison has been made in eigh- 
 teen cases covering over 27,000 acres, there is over- 
 estimate in eleven and under-estimate in seven cases. 
 The following table gives particulars of counties where 
 sufficient cases have been compared to enable some kind 
 of an estimate. 
 
 
 No. of 
 inclosures 
 compared. 
 
 Acreage in 
 round figures 
 of inclosures 
 
 compared. 
 
 Cases in 
 which over- 
 estimate 
 in act. 
 
 Percentage of 
 over- or under- 
 estimate in acts. 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 61 
 
 90,000 
 
 28 
 
 9 under. 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 18 
 
 27,000 
 
 II 
 
 2-4 over. 
 
 Derby, - 
 
 27 
 
 20,000 
 
 17 
 
 16 over. 
 
 Nottingham, - 
 
 14 
 
 20,000 
 
 7 
 
 9 over. 
 
 Lincoln, 
 
 42 
 
 95,000 
 
 24 
 
 — 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 195 
 
 In Lincolnshire where, one case of fen allotment and 
 inclosure excluded, the total acreage is very nearly the 
 same in acts and awards, it should be added that in the 
 later years over-estimate is the rule. While it is obviously 
 impossible to take as accurate the acreage given in the 
 acts, it is equally impossible to make any regular or 
 definite allowance for error. With the exception of 
 Leicester it will be noticed that the tendency is for the 
 acts to over-estimate the size of the inclosures. 
 
 But another possibility of error presents itself in the 
 inclusion in some acts, of roads and existing inclosed land. 
 Such inclusion does not appear to be of frequent occur- 
 rence, and is rarely if ever committed in the award so far 
 as inclosed land is concerned, save in cases where such 
 inclosed land is not permanently in separate ownership. 
 There are cases where some roads are included in the 
 total acreage. As far as the awards are concerned a 
 detailed examination of the figures and in some instances of 
 the map, would probably enable a correction to be made. 
 
 Further, it is usually difficult, if not impossible, from the 
 act to determine the proportions of the land respectively 
 common field and common or waste. Judging from the 
 awards this is extremely variable, sometimes being large 
 in proportion and sometimes small.^ Hence the treatment 
 of these as composed uniformly of open field is misleading, 
 especially when the results of inclosure are under 
 discussion. 
 
 In view of these facts two conclusions seem inevitable. 
 In the first place any very minute determination of the 
 quantity of land from the acreage given in the act is 
 impossible ; thus calculations even if given in terms of 
 decimal figures must be taken as approximate only. 
 In the second place, in many of the common field or open 
 field inclosures, the area of cultivation undergoes extension 
 not only by the greater use of land previously in fallow 
 but by the addition of an amount of waste or common 
 very variable in its proportion. 
 
 ' On this see pp. 402-4. 
 
196 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Turning to the actual statistics, two matters seem of 
 great importance : firstly, the period during the eighteenth 
 century during which inclosure was prevalent, and secondly 
 the distribution of the inclosures throughout what for this 
 purpose is a wholly artificial unit, namely, the county. 
 To meet these points two tables are appended. 
 
 In one of these,^ which deals with the whole country, 
 percentages are given of the land inclosed during the 
 following periods, (i) before 1760, (2) 1761-70, (3) 
 1771-80,(4) 1781-90,(5) 1791-1800, (6) 1801-1810, 
 (7) 1811-1820,(8) 1821 on. 
 
 The other^ table includes the chief counties affected by 
 the movement in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 
 together with some few others. In it the registration 
 counties as given in the Census Return are adopted, and the 
 inclosed townships are distributed according to the various 
 registration districts. Two columns are given containing 
 respectively the percentage borne by the townships in 
 which inclosure took place to all townships or places in 
 the districts, and also the percentage of the land in the 
 districts inclosed. As the object in this instance is to 
 discover the natural region affected, the abandonment of 
 the ordinary county area for the registration area does not 
 invalidate the particular result, though of course it precludes 
 comparison between this table and others where the areas 
 are different No doubt it would have been better to 
 have adhered to the ordinary county divisions, but that 
 was impossible, since the only means of obtaining the 
 percentages in question is the Census Return. 
 
 The basis of the lists from which the tables are pre- 
 pared remains to be explained. The list is primarily 
 drawn from the acts, but as many awards were examined 
 the figures of these are substituted for those of the act, or 
 inserted when the act leaves the acreage affected blank. 
 Further, when the inclosed acreage is supplied by neither 
 act nor award, good estimates or statements, such as those 
 given in the county reports, have been accepted when 
 'Appendix D. ^Appendix C. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 197 
 
 forthcoming. In this way it is hoped that the inaccuracy- 
 involved by reliance on the estimates in the acts may be 
 partially corrected. Of course, had an allowance for error 
 been possible, it would have been better to take the figures 
 of the acts as a basis and then to correct them ; but as is 
 stated above, such a method of correction would seem to 
 be impracticable. It would be inexact in itself. 
 
 An examination of the first of these tables points 
 to certain features in the inclosure movement, and raises 
 certain questions as to their meaning. Indications present 
 themselves of three — or, at any rate, of two — waves of 
 inclosure. The first and least important of these appears 
 in the years before 1760. Possibly this may be but the 
 beginning of that which follows during the period 1 760- 
 1780. Then there occurs a very distinct falling off both 
 in the number and extent of land inclosed in the next 
 decade, 1781-90. The third wave follows, rising to its 
 full height either in 1 791-1800 or 1 801-10, and con- 
 tinuing, though with declining force, through i8iiri820. 
 
 As has been previously suggested, the scattered 
 character of the inclosures before 1760 seems to indicate 
 that private acts were but one form at that time, a con- 
 jecture confirmed by the internal character of the act, and 
 by other facts already dealt with ; as, for instance, the 
 occurrence in Norfolk of other inclosures in the early part 
 of the century. The only counties largely affected by 
 the private acts of this period were Leicester, Warwick, 
 Northants, and Rutland. 
 
 Leaving this less conspicuous period for the two 
 conspicuous periods, 1760-80 and 1790- 18 20, two very 
 obvious questions present themselves. In the first place, 
 what are the districts least affected by the decline in the 
 intervening decade ? In the second place, why were some 
 districts subject to inclosure in the earlier and others in 
 the later of the two periods ? 
 
 With regard to the first matter, the counties thus un- 
 affected were the south-western counties : Wiltshire, 
 Somerset, Hampshire, and Dorset ; though in the last two 
 
198 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the comparative rarity of inclosure makes the fact of less 
 moment. In addition to these, Derbyshire shows little 
 falling off and Middlesex none Yet it is not possible to 
 assign any very certain reason for the exception which 
 these two counties seem to constitute from what seems to 
 be a general rule. There is nothing distinctive about them, 
 and even in the four south-western counties the places are 
 scattered and not in the parts of the counties lying con- 
 tiguous to each other. Leaving Middlesex aside, as a 
 rule the places inclosed appear to be in hilly districts and 
 to have been inclosed under much the same conditions as 
 those inclosed in the previous decade. In the south- 
 western counties, owing to previous history and the 
 character of the soil, there was little land to come under 
 inclosure of the kind which swells the record of many 
 other counties in the earlier years. This points to some 
 difference between the land affected in the earlier and 
 later decades. Speaking generally, the rule that decrease 
 took place holds good. The reason for this was in all 
 likelihood the very simple one, that with the land which 
 best repaid the trouble already inclosed, the necessary 
 cost did not warrant extension in face of the prices for 
 produce which prevailed. 
 
 The second question is more important. In this case 
 the number of inclosures is sufficiently large to eliminate 
 the element of chance. Furthermore the area affected in 
 each period is so wide that it cannot be contended that the 
 movement represents a general spreading from a region 
 where the intelligence of the people first led them to seek 
 its undoubted if individual advantages. Even in the dis- 
 tricts participating more at the later than at the earlier 
 date, there are sufficient instances to prove that inclosure 
 took place in the latter, though in a restricted measure. 
 The simplest and most natural explanation is probably 
 the correct one. Inclosure took place first in the districts 
 or counties where its advantages were greatest. The factors 
 which determined which these were, are not difficult to 
 find. Lands where inclosure was profitable, owing either 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 199 
 
 to a change in its use or to a considerable increjise in yield, 
 came under inclosure because the profit would compensate 
 for the cost incurred : for it must be remembered that, as 
 set forth in an earlier chapter, the expense of inclosing land 
 was very considerable. The fairly unanimous testimony 
 of contemporary observers points to two conditions under 
 which land could be made much more profitable when 
 inclosed. In the first place, light soils yielded more 
 abundant crops when subject to root and clover crops in 
 rotation with grain. In the second place, in other places 
 the open field system retained in one use soil materially 
 better suited to other uses, the most conspicuous instance 
 of this being the obstacle to grass on land which was 
 natural pasture land. The possibility of improvement in 
 either direction was emphasised by the greater attention 
 paid both to stock and arable during the eighteenth 
 century. The skilful use of roots and of grass and the 
 system of scientific breeding enhanced the gain. In some 
 districts, too, draining which could only be carried out 
 with difficulty on land under common right offered better 
 results than could be obtained elsewhere, but in most 
 cases the full advantage of this could not be secured 
 without considerable outlay of capital. 
 
 The general advantages of having land in severalty, 
 other than the above, were in the main uniform, and so 
 would not affect one district more than another. 
 
 The approach of the end of the century brought 
 changes, all tending in the same direction, namely, to 
 render inclosure increasingly profitable, and so facilitate 
 not only its development in the areas formerly affected, 
 but its extension into districts and lands comparatively 
 little touched till then. On the one hand the rise in the 
 price of provisions which took place, and increased as the 
 war progressed, provided the requisite margin of profit, even 
 had things remained as they were. On the other hand, 
 the tendency towards capitalistic farming, no doubt in part 
 stimulated by the inclosures, received an impetus both from 
 its newly recognised profitable character and from the 
 
200 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 blow inflicted on the small farming owners by the gradual 
 decay of the small home industries. Lastly, in 1801 the 
 general act was passed which both regularised inclosure 
 and somewhat diminished its expense. No doubt, too, when 
 the first decade or so was over, and inclosing with the new 
 act in operation had become a general rule, habit in many 
 Ccises governed its application, and less regard was paid 
 to particular fitness ; yet even then the consideration of 
 profit must have weighed with the proprietors. 
 
 It is interesting to notice how similar is the rise and fall 
 in the counties or districts where the land located was 
 waste or of the nature of commons, to that taking place 
 in the open field districts. In the northern counties, 
 Northumberland, Durham, Cumberland, and Westmore- 
 land, where it was nearly exclusively of waste, the falling 
 off during the decade 1781-90 is just as conspicuous as in 
 Northants or Oxford. In Derby and Notts the propor- 
 tion between waste and open field is varied, not, as might 
 be expected, to the greater continuance of the operation 
 on the wastes, but in. the other direction. In Norfolk, on the 
 other hand, while both diminish, the open field inclosures 
 diminish most. Taking the country as a whole, so far as 
 there is any distinction between the two in this respect, the 
 inclosure of waste falls off more than that of common field, 
 a feature which certainly points to the conclusion that less 
 profit was to be obtained from the former than the latter. 
 The difference, however, is hardly great enough to furnish a 
 basis for anything more than a rather general conclusion. 
 The second table merits equal if not more careful 
 consideration. The county, as has been said, is, so 
 far as any conclusions as to the causes determining the 
 direction of this movement are concerned, largely an 
 artificial unit. In other words, the distribution of in- 
 closures by counties offers little intelligible explanation, 
 owing, of course, to the fact that the county, as such, is not 
 homogeneous in respect of the causes which might induce 
 or discourage these. That is to be sought in an examination 
 of the extent to which districts similar, so far as conditions 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 201 
 
 of climate, soil, or economic situation are concerned, play 
 a like part in the movement Such an examination 
 means a somewhat detailed enquiry into the circumstances 
 attending the progress of inclosure during the eighteenth 
 and early nineteenth centuries in certain counties. 
 
 Before, however, entering upon this investigation certain 
 matters require notice. 
 
 In the first place, the distinctions drawn above between 
 the chief periods of inclosure by private act must be 
 emphasised. It is important to know the time at which 
 any area passed under inclosure, since there was a marked 
 difference between the various periods. Put broadly, in the 
 enclosures before 1 760, those by act represent very inade- 
 quately the extent of the movement ; further, these took 
 place, partly in view of general improvement and partly in 
 order to obtain the benefit of the special advantages from 
 including turnips and root crops in the rotation. But the 
 inclosures of the next period are far more numerous. No 
 doubt the movement had spread owing to experience, and 
 owing to greater realisation of the benefits offered, at any 
 rate on the technical side. The period from 1760- 17 80, 
 or thereabouts, is distinguished by great increase and the 
 extension of the area. In the next period, stretching from 
 1790, or shortly before, to 18 10 or 1820, a new impetus 
 manifests itself, which is responsible for the act of 1 801, an 
 event which removes one of the serious obstacles to the 
 change. After that time the inclosure of any district, as, 
 indeed, of the country at large, was merely a matter of 
 time. Of course inclosure, when introduced or set going 
 in an area, tended to spread, no doubt with the not in- 
 frequent result that land unsuited to the process might be 
 subjected to. it equally with that from which more profit 
 might be expected and where the advantages would 
 greatly outweigh the disadvantages, if such existed. 
 
 In the second place, inclosure as is elsewhere shown 
 was a costly process, often reaching some ^3 an acre, 
 while in addition the parties receiving allotments were 
 usually put to heavy capital charges in hedging and ditching 
 
202 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 their land, as well as in other ways in particular cases. 
 Naturally enough the movement was restricted in its 
 general direction to cases where the profit was sufficiently 
 great to repay the expenditure. Thus land which was 
 little capable of improvement in this way tended to be left 
 alone. Equally naturally, good land which if inclosed 
 would not undergo substantial change tends to be inclosed 
 late. Whether land would or would not repay inclosure 
 depended largely on the conditions of the time and the 
 purport of the movement at that time. In this respect 
 the most important thing is to ascertain if any particular 
 inclosure took place in the second or in the third period, 
 that is from 1760 to 1780 or thereabouts, or from 1790 
 to 1 8 10 or so. 
 
 In the third place, in any such investigation it is im- 
 portant to ascertain whether the inclosure in any given 
 area was well distributed over the area in question or con- 
 centrated in a small number of parishes, which were wholly 
 or mainly inclosed. A given percentage of inclosure may 
 clearly be achieved in different ways. With regard to 
 this it should be noticed that the size of an inclosure before 
 1800 is usually greater than the size in the period 1801- 
 1 840. This general, though not invariable, feature admits 
 of different interpretations. It might be due to inclosure 
 occurring first in the places where more land presented 
 itself, a course which, however, does not seem probable 
 where the diminution is but moderate, or it may be due to 
 private inclosures taking place of small parcels of land, 
 in advance of the more general inclosure of the land of 
 the village which occurs later. Whatever the solution, it 
 is clear that the tendency exists for later township inclosures 
 to include a somewhat smaller proportion of the area than 
 was affected in the earlier cases. A more important differ- 
 ence is indicated by the appearance in some districts of 
 comparatively small inclosures. Inclosure occurs in many 
 townships, but in each on the average a- small amount of 
 land is inclosed. In some cases of inclosure it must be 
 remembered that the existence of old or ancient inclosures 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 203 
 
 is specifically stated. Such widespread distribution seems 
 probably due to inclosure by act taking place in districts 
 where the original inclosure had been very early, possibly 
 not so much by agreement as by isolated or arbitrary action. 
 
 Turning to the consideration of the causes regulating 
 the distribution and progress of the movement, the factors 
 which present themselves are in the main three, namely, 
 soil, climate, including effect of situation, and the stage of 
 development of any given region. 
 
 Of these, as far as the chief matter under enquiry, the 
 progress during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 
 roughly speaking up to 1 840, is concerned, the one which 
 calls for most attention is the soil. As far as climate is 
 concerned the main thing is rather exposure to climate 
 owing to situation than any great variation in climate 
 itself, though, of course, some difference may be expected 
 as between east and west. Likewise considerations as to 
 the position of a district, whether level or hilly, co-operated 
 with the soil. The difference in the stage of development, 
 affected as it was by the change in means of locomotion 
 and transport, will naturally follow later. 
 
 With regard to soil, the general coincidence between 
 the area of the inclosure by private act and certain forms 
 of geological structure is remarkable. It is at any rate 
 true to say that the districts of great inclosure are with 
 small exception on the region of the lias and oolite forma- 
 tions, some part of the chalk formation being added. To 
 realise this general coincidence it is only necessary to 
 compare a geological map of England with the maps 
 annexed or those of Dr. Slater, or the map of the land 
 left comparatively open at the time of Ogilby's description. 
 The more closely these are inspected the more striking 
 appears the resemblance, and the more deserving detailed 
 study. From this comparison the wastes of the north 
 must be excluded. 
 
 Such study means the determination of the various 
 regions in which inclosure took place and their examina- 
 tion. To enable the comparison of the different parts of 
 
204 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 a county the percentage of land inclosed by act up to 
 1870 in the various registration districts of the counties 
 most concerned has been calculated approximately, 
 and is given in an Appendix.^ Probably this is the 
 most convenient method of enabling a comparison be- 
 tween districts of inclosure and districts in which soil 
 varies. Of course this method involves, as has been said, 
 the use of the registration county instead of the county 
 proper, a change which must be borne in mind if the 
 figures be used for any other purpose. For the present 
 purpose it makes little difference, since neither registration 
 county nor county proper necessarily coincides with the 
 true region or district As Marshall tells us in the 
 examination " of a country like England, with a view to 
 the existing state of its Agriculture and the other branches 
 of its Rural Economy, the arbitrary lines of counties are 
 to be wholly disiegarded." He adds further : " A natural 
 district is marked by a uniformity or similarity of soil and 
 surface, whether, by such uniformity, a marsh, a vale, an 
 extent of upland, a range of chalky heights, or a stretch of 
 barren mountains be produced. And an Agricultural 
 District is discriminated by a uniformity or similarity of 
 practice ; whether it be characterised by grazing, sheep 
 farming, arable management, or mixed cultivation ; or by 
 the cultivation of some particular article, as dairy produce, 
 fruit liquor, etc., etc. Now it is evident that the boundary 
 lines of counties pay no regard to these circumstances." 
 As, however, to ascertain the proportion to which land was 
 inclosed some measured area is necessary, the best that 
 can be done is to take the small unit of the registration 
 district. 
 
 The regions to be examined in respect of the points 
 referred to may be classified in the following groups. 
 
 1. The East Anglian Group — Norfolk, Suffolk, and 
 
 Essex. 
 
 2. The Western Group — Wilts, Gloucester, and 
 
 Somerset. 
 
 ' Appendix C. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 205 
 
 3. Metropolitan Group — Middlesex and Herts. 
 
 4. Cambridge. 
 
 5. The Midlands. 
 
 (a) Warwick, Northants, Rutland, Leicester, Hunts. 
 
 (b) Oxford, Bedford, and Buckingham. 
 
 East Anglian Group. In the case of Norfolk 
 certain interesting features appear. The geological 
 characteristics of the county are simple, a division from 
 south to north separating it into two main halves, the one, 
 the western, being on a chalk basis, that to the east lying 
 on the Norfolk clay. In addition, along the coast line of 
 the north, from Hunstanton to about Sheringham, was 
 alluvial, the same being characteristic of the extreme west, 
 a portion of Norfolk reckoned into the registration county 
 of Cambridge. Between the alluvial and the chalk is a 
 belt of green sand. The substratum, however, is so far as 
 soil is concerned unimportant, being greatly modified by 
 drifts, and the districts may be described as follows. 
 
 (i) In the north-west was a considerable area of good 
 sand, tending to narrow as it advances south. This con- 
 stituted the scene of the Norfolk husbandry, referred to 
 by Young, and probably also by Houghton when he 
 speaks of the sands of Norfolk. Of this soil the regis- 
 tration districts of Docking, Walsingham, and to some 
 extent those of Erpingham and Aylsham, are composed. 
 
 (2) South of this, in Thetford and the south-west 
 generally, up to the limits of the alluvial, there is, 
 according to Young, some sand, but the subsoil is chalky 
 and the soil is not so good and far less amenable, 
 according to him, to cultivation. This soil may be 
 assigned largely to the districts ^ of Thetford and parts of 
 Swaffham and Downham. 
 
 (3) In the east, in Flegg, that is from Yarmouth 
 northwards along the coast, are very rich loams with some 
 alluvial, extending over the area of the district of Flegg 
 and part of that of Tunstead. 
 
 (4) The south-east has a considerable amount of poor 
 
 ^ District here and subsequently used for registration district. 
 
2o6 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 sand with much boulder clay, described by Young as 
 difficult to work. It is not very distinctive. 
 
 On turning to the record of the inclosures of the period 
 of private acts certain coincidences reveal themselves be- 
 tween these and the soil, modified in some respects by 
 other circumstances. 
 
 In the first division the percentage of inclosure is on 
 the whole low, Docking 29, Walsingham 22, Erpingham 
 15, Aylsham 13. With the exception of Docking, in- 
 closure in all these districts occurs late, that is with little 
 exception after 1800, and to a considerable measure after 
 1 8 10. In Docking, however, while there is some late 
 inclosure, the most is very early. Again, the inclosures in 
 Docking almost all involve common field, as is likewise 
 the case in Walsingham. In the other two districts there 
 are some of each kind. 
 
 It would seem that this region was initially inclosed in 
 the years prior to the use of private acts, when, owing to 
 new crops and esf)ecially to the use of roots, the good 
 sands offer considerable profits to those prepared to 
 encounter the necessary outlay. This movement, which 
 is known from different sources, continues into the early 
 years of the private act record, land being inclosed, 
 especially in Docking, a fact which goes far to explain the 
 higher percentage of that district as shown above. The 
 first wave subsides early, little apparent as it was in 
 some districts and only visible in Docking till 1780. But 
 there is land left uninclosed which comes under the 
 movement at a much later date, when both higher prices 
 and the diminution of cost owing to the general act 
 increase the chance of gain. Then, indeed, as would 
 seem initially probable, some of the inclosed land, and, in 
 Aylsham a good proportion, is common, possibly sheep 
 walk. 
 
 The land coming under the second division was 
 a poorer soil. The amount inclosed by private act is 
 greater, Thetford 26, Downham 30, Swaffham 31. The 
 inclosure is early, that is, much is inclosed before 1790, 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 207 
 
 though some remains for treatment after that date, 
 usually remaining unaltered till after 1 800. In the main 
 the inclosures are of land with common field. Gradually, 
 so it would seem, the husbandry with some use of roots 
 spread downwards. 
 
 The case of Flegg and the surrounding lands grouped 
 in the third division is the very reverse. Here the 
 percentage inclosed is high, reaching in the case of the 
 district of Flegg itself to 59 per cent, and in Tunstead 
 to 38. In one sub-district of the latter, that is in the 
 portion adjoining Flegg, there is an inclosure in every 
 township. In both cases the inclosures are during the 
 third period, even after 1800. But here the explanation 
 would seem to be the very reverse of that previously 
 offered. This region of rich loams could yield little more 
 profit when inclosed than when open, and consequently 
 cost was only incurred when rendered advantageous by 
 circumstances elsewhere alluded to. These inclosures are 
 nearly all of common field. 
 
 Taking, however, the main part of the east, that is with 
 the omission of the district just treated, most of the 
 inclosure is after 1 790 ; this is the region described by 
 Marshall. From this the south-east must be partly 
 excluded. So far as act is concerned this is not a 
 district of any great inclosure from common field by act. 
 Commons are inclosed especially in the south-east. The 
 soil which was often poor sand or poor clay yielded scant 
 promise. 
 
 One difference between the progress in inclosing land 
 in the west and east, especially the south-east, should be 
 noticed. There is more common field inclosure in the 
 west during this period, while on the east there is more 
 inclosure from common. Possibly this may be due in part 
 to the soil and in part to an earlier need for higher culti- 
 vation, and so to the additional profit of cultivation on land 
 coming within reach of Norwich and the manufactures. 
 
 Turning to Suffolk, the geological resemblance to 
 Norfolk is considerable. The north-west corner contains 
 
2o8 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the alluvial with chalk. According to the description of 
 the soil, the north-west was composed of poor soil, with 
 fen in the very extremity. Mid Suffolk was a good loam 
 on a boulder clay, while on the east is a narrow sandy 
 district save in the spit running up towards Yarmouth 
 from a line drawn from Beccles to Kessingland where the 
 soil, according to Young, is partly loam. In the south, 
 especially about Sudbury and Hadleigh, London clay 
 makes its appearance. 
 
 Now as far as inclosure by private act is concerned 
 the greater part of Suffolk presents little difference. The 
 county was practically inclosed some time before that 
 period opened. In nearly all districts the percentage is 
 very low ; but there is one difference just perceptible 
 between the east and the west. In the west the occasional 
 inclosures are often of land including common field, 
 whereas in the east nearly all inclosures are inclosures of 
 common. With few exceptions the period is after 1790. 
 But there are two regions where the change is consider- 
 able. In the north-west corner after 1790 and especially 
 after 1800 inclosure makes some impression, the per- 
 centage of land in the registration district of Mildenhall 
 being 20 and in that of Thingoe 17. Most parcels of land 
 affected include common field. On the other hand, in the 
 spit of land running up to Yarmouth a percentage of 2 1 
 is attained, nearly all being from common. 
 
 Essex lies partly on the London clay, partly on boulder 
 clay, with in the north-west some cretaceous land. Arthur 
 Young marks as chalk, land which closely corresponds to 
 the sub-district of Saffron Walden, one of these sub- 
 districts in the district of that name. This is the only 
 place where any inclosure worth speaking of occurs. The 
 percentage of land inclosed in the whole district is 22, 
 while of the nine townships in the sub-district no fewer 
 than seven were subject to inclosure. In all cases there 
 was common field and the period is that after 1790. The 
 other inclosures are all later, nearly all from common, 
 and scattered. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 209 
 
 In two of the above districts, namely in the respective 
 north-west corners of the two counties, the reason for the 
 relative lateness in inclosure is obvious. The open field 
 remains because of the poorness of the soil, while in both 
 the position on the extremity of the East Anglian district 
 may have assisted. In the Mildenhall district of Suffolk 
 there was also some land approximating to the fen 
 district. But in north-east of Suffolk, in the little spit of 
 land, the reason is not so clear. The soil is described by 
 Young as being loamy, but the inclosure is of common 
 and is late. 
 
 Two general remarks about the whole region must be 
 added. No doubt the date of the main period of inclo- 
 sure was far prior to the phase of the movement now 
 under consideration. From Norwich southwards and 
 especially towards the east the area was one of early 
 industrial growth, while in South- West Essex the needs of 
 the metropolis were also to be felt. In the second place, 
 in the early inclosed area sporadic inclosure of commons 
 takes place. The chief districts showing inclosures under 
 act in both Suffolk and Essex lie on the border and not 
 in the central part of the county. 
 
 Western Group. This group, which also is affected 
 by the presence of an important manufacturing district 
 of early development, consists of the three counties of 
 Gloucester, Wiltshire, and Somerset. Here the central 
 region is formed by the portions of the three counties 
 most contiguous, while in every case some portion of the 
 county lies, as it were, outside this area, as the north-west 
 of Gloucester, the south and east of Wilts, and the west, 
 especially the south-west, of Somerset. Starting with the 
 central region the geological formation presents, first of all, 
 lias forming the great vale district of Gloucester, including 
 the vales of Berkeley and Gloucester, and extending fur- 
 ther into the vale of Evesham in Worcester. The soil is 
 a rich loam, and, according to Marshall, is of singular 
 wealth in the case of Berkeley. According to the same 
 authority the greater part, some three-fourths of the first, 
 
 o 
 
2IO COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 is grass, while in the second vale this condition is charac- 
 teristic of nearly the whole. This account is corroborated 
 by that given in the Agricultural Report. South-east of 
 this is the Cotswold land, a cornbrash of calcareous lime 
 (oolite) which extends a little way into the western part 
 of Wilts as far as Bradford, and includes Bradford district, 
 the west of the Chippenham district, and nearly reaches 
 to Melksham. This latter land, like that of the Cotswold, 
 is largely arable. The oolitic strata extends, though in a 
 narrowed belt, into Somerset, running through Frome and 
 Milbourne. It should be noted that in and about Brad- 
 ford and Melksham the valley of the Avon presents better 
 and richer loam. South-east again of this is another 
 oolitic formation of Oxford clay. This land, existing in a 
 thin belt in Somerset, broadens as it leaves Westbury, 
 includes Melksham, and runs north-east, thence embracing 
 the east of Chippenham, the land between Malmesbury and 
 Wooton Bassett, also Cricklade and Highworth. 
 
 Leaving for the time the description of the rest of these 
 counties we may turn to the inclosures concerned. 
 
 The first area, namely that of the vales, with its rich 
 dairies, is not affected by inclosure till comparatively late, 
 nearly all, as far as private acts are concerned, being 
 inclosed after 1790, and most after 1800. In no case is 
 the amount of land inclosed very great, the percentages 
 being as follows; Tewkesbury 25, Gloucester 29, Winch- 
 combe 29, and Wheatenhurst 25. In the district of 
 Dursley, where there was very little land in arable in 
 Marshall's time, the percentage is only 3. The per- 
 centage for Thornbury, where Berkeley is, but which also 
 includes much land outside the vales, is 5. Practically 
 there is only chance inclosure in these two latter. This 
 region, as we know from both Marshall and the Agricul- 
 tural Report, had been for some time a well developed 
 dairy country, interspersed indeed, and especially in the 
 more northerly direction, that is, in the plain or vale of 
 Gloucester and parts of that of Evesham, with arable 
 fields. The inclosures seem to be chiefly of these ; the 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE an 
 
 dairy district having been earlier inclosed. In the 
 Cheltenham district, which includes both vale and Cots- 
 wold land, the percentage is 13. 
 
 The Cotswold region presents very different features 
 in date, amount, and object. Here inclosures by act 
 are, on the whole, early, and occur to a larger extent in 
 the north than the south. Stow is 41, Northleach 27, 
 Cirencester 17, and Tetbury, where the Cotswolds end, 
 and where some half of the inclosures, however, are late, 
 is 25. The land was arable and well fit for turnips and 
 barley. This cultivation, according to Marshall, was its 
 object. From about Tetbury southwards is the land 
 described as the Southwolds, and said to resemble the 
 Cotswolds in soil, though the surface is more broken. 
 This land falls into the Chipping Sodbury district in 
 Gloucester, including other soil, and in Wiltshire, into the 
 west of Chippenham and the south-west of Malmesbury, 
 also Bradford. In these districts the tendency is for 
 inclosure to fall after 1790, and the amount is not great. 
 Chipping Sodbury should be reckoned at about 11 or 12 
 per cent, though owing to one large inclosure of over 
 6,000 acres, it is nominally 21, the total percentage for 
 Chippenham 10, and Malmesbury 17, most of the latter 
 district being on other soil. Bradford is 7, the only 
 inclosure being of common. If we take the two north- 
 eastern districts of Somerset, where some calcareous soil 
 presents itself, though intermixed and under differing 
 topographical circumstances, Bath has no inclosures during 
 this period, and Frome only one with common field and 
 one without. But this central district from Stroud, and 
 including Bradford and Frome, will be dealt with later. 
 
 The part of this region bordering on Wiltshire is, how- 
 ever, characterised by some difference of soil, the part that 
 is lying to the south of a line passing from Burford 
 through Cirencester to Tetbury ; this difference being 
 continued from Tetbury through the Chipping Sodbury 
 district to the neighbourhood of Bath. Here there is 
 mixed loam lying further distant from the rock than is the 
 
212 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 case in the more strictly arable portion of the Cotswolds. 
 Some part of the land is wet and some part well fitted for 
 the dairy. With this the fringe of the west district lying 
 in Wilts combines to form a belt of land intermediate in 
 character between the Cotswolds and the great dairy 
 districts of North Wiltshire. The date of inclosure seems 
 to have been a little later than was the case with the 
 Cotswolds, but still not late. So far as the districts of 
 Cirencester and Tetbury are concerned, a considerable 
 part of the inclosure taking place is on this land. 
 
 Beyond this belt is the third region, that of North- 
 West Wilts. This is distinctly a dairy district Accord- 
 ing to Marshall, the traces of a former arable state 
 remain in marked evidence. In the north-east the soil is 
 described as colder, though some is brashy in character. 
 Beginning from this end we have the inclosures in High- 
 worth and Cricklade taking place early, nearly all being 
 before 1790, and their respective percentages being 32 and 
 22. Calne, where inclosure is both early and late, is only 
 I 5. Those of Malmesbury and Chippenham have already 
 been mentioned. Melksham is only 3, and the inclosure is 
 all from common. From the accounts of Marshall and of 
 Davis, the author of the Agricultural Report, the dairying 
 development in this region was undoubted, the proportion 
 of grass to arable being very great. Rich grazing was 
 succeeding to dairy land in some parts, according to 
 Marshall. As to the general character and use of the 
 land, this writer goes so far as to say that he finds it 
 difficult to distinguish this region in its land and manage- 
 ment from that of the vales in Gloucestershire. 
 
 The remaining districts of the various counties require 
 separate notice. 
 
 In Gloucester, outside the regions dealt with, the greater 
 part of the land is west from the Severn. Here the soil 
 lies largely on a trias or a sandstone substratum. In 
 early times it lay under forest. The inclosure in this area 
 is almost negligible, the percentages for the two registra- 
 tion districts being between 2 and 3. Likewise in the 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 213 
 
 south-west, where there is also land on trias and the 
 Bristol coalfield, Thornbury, which reaches into the vales, 
 is 5, while Clifton is 6. Chipping Sodbury is close 
 to this district. 
 
 Wiltshire calls for more detailed attention. The 
 southern and eastern parts of Wilts differ considerably 
 from the north-west. Their basis is mainly chalk, and 
 they may be described as consisting largely of chalk 
 downs and hills with fertile valley. Through some of 
 these run rich veins of fertile sand. The most important 
 belt of greensand runs up through Warminster and 
 Westbury, skirting the hills, and meets another wide vein 
 in the vale district of Pewsey. Careful writers like Davis 
 distinguish the cultivation of the south and south-east of 
 Wilts as being mainly arable, the sheepfold, largely on 
 down land, being valuable as an accessory to this end. 
 The inclosures in these parts are late, and though this 
 may have been due in some part to topographical circum- 
 stances, namely, the oblong length of the manors, lying on 
 the valleys and extending up the side of the hills, which 
 rendered inclosure more difficult, it would seem to be 
 almost equally due to the nature of the soil which was 
 associated with this formation. In any case, the co- 
 operation of the two rendered the inclosures of this region 
 far less profitable than was elsewhere the case. Hence, 
 of course, their deferment. In the south-west, that is, in 
 parts bordering on Dorset, there is Kimmeridge clay, as 
 also in a patch north of Westburjr, and in the vicinity of 
 Swindon. There were dairy farms round Westbury, and 
 also in the extensive south-west described above. Now 
 to follow the inclosures. In this south-west area, that is, 
 in Mere and Tisbury, part of which districts fall within it, 
 the percentage is respectively 26 and 9. In Warminster 
 and Westbury, proceeding northwards along the west 
 border, it is 54 and 27. In the south-east, around Salis- 
 bury that is, we have Wilton 34, Alderbury 22, and Ames- 
 bury 28. Pewsey and Devizes, in the centre, east of 
 Melksham, are 31 and 32, both having a considerable 
 
214 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 variety of soils. These percentages are measured on a 
 total, it should be remembered, that includes a large 
 quantity of land which was not, and is not, amenable to 
 direct cultivation, its best use being for sheep in connec- 
 tion with an arable farm. 
 
 That the chalk of the south-east should come late under 
 inclosure is natural enough. A more important point is 
 the high percentage of Warminster at 54, with Westbury, 
 to the north, at 27, and Mere, to the south, at 26. North 
 of Westbury are Bradford and Melksham, practically in- 
 closed before the period of private acts, and south and 
 east of Mere is Tisbury at 9. Warminster was the centre 
 of the arable, the town of that name being the most im- 
 portant corn market of a region which had to serve as 
 the granary of the surrounding counties. In Mere and 
 Tisbury, especially the latter, there are dairy farms, as also 
 to some extent in Westbury. From Melksham, itself 
 largely included, begins the north-west dairy district. 
 
 The inclosure of Somerset is less remarkable, both in 
 contrast and features, so far as the period of private acts is 
 concerned. In the districts adjoining Gloucestershire and 
 Wiltshire there is very little inclosure. In Keynsham, 
 Bath, Frome, and Glutton inclosures hardly occur at all. 
 Only in Bedminster, towards Clevedon, do instances pre- 
 sent themselves to any extent. Here cases both from 
 common and common field take place all at a com- 
 paratively late date, with one exception. The districts, 
 indeed, coming under inclosure during this period are two, 
 namely, those of the Mendips and the Sedgmere alluvial. 
 The Mendip inclosures are fairly early, about 1770 
 onwards, the others somewhat later. In both, inclosure is 
 chiefly of common land; in Langport and part of the 
 Bridgewater district there are inclosures of common field. 
 In the south of the county, in the districts abutting on 
 Dorset, some few inclosures, mainly from common, occur. 
 The western district furnishes still fewer instances, but 
 here the conditions resemble those of Devon. In general 
 Somerset, in the districts where considerable development. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 215 
 
 together with cultivation, had taken place in eajlier cen- 
 turies, was already inclosed, and such cases as occur are by 
 way of obvious survival. In the centre, and towards the 
 Bristol Channel, the many numerous cases are chiefly of 
 common, and usually small. They represent reclamations 
 from a partially or wholly unused condition. In both 
 regions alike the land had been unsuitable for use. 
 
 The course of inclosure in this whole area illustrates 
 clearly the operation of two factors, as also their singular 
 interaction : on the one hand, is the effect of soil, coupled 
 no doubt with certain climatic and topographical features ; 
 on the other hand, the growth of population, and particu- 
 larly of a population engaged in home manufactures, or 
 living in villages and small towns, leaves an impress no 
 less marked. The first is visible in the difference mainly 
 in date, though perhaps to some degree in the varying 
 extent of the inclosures during this period between the 
 three soil regions defined first of all — namely, the regions 
 of the vales, the Cotswolds, and the dairy land of North 
 Wilts. It is shown also in the clear distinction between 
 the central division of Somerset and those respectively to 
 the north and the west : and again in the curiously definite 
 difference between the districts centring in Warminster 
 and those surrounding it. The late period at which the 
 chalk region of Wiltshire land comes under treatment is 
 further evidence. The almost negligible amount of 
 inclosure in Gloucester to the west of the Severn may be 
 attributed to its early wild state, a feature apparent also 
 in Somerset. There had been former inclosure from this 
 condition. But the needs of the towns and of the popu- 
 lation engaged in manufacture is not less important. To 
 these no doubt is due the fact, too obvious to be over- 
 looked, that the whole central region had been affected 
 widely by inclosure before, and probably long before, the 
 eighteenth century opened. Within the region they are 
 responsible for the almost entire inclosure of the more 
 central districts prior to this century, as for instance the 
 south of Gloucester, the districts round Bradford, and the 
 
21 6 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 east of Somerset. A further definite result would seem 
 to be the great dairy and cattle inclosures within reason- 
 able reach. In the main the districts in which these are 
 situated were inclosed before the eighteenth century. 
 Even, however, where soil and other co-operating condi- 
 tions were similar, proximity to the industrial district 
 seems to have influenced the date at which inclosure took 
 place. Thus the farther portions, as Highworth and 
 Cricklade, of the North Wilts dairy district are inclosed 
 early in this period, while the inclosures in the portions 
 nearer appear to supervene upon land where earlier inclosure 
 had occurred. Again, in the Cotswold land the percentage 
 of Stow is far greater than that attained in Northleach 
 and Cirencester. A great distinction shows itself between 
 the Cotswolds and the Southwolds. Nor were the in- 
 closures for wool. The very contrary appears to be the 
 case. The inclosures in the region surrounding this centre 
 of the woollen industry are for food, and in many 
 instances for dairy produce and for meat rather than for 
 grain. 
 
 Middlesex and Hertford. Broadly speaking, both of 
 these counties are comparatively little affected by the 
 inclosures under act. The geological description is 
 simple and the soil characteristics less complex and 
 puzzling than in many other areas. In the case of Hert- 
 fordshire, there is a large bed of London clay in the south, 
 while in the rest of the county the substratum is chalk, 
 except in a narrow belt on the east where, in the valley of 
 the Lee, the soil is alluvial. The geological formation is, 
 however, much modified by drift, most of the soil being 
 described by Young as loam, more or less suited to 
 turnips. In the extreme south-west there is definite clay, 
 as also towards the east ; round North Mimms is some 
 poor gravel, while it is only in the northern portion of 
 the county that the chalk comes close to the surface. In 
 the area round Hitchin there is chalk to some extent, but 
 this feature is much more marked around Royston. 
 
 Inclosure occurs to a perceptible extent only in three 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 217 
 
 registration districts, or, to put the matter otherwise, only 
 in two areas — one including two such districts. On the 
 marked cretaceous land we have the relatively large 
 inclosures of Royston and Hitchin ; those of the former 
 affecting 49 per cent, of the land of the district, and 
 those of the latter, where the chalk was less dominant, 
 some 21 per cent. Those of Royston are late — all after 
 1790, and most after 1800. Much the same is true of 
 most of those in the Hitchin district, the main part of the 
 inclosure being after 1790, though near Bedfordshire and 
 the belt of greensand some occur at a much earlier date, 
 even before 1780. Again, on the extreme east there is 
 some little inclosure, otherwise the inclosure which takes 
 place is sporadic and slight and of little significance, little 
 indeed occurring on the loam. 
 
 Middlesex is a county mainly on the London clay. In 
 this region the amount of land inclosed by act is slight, cor- 
 responding somewhat generally to what took place in Hert- 
 fordshire. But in the south-west, in a large area bounded 
 by the Thames, the substratum was alluvial, largely valley 
 gravel, with loam in certain places. It is described as 
 arable, and this characteristic extends to some of the land 
 lying upon the basis of the neighbouring London clay. 
 From the Thames to a northern boundary, running 
 approximately from Hounslow to Colesbrook, there is soil 
 with much loamy sand on the so-called turnip and barley 
 sand. Here the percentage of inclosure is high, reaching 
 in the district of Staines (c.f.) 45, and in that of Brentford 
 43 (mostly commons). To these should be added the 
 Uxbridge inclosures nearly all of which fall in the 
 southern part of that district, and on land described as 
 above. These inclosures are late — nearly all after 1790, 
 and most after 1 800. On the belt of alluvial in the east 
 are. several inclosures, all indeed of the Edmonton district 
 wijth the exception of Homsey. These, too, are late — 
 after 1790. 
 
 Side by side with the inclosures of the south-west of 
 Middlesex should be placed those of the Eton district of 
 
21 8 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Buckingham, where, with an alluvial soil, the percentage 
 rises to 33, in remarkable contrast to that in the part of 
 this county immediately to the north. These inclosures 
 likewise are late. 
 
 In this region the needs of the metropolis evidently 
 dominated the land from a comparatively early date. 
 From it the population of the great city must have drawn 
 such supplies as could not be carried far. Hence indeed 
 it would seem probable that owing to the comparative 
 portability of grain much land was early inclosed and 
 converted often to pasture at a comparatively early time, 
 the good arable alone remaining under grain. Again, 
 another cause leading to early and unnoticed inclosure 
 lay in the forest condition of the north of Middlesex and 
 South and Central Hertford. Even if put to pasture when 
 first inclosed, some land, and especially loamy land in Hert- 
 ford, passes into arable at a comparatively early time, as is 
 shown by the turnip husbandry which prevailed ex- 
 tensively in Young's time. There was further increase 
 of arable in that county in the later decades of the 
 eighteenth century. Increased skill in farming and in- 
 creased demand also make it desirable after 1790 to 
 inclose the good arable of the south-west of Middlesex 
 and to press the cultivation of the chalk land in northern 
 Hertfordshire. 
 
 Cambridge. The condition and circumstances of Cam- 
 bridge make necessary its separate treatment. The 
 formation on the whole is simple. In the south the sub- 
 stratum is chalk, with greensand in the west, while in the 
 north part is fen with some patches of oolite. The 
 agricultural suitability of the land in the west is affected 
 by drift to some extent. There is a patch of boulder 
 clay in the south-east corner. Now as to inclosures. 
 These occur in a very high degree in the south, 
 the Linton district having a percentage of 61, the 
 central south district of Chesterton 62, and the west 
 district of the south, namely Caxton 5 1. This latter, 
 it will be noticed, is less inclosed during this period than 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 219 
 
 the other two. Further, it should be added that the 
 inclosures in the Linton district are mainly where the 
 chalk prevails. All the inclosure is late, as is almost 
 invariable in the case of chalk, taking place with very rare 
 exceptions after 1 790, and mainly after 1 800. In New- 
 market the percentage is 36. So far as these districts are 
 concerned inclosure means land with common fields. On 
 the other hand, in the north or in the region of the fens 
 inclosure is almost always from common, though some 
 common field is involved about Ely, and is comparatively 
 small in extent, save in Witchford, where there was a 
 good deal of pasture or meadow ground, and where the 
 percentage reaches 32. Inclosure in this whole region 
 occurs in far the greater number of cases on the patches 
 which lie on Kimmeridge clay or oolite. Some is early and 
 some late. Little inclosure it is clear took place in this 
 region except in the neighbourhood of towns and villages 
 rising out of the real fen land. 
 
 The land inclosed in this county was, according to the 
 Agricultural Report, not suited to turnip husbandry, and 
 little, as may be gathered from this and other sources, was 
 during the eighteenth century converted to pasture or 
 grazing. 
 
 The Midlands. Turning to the Midlands we may deal, 
 first of all, with the very important group of counties 
 in which inclosure during the eighteenth and nineteenth 
 centuries was peculiarly prominent. These are Warwick, 
 Leicester, Nottingham, Northampton, Rutland, and 
 Huntingdon. The three more southern counties — Oxford, 
 Buckingham, and Bedford — will be considered afterwards. 
 
 Despite the appearance and distribution of drift, geo- 
 logical formation exerted great influence, and certain 
 general characteristics both as to it and as to the soil may 
 be noted. On the whole these are simple. Through the 
 greater part of Warwick, that is, through the county to 
 the north-west of the Avon, extends a region of red soil 
 on a triassic formation. This continues through the 
 western part of Leicester into Nottingham, where it 
 
220 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 constitutes a wide east central district, running south to 
 north, bordered on the west by the forest district also on 
 trias, and on the extreme east and south-east by a belt of 
 soil on lias. This latter is most noticeable in the south- 
 east. The Trent valley has a considerable amount of 
 alluvial and river gravel. 
 
 The belt of soil on lias covers Warwick to the south or 
 south-east of the Avon, the north-west of Northampton, 
 the bigger and eastern half of Leicester, the smaller 
 western half of Rutland, together with the land already 
 described in Nottingham. There is a fair amount of drift 
 boulder clay. According to Young it was very capable of 
 improvement and was good soil on gritstone. Its range 
 includes the north of Oxford, that is the Banbury district. 
 
 South-east of this lies the land on oolitic formation. 
 First of all comes the soil, often cornbrash, in East 
 Rutland, the remainder of Northampton, and in a belt at 
 the north of Buckingham, and across Oxford. It was on 
 the lower oolite and in general suited to wheat and 
 turnips. Directly south-east, tending more to heavier 
 clays, is another belt of land, comprising the greater part 
 of Huntingdon and the north of Bedford and running 
 through Buckingham and Oxford. There is a large 
 amount of drift. 
 
 One important feature of the land on the lias and the 
 oolites is the water-bearing character of the strata. 
 
 Taking these various regions in order, attention must 
 be given to the two important points, namely, the extent 
 of inclosure relative to area and the date at which such 
 inclosure took place. 
 
 Now, with regard to the first matter, inclosure in the 
 first region, that is on the red soil, embraces a smaller 
 percentage of the area than in the other regions. The 
 difference between inclosure here and on the land im- 
 mediately to the south-east is marked. In Warwick the 
 percentage of land inclosed in the north-west is distinctly 
 lower, in Atherstone 2. Aston lo, Meriden i8, Solihull 
 6, in Alcester 20 ; in the central district, where the red 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 221 
 
 soil ends and the other begins, the percentage is higher, 
 that is, in Warwick 27, and Stratford 31 ; while in the 
 three districts of the south-east it is as follows, Shipston 
 41, Southam 42, and Rugby 34. The two small districts 
 of Nuneaton and Foleshill, where there is a sudden great 
 mixture of formations, some verging to coal, show 2 2 and 
 38 respectively. This county, moreover, from the six- 
 teenth century was notably different in respect of inclosure 
 on the two sides of the Avon. The difference was 
 observed by Leland and is also remarked by others, 
 though whether from independent observation or not, is 
 difficult to say. Now, taking the inclosures by act to 1 840, 
 a comparison between the districts to the north and north- 
 west of the Avon and to the south and south-east may be 
 attempted. These districts correspond approximately to 
 the districts of red soil and soil in lias, the latter, a 
 southern district, according to Leland, being largely 
 champion. Of the total Warwick inclosures of the period 
 there lie 
 
 South-east of Avon, - 97,000 acres. 
 
 North-west of Avon, - 49,000 acres. 
 
 There are, however, some cases with regard to which 
 the exact position is not ascertained. Of the five thus un- 
 determined, two with an acreage of 3200 certainly seem 
 to lie to the south. If these be added the southern total 
 is say 100,000 acres. Thus, speaking roughly, there are 
 inclosed some 100,000 acres on the south-east, and some 
 50,000 or less on the north-west. But the county is very 
 unequally divided by the river, the portion to the south 
 being much the smaller. If we take it at two-fifths, the 
 total acreage to the south may be taken at 225,000, and 
 that of the north at say 338,000. Taking these figures 
 the percentage inclosed to the south may be put at 40, 
 while that to the north is not 1 5. 
 
 In Leicester, though the distinction between the two 
 sides of the county is not so marked in the record of 
 inclosure by act as in Warwick, it still is apparent In 
 
222 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Ashby and Market Bosworth it is low, and the same may 
 be said of the west of Loughborough, where, however, the 
 percentage for the total district reaches 50, including 19 of 
 commons and land near the alluvial valleys. Hinckley, in 
 the south-east, is 31. In the central districts, where there 
 is much alluvial and boulder clay drift, that is, Barrow and 
 Blaby, the respective percentages are 52 and 49. On 
 the east. Melton Mowbray is 33, Billesden 25, Market 
 Harborough 40, and Lutterworth 29. The record on the 
 west is possibly rendered less low than it otherwise would 
 have been from inclosures in the neighbourhood of Charn- 
 wood, the actual great forest inclosure, being included in 
 the reckoning.^ Here, too, early writers as Leland and 
 Burton remark, the south and east is largely or almost 
 all in champion. It must be remembered that consider- 
 able inclosure took place in Leicester in the seventeenth 
 century. 
 
 In Nottingham inclosure in the west is low ; in the 
 centre higher. East Retford 38 and Southwell 26 ; and in 
 the east high, Bingham 40 and Newark also very high. 
 
 Turning now to the date of the inclosures, in Warwick 
 those in the more northern parts are distinctly later, and 
 in general there is a tendency for those in the north-west 
 to occur later than in the south-east. In the case of 
 Leicester all the inclosures, which seem to develop outward 
 from the junction line between Warwick and Leicester, 
 are early. There is no great difference between the east 
 and the west, though the few late inclosures occur as a 
 rule in the latter. In Nottingham no distinction can be 
 drawn. Speaking generally the inclosures are later than 
 in the two preceding counties. 
 
 As between the land on the lias and that on the 
 oolitic formations, the chief distinction in the inclosures of 
 this period is in respect of date. On the whole the 
 
 'The large Charnwood inclosure has been apportioned among the regis- 
 tration districts concerned by a rough general estimate. The figures for 
 inclosure of commons in these districts must be regarded as conjectural 
 (Appendix C). 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 223 
 
 percentage of inclosure is higher in the former, a feature 
 more marked when comparison is made with the land 
 which is of Oxford clay, or rather when there is a con- 
 siderable amount of Oxford clay. The drift substratum 
 and the large areas of boulder clay tend to modify the 
 efifect of the geological features. But this much may be 
 said. In general the extent of act inclosure is greatest in 
 North- West Northampton, and in the Banbury district of 
 Oxford, as compared with the remainder of these counties, 
 just as it is heavy in south and east Leicester and south- 
 east Warwick relatively to the other parts of these 
 counties. The same region was the earliest in date, a 
 distinction which prevails in the west as compared with 
 the east of Rutland. In this whole area, that is, roughly 
 speaking, in the area characterised to some extent by the 
 lias, the great balance of inclosure is early, mainly before 
 1780, and to a not inconsiderable extent before 1760. 
 The inclosures to the south-east are more widely dis- 
 tributed in date, inclining to the years after 1780. 
 
 In the south midland counties of Oxford, Buckingham, 
 and Bedford, despite the great intermixture of soil, there 
 are features, sufficiently visible, of a relationship between 
 soil and inclosure. In Oxford where as in the southern 
 districts some cretaceous soil is present, the inclosures are 
 low in percentage, and late. This is the case in both 
 Henley, where the percentage is 10, and in Thame where 
 it reaches 21. In the latter case some deduction must 
 be made for the more mixed land. These districts 
 correspond fairly closely with similar land in the neigh- 
 bouring county of Buckingham. Again in the north 
 the district of Banbury consists of good soil, described 
 as good red land, lying on lias. The percentage of 
 inclosure is very high, and the date very early, as indeed 
 on the like soil in Daventry and Brackley in Northampton. 
 On the stonebrash to the south of this, capable of improve- 
 ment and suited to grain and turnips, as in the north of 
 Buckingham, the percentage is not so great as in Banbury, 
 being for Bicester 49, Woodstock 39. Witney and 
 
224 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Chipping Norton are more mixed. The date of inclosure 
 is early on the whole, but not so early as in Banburj' 
 where nearly all is prior to 1780. The most part of 
 Buckingham north of Watling Street is described by 
 Young as good for turnips, and corresponds to the district 
 of Newport Pagnell which is of stonebrash on oolite, and 
 shows a very high percentage of inclosure, namely 64. 
 Most of it, as indeed of Winslow, with its percentage of 
 59, was in pasture, according to the Agricultural Report, 
 though some was arable. Winslow was partly stone- 
 brash and partly Oxford clay. In the south of the 
 county was clay and lime, in Amersham inclosure was 
 low, only 6. Likewise that part of Wycombe furthest 
 from the Chilterns was less inclosed. But where the 
 Chiltern chalk prevailed, that is mainly in Wycombe, the 
 percentage of land inclosed was high. The rate for the 
 whole of the Wycombe district was 2 5 ; a rate which 
 must be considerably increased for the cretaceous soil in 
 that district, on which most, indeed nearly all, of the in- 
 closures occur. There is considerable inclosure also in 
 the southern part of the Aylesbury district, subject to the 
 same influences of soil. In both cases inclosure is late, 
 after 1790. In the valley district of Aylesbury marked 
 by the Kimmeridge clay and singularly fertile for the 
 dairy, inclosure is also considerable, but very early. 
 Returning to the south, in the extreme south below the 
 clay district, which is so singularly void of inclosure, is 
 land largely of alluvial with a gravelly loam where the 
 rate, in the Eton district, rises to 33. Here inclosure 
 takes place mostly between 1790 and 18 10. It corres- 
 ponds to the neighbouring districts of Middlesex. The 
 character of the land in Bedford is so complex, both by 
 reason of the geological features and the drift that little 
 that is specific can be concluded. This much, however, 
 is clear that the inclosures in the north where clays, either 
 boulder clay or Oxford and oolitic clays, prevail, is greater 
 and earlier than in the southern part where there is chalk. 
 A comparison of Worcester with the neighbouring 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 225 
 
 counties of Warwick and Gloucester emphasises the 
 features observed. In the south-east of Worcester, that 
 is in the portion bordered by a line running from Tewkes- 
 bury just east of Worcester city to Droitwich, and thence 
 continued east with a slight depression to the south to the 
 confines of the county, the lias clay prevails. According 
 to the Agricultural Report the soil is of loamy clay and 
 rich, more particularly in the vale of Evesham. The vale 
 of the Severn with its alluvial meadows is to the west. 
 Outside of this area comes soil on a triassic basis with 
 Devonian and old red sandstone formations in the 
 extreme west. The south is more mixed. Nearly all 
 the inclosures of common field are in the south-east, -the 
 lias district, as in Warwick. Taking all inclosures the 
 percentage of land inclosed by act is 42 in the district of 
 Pershore, and 25 in that of Evesham. In both these, 
 inclosure is generally of land which includes common 
 field. In both Droitwich with 8 and Upton with 12 
 per cent, there are common field and commons inclosures. 
 Nearly all other inclosures are of common, and the per- 
 centage is not high save in Kidderminster with 17 where 
 a large number of commons were affected. Otherwise 
 the rate of inclosure during this period is exceedingly low. 
 
 From the foregoing description and account some 
 general tendencies may be deduced : 
 
 (i) It seems evident that many inclosures had occurred 
 in early times on the red soils in Central and North- West 
 Warwick, West Leicester, and West and Central Notting- 
 ham. Lists of such are extant as far as the district at or 
 about the juncture of these counties is concerned. To the 
 above may be added the central district of Worcester. In 
 these regions Marshall notes townships of old inclosure. 
 As to the general result there is said to be more grain in 
 the west than in the east of Leicester, and the same 
 appears to be true of Warwick. As to the cause, the 
 connection between soil and woodland, dealt with else- 
 where, must be remembered.^ In the more eastern district 
 
 ipp. 1 1 1-2. Cf. 231. 
 p 
 
226 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 it would appear as though comparatively little change from 
 open field occurred until circumstances altered and a pres- 
 sure took place for stock breeding and higher grazing. 
 Then inclosure occurs and extends rapidly and with 
 marked results. It occurs early in the period of private 
 acts, chiefly before 1780. The inclosure taking place on 
 the red soil during this period is secondary, that is, 
 occurring on land already subjected to the process, and 
 is later in the century in consequence. It is somewhat 
 significant that the counties indicated as experiencing 
 decrease in wheat during the latter part of the eighteenth 
 century possess a considerable amount of the land on a 
 Has substratum, affected though that be by drift. They are 
 Warwick (2 1 80 acres), Leicester (3793 acres), Northampton 
 (5587 acres), Rutland (498 acres), Bedford (11 57 acres), 
 Buckingham (3297 acres), and Nottingham (984 acres). 
 Of these the first four are certainly largely concerned with 
 this land. Buckingham may be affected by the inclosure 
 of oolitic clays, and also by the large dairy district of 
 Aylesbury. In the case of Bedford it is stated that the 
 clays in the north were often badly mismanaged in 
 inclosure. 
 
 This latter land was the great grazing district and one 
 where careful breeding was practised. 
 
 (ii) The stonebrash soil is continually stated to be 
 suited to turnips and wheat. Both here and on the 
 Oxford and other clays, the inclosures were rather later in 
 date, and there is little evidence, if Bedford be excepted, 
 of any diminution in arable. 
 
 (iii) Inclosures on cretaceous soil are invariably late. 
 Almost equally invariably they are said to take place for 
 arable use. Their late occurrence is easily explained. 
 Owing to the great toil and care required to make their 
 soil successful, their inclosure and cultivation were deferred 
 until the demand for wheat increased prices, and until 
 skilled farming and capital were available. 
 
 The foregoing sketch of certain of the chief districts of 
 England, though necessarily but partial and incomplete, is 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 227 
 
 sufficient to indicate the connection between the physical 
 features of the various regions and lands and the progress 
 of the inclosure movement It would be difficult to carry 
 it out in close detail, partly because as yet full knowledge 
 of the soil characteristics is wanting. The solid geological 
 maps, while helpful in certain places, are in others rendered 
 comparatively or wholly useless by the prevalence of drift. 
 As yet drift maps have only been prepared for some dis- 
 tricts. But even drift surveys do not adequately disclose 
 the soil. For information as to this the surveys and 
 maps attempted by the early Board of Agriculture and 
 the researches of Young and Marshall still retain their 
 value. On the other hand, other influences, sometimes 
 conflicting and always uncertain in extent, require to be 
 taken into account Even with like soil, the position of the 
 district with regard to markets, for instance, precludes a 
 like result. Despite the difficulties, however, in the way 
 of any precise determination the connection is clearly 
 visible. Conspicuous differences between the soils of the 
 districts noticed are accompanied almost invariably by a 
 difference in inclosure, either in the proportion of land 
 inclosed during these centuries or in the date of the 
 period in which the inclosure occurred. Some few examples 
 may be picked out for the sake of illustration. There is 
 the difference between the sands of Norfolk and the district 
 of Flegg, between the north-west corner of Suffolk and 
 the rest of the county, between the districts of Hitchin and 
 Royston and the remainder of Hertford, or again between 
 the vales in Gloucester and the Cotswold districts. Again, 
 contrast Warwick, north-west of the Avon, and Warwick 
 on the other bank, or to turn to a small though equally 
 conspicuous case, the inclosure, as to quantity and date, of 
 the Staines and Uxbridge districts in Middlesex and that 
 prevailing in general in that county. Of course there are 
 many cases where intervening causes preclude the result 
 experienced in their absence ; but in general a marked 
 difference in soil is reflected in the inclosure. As a matter 
 of fact inclosure is a stage in the progress of cultivation. 
 
228 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 and the causes aflFecting cultivation necessarily influence 
 it. Another point. The introduction of inclosure into a 
 district seems to have led in some cases to its extension 
 even to land not particularly suited to it at the time, 
 owing no doubt partly to the simple desire to imitate a 
 process taking place in the neighbourhood, and partly to 
 the divergence between private and public interests. 
 
 The connection thus indicated in general becomes of 
 importance in so far as it is possible to isolate cause and 
 its corresponding effect in the case of various soils. The 
 more important conclusions are the following : 
 
 (i) There were certain lands inclosed with a view to 
 their whole or partial use as arable. First amongst these 
 are the sands, as in Norfolk, where, till the introduction of 
 the turnips chiefly as a crop to be eaten off by the flocks, 
 the soil was too light for continuous arable use. The 
 most conspicuous instances are in the districts of Norfolk, 
 but elsewhere examples occur. In those cases where 
 inclosure was absolutely essential and where the profit 
 under rotation was great, inclosure occurs early, often 
 before the period of private acts. Secondly, we have 
 brashy lands suited to arable use but still of value before. 
 Amongst such are the Cotswolds where enclosure was 
 required, but its progress depended a great deal on the 
 demand for arable products. Again, there is some part 
 of the brashy lands in the Midlands evidently similarly 
 affected. Turnips and root crops generally are of great 
 value on these brashy lands, but partly, it must be remem- 
 bered, to be used as winter food for cattle. Both in the 
 Cotswolds and in these districts inclosure reaches a fair 
 percentage under the acts and is usually late in the second 
 period, that is, not long before, but still before, 1790. 
 Somewhat different are the inclosures occurring on chalk 
 soils, where inclosure is late and evidently due to high 
 prices and skilled farming which make the cultivation of 
 these lands with profit a possibility. The movement is 
 always late, that is, in general well after 1790. The 
 range of inclosure is very considerable, including, as it 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 229 
 
 does, much of the south of Cambridge, North Hertford, 
 parts of Buckingham and Oxford, and indeed of Berkshire 
 and the south of Wilts. 
 
 (2) The next feature to note is the inclosure of the 
 dairy districts. In many cases these have evidently taken 
 place before the period of private act, small secondary and 
 late inclosures only occurring during such time. Here we 
 have the Gloucester vales, the dairy vales of Wiltshire, 
 Aylesbury, and to them might be added part of the vale 
 of the White Horse in Berkshire and others. Inclosure by 
 act is late and usually slight save in Aylesbury. It seems 
 probable that such dairy districts passed under real 
 inclosure in the seventeenth century, possibly in the early 
 eighteenth. Of course inclosure was essential to their full 
 use. 
 
 (3) In the region where red soil has come under obser- 
 vation, there is ground for assuming the occurrence of 
 considerable inclosure, often from a wild or woodland 
 state, at a time prior to this period. Some further 
 inclosure takes place, though to a less extent and at 
 a later date in the period, than on other land under like 
 conditions. More arable use appears to have been made 
 of this red soil than of other neighbouring land. 
 
 (4) In certain cases very rich loams or very good mixed 
 lands remain unaffected till a late date apparently because 
 inclosure would produce little change, and so would be a 
 source of loss rather than of profit in view of its inevitable 
 expense. Under this heading comes the Flegg area, 
 with its high percentage and very late date. Possibly 
 some like reason accounts for the late and extensive 
 inclosures in the south-west corner of Middlesex and the 
 southern point of Buckingham. 
 
 (5) The great wide belt of grazing land, with its ex- 
 tremely high rate of inclosure, comes under inclosure early 
 in the period. Indeed it marks the beginning, some 
 occurring before 1760, though the full change takes place 
 mainly between 1760 and 1780. With regard to it two 
 features require attention. It was of heavy land on water- 
 
230 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 bearing strata, features only partially shared by the belt of 
 land to its south-west where both elevation and drift 
 make the soil suitable for wheat. Again, as compared 
 with other large regions, it appears to have been less 
 affected by earlier inclosure. Not only is the percentage 
 of land inclosed exceptionally high, but the percentage of 
 parishes in which inclosure took place is also high, pointing 
 to a uniform high distribution. The matter at issue then 
 is the reason why it long remained so little disturbed. To 
 some extent the belt of land on the south-west is also 
 concerned, though to a less degree. Possibly in part the 
 geographical position of the area, lying as it did well 
 removed from the districts where early manufacture pre- 
 vailed, may account for much. But there were other 
 districts, as on the west, also remote. On the other hand, 
 it was almost certainly more settled than these in agri- 
 cultural occupation ; but this seems an inadequate 
 explanation. It is impossible to escape the conclusion 
 that the character of the soil was an influential feature. 
 This may have prevented its earlier inclosure with profit, 
 and certainly would have made it unsuitable for the less 
 careful sheep farming. Stock in its heavy pastures needed 
 care, and under inclosure the land could be drained. As 
 to the result there is little doubt that the change issued in 
 much conversion of land. The land was used for careful 
 grazing and breeding. But grazing lands, needed for the 
 meat supply, other than those in the immediate neighbour- 
 hood of towns, became important first in the seventeenth 
 century ; while it is only, in the eighteenth century that 
 systems of breeding develop. Further, the gradual growth 
 of industrial occupation in the Midland districts creates 
 a new need for the utilisation of the soil to the best 
 advantage. 
 
 (6) The district of the fen drainages shows as might be 
 expected comparatively little inclosure in this period. 
 Portions of Norfolk, Cambridge, Huntingdon, and Lincoln 
 are included, as also the north-east of Northampton, 
 where, as may be seen, a considerable diminution occurs 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 231 
 
 in the percentage of the land inclosed as compared with 
 other parts of that county. The fen and drainage in- 
 closures were of seventeenth century origin. Land thus 
 treated might, and in many cases did, fall under subsequent 
 inclosures, since in some of the original measures land was 
 divided rather bet^veen the different villages than between 
 the inhabitants in these villages. Still, as can be seen, 
 the extent of later inclosure is slight 
 
 (7) In like manner districts in early times covered with 
 wood show less marks of eighteenth century inclosure 
 than the lands which surround them. Nor must the con- 
 nection between woodland and soil be ignored, a connection 
 which may account in part for the coincidences to be 
 observed between the inclosure map and the drift or soil 
 maps. To some extent much the same may be said of 
 the technical forests, even when these were but little in 
 wood. There is, however, one difference. While in both 
 much early inclosure would occur from a wild state, woods 
 had to be removed before cultivation or other use was 
 possible. They were thinned out as the need for timber 
 grew. 
 
 Whilst in these respects the influence of the soil and of 
 physical characteristics, some directly due to the soil, is 
 distinct and obvious, it is equally clear that in different 
 places there were in operation differing conditions or 
 intervening causes. Of these two are of peculiar im- 
 portance. 
 
 The first and most important is the position of a region 
 or district in respect of industrial occupation, and the 
 urban or semi-urban conditions associated with early 
 industries. Both in East Anglia and in the western 
 area described above, that is, in country near the manu- 
 facturing districts, often very wide districts with industries 
 lying scattered over their face, the land is evidently much 
 inclosed before the opening of the eighteenth century. 
 The same appears to have been the case in the parts of 
 the home counties surrounding the metropolis, as also in 
 the district near Birmingham. In addition, near many of 
 
232 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the older and yet growing towns, the land lying open at 
 the beginning of this period is often comparatively small in 
 amount. This feature may be corroborated from evidence 
 outside that contained in the inclosure returns. It is 
 evident, for instance, in the description of the country in 
 Ogilby's Britannia. Nor is the explanation difficult. 
 Old systems prevailing largely by virtue of custom hold 
 their place with increasing difficulty in the presence of the 
 industrial or town spirit. Again, the increased needs of 
 the population make high and economical cultivation 
 essential, while further, the nature of these needs brings 
 about the devotion of the neighbouring lands, in part at 
 any rate, to the production of supplies which could not be 
 easily carried under the existing conditions of locomotion 
 and transport. Except to some extent in respect of 
 grain, most towns had to be fed, in the main, from 
 supplies produced in the neighbourhood, and as towns 
 grew the need of land in the vicinity for grazing and dairy 
 purposes increased. Arable may be discouraged by the 
 drift of labourers into the towns. Doubtless with the im- 
 provement of locomotion during the eighteenth century, 
 the distinction thus indicated between grain and other 
 supplies tends to be modified. This particular need 
 affected inclosure in another way. Turnips and other 
 roots were required as winter food for cattle and stock, 
 and these were grown with difficulty except in inclosed 
 fields. 
 
 Secondly, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the en- 
 largement of the area of land under cultivation, either by 
 the greater use made of the fallows or by reclamation of 
 waste or fen, or by the inclusion of commons in open field 
 inclosure, which often took place to a large extent, would 
 affect the use to which land already under arable cultiva- 
 tion could be profitably put, since, in these instances, 
 land formerly debarred was now available for arable use. 
 In many cases, as in reclaimed or drained land, the 
 new land was far more fertile than that previously under 
 crops. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 233 
 
 In any attempt to apply the various conclusions stated 
 above to the progress of inclosure during this period, a 
 distinction must be observed between inclosures which are 
 advantageous by reason of the general economy achieved 
 in working the land and those which are advantageous 
 because of special facilities or opportunities afforded by 
 particular soils or other conditions affecting particular 
 districts. 
 
 From the evidence contained both in the statistics 
 derived from the acts and awards and treated above, and 
 also offered by the literature of the subject, some fairly 
 definite indications are afforded of the special causes pro- 
 moting inclosure both during and before the eighteenth 
 century. 
 
 In the first place, on certain lands inclosure evidently 
 occurred before the eighteenth century. 
 
 On the red soil belt lying north of the lias, the move- 
 ment during the eighteenth century is so markedly distinct 
 as to preclude the inference that it was casual or un- 
 affected by the nature of the land, and its previous 
 availability for cultivation. In Warwick, there is a very 
 obvious difference between the amount of inclosure under 
 act on this land and that taking place in the rest of the 
 county. The same is true in the case of Worcester, and 
 on the whole, though less distinctly apparent, in Leicester. 
 But not only is the percentage much less, but the date of 
 inclosure is different. On the red soil such scattered 
 inclosures as occur take place in most instances later, that 
 is, usually after 1780-90. Further, in these counties in- 
 closure from common is more apparent in this area than 
 elsewhere. There seem to be signs of inclosure making 
 its appearance again on land already subject to the process 
 at an earlier date. In the case of Leicester it should be 
 added that the cases of inclosed villages mentioned in the 
 controversy during the seventeenth century are mostly in 
 the south-west portion of the county. Of course it should 
 be remembered that drift and clay deposits modify the 
 geological structure of this land. 
 
234 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 The fen inclosures are another instance of this earlier 
 movement Their area may be detected during the period 
 of the acts by the much smaller percentage of inclosure, 
 and also by its later date. This is true at any rate in 
 general of Huntingdon, Northampton, and Norfolk. It is 
 less apparent, though still apparent, in the case of 
 Cambridge. The same may be said of forest districts. 
 
 Again, the inclosure in the dairy districts, though less 
 completely before the eighteenth century, may be grouped 
 with those thus characterised. Probably it was spread over 
 a considerable period beginning with the middle of the seven- 
 teenth century, and extending on well into the eighteenth. 
 In such districts the percentage inclosed under act is in- 
 variably comparatively less than on the neighbouring land. 
 In respect of date, dairy inclosures fall into two divisions. 
 In the case of the Gloucestershire vales and of the West 
 Wiltshire district lying mostly in Mere and Tisbury, the 
 date is late, inclosure taking place mainly after 1790, and 
 often in the early nineteenth century. Here the main 
 inclosure appears to have been early, probably well back 
 in the seventeenth century. On the other hand, in North- 
 East Wiltshire, in the sub-districts of Highworth and 
 Cricklade, and in the vale of Aylesbury, inclosure though 
 low in percentage is very early. Here it would seem we 
 have inclosure under act co-operating with and com- 
 pleting inclosure of recent occurrence. 
 
 In the second place, under certain conditions particular 
 soils tend to be inclosed over a considerable period, and 
 mainly in the eighteenth century. 
 
 Thus there is a movement towards inclosure of land, 
 where such is necessary to allow the introduction of 
 turnips, or to facilitate the use of grass-seeds and clover ; 
 in other words, in view of a desired change in the crop 
 rotation. The light soils of North- West Norfolk apparently 
 underwent inclosure with this object, and in Hertford, 
 though here new inclosure was not required, it was con- 
 sidered by some that turnip culture had been introduced 
 at an even earlier date. The demand for inclosure of 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 235 
 
 suitable land was widespread, and from different references 
 it is evident that this motive produced some effect in 
 different parts of the country. By the Act of 1 3 George 
 III., the attempt was made to facilitate the introduction of 
 turnips even in the absence of inclosure ; but this act, 
 though possibly utilised in a few cases, was in general 
 inoperative, partly, it may be conjectured, by reason of the 
 difficulty of procuring the necessary consents. 
 
 In general, moreover, on light, dry, and stony soils 
 inclosure was practised, and with more or less general 
 approbation. When attempted under such conditions it 
 led in very many cases to more careful arable or mixed 
 cultivation, and not to any conversion from arable to 
 pasture. Thus Addington, no favourable critic, writes " as 
 to heaths and light, sandy, or stony soil, there inclosing 
 facilitates such improvements in tillage as will do real 
 service both to individuals and the public,'' and in his 
 recommendations he advises that in these cases it might 
 well be allowed. His attitude, as well as that of other 
 writers soon after the middle of the century, is sufiEicient 
 evidence in itself as to the occurrence of inclosure on 
 such soils. 
 
 As is pointed out by Stone, the constant wheat crops 
 taken from the land under the open field system tend to 
 exhaust both light loams and sandy soils, which cannot 
 bear so much plough, and need to be laid down to grass 
 now and again. This feature is of considerable importance. 
 With the new alternatives offered both by grass-seeds and 
 roots, inclosure on such soils meant improved arable 
 agriculture. Hence the profit from the change. In some 
 instances conversion to pasture might occur owing to 
 particular reasons ; but in general such was not the case. 
 
 But while this was the result after the introduction of 
 new crops, the issue of inclosure when undertaken at an 
 earlier date was not necessarily the same. Indeed it 
 seems highly probable that light loams and good sandy 
 soil in particular, might well be inclosed for pasture 
 because of the decreased yield of grain after many years 
 
236 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 of the open field courses. If this be so, some light is 
 thrown on the course of inclosure in the years prior to 
 the seventeenth, and possibly in the early seventeenth 
 century. It may partly explain the priority of the red 
 soils in inclosure over that other soil lying in its im- 
 mediate neighbourhood. 
 
 In the third place, we come to the inclosures which 
 attracted most attention in the eighteenth century, and 
 which, with their results, still continue to be considered 
 typical of the movement, to the obscuring of other in- 
 closures, such as those dealt with in this and other 
 chapters. 
 
 The land which comes under inclosure during the period 
 1 760-1 790 and is subject in large measure to con- 
 version from arable to pasture, lies in general on the water- 
 bearing strata of the lias. With this may be associated 
 some of the soil marked by oolitic clays, which are 
 inclosed rather later, though partially in the same period, 
 and are less marked by conversion. This matter has 
 already been treated in certain areas, and certain general 
 conclusions as to it have been stated. But something 
 more may be said. If a line be drawn between inclosures 
 before and after 1780, and ranging from the early acts to 
 1840, the following counties are those having the largest 
 percentage inclosure during the earlier period : 
 
 
 — 1780. 
 
 1780 — 1840. 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 - 32 pc. 
 
 16 p.c 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 17 
 
 9 
 
 Northampton, - 
 
 29 
 
 25 
 
 Nottingham, 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 20 
 
 27 
 
 Worcester, - 
 
 7 
 
 II 
 
 In all these counties there is land of the kind first 
 named, that is, land on the lias formation. If, further, the 
 inclosures be investigated in detail, it will be seen that it 
 is the districts on this soil which are most characterised 
 by these early inclosures, that is, the private act inclosures 
 before 1780. Thus in Northampton the registration dis- 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 237 
 
 tricts thus affected are those in the north-west, namely, 
 Brackley, Daventry, Brixworth, and Northampton, in 
 Warwick, the region south of the Avon is conspicuously 
 under inclosure all the time, and so too the east in the 
 case of Leicester. The same marked prominence of such 
 inclosure is to be seen in the south-east of Nottingham, in 
 Persham and Evesham in Worcester, and also, though to 
 a less degree, in the east of Rutland. Again, if we take 
 both Oxford and Buckingham, the districts in lias in the 
 north fall very much under inclosure at the same time. 
 The complaints of conversion mainly affect these counties. 
 
 In the fourth place, with the new influences affecting 
 agriculture and demand for produce, from 1790, the 
 movement, though apparent in other land becomes most 
 conspicuous on land hitherto little affected. The chalk 
 lands, and especially the chalk uplands, are inclosed very 
 little before 1790, and in large measure rather after than 
 before 1800. Again, the brashy uplands, like the Cots- 
 wolds, come under the movement. In both cases the 
 result is the increase of arable. There is an extension of 
 the movement in hilly country generally. 
 
 But there are other inclosures equally late. In some 
 districts the rich lands, as in Flegg in Norfolk, are also 
 inclosed, probably with but little change in the nature of 
 their crops. Also there are other instances, as the south- 
 east of Middlesex and the southern land of Buckingham, 
 both in the Thames valley. 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 PROGRESS IN THE COUNTIES 
 
 Bedford - 
 Berkshire- 
 Buckingham 
 Cambridge 
 Cumberland 
 Derby 
 Dorset 
 Durham - 
 Essex 
 Gloucester 
 Hampshire 
 Hertford 
 Huntingdon 
 Kent 
 
 Leicester - 
 Lincoln 
 
 PAGE 
 
 252 
 
 Middlesex 
 
 241 
 
 Norfolk - 
 
 258 
 
 Northampton 
 
 254 
 
 Northumberland 
 
 266 
 
 Nottingham 
 
 260 
 
 Oxford 
 
 242 
 
 Rutland 
 
 265 
 
 Somerset - 
 
 248 
 
 Stafford 
 
 245 
 
 Suffolk 
 
 242 
 
 Surrey- 
 
 252 
 
 Sussex 
 
 255 
 
 Warwick - 
 
 238 
 
 Westmoreland - 
 
 263 
 
 Wiltshire - 
 
 264 
 
 Worcester 
 
 251 
 248 
 
 255 
 267 
 262 
 
 259 
 262 
 244 
 261 
 248 
 238 
 238 
 247 
 266 
 
 243 
 
 246 
 
 SURREY, SUSSEX AND KENT. 
 
 The position of these counties with regard to inclosure cannot 
 be understood without knowledge of their physical conditions, 
 and especially apart from their difference in respect of availability 
 for agriculture in early times from that presented now. In the 
 first place, the great stretches of chalk downs must be taken into 
 account, and in the second place, it must be remembered that 
 the weald which occupies so much of the area was a great forest 
 and heavily wooded. The extent of this was very large, and the 
 woodland characteristic continued for a long time. Even in 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 239 
 
 Kent, Lambarde remarks "that wood occupyeth the greatest 
 portion," and adds " except it be towards the east which coast is 
 more champion than the residue." It is, of course, probable 
 that the woods though still considerable had been diminished 
 even by that date. In the middle of the seventeenth century 
 this process had greatly changed the aspect of the whole region. 
 Thus Aubrey {JVat Hist, and Antiquities) writes: "From 
 Dorking to Northdown Hills in Sussex is a large prospect of 
 several miles off, over a spacious vale, very broad, full of inclosed 
 pastures" (iv. 172), and of the weald in Surrey says "which like 
 the wealds of Sussex and Kent is a rich, deep inclosed country " 
 (iii. 48). These inclosures took place from the wild state and 
 would doubtless affect by their example contiguous land under 
 common right or even in common field. In the main the land 
 went into pasture. This forest area probably constituted the 
 largest portion of the three counties. Of the remaining 
 land a very considerable part was absorbed by the downs. This 
 is described as more champain. Thus Lambarde speaks of the 
 east of Kent, and Blome writes of the same county, "the East 
 where it is more champain," and again referring to Sussex says 
 "that part called the Downs is a very pleasant and champain 
 country.'' This refers to its open condition, and must not be 
 taken to imply that it was in arable open or even subject to 
 common rights of pasture. It was not inclosed or hedged. Of 
 course some part may have been separated by early approve- 
 ment ; such part as lay open, as described in the seventeenth 
 century, was probably already in separate ownership as there is 
 very slight trace in the eighteenth of any recourse to acts or even 
 agreements to separate the land. Another factor of importance 
 may have affected some of the land nearer to the coast, especially 
 in Kent, namely, the growth of towns and industries. Yet with 
 all this, common field is not absent. This at least is true of 
 Surrey and Sussex. As to the former, Blome says "where it 
 beareth upon the Thames, and lyeth as a plain and champion 
 Country it is grateful to the husbandman." In the acts, common 
 field inclosure reaches 9 per cent, in Chertsey, 10 per cent, in 
 Kingston, 1 7 per cent, in Epsom, despite the quantity of common, 
 and in Croydon it is high, owing, however, largely to one or two 
 particular cases. Much of Croydon being mainly pasture was 
 
240 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 inclosed in Aubrey's time (ii. 3). Again, in Sussex, in the rich 
 land behind Worthing and near, arable open field passes under 
 act (16 per cent.), while it exists still more to the west to about 
 10 per cent. In these counties there is also inclosure under act 
 from common, mainly towards the same districts. Kent, however, 
 is singularly void of common. According to Lambarde, it is 
 stated that no man ought to have common in lands of gavelkind, 
 but he adds "howbeit the contrary is well known at this day 
 and that at many places" (p. 567). According to Elton, 
 Tenures of Kent, it was an ancient usage respecting common in 
 gavelkind lands that the lord could inclose at his discretion. 
 The inclosed condition of Kent was fully recognised. Thus 
 Burton in the Anatomy of Melancholy, Moore in The Scripture 
 Word. Common field was absent and common very in- 
 frequent. It should, however, be remembered that inclosure as 
 a cause of complaint or disturbance is mentioned by Strype, 
 Stow, and Speed. It may be concluded that this referred to 
 commons. 
 
 The facts stated and the features emphasised above point to a 
 region which in respect of much land was unsuited to husbandry 
 and in respect of other, the greater part, only open to use as the 
 woods were cleared and the land inclosed from a wild state. 
 This took place gradually, mainly in early times ; and its progress, 
 together with the existence of town demands, tended to the 
 inclosure of open field even in the districts where natural con- 
 ditions had facilitated its establishment. Some inclosure of 
 common occurs in the sixteenth century : and possibly in the 
 seventeenth, in Surrey and Sussex, inclosure both of common and 
 of open field occurs. The acts of the eighteenth century represent 
 the final phase. 
 
 The average size of inclosures in Surrey and Sussex, and in 
 Kent also for the few commons, is low, that is, for Surrey 680 
 acres and for Sussex, say 760, and even this size misrepresents 
 the case owing to the occurrence of two or three very large 
 inclosures with some open field. The true average is even less 
 and thus differs considerably from that in counties where inclosure 
 occurred over uniformly settled agricultural land. It points 
 either to a secondary inclosure, or to the open field as an 
 element in the cultivation rather than as its basis. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 241 
 
 BERKS. 
 
 Berkshire presents very different characteristics in different 
 parts. It was evidently affected by inclosure in the fifteenth 
 century, appearing in the list for 15 17 with inclosures amounting 
 to 1-39 per cent., and being mentioned by Strype. It is equally 
 clear that in the north-west considerable inclosure went on 
 between the surveys of Leland and Ogilby, this being shown 
 conspicuously in the case of the road from Hinksey to Faringdon. 
 At Ogilby's time this road was partly in open arable; thus 
 from Oxford to Abingdon, from Abingdon to East Ilsley, and 
 from Abingdon to Faringdon. 
 
 According to the record of inclosure by act, this north-west 
 was most affected by common field inclosure, Faringdon 31 per 
 cent., Abingdon 43 per cent., Wallingford 50 per cent., and 
 Wantage 28 per cent. The inclosure from common was slight. 
 The inclosures are mainly parish inclosures and of good size. 
 The country to the south, different, of course, in its physical 
 characteristics, differs also in its record. Its western portion, 
 Hungerford and Newbury, has open field inclosure, high in 
 Newbury, 33 per cent., but much lower in Hungerford, where 
 probably the influence of some early direct inclosure from forest, 
 as in the adjacent district of Wiltshire, is partly responsible for the 
 alteration. Relatively to the area these inclosures are smaller. 
 Certainly the road from East Ilsley to Newbury was more inclosed 
 in Ogilby's time and the country more in sheep pasture. The 
 central part of the country has open field, but on the whole 
 much less than in the north-west. In Bradfield there is 
 inclosure from common. In the east there is much heath and 
 much common inclosure by act. 
 
 Probably in Hungerford and the vale of Newbury there was 
 even before the sixteenth century direct inclosure from wild, and 
 this reacting brought about a more inclosed condition, resulting 
 in the wool needed in the local industries. The north-west 
 remained practically open at the sixteenth century; but this 
 district was considerably affected by inclosure in that century and 
 also in the seventeenth, much, however, remaining in open arable, 
 as was also the case round Newbury. The east was, it would 
 appear, the subject of gradual reclamation from a waste heath, 
 
 Q 
 
242 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 some remaining to be dealt with by act and possibly in some 
 cases without, as about Windsor. 
 
 Part of the central district resembles the neighbouring districts 
 of Oxford and Buckingham in the absence of common inclosure 
 by act. On the whole the course of the movement is well 
 indicated. 
 
 HANTS. 
 
 Hampshire was in its larger part unsuited for agricultural use in 
 early times. On the east the downs enter and the ancient forest 
 extends, the downs dominating in the north. In the south-west 
 was the New Forest. In both these districts there is compara- 
 tively little trace of inclosure by act, and little sign that open 
 field ever existed, save by way of exception. On the other hand, 
 in Leland's time, there was much champion about Stockbridge 
 and from thence to Winchester. Following the same authority, 
 on the other hand, Winchester to Southampton was much inclosed 
 ("apter for cattle than com"). In general, the south-east below 
 the line of Winchester was considerably inclosed (the isle of 
 Portsmouth partly inclosed and fruitful of corn). 
 
 Hampshire appears in Dr. Gay's list for 15 17 (-46) and is 
 mentioned by Strype. By Ogilby's time there is more appearance 
 of inclosure in the south-east district mentioned above, and some 
 more inclosure seems probable in the west. But with new land 
 coming into use this could only be expected. 
 
 Probably before the fifteenth century there was little land in 
 general agricultural use, save in the districts named, the reason 
 for the early inclosed district not being clear. With the fifteenth 
 and sixteenth century, fresh land comes in from the more 
 wild state and some inclosure of common field occurs. This 
 apparently continues in the seventeenth century. But its 
 original position is clearly traceable in the inclosures under act. 
 
 DORSET. 
 
 Specific information about inclosure in Dorset is lacking. 
 The most important feature is the broad distinction between the 
 north and the south, the two parts being separated by the high 
 ridge of hills. The north was more flat and once all forest, and in 
 Coker's time, that is, beginning of the eighteenth century, "abound- 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 243 
 
 ing in very good pastures and feeding for cattle " (Coker, Dorset, 
 p. 3.) The south was hilly, with downs for sheep, and in the 
 valleys good fields of corn. He calls it inferior to the north in 
 profit; and mentions its comparative freedom from inclosure. 
 Under act inclosure is much more conspicuous in the south, and 
 especially so in the areas of Weymouth, Dorchester, Blandford. 
 The part near Poole, and extending into Wareham, was heath land, 
 and the common inclosures in this district are mentioned as 
 extensive in the Agricultural Report (1815), p. 93. The common 
 field inclosures in the above districts run earlier than elsewhere. 
 
 It must also be remembered that the ports of Dorset were of 
 early importance, and that there were early industries. The wool 
 of the down sheep was locally used, according to Coker, while com 
 was exported by ship, and cattle sent to London by graziers in his 
 time. 
 
 A large portion of the north came directly into inclosed use 
 from the wild state before the end of the seventeenth century. 
 In the south common field was more extensive, but probably con- 
 tracts with the addition of new land. Much of the down land and 
 heath would seem to be separated by agreement, if this took place 
 in the eighteenth century. In a county like this the need of local 
 supplies and the presence of land once wild would exert great 
 influence. 
 
 WILTS. 
 
 Wilts must be divided into two parts, the north and the south- 
 east. 
 
 From Aubre/s Wilts {Nat. Hist, of Wilts, p. 104) consider- 
 able inclosures took place during the first half of the seventeenth 
 century in the north-west, the extreme fringe abutting on the 
 Cotswold still remaining open in his time. He suggests some 
 inclosure in latter part of sixteenth. Large part "old grass land" 
 (Marshall, R.E., Gloucester, etc., ii. 142). 
 
 By the Cotswold there is still open ground (Aubrey ; Nourse, 
 Campania Felix, 1700, p. 45; Marshall, R.E., Gloucester, etc., 
 ii. 9). 
 
 The south obviously remains open (as to this. Agricultural 
 Report, 1813, pp. 32, 39, also edition 1794, p. 78), though there 
 are some few old severalty farms. 
 
244 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 SOMERSET. 
 
 As compared with midland counties, Somerset was early and 
 distinctively inclosed, and yet it presented a considerable agricul- 
 tural area. Its hedgerows of elm are mentioned by Leland, 
 ■ ' elm wood, wherewith most part of all Somersetshire is in hedge- 
 row inclosed" (p. 65). Its comparison with Northamptonshire is 
 well known (Lansdown MS., 1607 ; also Hayward, Life of Edward 
 VI.). On the other hand we hear of Somersetshire "good for 
 wheat." But this obviously does not refer to all parts of the county. 
 It does not refer, for instance, to moors on the west, nor to the 
 Mendips, nor to the undrained marsh land. In Ogilby some 
 references to common fields occur in the south ; on the other hand 
 good com was raised in inclosed land in Leland's time. Probably 
 there was much early inclosure from a wild state. On the other 
 hand the town development played a part. Thus round Taunton, 
 in the rich vale, there is a conspicuous absence of common field 
 inclosure by act. That common fields existed in some districts, at 
 any rate, is clear, not only from references by Leland but from 
 their traces in the acts. 
 
 The references to actual inclosure consist of mentions by Strype 
 and also by Stow and Speed. Collins quotes an account of the 
 risings occasioned in 1549 by inclosures, mainly, it would seem, of 
 parks and demesnes. The position of the county in respect of any 
 abnormal inclosures may be judged from Dr. Gay's list, in which 
 Somerset figures very inconspicuously. 
 
 Thus it seems probable that there were firstly, large inclosures 
 from wild in early times, diminishing such common field as there 
 was ; and secondly, inclosures of open fields also in early times 
 round the woollen towns, near Taunton, and also on the north-east 
 towards the borders of Wiltshire. Inclosure occurred of demesne, 
 and possibly also of common field, in the sixteenth century, while 
 land may have been taken in from the wild state in this century as 
 well. Practically the bulk of county is inclosed when the seven- 
 teenth century opens, some from wild, but some from an arable open 
 state. Further inclosure ensues, and land is added by reclamation 
 of marsh. The inclosure by act is a final process, and owing to 
 the previous course includes little common field. It is most con- 
 spicuous in the Langport district. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 245 
 
 GLOUCESTER. 
 
 Gloucestershire is greatly lacking in uniformity. There are two 
 regions singular in the eighteenth century for their lack of in- 
 closure acts, and two in which there is a fair amount of inclosure, 
 mainly of open field. Indeed as a whole Gloucester has very little 
 common inclosed by act. The two regions of very low inclosure 
 are that across the Severn, really the old Forest of Dean, and the 
 district extending from Bristol by the Severn and northward, 
 taking in the clothing district. The other two regions are the vales 
 and the hills with the Great Cotswolds sloping off east and north- 
 east. The area representing the Forest of Dean was undoubtedly 
 inclosed as the forest was thinned, probably before the seventeenth 
 century. That from Bristol north by the Severn appears also to 
 have been of ancient inclosure, owing in large measure to the 
 development of the clothing trade and its towns. It is doubtful 
 if much or any of the inclosure movement recorded falls within 
 these areas. Gloucester was included in the returns of 15 17 
 (•46). Strype refers to it, and letters were sent to the sheriff 
 as to inclosure in the seventeenth century. The vales probably 
 underwent considerable inclosure as the demands for food from the 
 other districts increased. Probably it was to them, or in general 
 to the land in the north that Standish referred when he grouped 
 Gloucester with Worcester and Hereford in respect of fruit 
 trees. It is in the vales that the dairy occupation grows 
 and spreads. This must be put as far back as the seventeenth 
 century. When the period of inclosure by acts occurs these 
 districts are affected somewhat late, and to something like 20 per 
 cent. East of these is the ridge of the Cotswolds, and east again 
 the Great Cotswold slopes. This was the great wool-producing 
 district, and remained under sheep and probably in a fairly open 
 state in the seventeenth century. Still it would seem likely 
 that it included much several property, even if that were but 
 slightly inclosed in a material sense. If not, much inclosing 
 and division must have taken place in the latter part of the 
 seventeenth century, or by agreement Interspersed with the 
 sheep land was common field, since it is an important fact 
 that nearly all the Cotswold inclosures by act include open 
 field. 
 
246 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 From what has been said, the development of the movement in 
 this county seems to have been much as follows. 
 
 In early times the clearing of woods and the taking in of hill or 
 plateau lands lead to a divided and inclosed condition in the part 
 over the Severn, in the Cotswolds, and in many of the wooded hill 
 districts. This had its effect on neighbouring arable. Inclosure 
 in the more agricultural regions occurs in the sixteenth century. 
 About this time probably occur the inclosures in the southern 
 clothing district In the seventeenth century there is inclosure in 
 the vales, leading to dairy developments, and possibly in the 
 Cotswolds. The movement finds its normal completion in the 
 inclosure by act. 
 
 WORCESTER. 
 
 There is a very clear demarcation between the inclosure history 
 of the land in the south-east of Worcester and the rest of the 
 county. This corner was largely inclosed after 1760, most of 
 the inclosures being of open field. The rest of the county is 
 said to be ancient in inclosure, and most inclosures which occur 
 by act are of common. The Agricultural Report says, " the 
 greater part of this county is ancient inclosure," but from 
 Pershore north are modem inclosures. As to the time of the 
 ancient inclosures, that is evidently very early. Inclosure and 
 hedgerows are referred to by Nourse in 1700, but the county 
 is reckoned as wholly inclosed in The Vitidicaiion, 1656, while 
 the sign and symbol, the ancient hedgerows, are referred to in 
 England's Remarques, 1678, The Geographical Description, 1615, 
 and by Standish in 1612, who refers to the fruit trees in hedges 
 and fields (p. 34). The distinction between the south-east and 
 the remaining country is clearly shown in Ogilby, while Leland 
 notes the inclosed condition of the land north from Worcester. 
 According to him there is much corn in this inclosed district (see 
 also Blith, p. 83). Strype, it should be added, alludes to inclosure 
 in Worcester. 
 
 The history of this ancient inclosed part is to be viewed in 
 connection with that of the neighbouring western counties. 
 While a large part of the south-east is definitely inclosed by 
 act, even that area is imperfectly accounted for. Probably some 
 inclosure followed as a consequence on the condition of the 
 rest of the county. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 247 
 
 WARWICK. 
 
 According to all descriptions from middle of sixteenth century, 
 much difference existed between country north of Avon and country 
 south : the south more champion, the north more inclosed, especially 
 about Arden (Leland, Itin., iv. pt 2, p. 65, etc.); the south more 
 champion (Geographical Desc); the Fielden which lyeth south- 
 wards more champion (Blome, p. 229); county divided by Avon 
 {Brief Desc, Harl. MS. 5190, p. 21). 
 
 Inclosure early in seventeenth century, if not in sixteenth 
 century. Diggers' Petition, J. I. ; evidence of Moore, etc. The 
 part, judging from the general tenour of controversy by Moore and 
 others, affected is in north, towards Leicester and Stafford. In the 
 country north of Avon the woods thinned owing to ironmaking, 
 Speed, Geography, i. 53 j also Gibson's additions to Camden, ii. 
 328 {i.e. 1694). But according to Gibson, this affecting the 
 Fielden in south since more land in north being free for crops, 
 need arose for cheese, butter, and flesh to counterbalance. Blith 
 {Improver, p. 83) instances western parts of Warwick as woodland 
 which are grown as gallant corn fields as be in England. 
 
 Marshall gives ten townships {Rural E., Midlands, i. 80) in the 
 old inclosed parts of his midland district Of these nine are in 
 the following districts: Tamworth of Staffordshire, and Ather- 
 stone of Warwick. These and other townships appeared to him 
 to have been long in a state of inclosure (i. 8). Compare with 
 this Morton's reference {Northamptonshire, 16) to the richest 
 knot of pastures in the angle where the three counties, Leicester, 
 Warwick, and Northampton meet. 
 
 Warwick appears in Dr. Gay's lists for 15 17 (i-68) and 1607 
 (■93) and is mentioned by Strype. The difference in inclosures 
 under act between the north (esp. N.-W.) and south-east is very 
 marked. 
 
 On the evidence cited above the course of inclosure seems clear, 
 a large amount of direct inclosure from woodland and wild in the 
 north taking place, and creating a tendency towards inclosure in 
 the south. The movement in north continues in the seventeenth 
 century and is the cause of complaint, possibly because land under 
 corn and in several is turned to pasture, and some open fields 
 are affected. 
 
248 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 NORFOLK, SUFFOLK, AND ESSEX. 
 
 At the end of the sixteenth century, the west of Norfolk was 
 largely champion ; thus Geographical Description, Speed, Geo- 
 graphy, both saying Thetford to Burnham and thence west, champion 
 or most champion. Speed adds that the rest had more wood. 
 In the main this tract is poor, and in later times noted as sheep 
 walk. Blome confirms the account or possibly merely repeats it 
 According to the Dictionarium Urbanicum the land near the sea 
 champion, yielding plenty of com. This leads to the conclusion 
 that the district between the line thus drawn and Flegg and 
 Tunstall had a considerable amount of inclosed land at the end 
 of the sixteenth century. Into this region the district surveyed by 
 Marshall falls. He describes it as an old inclosed and highly 
 cultivated country. Commons of course existed ; indeed, there 
 is more inclosure by act in this part of Norfolk than elsewhere 
 in the county, a possible accompaniment of very early and 
 incomplete inclosure. 
 
 That Norfolk was affected by inclosure during sixteenth 
 century is clear. It appears, though not very conspicuously, in 
 list for 1517 (-71)1 and is mentioned by Strype, Stow, and Speed. 
 
 Less difference between the west and the main county appears 
 from Ogilby, though it still remains more open. But it is clear 
 from the record of inclosures under act, that if at beginning of 
 seventeenth there was great difference between the two parts of 
 the county west and east of the line, which is emphatically stated, 
 considerable inclosure must have occurred before 1750, as the 
 recorded inclosures show no such difference. As to the north- 
 west, Arthur Young's account of what took place on the intro- 
 duction of turnips and other root crops is adequate ; there 
 must have been a considerable change in the whole of the 
 west. Probably the fen inclosures partly account for this, 
 both directly and indirectly. 
 
 The existence of common of shack in Norfolk is emphasised 
 by Coke in Corbet's case. 
 
 From these facts and descriptions it would seem that agricul- 
 tural settlement may have made less way in the west in early days, 
 that in central Norfolk it existed, but gradually yielded to inclosure 
 partly in the sixteenth century, and possibly also before, by reason 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 249 
 
 of the development going on in town life and in the demand 
 for food, this not affecting the extreme east as Flegg, because 
 that would have undei^one little change on inclosure. It was 
 pre-eminently corn land. Meantime the west remains largely open, 
 coming partly into use. Such use increases in the seventeenth 
 century largely by reason of the reclamation of the fens. 
 
 Norfolk inclosures under act are of varying size, the majority a 
 fair size, but there are many small. Most of them are late, 
 occurring that is after 1790 and especially after 1800. These 
 features taken together suggest that the movement by act was 
 of a secondary nature, following, that is, a previous and distinct 
 period of very considerable inclosure. 
 
 It would seem probable that the inclosure movement recorded 
 in the sixteenth century affected the middle area. 
 
 In the sixteenth century Suffolk was evidently much advanced 
 in inclosure, the author of the Properties of the Shires speaking 
 of " Suffolk full of styles" (Lei. Itin. Y. xxx. ). This almost certainly 
 refers to High Suffolk and East Suffolk. Reyce speaks of 
 Middle Suffolk as mainly in tillage, but with pasture ; of the 
 East as chiefly pasture and feeding, while the western parts in 
 contradistinction he describes as either "wholly champion or 
 neer," the fielding abounding by tillage and flocks of sheep. 
 In the champion, that is the west, there is less wood, and the 
 greatest number of flocks [Reyce, Breviary, 16 18 (some written 
 1603), published 1902]. According to Blome, parts about 
 Bury and north-west champaigne, except about Newmarket. The 
 Diet. Urbanicum repeats this, and says it is " generally champion " 
 and has plenty of corn. 
 
 Here as in Norfolk there were risings against inclosures, 
 probably in High or Middle Suffolk. 
 
 Of this county the Agric. Reports say : " Suffolk must be 
 reckoned among the earliest inclosed of the English counties, 
 but there are very large tracts yet open" (Agric. Rep. 2nd 
 edit. p. 30) ; the turnip " has been cultivated in Suffolk largely 
 beyond the memory of the oldest man" {Agric. Rep. p. 83). 
 
 With regard to inclosures under act, as in Norfolk, these 
 imperfectly account for the amount of open land described on 
 the west, and seventeenth and eighteenth century inclosure by 
 other means must be assumed. 
 
250 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Essex is uniformly treated as of very old inclosure, and this, the 
 north-east omitted, is fully borne out by the record of inclosure 
 under act. These show for the great part of the county little 
 common inclosure and very little of open field. As to the 
 inclosed condition at the end of the sixteenth, and to its traditional 
 character even then, many writers combine; thus Burton in the 
 Anatomy, the Lansdown MS. of 1607, The Scripture Word, 
 Vindication of Regulated Inclosure ; the accounts in the Agric. 
 Reports speak equally confidently. 
 
 Essex is treated as affected in the sixteenth century by the 
 movement. Thus it is mentioned at any rate in the list of 1517, 
 and is said to have been disturbed by Strype, Stow, and Speed. 
 There is little probability that anything of any moment occurred 
 in the seventeenth century. 
 
 Taking the three counties together, the inclosure of the west is 
 well accounted for. In Essex there was the forest district which 
 came into use and inclosure concurrently and from time to time, 
 much of it at a late date. Similarly the fen reclamation affected 
 a large area in the seventeenth century ; while the more open field 
 land, that resembling the land of Cambridge, is inclosed by act. 
 Much of the land near the sea in the north of Norfolk, as also in 
 the east, can be accounted for. The real problem relates to the 
 great Anglian Plain between the East Anglian heights and the 
 sea, narrowing as Norfolk is approached. In the north the traces 
 of common field and so of full early settlement are more frequent ; 
 in the south, especially in Essex and part of Suffolk, they are very 
 few indeed. If inclosed from common field it was very com- 
 pletely inclosed. The coincidence between this district and the 
 soil is striking; but it cannot be taken as an explanation. In 
 some districts the one field system may seem a partial cause ; but 
 this is quite inadequate for the whole region, and indeed in all 
 districts leaves much to be explained. 
 
 The only cause that seems at all adequate is the early develop- 
 ment of these counties and their industrial growth which brought 
 about a prior development in inclosure. This might be helped, 
 and no doubt was helped b^ the inclosure from wild land on the 
 west, but this latter is only of partial application. Its importance 
 lies chiefly in the south. In other words, this district, owing to its 
 earlier growth marked by industry and still traceable in the signs 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 251 
 
 of a large population, appears to have passed through its stages of 
 inclosure at a very early date. Some signs of the movement are 
 recorded, but they are of concluding stages, whereas in certain 
 districts the concurrent signs indicate the beginning. Further, 
 there are scattered common fields which increase and become 
 plentiful as we pass to the north. 
 
 MIDDLESEX. 
 
 There is considerable difference between the south-west and 
 the rest of the county. In Leland's time the land near Staines 
 was much champain (ii. 116), while up near Uxbridge was a 
 tendency to more inclosure. The correspondence with the 
 immediately neighbouring parts of Buckingham is close. The in- 
 closures under act are high in both the Staines (45 per cent.) and 
 Brentford (43 per cent) districts, the latter nearly all from common, 
 and the former all involving open field. This was on alluvial, like 
 the Eton district in Buckingham, offering good ground for general 
 agricultural settlement. Near Uxbridge there was considerable 
 common field inclosure. In the Hendon and Edmonton districts 
 these are 1 6 and 1 1 per cent, respectively, but the inclosures of 
 the south-west are large while those in these latter districts vary, 
 some small and secondary. Probably the north and east of 
 Middlesex were much affected by clearing of forest, especially 
 about Enfield, where Evelyn speaks of the Chace about 25 miles in 
 compass and as wild with only a few inclosures {Diary, 2 June, 
 1676). In a letter of 1766 it is said "a notion prevails that a 
 bill will be offered for inclosing Enfield Chace and Epping 
 Forest and dividing them into small farms not exceeding tool, 
 per annum, as a means of adding considerably to the supply of 
 provisions wanting for this overgrown metropolis" {Letters of 
 First Earl of Malmesbury, p. 144). There was also at Ogilby's 
 time considerable wild or open land about Finchley. It seems 
 probable that some land in the north was brought into the 
 cultivable area after the time of Evelyn and Ogilby, and obvious 
 that much division and inclosure occurred without act in the 
 eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. 
 
 Middlesex was affected by the movement in the fifteenth 
 century, appearing in 1517 with 1-52 per cent, of inclosure. 
 
252 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 HERTFORD. 
 
 All accounts coincide in regarding Hertfordshire as an old 
 inclosed county. From this the district in the north must be 
 excluded. As far as the rest, that is the main part of the county, 
 is concerned there is little record of inclosure. In Leland's time 
 the county is " full of wood " (Leland's Itin. V. xxx. ; Properties 
 of the Shires, verses out of remains left by Rawlinson, apparently 
 of date about 1575); the same in Leland's travels from Luton 
 by St. Albans and Bamet to London where inclosured ground and 
 wood noted (v. 117). At end of seventeenth century Chauncey 
 states hundreds of Odsey and Hitchin " most champion," while 
 he notes that Hertford is inclosed, also Edmonton, except in 
 north by Barley and Barkway. 
 
 The only inclosure in seventeenth century probably was of 
 open chaces. 
 
 At end of eighteenth century inclosures by act widely in north, 
 also sporadic from centre to west. The references in Agric. Reports 
 {Rept. by Walker, 1795, p. 48) "the land is generally enclosed, 
 though there are many small common fields or lands lying inter- 
 mixed in small pieces,'' the larger mostly towards Cambridge. 
 Agric. Report, 1804, "a county so generally inclosed of old time," 
 p. 48, "an old inclosed county,'' p. 53. 
 
 The explanation of the course of inclosure in this county is not 
 difficult. In large measure covered with royal forest, inclosure as 
 the land came into use was fairly complete. As to time, probably 
 much took place before the sixteenth, but judging from Leland 
 some further clearance may have occurred in that century. But 
 it was simple. The north, where the conditions were diiferent, 
 remains fairly open, more so in the north-east than the north-west. 
 The whole county is singularly void of common inclosures. The 
 land in early times was mainly in the possession of the crown, a 
 feature which Chauncey emphasises. 
 
 BEDFORD. 
 
 Bedford evidently came very completely under the common 
 field system. Most writers combine in regarding it as in the 
 main champion. Thus Speed {Geography, p. 41) describes it as a 
 plain and champion county, it was generally champion ; " Bedford 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 253 
 
 is a place of champion country" (Harl. M.S. 5190); generally the 
 county is champion (Geographical Descrip., 1615) ; this county is 
 generally champion, but in many places intermixed with meadows 
 and pasture grounds (England s Remarques, 1678). Camden 
 (i. 323) says the north was most plentiful and wooded, a feature 
 which is repeated more than a century after in the Diet. Urbanicum, 
 which states that the south was leaner than the north, the latter 
 being most fruitful and better wooded. The later descriptions, 
 especially that in England's Hemargues, suggest some extension of 
 inclosure. 
 
 Turning to Leland and Ogilby, this general impression is both 
 confirmed and modified, because amplified. Leland (i. 112) gives 
 inclosures south of Ampthill and the north evidently in open field. 
 The south abutting on Buckingham is open, but of course its soil is 
 characteristic and distinct. Ogilb/s maps show that the main and 
 northern districts were mainly in open field, a feature very much 
 emphasised in the road from Oxford to Cambridge (p. 159 and 
 plate) ; the area of inclosed land south of Ampthill is enlarged and 
 there are intermixed inclosures in the north as well as the south. 
 About Biggleswade he mentions a good deal of open meadow and 
 pasture. 
 
 The inclosures under act, which amount to 44 per cent, in the 
 table, are uniformly of a good size, the average acreage before 1800 
 being 1778 acres, and after that date about 1250. They were in 
 fact fairly large parish inclosures. The Ampthill district was 
 rather below the main part of the county, while the district by 
 Leighton Buzzard is greatly lower. There is but little inclosure 
 of common by itself. 
 
 The record seems fairly clear. The county, with the exception 
 of the south-west, came into general agricultural occupation. 
 There was, no doubt, some inclosure in the fifteenth and six- 
 teenth centuries (see Dr. Gay's lists, percentage of land recorded 
 1517, is 1-37, and in 1607, 3-32, a somewhat marked figure) which 
 occasioned complaint. Strype also includes Bedford in his list of 
 counties affected by inclosure. Probably some of this inclosure 
 was in the Ampthill neighbourhood. During the seventeenth 
 century the progress of inclosure in the county at large was of a 
 very ordinary character and does not obtain particular mention, 
 though it led to such notices as that in England's Remarques and 
 
254 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 is fairly shown in Ogilby. To this century, however, the inclosure 
 of the south-west, which was lean and under little cultivation, may 
 be assigned. Ogilby's plates may be taken as showing that it 
 occurred, at any rate in large measure, before his time, and on the 
 whole Leland's accounts, as far as they go, indicate open in the 
 south. If this be correct, and if due allowance be made for the 
 inclosures in the late fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries, the 
 inclosure of the county is well indicated, though the whole area is 
 not as fully accounted for as in some other cases. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 Of Cambridge the Geog. Description says the south champion, 
 the north fenny; Speed, Geography, p. 37, writes that the south is 
 champion with com. The Diet. Urbanicum describes the county 
 as for the most part a pleasant, fruitful and champion country. The 
 north was fenny and very obviously affected by fen reclamations, 
 while the south, but for sporadic inclosure, remained till late in 
 open arable, save in the neighbourhood of Newmarket, where 
 open grass predominated. The open arable forms a very marked 
 feature in Ogilby's description of the roads passing through the 
 middle and south ; he, too, notes the prevalence of heath, grass and 
 furze land in the region of Newmarket. Cambridge occupies a 
 position very low down in the list of inclosure, 1517 (Dr. Gay, -25). 
 
 The inclosures under acts are common field in the south and of 
 a large size. In the north there are commons, some of which 
 appear to have been small ; some were very large indeed. 
 
 There seems little, if any, ground for assuming any considerable 
 early inclosure in Cambridge ; on the contrary, the land when at 
 all suitable remained in large stretches of open but little inter- 
 mixed with much inclosure. 
 
 During the seventeenth century, to judge from the conditions 
 described by Ogilby, some inclosure began to appear, as contrasted 
 with the little shown by Leland, though not in sufficient amount 
 to alter the general description. In the north, however, the great 
 fen inclosure occurred, possibly affecting the use of land previously 
 in cultivation. The Cambridge inclosures are very late in the 
 eighteenth century, the land probably not requiring or responding 
 to the new root crops and not promising much by conversion. 
 In other words, the motive of change was wanting. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 255 
 
 Evidently the inclosure of the north, amounting to a reclamation, 
 covered the greater part of that region, and if allowance be 
 made for this, the inclosure of this county is fairly complete. 
 
 HUNTINGDON. 
 
 Information as to the progress of inclosure in Huntingdon is 
 scarce. The county figures high in the list of compositions for 
 inclosure (Petty Bag, Misc. Roll 20) in the seventeenth century, 
 and letters were addressed to the Sheriffs in 1630-1. In the Diet. 
 Urbanicum,ih& N.E. described as fenny but yielding plenty of grass, 
 while the rest is fruitful of corn. According to Ogilby much of 
 the open in the north seems to have been in grass ; in the south 
 arable predominates. The N.E. probably afifected by the reclama- 
 tion of the fens and consequent inclosures. 
 
 In Ogilby's time there was inclosure obviously, but only in a 
 moderate amount. It seems to have been rather more inclosed 
 than was Cambridge, save in the St Ives district, which approxi- 
 mates to the adjacent county, coming under late inclosure in 
 the eighteenth century. On the other hand the north-east re- 
 sembles the neighbouring districts of Northampton, namely, 
 Oundle and Peterborough. Its time of inclosure was earlier in 
 the century. 
 
 Huntingdon would seem to have escaped any important inclo- 
 sure before the seventeenth century. The north was fenny, the 
 south in open field. During that century, however, change 
 appears. The north and north-west were affected in the fen 
 reclamations. On the other hand, as pointed out above, in- 
 closure from which depopulation was apprehended took place. 
 
 At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the extreme south 
 was largely in open field, namely, to some 58 per cent., probably 
 under conditions resembling those of Cambridge. Though there 
 is not much reason for estimating previous inclosure as high, this 
 region may be said to be fairly well though not completely 
 accounted for. Its inclosure may be placed later than that of 
 the north. 
 
 NORTHAMPTON. 
 
 Northamptonshire was evidently a long settled and prosperous 
 agricultural county (for populousiiess see maps in the Valor Eccle- 
 
256 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 siastica), lying largely in common field from early times as far as 
 the main part was concerned ; but this description is less true of the 
 north-eastern districts, namely those about Kettering, Oundle, and 
 Peterborough ; the last of these being partly touched by the fens, 
 while over the other two there was much early forest (Pearson's 
 Historical Maps). It is not surprising to find that these three 
 districts were less affected by the inclosure acts than the rest of the 
 county where the percentage of land inclosed is very much higher. 
 It would be difficult to date the clearing of the forest district and 
 the consequent appearance of this land in cultivation. Probably 
 some took place before the seventeenth century, but Morton 
 certainly suggests some as occurring in that century and so occa- 
 sioning an inclosure of open arable and its conversion to pasture 
 (Morton, Northampton, p. 14). There is little to be gathered from 
 Leland, but according to Ogilby there was a large amount of 
 inclosed road, and therefore it may be estimated a not inconsider- 
 able amount of inclosed country in the more northerly part, less 
 perhaps in the extreme north-east, near Peterborough. There was 
 some forest land south-west of Northampton in Salcey and Whittle- 
 bury, and possibly the special rights of common allowed on 
 account of injury by the deer (Morton, Northampton, p. n) gives 
 rise to some inclosure of common by act in this district As a 
 general rule forests when taken into cultivation are little affected 
 by common. 
 
 The existence of inclosure in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries 
 occasioning difficulty and complaint is definitely shown by Dr. 
 Gay's record of inclosure amounting to 2-21 per cent, in 1517, and 
 of inclosure inquired into in 1607 amounting to 4-30 per cent., to 
 which Strype in his account of the commissions, and Stow in his 
 account of the disturbance, add important' evidence. But the 
 inclosures beginning at the end of the sixteenth and occurring in 
 the seventeenth seem to have been of greater extent than these 
 of an earlier date. Speed {Geography) and Camden, however, 
 while considering the county mainly champion, complain of the 
 number of sheep, a complaint which Morton at a later date con- 
 sidered greatly overstated. According to Hayward's Life of 
 Edward VI. the country was open. There is complaint in 
 the tract Certain causes gathered together. But though there is 
 some difference as to the estimate of the inclosures early in this 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 257 
 
 century, the inclosures at the close, as also those during the seven- 
 teenth century, are abundantly testified to. They lead to the 
 tumults in Northampton (see inter alia F.C. Records, James I., 
 Vol. iii. p. Ill), and that they were extensive is shown by the 
 position of Northampton in Dr. Gay's record. During the seven- 
 teenth century letters are addressed to the Sheriff of this county 
 among others, in 1630, as to effect of inclosure ; the county stands 
 high in the list of compositions for inclosure, 1635-8 (Petty Bag, 
 Misc. Roll 20); in the XxaxX Considerations, 1653, a reference is made 
 to Bentham's assertion as to the depopulation in eleven manors in 
 this county ; Brydges gives several instances of inclosure ; Aubrey 
 refers to inclosures in Northampton {Nat. History of Wilts, p. 104). 
 There is further evidence as to the fact of inclosures existing at 
 the end of the century. Morton is quite definite; Lawrence 
 (1726) says there was some inclosure and some open; while 
 further, in the Agric. Report, there is mention of 150,000 acres as 
 estimated in ancient inclosures. Again, not only may Ogilby be 
 cited as to the existence of inclosure, but the comparison between 
 his routes and those of Leland assigns some part to the period 
 intervening. The extreme north-east formed part of the fen 
 inclosures. It was to the new use of the area added from wood- 
 land rather than of that reclaimed from the sea that Morton 
 attributed some part of the scattered inclosures in the rest of the 
 county. 
 
 Of course there is no doubt that the major part was still open, 
 and mainly in open of the general common field type, during and 
 also at the close of this century. That much soil was champion 
 or mostly so is substantiated by the Geographical Description, 
 England's Remarques, by the Lansdown MS. of 1607, and by 
 the Dictionarium Urbanicum, the latter calling it rich fruitful 
 champion, populous, and replenished with towns. It was pro- 
 bably one of the counties adjacent to Leicester alluded to in the 
 Vindication, 1656, as open and being affected by the movement 
 to inclose. Morton says the fielden was larger in extent than 
 all the other kinds of land. 
 
 The large number of inclosures proceeding in Northampton 
 under act, and prior to 1760, namely 7 per cent., points to a 
 necessary allowance for inclosures by agreement in the early part 
 of the eighteenth century. On the whole inclosure by act in the 
 
258 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 districts of Oundle, Thrapston, Kettering, and particularly Peter- 
 borough were later than elsewhere. Taken as a whole the 
 inclosures were large, averaging 1704 acres before 1800, and after- 
 wards 1888. The type is the same as in Bedford for instance. 
 The total percentage is 54.3. 
 
 Making allowance for the inclosure in the fifteenth and six- 
 teenth centuries, and for the greater movement in the seventeenth, 
 both in the north-west and also generally, and for the probable 
 agreements in the first part of the eighteenth, the area is very fully 
 accounted for. 
 
 BUCKINGHAM. 
 
 According to most writers Buckingham in the sixteenth as well 
 as the seventeenth century differed very considerably in its charac- 
 teristic. Camden (i. 314) and Speed {Geography) both describe 
 it as divided by the Chiltems, the former adding that the vale land 
 to the north was "almost one continued plain, with a clayey, strong, 
 rich soil and rich meadows feeding innumerable flocks of sheep." 
 Much the same is said in the Geographical Description, though 
 there tillage is mentioned in the vale as well as meadows and 
 pastures. This account is echoed in England's Remarques. The 
 existence of arable in open field in the seventeenth century is 
 fully substantiated by Ogilby's descriptions. In this region there 
 is considerable inclosure by act, though that in the district of 
 Newport Pagnell is almost certainly outside the land alluded to. 
 On the other hand, in the southern part there were in early times 
 extensive woodlands sloping to the Thames valley. This land in 
 Ogilby's time was mainly inclosed, and there is little inclosure by 
 act recorded. This, however, does not hold good of the extreme 
 south with its alluvial round Eton and near the Staines district of 
 Middlesex. 
 
 In the northern and bigger half of the county the inclosure by 
 act in the eighteenth century begins in the middle of the century, 
 while in the southern part it is late, largely in the nineteenth 
 century. 
 
 It is impossible to say when the woodlands in the south were 
 cleared. Probably this inclosure from the wild state and addition 
 to the cultivated area was early, and it may be that it was a cause 
 leading to the inclosure mentioned in the sixteenth century. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 259 
 
 Buckingham stands high among counties in 15 17, and is men- 
 tioned in 1607 (see Dr. Gay's lists, respectively 2-08 and 1-48). 
 The inclosures receive mention by Strype and are referred to by 
 both Stow and Speed in their accounts of the early risings. 
 Further, Buckingham is one of the three counties, the others being 
 Northampton and Oxford, in respect of which inclosure is cen- 
 sured by the author of Certain causes gathered together, etc., 98-101. 
 
 A comparison, admittedly imperfect and difficult, between 
 Leland and Ogilby suggests a decided increase, but it is impossible 
 to say if this was largely in the seventeenth century. As it 
 certainly began in the sixteenth it was probably early. There 
 are, however, some scattered inclosures in the seventeenth. 
 
 Taking the sixteenth century inclosure as considerable, and 
 making an addition for the wild inclosure then or earlier, 
 both from woods and from among the hills of the Chiltems, 
 the course in Buckingham is very well indicated. A careful 
 distinction must be observed between the south and the north. 
 The inclosures in the larger and north part of the county on the 
 average are much nearer to the acreage of the parishes affected 
 than in the south, a circumstance which points to more early 
 inclosure in the south, 
 
 OXFORD. 
 In certain respects there is a considerable similarity between 
 Oxford and Buckingham, especially in the south, where like 
 conditions prevailed and where apparently as a result a like 
 paucity in inclosure under act in the eighteenth century occurs. 
 In Banbury the amount 58 per cent, is unusually high. On the 
 west in the region between Chipping Norton and Witney lay 
 Wychwood Forest, and just here eighteenth century inclosure is 
 slight. The percentage of land inclosed in Chipping Norton is 
 comparatively low, 24 per cent, but in Witney 45 per cent. 
 Comparing Ogilby and Leland, there is a distinct increase in the 
 period. In Dr. Gay's list for 1517 the percentage returned is 2-45. 
 Oxford is alluded to by Strype, and complaint made in the tract 
 Certain causes gathered together, etc. There is little trace of the 
 movement in the seventeenth century. Oxford occurs in the list 
 of compositions but not conspicuously, and it may be that some 
 of the wave affecting Northampton and Leicester touched the 
 
26o COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Banbury district The Preface to Halhead was contributed by 
 Joshua Sprigge of Banbury. In this north region the comparison 
 •between Leland and Ogilby lends some corroboration. 
 
 During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, forest inclosure 
 «eems to have affected the south with some considerable result on 
 neighbouring common field. At this time, too, the west was also 
 affected partly by clearances of wood which had lingered on, 
 but partly owing to the tendency to some inclosure in the 
 neighbourhood of the west country wool towns. 
 
 Of any movement in the seventeenth century comparatively 
 little trace exists, and the north at any rate was mainly in open 
 field when the eighteenth century inclosures begin, waste and 
 common existing chiefly round Oxford. 
 
 DERBY. 
 
 In this county several diverse factors were present, and it seems 
 very doubtful if any part came into early agricultural settlement 
 with the exception of the south. Blome, in 1673, -speaks of the 
 south and east parts which are generally inclosed and improved, 
 but a distinction must be made between these. The east shared 
 almost certainly in the forest condition of the neighbouring 
 district of Nottingham, and in the act inclosure of the eighteenth 
 century plays little part. There are a fair number in the south. 
 The east, no doubt, was fruitful in the seventeenth century, 
 but it may be doubted if there had been much, if any, inclosure 
 of common field. The west was more hilly and not so fruit- 
 ful, according to the Diciionarium Urbanicum, but while the 
 north is bare of act inclosures, in and about Bakewell these are 
 ■very evident In 15 17 Derby is mentioned, but only to a small 
 extent {in .Gay's list -lo). Letters as to inclosure are sent to the 
 sheriff in 1630. Inclosure of common is fairly conspicuous in 
 the north in the .eighteenth century. 
 
 As the forest jdelded, very probably in the sixteenth century, 
 there was inclosure in the east At the same time some inclosure, 
 and this may have been of common field, in the south. Some 
 inclosure goes on in the seventeenth century, probably in the 
 south. In the north the land was probably much in waste, save 
 in the valleys, till the eighteenth century ; but a great .deal was 
 several, whether hedged and walled or not 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 261 
 
 STAFFORD. 
 
 In this county a distinction must be drawn between the land in 
 the south and in the north, or according to Plot, that north-east 
 of the Trent and that to the south-west. The north or north-east 
 was mainly heath and woodland (Plot, 107), the moorlands lying 
 more to the north. This corresponds with Speed (^Geography^ 
 67) who says that there was wood to the north and some in the 
 middle. This middle portion included Needwood Forest and 
 Cannock Chace with its surrounding old woodland and waste. 
 The south had more arable than the north, where it was very 
 scant (Plot, 109). There was good feeding land in the valleys of 
 the moorland, and the dairy country within reach of Uttoxeter was 
 evidently rich. According to the Diet. Urb. the south had plenty 
 of grass and com. Plot tells us (and is quoted by Houghton) 
 that the clay land in tillage was usually in open field (p. 340), and 
 that heath land was never inclosed except when put into tillage 
 for five years or so, after which it reverted to commons. Hough- 
 ton and Blith speak of the high yield of the inclosed arable. 
 According to an estimate from Plot one-third of the county wias 
 commons. In the Agric. Report the amount of common arid 
 waste is put at 141,000 acres out of 780,000 acres. 
 
 According to Lawrence in 1726 there were both inclosed and 
 common fields in the county. 
 
 Stafford is just mentioned in the list of inclosure in 1517, but 
 with the negligible percentage of -06. 
 
 Two things seem clear. The great amount of rough land 
 unavailable for mixed or arable use precluded good early agricul- 
 tural settlement, and its employment for dairy use made inclosing 
 a frequent feature. Secondly, there was more appearance of 
 common and common field in the latter part of the seventeenth 
 and the beginning of the eighteenth than is accounted for by the 
 recorded inclosures under act. 
 
 Much land was, doubtless, brought in from the wild, but largely 
 for pasture or temporary use; and probably the common fields, 
 never very widespread, tended to be diminished. The nature of the 
 soil and its profit under inclosure, even for arable, further 
 encouraged such inclosure, at any rate during the seventeenth 
 century. Probably inclosure at the junction of the seventeenth 
 
262 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 and eighteenth centuries was very considerable, and was insti- 
 gated by the dairying tendency. In the more extreme south the 
 industrial activity further accelerated inclosure before Plot's day 
 as well as later. 
 
 But a good deal of the unused moorland in the north remains 
 to be taken in by act, which accounts for the higher inclosure of 
 land under some common right, i.e., commons, in Leek (i8 per 
 cent.) and Cheadle (13 per cent.). In the Pottery District there 
 was some common inclosure but no open field shown in act. 
 
 The record is that of a county with continuous additions into 
 several from a wild or nearly wild condition. Further, the 
 superior advantages for pasture and dairy land must be borne in 
 mind. 
 
 NOTTINGHAM. 
 
 Many sporadic inclosures (Thoroton, JVbUs), in seventeenth and 
 also in sixteenth century, especially E. and N.E. In seventeenth 
 century letters sent to the sheriffs (P. C. Heg.), and appearance in 
 composition. Also, to judge from Ogilby, inclosures on wolds 
 and in forest achieved at end of this century, but date uncertain. 
 In Vale of Belvoir some few old inclosures, but it is mostly open 
 (Agric. Report). 
 
 The distinction between the west and the east, insisted on else- 
 where, must be borne in mind. 
 
 RUTLAND. 
 
 Specific facts as to the early condition or inclosure of this 
 county are few. Some small amount of land (-55 per cent.) is 
 denoted as inclosed in the returns of 15 17. Taking Leland's 
 route, open is marked where the character of the land is specified, 
 and a comparison between his Itinerary and Ogilby leads to the 
 conclusion that progress in inclosure had taken place. This may 
 have been occasioned in part by some clearing and inclosure of 
 woodland near the junction with Northampton. Certainly the 
 land does not appear to have been bare of wood as in some very 
 old open field districts. Compositions for inclosure were paid 
 1635-8. The Dictionarium Urbanicum mentions Rutland as having 
 plenty of wood. Inclosure under act began early, leading to the 
 assumption of inclosure by agreement in the first part of the 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 263 
 
 eighteenth century. Then the movement dies down, to revive 
 with very great vigour after 1 790. The tyj)e of inclosure is that 
 of the large general common field as in Northampton and Bedford, 
 and it is worth noting that the percentage of land inclosed under 
 act is lower on the side nearer to Northampton and especially 
 close to Rockingham. It is probable that there was a good deal 
 of early common field with some inclosure occurring in the six- 
 teenth century; and that forest land was inclosed, as also some 
 more common field in the seventeenth. 
 
 Adding to the 46-4 per cent, of land inclosed under act, that 
 coming gradually into inclosed, and that inclosed from woodland, 
 some fair general indication is given of the progress in this 
 county. 
 
 LEICESTER. 
 
 There is little record of inclosure during the sixteenth century, 
 at the end that county being reckoned as open. Burton, Lduster, 
 calls it " almost all champion," and the same may be inferred from 
 the Lansdown MS. In the Geo. Description it is called "a 
 champion county." Leland states that the south and east are 
 largely in champion, and the existence of cattle beyond the Wreak 
 suggests inclosure in the north-west (^Geographical Description). 
 
 During the seventeenth century considerable inclosure. Letters 
 are addressed to the sheriffs {P. C. Register, C. I. vi. 199). Leicester 
 prominent in the list of compositions (Petty Bag, Misc. Roll 20). 
 In the mid-century controversy Leicester figures, mentioned by 
 Moore and also by Lee in Vindication. These appear to relate 
 to inclosures in the south. The same is true of miscellaneous 
 inclosures {Bibl. Topogr. (1678), vii. 616, 620, etc.), need of 
 bringing up people for hedge breaking. Still according to Evelyn 
 {Diary), much weis open in south. From Ogilby, increase of 
 inclosed land in S.E., but that still largely open. 
 
 The N.W. inclosures were probably directly from wood land 
 and new land. Hence no record probable. 
 
 Leicester appears in both Dr. Gay's lists with 1.09 per cent, 
 and 2.32 per cent, respectively. The difference in respect 
 of inclosure from open field under act between districts on the 
 west and the rest of the county is marked; and the inclosure from 
 commons or wood by act in the former should be noted. Total 
 inclosure under act, 47.5 per cent. 
 
264 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 LINCOLN. 
 
 Lincolnshire was evidently a county in early and full ^ri- 
 cultural settlement, with the conspicuous exception of certain 
 large regions where the practice of agriculture was obstructed 
 in the neighbourhood of the wolds or by fen and marshy land. 
 The latter appears in large quantities in the south-east and the 
 north-west. The former, the Holland fens, and the latter, 
 mainly in and about the Isle of Axholme, were both the subject 
 of drainage reclamation in the seventeenth century, and both 
 differ from the bulk of the county in respect of inclosure by act 
 in the eighteenth century. In both cases the amount of open 
 field inclosure by act falls off comparatively, this being truer 
 of the land immediately round the Wash. In the south-east, 
 however, there is inclosure from common owing to land being left 
 in common by the acts empowering the draining and improve- 
 ment in the seventeenth century. The county was somewhat 
 affected by inclosure in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, 
 showing a small percentage in Dr. Gay's lists for 15 17 (-29 per 
 cent.), and being mentioned as affected in 1536 both by Stow and 
 Speed. In the seventeenth century letters as to inclosure were 
 sent to the sheriff, and the county stands high in the list of 
 compositions (Petty Bag, Misc. Roll 20). A comparison of 
 Ogilby with Leland points to an increase by the later date of land 
 under inclosure on the west side of the county in the neighbour- 
 hood of Sleaford and Lincoln. The indication, however, is not 
 precise. But Ogilby's description is useful for other regions. 
 From Croyland to Boston the road is first open but by fen, then 
 closed but crossing dikes, without reference to arable. From 
 Boston to Lincoln the country along the road, which is unhedged, 
 is first described as fenny. Nearer Lincoln it is arable. About 
 Lincoln, especially to the north, there is much heath. In the 
 inclosures under act two features are to be noted in addition to 
 those referred to above. The land about the wolds displays a 
 lower percentage of inclosure, especially of open field. It would 
 be lower still in the more southern part of this region but for one 
 big inclosure. In the second place, the Lincolnshire common 
 field inclosures are large, in a great many cases the lands of the 
 parish. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 265 
 
 Some inclosure was no doubt effected in Lincolnshire in the 
 fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. More follows in the first part 
 of the seventeenth century, but the important feature of that 
 century was not this earlier general and more normal inclosure, 
 but the great reclamations effected from the fens, whereby much 
 land was brought within the area of cultivation, and the use made 
 of other land affected. Some inclosure from the wild state is also 
 suggested by the subsequent history of the wolds. In the 
 eighteenth century regular farming inclosure ensues about the 
 middle of the century, that in the region of the wolds occurring 
 somewhat later. Leaving on one side the wold district and the 
 land between the wolds and the seji, the rest of the county 
 seems fairly well accounted for. Possibly the region round the 
 wolds may have been considerably affected, as suggested, by 
 inclosure from the wild state. 
 
 DURHAM. 
 
 That part of Durham was under arable cultivation in the six- 
 teenth century, at any rate, is proved by the description of the east 
 as richest and most champion both by Speed {Geography, p. 85) and 
 the author of the Geographical Description. Blome in 1673 speaks, 
 of the east as most champion and the south as most fertile. Open 
 arable is shown in Ogilby (Plate to 197) on the road from Whitby, 
 shortly after its entry in this county, and also towards the north. 
 According to Lawrence (1726) "nine parts in ten are already 
 inclosed, and consequently improved in their value and rents to a 
 degree almost incredible. Accordingly the more northern parts 
 are foUowi ng their example "; while the Agricultural Report of 1794 
 says, " the lands or common fields of townships were for the most 
 part inclosed soon after the restoration." He adds that inter- 
 commoning persisted in ancient inclosure. It is possible, of course, 
 that this was true only of some. The west and the north was in 
 moor, and consequently show big inclosures from common by 
 act. But the east and south are free from open field inclosure by 
 act, and with little e.xception from inclosure from common. 
 
 Inclosure from common field, and probably from common, 
 evidently took place in the latter half of the seventeenth century, 
 and in the early years of the eighteenth. Gradually it spread 
 upwards to the north. It was evidently very thorough; but on the 
 
266 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 other hand it may be doubted if the land even in the part affected, 
 the south-east and the east, was at all uniformly under arable in 
 open field. There were woods and hilly country. The land of the 
 county is only partly accounted for. No doubt most land was 
 early separated into private ownership from a wild state, and 
 possibly some actually inclosed. 
 
 CUMBERLAND AND WESTMORELAND. 
 
 As to the condition of these counties there is little specific in- 
 formation. In both a considerable amount of inclosed road is 
 shown by Ogilby, the more particularly in the case of Westmore- 
 land. In both there are some instances of open field inclosure 
 by act in the eighteenth century. In both, and especially in 
 Cumberland, inclosure from common or waste by act occurs to a 
 fair amount 
 
 Taking into account the physical circumstances of the county 
 and the above facts, the probable explanation is as follows. Much 
 of the land lay in a wild state, from which inclosure took place, 
 some after the seventeenth century, and some before ; very pro- 
 bably in certain districts at a much earlier date. Coupled with 
 this would be inclosure by approvement when such a method was 
 in active force. As has been explained, this tends to bring about 
 concurrent inclosure of land used for arable. By the eighteenth 
 century few traces remain of the common fields which had never 
 been great in extent ; and much of the wild land was in separate 
 individual ownership, though some to a fair extent is under 
 common right. The few common fields are inclosed, while 
 inclosure of common by act begins. This latter process, how- 
 ever, does not become important until after 1800. 
 
 In these counties, as indeed in some other regions, particularly in 
 the north, the position of the common field was different from 
 that which it occupied, for instance, in the Midlands, in Lincoln, 
 in the East Riding, and in other cases. In place of being the 
 basis of the system by which people lived and were employed, it 
 was a special element, though of course important. In other words, 
 the land was on the whole unsuited to arable cultivation, and what 
 arable there was lay somewhat apart, sometimes in a common 
 field, sometimes by reason of the scattered condition in small 
 private inclosures. 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 267 
 
 NORTHUMBERLAND. 
 
 Facts about Northumberland are very scarce. Ogilby's map 
 suggests a great preponderance of open land, while the inclosures 
 under act are of small amount, only some 12-5 per cent. From this 
 it would seem probable that much inclosure took place about the 
 end of the seventeenth century or by agreement in the eighteenth. 
 That the latter was taking place seems shown in the case of com- 
 mons by the Agricultural Report in 1805, which, after stating that 
 the greatest part of the commons capable of being converted into 
 profitable tillage land have been enclosed within the last thirty 
 years, estimates them at near 120,000 acres. This amount is 
 very far in excess of that inclosed by act up to that date. A 
 large portion of Northumberland was naturally unsuited to agricul- 
 ture, and it is possible that the process of inclosure treated of 
 under Durham extended into Northumberland. There is more 
 common field inclosure under act in Northumberland than in 
 any other of the four northern countries. 
 
 The clearing, which gradually occurred with its necessary 
 addition to the cultivated land, may have furnished the example 
 for Ube inclosure of land in open. 
 
 All that can be suggested is that there was more inclosure during 
 the eighteenth century than is accounted for by that under act, and 
 that quite possibly some inclosure occurred in the latter seven- 
 teenth century. 
 
268 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 
 
 •d d. 
 
 II 
 
 ■* 
 
 o -^ 
 
 34-5 
 Some 
 
 ■*>o 1 oo 
 
 c 
 o 
 en 
 
 
 
 1 1 i 
 
 
 t 
 
 IS 
 
 OS 
 
 •* 
 
 fn tn 
 
 
 ** 
 
 
 ' ^ 
 
 
 .; 
 
 
 \j> 
 
 
 1^ \r\ 
 
 in 
 
 \jr\ 
 
 \j\ trt 
 
 in mtn 
 
 
 
 ** 
 
 tC 
 
 Tj-lA 
 
 oo to«« 
 
 ro - ►: to 
 
 K. 
 
 food t- 
 
 ^liMTI 
 
 ■ tnri 
 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 H 
 
 TT 
 
 eo«0 
 
 CO 
 
 MM t-. 
 
 
 
 •-< "> 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 
 >t 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 It 1 ( 
 
 Z 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 w 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 i 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 II II 
 
 e 
 
 o 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 Pi 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ . 
 zz 
 
 E 
 o 
 u 
 
 O 
 
 
 ■a 
 c 
 ca 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 T3 
 
 C 
 
 --*, 
 •« 
 
 s 
 
 y«^ 
 
 •"■ 
 
 Z 
 H 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 >• 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 en 
 
 10 o 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 1 1"*^ 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 in ^ 
 
 1 ss s 
 
 ^Z 
 
 >> . E 
 
 
 "i 
 
 en 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 (J "u £ "u 
 
 
 •g-D-d 
 
 oT3Z 
 
 Ti 
 
 en 
 
 K 
 
 
 a c 
 
 c c 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 £^^ 
 
 c s 
 
 c 
 
 W 
 
 CO 
 
 
 •— « •— 1 
 
 
 
 1— 1 
 
 »— t »-< 
 
 •"* 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 O 
 
 
 CO 
 
 i1 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 II II 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 ! 
 
 1 1 i 
 
 1 1 " 
 
 ' ' M 
 
 Ph 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 9' 
 
 
 i 1 1 
 
 II 11 
 
 1 
 
 S- 
 
 1 1 i 
 
 ^1 . 
 
 
 
 1-4 
 
 TO . — aj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '-"V •"^ 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 en 
 
 ti^ A.— 
 
 
 
 
 -S-S.3- 
 
 
 -2- nS 
 
 f< 
 
 "u 
 
 (J u o O 
 
 
 
 
 "u "u "o 
 
 
 "o "o 
 
 *— « 
 
 w 
 
 c 
 
 c c 
 
 
 
 
 ^ c^ 
 
 
 C C 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 1—. .—I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 »— » •— 1 
 
 Z 
 
 *J t-.o 
 
 t-^ 
 
 Ooo 
 
 \r\ — . 
 
 o 
 
 
 - o o 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 -2 B,« 
 
 fO 
 
 en O 
 
 M O 1 
 
 1 - 11 
 
 1 
 
 <0«3- ■-; 
 
 N 1 1 
 
 1 1 ° 
 
 s 
 
 jScS 
 
 ^ 
 
 « « 
 
 - ■ I 
 
 1 • II 
 
 1 
 
 
 • 1 1 
 
 1 1 « 
 
 w 
 
 <: 
 
 H 
 en 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o » 
 
 
 en 
 j3 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 IH 
 
 en rt . 
 
 2I . 
 
 tn 
 
 C 
 
 •a "^ 
 
 Pi 
 < 
 ►J 
 
 .is 
 
 1 
 
 (J 
 
 .en 
 en *. 
 
 tn I 
 
 zi 
 
 
 5 £ 
 
 Cm O « tS jj 
 
 
 P3 
 
 
 
 
 £2 
 
 g- o S 
 
 O.— in O 
 
 O o 
 
 ■5.5; & 
 
 WfeZ 
 
 rC(x.en 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ' B 
 
 1 • . 
 
 
 ' 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 " ' c" 
 
 1 . 1 
 
 
 
 
 » nl 
 
 <s 
 
 
 i^ € 
 
 
 
 flT 
 
 
 
 tT 
 
 
 -•5 2?. 
 
 •S- ••i- 
 
 c 
 
 
 'S's'S. 
 
 ■2S 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 J3 C 
 
 ^-.2 5 
 
 .S >: s «s 
 
 rl 
 
 - 4J 2 
 
 -2^-S 
 
 -Ss 
 
 
 
 03 
 13 
 
 J,! J^ 
 
 eS£ 
 
 
 j:: 
 
 S 3 C 
 
 w 5 
 
 2^c 
 
 cS.S 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 £ 3 
 
 ciS£ o 
 
 _ U 4J O 
 
 D 
 
 4> V a 
 
 V in S 
 
 
 
 
 
 CQ 
 
 papq 
 
 uoo 
 
 ua DQ 
 
 C 
 
 WOK 
 
 WKlxl 
 
 WJJ 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 269 
 
 
 c , 
 o 
 
 
 
 »o 
 
 
 \r\ 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 14^ 
 
 
 
 
 X£\ 
 
 
 
 
 \OvO 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 vO 
 
 N 
 
 « 
 
 ■0 
 
 
 
 
 vO>0 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 
 ^ S J) 
 
 I I I 
 
 li'i ' 
 
 •= S 
 
 I I 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 I .Sd iSi 
 
 
 -o 
 
 (A 
 
 ul O 
 
 
 ~ o.S § 
 
 » J:: V) 
 
 ^22 
 
 4) « u 
 
 s s ^^ 
 
 — O O'-^ 
 
 ^ tn tn<t 
 
 C3 . .^ 
 
 o o o <j 
 
 ^ *- ^-1 c 
 
 
 c 
 
 i ii 
 
 I I i 
 
 I I 
 
 .:'=''? 
 
 ;2, 
 
 1^. 
 
 c O O c 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 1 00 -^ 
 
 
 M SO 
 « 
 
 ° 1 
 
 00 
 1 1 "^ 11 II 
 
 
 •"• 
 
 M 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I ^^w 
 
 3 
 "3 
 
 c 
 
 a> (u g 
 
 rt C S 
 J3 (O O 
 
 Ofeco 
 
 > m'W o 
 
 £ « £ e u 
 
 •T3 in 
 
 . c -o 
 
 m c! o 
 
 •3 ° 
 
 •Cm- S 
 
 in ■" 
 
 o o c.-:: u 
 
 X 
 
 22-3 
 c« ci: o 
 
 V V o 
 
 S 
 
 £ 
 
 ■a 
 o 
 o 
 
 J, ^ 
 
 £ ft) d w 
 8 E-^ E 
 Sen CO 
 
 ■3 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 X G. 
 " - S 
 
 a 
 ,«> E 
 
 3 '^^ 
 
 o o X 3 
 Z20 Pi 
 
 .5 « 
 
 CO 
 
 Ul 
 
 •2 s 
 
 J= o 
 
 to w 
 
 
 < I I ^ 
 
 — - « u 
 
 •5 « OJ S 
 jS - 
 
 CO (OCOCO 
 
 ^^ 
 
 s . 
 
 o.i: 
 
 Ej= 
 
 £ J! 
 o g 
 
 >,3 
 
 
 
 
 :y- 
 
 
 
 
 ■&?; 
 
 
 
 
 <J^ 
 
 
 
 
 x; c 
 
 
 
 
 B <u 
 
 
 
 
 ce 11 
 
 
 
 <u 
 
 •0 c 
 
 
 
 n.t: 
 
 c se 
 
 
 
 •o-C 
 
 rt ?, 
 
 
 
 . tc 
 
 
 
 
 cv 
 
 J-o 
 
 
 
 ■a- c 
 
 
 
 
 
 'SE 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 — 
 
 c >. 
 
 
 
 
 "1 
 
 
 
 Si 01 
 
 2.S 
 
 . J3 
 
 
 1 = 
 
 
 3 
 
 c 
 
 k'^ 
 
 OU<t«^05 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 J^ 
 
 !^ 
 
 o5 
 
 ^i 
 
 
 G 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 bcj 
 
 (ft 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 — < 
 
 Dh 
 
 
 S 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 <D . _; -S o 
 g-5 u-S ^- 
 
 t/3 to to "O CLi ■-) 
 
 
 b 
 
APPENDIX C 
 
 EIGHTEENTH CENTURY AND NINETEENTH CENTURY 
 
 TO 1870. 
 
 Percentage of Inclosure by Act in various Counties according to 
 Registration Districts, common field and common distinguished 
 (approximate only). 
 
 *Less than i p-c 
 
 
 
 Common Field. 
 
 Common. 
 
 
 
 p.c of 
 
 
 p.c. of 
 
 County (Registration). 
 
 Registration District. 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 
 P.c. of 
 
 ships in 
 
 P.c. of 
 
 ships in 
 
 
 
 Land. 
 
 Hi 
 
 Tand. 
 
 which 
 some in- 
 closure. 
 
 Bedford. 
 
 Bedford, - 
 
 46 
 
 59 
 
 
 
 
 Biggleswade, 
 
 49 
 
 48 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 
 Ampthill, 
 
 39 
 
 68 
 
 * 
 
 5 
 
 
 Woburn, - 
 
 42 
 
 56 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Leighton Buzzard, - 
 
 15 
 
 43 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 
 Luton, 
 
 34 
 
 41 
 
 — 
 
 
 Berkshire. 
 
 Newbury, 
 
 33 
 
 44 
 
 I 
 
 II 
 
 
 Himgerford, 
 
 17 
 
 33 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 Farringdon, 
 
 31 
 
 36 
 
 I 
 
 2 
 
 
 Abingdon, 
 
 43 
 
 31 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 
 Wantage, 
 
 28 
 
 52 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 
 Wallingford, 
 
 50 
 
 38 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 
 Bradfield, 
 
 16 
 
 32 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 
 Reading, - 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 Wokingham, 
 
 18 
 
 33 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Cookham, 
 
 15 
 
 33 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 Easthampton, - 
 
 22 
 
 40 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Windsor, - 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 29 
 
 8 
 
 Buckingham. 
 
 Amersham, 
 
 4 
 
 16 
 
 2 
 
 16 
 
 
 Eton, 
 
 31 
 
 42 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 
 Wycombe, 
 
 24 
 
 38 
 
 I 
 
 13 
 
 
 Aylesbury, 
 
 43 
 
 50 
 
 * 
 
 2 
 
 
 Winslow, 
 
 55 
 
 83 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 
 Newport Pagnell, - 
 
 63 
 
 52 
 
 I 
 
 2 
 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 29 
 
 30 
 
 ♦ 
 
 3 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 271 
 
 
 
 Common Field. 
 
 Common. 
 
 
 
 P.c of 
 
 
 p.c of 
 
 County (Registration). 
 
 Registration District. 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 
 P.c. of 
 
 ships in 
 
 P.c of 
 
 ships in 
 
 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in- 
 closure. 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in- 
 closure. 
 
 Cambridge. 
 
 Caxton, 
 
 SI 
 
 65 
 
 
 
 
 Chesterton, 
 
 62 
 
 78 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Linton, 
 
 61 
 
 63 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Newmarket, 
 
 36 
 
 51 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Ely, 
 
 10 
 
 27 
 
 2 
 
 13 
 
 
 North Witchford, - 
 
 4 
 
 14 
 
 28 
 
 57 
 
 
 Whittlesey, 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 100 
 
 
 Wisbech, 
 
 I 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 35 
 
 Derby. 
 
 Shardlow, 
 
 32 
 
 41 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 
 Derby, - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Helper, - 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 20 
 
 
 Ashbourne, 
 
 21 
 
 12 
 
 25 
 
 6 
 
 
 Chesterfield, - 
 
 13 
 
 3J 
 
 II 
 
 20 
 
 
 Bakewell, 
 
 30 
 
 17 
 
 II 
 
 12 
 
 
 Chapel le Frith, 
 
 I 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 5 
 
 
 Hayfield,- 
 
 — 
 
 
 S 
 
 II 
 
 Dorset. 
 
 Shaftesbury, 
 
 5 
 
 14 
 
 4 
 
 24 
 
 
 Sturminster, 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 18 
 
 
 Blandford, 
 
 15 
 
 23 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 
 Wimborne, 
 
 10 
 
 18 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 
 Poole, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 40 
 
 25 
 
 
 Wareham, 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 16 
 
 
 Weymouth, 
 
 26 
 
 41 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 
 Dorchester, 
 
 13 
 
 24 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 
 Sherborne, 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 
 Bearainster, 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 16 
 
 
 Bridport,- 
 
 3 
 
 21 
 
 
 — 
 
 Essex. 
 
 Epping, - 
 
 I 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 
 Ongar, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 II 
 
 
 Romford, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 30 
 
 
 Orsett, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 * 
 
 5 
 
 
 Billericay, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 19 
 
 
 Chelmsford, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 9 
 
 
 Rochford, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 
 Maldon, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 * 
 
 9 
 
 
 Tendring, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 * 
 
 18 
 
 
 Colchester, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 12 
 
 
 Lexden, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 3 
 
 14 
 
 
 Witham, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 * 
 
 5 
 
 
 Halstead, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Braintree, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 * 
 
 7 
 
272 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 
 
 Common 
 
 Field. 
 
 Common. 
 
 
 
 P.cof 
 
 
 p.cof 
 
 County (Registration). 
 
 Registration District. 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 
 P.cof 
 
 ships in 
 
 P.c. of 
 
 ships in 
 
 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in. 
 closure. 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in- 
 closure. 
 
 Essex 
 
 Dun mow, 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 II 
 
 (continued). 
 
 Saffron Walden, 
 
 22 
 
 45 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Gloucester. 
 
 Bristol, 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Clifton, 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 
 Chipping Sodbury, - 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 
 I 
 
 17 
 
 
 Thornbury, 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 12 
 
 
 Dursley, - 
 
 3 
 
 18 
 
 * 
 
 9 
 
 
 Westbury-on-Severn, 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 t 
 
 18 
 
 
 Newent, - - - 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 * 
 
 9 
 
 
 Gloucester, 
 
 28 
 
 17 
 
 I 
 
 7 
 
 
 Wheatenhurst, 
 
 20 
 
 30 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 
 Stroud, 
 
 I 
 
 10 
 
 * 
 
 5 
 
 
 Tetbury, - 
 
 25 
 
 46 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Cirencester, - 
 
 17 
 
 29 
 
 * 
 
 10 
 
 
 Northleach, 
 
 28 
 
 46 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Stow-on-Wold, 
 
 40 
 
 62 
 
 * 
 
 4 
 
 
 Winchcombe, - 
 
 27 
 
 41 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 
 Cheltenham, 
 
 13 
 
 23 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Tewkesbury, 
 
 25 
 
 34 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Hampshire. 
 
 Havant, - 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 3 
 
 16 
 
 
 Portsea Island, 
 
 2 
 
 14 
 
 2 
 
 14 
 
 
 Alverstoke, 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Fareham, 
 
 4 
 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 
 IsleofWight,- 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Lymington, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 3 
 
 18 
 
 
 Christchurch, 
 
 2 
 
 33 
 
 6 
 
 33 
 
 
 Ringwood, 
 
 9 
 
 25 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 
 Fordingbridge, 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 7 
 
 
 New Forest, 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 
 Southampton, - 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 South Stonehara, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 12 
 
 46 
 
 
 Romsey, - 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 6 
 
 23 
 
 
 Stockbridge, 
 
 10 
 
 35 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Winchester, - 
 
 4 
 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 ID 
 
 
 Droxford, 
 
 * 
 
 9 
 
 24 
 
 54 
 
 
 Catherington, - 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 Petersfield, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 12 
 
 69 
 
 
 Alresford, 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 s 
 
 5 
 
 
 Alton, 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 25 
 
 
 Hartley-Wintney, - 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 39 
 
 
 Basingstoke, 
 
 9 
 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 13 
 
 
 Whitchurch, - 
 
 2 
 
 12 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Andover,- 
 
 16 
 
 33 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 
 Kingsclere, 
 
 8 
 
 26 
 
 3 
 
 14 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 273 
 
 
 
 Common Field. 
 
 Common. 
 
 
 
 P.c of 
 
 
 p.c of 
 
 CoDNTV (Registration). 
 
 Registration District. 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 
 P.c. of 
 
 ships in 
 
 P.c. of 
 
 ships in 
 
 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in- 
 dosure. 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in- 
 dosuic 
 
 Hereford. 
 
 Ledbury, - 
 
 8 
 
 31 
 
 * 
 
 5 
 
 
 Ross, - 
 
 — 
 
 
 I 
 
 9 
 
 
 Hereford, 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 I 
 
 5 
 
 
 Weobley,- 
 
 4 
 
 18 
 
 I 
 
 15 
 
 
 Bromyard, 
 
 I 
 
 5 
 
 * 
 
 9 
 
 
 Leominster, 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 * 
 
 10 
 
 Hertford. 
 
 Ware, - 
 
 7 
 
 20 
 
 I 
 
 20 
 
 
 Bishop Stortford, - 
 
 10 
 
 22 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Royston, - 
 
 49 
 
 55 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Hitchin, 
 
 21 
 
 39 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 Hertford, 
 
 12 
 
 38 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Hatfield, - 
 
 2 
 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 13 
 
 
 St Albans, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Watford, - 
 
 I 
 
 22 
 
 I 
 
 22 
 
 
 Hemel Hempstead, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Berkhampstead, 
 
 14 
 
 33 
 
 4 
 
 17 
 
 Huntingdon. 
 
 Huntingdon, - 
 
 40 
 
 52 
 
 * 
 
 [2] 
 
 
 St. Ives, - 
 
 48 
 
 52 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 St. Neots, 
 
 58 
 
 80 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Leicester. 
 
 Lutterworth, - 
 
 25 
 
 32 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 
 Market Harborough, 
 
 39 
 
 47 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 
 Billesdon, 
 
 25 
 
 33 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Blaby, 
 
 49 
 
 48 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Hinkley, - . . 
 
 31 
 
 31 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Market Bosworth, - 
 
 14 
 
 35 
 
 17? 
 
 ? 
 
 
 Ashby de la Zouch, - 
 
 10 
 
 27 
 
 12? 
 
 ? 
 
 
 Loughborough, 
 
 33 
 
 48 
 
 19? 
 
 ? 
 
 
 Barrow-upon-Soar, - 
 
 52 
 
 52 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Melton Mowbray, - 
 
 31 
 
 41 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 Lincoln. 
 
 Stamford, 
 
 SI 
 
 45 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bourn, ... 
 
 34 
 
 38 
 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 
 Spalding, 
 
 12 
 
 25 
 
 5 
 
 16 
 
 
 Holbeach, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 7 
 
 31 
 
 
 Boston, - 
 
 25 
 
 22 
 
 9 
 
 21 
 
 
 Sleaford, - - - 
 
 31 
 
 25 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 
 Grantham, 
 
 42 
 
 41 
 
 I , 
 
 2 
 
 
 Lincoln, 
 
 39 
 
 26 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 
 Homcastle, 
 
 44 
 
 38 
 
 * 
 
 I 
 
 
 Spilsby, - 
 
 21 
 
 31 
 
 20 
 
 3 
 
 
 Louth, ... 
 
 27 
 
 23 
 
 * 
 
 5 
 
274 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 
 
 CoMMOr 
 
 Field. 
 
 Common. 
 
 
 
 P.c of 
 
 
 p.c of 
 
 County (Resistration). 
 
 Registration District. 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 
 P.c of 
 
 ships in 
 
 P.c. of 
 
 ships in 
 
 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 
 some in- 
 closure. 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in. 
 closure. 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 Caistor, - 
 
 26 
 
 28 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 {continued). 
 
 Glanford Brigg, 
 
 38 
 
 37 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 
 Gainsborough, 
 
 25 
 
 25 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 Middlesex. 
 
 Staines, 
 
 45 
 
 76 
 
 ♦ 
 
 ? 
 
 
 Uxbridge, 
 
 29 
 
 60 
 
 I 
 
 10 
 
 
 Brentford, 
 
 4 
 
 18 
 
 39 
 
 18 
 
 
 Hendon, - 
 
 16 
 
 44 
 
 * 
 
 ? 
 
 
 Bamet, 
 
 I 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 20 
 
 
 Edmonton, 
 
 II 
 
 25 
 
 I 
 
 8 
 
 Norfolk. 
 
 Flegg, - 
 
 55 
 
 59 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 Tunstead, 
 
 24 
 
 35 
 
 14 
 
 22 
 
 
 Erpingham, - 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 
 Ay sham. 
 
 8 
 
 18 
 
 S 
 
 II 
 
 
 St. Faiths, 
 
 14 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 22 
 
 
 Forehoe, - 
 
 32 
 
 32 
 
 4 
 
 21 
 
 
 Henstead, 
 
 6 
 
 s 
 
 13 
 
 18 
 
 
 Blofield, - 
 
 19 
 
 17 
 
 16 
 
 27 
 
 
 Loddon, 
 
 20 
 
 30 
 
 9 
 
 15 
 
 
 Depwade, 
 
 20 
 
 30 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 Guiltcross, 
 
 6 
 
 14 
 
 18 
 
 33 
 
 
 Wayland, 
 
 35 
 
 60 
 
 3 
 
 16 
 
 
 Mitford, - 
 
 30 
 
 46 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 
 Walsingham, - 
 
 20 
 
 26 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 
 Docking,- 
 
 24 
 
 27 
 
 5 
 
 18 
 
 
 Freebridge Lynn, - 
 
 14 
 
 25 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 
 Downham, 
 
 25 
 
 40 
 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 
 SwafFham, 
 
 25 
 
 29 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 
 Thetford, 
 
 26 
 
 39 
 
 * 
 
 [8] 
 
 Nottingham. 
 
 East Retford, 
 
 35 
 
 46 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 
 Worksop, 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 
 Mansfie d. 
 
 20 
 
 28 
 
 14 
 
 24 
 
 
 Basford, 
 
 20 
 
 43 
 
 6 
 
 19 
 
 
 Radford, - 
 
 26 
 
 35 
 
 4 
 
 IS 
 
 
 Southwell, 
 
 25 
 
 25 
 
 I 
 
 5 
 
 
 Newark, - - - 
 
 35 
 
 28 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bingham, 
 
 33 
 
 39 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 Northampton. 
 
 Brackley, 
 
 47 
 
 55 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 Towcester, 
 
 48 
 
 63 
 
 * 
 
 [4 
 
 
 Potterspury, - 
 
 5° 
 
 41 
 
 I 
 
 [5 
 
 
 Hardingstone,- 
 
 42 
 
 45 
 
 8 
 
 s 
 
 
 Northampton, - 
 
 53 
 
 36 
 
 — 
 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 275 
 
 
 
 Common Field. 
 
 Common. 
 
 
 
 P.cof 
 
 
 P.cof 
 
 County (Registration). 
 
 Registration District. 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 tOWD- 
 
 
 
 P.cof 
 
 ships in 
 
 P.c.of 
 
 sliips in 
 
 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in- 
 closure. 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in- 
 dosurc 
 
 Northampton 
 
 Daventry, 
 
 6S 
 
 71 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 {continued). 
 
 Brixworth, 
 
 54 
 
 51 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Wellingborough, - 
 
 67 
 
 74 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Kettering, 
 
 39 
 
 43 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Thrapston, 
 
 S6 
 
 84 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Oundle, 
 
 40 
 
 39 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 Peterborough, - 
 
 34 
 
 39 
 
 
 
 Oxford. 
 
 Henley, 
 
 9 
 
 20 
 
 I 
 
 17 
 
 
 Thame, 
 
 21 
 
 24 
 
 * 
 
 5 
 
 
 Headington, 
 
 40 
 
 33 
 
 16 
 
 4 
 
 
 Oxford, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bicester, - 
 
 49 
 
 60 
 
 * 
 
 2 
 
 
 Woodstock, 
 
 39 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Witney, - 
 
 39 
 
 48 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 
 Chipping Norton, - 
 
 24 
 
 24 
 
 « 
 
 2 
 
 
 Banbury, - 
 
 58 
 
 50 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Rutland. 
 
 Oakham, - 
 
 39 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 
 
 Uppingham, - 
 
 37 
 
 31 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 Shropshire. 
 
 Ludlow, 
 
 2 
 
 S 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 
 Clun, 
 
 — 
 
 
 14 
 
 20 
 
 
 Church Stretton, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 8 
 
 14 
 
 
 Cleobury Mortimer,- 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 29 
 
 
 Bridgenorth, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 9 
 
 13 
 
 
 ShiflFnal, - 
 
 I 
 
 5 
 
 ♦ 
 
 15 
 
 
 Madeley,- 
 
 — 
 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 
 Atcham, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 Shrewsbury, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Oswestry, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 II 
 
 
 EUesmere, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 3 
 
 16 
 
 
 Wem, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 9 
 
 30 
 
 
 Market Drayton, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 5 
 
 38 
 
 
 Wellington, - 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 I 
 
 8 
 
 
 Newport, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 » 
 
 21 
 
 Somerset. 
 
 Williton, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 5 
 
 19 
 
 
 Wellington, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 20 
 
 
 Taunton, - " - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 8 
 
 18 
 
 
 Bridgewater, - 
 
 5 
 
 II 
 
 4 
 
 14 
 
 
 Langport, 
 
 14 
 
 29 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 
 Chard, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 9 
 
 21 
 
 
 Yeovil, - 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 * 
 
 2 
 
 
 Wincanton, - 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 ♦ 
 
 3 
 
276 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 
 
 CoMMO^ 
 
 Field. 
 
 Common. 
 
 
 
 P.aof 
 
 
 P.cof 
 
 County (Registration). 
 
 Registration District. 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 
 P.oof 
 
 ships in 
 
 P.aof 
 
 ships in 
 
 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in- 
 closnre. 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in- 
 closure. 
 
 Somerset 
 
 Frome, - 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 {continued). 
 
 Shepton Mallet, 
 
 — 
 
 
 lO 
 
 25 
 
 
 Wells, 
 
 4 
 
 s 
 
 21 
 
 50 
 
 
 Axbridge, 
 
 6 
 
 lO 
 
 14 
 
 50 
 
 
 Glutton, - 
 
 . — 
 
 — 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 
 Bath, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 
 Keynshaw, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 10 
 
 
 Bedminster, - 
 
 6 
 
 17 
 
 7 
 
 26 
 
 Stafford. 
 
 Stafford, - 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 I 
 
 8 
 
 
 Stone, . - - 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 
 Newcastle, 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 II 
 
 
 Wolstanton, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stoke, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 Leek, 
 
 6 
 
 lO 
 
 i8 
 
 10 
 
 
 Cheadle, - 
 
 3 
 
 lo 
 
 13 
 
 30 
 
 
 Uttoxeter, 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 9 
 
 
 Burton, - - - 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 
 Tamworth, 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 
 Lichfield, 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 12 
 
 17 
 
 
 Penkridge, 
 
 I 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 
 Wolverhampton, 
 
 3 
 
 li 
 
 14 
 
 27 
 
 
 Walsall, - 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 II 
 
 20 
 
 
 West Bromwich, 
 
 3 
 
 ? 
 
 7 
 
 ? 
 
 
 Dudley, - 
 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 50 
 
 Suffolk. 
 
 Risbridge, 
 
 6 
 
 29 
 
 * 
 
 6 
 
 
 Sudbury, - 
 
 ( 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 Cosford, 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 
 
 Thingoe, - . - 
 
 15 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 MildenhaU, 
 
 13 
 
 S6 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 
 Stowe, 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 23 
 
 
 Hartsmere, 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 19 
 
 
 Hoxne, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 3 
 
 20 
 
 
 Bosmere,- 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 2 
 
 
 Samford,- 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 7 
 
 
 Ipswich, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 * 
 
 5 
 
 
 Woodbridge, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 
 Plomesgate, - 
 
 ♦ 
 
 2 
 
 * 
 
 5 
 
 
 Blything, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 20 
 
 
 Wangford, 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 18 
 
 
 Mutford, - 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 18 
 
 32 
 
 Surrey. 
 
 Epsom, - - - 
 
 17 
 
 44 
 
 6 
 
 18 
 
 
 Chertsey,- 
 
 9 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 277 
 
 
 
 CoMMON Field. 
 
 Common. 
 
 
 
 P.c. of 
 
 
 p.c. of 
 
 County (Registration) 
 
 Registration District. 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 town. 
 
 
 
 P.cof 
 
 ships in 
 
 P.c of 
 
 ships in 
 
 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in- 
 closure. 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in- 
 closure. 
 
 Surrey 
 
 Guildford, 
 
 I 
 
 7 
 
 3. 
 
 II 
 
 (continued). 
 
 Famham, 
 
 — 
 
 
 23 
 
 45 
 
 
 Farnborough, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 9 
 
 4t 
 
 
 Hambledon, 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 Dorking, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 * 
 
 2 
 
 
 Reigate, 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 25 
 
 
 Godstone, 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 21 
 
 
 Croydon, - 
 
 20 
 
 9 
 
 * 
 
 18 
 
 
 Kingston, 
 
 10 
 
 26 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 
 Richmond, 
 
 * 
 
 20 
 
 * 
 
 20 
 
 Sussex. 
 
 Rye, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hastings, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 Battle, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Eastbourne, 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 7 
 
 
 Hailsham, 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 18 
 
 
 Ticehurst, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Uckfield,- 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 
 East Grinstead, ' 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 • * 
 
 14 
 
 
 Cuckfield, 
 
 — 
 
 _ 
 
 I 
 
 26 
 
 
 Lewes, 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 7 
 
 
 Brighton, 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Steyning, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 8 
 
 
 Horsham, 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 20 
 
 
 Petworth, 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 40 
 
 
 Thakeham, - 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 40 
 
 
 Worthing, 
 
 16 
 
 39 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 
 Westhampnett, 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 2 
 
 26 
 
 
 Chichester, 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Midhurst, 
 
 — 
 
 
 5 
 
 23 
 
 
 Westbourne, - 
 
 10 
 
 33 
 
 I 
 
 8 
 
 Warwick. 
 
 Aston, 
 
 10 
 
 21 
 
 * 
 
 7 
 
 
 Meriden, - 
 
 II 
 
 5° 
 
 •7 
 
 16 
 
 
 Atherstone, 
 
 I 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 17 
 
 
 Nuneaton, 
 
 19 
 
 28 
 
 3 
 
 27 
 
 
 Foleshill, 
 
 38 
 
 46 
 
 
 
 
 Rugby, - 
 
 32 
 
 41 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 Solihull, 
 
 2 
 
 36 
 
 4 
 
 27 
 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 24 
 
 42 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 
 Stratford, 
 
 31 
 
 52 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 Alcester, - 
 
 15 
 
 40 
 
 S 
 
 14 
 
 
 Shipston,- 
 
 41 
 
 SO 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 Southam,- 
 
 38 
 
 37 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
278 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 
 
 Common Field. 
 
 Common. 
 
 
 
 P.c. of 
 
 
 p.c of 
 
 CoONTV (Registration). 
 
 Recistkation District. 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 town- 
 
 
 
 P.c. of 
 
 ships in 
 
 P.c of 
 
 ships in 
 
 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 somein- 
 closure. 
 
 Land. 
 
 which 
 some in- 
 dosure. 
 
 Wiltshire. 
 
 Highworth, - 
 
 32 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 
 Cricklade, 
 
 22 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Malmesbury, 
 
 12 
 
 14 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 
 Chippenham, 
 
 10 
 
 30 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 
 Calne, 
 
 13 
 
 27 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 
 Marlborough, - 
 
 19 
 
 31 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 
 Devizes, - 
 
 29 
 
 27 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 
 Melksham, 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 25 
 
 
 Bradford, 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 
 Westbury, 
 
 26 
 
 23 
 
 I 
 
 15 
 
 
 Warminster, - 
 
 54 
 
 56 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Pewsey, 
 
 25 
 
 33 
 
 6 
 
 17 
 
 
 Amesbury, 
 
 25 
 
 40 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 
 Alderbury, 
 
 19 
 
 30 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 
 Wilton, - 
 
 29 
 
 34 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 
 Tisbury, - 
 
 7 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 
 Mere, 
 
 25 
 
 16 
 
 I 
 
 13 
 
 Worcester. 
 
 Stourbridge, - 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 II 
 
 
 Kidderminster, 
 
 3 
 
 15 
 
 14 
 
 46 
 
 
 Tenbury,- 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 7 
 
 
 Martley, - 
 
 * 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 21 
 
 
 Upton, 
 
 8 
 
 20 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 
 Evesham, 
 
 19 
 
 56 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 
 Pershore, 
 
 41 
 
 59 
 
 I 
 
 2 
 
 
 Droitwich, 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 s 
 
 !■? 
 
 
 Bromsgrove, 
 
 * 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 47 
 
 
 King's Norton, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 10 
 
 16 
 
APPENDIX D^ 
 
 Inclosures under Act in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries 
 {to 1870). Percentage of land inclosed. First line, common 
 field ; second line, total common. 
 
 [c.f. =common field. T=total, i.e. common field and commons.] 
 *=a very small amount. 
 
 
 1760. 
 
 '61-70. 
 
 '71-80. 
 
 '81.90. 
 
 gi^oa. 
 
 '01-10. 
 
 'ii-ao. 
 
 '21-70. 
 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 .6 
 
 .6 
 
 1-3 
 1.4 
 
 ■5 
 ■S 
 
 ■5 
 .8 
 
 _ 
 
 ■3 
 •3 
 
 1-5 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 .8 
 .8 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 .2 
 2.4 
 
 * 
 2.4 
 
 2-3 
 
 2.4 
 
 .8 
 i.i 
 
 2.8 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 4-3 
 4-3 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 1.2 
 
 1-4 
 
 •3 
 
 .2 
 1-7 
 
 I.I 
 2.8 
 
 .1 
 
 .1 
 
 4.1 
 
 .6 
 .6 
 
 I.I 
 I.I 
 
 ^■5 
 i-S 
 
 ■4 
 
 ■4 
 
 1.6 
 
 2 
 
 ■7 
 ■7 
 
 .8 
 
 i6.<) 
 16.9 
 
 2.6 
 2.6 
 
 6.9 
 6.9 
 
 S-5 
 S-9 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 3-r 
 3-3 
 
 .1 
 
 1.8 
 2.1 
 
 .1 
 
 5.8 
 
 11.4 
 ii.S 
 
 6 
 
 6* 
 
 11.9 
 
 12 
 
 * 
 •3 
 
 .2 
 9.2 
 6 
 
 .2 
 
 2.2 
 
 4.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 2.^ 
 2.8 
 
 8.4 
 9.8 
 
 2.9 
 
 5-S* 
 
 .2 
 # 
 
 2.2 
 •4 
 
 .8 
 1-5 
 
 * 
 •S 
 
 4-7 
 4-7 
 
 ^•7 
 4-3 
 
 g.8 
 10.8 
 
 •3 
 
 •4 
 
 * 
 
 4.4 
 
 .8 
 1.8 
 
 I 
 
 31 
 
 •7 
 
 44.0 
 44.1 
 
 Berkshire, - 
 
 30.2 
 34-1 
 
 Bucks, 
 
 34-8 
 35-8 
 
 Cambridge, - 
 
 34-5 
 38.4 
 
 Cheshire, 
 
 •4 
 3-4 
 
 Cornwall, 
 
 .8 
 
 Cumberland, 
 
 .2 
 23-9 
 
 Derby, 
 
 16.2 
 21.3 
 
 Devonshire, 
 
 1-7 
 
 Dorset, 
 
 8.3 
 13-3 
 
 Durham, 
 
 .1 
 
 17.8 
 
 
 
 ' In this table the note on p. 107, calling attention to the land occupied by 
 the actual villages, roads and inland waters, should be borne in mind. 
 
28o COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 
 1760. 
 
 *6i-7o. 
 
 '71-80. 
 
 '81-90. 
 
 '91^x1. 
 
 'oi-io. 
 
 *ZI-ZO. 
 
 '21-70. 
 
 
 Essex, - 
 
 c.f 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 af. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 
 T. 
 
 cf. 
 T. 
 
 cf. 
 T. 
 
 cf. 
 T. 
 
 l,c.f. 
 T. 
 
 cf. 
 T. 
 
 cf. 
 
 T. 
 
 cf 
 T., 
 
 1-7 
 1-7 
 
 .8 
 I.I 
 
 •3 
 
 1.6 
 1.6 
 
 •4 
 
 7-1 
 
 7-9 
 
 1.6 
 1.6 
 
 .2 
 
 .2 
 
 ■3 
 
 2 
 
 .6 
 •9 
 
 5.3 
 6 
 
 1-5 
 1-5 
 
 ^■7 
 
 1-7 
 
 ■9 
 ■9 
 
 6.4. 
 6.4 
 
 .2 
 
 13-7 
 13-7 
 
 7-1 
 7.9 
 
 * 
 
 ■7 
 ■9 
 
 ■7 
 
 S-3 
 5-3 
 
 S4 
 8.4 
 
 H 
 S.8 
 
 * 
 
 4.2 
 4.2 
 
 ■3 
 
 •3 
 
 .1 
 
 .2 
 
 .T 
 
 •4 
 
 9-9 
 9-9 
 
 .2 
 
 10.8 
 
 6.3 
 7-1 
 
 1.2 
 
 2.7 
 
 ■^^ 
 1-5 
 
 9 
 
 17.1 
 
 7.<? 
 7-9 
 
 ■7 
 ■7 
 
 1-3 
 1-3 
 
 * 
 
 .8 
 .8 
 
 .1 
 
 3-8 
 
 I 
 1.2 
 
 1.2 
 
 .d 
 1.2 
 
 ./ 
 
 ■4 
 
 2.3 
 
 1-7 
 1-7 
 
 ■r.7 
 1-7 
 
 * 
 
 3-7 
 3-7 
 
 1-3 
 
 .6 
 .6 
 
 .?•<? 
 3-7 
 
 1 1.4 
 
 * 
 1-3 
 
 4.8 
 6 
 
 5-5 
 6 
 
 2-3 
 
 3-9 
 1.2 
 
 7-3 
 
 4-4 
 
 7-7 
 7-7 
 
 ■7 
 .8 
 
 2.4 
 
 2-S 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 2.2 
 
 3-4 
 
 15-8 
 .1 
 •7 
 
 5-4 
 
 5-2 
 
 9.2 
 
 6.3 
 
 8.9 
 •7 
 
 2-4 
 
 4.4 
 
 y.2 
 7.2 
 
 ^.^ 
 
 5 
 
 .6 
 I.I 
 
 2-3 
 
 •9 
 
 2 
 
 1-3 
 
 2-9 
 
 5-4 
 
 5-4 
 
 .2 
 
 1-3 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 2. 
 3-1 
 
 <? 
 13-4 
 
 4.2 
 
 5-7 
 
 •7 
 
 .d 
 
 I 
 
 4.1 
 5-8 
 
 J-i 
 4-4 
 
 .6 
 1.2 
 
 z.^ 
 1-9 
 
 .6 
 3-1 
 
 * 
 
 -5 
 
 ^•J 
 3-6 
 
 4-5 
 
 4-5 
 
 .2 
 
 1-5 
 
 ■3 
 ■3 
 
 ■5 
 I 
 
 ■i 
 
 2-3 
 
 1.4 
 2.6 
 
 ..^ 
 3-6 
 
 I.I 
 1.6 
 
 3-7 
 9.8 
 
 1-9 
 3-1 
 
 Gloucester, - 
 
 17.6 
 18.7 
 
 Hampshire, - 
 
 6.0 
 II. I 
 
 Hereford, 
 
 3-5 
 4.8 
 
 Hertford, 
 
 1 1.9 
 15.2 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 55.8 
 55.8 
 
 Kent, 
 
 -5 
 
 Lancashire, - 
 
 5-7 
 
 Leicester, - 
 
 41.8 
 47-9 
 
 Lincoln, 
 
 29.1 
 37-1 
 
 Middlesex, - 
 
 19-3 
 26-7 
 
 Norfolk, 
 
 19.2 
 26.1 
 
 N'thumberlanc 
 
 1-7 
 
 I2-S 
 
 Nottingham, 
 
 27.9 
 32.0 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 51-4 
 54-3 
 
 Oxford, 
 
 40.8 
 43-8 
 
 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 281 
 
 
 1760. 
 
 '61-70. 
 
 '71-80. 
 
 '81-90. 
 
 '91-00. 
 
 '01-10. 
 
 "ix-ao. 
 
 '21-70. 
 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 ,c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 cf. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 c.f. 
 T. 
 
 ,c.f. 
 T. 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 .2 
 
 •3 
 
 •4 
 ■9 
 
 .1 
 .2 
 
 7 
 
 7-4 
 
 .8 
 •9 
 
 ■3 
 •3 
 
 1-7 
 
 2.5 
 
 ■4 
 .8 
 
 ■3 
 .1 
 
 9-9 
 9-9 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 .1 
 I.I 
 
 .1 
 
 * 
 
 .2 
 
 3-4 
 
 3-4 
 
 .1 
 
 .2 
 .2 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 8.6 
 9-7 
 
 ■5 
 
 3-5 
 
 1-7 
 
 2-S 
 
 4-5 
 4-5 
 
 .1 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 •J 
 
 1-3 
 
 .z 
 .2 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 6.2 
 
 •3 
 3-7 
 6 
 10.2 
 
 2.8 
 
 .6 
 1.2 
 
 •4 
 
 I.I 
 
 ■4 
 ■7 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 1.2 
 
 1.2 
 
 * 
 
 3-7 
 
 I.I 
 
 1-5 
 
 .<? 
 I 
 
 1-5 
 
 •5 
 
 I 
 
 20.3 
 * 
 •9 
 
 S-i 
 
 ^■3 
 1-7 
 
 •J 
 
 I 
 
 ^•.? 
 1-7 
 
 * 
 .1 
 
 4 
 4.6 
 
 1.2 
 
 3-3 
 1.8 
 
 2-7 
 
 .(5 
 
 I 
 
 ^■5 
 i-S 
 
 I 
 
 •5 
 i-S 
 
 3-2 
 3-S 
 
 / 
 1.6 
 
 2.4 
 3-4 
 
 .<? 
 -9 
 
 1-9 
 
 .1 
 
 2.3 
 
 5.8 
 
 2 
 
 2-3 
 
 (5..? 
 7.2 
 
 ^.^ 
 
 4-3 
 
 'S 
 
 1-9 
 
 .1 
 
 .8 
 
 -7 
 I-S 
 
 .d 
 1-3 
 
 1.2 
 1.8 
 
 7.^ 
 I-S 
 
 ■s 
 
 I 
 1-5 
 
 5 
 
 4-4 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 1.8 
 
 2.1 
 
 4-3 
 
 .d 
 
 2 
 
 2-3 
 2-3 
 
 3 
 2.2 
 
 ■J 
 1-9 
 
 .(5 
 
 1.2 
 
 ■9 
 
 ■4 
 1-4 
 
 ■7 
 I.I 
 
 8.6 
 
 2-3 
 1.2 
 
 1.8 
 z.^ 
 
 2-3 
 
 4-3 
 3 
 
 46.1 
 46.4 
 
 Shropshire, 
 
 •3 
 6.4 
 
 Somerset, 
 
 1.8 
 12.7 
 
 Stafford, 
 
 6.6 
 
 12.4 
 
 Suffolk, 
 
 3-5 
 6.1 
 
 Surrey, 
 
 6.0 
 10. 1 
 
 Sussex, 
 
 3-6 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 23-2 
 25.2 
 
 Westmoreland 
 
 -3 
 16.3 
 
 Wiltshire, 
 
 22.9 
 26.2 
 
 Worcester, 
 
 131 
 18.1 
 
 Yorkshire, E., 
 
 33-4 
 38.3 
 
 W., 
 
 10.6 
 24.2 
 
 N. 
 
 6.0 
 16.3 
 
APPENDIX E 
 
 INCLOSURE FROM THE WILD STATE 
 
 Inclosure from the wild state, taking place that is without any 
 general intervention of common field or the meadows thereto 
 attached, is so important both in its direct bearing and in its 
 indirect effects on the use made of other land, that notwith- 
 standing the treatment in the text, it will be well to summarise 
 the chief facts relating to it. As has been pointed out, it is of 
 three kinds, woodland, moor and hills, and fen. Of these the 
 moors of the north fall in large measure in the eighteenth century, 
 and find a place in the acts and awards, though not of course 
 to their full extent. Consequently this part of the subject is 
 roughly indicated. 
 
 With regard to the rest and possibly to some part of this, 
 the evidence and the references to its inclosure, that is to its 
 introduction into the area under regular cultivation, can be con- 
 veniently placed under six headings. 
 
 (a) Several writers in the seventeenth century refer to the 
 inclosure of woodland counties or districts. Thus Trigge 
 (Hutnble Petition, Preface) writes " not condemning the inclosure 
 of Essex, Hartfordshire and Devonshire, and such woodland 
 counties," which had to be inclosed to preserve the woods and 
 afterwards so continued without harm. Also Blith points to 
 woodlands " which now enclosed are grown as gallant cornfields 
 as be in England" {Improver, p. 83), mentioning as such, the 
 western parts of Warwick, the northern parts of Worcester, 
 Stafford, Shropshire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire. Again Gibson tells 
 us of the conversion to com of woodland when cleared in North 
 Warwick, an explanation adopted by Morton as to some part of 
 Northampton. In the Geographical Description, a distinction 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 283 
 
 is drawn between the woodland and champion in Warwick 
 divided by the Avon, as also in Norfolk. We hear further of 
 inclosures among the Chilterns, as also in the Weald. The 
 inclosure of commons in Cornwall, i.e. of waste, are mentioned 
 by Carew. 
 
 {b) Several authorities refer to the hedges and the fruit trees in 
 hedges in the three western counties, Gloucester, Worcester and 
 Hereford. 
 
 (c) Further notices of counties already inclosed or mainly 
 inclosed are given by diflFerent writers of the same century, 
 though without any statement as to their condition in respect of 
 previous woodland. Thus Blith (pp. 83-84) adds, "consider 
 Hartfordshire, Essex, Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Barkshire, Hampshire, 
 Wiltshire, Somersetshire, and all the rest which not only raise 
 corn for themselves but to supply the great city." Moore 
 (^Scripture Word, Advt.) says, "I complain not of inclosure in 
 Kent or Essex ... or of places near the sea or city." Lee 
 {A Vindication, etc., p. 31) writes : "Are there not many places in 
 England, Essex, Hereford, Devonshire, Worcester wholly enclosed 
 and yet no such effects follow?" The inclosed condition of 
 Hertford is evident from Chauncey's map and account {Andent 
 Antiquities of Hertfordshire). Burton refers to Essex and Kent. 
 
 (d) The reclamation and draining of the fens perceptibly 
 affected five counties: Lincoln S., Cambridge N., Northampton 
 N.E., Huntingdon and Norfolk W. 
 
 (e) Of equal importance with the foregoing is the indication of 
 forest or fen or wild regions, directly or at any rate early inclosed, 
 to be found in the statistics of inclosure by act and award. 
 Taking wild or forest districts as displayed in a map of early 
 forest land as given by Pearson, these will be found to be places 
 of low inclosure by act as compared with neighbouring districts. 
 As a rule such districts have a low percentage of open field 
 inclosed under act, and save where land has remained unutilised 
 a low percentage of commons. But this latter feature is not 
 present where forest or moor has lingered. Further common 
 inclosure in these cases is often composed of a number of small 
 scattered inclosures. 
 
 An inclosure of this kind is termed a secondary inclosure, 
 though this term also includes inclosures occuring where open field 
 
284 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 inclosure has previously taken place, and usually comes late in 
 the eighteenth century. 
 
 As details on this point appear in the annexed table, they do 
 not require to be set out at length here. 
 
 (/) Marshall in many of his writings calls attention to inclosure 
 from the wild. Thus {Rural Econotny of West of England, ii. 136) 
 he describes West Dorset, and attributes its condition to ancient 
 inclosure from a wild state, like Kent and Hereford and other 
 places ; while (Rural Ecotiomy of Gloucester) he gives as the signs 
 of such "crooked fences and winding narrow lanes "(ii. 190). 
 Again {Appropriation and Inclosure of Commonable and Intermixed 
 lands, p. 9) "of this description, principally, are the wealds of 
 Kent and Essex, and many other old-inclosed lands in different 
 parts of the kingdom, whose fields and inclosures are of irregular 
 shapes, and their fences crooked." 
 
 In the annexed table, the chief references to counties as 
 generally inclosed have been added in the third column for the 
 purpose of comparison with the notes as to inclosures under act, 
 though no mention is made as to their condition before inclosure. 
 In many cases this can be supplied from other sources, as for 
 instance in Hertford and the Weald districts of Surrey, Sussex 
 and Kent. The last column giving inclosure under act from 
 common explains the position of the northern counties, as also of 
 the West and North Ridings, where large inclosures of moorland 
 took place, no doubt in continuation of a process long in 
 operation. 
 
 From the above account, as also from the table itself, the large 
 extent of inclosure from the wild state may be judged, and hence 
 some idea reached of its importance as a factor in the general 
 movement. That, as has been pointed out in the text (pp. ir8 ; 
 185), is twofold; it is a process whereby large quantities of land 
 are inclosed, and its accomplishment affected the use of other 
 lands, and often hastened their inclosure. 
 
 In this connection one matter needs emphasis, the unsuitability 
 of large parts of the country for a system of agriculture in which 
 arable was dominant ; an unsuitability due in some instances to 
 the character and situation of the land, and in others to existing 
 circumstances of other kinds. In such places common fields, 
 if any, would be greatly restricted in amount, and the rights of 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 285 
 
 INCLOSURE FROM THE WILD STATE. 
 
 
 Wild inclosed 
 
 Inclosed by 
 
 seventeen di 
 
 century. 
 
 
 Inclosed by Act. 
 
 COUNTV- 
 
 Wood- 
 land. 
 
 Fen. 
 
 Mar- 
 shall. 
 
 Common 
 field. 
 
 Commons 
 per cent, 
 inclosed. 
 
 Bedford, - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .1 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 
 S. rather low 
 
 3-9 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 
 
 
 
 S. low 
 
 I.O 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 
 N.(c) 
 
 
 
 N. low 
 
 3-9 
 
 Cheshire, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3-0 
 
 Cornwall, - 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 
 low 
 
 .8 
 
 Cumberland, - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 23.7 
 
 Derby, 
 
 (i) 
 
 
 
 
 E.&N.I0W 
 
 S-i 
 
 Devon, 
 
 (a) 
 
 
 (^) 
 
 
 low 
 
 1-7 
 
 Dorset, - 
 
 
 
 
 M. 
 
 N. low 
 
 S-o 
 
 Durham, - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 17-7 
 
 Essex, 
 
 (a) 
 
 
 {i){g)W(J) 
 
 
 
 1.2 
 
 Gloucester, 
 
 
 
 i.i) 
 
 
 W.low 
 
 I.I 
 
 Hampshire, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S-i 
 
 Hereford, - 
 
 
 
 WW 
 
 M. 
 
 low 
 
 1-3 
 
 Hertford, - 
 
 ('^) 
 
 
 WW 
 
 
 S. low 
 
 3-3 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 
 N.W 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 Kent, 
 
 
 
 {l>){g)<J) 
 
 M. 
 
 low 
 
 •5 
 
 Lancashire, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i-7 
 
 Leicester, - 
 
 
 
 
 
 W. lower 
 
 6.1 
 
 Lincoln, - 
 
 
 S-W 
 
 
 
 S.E. low 
 
 8.0 
 
 Middlesex, 
 
 
 
 
 
 N. low 
 
 7-4 
 
 Norfolk, 
 
 
 W.(c) 
 
 
 
 W.low 
 
 6.9 
 
 Northumberland, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 10.8 
 
 Nottingham, 
 
 
 
 
 
 W. lower 
 
 4.1 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 
 N.E.(<:) 
 
 
 
 N.E.lower 
 
 2.9 
 
 Oxford, 
 
 
 
 
 
 S. low 
 
 3-0 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •3 
 
 Shropshire, 
 
 (*) 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 low 
 
 6.1 
 
 Somerset, - 
 
 
 
 (.i>) 
 
 
 
 10.9 
 
 Stafford, 
 
 (*) 
 
 
 
 
 
 5.8 
 
 Suffolk, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2.6 
 
 Surrey, 
 
 
 
 (.b) 
 
 
 S. etc. low 
 
 4.1 
 
 Sussex, 
 
 
 
 {b) 
 
 M. 
 
 low 
 
 1-9 
 
 Warwick, - 
 
 W.(i) 
 
 
 
 
 N.W. low 
 
 2.0 
 
 Westmoreland, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16.0 
 
 Wiltshire, - 
 
 
 
 (*> . 
 
 
 
 3-3 
 
 Worcester, - 
 
 N.W 
 
 
 W« 
 
 
 except 
 S.E. low 
 
 S-o 
 
 Yorkshire, 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 
 
 E. 4.9 
 W. 13.6 
 N. 10.3 
 
 (a)=Trigge, Humble Petition. 
 (i)=Blith. 
 (f)=Fen. 
 ((f)=Camden. 
 (<)=Carew. ■ 
 (y)= Morton. 
 Note. Id column 5 ' low' or ' lower ' is often comparative to that prevailing near. 
 
 (^)= Moore. 
 
 (/i)=Lee. 
 
 (/)= Burton, Anatomy. 
 
 (j4)=Chauncey. 
 
 (/)=Hedges with fruit trees. 
 
 M=MarshalI. 
 
286 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 common, when such obtained, would be simple and comparatively 
 lax. Consequently, inclosure met with little obstacle, even where 
 the land was not wholly wild, and where ^ome general rights of 
 common existed. But the inclosure of this land no doubt led 
 in many cases to the increase of arable, since, with the introduc- 
 tion of individual property, some of the land previously unsuited 
 to the plough could now be used. At times, too, inclosure was 
 caused by changes in circumstances or in farming which made 
 land suitable which previously was unsuitable, and occasioned 
 a demand for its use. On the effects of such an increase of 
 the land fitted for arable enough has been said already (p. 120). 
 Both the small common fields of the district and the wider fields 
 in the neighbourhood, or in surrounding counties, might be 
 affected. 
 
 But another point of interest arises in connection with the 
 inclosure of land such as that under consideration, which was 
 a main source of profit by its use for cattle or sheep, and equalled 
 or sometimes quite overshadowed the arable in value. When the 
 land was wild, or practically so, the method was simple. Probably 
 in such cases the neighbouring lords or owners extended their 
 rights and took the land in. But the case of land in the actual 
 use of several parties, and yet in use largely, if not wholly, in- 
 dependent of arable possession, was difierent. The exercise of 
 approvement under such circumstances would be difficult In the 
 eighteenth century, large unstinted moors presented on inclosure 
 certain points of difficulty, which were discussed by Marshall 
 ( Yorkshire, i. 48-105). 
 
 The main case with which he deals is that of Pickering, where 
 the common fields and meadows and the stinted pastures, having 
 been exchanged or divided and inclosed without any legal process, 
 the apportionment of the unstinted commons remained over. 
 To obtain this, recourse was had to Parliament. A question 
 of legal claim arose between the owners of the lands in open field 
 and the owners of ancient common right houses. Of these there 
 were two hundred and sixty, most quite separate from a share 
 in the open field arable. The application for the bill was made 
 by the tithe owner, and supported by the owners of the houses, but 
 opposed by the owners of the lands. The bill was passed, but 
 the question of rights between the houses and lands was left to be 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 287 
 
 tried at the Assizes on a feigned issue, the reference being whether 
 one moiety of the commons should remain with the lands of 
 the township, which belonged to owners of ancient common-right 
 messuages, cottages, and sites. This was negatived, and a verdict 
 was taken in favour of the houses ; that is, to the effect that all 
 should share alike. This decision, which Marshall considers 
 wrong, was followed in the case of Sinnington. On the other 
 hand, at Knaresborough the houses got little, the owners of land 
 being substantially successful, while at Middleton one half went to 
 the houses and one half to the lands. In Marshall's opinion 
 a division was equitable, inasmuch as ancient common-right 
 houses had certain rights. His main contention, however, was 
 that common field lands had the main claim to the herbage of old 
 common pasture, because in all times, and especially in early 
 times, when cattle were wholly dependent on grsiss, the possession 
 of plough land involved the possession of common in order to 
 secure continuous feed. 
 
 The importance attaching to such land as that under discussion 
 in relation to the whole question of common and inclosure is 
 evident. This is recognised, at any rate to some extent, by 
 Marshall, particularly in his pamphlet on the Appropriation and 
 Inclosure of Commonable and Intermixed Lands, when he draws 
 a clear distinction between forest lands and the system of common 
 associated w^ith open field. He further calls attention to the par- 
 ticular position of the west. In supplement of what has been 
 said in the text (esp. Bk. II. c. i.) certain features may be pointed 
 out. 
 
 When it is said that such land was unsuited or little suited 
 to arable, it does not necessarily follow that such unsuitability was 
 permanent Woodland, for instance, was unsuitable till cleared, 
 and fenland till drained, but, in addition, some land was inacces- 
 sible. Further, in some instances and regions the land might be 
 unsuited in general to a system of arable open field and yet not 
 unsuited to a more restricted arable in parts. After inclosure 
 particular parts, not necessarily large, and particular fields were 
 available for such purposes. 
 
 Again, in the case of some land of this kind, some temporary 
 arable use of the land was not uncommon, certain parts being 
 broken up and kept under crop for a few years and then restored 
 
288 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 to common use. But such a method was also practised in con- 
 nection with organised agricultural townships, and is closely allied 
 to the outfield in some regions. Consequently, it cannot be 
 regarded as distinctive. Nor can the time of the introduction 
 of such practices be well determined. It is, however, important 
 to notice that it occurred on forest and commons in different 
 parts of the country (Bk. I. c. i., p. 26, note 5, and also p. 108 ; in 
 addition, the heath lands of Staflfordshire were sometimes put 
 to arable for five years), and was not restricted to one part, as the 
 west, though apparently more general there. Marshall {ib. p. 10) 
 suggests this as a probable means whereby "the lands of that 
 country," i.e. the western extremity of the island, "have been 
 cleared and brought into a state of cultivation. 
 
 On turning to the reasons for the direct inclosure into cultiva- 
 tion, and the absence of anything in general like open field, the 
 circumstances in the case of forest lands are clear. Whether 
 in actual woodland or merely forest in the more technical sense, 
 these were almost necessarily inclosed (Trigge, Humble Petition, 
 Pref.). If in wood, they were only open to use as this was 
 cleared ; if reserved for sport, rights, usually royal rights, had to be 
 relinquished. As a general rule they would appear to have come 
 into possible use at a time when there was little or no likelihood 
 of any extension of an open field system. But does this apply to 
 the west ? This has been discussed in the text, where it is pointed 
 out that without doubt the forces mentioned above were in 
 operation. At the same time, other influences operating in the 
 same direction must be taken into account The difficulty is 
 to determine the weight to be attached to them as compared with 
 the undoubted factor under consideration. 
 
 Some of the more important features dealt with here and else- 
 where in connection with this whole question may be briefly 
 summarised. 
 
 (i) Taken as a whole, fewer traces of common field are present 
 in the west than in the rest of the country, the south-east being 
 left out of count. This is true alike of the north, the centre, and 
 the extreme south-west. 
 
 (2) There is abundant evidence as to common field in the East 
 Riding, in Wiltshire, and in much of Dorset. 
 
 (3) The condition of Hertford (excluding the cretaceous north) 
 
PROGRESS OF INCLOSURE 289 
 
 and North Middlesex as to inclosure and traces of common field 
 is not very dissimilar from that of Hereford. The same is true of 
 the Weald region. 
 
 (4) There is a close correspondence in a very large number 
 of cases between differences in soil and differences in recorded 
 inclosure by act. 
 
 (5) The record of inclosure both in the eighteenth century and 
 before clearly reflects the influence of forest (and woodland), moor 
 and fen. 
 
BOOK III 
 EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 
 
GENERAL EFFECTS 
 
 In any attempt at an estimate of the general effects of 
 inclosures, even of those of a particular period, certain 
 broad considerations must be borne in mind. Thus it is 
 necessary to distinguish between the results produced on 
 particular classes of the community and those which affect 
 the general well-being of the country. Change, and 
 especially change affecting the cultivation of the land, 
 must almost inevitably be attended with inconvenience, if 
 not with suffering, on the part of particular classes. 
 Again, the effect of an alteration in method during the 
 time of transition, and by reason of the element of change, 
 must be separated from the effect of a new system when 
 once introduced and firmly established.^ In a more limited 
 sense this was equally true of particular inclosures. New 
 and better systems supersede old systems to the advantage 
 of the nation and of those to be employed, but the progress 
 from worse to better involves hardship to those, and they 
 may be a very large number, whose ideas and powers are 
 adapted to the methods of the past, and unsuited to the 
 new conditions imposed by improved methods. These, 
 indeed, are principles of general validity, though their 
 importance in this case is necessarily emphasised by the 
 
 ' Thus Marshall states that in a conversation which he held at Tamworlh 
 in November, 1784, the idea was generally expressed that inclosore was 
 disadvantageous to the tenant during the first six or seven years, by reason that 
 he could not in less time bring his land to a good turf, that is, put it first into 
 grass and then reconvert it. — Midlands, vol. ii., pp. 36-38. 
 
294 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 widespread nature of the change under review, and its 
 profound importance to the country as a whole. But 
 there are certain considerations more pertinent to the case 
 of inclosure. Inclosure was, as has been shown, a general 
 movement extending over many centuries. While it may 
 not be necessary to labour the point that its effects may 
 have been different at different periods, it is necessary to 
 point out that the circumstances in response to which it 
 took place differed from time to time. Effects sometimes 
 attributed directly and wholly to enclosure are often 
 due to it rather as a final or particular step in a chain of 
 events than as an isolated occurrence. Thus, if it be 
 true, that inclosure to pasture in the fifteenth century 
 arose by reason of the want of labour, or the want of 
 labour at anything like previous wages, its ultimate 
 effect in diminishing, at any rate in certain districts, the 
 field of employment must be considered in relation to the 
 circumstances preceding inclosure as well as to inclosures 
 themselves. These circumstances were obviously absent 
 at other times. In like manner the nature of the 
 inclosure whether of demesne, or of waste, or of open 
 field, whether by law, or by force, or by craft, largely 
 influence the popular attitude, and so partly determine 
 the effect, and certainly colour the representation of that 
 effect 
 
 Before proceeding to any such general estimate, either 
 of inclosure or of the inclosures of any jjeriod, it is 
 necessary to pass in review the effects attributed to it in 
 respect of particular details. These fall under three head- 
 ings, and may be respectively dealt with as affecting 
 Cultivation, General Features, and the Condition of the 
 People, but these considerations may be prefaced by a 
 brief account of certain definite circumstances involving 
 definite differences in the results of inclosing. 
 
 The first occasion of difference lies with the nature of 
 the inclosure, whether it be of commons or waste, or, on 
 the other hand, of open fields. Of course a large number 
 of inclosures comprised both. It is obvious that two of 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 295 
 
 the most serious charges urged against inclosure on public 
 grounds would not be tenable as against that of commons or 
 wastes. Inclosing these could not lead to a depopulation 
 by reducing employment, nor could it occasion a decrease 
 in the grain supply. Save under exceptional and tempor- 
 ary circumstances, fencing in these lands meant an increase 
 in the use of, at any rate, some part of them, and probably 
 an increase in the area under the plough. On the other 
 hand, inclosures of this kind were equally if not more 
 obnoxious in the eyes of those who regarded the change 
 as dictated by the interests of the rich and as a robbery of 
 the poor. The minor incidents of common which had 
 fallen either by right or propinquity to the lot of the 
 smaller holders or the poor were taken from them. Of 
 course this view was not invariable, as is shown by the 
 argument that on commons the rights of the small pro- 
 prietors are often rendered nugatory by the virtual 
 monopoly^ by the rich. Again, inclosures of commons 
 could not be supported as a means of avoiding the vexatious 
 interference experienced in the case of open fields. It 
 was urged as a way of utilising land which was, in point 
 of fact, unprofitable. During the eighteenth century, when 
 practical results occupied the mind, a clear distinction was 
 drawn between these two kinds. Several writers point out 
 the need of separating them in view of the different effects 
 produced,^ and the opinion thus expressed seems to have 
 been the result of experience in different parts of the 
 country. It is emphasised in the General Report to the 
 Board of Agriculture on the subject of inclosure, and special 
 reference is made to it in the case of counties so widely 
 
 ' Thus in the seventeenth century it was pointed oat that the rich man 
 often encroaches on the poor, especially when the latter cannot keep his due 
 number of cattle through poverty. — Considerations, 1653. PP- 2-3. 
 
 In the case of Cheshunt the common was not fed by the poor, but by a 
 parcel of jobbers who hired cottages that they might eat up the whole. — 
 Hertford Agric. Report, 1804. p. 45- 
 
 Stone says that cottagers are often kept out of their rights by large farmers 
 who overstock. — Suggestions, 1787, pp. 74-5. 
 
 2 As for example, Dr. Beeke.— ^^ri:. Jii^iort, Berks, 527-8. 
 
296 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 different as Leicester, Yorks, Berkshire, and Gloucester.^ 
 Indeed it is not too much to say that the advantages of 
 inclosing wastes and commons are accepted as indu- 
 bitable ^ even by those whose judgment was not otherwise 
 favourable to the new policy.^ One writer indeed couples 
 with his benediction a word of caution as to the need of 
 regard to the wants of the poor.* It should be noticed 
 that particular references are to be found at this time to 
 the benefits of this kind of inclosure in respect of the in- 
 crease of grain, and also in population.* In these respects 
 a contrast was sometimes drawn between these inclosures 
 and those which were taking place in the open fields. In 
 many places it is probable that the sheep commons were 
 of little use. This opinion was expressed by Stone, 
 who attributes their poverty in part to the lack of regular 
 manure.* This difference in character is of great im- 
 portance in treating of the inclosures taking place at this 
 period, as counties and districts differ very largely among 
 themselves. Thus in such counties as Northampton, 
 Leicester and Lincoln nearly all inclosures comprised 
 open fields, while in others, as Northumberland, West- 
 moreland and Yorkshire, wastes were being taken in, and 
 in Norfolk and some others sheep commons and small 
 remaining commons were one object of the acts.^ It 
 must, however, be remembered that the so-called common 
 field inclosures included common and often wastes. 
 
 ' General inclosure of wastes desirable and different from inclosure of open 
 fields. — Agric. Report, Leicester {\%\%), p. 79 ; Agric. Report, Berkshire, 527-8 ; 
 Agric,. Report, Gloucester, p. 89- 
 
 ' Compare with the foregoing writers, General Report, 1808, chapter i. ; 
 Darwin, Phytologia, 1799 ; A. Young, Observations, etc., 1773. 
 
 'Thus Petition cited in Political Enquiry, pp. 120-2, and Advantages and 
 Disadvantages of Inclosing Waste Lands and Common Fields, p. 43. 
 
 * Agric. Report, Worcester, p. 53. 
 
 ' As to grain, Agric. Report, Berks, 527-8 ; population. Advantages and 
 Disadvantages of Inclosing, etc., p. 43 ; Young, Observations, etc., 38-39. 
 
 ^^X.aa^, Suggestions, etc., 17-18. 
 
 'See Advantages and Disadvantages, etc., p. 44, etc. ; Agric. Report 
 Norfolk, p. 168. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 297 
 
 Another cause of difference is due to the soil. Here 
 there is a fairly general^ agreement as to the advantage 
 to be gained on the light soils. This was noticed in the 
 eighteenth century, and has reference to the effect pro- 
 duced on arable cultivation. The Report to the Board of 
 Agriculture on Leicester renaarks^ that inclosures have 
 done the most good in light sound soils, but more than a 
 century before the results on such land had been observed 
 by the writer, who pointed out the wonderful effect pro- 
 duced on the sands of Norfolk by inclosure and the use 
 of clover.^ The reasons for the particular benefit on such 
 soils are stated by different writers. As is said in the case 
 of Lincoln, the common saying that clay lands do not 
 answer inclosure is partly to be accounted for by the fact 
 that their cultivation undergoes little alteration.* On the 
 other hand, particular benefit occurs in the case of light 
 loams and sandy soils which will not bear perpetual 
 cropping, and must sometimes be laid down to grass and 
 otherwise used, a process remaining difficult, despite the 
 methods prescribed by 13 G. III.* On such lands turnips 
 and clover can now be introduced.^ The feasibility of this 
 distinction was admitted by even vigorous opponents of 
 inclosure. Addington reluctantly admits this possible 
 advantage, but only as it would seem to emphasise his 
 denunciation of the practice when applied to " rich and 
 
 'Thus Agric. Report, Worcester, pp. 54-SS, draws a careful distinction 
 between effect on such lands and elsewhere. On the other hand, all poor land 
 was not suitable. Inclosure of some of the sandy tracts in the East Riding 
 considered a great failure. — Agric. Report, E. Riding, Yorkshire (1812), 
 PP- 93-4- 
 
 '^ Agric. Report, Leicester (1809), p. 76. 
 
 'Houghton, Collections (1681), letter i. 
 
 * Agric. Report, Lincoln (1799), pp. 83-4. As is elsewhere pointed out, this 
 seems to be the reason for the delay in the inclosure of certain districts, e.g. 
 Flegg in Norfolk, though the soil here is different, 
 
 ^According to Stone this act was rarely used. He says that in his own 
 experience he has met with no instance of its use or even of a deuiand for its 
 application. Suggestions, etc., p. 13. 
 
 * Stone, Suggestions, p. 27. 
 
298 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 deep soil, which is capable of bearing good crops both of 
 grass and corn in the open field state," and " ought never 
 to be inclosed at all." ' The effect on cold clay soil is 
 questioned by some.^ 
 
 In the third place, the management of the inclosure, 
 when such took place on a large scale, was of no small 
 importance. According to the testimony of one of the 
 most trustworthy writers on the subject in the latter part 
 of the eighteenth century, mismanagement was very 
 common.^ What the mismanagement amounted to can 
 be seen from a few examples. In many cases the allot- 
 ments were too small to allow of adequately sized fields. 
 The small inclosed fields were evidently condemned.* 
 Again, in other cases, the wants and wishes of the small 
 proprietors* were ignored, and the lot of the poor 
 cottagers insufficiently considered, though this must not 
 be taken as a fair general charge ; * or bad methods of 
 road-making might be adopted.^ Mismanagement, how- 
 
 ^ Inquiry into the reasons for and against inclosing the opm fields, 1767, pp. 
 38-39. Cf. Agric. Report, Northampton (1809), where the possible or probable 
 conversion of rich lands on inclosure is emphasised. 
 
 ^ Inclosing does not answer to any great degree upon clay, as they cannot 
 have seeds or turnips ; and if laid down to grass it is 20 years before it comes 
 to good pasture. Agric. Report, Lituoln, p. 83. 
 
 Again, a bad effect is said to have been experienced from the inclosure of the 
 cold clays in the north of Bedfordshire. This was due partly to exhaustion 
 before the inclosure and partly to the desire to convert this land to grass for 
 which it was unfitted. Agric, Report, Bedford (\?ia%), 244. 
 
 'Stone, Suggestions, esp. p. 81. "That indosures have most generally 
 been mismanaged, may evidently be seen by their present condition." 
 
 * Suggestion that small size of inclosed fields a cause of mildew. Annals of 
 Agriculture, vol. i. p. 332. Small indosures condemned, Agric. Rep. 
 Lancaster (1815), p. 192 ; West Riding (1799), p. 71. In both these counties 
 many fell under this censure. 
 
 * According to Addington plan of inclosure usually settled by a few large 
 proprietors, the rest having little power. Inquiry Report {1772), p. 2i. Cf. 
 Homer, Essay, etc. , p. 103 ; Young, Northern Tour, i. p. 223. 
 
 * This is dealt with elsewhere. A very full account of the treatment of the 
 poor is given in the Agric. Report on Norfolk. 
 
 ''Agric. Report, Rutland (1808), pp. 155-6. But there is no ground for 
 considering that this was generally true. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 299 
 
 ever, did not necessarily result from mistakes by the 
 commissioners. The use made by the owners now for 
 the first time released from the bonds or guidance of 
 custom was often injudicious. Sometimes inadequate 
 attention was paid to the land ; elsewhere the attempt 
 was made to gain too much from it, and it was taxed 
 beyond its capacity.^ 
 
 Lastly, the circumstances of the district or of the time 
 went far to invest inclosure with particular effects. A 
 very important instance of this was the extent to which 
 the district depended on agriculture and especially arable 
 agriculture. Where other employments were present, the 
 change in method produced, even should that tend towards 
 increased pasture, was far from being as important as 
 where agriculture was the one great stay and industry.^ 
 Such considerations were of peculiar pertinence in early 
 times when locomotion and migration were more difHcult 
 and isolation greater. 
 
 In the ardour of controversy a number of minor advan- 
 tages or disadvantages were alleged rather, it would seem, 
 as adding to the main case for or against the contemplated 
 change than as forming part of it. Thus on the one side 
 may be mentioned the complaint that considerable injury 
 will be inflicted on fox hunting,^ and on the other side 
 comes the claim that the hedges will make the country 
 more secure against invasion, since foreign invaders would 
 be unable to march through an inclosed country as easily 
 
 ' An instance of this occurred in Cumberland where on inclosure the 
 land was often exhausted by incessant cropping. -Agric. Report, Cumberland 
 (1805), p. 214. That such practices occurred also in earlier times would 
 seem probable from Houghton, Collections, 1693, p. 66, where it is stated 
 that inclosed land in Stafford has successive crops for seven, eight or ten 
 years. 
 
 ' In the seventeenth century Moore in his Scripture word against Inclosure 
 (1656) draws this distinction. It becomes a commonplace, though its full 
 importance when considered in conjunction with the change in the means of 
 locomotion is not always seen. See also above, pp. 191-2. 
 
 ^This complaint is alluded to in The General Report on Inclosure (1808), 
 p. 306- 
 
300 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 as through an open one.^ More substantial than the 
 foregoing was the question as to the effect on the means 
 of communication. Here, as might be expected, we find 
 some difference of opinion. It was asserted that roads 
 were interfered with,^ and that thus locomotion was 
 impeded and the charges incurred on its account increased. 
 But this charge which proceeded from Addington met 
 with little support from others, and seems untenable in 
 respect of the inclosures under private act in the eighteenth 
 century, in respect of which it was advanced. It is quite 
 clear from the acts and awards, as also from the direct 
 testimony of commissioners that particular care was taken 
 in laying out both public and private roads. Of course 
 there may have been particular cases where customary 
 roads and paths were obstructed, a feature present indeed 
 in inclosures of a much more recent date, but the total 
 result would seem to be the very reverse of that alleged. 
 Considerable deductions for roads were made from the 
 land to be inclosed in nearly every instance, and there 
 is no reason to doubt that these inclosures, occurring at a 
 time when the demand for more and better roads was 
 active, as shown by the turnpike acts, resulted in a general 
 improvement of the ways of communication. The roads 
 over the old open fields and commons were often little 
 more than mere tracks.^ 
 
 During the seventeenth century the claim was advanced 
 that the introduction of several ownership would have the 
 incidental advantage of producing greater equality in the 
 
 'Lansdown MS., 487. Standish, Commons Complaint (16 1 3), p. 30. 
 
 'The words of Fitz Herbert, "also it may fortune that men will say that if 
 all should be inclosed there would be many foul lanes as there be in Essex. " 
 Book of Surveying, 98, is a very early reference to this charge. 
 
 On the other hand in The great improvement of Commons that are Inclosed, 
 1 732, roads over commons and wastes are said to be miry and useless. 
 
 ^See Agric. Report, East Riding, l8i2, according to which, in the district 
 where the country was open, which it was till a few years ago, the roads were 
 chieily of grass and carriages little used, the corn being chiefly carried to 
 market on the backs of horses, p. 266. Of course matters varied very much 
 from district to district. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 301 
 
 taxation of the land, since yardlands were taxed alike 
 irrespective of differences in size and quality.* But more 
 accurate assessment was not wholly dependent on, though 
 it might be hastened by the change. 
 
 ^"A poor man for a small yardland and peradventure not halfe-stocked 
 shall pay as much as a rich man doth for a great one stocked to the full. " 
 Considerations (1653), P- I5- 
 
 The tax of land is after the yardland ; a name very deceitful by the dis- 
 proportion and inequality thereof, the quantity of some one yardland being as 
 much as one and a half or two in the same field, and yet there is an equality of 
 taxes, but if the taxes be paid by the pound rent, then the rich man saith, 
 shall my yardlands bear out or pay for another's barren land ? So they are at 
 variance. A Vindication of the Considerations concerning Common Fields 
 and Inclosures, 1656 ; summary at end, pp. 42-47. 
 
II 
 
 AGRICULTURE 
 
 If a long period be taken, the general benefit of inclosure, 
 so far as the efficient cultivation of the ground and the 
 conduct of farming were concerned, seems beyond reason- 
 able doubt. It is true that on other grounds, and, also, it 
 must be noticed, in respect of particulcft- crops, hostile 
 criticism of the new movement was fi*equent ; but in 
 relation to cultivation with due economy and in general, 
 adverse opinion is far outweighed by the wide consensus 
 of testimony presented from many quarters. 
 
 That testimony is not confined to one period. In this 
 particular aspect the balance of opinion is uniform through 
 the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Indeed, the 
 advocacy of inclosure as a farming measure seems as 
 strong in the middle of the sixteenth and the beginning of 
 the seventeenth century as in years when Young, Howlett, 
 and Marshall voiced the opposition to common cultiva- 
 tion. The favourable opinions of Tusser and Fitz Herbert 
 are well known. Another writer in advocating inclosure 
 in every county of the kingdom in i6i 3, asserts that " the 
 barest lands inclosed do in profit far exceed the best vallies ; 
 the people much the richer and able of body to serve their 
 prince and defend their country," and speaks of the 
 champaign or open counties " where land is barren and 
 fewell so scant that they are constrained to burn the 
 straw and manure." ^ In the seventeenth century technical 
 
 ' Standish, JVcw Directions of Experience to the Commons Complaint (1613), 
 p. 30 ; cf. Carew, Survey of Cornwall, ed. 1769 (ist ed. 1602), p. 38. They 
 fall everywhere from Commons to Inclosure, etc. ; also p. 23, testifying to 
 improvement in sheep " since the grounds began to receive inclosure and 
 dressing for tillage." 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 303 
 
 writers, amongst them Blith, advocate it strongly. In like 
 manner Houghton, at the end of the century, tells of the 
 high yield and the continuous capacity of inclosed land, 
 adding : ^ " I cannot but admire that people should be so 
 backward to inclose, which would be more worth to us than 
 the mines of Potosi to the King of Spain." Another writer, 
 a few years later, treats inclosing as obviously beneficial, 
 adding in support of this : " I shall only propose two things 
 that are matters of fact, that, I think, are sufficient to prove 
 the advantages of inclosures ; which is, first, the great 
 quantities of ground daily inclosed ; and, secondly, the 
 increase of rent that is everywhere made by those that do 
 inclose their lan^s." * The evidence of these two centuries 
 is emphatic, as .also that which follows throughout the 
 middle and latter part of the eighteenth century. Authori- 
 ties are almost too numerous to cite. They include scientific 
 men as Linnaeus, advocates of scientific farming like Young 
 and Marshall, and practical agriculturists.^ Nor is the 
 evidence as to the general farming consequences confined to 
 one part of the country. We hear of it in the north* and 
 
 ' Houghton, Collections, 1693, p. 66. 
 
 '^The Whole Art of Husbandry, etc., by J- M., F.R.S. (John Mortimer), 
 1707, p. I; cf. Dictionarium Urbanicum (J704), under title "Enclosures." 
 "The differences also and profits thereof, are plainly to be discerned by 
 the severals in inclosed parcels of land that have formerly been taken out 
 of the field land or common ; and how much they excel the others in every 
 respect, though of the same soil and only an hedge between, and what a 
 yearly value they bear above them as also by the great quantities of lands 
 which in our own time have laid open, in common and of little value ; 
 yet when inclosed, tilled, and well ordered have proved excellent good and 
 suddenly repaid the present great expense incident to inclosure." It is also 
 added that inclosed land " generally maintains treble the number of inhabitants 
 or more than the champain grounds do." The chief argument as to profit 
 used is the advant^es offered for com. 
 
 'J. C. von WoUner, in the introduction to the German translation of Home's 
 Principles of Agriculture, attributes (1779) the great improvements in English 
 agriculture mainly to two things— inclosure and the excellent use of the hay 
 meadows. The advantages of inclosure on which he lays most stress are — 
 freedom to' make the best use of the particular land, shelter and the supply of 
 wood. GrundsUIze des Ackerbaues, ubersetrt (1779), pp. 27-33. 
 
 * Inter alia Young, Tour Through the North, i. 222-233. 
 
304 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Yorkshire,^ in the east as in Norfolk and Cambridge,* in the 
 west^ in Gloucester and Somerset, and, indeed, from all 
 parts.* The evidence as to the Midlands in the middle 
 of the seventeenth century was peculiarly strong. 
 
 Even those most adverse hardly venture on a broad 
 denial. Their opposition is in part on account of the 
 methods employed, and the general social results, often 
 the ordinary and inevitable results due to a mere change 
 of system, and in part a specific denial in respect of 
 particular crops or under particular conditions. ' Thus, 
 distinctions are drawn by some between the effect on sheep 
 and on corn, or by others between that produced in the case 
 of light soils as contrasted with heavy and rich land. 
 
 Descriptions, however, of the general condition of the 
 champaign country, or the open fields, given by travellers 
 and others, while they do not necessarily belie the defects 
 which became graver with time, show that in the earlier 
 period, and, indeed, up to the end of the sixteenth 
 century there was greater fertility in some parts of the 
 country than might be imagined from some of the 
 expressions used. Leland, in his Itinerary, frequently 
 comments on the rich crops to be seen in the champaign. 
 Similar glimpses are afforded by other writers of a 
 somewhat later date. Thus, in 1615, the Vale of Bucking- 
 ham, beneath the Chilterns, is described as " plain and 
 champion, a clay soil, stiff and rough, but withal 
 marvellous fruitful!, naked of woods but abounding in 
 meadows, pastures, and tillage, and maintaining an 
 
 ^ Marshall, Yorkshire, esp. i. 292. 
 
 'The Agric. Report on Norfolk enumerates three advantages: (l) Greater 
 compactness of holdings and less necessary uniformity ; (2) extinction of 
 shackage in case of half-year lands in addition to foregoing ; (3) utilization 
 of commons. These treated of at considerable length. Cf. Houghton, 
 Collections, as to use of clover and hay seed on inclosure. Agric. Jieport, 
 Cambridge, gives list showing improvements. A.R. (1813), 56, etc. 
 
 ' Agric. Report, Gloucester, 89, etc. ; cf. special instance of Eastington on 
 the Cotswold. Agric. Report, 379. Somerset, Agric. Report, esp. general 
 discussion, pp. 49-73. 
 
 * Thus see Agric. Report, Wiltshire, esp. 104 ; also Warwick, p. 62. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 305 
 
 infinite number of sheep," * and " South Cambridgeshire 
 as champion, which yieldeth corn in abundance, with 
 meadowing pastures.'' The east* is at once the richest 
 part of Durham, and also the most champion ; the 
 champion in Norfolk "aboundeth with corn, sheep, and 
 cows," while Leicester and Northampton, both mainly 
 champion, are rich and fruitful. Elsewhere we read of 
 the great flocks and herds in the open lands, and of the 
 beautiful prospects of the country.^ In Suffolk the 
 greatest number of flocks are in the champion.* Like 
 descriptions may be drawn from writings towards the 
 close of the seventeenth century, when, for instance, the 
 districts of Surrey, neighbouring on the Thames, are said 
 to be mainly open and " grateful to the husbandman." ° 
 References might be multiplied. They occur, also, though 
 in much diminished number, in the literature of the 
 eighteenth. Their importance, however, must not be 
 over-estimated. There is little or no attempt at a 
 comparison between open and inclosed land. Their use 
 is to correct the exaggerated impression left by 
 adverse critics of the existing agricultural system, who 
 are probably perfectly accurate so far as certain districts 
 or certain instances are concerned, but whose language 
 too often suggests that these are uniform types of 
 existing cultivation rather than illustrations of what such 
 a system permitted, or of the state towards which it 
 would tend with time. As has already been said, the 
 
 ' This and the following quotations are from The Geographical Description 
 of England and Wales, 1615. It shows very clearly the large extent of land 
 open and under cultivation at the close of the sixteenth century. The 
 descriptions of the various counties may be compared with the scant and 
 brief ones in A Brief Description of England, Harl. MS. 5190 (? end of 
 sixteenth), and with those in England's J\emarques, 1678. It is difficult 
 to avoid the suspicion that the last mentioned is a reproduction of the 
 Geographical Description. Cf. also, Blome's Britannia, 1673. 
 
 2 According to Blome, Britannia, p. 92, the south was the most fertile. 
 
 ' Norden (John), Speculi Britanniae Altera Pars, i6lo, pp. 24, 31-32. 
 
 < Reyce (R.), The Breviary of Suffolk, 1618, p. 38. 
 
 ' Blome (R.), Britannia, 1673. 
 
 U 
 
3o6 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 condemnation of the old system lay not in any absolute 
 infertility, but in its growing unsuitability, in the obstacle 
 it presented to progress, and last, but not least, in the 
 greater total advantages, advantages which increased 
 century by century, offered by the system which was 
 taking its place. 
 
 The general advocacy of inclosure was often accom- 
 panied by a depreciation of the actual value of the 
 commons and of common right to those supposed to share 
 in their advantages. Thus it is pointed out alike in the 
 sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that the 
 poor owning rights may be largely kept out of their rights 
 by the action of large farmers who exceed their rights 
 and thus surcharge the common to the detriment of all,^ 
 or by the lack of winter feed in the absence of which 
 summer grazing could be of little worth.^ Again, jobbers 
 would hire cottages in order to obtain, as it were, a right 
 of entry to the common and then proceed to eat up the 
 common ; or new cottages would spring up near the 
 common, and though legally without rights, would en- 
 croach in practice on those to whom the common really 
 belonged.^ While there is undoubted truth in the matters 
 thus brought to notice and while further, owing to other 
 reasons, common rights in practice were often of much 
 less value than was supposed, it should be remembered 
 that this absolute decline in value was tj'pical of the 
 declining suitability of the system. The system was 
 falling into disuse, a new system was taking its place, and 
 with the change the actual use made of the common or 
 common rights declined. It might indeed have been 
 
 ' Sixteenth century : Fitz Herbert, £i. of Husbandry, p. 77. Seventeenth 
 century: Considerations, etc. (1653), pp. 2, 3; cf. Vindication, summary. 
 Eighteenth century : Tusser Redivivus, March 9 ; Stone, Suggestio7is, etc. , 
 74, 75- 
 
 ' Gen. Report, p. 5. Stone, Suggestions, 75. Agric. Report, Essex (1807), 
 i. 166. 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, Hertford (1804), p. 45. Again, la^y tenants may leave 
 crops standing and so hinder common. Duty of a Steward, E. Lawrence, 
 p. 38. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 307 
 
 retorted that what was wanted was a stricter enforcement 
 of the whole common right system. 
 
 In some, indeed in many cases, the inclosure when 
 achieved failed to produce the advantages expected. For 
 this there were often special reasons, quite independent of 
 any allegations against the change as a whole. Partial 
 inclosure was, it was pointed out, bad for the lord, as the 
 tenant would use all the manure from the common for his 
 own small inclosure.^ Again, in some cases there was 
 general mismanagement of the inclosure. The land 
 before the inclosure was often exhausted by continuous 
 cropping,^ or in other instances the early enthusiasm of 
 the proprietors of the new allotment lead to incessant 
 cropping and so to speedy exhaustion.^ On some new 
 inclosures it was difficult to obtain sufficient manure or it 
 had to be carted from a distance.* Elsewhere the indis- 
 criminate conversion of land to pasture whether suited or 
 not led to loss and disappointment. Again, on some 
 land where conversion to pasture was taking place, a 
 period had to elapse before the ground could be brought 
 to a good turf, during which time there would be 
 temporary loss. Much more important, however, than 
 these or similar occurrences, which after all were incidental 
 to particular inclosures and not essential to inclosure 
 as a system, was the effect produced in the case of good 
 meadow land, already at a high value, where such formed 
 part of the land to be treated. It was comparatively 
 little damaged by the existence of common right and so 
 little benefitted by inclosure ; and it had to bear its share 
 of the expenses incurred. These, as we hear, often led to 
 a positive decrease in its value. But even here a real 
 diminution in the general value of the land does not take 
 place. All that happens is a contribution levied from 
 land, already highly cultivated, towards the cost of a 
 
 ' E. Lawrence, Duty of a Steward, p. 62. 
 ^Agric. Report, Bedford (\i>y]), p. 244. 
 ^Agric. Report, Cumberland (l^S), p. 214. 
 ■"Addington, An Inquiry, etc. (second edit.), p. 4. 
 
3o8 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 change whereby the remaining land is greatly improved 
 and its value enhanced. 
 
 The general advantages thus claimed may be placed 
 under the following headings : (A) Improved arrangement 
 and management ; (B) Relief from existing disadvantages ; 
 (C) Improvement in the system of cultivation. 
 
 (A) Under this heading a considerable number of 
 matters present themselves for consideration : 
 
 Firstly, it is claimed that by inclosure and only by 
 inclosure is reasonable security obtained that the land will 
 be devoted to the purposes for which it is best suited ; 
 inclosure, as one writer tells us, " leaving the employment 
 of the grounds to the discretion of the occupant." This 
 choice, as he added, had been beneficial and without 
 inconvenience in such counties as Essex where it had 
 been tried and its extension was not likely to be detri- 
 mental. In its broad sense this is what is meant by the 
 author of the Considerations when he says " when tillage 
 is more profitable than pasturage, men will break up their 
 pastures to till ; and why should they not have liberty to 
 lay down their arable land to grass, when pasturage is more 
 profitable than tillage." ^ It is repeated, though with more 
 attempt at detailed reasoning by later writers who urge that 
 among other disadvantages of the common field, that which 
 made it necessary to plough and crop all kinds of land 
 alike ranked high.^ After inclosure there was a better dis- 
 tribution of land in inclosure to its own most suitable crop. 
 
 Secondly, the greater compactness of the estate, together 
 with the more complete ownership enabled the farmer to 
 work his land more systematically and to exercise more 
 thorough superintendence over his labourers. They were 
 more under control and direction.' 
 
 ' Consiikrations, etc., p. 21. Blith, instancing the inclosed counties, argued 
 that tillage, on account of its profit, would always hold its own (p. 83). 
 
 -Horner, Essay on Nature and Method, p. 36. Kakn^s acccunt of his visit 
 to England, 1745, tr. by J. Lucas, 1892, pp. 281-2. Agric. Reports, Norfolk, 
 177; Oxford, 99-101 ; Wilts, 40; North Riding, 90-1. 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, Oxford, 99-101. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 309 
 
 Thirdly, the same circumstance would lead to greater 
 economy in working and promote convenience. Under 
 the open field system not only were the arable lands often 
 distant from the farmhouses, but in most cases divided up 
 into strips lying far apart from each other. As to the 
 disadvantage of this intermixture and dispersion there was 
 indeed little dispute. It does not seem to have been 
 seriously denied even in the seventeenth century, when 
 its consequences were summed up in the following words : 
 " Disorder appears thereby, the intermixt and dispersed 
 lands, lying here one and there another, as 4, 6, 8, or 
 10 parcels of ground to an acre of land, to the great 
 hindrance and damage to the owners, both in tilling the 
 land and raising the fruits of the same. For example, if 
 one day's work in 20, 30, 40 lands tilling be wholly lost, 
 how many days' work must necessarily be lost in i, 10 
 or 20 fields? how many more in i, 10 or 20 counties? 
 So likewise in carriage of manure and harvest stuffe, and 
 also other carriages, the labour is lost, which might be 
 saved, if each man's land lay together."^ The same in- 
 convenience with the correlative advantage accruing from 
 inclosure was dwelt on by others both then and subse- 
 quently. One emphasises the economy in getting in the 
 hay and com when all land lies together;- another the 
 inconvenience of shifting the plough teams from one strip 
 to another ; ' others dwell on the expense of such a 
 system, but all agree on the general disadvantage of 
 detached lands and the benefit to be gained by exchange. 
 To the inconvenience thus described must be added that 
 occasioned by the distance between the farmhouses and 
 the lands, strips, or fields of different kinds,* as at Naseby 
 
 ' Vindication of the Considerations, summary. Cf. J. Lee, A Vindication, 
 pp. 21-25. -A-lso for later times. Homer, Essay, p. 30, etc. 
 'Lee, Vindication, pp. 21-25. 
 
 'Stone, Suggestums, p. 15. Cf. Agric. Report, Oxford, 99-101. 
 
 * See esj)eciall7. Vindication of the Considerations, summary ; Annals of 
 Agriculture, vi. 464 ; Address to Board of Agriculture, by S. J. Nash, p. 12 ; 
 Agric. Report, Middlesex (1798), p. 40. 
 
3IO COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 where " the farmhouses and barns are all in the village, 
 which is two miles away from a great part of the field." 
 The manure had to be carried out, the crops brought in, 
 and teams spent a considerable time in going backwards 
 and forwards. One curious advantage, it was considered 
 by some, might be achieved if the farms were compact 
 with the houses in their centre or neighbourhood. Horses 
 would be less used for draught and so fewer would be 
 kept ; ^ the ploughing might be done by oxen which 
 subsequently might be eaten.^ 
 
 While these difficulties were generally admitted it was 
 urged indeed that exchange and consolidation of intermixt 
 lands as the arable strips might take place without in- 
 closure.^ To some extent this was correct, as different 
 instances proved, but on the other hand it cannot be 
 doubted that the whole tendency of such exchange would 
 be in this direction, and that if the meadows were to lie 
 near their respective strips, and the farmhouses were to be 
 in close proximity, common right would be left to linger 
 on as a precarious survival. 
 
 Fourthly, the use of manure in the open fields was held 
 by some to be wasteful, it being imperfectly spread and 
 some part of its strength exhaled and spent by the 
 weather. 
 
 Fifthly, ploughing in the open fields was attended by 
 certain difficulties. The strips could not be effectively 
 cross ploughed or harrowed.* Again, in the condition in 
 which some large fields were in the eighteenth century, 
 damage was inflicted on the owners of certain of the strips. 
 At the top or bottom were strips lying transversely, these 
 as a rule were kept drier by the furrows of the lands lying 
 
 ' Stone, Suggestions, etc. , 19-20. 
 
 -Lee, VindUation, etc., 21-25. 
 
 ' " I believe there is much truth in Sir C. Willoughby's idea that open fields 
 for corn are far superior to indosures, supposing two circumstances : i. That 
 the lands be laid together ; 2. that all extraneous rights be excluded," Agric. 
 Report, Oxford {i%\-^), p. 96, etc. But from what follows it seems that open 
 field is here used mainly in the sense of unhedged. 
 
 * Agric. Report, Middlesex (Vl<)%), p. 114. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 311 
 
 below them, and so would be earlier sown, or else they 
 might be earlier prepared owing to the more efficient 
 farming of their owners. When this happened, the horses 
 and ploughs of the other farmers who were later at work, 
 would cause much injury by turning upon them. The 
 seed when just sprouting would be disturbed.^ The corners, 
 too, of the long strips would escape the plough, a loss 
 which could not fail to be considerable if calculated upon 
 the whole field. 
 
 Sixthly, certain special advantages were claimed for 
 inclosure. Thus under common cultivation the fallow 
 field was considered to be largely wasted.^ The balks 
 between the strips were a loss.^ Again, there was a 
 waste of seed in the sowing of the open fields, and 
 great economy might be practised after enclosure. When 
 particular strips required rest they could not be separately 
 treated, having to submit to the common rotation practised 
 over the whole village or hamlet* The absence of rest 
 was indeed a general defect urged against common culti- 
 vation, but this will require mention when the question of 
 improved rotation comes under consideration. 
 
 Lastly, a great controversy arose as to the relative 
 
 ^ AgrU. Report, Gloucester (iZoj), p. 91. Cf. Nourse, T., Campania Felix 
 (1700), pp. 28-9. " In common fields the first plough always receives a con- 
 siderable damage, especially upon his headlands. " 
 
 ^ " The fallow field to the weak or unstocked husbandman is a great charge 
 and no profit. I. The ordure or dung of sheep is in many places of more 
 worth to be let, than the grass on which they feed. 2. This field often rots 
 the sheep, to as much damage as the whole lordship is valued at per annum ." 
 Vindiiatioii of the Considerations, 1656, pp. 42, etc. " That barbarous custom 
 of fallows" is Young's description, see Annab of Agricitliure, vi. 140. Cf. Agric. 
 Report, Gioacester, 104-5. Again the same writer in Political Authentic, " Dr. 
 Price and the other writers who assure us we should throw down our hedges 
 and waste one third of our farms in a barren fallow by way of mating beef and 
 mutton cheap," p. 145. 
 
 'Blith points this out {Improver, p. 81). He notes the common error of 
 speaking of common fields as though before inclosure all was invariably in 
 tillage. 
 
 * This and other points dealt with in the summary appended to the Vindica- 
 tion of the Considerations. 
 
312 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 advantages and disadvantages of the hedges or means of 
 separating the allotments. These are claimed by some as 
 distinctly advantageous to cultivation, and denounced with 
 equal if not greater vigour and point by others. One 
 thing at any rate is clear. They were expensive both to 
 make and to maintain. Different methods of division 
 presented themselves. Fences, walls, or hedges had been 
 adopted in different counties. But whatever the alterna- 
 tive, some land was inevitably taken up. In a certain 
 sense it may be true that fencing is not essential to the 
 idea of separation, that is, land may be laid together and 
 extraneous rights abolished without its use ; but there is 
 no doubt that boundary divisions are essential to its 
 successful practice and continuance. The hedges and 
 ditches which were generally adopted save in the north 
 occupied a considerable amount of land. Further they 
 were expensive to make, a point already touched upon, 
 and their maintenance formed an additional cost, which 
 the open fields likewise escaped. On the other hand the 
 hedges themselves might be made a source of profit. In 
 some places large trees were planted in them for the 
 sake of their timber, in other places they contained fruit 
 trees. A not inconsiderable profit was said to be ob- 
 tained by their due use, in part, no doubt, from sources 
 such as the foregoing, but in part also by their regular 
 clipping.^ 
 
 Their effect on cultivation needs a few words.^ It is 
 probably correct that the shelter afforded by them was 
 beneficial in the case of cattle, and they may well have 
 proved of service in protecting both grass and crops from 
 
 ' Hedges and fences occupy space especially with ditches, Agric. Report, 
 Oxford (1794), P- 24 ; expensive to make and maintain. General Report, p. 81. 
 Nourse, Campania Felix, p. 26, of value in themselves ; cf. Whole Art of 
 Husbandry, by J. M., p. 47, Geographical Descrip., Worcester. 
 
 'Shelter beneficial to cattle, Horner, Essay, etc., 36. Whole Art of 
 Husbandry, p. 47 ; safeguards from theft, Lee, Vindication, 21-25 > leaves add 
 to fertility, Agric. Report, North Riding, 90-1 ; breaking wind, Agric. Report, 
 Hunts, p. 167; givingshelter, and possibly decreasing mildew. Agric. Report, 
 Rutland, p. loS. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 313 
 
 depredation. Much more, however, was claimed. Thus 
 according to one writer their leaves added fertility to the 
 soil, according to another they, especially if timbered, were 
 valuable as breaking the wind and affording shade and 
 warmth to plants growing in the inclosures, while another 
 with more ardour than accuracy even asserts not only that 
 the shelter they gave increased fertility, but that if any- 
 thing they were serviceable by decreasing the danger of 
 mildew. Against these latter very optimistic views must 
 be set much condemnation of hedges, and especially of 
 well timbered hedges in respect of the crops in the fields. 
 Marshall, for instance, writes strongly of the " folly 
 of high hedges to arable fields in keeping back or spoiling 
 grain," and in the General Report to the Board of Agricul- 
 ture as well as in several reports on the counties a like 
 view is expressed.^ This verdict from those who were on 
 the whole favourable to inclosure is of even greater 
 weight than the statements of others whose general views 
 were adverse.^ It should, however, be noted that as a rule 
 it is high timbered hedges, and especially these surround- 
 ing small fields, which are condemned. 
 
 (JS) Relief from existing restrictions. It is amply clear 
 that under the common field system serious obstacles were 
 placed in the way of improvement. This has already been 
 indicated, but it will bear further illustration. The best 
 husbandmen were handicapped with the worst,^ a feature 
 which was of more moment when it became more im- 
 portant to enable progressive farmers to advance beyond 
 existing standards than to prevent those who were indolent 
 from falling below them. While it endured there was little 
 opportunity for experimental husbandry.* Again if the 
 old customs were bad, there was not much chance of 
 departing from them.' To do that with ease required the 
 
 1 Marshall, Midlands, ii. 329. General Report, p. 86 ; Agric. Reports^ 
 Derby, ii. 259 ; Leicester, p. 80. 
 
 'As Addington, Inquiry (1772), p. 4. 
 
 * Considerations, 14, 15. ^ Agric. Report, Worcester, p. 68. 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, Gloucester, pp. 104, 105. 
 
314 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 general removal of restrictions enforced by custom and 
 secure as long as their maintenance appealed to the more 
 ignorant or the idle. By inclosure improvements became 
 possible without general agreement. How difficult this 
 was, was learned by experience when it was sought to 
 bring into action legislation which like 13 George III. 
 c. 81, made it possible for a specific majority to effect 
 certain changes. in common usage. It could be done in 
 many cases, but if difficult with a majority it was still 
 more difficult when the nature of the improvement required 
 the assent of each and all. 
 
 Apart from these miscellaneous advantages to be 
 attained by inclosures, there were certain directions in 
 which specific and more uniform relief was sought. 
 
 In the first place, the slovenly farmer became less of a 
 detriment to his neighbours. What this meant may be 
 judged from the complaints made at different times and 
 from different quarters. In the open fields the lazy 
 farmer who left his corn standing might hinder the 
 common use of the ground. If he ploughed late, as has 
 already been said, he would cause incalculable damage by 
 turning his cattle backwards and forwards on the land 
 already sown. He might drive cattle to and fro unneces- 
 sarily, and so add to the mischief from trampling always 
 involved in the common use of arable. Bad husbandry 
 leading to weeds, on the part of some, inflicted its full 
 injury on others, where lands lay intermixt and with no 
 effectual barriers.^ Again, one farmer who neglected to 
 drain might render the efforts of his neighbour of little or 
 no effect.- Inclosure was needed to restrict within limits 
 the harm done to neighbouring farmers, especially to those 
 seeking to improve their methods, by the indolence or 
 ignorance of a few. 
 
 In the second place, it was a defence against injury of 
 a very different character. Common cultivation offered 
 every occasion for trespass, and even for wilful fraud. 
 The meers and stones — that is, the boundary marks of 
 
 'Stone, Suggestions, etc., 16. "^ Agric. Report, Worcester, 56. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 315 
 
 the various properties — were moved,^ an offence indeed of 
 old standing, finding mention in the Mosaic law, and 
 significantly emphasised in the Commination Service. 
 The dishonest farmers in ploughing would plough " further 
 than they ought to do, in balks and hades," ^ even as we 
 are told by one writer, ploughing " by night for the 
 express purpose of stealing a farm from their neighbours." * 
 Again, " those who have consciences large enough to do 
 it will lengthen their ropes, or stake them down so that 
 their horses will reach unto other men's lotts" ;* an offence 
 which another writer of the same period says was singu- 
 larly tempting, since " no man can be just in taking his 
 own grass, and no more, though with a tether ; he must 
 either take more or leave some, for a circle cannot fill a 
 square nor a square a circle."* In making hay, some 
 would encroach upon others. Offences of this kind, which 
 seem to have been particularly prevalent in the sixteenth 
 and seventeenth centuries, continued on into the eighteenth 
 century.^ Quite apart from their bad moral effects, they 
 were to be deprecated, because in common with other 
 trespasses, as for instance trespass by cattle, they led to 
 frequent quarrels and to litigation, with its heavy cost. 
 In this sense, commons and common rights were the 
 occasion of disorder, and their abolition tended towards 
 harmony and economy. 
 
 Lastly, inclosure offered an excellent opportunity for 
 ridding the land of the burden which tithes imposed upon 
 cultivation. The effect of tithes on progressive farming, 
 and so on improvement, was very fully considered by 
 writers like Young. In their opinion tithes opposed a 
 great obstacle to advance. They were peculiarly vexatious 
 in their method of payment, and weighed unduly on the 
 better as compared with the worse farmers. So long as 
 
 ' " To defece the marks of other men's lands, and where they find lands not 
 marked at all to mark them as their own." Considerations, 2, 3. 
 
 '^id. ' Agri(. Report, Oxford, p. 239. * Considerations, 2, 3. 
 
 ' Summary given in Vindication of Considerations. 
 'Homer, Essay, etc., p. 36. 
 
3i6 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 open field continued, it seemed impossible to alter the 
 method of their collection, and it was contended by some 
 that they were exceptionally heavy under such a system. 
 Their levy on beasts led to the loss of manure, a feature 
 of particular importance in such cultivation.^ Hence it 
 was contended that inclosure might be made the occasion 
 of confirming great benefit on the land. Exoneration 
 from tithe was to be achieved by allotments to the Church. 
 The effect of inclosure in the interests of the clergy was 
 great, owing to the method adopted of calculating the 
 allocation of land in lieu of tithes, and the share which fell 
 to them of the new profits gained from wastes and 
 commons, this latter accruing whether exoneration took 
 place or not.^ There was general approval of allotments 
 in lieu of tithes expressed by most observers ; and the 
 non-adoption of this as a part and consequence of 
 inclosure — as, for instance, in many cases in Norfolk and 
 elsewhere — was held to be a cause for regret.* 
 
 The policy as to exoneration from tithe was not adopted 
 uniformly throughout the country.* In addition to causes 
 
 ^ Stone, Suggestions, p. i6. 
 
 ^ Thus the owner of tithe obtains the advantage of the land as improved in 
 cultivation, as by the bringing into use of the arable in the fallow field which 
 was of little or no use in the common field system. See Lee, A Vindkaiiim, 
 p. 21. It is urged that when allotment was given in lieu of tithe the incumbent 
 should be empowered to burden it with a sum of money, to be used in its 
 improvement. An Argumentative Appeal addressed to the Right Reverend the 
 Bishop, by Rev. Baptist Noel Turner, 1788. 
 
 Allotments were sometimes made for other ecclesiastical claims. See Award 
 at Hoby, in Leicester, when an allotment made for Easter offerings. Close 
 Rolls, 3 G. IL 1760-1, Pt. 19, No. 14. 
 
 ^ Agric. Reports. See esp. Rutland and Buckingham. Exoneration not 
 usually in Norfolk. Gen. Report, p. 20; cf. Hampshire, Agric. Report, I2I-2. 
 
 * The calculations as to the proportion to which awards contain provisions as 
 to tithe exoneration depend on a comparison of the numbers given in the 
 Parliamentary Return of 1867 as to such allotments or money payments 
 (Parliamentary' Papers LIV. 159) with the number of acts of inclosure in the 
 various counties. Though obviously incomplete, inasmuch as it deals only, 
 save in the case of Yorkshire, with awards deposited with the respective Clerks 
 of the Peace, it is sufficiently accurate to indicate broadly the distinctions laid 
 down. It would, however, not be safe to enter upon more precise calculations 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 317 
 
 purely local in character, or due in large measure to 
 custom and initiation, two chief causes of differences 
 existed. Exoneration did not take place in many 
 instances where inclosure was occasional and sporadic 
 during this period, or where it occurred in the main for 
 the purpose of utilising large wastes and heaths or of 
 adding to the arable lands already inclosed, the ground 
 remaining in commons for pasture or fuel. Thus in Kent 
 and Essex, where the acreage inclosed at this time was 
 comparatively small, and in such counties as Cumberland, 
 Northumberland, and Yorkshire, where the inclosures 
 were largely of wastes, the percentage of awards contain- 
 ing allotments in lieu of tithe was comparatively small; 
 With these may be grouped Chester, Cornwall, Durham, 
 Lancashire, Norfolk, Shropshire, Somerset, Stafford, 
 Surrey, and Sussex, in all of which commons, apart from 
 open field land, were a chief feature. In the Midland 
 and West Midland counties, on the other hand, where 
 inclosure played so great a part and where large common 
 fields predominated exoneration from tithe in whole or in 
 part appears in a large proportion of the awards. Con- 
 spicuous among these are Northamptonshire, Rutland, 
 Bedford, Lincoln, Oxford, Notts, Cambridge, and Hunt- 
 ingdon on one side of the Midlands, and Warwick, 
 Worcester, and Gloucester on the other. In Leicester 
 and Berks they are not so noticeable, but still fairly 
 frequent. In the former group the percentage of awards 
 
 as to percentage of awards making allotment or money payments in lieu of 
 tithe not only because of the omission mentioned, but because the return itself 
 leaves room for further error. Firstly, many of the allotments to rectors, 
 vicars, and others are in respect of common rights or of glebe brought into the 
 inclosure, and not on account of tithe ; and these are but seldom distinguished. 
 Secondly, in many cases the exoneration is only partial, the allotment or 
 payment being made in lieu of certain tithes only. Thirdly, the returns made 
 by the various clerks vary greatly. 
 
 Where no exoneration occurred the inclosure might be opposed by the 
 tithe-holders ; thus an attempted inclosure at Western Zoyland was opposed 
 and defeated by the Bishop of Bath and Wells in the fear lest the conversion of 
 arable to pasture might be occasioned, and lead to a decrease in tithes. Agric. 
 Report, Somerset, 1798, p. 199. 
 
3i8 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 containing some provision as to allotment or money 
 payment in lieu of tithe, often indeed only partial, may be 
 set down as exceeding the half. In Leicester, Derby, and 
 Berks, it is not so high. 
 
 (Q Improvements in the System of Cultivation. — Under 
 this heading we come, as will be seen, to advantages which 
 operated as motives towards inclosures only during the 
 latter period of its history. Unlike those concerned with 
 general farm management or connected with relief from 
 the more oppressive customs or the tyranny of neighbours 
 in the open field system, these are novel and involve the 
 introduction of striking changes. They may be dealt with 
 respectively under the heading of changes in the rotation 
 of crops and new and more systematic drainage. Changes 
 of this kind were not only difficult to effect while custom 
 ruled and where substantial agreement was necessary to 
 their introduction ; but so far as the rotation of the crops 
 was concerned, they were largely inconsistent with the 
 actual practice of common rights. 
 
 The need of a different or improved rotation of crops 
 attracted little attention till comparatively late ; indeed, it 
 is doubtful if it really affected the demand for inclosure 
 till the eighteenth century was well advanced. Houghton, 
 it is true, in 1681 pointed out the advantages to be gained 
 by clover in inclosure or by the like use of hay-seeds.^ 
 Artificial grasses also were recognised as of value in 
 cultivation. But it was only after the great success 
 attending the experimental use of turnips that new 
 rotations became so firmly established where private 
 ownership or agreement allowed of their use as to render 
 obstacles to their introduction a felt and definite grievance. 
 It was, of course, urged by those opposed to inclosures 
 that to remedy this did not necessitate the wholesale 
 abandonment of the open field system, and that by 
 agreements either voluntary or under conditions to be 
 determined by law, the new crops could be introduced. 
 This is partially true in theory ; and even in practice 
 
 ^Houghton, Collections, 1681, i. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 319 
 
 agreements to vary the rotation were more common than 
 the convinced advocates of the new system were willing to 
 admit. But the real point at issue was not whether it 
 could be done, nor even whether in some cases it was 
 done, but rather whether the way was such that it was 
 likely that it would be done widely and throughout the 
 country. The actual extent to which turnips and clover 
 were introduced by mutual consent is doubtful. Evidence 
 as to such came from many counties at the time when the 
 Agricultural Reports were written ; but except in a few 
 cases it is clear that the practice is recorded as a departure 
 from the usual custom. In Northamptonshire there was 
 said to be considerable use of turnips in the open fields 
 by temporary inclosures,^ while in Oxfordshire " hitching" 
 the field, that is, variation from the three field course by 
 agreement is stated to be frequent.^ On the other hand, 
 the words used in most Reports, or the emphasis laid on 
 special cases, when such agreements were recorded, mark 
 them as exceptions.^ In some cases the small progress 
 made with turnips, for instances, is directly attributed to 
 the open fields.* Much the same may be said of the 
 cases recorded by Young and by others. Nor does the 
 act passed with the distinct purpose of facilitating the in- 
 troduction of turnips appear to have been successful. 
 Stone, for instance, states that he knows of no instances 
 of its use, and his statement is not without corroboration 
 by others.* Even when turnips were cultivated in the 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, Northampton, ii. p. III. '' Agric. Report, Oxford, p. 131. 
 
 ' Agric. Reports : Bedford, p. 340 ; Hampshire, p. 373 ; Middlesex, p. 48 ; 
 Huntingdon, p. 107 ; Wilts, p. 104 ; Worcester, p. 68 ; North Riding, p. 109. 
 
 *Agric. Report, Camb., p. 145. As to agreements and instances of such. 
 Annals of Agric. viii. 54, iv. 144. In An Inquiry into the connection between 
 the present price of provisions and the size of farms, the author says of common 
 fields : " They are not capable of prodncing half what they would otherwise 
 do, unless indeed the whole belongs to some very few, who are sensible enough 
 to agree among themselves on a good mode of culture ; but this is rarely the 
 case," pp. 85, 86. In vale of York only some few cases of common consent. 
 Agric. Report, North Riding, 1800, p. 109. 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, East Riding (1S12), p. III. As to neglect of the act, see 
 one instance of its use, p. 115. 
 
320 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 open field, it is doubtful if they met with invariable 
 success.^ The great drawback consisted in the difficulty 
 of securing anything like general agreement to a change 
 which involved a considerable alteration in the time at 
 which the arable was thrown open for common pasturage. 
 To some this alteration meant loss, and they would be 
 unwilling to postpone the time of entry. In some few 
 cases, no doubt, temporary inclosures for turnips were 
 maintained by leave, but this involved a loss of pasturage 
 over them and also meant expense, and as a rule turnips, if 
 introduced at all, had, it may be assumed, to be introduced 
 as a crop in a general course, since temporary inclosure 
 was difficult. Without safeguard no single farmer would 
 of course keep turnips in the ground, with as a result a 
 valuable present of them to his neighbour's sheep.^ Open 
 fields, as one writer says, cannot be sown according to the 
 tenant's pleasure.' 
 
 In its relation to drainage, inclosure differs in its import- 
 ance, according as the drainage concerned was a means of 
 reclaiming the soil and bringing it under cultivation or the 
 ordinary and improved drainage of lands already cultivated. 
 
 The large seventeenth century reclamations were made 
 the occasion of inclosures. Partly as an inducement to 
 the various parties interested, and partly no doubt to 
 avoid difficulties and disputes which might otherwise arise 
 as to the apportionment, leave was given to divide and 
 separate their estates. When inclosure of fen land takes 
 
 ^ " I know no township in the West Riding, except that of Wath-upon-Derne, 
 where the turnips are cultivated in any degree of perfection in the open fields." 
 Agric. Report, West Riding (1799), p. 134. 
 
 ^ But common consent was insufficient, unless a common method was adopted 
 in using turnips when grown in the open fields. The best farmer anxious to 
 obtain the best results from this consumption often sold the crop to a butcher 
 or grazier, who would turn in his sheep. Other farmers might pull their 
 turnips and carry them home. The result of this difference was to the 
 advantage of the latter, who not only had their own turnips, but shared in the 
 manure of the sheep fed on the turnips of the former. They might, it is 
 suggested, get even a larger share, since the sheep would prefer lying on bare 
 land. Agric. Report, North Riding, p. 109, etc. 
 
 '^ Agric. Report, Middlesex (1798), p. II4; Hertford (\iQ6,), p. 48. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 321 
 
 place during the eighteenth century, a like necessity 
 presented itself. In certain cases some demarcation of 
 rights, as where different hamlets and villages were 
 interested in the same inclosure, was inevitable. The 
 common fen or property was divided, and so assigned to 
 the various villages, to be held by them in common as far 
 as their inhabitants were concerned, an allotment which 
 led to subsequent inclosure, either by act or agreement.^ 
 
 But drainages of this kind, which were required in 
 order to make land cultivable, were not always welcomed 
 by the inhabitants, even by those possessed of rights. 
 ^' Some, we hear, have objected on the ground that it is 
 better for them when it is most under water, as the fodder, 
 thatch, and the like cannot be destroyed by cattle, and 
 there is plenty of fish."^ As a rule, it may be assumed, the 
 better employment of the land would outweigh such minor 
 advantages so far as those legally possessed of rights were 
 concerned, and to such employment drainage was an 
 obvious preliminary.^ 
 
 Quite distinct from the above was the ordinary drainage 
 of agricultural land. Here the question was not that of 
 bringing land into cultivation, but of cultivating it to 
 advantage, and to this the abolition of intermixed rights 
 was essential. In the open field system incalculable 
 damage might be inflicted on a number of owners by the 
 obstinacy, ignorance, or neglect of one man. The water- 
 courses essential to the whole field might be stopped by 
 one occupier.* The good of inclosure in different counties 
 in this respect is dealt with in the Reports to the Board 
 of Agriculture* and elsewhere. In addition to this is the 
 
 1 Holland Fen, Limoln, Recovery Rolls, 9 G. III. (1769), Trinity 141. Cf. 
 King's Sedgmoor, Somerset, Rec. Rolls, 36 G. III. (1796). Hilary 29. 
 
 ' Reflections on the various advantages resulting from the draining, inclosing, 
 and allotting of large commons and common fields, by W. Pennington, 1769, p. 39. 
 
 ^Agric. Reports: Xorfolk, p. 137 ; Somerset {X]^%\ p- I3°- 
 
 < Stone, Suggestions, pp. 20, 21. Agric. Report, Worcester, p. 56. 
 
 = As Oxford, pp. 99-101, etc. In the absence of proper drains^e, lands 
 often ploughed into high ridges. Agric. Reports : Gloucester (1807), p. 103 ; 
 East Riding (1Z12), p. 109. Cf. Oxford, p. 103. 
 
 X 
 
322 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 incidental opportunity offered at the inclosure of carrying 
 out certain works of advantage common to the district 
 and the various lands affected, as, for instance, irrigation 
 or large drainages.^ The cost could be defrayed at the 
 common expense of those likely to benefit. 
 
 Amid the very record, however, of the improvements 
 thus achieved, it is interesting to note evidence of the risk 
 involved in inclosure of releasing the bad and lazy farmer 
 from all restraint. Thus in the case of Wilts it is pointed 
 out that the soil of the downs might in unskilful hands be 
 made worse, and that therefore a state of severalty might 
 sometimes be injurious. Much the same is observed with 
 reference to the wolds in the East Riding of Yorkshire 
 where rapacious cultivation led to exhaustion of the soil 
 and to ultimate loss.^ 
 
 The foregoing investigation of the general impressions 
 and views of contemporary writers, as well as of the facts 
 which they record with varying degrees of accuracy, opens 
 the way to some general summary, and to an attempt to 
 disentangle from the mass of detail the more permanent 
 economic principles which underlay the movement and 
 determined its results at different epochs. These principles 
 may be considered at the various epochs as they operate 
 sometimes in unison, sometimes separately, and sometimes 
 in obvious antagonism. At times, too, they or any of them 
 are overlaid by particular causes which serve to obscure 
 or even for the time to counteract their natural operation. 
 
 Firstly, the natural suitability of the land for a par- 
 ticular crop demands attention. As we have already seen 
 the importance of this was recognised by some observers 
 as when at an early time the claim is urged that inclosure 
 allows land to be put to the particular use for which it is 
 best suited, or again when the difference in results of an 
 
 ^ Large drainages, Agric. Report, Derbyshire, ii. (1813), 485. Irrigation, 
 Gen. Report, pp. 93-95. 
 
 "^ Agric. Reports, Wilts, p. 46, "Severalty makes a good farmer better and a 
 bad one worse " ; East Riding, pp. 93, 94 ; History of Worcester, T. Nash 
 (1781), Introduction, p. xii., "A bad tenant may plunder and impoverish 
 an inclosed farm much easier than he can a common field farm. " 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 323 
 
 inclosure, whether beneficial or not, is ascribed to the 
 nature of the soil. Obviously the consequences are 
 different when under the old system the land is already, 
 though possibly less fully, under the same crops or in 
 the same use as will occur when it falls into individual 
 cultivation. In this sense the supersession of the common 
 system is most conspicuous in result when it takes place 
 in respect of land which is not fitted for so great a 
 dependence on arable as was its former lot. In this 
 connection it is well to remember that inclosed pasture 
 was not an original or a very leading feature in the open 
 field system. 
 
 Secondly, the nature of the inclosure whether of waste 
 and common or of cultivated land is important. No 
 doubt this distinction was in large measure due to geo- 
 logical differences, but with these were conjoined other 
 differences. Distance from the village, the need of outlay 
 in drainage and the presence of forest, all play their part. 
 The reclamation of waste or partial waste and the inclosure 
 of even good sheep commons have one particular effect 
 Consequent on it, some arable cultivation usually ensued, 
 and this in its turn often allowed or even occasioned the 
 conversion of other land already in arable to grass. This 
 dislocation of employment might take place without any 
 concurrent diminution in the food supply. 
 
 Thirdly, progress in the method of cultivation not only 
 causes the demand for separate control over land, but 
 allows land to be profitably turned to purposes for which 
 previously it was not available. 
 
 Fourthly, the growth of population, and in particular 
 the local growth in towns and districts filled with home 
 industries, affects the use of the land. In the neighbour- 
 hood of such a district or town there is a natural tendency 
 to bring land under inclosure, mainly in order to meet the 
 needs of the town population : while on the other hand 
 the growing industries offer ultimate employment to those 
 who in its course may be deprived of rural work. In the 
 early period the chief effect of town development upon 
 
324 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the district lay in its adverse influence on the self- 
 contained village which led to the retention of so much 
 land in arable ; in later times the requirements of the 
 town for milk, meat, and local necessaries, were of great 
 importance. 
 
 Fifthly, the state of the country with regard to locomo- 
 tion and transport determines the extent to which the 
 land can be used, for other purposes than those necessary 
 to supply the daily needs of those who dwell on it. 
 
 Lastly, the circumstances of any crop both as regards 
 its cost of production and the demand for it, produce an 
 effect not only on the progress of inclosure but on its 
 locality and its results. 
 
 It remains to trace the relative effect of these influences 
 at the different periods which have passed under our 
 consideration. 
 
 In the early period, during the fifteenth century and 
 well into that which followed, the exciting cause of 
 inclosure was the remarkable coincidence between a 
 want of profit from arable and the growth of profit from 
 wool. On the one hand hired labour had become scarce 
 and costly, while the land, exhausted by too frequent 
 cropping, was in many parts ill-suited for arable use. 
 This defect, indeed, was not uniform, the soils naturally 
 suited to arable being apparently less affected. On 
 the other hand, the demand for English wool had 
 increased. It is true that the export of raw wool had 
 been restricted, but that had taken place specifically on 
 account of the home manufacture, and with the intention 
 of substituting for it the export of cloth. The manufac- 
 ture of this, though no doubt widespread, so far as the 
 local supply was concerned, had led to the development 
 of certain industrial districts where industry was busied 
 in the production of fabrics of the better order, or of 
 special kinds, needed both at home and abroad. Hence 
 arose in these neighbourhoods an increased demand for 
 wool, while, in addition, the self-maintaining village with 
 its necessary common agricultural system was yielding. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 325 
 
 The requirements of the industrial population produced 
 an inevitable result. Locomotion had increased, but, as 
 far as the transport of wool was concerned, it seems 
 probable that the main line was still from west to east. 
 The industrial growth of the eastern counties is too 
 well known to need emphasis ; but, undoubtedly, a like 
 growth was taking place in the west. The wool pastures 
 of Gloucester were of old standing, but there had been 
 increase. Somerset and, at any rate during the sixteenth 
 century, Devonshire had achieved a new importance. In 
 both these latter manufacture had developed. Memorials 
 of this still remain in the yarn marts and the evidences 
 of a considerable population as in the churches dating 
 to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In the begin- 
 ning of the seventeenth century we are told that Devon- 
 shire was too busied in manufacture to provide its own 
 corn, and that its industry consumed not only its own 
 wool, but that of Somerset, though possibly Somerset 
 may be included with it, and that from further off, from 
 Cornwall, Dorset, Warwick, and Worcester. 
 
 Now, as to the inclosure ; that, if Fitz Herbert's 
 account be taken, consisted in the inclosure of demesne 
 accompanied by license in many cases to tenants to 
 inclose their lands, the object being conversion to pasture. 
 It is further evident from the re-enactment of the Statute 
 of Merton that an attempt was made to enable approve- 
 ment to be carried on. Probably fronj the reference 
 to the wastes at the end of the century, and the demand 
 for their use, this was not very effective. No doubt 
 where the soil was more or less suited to inclosed pasture 
 considerable local conversion of its use from arable 
 to wool took place ; but, as already pointed out, this 
 was not invariable. In many cases excellent corn was 
 still produced in the inclosures. Again, some woodland 
 was brought into agricultural use, thus increasing the 
 area under cultivation and in many cases being employed 
 for corn. But, in addition to the general change thus 
 experienced over a wide area, the change which took 
 
326 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 place in the use of the land in particular districts was 
 more marked. In the west and the east, where both 
 the demand for wool and the requirements of the urban 
 and manufacturing population combined, and in the 
 districts round London, the movement towards inclosure 
 was, it may be asserted, much greater than elsewhere. 
 
 Towards the end of the sixteenth century new factors 
 present themselves, which during the succeeding century 
 become of increasing force, and dethrone the use of 
 land as pasture from being so prominent an aim and 
 concomitant of inclosure. Arable agriculture enters on 
 a period of progress, and new methods of cultivation 
 are within the power of the careful and enlightened 
 tenant. To pursue these necessitates departure from 
 tradition, and security against the depredations and bad 
 farming of neighbours evilly disposed, or more slovenly 
 and less progressive in their methods. Again, with the 
 general progress locomotion and transport diminish the 
 extent to which a locality, often a small locality, is 
 dependent for the satisfaction of its wants upon its own 
 produce. Further, new crops as fruit offer a prospect 
 of gain in certain parts of the country. 
 
 In addition to these positive changes, certain of the 
 causes which formerly operated in the encouragement 
 of pasture at the expense of crops disappear or become 
 of less influence. The land which had suffered from 
 exhaustion till its crop-bearing power had been but 
 slight, regained fertility, and was available for use. Not 
 only so, but the wastes and uncultivated lands attracted 
 attention. Partly because distance is no longer an im- 
 passable barrier and partly by reason of awakened interest, 
 their cultivation in some one or other form is both advocated 
 and attempted. As has been said, one writer indicates 
 them as a source from which the required arable products 
 may be obtained without the difficulties which must 
 accompany the reconversion of lands, once arable but 
 then in pasture, to their original use, while the movement 
 of the Diggers is in large measure a claim to their use 
 
EFFECTS OF ENCLOSURE 327 
 
 by those either dispossessed or unemployed. Side by 
 side with this we have the great enterprises, such as 
 the draining of the Bedford level, and in the Fens further 
 woodland inclosure occurs. Nor are these all. The 
 scarcity of labour, once important, apparently exists no 
 longer. Where once a lord sought tenants, now tenants 
 seek a lord and the land in the manor. 
 
 Hence, in this period, inclosure takes on a new aspect, 
 and is attended by different results than those formerly 
 described. 
 
 In the first place, inclosure undertaken in view of a 
 variety of aims and under differing conditions takes place 
 over a wider area, though not necessarily to a greater 
 extent. In particular, it occurs in many districts in the 
 interests of better arable and the progressive farmer, and 
 very often on land previously lying almost waste, or 
 affording at best scant pasture for a few half starved sheep, 
 some of the land thus treated being turned to arable, and 
 some to meadow or inclosed pasture. 
 
 In the second place, when change in use takes place, 
 conversion to pasture is by no means the only form. 
 In the home counties lying round the metropolis, where 
 the town exercised its usual influence, and where, as 
 can be seen from a comparison of Ogilby's travels with 
 those of Leland, the inclosed land had greatly increased, 
 the proportion between the various uses of land does 
 not seem to have been seriously disturbed. No doubt 
 in any locality some land in arable had been put to 
 pasture, and some purely under pasture to arable, with 
 probably disturbing results on the local employment. 
 But there is no evidence of any dominant conversion to 
 one or the other use. Elsewhere, however, this was not 
 the case. Where the soil offered particular advantages, 
 farming followed these, and land was turned to its 
 best use. The Midland grass lands take on more and 
 more the appearance of pasture. The same was true 
 of North Wilts. On the other hand, in East Norfolk, and 
 in the East Anglian counties, arable attracts the farmer. 
 
328 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 In towns the question of storing grain is prominent, and 
 granaries are erected in London, Oxford, and doubtless 
 elsewhere. Even early in the century we hear of Devon- 
 shire, no doubt the district abutting on Somerset, as 
 drawing its food supply from elsewhere, while, according 
 to Blith, in 1652 many counties, as Hertfordshire, Essex, 
 Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Berkshire, Hampshire, Wiltshire 
 and Somerset not only raise their own corn but contribute 
 to the supply of the metropolis. 
 
 Thus, in the third place, where conversion is a feature, 
 it probably takes place far more thoroughly and uni- 
 formly than was previously the case. Districts suitable 
 for corn became corn districts, those suited to sheep 
 or cattle, respectively sheep districts and cattle districts. 
 In particular, a part of the Midlands is turned more 
 and more to pasture, and in the east, land begins to bear 
 its present aspect in respect of grain. Taking the compo- 
 sitions for depopulation for the years 1635-8, the only 
 counties where these bear a high proportion to area, are 
 in their order, Leicester, Northampton, Rutland, Hants, 
 and Lincoln. Very much below them stand Hertford and 
 Nottingham, while in the other counties mentioned, these 
 payments are insignificant. 
 
 At the end of the century there was, we are told, 
 immense activity in inclosing with, as its result, a large 
 increase in the arable area. 
 
 By this time, as during the eighteenth century, the in- 
 troduction of fresh crops, as clover, new grasses, and later, 
 turnips, combines with the general improvement in method 
 to render inclosure imperative in the interests of arable. 
 The same takes place when careful and scientific breeding 
 supersedes the former casual methods of dealing with the 
 live stock. Greater use and better means of transport 
 further increase the tendency to inclosure. Nor must the 
 force of habit be ignored. Imitation, which was a factor 
 in the seventeenth, grows with the increase in the propor- 
 tion of inclosed to uninclosed lands. 
 
 One particular matter, namely, the time of the inclosures 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 329 
 
 in the districts which were suitable for arable rather than 
 pasture, and now are under arable, or, at any rate, mixed 
 farming, calls for remark here. There seems little room for 
 doubt that much inclosing in the early period took place 
 in view of conversion to pasture ; there is also no doubt 
 that during the period of inclosing by private act, many of 
 the counties standing high in the proportion of land in- 
 closed are pasture counties. Further, it must be remem- 
 bered that much of the complaint raised against the new 
 movement was directed rather against the result of de- 
 population and want of rural employment, than against 
 the movement itself These facts point to the conclusion 
 that during the seventeenth and the early years of the 
 eighteenth century very considerable progress was made 
 in the inclosure of the districts naturally suited by soil 
 and other reasons to crops. This question will be con- 
 sidered further on. 
 
 In the main, it is evident that it was by means of inclo- 
 sure that the differentiation of land to the use for which 
 soil, aspect and climate rendered it suitable took place. 
 As during the early period, however, sheep farming stands 
 almost alone as a motive instigating change in the use of 
 land, differentiation only rises into prominence as this 
 phase ends. On the other hand, in the eighteenth cen- 
 tury, the increased demand of large town populations for 
 animal products, as milk and meat, has to be met in great 
 part from the neighbourhood, a circumstance which has 
 some effect upon the use to which the land, when in- 
 closed, is put.^ 
 
 ' Letters of First Earl of Malmesbury (pub. 1870), p. 144. Letter from Mr. 
 Hooper to J. Harris, M.P., 1766. "A notion prevails that a Bill will be 
 offered for inclosing Enfield Chase and Epping Forest and dividing them into 
 small farms as a. means of adding considerably to the supply of provisions 
 wanting for this overgrown metropolis." This of course does not restrict use 
 to animal produce. Cf. Agric. Report, Wilts, p. 87. Inclosure sends people 
 into towns and increases supply of food for towns. Derby, 174, results of 
 increased demand for meat and animal produce on use made of the land. 
 Laficashire. In this county much conversion into grass at end of century- 
 Drain of population into towns noted, p. 393. 
 
Ill 
 
 PARTICULAR PRODUCTS 
 
 On turning from the effect of the inclosures upon cultiva- 
 tion in its general aspect to that produced on the things 
 cultivated, fresh considerations come into count and new 
 means present themselves for estimating the consequences 
 if not for testing the benefits or injuries of the movement. 
 Some writers seized on this as a positive and absolute test, 
 and any diminution or increase in some one or other 
 article was hailed as direct proof of the disadvantages or 
 advantage of inclosure, ignoring too often the concurrent 
 change necessarily occasioned in something else. Apart, 
 however, from this error, it is important to examine the 
 results thus occasioned. 
 
 Inclosure needs to be examined in respect of its effects 
 on minor products, on the growth of timber, on cattle and 
 sheep and their products, and, lastly, on grain. 
 
 So far as minor or miscellaneous agricultural products 
 were concerned, it is probable that considerable alterations 
 were caused. Thus, in the eighteenth century it seemed 
 probable, or at any rate possible, to Horner, that the 
 economy in carriage had led to some direct decrease in the 
 number of horses, and so, as he adds, in the quantity of 
 land laid down in horse beans.^ Again, certain products 
 peculiarly suited, in the existing and disordered condition 
 
 ^Horner. Essay upon the Nature and Method, etc., p. 17. Cf. Fitz 
 Herbert's Book of Husbandry, p. 15. " Whereas is no several pasture, there 
 the horse plow is better, for the horses may be tethered or tied upon leys, 
 balks, or hades, whereas oxen may not be kept." Cf. Inquiry into reasons for 
 and against inclosure, etc., p. 19, as to draught horses. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 331 
 
 of the commons must have been greatly affected when the 
 land was separated, and when, in consequence, land could 
 be turned to other uses. One writer complains of the 
 decrease of hogs in Leicestershire, some hundreds, he says, 
 
 " were kept in the open field parishes, which, since they 
 
 have been inclosed, have not kept any," ^ and further notes 
 the decrease in geese or poultry from the inclosure of large 
 commons.^ On the other hand, the inclosure, we are told, 
 affords an opportunity for the cultivation of commercial 
 plants, as hemp, flax, and the like, as also of cattle foods 
 and other food substances, as turnips, carrots, and potatoes.* 
 But after all what do such complaints and assertions amount 
 to, but that given the opportunity to employ the land for 
 new purposes as well as old, in some instances and to some 
 extent the old crops which once held on by reason or 
 right of monopoly, must give place to the new. Permanent 
 decrease, however, was not necessarily involved, since 
 though less space was devoted to them, the former crops 
 or stock might increase owing to the inclosure. With the 
 general development of agriculture, too, the demand for 
 horses must have speedily reached, and even exceeded, the 
 earlier requirements. 
 
 Somewhat different from the above were certain products 
 directly encouraged by the very circumstance of inclosure. 
 Among such were to be included the fruit trees which in 
 some districts, as in Worcester, Hereford, and Gloucester 
 were planted in the hedges, a feature well recognised in the 
 seventeenth century.* Orchards, it is needless to add, 
 involved inclosure. 
 
 ^ An inquiry into reasons for and agai7ist inclosing^ p. 19. 
 
 ^ Id,, also Agric. Report, Derby (l8n), iii. 179. 
 
 'Erasmus Darwin, Phytologia. Forster {England s Happiness Increased, 
 1664, p. 22), advocating the planting of potatoes, urges in their favour as a 
 food-stuff "there hath been of late years divers whole lordships and towns 
 inclosed and their earable land converted into pasture ground, which practice 
 being still continued, and more and more land inclosed every year," will lead in 
 time to a rise in the price of corn. 
 
 * " Inclosures, nevertheless, have this advantage (which perhaps is peculiar 
 to Hereford, Worcester, and some parts of Gloucester), that in the hedges fruit 
 
332 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 The growth of wood and timber was a matter of great 
 general and, in some respects, national importance, and 
 one in which, owing to the length of time required before 
 any profit could be obtained, the interests of the individual 
 cultivator and of the community might well be held to be 
 at variance. Wood as fuel and timber for construction 
 were necessary commodities, and the argument that inclo- 
 sure led to their increase, or at any rate their maintenance, 
 was strongly emphasised by those who advocated the 
 division of the lands. To some extent the argument 
 depended for its force upon the great feature of English 
 inclosures, that is the hedges. 
 
 That open field cultivation had led and was leading to 
 a dearth of wood of some kind or other in the sixteenth 
 and seventeenth centuries, and that this was injurious is 
 supported by evidence of undoubted strength. Leland in 
 his tour throughout the country constantly refers to the 
 presence of wood in the inclosed districts and its absence 
 where " champaign " prevailed. On the borders of Leicester 
 and Northampton where all or nearly all was open, he 
 says that wood was scarce o.wing to this very reason.^ 
 In Somerset he writes that " near the shore there is no 
 great store of wood that is all in hedgerows of inclosures," ^ 
 and passing through the inclosed districts notes, " the 
 elmewood wherewith most part of all Somerset is in 
 hedgerows inclosed." ^ Again, a pertinent contrast is 
 drawn between the vale of Aylesbury which " for the 
 most part is clean barren of wood and is champaign," and 
 the Chilterns which are " well wooded and full of 
 inclosures." ^ The accuracy of his observation, of which 
 the above may serve as examples, is well substantiated by 
 
 trees maybe planted." Nourse, T., Campania Felix (1700), p. 28. "The 
 hedgerows in the highways are filled with fruit trees," cf. Worcester, England's 
 Kemarques (1678), p. 211. In Standish's Commons Complaittt, p. 34, 
 reference to the fruit trees in hedges and fields of Worcester, Gloucester, and 
 Hereford. Blith adds great part of Kent ; p. 127. 
 
 ^ Leland, Itinerary, vol. L p. 15. ^ Id. ii. p. 65. 
 
 '^Id. iv. p. 123 ; and cf. i. 41, 1 18, v. 9, etc. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 333 
 
 others writing about the end of that century and later, 
 whose testimony, referring as it does to different districts, 
 enables his general conclusion to be taken as fairly 
 applicable throughout the country.^ The hedges of Kent ^ 
 and Suffolk were notorious, but in both cases we find 
 observers noting a lack of wood in those districts where 
 the proportion of champion was greatest* Probably at 
 this period, that is the latter sixteenth and seventeenth 
 centuries, it was the consequent lack of fuel which was of 
 most concern. The constant complaint is the lack of 
 wood and fuel, often of wood for fuelling, one writer in 1 6 1 3 
 speaking of "champaign countries where land is barren 
 and fewell so scant that they are constrained to burn the 
 straw and manure." * Another writes that " the fuel 
 which they want in the champion is supplied by in- 
 closure."* This need was met in the inclosed districts by 
 the ordinary hedges and more particularly by hedges in 
 which trees were planted. The top wood of the hedges 
 
 ' Standish, Commons Complaint, p. 9-10, asserts profit of planting timber in 
 hedges seen in many counties, especially Essex, where more care taken of 
 hedges and timber in the hedges than in Northampton, Leicester, Rutland, 
 and other counties ; where in consequence more need of timber and firewood 
 than elsewhere. This emphasised New Directions of Experience to the 
 Commons Complaint, 1613, where, p. 6, the writer speaks of champain 
 •counties where land is barren. Lansdown MS. , 487, f. 433. Burton, Leicester- 
 shire (1622), notes, p. 2, want of wood and fuel in south-east of the shire 
 where " it is almost all champain." Lee, Vindication, p. 21, gives as an 
 im portant advantage of inclosure that it nourishes wood. Moryson, Fynes ( 1 6 1 7 ) 
 in reference to Kent "des verges et des hayes vines qui enferment las terres 
 labourables et des prairies," p. 24. In the Considerations coiuerning common 
 fields, etc., 1653, p. II, profit of hedges asserted, as also in the Summary given 
 in the Vindication of the Considerations. Blome in Britannia (1673) speaking 
 of Kent says, p. 122, " it is also sufficiently fiirnished with wood for fuelling 
 and good timber trees, except towards the east where it is more champion." 
 Thus Reyce, Breviary, says, p. 33, of Suffolk that wood is plentiftil in all parts 
 "save towards the champion." Further, see A New System of Agriculture, 
 John Laurence, 1726, p. 47. 
 
 2 Kent, Moryson, Fynes; Halstead's Kent; Blome, Britannia, p. 122. 
 Suffolk, Reyce, Breviary, p. 133 ; also above as to Essex. 
 
 'See above. < Standish, New Directions, etc., p. 6. 
 
 'Lansdown MS., 487, f. 433. 
 
334 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 is mentioned as a source of profit.^ But in addition to 
 the supply of fuel the hedges where trees are planted is 
 regarded by many as a source from which timber could be 
 obtained. For this purpose trees are to be planted in 
 hedges : while by some it is urged that inclosure leads in 
 general to planting.^ The effect on planting other than 
 in hedges would seem, however, to become of importance 
 later, and mainly in the eighteenth century when the 
 value of regular plantations was better understood and 
 when the impossibility of securing such under the 
 common field system was recognised. That it might 
 encourage plantation seems obvious for the very same 
 reasons which apply to any other improvement in which 
 the enlightened wishes of any one proprietor might be 
 obstructed by the ignorance of others under the open field 
 system ; but the extent to which this opportunity was 
 utilised is much more doubtful. In the case of two 
 counties we have definite evidence to this effect, and 
 Horner, writing more generally, claims that it has operated 
 in this direction.^ On the other hand in answer to him 
 it was contended that as a matter of fact comparatively 
 little plantation took place in consequence of inclosure.* 
 To the effects thus achieved must be added another, due 
 to the greater security furnished by inclosure against depre- 
 dation and wilful destruction where trees existed. On the 
 other hand the temptation to clear land and fell timber 
 when such passed into individual ownership must be 
 taken into account 
 
 In this instance, as indeed in many others, it is necessary 
 to distinguish somewhat carefully between the conse- 
 quences of inclosure at different periods and under different 
 circumstances. As cultivation extended the waste woods 
 themselves the subject of common tend to be cleared and 
 
 ' CottsidiTotions, etc., p. II ; Standish, New Directions, etc., v. supra. 
 "Summary given in Vindication of the Considerations, p. 42, etc. 
 ^ Agric. Reports, Cambridge (1813), p. 197; Rutland (iZoS), pp. 40, 107; 
 Horner, p. 41. 
 * Inquiry into reasons for and against inclosing, etc. , p. 9. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 235 
 
 brought into more definite use. Alike as a consequence 
 and a cause of growth such a development was inevitable. 
 But even apart from it, forests under common use would 
 suffer from depredation and neglect, while the intermixture 
 of interests would prevent their maintenance by replanting 
 and other measures for preservation. Granted the ex- 
 tension of cultivation, inclosure operated undoubtedly 
 towards the provision of wood both as fuel and as timber, 
 in the early period largely by increase of hedgerows and 
 the planting of timber trees on banks and in the hedges, 
 but later on because it made it possible for those who 
 desired to afforest or at any rate to maintain woods to do 
 so without depending on the consent of others. 
 
 In respect of cattle and sheep inclosure was welcomed 
 by many from early times as a means alike of improve- 
 ment and economy. The language of Fitz Herbert in 
 the sixteenth century who estimates profits as likely to be 
 doubled is re-echoed in the seventeenth century and by 
 none more strongly than Houghton who writes with 
 indignation of " pernicious commons which have led to 
 small and underfed and badly cared for cows."^ The 
 same general verdict is, of course, widely expressed in 
 the eighteenth century when different observers furnish 
 different illustrations of the defects of the commons and 
 open field system and the corresponding advantages 
 noticed or to be expected from its supersession. Thus 
 one attacks the argument that commons are good as 
 nurseries of young cattle,^ another gives instances where 
 inclosure has enabled a farmer to fatten his sheep instead 
 of selling them, as formerly, for stores,* while others 
 compare from their experience the sheep in the inclosures 
 
 ^ Fitz Herbert, Book of Husbandry, p. 77 ; Considerations, 12, etc Five 
 reasons given; (l) Less attendance required; (2) Cattle quieter and not 
 harried by dogs and exposed to infection; (3) Cattle can be out at night; 
 (4) Ground not spoilt by cattle being driven to and fro; (S) Kept on most 
 suitable land ; Vindication of the Considtraiions, tie, 42, etc. ; Houghton, 
 Collections {l6gZ), p. no. 
 
 ^Tucker, J., Elements of Commerce, pp. 52-3. 
 
 ^ Agric. Rep., Leicester, p. 72. 
 
336 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 with those in the open fields and on the commons.^ On 
 the general aspect of the case Bakewell, the celebrated 
 breeder, expressed himself strongly to Arthur Young. 
 His opinion is worth quoting and may be compared with 
 that of Fitz Herbert, pronounced more than two centuries 
 before. " He asserts," Young records, " from long atten- 
 tion that if two poor men buy each of them a cow in the 
 spring, and one turns his into the forest, and the other 
 pays a farmer is. 6d. a week for the food of his among 
 the farmer's cows, and at Michaelmas if both are driven 
 to the market and sold, the difference in the price will 
 more than repay the weekly expense of the man who 
 rejected the ideal advantage of the common. The 
 difference of the product may be imagined. And in 
 sheep the contrast would be still greater." - 
 
 In illustration and support of this position many and 
 various advantages are mentioned as arising from inclosure. 
 The shelter of the hedges in the inclosed fields is con- 
 sidered important by some, probably in districts where the 
 situation was bleak,^ the provision of adequate winter feed 
 by others, a security greatly lacking under the common 
 system,* while mention is likewise made of the risk to 
 sheep in being turned out of the warm fold into the 
 exposed common or open field,^ and the natural difference 
 in the forest district between sheep wandering about in 
 the woods and those cared for in a field.® A point more 
 
 ^ ylgric. Hep., Rutland, p. 129; Agric. Rep., Bedford, by Storie, 1794, 
 PP- 31. 32- 
 
 '^Annals of Agriculture, vi., p. 497. 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, North Riding (iSoo), 90- 1 ; A ^ierui of Devonshire, ?'» 1630, 
 by T. Westcott, p. 60. Tusser Redivivus, 1710, Feb., p. 9, explanation of 
 Tusser's meaning in note, when speaking of hedging, the annotator says, 
 " this is an excellent way to improve bleak grounds." 
 
 ■* Vindication of the consideraiiotis, etc. , p. 42 etc. ; Agric. Report, Wilts. 
 (1813), p. 40; according to a Political Enquiry into the consequences of 
 inclosing luaste lands, etc., 1785, p. 45 ; cottagers keeping sheep often send 
 them to board with farmers in the winter. 
 
 ^ Stone, Suggestions, p. 17. 
 
 'Agric. Report [lygS], Nottingham, p. 125. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 337 
 
 frequently emphasised is the greater quiet of the inclosed 
 pastures where cattle and sheep have not to be constantly 
 driven to and fro, not only to the injury of the ground, 
 but to their own detriment. Cows thus kept yield more 
 milk, and the butter is better.^ As to the results on sheep 
 there is more dispute, as will be seen later on.^ 
 
 But there are more important results than those thus 
 alluded to, which call for more detailed consideration. 
 
 In the first place, the general condition of the common 
 often led to insufficient feeding. Whatever may be thought 
 of Houghton's epithet "pernicious" as referring to commons 
 under favourable and original conditions there can be no 
 doubt as to its applicability in the case of unstinted and 
 overstocked commons. The difficulties of maintaining the 
 former limitations on the beasts entitled to common have 
 been described already. By gradual steps these had led 
 in some parts to attempted regulation by number, and in 
 others to a virtual abandonment of any control. There is 
 little reason to believe in the efficacy of the former measure. 
 Neighbours without rights invaded the commons lying by 
 them. The rich crowded their beasts on and literally eat 
 out the poor : while worst of all the sale of right of 
 common to jobbers and rich graziers augmented the class 
 of those interested only in the herbage of the land, whether 
 in open field or in common, who seem to have pursued 
 their ends recklessly and without consideration for others.' 
 In the sixteenth and still more in the seventeenth century 
 there is abundant complaint of this tendency. By the 
 eighteenth century it is evidently irresistible. Even where 
 
 ^ Considerations, p. 12 ; more milk ; cf. An Essay on Ways and Means for 
 inclosing, fallowing, planting, etc., Scotland, by a Lover of his Country, 1729, 
 p. 38. Butter, Tusser Redivivus (1710), April 12. 
 
 ^ A Political Enquiry into the consequences, etc., 1785, p. 50, asserts fine wool 
 on commons; but half starved sheep according to Agric. Report, Warwick, p. 62. 
 
 ' In addition to those actually interested in agriculture there were, accord- 
 ing to some writers, a host of undesirable characters. "The men who usually 
 reside near a common are the depredators of the neighbourhood ; smugglers, 
 sheep stealers, horse jockies and jobbers of every denomination here find their 
 abode." Agric. Report, Suffolk, pp. 146-7. 
 
 Y 
 
338 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 commons were rated or stinted they were often overstocked,* 
 in too many places the restriction on numbers being merely 
 nominal. Under these circumstances it is little wonder 
 that there were widespread complaints of the small and 
 underfed cattle and sheep reared upon them. Nor do the 
 complaints meet with any adequate answer from those who 
 still remained faithful adherents to the old system. What 
 defence they could offer depended on the supposition 
 that commons and fields could be effectively regulated 
 and the stint rigidly observed. The experience of two 
 centuries showed how futile was this belief 
 
 In the second place, a new opportunity was afforded for 
 keeping cattle and sheep on the land best suited to them. 
 No doubt in the common system some rough attempt had 
 been made in this direction, but custom as also the 
 wishes of others had to be consulted. Under in- 
 closure land could be apportioned to one or other use as 
 seemed best. Moreover with the growth of means of 
 communication a further extension of the same principle 
 became possible. In the open field system the land subject 
 to apportionment between crops and stock was that of the 
 manor, or the village, or the hamlet. Some of that was 
 arable, some was meadow, and some lay in pasture. Only 
 when that system is superseded do we find pasture and 
 cattle or sheep spreading throughout a whole array of 
 parishes, while elsewhere there was little stock and much 
 arable. As a consequence the relation between stock 
 and crops differs in different districts. In the eighteenth 
 century it made of Leicester a sheet of green sward, while 
 parts of Norfolk were covered with grain. As a writer of 
 an earlier date already cited, says " when tillage is more 
 profitable than pasturage, men will break up their pastures 
 to till ; and why should they not have liberty then to lay 
 down their arable to land for grass when pasturage is more 
 profitable than tillage."^ 
 
 ^ Agric. Heports, Suffolk, p. 149, "even the rated are overstocked." West- 
 moreland, p. 321. 
 
 ^ Considerations, p. 21. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 339 
 
 In the third place breeding could be better carried on. 
 The old system of promiscuous pasture when the cattle and 
 sheep of all owners were herded together made even ordi- 
 nary care in breeding difficult. It made scientific breeding 
 impracticable. It was mainly in connection with this 
 latter evil that complaint became prominent Alike in 
 the Reports to the Board of Agriculture and the writings 
 of practical men like Stone, the common flock is con- 
 demned on this account, and for this, if for no other reason 
 the claim is urged that the breed of sheep and cattle is 
 improved by inclosure.^ It is not necessary to emphasise 
 the dependence on such inclosure of skilled breeding which 
 then was first finding an assured place in English agri- 
 culture owing in large measure to the experiments of 
 Bakewell. 
 
 Lastly, the danger from infectious and other disease 
 was a common ground for complaint against the open- 
 field system. So far as infection was concerned there 
 was no doubt as to the risk involved unless precautions 
 were exercised. The matter was so grave as to be dealt 
 with by act. One early act provides against the putting 
 to common pasture of any horse with scab or mange. 
 The prevalence of the danger is shown by the fact that 
 two years before the close of the eighteenth centurj' 
 it was necessary to prohibit sheep with mange.^ The 
 advantages of inclosure are obvious.^ On the other hand, 
 sheep rot, arising from the condition of the pasture, 
 may be held to be in a somewhat different position. 
 With regard to its connection with the open field, and 
 its accompanying want of care, evidence is at hand 
 from the seventeenth century. It is one of the causes 
 alleged in the Chancery suits of inclosure.* After in- 
 closure the sheep-rot in certain districts is said to be 
 
 ' Stone, Suggestions, pp. 17-18 ; Agric. Reports, Somerset (1798), pp. 53-55 ; 
 Wilts. (18 13), p. 40. 
 The early act, 32 H. VIII. c. 13 ; the later act, 38 G. III. c. 65. 
 'Some examples referred to, Agric. Report, OxforiUlSli), p. 99, etc. 
 'R.g. Chancery Enrolled Decrees, 1658 ; Great Coxwell, Rol/, 653. 
 
340 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 lessened/ Houghton emphasises the comparatively lighter 
 loss incurred on the inclosed lands during a particular 
 period of disease.^ Instances of the decrease of rot are 
 given in the latter part of the eighteenth century,^ while 
 the counter assertion as to the danger of sheep rot in 
 inclosures during the winter called forth a somewhat 
 indignant denial from Young, who says that this, when 
 it happens, is the result of individual bad management, 
 a somewhat easy retort, as it seems.* The balance of 
 evidence as to what happened in general is distinctly in 
 favour of inclosure and against the open-field system. 
 
 The results of inclosure which have been described in 
 the foregoing pages may be briefly summarised. The 
 quality and breed of both cattle and sheep was improved. 
 Again, in some instances, and especially where inclosure 
 brought with it an improvement in the grass, or where 
 more suitable pastures were substituted for less suitable 
 land, larger numbers could be reared ; on the other hand, 
 in many cases the crowded and over-stocked common 
 gave place to fields with only a due quantity of stock. 
 In such cases there were, if less beasts, better beasts.^ 
 Concurrently, however, with this, the new crops of 
 turnips and clover enabled larger flocks to be kept." The 
 economy of the new system was generally accepted, 
 though, it must be remembered, that owing to the capital 
 charges incurred in actually hedging and ditching the 
 land, early years might quite possibly show an increase 
 rather than a decrease in cost. Lastly, in sundry animal 
 products, as milk and butter, improvement was noticed. 
 
 On the other hand, there was one product, wool, in 
 respect of which the consequences of the change were 
 
 ^Lee, Vindication, etc., 'Advantages of Inclosure,' pp. 21-25. 
 
 * Houghton, Collections (1692), p, 30. 
 
 ' Agric. Report, Cambridge (1813), p. 93. 
 
 * AnnaJs of Agriculture, vL 459. 
 
 'Lee, Vindication, etc. 21-25, ' Advantages of Inclosure. ' 
 ' Houghton, Collections (1681), p. 144 ; Tucker, ElemeiUs of Commerce 
 (1 755). P- 49- 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 341 
 
 severely criticised. In the comparisons drawn between 
 the two systems of agriculture, it was constantly and 
 confidently asserted by those opposed to inclosure that 
 such tend to diminish the quantity of fine wool.^ Such 
 was in the main obtained from the breed of small sheep 
 in the open fields and commons, which were able to 
 rove about at will.^ In this, an injury to woollen 
 industry, or at any rate to certain of its branches, was 
 espied.' Even those who advocated the change of 
 system do not directly deny this charge,* or at any rate 
 its possible truth, though sometimes doubting its extent, 
 and sometimes urging alleviating circumstances. Inclosed 
 pasture with rich, artificial grass, resulted, according to 
 some, in larger sheep, though coarser wool.* Again, it 
 is urged that the defect in quality will be compensated 
 for by an increase in quantity owing to an alleged 
 increase in sheep.* Elsewhere, the argument is put for- 
 ward that this alteration, though in the main admitted, 
 is not necessarily inherent in inclosure, and that it might be 
 
 ^ Inquiry into the reastms for and against inclosing open fields, by S. 
 Addington (1772), pp. 28-9 ; A Political Enquiry (1785), p. $0. 
 
 ^ Political Enquiry, p. 61. 
 
 ' As above ; but Young gives instances to the effect that as many sheep kept 
 and as much work required in woollen districts. Young, Eastern Tour, ii. 
 5. 26. 
 
 * Tucker, however, does. Elements of Commerce, p. 50. 
 
 ' Annals of Agriculture, iii. 341. Young cites an abstract from Lord Sheffield. 
 Here a decrease in fine wool said to have occurred in some parts of England. 
 Case of Shropshire instanced, cf. Stone, Suggestions, p. 66. Address to the 
 Society for the Improvement of British Wool, by Sir John Sinclair (1791), 
 p. 9. Speaking of fine wool, the writer proceeds : " The sheep which 
 produce this sort of wool are small, delight in an extensive range of pasture, 
 and do not thrive in those narrow bounds with which the long-wooled and 
 large-sized sheep are content. They were formerly to be found in those 
 extensive commons in England of which so many have been inclosed." cf. 
 Bamaby Googe, Four Books of Husbandry, p. 132 : " The plaine and the 
 champion fields and downs are best for the delicatest and finest woUed 
 sheepe.'' 
 
 * The advantages and disadvantages of inclosing waste lands and open 
 fields, by a County Gentleman (1772), pp. 66-7 ; Tucker, Elements of 
 
 Commerce, p. 49 ; Agric. Report, Somerset (1798), pp. 69-70. 
 
342 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 remedied by proper breeding.^ A more radical attitude 
 however, is taken by Tucker,^ who, while doubting the 
 fact, contends that fineness is not essential to English 
 wool, and by Howlett,^ who points out not only that fine 
 wool is not a necessary product, but that other uses 
 of the land may be more beneficial, concluding his 
 argument with the caustic epigram, that after all " a 
 fat oxen is better than a silkworm." 
 
 ^ Thus, author of Advantages and disadvantages, etc. , cited above, and Stone, 
 Suggestions, p. 66. 
 
 ^ Elenunts of Commerce, p. 50. 
 
 'Hewlett, Enchsuris, a Cause of Improved Agriculture, etc., p. 89; cf. 
 Agric. Report, Gloucester (1807), Appendix, 403. 
 
IV 
 
 ANIMAL PRODUCTS AND GRAIN 
 
 The chief point of controversy, however, concerned the 
 total effect of inclosure upon the number of animals, or, 
 rather, the amount of animal products and the quantity of 
 grain. 
 
 This must be distinguished, on the one hand, from the 
 question of profit^ to the owners of the land, since the 
 acknowledged economy of the new system might well 
 enable a larger profit to be obtained from a smaller gross 
 produce ; and, on the other hand, from either the number 
 of acres devoted to a particular use, or, in the case of 
 stock, from the actual number of beasts, since it would be 
 of no harm to supplant a large number of poor and 
 underfed beasts by a somewhat smaller number, if larger 
 and fatter. Granted an equal production of wheat or of 
 meat, milk, and other animal commodities, it was not, 
 except so far as employment was concerned, a matter of 
 profound public concern if the acreage was less. The land 
 diverted from one or the other use might be turned to 
 other purposes ; but on this point more must be said when 
 we come to the question of population and employment. 
 Apart from this, the real matter for discussion is the result 
 of inclosure upon the quantity of grain on the one hand, 
 
 '' Testimony as to the general result in the increase of rent is too abundant 
 for quotation. Exceptions, however, might occur in the case of rich meadow 
 and pasture land (see above, p. 307). Also, good arable which might undergo 
 no change in its use, owing to particular conditions, was probably less 
 profitable for inclosure. 
 
344 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 and of animals on the other, whether as food or material, 
 or, in some instances, as means of working the land. 
 
 Decision on such matters is clearly dependent on time 
 and district, and it was neglect of this fact which led to 
 such striking diversity of opinion and to many of the 
 random assertions encountered in the literature of the 
 subject. Different observers generalised from the effect 
 occasioned in a limited area or imagined that their 
 experience was a type of all experience. 
 
 With regard to stock, one general remark may be 
 made at the outset. 
 
 At no time was mere economy in management generally 
 alleged as the sole ground for inclosure. Indeed it was 
 fairly well admitted that improvement in stock at any rate 
 in some one aspect was an aim and a result. It might of 
 course be accompanied, as in the particular instance of 
 wool, by deterioration in some other aspect. 
 
 But, granted this, the question still remains whether at 
 any time there was so great a diversion of land from 
 pasture to arable as to occasion a decrease either in 
 animals absolutely or in animals to such an extent as to 
 outweigh the improvement in quality. To arrive at any 
 conclusion in this matter, it is necessary to glance at the 
 various epochs of inclosure. Some of the evidence on 
 this point, affecting the real or alleged conversion of land 
 from arable to tillage, will be more appropriately dealt 
 with when the effect of inclosure on grain is considered. 
 
 So far, however, as inclosing during the fifteenth 
 century and the first half of the sixteenth century is 
 concerned, it seems quite safe to assert that there was 
 certainly no decrease in the number of sheep ; and the 
 same may be said, though with less array of testimony, as 
 to cattle. The complaints as to the substitution of the 
 sheep for the plough, and of a corresponding depopulation, 
 though possibly and even probably exaggerated, are wide- 
 spread as well as loud, and find some corroboration in 
 revolutionary movements and in the great development of 
 the wool trade. To them may be added the recognition 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 345 
 
 of this change and the definite attempt at its control in 
 the statutes for the retention of land in tillage, and for 
 other similar purposes. All this evidence points in the 
 one direction. 
 
 To some extent, at any rate, the same — so far, that is, 
 as actual decrease of live stock is concerned — would seem 
 to hold good of the latter part of the sixteenth century. 
 At the end of that century, however, and in the beginning 
 of the next, there are, it is true, signs at times of more 
 effective attention to arable, a feature which seems respon- 
 sible for the dropping of the tillage laws in 1594-5. But 
 this merely led to an increased demand for regulation ; as is 
 shown by the already cited preamble to the new law passed 
 in 1597-8, which is as follows: "Whereas from the 37th 
 year of King Henry the Eighth of famous memory until 
 the five and thirtieth year of her majesty's most happy 
 reign there was always in force some law which did 
 ordain a conversion and continuance of a certain quantity 
 and proportion of land in tillage not to be altered ; and 
 that in the last parliament held in the same five and 
 thirtieth year of her majesty's reign, partly by reason of 
 the great plenty and cheapness of grain at that time 
 within this realm, and partly by reason of the imperfection 
 and obscurity of the law made in that case, the same was 
 discontinued : since which time there have grown many 
 more depopulations by turning tillage into pasture than at 
 any time for the like number of years heretofore." ^ 
 About the same time were published like complaints, as, 
 for instance, that since the reign of Henry VII. matters in 
 this respect had changed for the worse, the number of 
 sheep leading to the disuse of the plough.- From the 
 
 ^39 Eliz. c. 2 (1597-8), cf. 39 Eliz. c. I (IS97-8), " and where of late years 
 more than in times past there have sundrie towns, parishes, and houses of 
 husbandry been destroyed and become desolate." 
 
 ' Certain causes gathered together ■wherein is shown the decay of England 
 (Early Eng. Tracts), p. 98, complaints of change for the worse since time 
 of Henry VII. This tract apparently dates towards end of sixteenth 
 century. The inclosure complained of is in Oxford, Buckingham, and 
 Northampton. 
 
346 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 words of another writer in 1 6 1 3 it is clear that in some 
 districts at any rate inclosures were regarded as proving 
 beneficial to the cattle ; ^ while another, a little earlier 
 (1576), asserts that "the fourth part of the ground that 
 some time was agreeable in this realm to maintain the 
 plough to breed corn is now in pasture to maintain 
 sheep." ^ Even when the injurious effect upon corn is 
 directly challenged and denied, as in the celebrated com- 
 parison of Somerset and Northampton, the increase of com 
 therein asserted is not considered as taking place at the 
 expense of stock. On the contrary, a like increase of 
 wool is alleged.' The renewed enquiries during the early 
 years of the seventeenth century, even if they do not 
 uphold the view taken of inclosures at this time as tending 
 towards depopulation and the abandonment of tillage, are 
 sufficient evidence that on the whole, live stock, and 
 especially sheep, were not diminishing but increasing.* 
 This too is generally borne out by the petitions received 
 and the proceedings undertaken by the Privy Council.* 
 Land now, as we hear, was hired by jobbers and grazing 
 butchers.* During the controversy waged in the middle 
 of this century as to the result in the Midlands, the 
 change made is the decrease of arable and not of stock. 
 
 ' Standish, New Directions of Experience to the Commons Complaint, p. 19, 
 €tc. 
 
 -Address by Alderman Box, Lansdown MS., cxxxi. 2, f. 2. 
 
 ^ Lansdown MS. 487, f. 433. 
 
 *S.P.D, ccxxix. p. 490 (1632), warrant for commission to inquire touching 
 depopulation and conversion of arable since 10 Elizabeth in counties of 
 Lincoln, Leicester, Northampton, Somerset, Wilts, Gloucester. Cf. Com- 
 mission, 1606-7. 
 
 ' P. C. Register gives numerous instances of complaint and of consequent 
 inquiries, v. vol. iv. p. 100 ; v. 700; vii. pp. 506-7, 522; viii. 194, 351; 
 ix. 301 ; X. 40, 197. As to directions to Judges of Assize, etc, and interviews 
 or correspondence with them or Sheriffs, and especially ix. 267 (9 Oct. 1633) ; 
 in the account of the interview, no mention is made of inclosures, however, 
 p. 278 (18 Oct.); ix. 301 {31 Oct. 1633). 
 
 * Depopulation arraigned by Ji.P. (1636), p. 40. This points to a particiilar 
 development apparently connected with the growth of stock for the meat 
 rsupply of towns, etc. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 347 
 
 Still it would seem clear that inclosure had gradually 
 taken on another complexion from that observed, when it 
 presents itself in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century. 
 In the words of a quotation already cited, land is being 
 put to the uses for which it is best suited ; and the writer 
 in question refers to the breaking up of pasture to arable 
 as well as to the laying down of arable to grass.^ That 
 there was a possibility of such conversion, together with 
 restrictions introduced as to the stock kept to grass, 
 turning to the disadvantage of the amount of stock 
 became clearer as the century advanced. Even where 
 fewer, or, if fewer, the beasts were better, is the argument 
 of some ; and Houghton definitely recites the objection 
 only to deny that inclosure would decrease the number 
 of sheep. On the contrary, as already pointed out, he 
 says that new sources of food for beasts are furnished by 
 the new crops of clover and turnips.* 
 
 The language used by various writers, in addition to 
 the above, about the end of this century and the beginning 
 of the eighteenth, leaves no doubt that conversions or re- 
 conversions to arable were taking place. It is immaterial 
 whether such pasture was previously in common or not, 
 the main point being that land, once used for grazing, was 
 withdrawn from that use. Thus one writer, speaking of 
 the assertion that inclosure led to land passing into arable 
 out of pasture, as applied to his days, says, " the contrary 
 is notorious,"^ to which another adds that the tendency 
 for some little time previous had been for land to pass out 
 of pasture, and writes, " I think there are not more than 
 thirteen counties at present where feeding and breeding 
 cattle is as much encouraged as formerly." * Later on in 
 
 ' Considerations, etc., pp. lo, 21. 
 
 'Houghton, Collections, 1681, p. 144, where he definitely urges that culti- 
 vation of turnips, clover, etc., will enable some sheep to be kept. This view 
 is substantiated by fact, and is emphasised in the controversy in the latter part 
 of the next century, e.g. Tucker, Elenunts of Commerce, p. 49. 
 
 ^ A New System of Agriculture, Lawrence (1726), 46. 
 
 * The Landlord's Companion, William Allen (1742), p. 18. 
 
348 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the eighteenth century when controversy was hot, views 
 were expressed on both sides, the fact being that in this 
 active period, when much common and many large tracts 
 of open field were inclosed, instances of either effect could 
 be observed.^ In Norfolk, for instance, where sheep 
 walks were divided, some went to pasture and some to 
 
 ' As to conversion to arable, Agric. Report, Bedford, several instances, pp. 
 249-50, 270-271. On p. 224, a case where opportunity for grazing much 
 diminished. Agric. Report, Essex, p. 123, citing from original draft by Hew- 
 lett, " our new inclosures which are neither very large nor very numerous, have 
 generally been converted from pasture to arable." The same writer calls 
 attention to like tendency in the case of coarse pastures of ancient inclosures. 
 
 The Committee appointed by the Common Council, i6th July, 1786, to con- 
 sider the causes of the present high price of provisions, published their report 
 in 1786. This is summarised Annals of Agriculture, vii. pp. 47-58, and criti- 
 cised. Among such causes inclosures are included, and the report gives a table 
 showing the acre^e of land, open or closed to sheep, of the inclosures in recent 
 years. 
 
 
 Acres into which 
 
 Acres into which 
 
 
 Number of 
 
 Years. 
 
 Sheep cannot 
 
 Sheep may be 
 
 Totil. 
 
 indosuzes 
 
 
 be turned. 
 
 turned. 
 
 
 unascertained. 
 
 1775 
 
 30.831 
 
 22.909 
 
 53-740 
 
 9 
 
 1776 
 
 45- 157 
 
 30.143 
 
 75-300 
 
 II 
 
 1777 
 
 49.248 
 
 42.685 
 
 91-933 
 
 17 
 
 1778 
 
 23.025 
 
 8.213 
 
 31-238 
 
 10 
 
 1779 
 
 34.812 
 
 26.407 
 
 61.219 
 
 10 
 
 1780 
 
 17-634 
 
 33-213 
 
 50.847 
 
 5 
 
 1781 
 
 8.404 
 
 12.730 
 
 21.134 
 
 3 
 
 1782 
 
 3-3IO 
 
 11.197 
 
 14.507 
 
 2 
 
 1783 
 
 4.700 
 
 24.277 
 
 28.977 
 
 4 
 
 1784 
 
 8.610 
 
 6.507 
 
 15.I17 
 
 2 
 
 1785 
 
 13-939 
 
 7.678 
 
 21.617 
 
 4 
 
 1786 
 
 15.448 
 
 7-563 
 
 23.011 
 
 4 
 
 
 255-118 
 
 233-522 
 
 488.640 
 
 81 
 
 Leaving aside the adequacy of this table as any proof, on which Young makes 
 some sarcastic comments, its figures, if reliable, certainly point to a large 
 amount of land, when inclosed, being under crop. It does not prove conver- 
 sion of pasture to arable, but it makes it probable that such took place in some 
 cases and districts. Both Young (in the Annals) and Howlett (Iticlosures a 
 cause of improved agriculture) devote considerable space to the report. 
 
 A large number of writers consider that sheep have increased, see, for 
 example, Marshall, Midlands, ii. 250 ; as to Leicester, Darwin, Phitologia ; 
 Tucker, EUtnents of Commerce, p. 49 ; Agric. Reports, Leicester ; Orig. 
 Report cited Reports, 1815, p. 393. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 349 
 
 corn, but as was pointed out even then, that remaining 
 to pasture not only might, but did, feed as many 
 sheep.^ In Yorkshire, as Marshall says, the two processes 
 went on together, while of Leicester he writes, that not long 
 ago it was an open arable county, but that then it had 
 become " a continued sheet of greensward, a district of 
 grazing lands." The conversion of land from one use to 
 another was, as has been already observed, by no means a 
 conclusive test as to the actual effects on either stock or 
 crops. This is particularly true in the case of waste and 
 many commons where, prior to inclosure, little or no cul- 
 tivation was taking place. Nominally these would rank 
 as inclosures from pasture, and thus their division between 
 arable and pasture would suggest a partial conversion from 
 one use to another, though in reality the part left to pasture 
 was first brought into effective cultivation and might well 
 produce food for very largely increased flocks or lands. 
 Even in Warwick, by no means a bare and infertile county, 
 we hear that " land that formerly kept a few half-starved 
 sheep, is now yielding abundance of both grass and corn." 
 The same is true, to an even greater extent, in the case of 
 some other counties.^ 
 
 Turning, however, to the actual quantity of stock, 
 some definite inquiries give a basis for a conclusion as to 
 the effect during this period. The results of these 
 enquiries are given in the General Report to the Board 
 of Agriculture in 1808. 
 
 No. of Incl. Parishes making No. showing No. showing 
 returns. increase. decrease. 
 
 Cattle 571 354 io6 
 
 Dairy Cows 511 255 143 
 
 Sheep 721 467 157 
 
 Taking the separate counties, increase is the general rule. 
 Of equal, if not more, importance than the effect on 
 
 ^ Young, Eastern Tour, ii. p. 5. 
 
 "^Agric. Report, Warwick (1815), p. 62. Cf. Agrie. Report, Berks, as to 
 ]and suited for tumips, pp. 527-8 ; Dorset, as to the heaths, p. 93 ; Nottingham, 
 great improvement in sheep in forest districts, p. 125. 
 
350 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 cattle and sheep is that produced on arable and grain. 
 This, which now comes before us, occupied a far larger 
 share of controversial attention than any other agricultural 
 matter, and was, as can be readily understood, a matter of 
 very critical importance. In the first place it touched the 
 provision of the ordinary staple of life, while, in the second 
 place, any alteration from arable to pasture or the reverse, 
 might make a difference in the employment to be offered in 
 the district, thus affecting, as indeed the provision of bread 
 affected, the population of the country. With these results 
 in view it is little wonder that in all discussions as to inclo- 
 sure, the effect upon arable played a very prominent part. 
 The material on which a judgment must be based has been 
 partly dealt with, but something must be added to what 
 has been said. So far as the way in which cultivation was 
 concerned little, however, is necessary. The distinction 
 may be emphasised which was previously drawn between 
 the relief offered from restrictions and disadvantages inci- 
 dental to the old system and the opportunities which grew 
 with time of adopting new and improved methods. As 
 these latter increase, the need of enabling the more pro- 
 gressive farmers to advance more and more outweighs the 
 advantages of a custom or standard which coerced idleness 
 and prevented negligence. The middle sixteenth century 
 may be broadly taken as the period during which this factor 
 makes .itself felt. Prior to that, but for the inconvenience 
 attending intermixt lands and the malpractices and tres- 
 passes of neighbours, grain might be grown as well, or 
 nearly as well, in champion or open field as in inclosures. 
 Even when the means of improvement were far greater, 
 some do not hesitate to express opinions favourable to 
 grain in the large open fields ; and though probably, as 
 things went in practice, and largely by reason of the above 
 inconveniences, the inclosed fields offered some superiority 
 even at the earlier period, such was neither great nor 
 invariable. 
 
 In view of this the effect of inclosure in early years 
 upon the actual acreage put to arable acquires great 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 351 
 
 importance. Its decrease meant a diminished supply and 
 often restricted employment. It has been usual to treat 
 the inclosures of the fifteenth century, and at least the 
 early sixteenth century as resulting fairly uniformly in a 
 conversion of arable to pasture, and as was said there is 
 abundant evidence that such often took place. On the 
 other hand, however, it is not correct to assume that 
 inclosures were all permanently used for pasture. In 
 Leland's Itinerary there is mention of enclosed land in some 
 sixty instances. Out of these sixty, in the case of twenty- 
 six, it is expressly stated that corn was grown. Some- 
 times it is termed " goodly corn land," sometimes said to 
 be fruitful or plentiful of corn, and at other times fruitful of 
 grass and corn. But in all such cases the corn was 
 obviously plentiful enough to attract Leland's notice, and 
 in his opinion to deserve" mention.^ At the time of in- 
 closure much land may have been converted to pasture, 
 but this cannot be asserted with certainty. Further, from 
 many references it would seem that after some years of 
 needed rest land would often be reconverted to arable with 
 remarkable results as far as fertility was concerned. The 
 circumstances which surrounded the land and dictated its 
 use had changed even before the end of the reign of 
 Henry VIII. One writing then says that conditions had 
 greatly changed since the time when landlords through a 
 
 ^ When the reverse was markedly the case Leland appears to call attention 
 to the fact ; thus of some land between 'Winchester and Southampton he says, 
 " apter for cattle than com " (iii. 89), of the land in Arden, " plentiful of grass 
 but not of corn " (iv. pt. 2, p. 65). Such references, however, are rare. 
 Taking, then, the occasions on which inclosures are mentioned, in twenty-six 
 there is mention of corn, often in an emphatic way. In the case of the 
 remaining thirty-four, in some very few instances the opposite is indicated. 
 Occasionally it is said that there is much wood ; but in the greater number of 
 the cases the mere fact of inclosure is recorded, and it cannot be concluded 
 that such were wholly or mainly in pasture. The fact of the land being in 
 champaign is often stated, likewise without comment 
 
 Pasture lands, however, were probably more often inclosed than arable in 
 early times. Thus Aubrey writes (Nat. History and Antiquities of Surrey, ii. 
 p. 3) "from whence to the River Thames the country, being pasture, is in- 
 closed," cf. iv. p. 172, where he speaks of inclosed pastures, etc. 
 
352 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 lack of tenants had been driven to sheep and wool, 
 and that by that date the increase of population had 
 led tenants to seek for landlords.^ The greater profit of 
 inclosures when put to corn is shown by the higher esti- 
 mate of the yield per acre, and by testimony as to 
 particular places and districts.^ Sometimes reference is 
 made to cases where land apparently has been directly 
 inclosed for arable, at other times to places where inclosed 
 pastures have been ploughed up with favourable results.* 
 This tendency cannot be assumed as operative much before 
 the close of the sixteenth century, and the efficacy of the 
 frequent efforts of the state both by laws as those of tillage, 
 and by direct action in their support will always remain a 
 matter for speculation. The discontinuance of the Statutes 
 of Tillage in 1593-4 w'as due in part to the abundance 
 of corn while the demand for their re-enactment alleges 
 that in the few intervening years further conversions to 
 pasture, and with them depopulation, had taken place. 
 On the other hand there were not wanting those who 
 thought that these laws produced little if any effect. One 
 writer finds a reason for this in the absence of any pro- 
 vision in the statutes definitely limiting the amount of 
 common or meadow, "without which no limitation of com- 
 mon or meadow can be maintained." Further than that, 
 he adds, the law is defective inasmuch as even with the 
 scant allowance of land which is to be restored to tillage 
 " there is no limitation set down either for fine or rent. But 
 the poor that are to be restored are in both left to the 
 will or hard conscience of him that hath destroyed the 
 town, or of him that hath unconscionably purchased 
 the town so destroyed."* 
 
 ^ Conference between ploughman and clothier, by John Green. Reg. MS. 7, 
 cxvi. f. 235. 
 
 °This detailed statement is rare, but see comparison of Somerset and 
 Northampton. Lansdown MS. 487, p. 433. 
 
 ^Considerations, p. lo; Lee, A Vindication, etc., pp. 8, 9. 
 
 * Lansdown MS. 83, p. 68. Sir Anthony Cope to Burleigh. The writer is 
 evidently criticising the draft of 39 Eliz. c. I. Cf. Lansdown MS. cxxxi. 
 p. 22 (1576), Address by Alderman Box. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 353 
 
 The complaints current at the time both as to the harm 
 done and the want of effectiveness in the legislation devised 
 in its remedy were due doubtless more to the question of 
 agricultural employment than to any real lack of grain. 
 Even where the supply of grain was secured by the recon- 
 version of land to arable after a short rest in grass and by 
 improved fertility, the labour of the district might be 
 injured in two ways ; firstly, during the time when the 
 land was in pasture ; and, secondly, by the improvement 
 both in the land and in the mode of cultivation in the 
 enclosure whereby the crops required were raised with less 
 labour. This injury was unavoidable in the cause of 
 progress, and it might be local rather than general ; but 
 none the less it was a real injury to the people concerned, 
 the more so because migration was difficult. A better 
 and more practicable remedy than that attempted by the 
 statutes was contained in the proposal, that the difficulty 
 should be met by carrying inclosure further in the com- 
 pulsory division and cultivation of the wastes.^ This, it is 
 urged, might be so achieved as to provide a fresh source 
 for grain, and at the same time secure to the tenants or 
 cultivators their rightful share in the profits of the land. 
 It was obvious that it would increase employment, though 
 no doubt change of place and migration might still be 
 involved. 
 
 Though the ineffectiveness of the legislation may be 
 partly owing to defects in the provisions as enacted and 
 partly due to the impotence of laws opposed to the econo- 
 mic tendency of the time, there can be little doubt that 
 some part of the inoperativeness arose from the want 
 of machinery to give administrative effect to what was 
 decreed. In the seventeenth century, however, during the 
 early period of Charles I. when the Privy Council became 
 an active administrative body, the attempt was made to 
 supply this defect so far as the conversion to pasture was 
 concerned. It is difficult to determine the degree of 
 success attending this attempt Complaints still continue, 
 
 * V. supra, pp. 157-8, Addiess by Alderman Box. 
 Z 
 
354 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 but on the other hand they are met by statements that the 
 land which has been inclosed is in arable. The action of 
 the Privy Council though vigorous at times was somewhat 
 spasmodic, and the period of such action soon came to an 
 end. Again, in some cases those who had converted the 
 land were allowed to compound for their sins, which thus 
 became a means of replenishing the royal coffers. More- 
 over, in all probability the time during which conversion 
 to pasture could be considered a grave menace was actually 
 over, such conversion bringing about a natural reaction. 
 Arable was certainly profitable,^ and hence, land formerly 
 thrown into pasture reverted to grain ; while in -addition a 
 good deal of actual waste was brought into cultivation for 
 the first time as in the drainage districts. 
 
 Reviewing contemporary evidence, certain conclusions 
 seem possible. Firstly, the tillage laws did not produce 
 the effect sought. Secondly, so far as the latter part of 
 the sixteenth and the earlier years of the seventeenth 
 century are concerned, conversion to pasture was only a 
 temporary and not a permanent consequence. Thirdly, 
 it is obvious that such conversion was deprecated on two 
 grounds, not always clearly distinguished. On the one 
 hand a dearth of corn was feared, on the other hand a 
 diminution of employment. But the latter effect might 
 be occasioned by different causes than inclosure, as for 
 instance increased fertility or improved methods of cultiva- 
 tion. In some instances these were the immediate cause 
 and the inclosure which induced them, the indirect cause. 
 
 The controversy as to the inclosures in the Midlands 
 during the seventeenth century, despite any precise 
 evidence as to the total results, is very instructive. It 
 shows that by a certain large class the new system was 
 regarded as detrimental to the best national interests, a 
 view which is equally evident from the proceedings of the 
 Privy Council, and from other testimony. This view; 
 which may be called the official view, was vigorously 
 combated by others, and no doubt found a steady opposi- 
 
 1 On the profit of arable, Blith writes strongly. Imprimet:, pp. S3-84. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 355 
 
 tion in the strong personal and private interests of enter- 
 prising owners and farmers. The reasons alleged in its 
 support are important. Sometimes the decay of tillage is 
 put forward, at other times depopulation occupies the 
 front of the stage. It is, however, probable that the former 
 does not mean only a decrease^ in the supply of corn, if 
 indeed it means that at all. As has already been 
 observed, that supply might well be maintained even were 
 the area devoted to corn restricted. The more efScient 
 methods, which are hardly denied, at any rate during this 
 period, would secure this. The main thing meant was the 
 decrease of the effective area of agriculture, and so agricul- 
 tural depopulation. It is probable that even during the 
 seventeenth century there was some specious ground for 
 this apprehension. In the first place, indosures during the 
 early period and during the century in question must have 
 worn the appearance at least of partial conversions to 
 pasture. This was inevitable, since under the three field 
 system the fallow field was included in the arable land, 
 although its use was largely for sheep. Where inclosure 
 took place, unless some of the land thus treated were put 
 to pasture, the arable would have been unduly increased. 
 Again, better methods may in some cases have diminished 
 the need for labour. Thirdly, so far as particular localities 
 were concerned, the reclamation of lands by drainage or 
 otherwise affected the profits of grain. Lastly, as said 
 before, migration was difficult and a readjustment of the 
 labour supply without suffering impossible. Hence the 
 suspicion of the change cannot be dismissed as wholly 
 unreasonable. Taking into account the whole evidence, 
 there is no ground, however, to believe that the total arable 
 area was decreased during the first half of the seventeenth 
 century, even if it be true that in certain districts, as the 
 Midlands and North Wilts,^ some lands once in arable 
 
 ^ Some, however, like Forster, England's Happinas, 1664, did take this view. 
 
 'As to the Midlands, see above. For Wiltshire, see Aubrey, Natural 
 History of Wiltshire (Wilts Topographical Society, 1847), p. 104. While the 
 preface was written in 1685, the studies for this book were b^nn in 1656. 
 
356 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 had been converted to pasture. Still less was this the 
 case during the latter part of that century, and in the 
 early years of that which followed. During that period, 
 the acreage under the plough was almost certainly 
 enlarged, possibly at the expense of pasture. In reply to 
 the vague suggestion of conversion from arable to pas- 
 ture there is strong adverse testimony, to be summed up 
 in the statement of one writer that " the contrary is 
 notorious."^ The best evidence points to increase of 
 arable as following inclosure at this time, and as we hear 
 inclosure was going on rapidly. Not only so, but apart 
 from the question of acreage there was the increase of 
 wheat from more effective tillage. In the words of 
 another writer, " In Northampton and Staffordshire, and 
 in several other inland counties, there is great difference 
 between the common fields and inclosures. The last has 
 seven, eight, or ten years' crop successively, when the 
 other has them but two years in three." ^ In general, it 
 may be concluded the area under effective cultivation was 
 enlarged, even though there may have been some local 
 decreases, particularly in the case of land yielding scant 
 or occasional crops. 
 
 During the portion of the eighteenth century covered 
 by the private acts, the question was still one of interest, 
 though the two matters of depopulation and decrease in 
 the acreage set apart from corn are more carefully dis- 
 tinguished. In respect of the latter, as far as opinions are 
 concerned, there is considerable conflict. Certain general 
 conclusions are, however, possible. It was acknowledged on 
 all sides that considerable change takes place in the use of 
 land, acres that were formerly used for one purpose being 
 now diverted to another. Thus Leicestershire had seen 
 pasture extend over much of the land once common field 
 
 'John Lawrence, A new system of Agriculture, p. 46. The author of 
 England s Imprcmement and Seasonable Advice to all Gentlemen and Farmers, 
 1691, argues that as more corn is sown in England, and more cattle fatted this 
 year, land should be converted for growing flax and hemp. 
 
 *J. Lawrence, as above. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 357 
 
 arable/ in Bedford some of the best com land fattened 
 an improved kind of sheep and cattle,* while on some of 
 the poor lands in Worcester arable had increased, a 
 tendency observed elsewhere, as in the Isle of Wight ' and 
 Cambridge.* As Marshall writes, there is in Yorkshire 
 considerable change in the economy of live stock, owing to 
 the conversion of the lowlands to arable, the inclosure of 
 the commons, and the laying of the arable fields to 
 pasture. Such a result was but to be expected of a 
 method which, among other things, aimed at allowing 
 land to be used for the purpose for which it was best 
 fitted ; equally naturally it is the more prominently revealed 
 as agriculture develops and the methods of cultivation 
 become more scientific. Secondly, the acreage under 
 wheat in some counties underwent diminution. Moreover, 
 so far as former open field was concerned, the same was 
 probably true of the whole country. Despite denial by 
 some and somewhat hostile criticism by others, this con- 
 clusion is fairly deducible from a review of the opinions 
 expressed on different sides. Competent and practical 
 advocates of inclosure, as Horner and Stone, while they 
 criticise the extravagance of' writers like Addington, 
 evidently hesitate to deny this as a general truth, or, at 
 any rate, as true in respect of large districts. They deny, 
 and very emphatically, the suggestion that less com is 
 produced. Thirdly, better cultivation in the arable 
 inclosures led to an increase of corn from the land thus 
 treated. More corn could be raised from fewer acres. 
 But open field was not the only land passing under 
 inclosure, and wheat was not the only arable crop. When 
 the land converted from commons or waste to arable, and 
 
 ' Marshall, Midlands, ii. 250. 
 
 '^ Agric. Report, Bedford (1808), as to Marston. Cf. Agric. Report, Essex 
 (1807), i. 123, as to conversion from pasture to arable ; iL 448, Appendix, 
 conversion from arable to pasture ; Lancaster, p. 393, conversion to grass. 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, First Report, Isle of Wight, by Warner, p. 67 ; note by 
 Arthur Young. 
 
 ^ Agric. Report (1813). General increase of grain, shown by examination of 
 the replies to enquiries. 
 
3S8 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the use made of such inclosures, as also of inclosures from 
 open field for barley and oats and other arable crops, are 
 taken into account, the above conclusion does not seem 
 tenable. This indeed is the broad contention advanced 
 by careful writers like Horner, Stone, Young, and Marshall, 
 all of whom were advocates of inclosure. Their argument, 
 which was not adequately met by their opponents, was 
 that, owing to the inclosure of waste, the better utilisation 
 of fallows, and the employment of other than grain crops, 
 more and not less land was under effective arable use, and 
 that the produce of land in arable was greatly increased. 
 
V 
 
 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF RURAL LIFE 
 
 The effects of the inclosures on the conditions of rural 
 life, and particularly on the employment and the nature 
 of the employment of a rural population, though obviously 
 affected by the changes in agriculture in its more technical 
 aspects, are sufficiently distinctive to require separate 
 treatment Their importance is great and it by no means 
 follows that the results incurred in this direction coincide 
 in advantageousness or otherwise with those which mark 
 the record of the advance in the process of agriculture. 
 The social consequences of technical improvement must 
 be studied apart from that improvement. 
 
 Leaving for the present the question of the quantity of 
 employment which can be more fitly dealt with when we 
 come to the question of the population, the chief social 
 results present themselves under the two headings of the 
 general conditions of rural life and the method or system 
 of agricultural employment ; and these two matters require 
 to be considered as they affect respectively the cottagers 
 or the poor living in the country, whether legally concerned 
 in inclosures or not, and the farming and cultivating class, 
 especially the small farmers. 
 
 One by no means unimportant consequence of inclosure 
 was the diminution of the constant bickering and litigation 
 which found its source in the attempt to secure the 
 greatest individual advantage out of rights which existed 
 in common. A long array of authorities has been already 
 cited to show the positive detriment to agriculture from 
 
36o COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 this cause. To the direct loss thus occasioned must be 
 added the more undefined harm arising from a state of 
 affairs where individual rights in a common property 
 existed without any swift authoritative means of defining 
 them. Under the strict manorial system some such means 
 existed, but with the disappearance of the effective power 
 of the lord of the manor and his court, abundant oppor- 
 tunity was offered for mutual discontent and trespass. It 
 is easy to see from the complaints of writers in the seven- 
 teenth century that the small farmers leading, no doubt, a 
 hard existence, were at once suspicious of each other, and 
 turn by turn prone to justify this suspicion. In the 
 struggle with their richer neighbours they were, in many 
 instances at any rate, subject to much injustice, being 
 often crowded off the common and unable to exercise 
 their full rights. The Agricultural Reports show that the 
 same tendencies were in operation at the end of the 
 eighteenth century. 
 
 Again, the actual effect of small common rights or com- 
 mon usages was, to say the least, by no means necessarily 
 beneficial to the cottagers and the poor. Not only are 
 commons accounted the rendezvous of highwaymen, but 
 it was urged by some that a disproportionate amount of 
 the crime originated among those living near commons or 
 in uninclosed parishes. Of still more gravity was the 
 contention that, so far as these latter were concerned, 
 commons, and to a lesser degree common right, increased 
 idleness, proved an obstacle to industry, and led to greater 
 poverty and wretchedness. This view is set forth at the 
 beginning of the seventeenth, but it is during the latter 
 part of the eighteenth century that it received most sup- 
 port. It may be summed up in the words of one writer, 
 who says, " where wastes and commons are most extensive 
 there I have perceived the cottagers are most wretched 
 and worthless and accustomed to rely on a precarious and 
 vagabond subsistence."^ Despite some protest, and no 
 
 ' A large number of writers take the view that the existence of commons is 
 detrimental to social welfare by the encouragement given to idleness or the 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 361 
 
 doubt some exaggeration in the statement itself, its sub- 
 stantial accuracy is too well supported to be put on one 
 side. A means of gain, inadequate in itself and valuable 
 in the main as part of a coherent agricultural system, when 
 separated from this, served to attract loafers and idlers, 
 while further, by reason of its inconsequent and precarious 
 nature, its very existence struck at the roots of steady 
 industry. 
 
 The question as to the injury inflicted on the poor was 
 
 opportunity offered to the dishonest, etc. Thus in the seventeenth century — 
 Comparison between Somerset and Northampton, Lansdown MS., 487, p. 433 
 — "The miseries of beggars are enormous." But the chief testimony on this 
 particular matter is in the eighteenth century. John Lawrence, A New System 
 of Agriculture, etc. , p. 47, argues that the poor are lessened by the commons being 
 lessened. A. Young, Annals of Agriculture, viii. 438, cites instance of com- 
 mons at Sutton-Coldfield where, despite these liberal rights, much poverty and 
 high poor rates ; Annals, v. 222, bad condition of the poor round the great 
 commons at Chailey in Sussex. Cf. Eastern Tour, iii. p. 153, high poor rates 
 at Chailey "owing to plenty of commons which encouraged the poor to such 
 idleness as to bring vast numbers to parish." Annals, v. 221, charity estate 
 at Framlingham has not decreased poverty. Northern Tour, i. 175, where in 
 cheap times commons etc., offers an opportunity of idleness. "Another that 
 in cheap times, used to bask himself all day in the sun, holding a cow by a line 
 to feed on a balk, in dear times betakes himself to the pickaxe and the spade." 
 Observations on a Pamphlet entitled An Enquiry into the advantages and dis- 
 advantages, etc. (1781), p. 5, in comparing cottagers on commons with others 
 " I have also, unfortunately, found the cottagers (generally speaking) more per- 
 verse and more wretched than the labourers of inclosed parishes.'' Stone, 
 Suggestions, p. 75, observes that an allotment which stimulates to industry 
 much better than a common right which leads to idleness. Tucker, Elements 
 of Commons, p. 54, commons, "a rendezvous of highwaj-men." 
 
 Agricultural Report, Cheshire, opinion of Boys in Kent Report to effect 
 that commons draw poor away from regular industry is cited and denied. 
 Essex (1807), 173, Young thinks that in many cases summer pasture means 
 winter stealing. Hereford (T-Tj^), p. 28, "a cottage ^vith a few acres of in- 
 closed land, gives the occupier a right to turn stock to these common hills. 
 The profits of that stock is expected to supersede the necessity of labour, in 
 cultivating the few acres which he possesses.'" Hertford (1804), p. 53, in 
 text, "where wastes and commons," etc., cf. Original Report, 1795. Lincoln, 
 p. 99, where assertion cited that most part of crime originated with inhabitants 
 near commons, etc. Shropshire (1794), p. 24, bad effect on poor. 
 
 Making an allowance for exaggeration these references disclose a defect in 
 the common field system where commons and common rights existed no longer 
 in due proportion to, and in connection with, arable. 
 
362 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 one which figures very largely in the discussions during 
 the latter part of the eighteenth century. Whatever may 
 be thought of the effect of the possession of common rights 
 and uses to these as a class, the sudden deprivation of 
 these was bound to operate hardly on the individuals con- 
 cerned. Even could it be shown beyond dispute that the 
 poor as a class would benefit in the end from the removal 
 of these precarious and inadequate gains, none the less 
 would the individuals accustomed to such suffer from their 
 sudden cessation. This was recognised in a general, 
 though somewhat vague way, and measures were urged by 
 way of its mitigation. These need description. 
 
 In the case of inclosure a distinction must be drawn 
 between what happened to the neighbouring poor living in 
 common right cottages and those whose former use of the 
 common was by some reason of proximity and by suffer- 
 ance and not legal right Probably both gained about as 
 much from the common before it was inclosed, but at the 
 inclosure they were subject to very" different treatment. 
 Common right cottages received allotments, small, it is 
 true, but still definite and separate ; but whatever was 
 done with respect to the claims of the poor as a class, 
 separate allotment did not take place. 
 
 Taking the case of those living in common right cot- 
 tages or having small legal rights themselves, it would 
 seem that divers reasons sometimes operated to prevent 
 the compensation from being an equivalent for that of which 
 they were deprived. In some cases the allotments were 
 too small to be of any value,^ even when they came to the 
 inhabitant of the cottage. In others the expense of 
 fencing proved too great,^ while in other instances the very 
 inclosure might occasion a change in the actual as distinct 
 from the legal ownership. This occurred when the inhabi- 
 tant of the common right cottage, though not an owner, 
 
 '^ Agricultural Report, Norfolk, p. 158. 
 
 ^ This grievance was fairly general. It is admitted in the General Report, 
 .g.v. Appendix, jv. As to especial effect on small allotments. Agric. Rep., 
 Glotuester, p. 92 ; also supra, pp. 87-8, 312. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 363 
 
 had been permitted to enjoy the small rights attached 
 thereto without payment. When an allotment was made, 
 the landlord took the allotment and thus the cottager 
 necessarily suffered.^ On the other hand, cases are cited 
 where care was taken to assign to each common right 
 cottage not less than three acres. So far, indeed, as the 
 small owner was concerned, there was considerable differ- 
 ence of opinion. Such writers as Fitz Herbert and Lee 
 inclined to the belief that the balance was one of advantage 
 since the previous gain from the common was small. 
 This view was shared by others of a later date, who stated 
 that these gained, inasmuch as they obtained an allotment 
 in exchange for rights which they had been unable to 
 exercise. 
 
 To some extent the same arguments occur in the 
 instance of the poor other than the above, the one differ- 
 ence being that in their case there were no specific 
 allotments. Taking both together there is evidence that 
 privileges and advantages were lost, even though these 
 may, in the case of those legally entitled, have been more 
 advantageous previously than should have been the case.^ 
 
 ''^Agric. Report, Bedford, p. 224; Cambridge, 56, etc.; Middlesex (1798). 
 After the inclosure the land apportioned is taken into account in fixing the 
 rent, whereas the common right used to be enjoyed for nothing. 
 
 "^ Fitz Herbert, Book of Husbattdry, p. 77 ; Lee, Vindication, p. 2, etc. ; 
 Ttisser Redivivus (1710), March, p. 9. Some writers in eighteenth century 
 concur, e.g. Agric. Report, Somerset. The general contention is that the rich 
 would overstock and live near the commons. 
 
 In the Agricultural Report on Norfolk considerable attention is given to the 
 effect on the poor of this class, and it is said that inclosure offers an opportunity 
 of conferring either a benefit or an injury on the poor. Sometimes the one 
 result obtains and sometimes the other. Thus at Sayham they were so liberally 
 dealt with that only two people were against the inclosure from first to last 
 {p. 156); at Salthouse and Kelling they were better off than before, the common 
 left being freed from overcrowding, and stinted to all houses under ;£^lo, the 
 large commoners being excluded (p. 152). At Markham the poor did not suffer 
 at all. In other cases the poor are injured. At Fincham the day of cottage 
 ■cow-keeping is over, the allotments going to the farmers (152). Many who 
 had no l^al right had hitherto kept cows on the common with little interrup- 
 tion, though, of course, if the common was driven and their cows discovered 
 they might have had to pay. At Sedgford they suffered, since a common right 
 
364 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 This general loss formed a large part of the plea raised 
 against inclosures in the early and middle seventeenth 
 century ; and this too was urged with equal emphasis 
 in the eighteenth century. Apart from a general state- 
 ment of injury, specific allegations are made. Thus with 
 inclosure, the number of geese owned by the poor are said 
 to have decreased : cows were given up ; the poor lost 
 fuel, being deprived of the privilege of turf-cutting ; the 
 commonage in the stubbles which enabled them to keep 
 pigs and geese is theirs no more ; and with these went 
 other small advantages such as gleaning, which came to 
 be more carefully restricted. That these losses were con- 
 siderable cannot be doubted. Even strong advocates of 
 the change seem to admit this. The moot point 
 was the extent to which they were indemnified by 
 the general improvement of the land or by some special 
 compensation. Allowances for the use of common where 
 such was not a legal right, though they may have been 
 conceded by those inclosing in individual instances, were 
 certainly rare and of but little value prior to the time of the 
 private acts. One indication of this new importance lies 
 
 cottage received no more than half an acre in allotment in lieu of shackage and 
 rights over a common of one hundred acres, which together allowed, it was 
 said, of two cows to each right (158). Ludham (135) and Shuldham (161) 
 fared much the same as Fincham. 
 
 So far as common right cottage owners were concerned, it is concluded, that 
 the allotments were, as a general rule, adequate. 
 
 In the case of old use of common without right, the poor often suffered 
 as at Fincham {v.s.), Bintrj- (82), and Northwold (147). On the other hand, 
 at Slokesby, an allotment in common of 18 acres made for poor without rights 
 (169), and in somewhat similar manner at Letton (95). At Sayham allotments 
 made in lieu of old usage of common (156), and at Shottesham right of keeping 
 a cow on a small common reserved for the purpose, granted indiscriminately to 
 all poor inhabitants. 
 
 Turbary rights were considered very carefully. At some places land reserved 
 for turf cutting, as at Thomham (176), and Old Buckenham (89) ; at other 
 places land let at a rent which is to be spent in providing coals, etc. This is 
 in practice at Fincham (107), Sayham (156), Cranworth, where it does not 
 work well, and Southborough, where it does (94, 95). 
 
 Norfolk inclosures appear to have been more carefully managed in this 
 respect than was the case elsewhere. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 365 
 
 in the discussion as to the way in which the claims of the 
 poorer class should be proved before the Commissioners. 
 Legal proof, if required, imposed a considerable hardship, 
 a natural conclusion when it is remembered that many of 
 the claims in question were not claims of right, but for 
 privileges which had been permitted by the owners of the 
 rights to common.^ To avoid injury in some cases as for 
 instance in certain of the Norfolk inclosures,^ proof was 
 required merely of the practice and not of the legality of 
 claims, and allotments were made to the individuals losing. 
 But this was by no means usual. 
 
 The general custom when ultra legal claims were taken 
 into consideration was to treat them on a different basis 
 from those forming part of a legal right, that is by 
 setting aside some land or money for the use of the 
 neighbouring poor. On the whole, this seems to have 
 been the most equitable and the most advantageous 
 method. Unfortunately there was no uniformity in the 
 procedure. All depended on the individual Commissioners 
 and to some extent on the custom of the district or 
 county. Hence variety of action naturally gave rise to 
 a variety of opinion as to the effect of inclosure upon 
 the poor.^ Taking a large number of awards throughout 
 the country, the recognition of ultra legal claims seems to 
 be exceptional. In certain districts, as in Norfolk, there 
 was greater liberality than elsewhere, but even there, in 
 many cases nothing or little was done, and hardship 
 was possibly inflicted. It must, however, be remembered 
 that want of recognition may be due often to an absence 
 of such claims in any great number. Compensation 
 when granted took many forms. The chief privileges 
 which attracted most favourable attention were those of 
 cow keeping and fuel, and in consequence we find efforts 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, Cambridge, p. 76. * Agric. Report, Norfolk, p. 184. 
 
 ' As to geese, Agric. Reports, Worcester, 248 ; Norfolk, 94, etc. As to other 
 advantages, Getural Report, Appendix iv. gives many instances. Cf. Addington, 
 An Ittgtdry, etc., p. 14 and elsewhere ; Young, Eastern Tour, iL p. 24 ; 
 Tucker, Elements of Commerce, p. 52, etc. 
 
366 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 in these two directions. Sometimes small commons for 
 cows were reserved and handed over to the use of the 
 poorer inhabitants of the village, in some cases a stint 
 being imposed as to the cows which each might turn 
 out. In certain places a restriction was made as to the 
 rental which entitled to any use of such a common. The 
 provision of fuel was secured either by setting aside of 
 land for this purpose where turf or whins could be cut or 
 wood taken, or else by the sale or letting of some land. 
 In this latter case the capital or income was vested in the 
 overseers or others, the proceeds to be spent in coal or 
 other fuel. 
 
 The contention that inclosure in the eighteenth century 
 led to an increase in the poor rates was denied by many, 
 and is not adequately substantiated. In many instances 
 the rates in the neighbourhood of large commons prior to 
 inclosure were abnormally high, and growing laxity of 
 administration towards the end of the century led to a 
 very general rise throughout the country.^ On the 
 other hand there are some grounds which render it 
 probable that inclosure played a part in the general 
 agricultural change which increased local distress and led 
 to the leniency in relief which wrought ultimate harm. In 
 some places there was without doubt some local reduction 
 in the employment ; in others the subsidiary means which 
 enabled the poor to eke out a hard livelihood were taken 
 away ; elsewhere the poor occupiers lost a definite means 
 of support. Allotments were often too small ; and when 
 common allotments were made to mitigate the hardships 
 of a class, they were unfortunately made in a form which 
 partook in some measure of the old evils attaching to 
 uncertain charity, and did little to foster habits of industry 
 or to provide a means of a self-reliant life. But this, 
 whilst in itself a matter for regret is of little moment in 
 the decision of the present point since like results were 
 attributed to the assistance received by the poor from 
 commons. Probably in this respect the old system was 
 *Oh this point see pp. 415-27. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE • 367 
 
 worse than that which replaced it Two other consequences 
 deserve attention. The old common right system un- 
 doubtedly tended to link people to a district Further, in 
 many cases it freed them from the position of mere wage- 
 paid labour under supervision. Change took place in both 
 these respects. 
 
 Any conclusion as to the direct effects of inclosure upon 
 the particular poor included in its scope depends not only 
 upon the period during which it took place, but also upon 
 the nature of their claims, either legal or prescriptive. 
 
 In the case of those poor cottagers who, by ownership, 
 possessed rights of common, a very marked distinction 
 must be drawn between the private act inclosures and 
 those occurring before their date. Before the eighteenth 
 century, such cottagers were apparently rarely if ever able 
 to influence the division. Their assent when required was 
 often obtained by pressure, and it is certainly probable 
 that their claims received scanty consideration. Apart from 
 what may have the effects produced upon them indirectly, 
 the direct compensation in their case cannot be taken as 
 ensured. The only question is the value to them of the 
 original common rights. The same cannot be said of the 
 inclosures under act or by agreement during that period. 
 Taking the awards, the Commissioners, as a rule, seem to 
 have given very careful consideration to the claims of the 
 poor owners ; and it seems true that the compensation 
 given was equal in value to the rights of which they were 
 deprived. Their difficulties lay, however, in the compara- 
 tive smallness of the land thus granted, which often 
 rendered it unsuitable in size for inclosure and their lack 
 of capital to make the requisite alterations and to work 
 it under new conditions of competitive farming. Thus 
 while as individuals they were treated fairly as a rule, as 
 a class they may have suffered. Their suffering, however, 
 was due rather to the changed economy of the times than 
 to the inclosures themselves. 
 
 The case of the poor occupiers of cottages to which 
 common rights attached was different. Allotments, when 
 
368 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 made, vested in the owners, to whom they were a more 
 tangible property than the small common right, the use of 
 which in many cases was allowed by grace to the tenants. 
 As the owner usually possessed several of these tene- 
 ments, the compensation in land added materially to his 
 property ; and he was not under the disadvantages beset- 
 ting the poor owner who dwelt in his own cottage. To 
 some extent these occupiers might share in the allotments 
 or compensations next to be considered. 
 
 The poor who lost by inclosure, since it deprived them 
 of advantages to which they had no claim by right but 
 only by usage, are more prominent in later than in early 
 times. The careful consideration of the effect of the 
 movement on them in the eighteenth century not only by 
 writers on both sides, but even by commissioners in 
 framing awards in not a few cases, points to their exist- 
 ence in considerable numbers. Their presence and growth 
 is alleged to be one aspect of the decay of the system of 
 common. But whether this be the explanation or not, the 
 comparative silence of early writers is in marked con- 
 trast to the notice their sufferings, real or alleged, obtain 
 in eighteenth century literature. During this latter period 
 there is no doubt as to their frequent presence, the only 
 question being the value of the common incidents en- 
 joyed by them. The acknowledgment of their customary 
 though not legal privileges as worthy of compensation, 
 though never very frequent during the eighteenth -century, 
 grew less uncommon with the lapse of years. Early acts 
 and awards rarely contain any mention of provision for 
 them, while at the end of the century such was far from 
 common. Possibly in some cases commissioners acted 
 like Mr. Algar in certain Norfolk inclosures, in requiring 
 from the poor nothing more than a proof of practice of 
 common rights. 
 
 When from the consideration of the cottager and the 
 poor we turn to consider the general method of agricul- 
 tural employment, the importance of the inclosures during 
 the eighteenth century, and particularly during its close, 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 369 
 
 may be seen to be very great Even before this time they 
 offered an opportunity, often deplored, for the growth of 
 large estates and threatened the small farmer, but in the 
 eighteenth they took place under conditions and in the 
 presence of influences which were adverse to the whole 
 system of small cultivation. In the first place, the 
 inclosures of this period involved a considerable initial 
 outlay of capital on the part of those receiving allotments. 
 Doubtless with a view to efficiency, definite regulations 
 were laid down as to the inclosure of the allotments by 
 fencing and ditching. In many instances, too, consider- 
 able initial expenses were incurred in common as in the 
 procuring of the act, the setting out of the roads, and in 
 drainage or other improvements, which had to be met by 
 all in due proportion. Land was sold in some cases, 
 which caused a deduction from the various properties. In 
 the second place, the inclosure was often but a step in the 
 transition from the early methods of cultivation to more 
 modern methods of high farming. Again capital was 
 needed, this time indeed to enable the farmers to keep 
 pace with the improvements which were being introduced. 
 In the tjjird place, the change in industrial production and 
 the development of mechanical processes struck a heavy, 
 and in the end, a fatal blow at the combination of small 
 industries with small farms which afforded the means of 
 living to a very considerable proportion of the rural 
 population. Fourthly, and lastly, the new wealth created 
 by trade at home or abroad ensured ready purchasers for 
 those who desired to sell land. 
 
 With these causes in operation there is little room for 
 wonder at the steady and widespread disappearance of the 
 small farmer, and especially of the small owner cultivating 
 his own little farm. The fact itself is beyond all doubt 
 From all quarters comes the complaint; and even those 
 who rejoiced in the technical improvement in agriculture 
 were constrained to join in the dirge over the yeoman 
 farmer. 
 
 From all sides rose the cry that consolidation of 
 
370 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 holdings and estates was in progress, and that the very 
 valuable order of small yeoman farmers was vanishing. 
 Small tenant farmers likewise were disappearing, and their 
 farms, put together, were let to large farmers. The 
 Reports to the Board of Agriculture from the various 
 counties call attention to the change, though some hesi- 
 tate, and no doubt rightly, to attribute it to the single 
 cause of inclosure. The complaint, lament, or whatever it 
 may be called, seems to proceed indifferently from all 
 quarters. We hear it from Northern counties like Lan- 
 cashire, from the West in Wilts and Dorset, from the East 
 in Norfolk, and from the Midlands, as Bedford and 
 Berkshire. That the tendency was general is ^ully 
 endorsed by the language used by Arthur Young in the 
 General Report on Enclosures, and by others, as Lamport, 
 Stone, Hewlett, and Addington. Different observers 
 express the matter in different ways. One speaks of 
 "the loss of that set of men who were called yeoman," 
 another says that the diminution in number of farmers is 
 undoubted, others even speak of the " extinction " of small 
 farmers ; from another proceeds the estimate that " the 
 farmers are reduced to one-fourth of their number," but 
 these, as he adds, are " very opulent." ^ 
 
 When, however, the causes and consequences come 
 under consideration, there is difference of opinion. To 
 
 ' The tendency towards an increase in the size of farms and the extinction of 
 the small yeoman farmer is very widely recognised in the latter eighteenth 
 century. Thus Young, in General Report, cites Sir G. O. Paul : " Without 
 entering into the doubtfiil question of the good or evil tendency of large farms, 
 it may be admitted, without contest, that in proportion to the population the 
 number of those persons who cultivate at all for themselves is grievously 
 diminished ; of those who cultivate sufficient for the supply of their family and a 
 little more, the class is nearly extinct.'' Pp. i6, 17 ; cf. pp. 32-36. To some 
 extent this applies to tenant farmers. On the whole question, see An Inquiry 
 into the connection between the present price of provisions and the size of farms, 
 etc., by a Farmer, esp. p. 126; Stone, Suggestions, etc., pp. 6, 40- 1 ; W. 
 Lamport, Cursory Remarks, etc. , p. 59. 
 
 Agric. Reports : Bedford, 606 ; Berks, pp. 46-7 ; Cheshire, p. 80 ; Derby, 
 p. 505 ; Dorset, p. 90, etc. ; Essex, p. 64 ; Gloucester, p. 52 ; Hampshire, pp. 
 76, 83 ; Lancashire, p. 90 ; Somerset, p. 66-7 ; Stafford, p. 41 ; Suffolk, p. 255; 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 371 
 
 some, inclosure, if not the sole, was still the dominant 
 cause, the others being but unimportant by its side ; to 
 others it was one cause among others. Some, again, 
 regard the alteration as overwhelmingly detrimental, while 
 others, though regretting it in some respects, regard it as 
 partly, if not largely, compensated for by other conse- 
 quences. In the view of some of these, the improved 
 prosperity of agriculture would affect the whole country, 
 including in the end those temporarily injured. Some, too, 
 held that the temporary injury was rather in appearance 
 than in reality, since, as Young urges in respect of 
 Cheshire, " the little farmers in this county are reckoned 
 more wretched than day labourers." Hewlett, too, con- 
 sidered that the little farmers of Essex made but a " poor 
 starved living." ^ 
 
 The actual connection of inclosure with the growth of 
 large farming is differently treated by different writers, 
 some minimising, others emphasising its importance. Its 
 tendency in this direction was admitted by many.* What- 
 ever view was taken as to its relative importance, direct 
 denial of it as at least a contributory cause was rarely, if 
 ever, attempted. Young admits it, while Stone, one of 
 the most judicious critics of the time, when considering the 
 objection thus urged against inclosures, attributes the 
 change, which he fully recognises, to three causes. The 
 first and most important cause was a fallacious idea on 
 the part of large landowners that by reducing the number 
 
 Westmoreland, p. 302 ; Wilts, p. 49. In some of these counties there had 
 been little eighteenth century inclosure, e.g. Cheshire, Essex. In others, e.g. 
 Westmoreland, Lancashire, the inclosure was mainly of wastes or commons. 
 
 In the case of Kent and Huntingdon the reports doubt decrease in small 
 farmers. Agric. Reports : Huntingdon, p. 24 ; Kent, 26. While the cases of 
 the yeoman farmer and the small occupying cultivator must be distinguished, 
 there seems no doubt that the latter also underwent at any rate comparative 
 diminution. 
 
 * Young, Northern Tour, iii. 246 ; Agric. Report, Essex, p. 64. 
 
 'Thus Agric. Report, Wilts, first edition, by T. Davis (1794), p. 138; 
 Agric. Reports, Bedford (1807), p. 606 ; Lincoln (1799), p. 16-17 ; Northamp- 
 ton, ii. p. 33, etc. Less definite; Rutland, p. 29; S. J. Nash, Address 
 to Board of Agriculture, p. 15. 
 
372 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 of buildings on their estates, the expenses would be 
 diminished. The second lay in the sale of small estates 
 by the yeoman farmers who hope to improve their condi- 
 tion by becoming sheep farmers. Thirdly, the expenses 
 of inclosure operated in this direction, though, in his opinion, 
 not very often. But his first two causes may have come 
 into operation in some places on inclosure. Inclosure as 
 a matter of fact had two very different effects. In some 
 ways it directly led to the decrease of small holdings. In 
 other cases it produced an undoubted effect in the same 
 direction by the opportunity it afforded for the unre- 
 strained operation of other causes. Improved farming, 
 changes in cultivation, or ideas such as those mentioned 
 above, while not due to inclosure, were impossible on any 
 large scale while common rights existed. Where these 
 had been previously abrogated, the changes demanded 
 by them proceeded in due course, but over a large area of 
 the country their fulfilment was impossible till a similar 
 change was effected. In this respect inclosure might be 
 looked on as allowing land to be put to its most profitable 
 use. But whether this was so or not, whether in some 
 cases temporary and specious advantages might not be 
 mistaken for permanent advantages, the effect of inclosure 
 was undoubted. It enabled consolidation where otherwise 
 such could not have occurred. The more direct effects 
 remain to be noted. By disturbing existing arrangements 
 it gave rise to a new distribution of holdings to suit the 
 convenience of the large proprietors. In some cases 
 " most of the small tenements and farms having fallen 
 into the lord of the manor's hands he has let the whole to 
 one or two substantial farmers, and the village now 
 resembles a place that has been sacked and plundered."^ 
 No doubt the latter description gives an exaggerated idea 
 if taken as of wide application, but the charge more 
 soberly stated in the opening lines happened often. The 
 motives under which this action was taken were different 
 Sometimes, as indicated above, it proceeded from the 
 
 ' The National Debt no national grievance (1768), p. 61. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 373 
 
 desire to achieve better organisation and to secure 
 economy ;^ sometimes the reduction of the need for build- 
 ing was the object ; ^ while elsewhere the substitution for 
 a number of small farmers of a few very substantial men, 
 held out a prospect of less trouble and uncertainty in the 
 collection of rents.* Again, the termination of the common 
 field system often injured small holders by depriving 
 them of certain advantages which they had been enjoying. 
 With separate ownership they might not have sufficient 
 pasture to keep a shepherd, or again they would have to 
 buy manure ; with their small amount of land the gain 
 from laying lands together was little in comparison with 
 that obtained by large holders. In some cases and 
 especially on horse commons they had enjoyed more than 
 their legal rights, since in the latter case large farmers 
 had not the stock to put out* In these and like instances 
 they suffered, partly because the old system presented 
 certain minor advantages for them, partly because under 
 it they enjoyed in practice more than their right by law. 
 On the whole the commissioners dealt very fairly with 
 the small holders ; but the allotments were, in the main, 
 according to legal rights and as has been seen, the 
 advantages referred to were in excess of these. Lastly, 
 the expenses incurred both under the inclosure acts and 
 on the inclosure of land often compelled small holders 
 to sell their land. On the one hand there was the 
 expense of fencing, on the other that occasioned either 
 by the new demands for improved methods, new buildings * 
 or in the conversion of arable to grass. In some cases 
 
 ^Agric. Report, Wilts (1813), p. 49. 
 
 "^AgrU. Report, GlotKester (iSoj), p. 52. 
 
 * W. Lamport, Cursory Remarks, etc. , p. SS- 
 
 *As to these disadvantages, Agric. Reports, Wilts, pp. 40, 41 ; Horner, 
 Essay, 70-71. 
 
 ' The greater expense of farm buildings may to some extent be offset by the 
 use of farmyard manure, is the plea of one writer, Agric. Report, Somerset 
 (1798), pp. 62-67. In any case, however, capital outlay is required, a circum- 
 stance inimical to the small farmers. Id. 66-67. 
 
374 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the need for money to inclose led to debt ; ' while with the 
 disadvantages attending small farming when in competi- 
 tion with large farming at this period, loans, if obtained, 
 could achieve little. 
 
 On the other hand it must be remembered that at this 
 same time the growth of large holdings and the extinction 
 or diminution of the yeoman farmer or smaller tenant, 
 were often occurring where no open field inclosure was in 
 progress or had been in progress for a long time. As has 
 been pointed out, statements as to the change came from 
 counties like Cheshire, Essex, Lancashire, Westmoreland 
 and Somerset. It is true, of course, that but for the 
 existence of a state of individual or several property, their 
 progress would have been very difficult if indeed possible. 
 This is fairly obvious to us. It was less obvious to 
 some writing at the time, who confuse the results of 
 the movement then in progress with those of a state 
 of ownership which may have been of long standing. 
 In other words their denunciation of inclosure on this 
 ground often proceeded from a desire for a system of 
 property so complicated and confused under a network 
 of mutual rights that no one could do with the land 
 what the needs of a progressive population required, that 
 is, turn it to the most productive use. No doubt in other 
 cases the incidents of inclosure itself led to the sale of 
 small holdings and the consolidation of farms for reasons 
 already discussed. 
 
 The evidence given relates to the latter part of the 
 eighteenth century. It remains to be seen if much is 
 offered in earlier years. This has been partly dealt with 
 when the question of conversion was considered, since 
 the substitution of pasture for arable no doubt implied the 
 decrease of the smaller farms. But in the eighteenth 
 century there was a like tendency in the case of arable 
 or mixed farms. 
 
 Provided only that the land remained in an arable 
 
 ^ Cursory remarks on Ituhsures by a Country Partner (1786), p. 7. They 
 run into debt and may borrow on mortgage. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 375 
 
 or mixed condition it would seem that in earlier 
 centuries there was little grievance experienced by 
 the small yeomen or tenant farmers. The absence of 
 complaint in this matter during such periods, as 
 compared with the eighteenth century, is in marked 
 contrast to what took place in respect of many other 
 subjects, since, as has been shown, in many matters the 
 same note is struck in all periods. Here there is a 
 signal difference. But then the conditions of the times 
 were different. The conditions determining the effect of 
 eighteenth century inclosure on small farms were 
 largely wanting. Capital was not so great a necessity. 
 Facilities in transport were lacking. The inclosure 
 was less exacting in its demands for improvement or 
 expensive hedging by those concerned, and also less costly 
 in itself. While, lastly, the small holder was less likely 
 to be tempted to sell. Taking into account the technical 
 advantages of the change, and the poor condition of 
 over-stocked commons, it is very probable that the small 
 owner or occupier benefitted, provided that he was fairly 
 dealt with, and that there was no great conversion 
 occurring. As to the first point, the arbitrary element 
 in early inclosures has been indicated ; even in the 
 seventeenth century the small farmer, if a party, was a 
 very passive party in the agreements, often, it may be 
 said, coerced into an agreement against his will, and 
 into a consent to what he considered to be to his 
 detriment. In some districts, and at times when the 
 lands inclosed remained under mixed courses, or were 
 employed in large measure for dairy purposes, he 
 probably held his own, that is, if fairly treated. But 
 sheep-farming would be to his detriment, and under its 
 spread he must often have been driven out. Occupiers 
 would fare badly. It should be remembered, also, that 
 in the sixteenth century and earlier the exhausted state of 
 the soil was an important factor in the change. 
 
 For these reasons it seems probable that putting 
 aside acts of arbitrary and unjust treatment, and also 
 
376 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the period when, and the places where, sheep-farming 
 spread rapidly, inclosure had comparatively little effect 
 upon the small cultivator and the size of the holding till 
 the eighteenth century. Its effect then and afterwards 
 was due largely to its relation to the changes in agricul- 
 tural method, and to its own cost. 
 
 One matter, however, requires a few words, namely, the 
 part played by the poor law system in the alteration 
 in the system of labour. No doubt the increase in the 
 poor rate added to the expenses of cultivation and of 
 rural life. Its effect on the small as distinct from the 
 large cultivator is more uncertain. Probably the very 
 narrowness of their resources would make them less able 
 to bear any increased strain, and hence they would 
 be more likely to part with their land when, owing 
 to the action of inclosure, it passed into their possession, 
 and alienation. But, on the other hand, to have been 
 tied to the land under a new load of expense would 
 have made their lot increasingly difficult. While this 
 does not show that the increase in the poor rate fell 
 more heavily over the whole country on the small holder 
 than on the large holder, it points to the former as less 
 able to bear such expense, because in the economic 
 competition he was weaker than his neighbour. Under 
 one set of conditions the burden was greater in his case, 
 namely, where allowance-scales or labour-rate systems 
 were in operation. Under the former some part of the 
 normal payment of wages was borne by the parish, while 
 the latter implied the allocation to each householder of 
 labour irrespective of his demand. In both cases the 
 small holder working himself and with the aid of his 
 family, stood to lose. The allowance system, however, 
 only becomes general towards the very end of the century 
 and in the beginning of the nineteenth century ; while 
 the labour-rate was confined in the main to a few 
 counties, and was certainly not of great influence before 
 the nineteenth century. An over emphasis of the 
 connection between the poor rates and the decrease 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 377 
 
 in small farmers and owners has led to the dating of 
 this latter very late in the century. But against this 
 date, it must be pointed out, firstly, that there is much 
 complaint of great diminution in the number of small 
 tenants or owning cultivators at an earlier time ; secondly, 
 that the writers mentioned above, who fully recognise 
 the phenomenon, give other causes for its appearance ; 
 thirdly, that at the end of the century the decrease is 
 seen and lamented, not only in counties where the poor 
 rates had reached so great a level, but also in counties 
 like Lancashire where the increase had not been nearly 
 so great. Furthermore, it should be noticed that it is 
 incorrect to suppose that poor rates only increased at 
 the end of the century. As a matter of fact there 
 was a fairly general rise^ from the middle of the 
 century onwards.^ With these facts in view, it would 
 seem a mistake to treat this as more than one among 
 several causes, and, especially, to regard it as mainly 
 responsible. Doubtless it operated at times, and 
 probably with most effect in certain districts where 
 allowances and labour rates ruled in the first decade of 
 the nineteenth century ; but even so it only accelerated a 
 movement already in active progress, and one which 
 prevailed not only in these localities but elsewhere.^ 
 
 Another point in this connection has been raised by 
 Dr. Hasbach in his contention that with the intermixture of 
 open and inclosed parishes, the allowance system tended 
 to bring about an increase of hired labour, resident in the 
 open parishes and passing in gangs to work in those 
 which were inclosed. The particular illustration he gives 
 from Norfolk of certain parishes about Norwich is any- 
 thing but conclusive, as Lakenham, which shows a marked 
 increase in population after 1 8 1 1 , was becoming a suburb of 
 
 ' Not involving the allowance scale or labour rate. 'Appendix B. 
 
 ^ The effect of increased poor rates on the small farmers must not be con- 
 fused with the question of the influence of inclosure on poor rates. The 
 former, as is prointed out, would press as hardly, if not more hardly, on small 
 common field farmers. The latter question is discussed in Chapter VI. 
 
378 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the city, and its increase is ascribed by the census as being 
 due to new building. Furthermore the extent to which 
 this parish was open is doubtful. If other parishes in 
 the neighbourhood which were not inclosed till after 
 i8lo be taken, the small increase they display gives no 
 support to this theory so far as that region is concerned. 
 As to the question itself, it is of course quite possible that 
 the allowance system and in general the poor laws system 
 may have had this effect in some places. On a priori 
 grounds such a result seems possible. But its selection as 
 a chief feature of the change requires much more proof. 
 If the figures given in one of the Appendices^ be consulted 
 where the densities (1801) of parishes inclosed before 
 and after 1800 are compared in the case of several 
 counties, the serious operation of any such cause at that 
 time seems, to say the least, most improbable. 
 
 The main fact of the decrease of the small holder is 
 undoubted. He is passing from the land, sometimes 
 emigrating, oftener seeking new work in the towns or near 
 home, but in many, if not most districts sinking into the 
 position of the wage-paid labourers. According to one 
 writer the reduction in every county of that valuable order of 
 men, little farmers " was responsible for the lack of really 
 good domestic servants who had been largely recruited 
 from their sons and daughters." 
 
 From a social point of view few changes could be more 
 important than the substitution of wage-paid labour for 
 the small independent cultivator, here depicted in the 
 sphere of agriculture. No doubt tendencies in this direc- 
 tion had been manifesting themselves for some time. 
 Capitalistic farming had been increasing, and with the 
 opportunity for capital, the small owner had experienced 
 increasing difficulty in holding his own. Owing to the 
 circumstances here narrated, the struggle had now 
 definitely gone against him. The yeoman farmer who had 
 owned and cultivated his land, though not wholly driven 
 out, survives as from the past to remind a new age of a 
 
 ' Appendix G. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 379 
 
 time when he and his fellows constituted the strength of 
 the country. The small tenant farmer likewise undergoes 
 decrease. Their place is taken by large proprietors and 
 large farmers. No doubt it is true that in many technical 
 respects the new men were superior to the old. They 
 were, so we hear, " quite different men, men of ideas." ^ 
 They were richer and not in need of the small subsidiary 
 gains ^ yielded by the home industry, and to be found in 
 the loom and the spinning wheel. But they are few, 
 whereas the others were many, and the class of small 
 independent producers is merged into the growing class of 
 wage-labourers who stand out in contrast to the few who 
 employ them. 
 
 A further matter remains for examination. The class 
 of labourers was, as has been indicated, increased though 
 the full effects of the change was not experienced for some 
 little time. How, it must be asked, was their employment 
 affected. On this subject too there was much difference 
 of opinion. It can be considered best in conjunction with 
 the alleged effect on population. 
 
 ' Agric. Report, Oxford, p. 269. ' Cursory remarks, etc. , p. 20. 
 
VI 
 
 EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION 
 
 Of the complaints raised against inclosure the two which 
 have left the most marked impression in the literature of 
 the day, and which were rated most highly both by the 
 public and by statesmen relate to the alleged decrease in 
 the food supply, and in the amount of employment in the 
 country. Nor is the reason for this difficult to find. In 
 both cases the population of the country would be affected ; 
 and with a decline in population, the strength of the 
 country might suffer. 
 
 Separate attention has been given to the effect on the 
 various articles of the food supply. The general conclusion 
 reached was adverse to the suggested defect. With the 
 exception of the earliest years there seems no initial 
 ground for the belief that arable production, to take the 
 chief charge, was seriously and widely discouraged in 
 the country. Even in those districts, and there were such, 
 where it is partially superseded by pasture, the supply of 
 meat and animal products was increased. 
 
 But the matter of employment is different. Put broadly 
 the contention was that under the changed system of 
 cultivation, the yield of the land was produced in such a 
 way as to involve a less amount of labour. This might 
 take place in various ways. Better organisation and 
 greater economy in method might enable the same amount 
 to be produced by less labour, or again the interest of the 
 landlord and employer might be served better by certain 
 uses which required little labour than by those which 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 381 
 
 required much. The question was not always the same, 
 and it will be necessary to examine different periods 
 separately in order to ascertain how far at any time was 
 there justification for the charge. But before entering 
 upon this somewhat detailed investigation it will be well 
 to glance briefly at the various arguments used on the one 
 side and the other. Despite a difference in emphasis, there 
 is considerable sameness in these throughout the whole 
 time 
 
 Firstly, there was, so far as this particular question of 
 employment was concerned, a general admission that the 
 inclosure of wastes and commons, of moor, heath and 
 forest, was the reverse of detrimental to the general interest 
 This was evident at all times, and is shown both in the 
 general tenour of the criticisms and accounts of the move- 
 ment, and in particular references to particular cases. As 
 was pointed out during the controversy in the seventeenth 
 century, Mr. Moore's attack was not on all inclosure, but 
 only on those which might occasion depopulation,^ while 
 the inclosures referred to both then and in the sixteenth 
 century relate in the main to land lying in open field 
 which might be diverted from one use to another. The 
 distinction between the two kinds of inclosure was clearly 
 drawn by advocate and opponent alike in the eighteenth 
 century. But though some writers of this time point to 
 the increase of population occasioned by inclosure of 
 waste or land similar to waste, as in the forest inclosures in 
 Nottingham, the open commons in Norfolk, and the wastes 
 in Durham,^ sufficient attention was not paid to the effect 
 of the cultivation of waste lands on the agricultural area, 
 and the consequent conversion of other lands to pasture. 
 
 Secondly, the change in the open fields from a use 
 predominantly arable to a use predominantly pastoral is 
 
 ^ Considerations, p. 2. 
 
 ^Agric. Reports, Nottingham (1794), p. 44 ; Norfolk list of parishes given ; 
 also cf. 168 " the utilisation of commons" was the usual object of Norfolk 
 inclosures, that is, during the late part of eighteenth century ; Durham (1794), 
 pp. 43. 44- 
 
382 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 clearly the main matter at issue. There were, it is true, 
 other ways in which the amount of rural employment 
 might be affected. Thus the increase in the average size 
 of farms might well produce some effect. The large 
 farmers whose numbers were augmented by inclosure were 
 accused by some of neglecting the small market towns for 
 the sale of their goods, with the result that these were 
 impoverished and tradespeople and others thrown out of 
 work.^ Again the very ingrossing of farms necessarily, we 
 are told, diminished the number of people engaged in 
 cultivation ; ^ while at the time of the inclosure the rich 
 according to others, seized the occasion to deprive the 
 poor of rights and to drive them from the land.* Conse- 
 quences such as these were, however, of little general 
 importance, and may be regarded as merely incidental or 
 occasional in the movement A more important factor 
 tending towards the immediate decrease in certain kinds 
 of farm labour lay in the better and more economical 
 methods introduced. The mere consolidation of distant 
 lands into a compact holding necessarily lessened the 
 labour previously required in carting manure and produce. 
 Its effect on the use of horses has been mentioned. Very 
 similar, it is argued, must have been its effect on the 
 labourers. With the new farmers, there was an improve- 
 ment in the general organisation and the working of the land. 
 It was not, however, on results such as these that the 
 attack on the inclosures in respect of their effect on work, 
 and so on population, rested. The main point which 
 nearly every writer had in mind was the diversion of land 
 from arable to pasture. Sometimes this was stated 
 bluntly, sometimes it was put obscurely, but in nearly all 
 cases where serious depopulation was alleged it was the 
 real basis of the charge. In full accord with the oft-cited 
 description in the early sixteenth century of the sheep 
 
 ''■ Agric. Report, Hertford (\J<)\), p. ^0. 
 
 -This opinion expressed to Young by an opponent of inclosures. Annals of 
 Agriculture, \\. p. 454. Cf. Lansdown MS. 487, p. 433. 
 ' Vindication of the Considerations. Summary at end. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 383 
 
 devouring or supplanting, we hear at the beginning of the 
 seventeenth of the simple and gentle sheep " now become 
 so ravenous that they begin to devour men, waste fields, 
 and depopulate houses," ^ and of -the people " driven out 
 by tyrants who would dwell by themselves in the midst 
 of their herds of fat wethers." ^ The same complaint, 
 though less picturesquely clad, meets us in the controversy 
 in the middle of that century ,s and again in the eighteenth 
 century. Even those fully convinced, as was Hewlett, of 
 the essential desirability of the inclosure, had to admit 
 that where the consequence was the wide extension of 
 pasture, decrease in population would occur, though this 
 admission was qualified by instances from other counties, 
 where the very reverse followed on inclosure.* As the 
 author of the Report on Leicester says, where the full 
 effect of conversion to pasture is felt, many cultivators are 
 dispossessed, and "the rejected occupier and his family 
 must migrate into towns." * According to some, popula- 
 tion was affected because less food was produced,® but this 
 view, though in harmony with the contention that altera- 
 tions of the food supply, even in the direction of increase, 
 and alterations in population necessarily coincided, and of 
 course obviously true so far as any great decrease in 
 production was concerned, was not the aspect emphasised. 
 
 '^Gco, Description of England and Waks (1615), under Northampton. 
 
 ^ Diggers' Petition, Harl. MS. 787, p. 9. 
 
 ^Depopulation arraigned, by R. P. (1636), p. 84. 
 
 *Thus Hewlett {An Inguiry into the effect which Inclosures, etc.) gives a few 
 instances from Leicester, where there has been decrease, and then adds that he 
 has many instances of parishes in Buckingham, Bedford, Derby, Wilts, and 
 Hampshire, where an increase of population has ensued on inclosure, pp. 12-15 ? 
 the author of the first Agricultural Report on Rutland (1794) states that in the 
 first great run of inclosures, about 1760, labourers lost employment in certain 
 parishes owing to conversion to grass, and sought shelter in other parishes or 
 else resorted to other kinds of employment. Of late, owing to better methods, 
 the population, in the opinion of the writer, has increased on inclosure, p. 3 1. 
 Cf. Agric. Report, Warwick {I'Jija^, p. 21 ; Northampton (1809), pp. 58-63. 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, Z^icester (i&og), p. 16. 
 
 ' Darwin, Phytologia. The general grounds given here are fanciful. 
 
384 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Some do not refer to it at all, and while it forms part of 
 the general case put forward by others it is obviously not 
 the part to which they attach importance. The contention 
 which was treated as of far greater moment was that by 
 inclosure the land, or at any rate a large part of it, would 
 pass into uses involving a less amount of employment ; in 
 other words, the conversion into pasture was the anti- 
 cipated peril. For at least three centuries the existence, 
 probability, or extent of such change occupied the public 
 mind. Despite the differences between the various periods 
 both as to the degree to which conversion from arable to 
 grazing really took place, and as to the opinions formed 
 by contemporaries, there is a strong likeness between the 
 arguments employed. The resemblance is made the more 
 interesting because of the modifications introduced as time 
 progresses. Taking the main point, it is generally 
 admitted that where conversion to pastuie takes place to 
 any great extent there is risk of depopulation, unless the 
 loss of employment directly on the land is - compensated 
 for in other ways. At all periods we find keen controversy 
 as to the extent to which any such conversion took place, 
 and as to the degree in which the population was affected. 
 From the beginning of the seventeenth century the extent 
 to which compensation is secured by new employments is 
 likewise a subject of discussion. Of these matters the two 
 earlier require little illustration. They lie at the root of 
 the difference of opinion, and will consequently be involved 
 in the attempt which will be made to determine the facts 
 of the respective periods. The last stands in a somewhat 
 different position. Increase of employment was suggested 
 as likely to take place in two ways. In the first place, the 
 inclosure would create work at the time. More labourers 
 will be needed for hedging and ditching is the statement 
 of a writer in 1607, and his opinion is re-echoed in the 
 eighteenth century,^ when it must be remembered inclosures 
 
 ' Lansdown MS. 487, p. 433. Cf. Agru. Report, Northampton {1794), 
 p. 60. Horner, Essay upon Nature and Method, p. 30, but in criticism. 
 Inquiry into the reasons for and against, etc., p. 24. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 385 
 
 were taking place under strict conditions as to their 
 fencing. But some part of this labour, as was clearly seen 
 at any rate in the later century, was only temporary. 
 The making of the inclosure created unusual activity for a 
 time, but that would not continue. On the other hand, 
 some hedging and ditching would continue. But of 
 course the end sought in many inclosures would have 
 been partly frustrated, if this latter employment had been 
 sufficient to counterbalance the economy elsewhere 
 achieved. In the second place, as industry progresses 
 observers begin to take into account the new employments 
 to which the increased production of wool might give rise. 
 Even when industry was carried on under the domestic 
 system compensation in this way was quite possible. 
 At the end of the seventeenth century Houghton asserts 
 that the new employment thus created was very consider- 
 able. A very similar view finds expression at the end of 
 the eighteenth century.' 
 
 The modifying influence of changing conditions may be 
 observed even more clearly in the attitude taken as to the 
 effecj' of lessened employment on the lands converted to 
 pasture upon the absolute amount of employment, and so 
 of population. In the earlier times the complaint implies 
 an actual depopulation. During the early sixteenth 
 century this was probably the well-nigh universal view. 
 Dissent from it was probably due to a recognition that 
 inclosure did not always bring about a diminution of the 
 arable area, owing either to its taking place on wastes 
 hitherto uncultivated, or in order to facilitate improved 
 agriculture, this latter aspect becoming of more importance 
 at the end of that century. But with the seventeenth 
 century the possibility, due no doubt to increased oppor- 
 tunities for locomotion, obviously suggests itself to some 
 observers, that the decrease of employment in agriculture 
 in one place may be offset by the increased work offered 
 elsewhere, though not necessarily due to inclosure. Such 
 
 ^ Houghton, Collections (1692), No. 16. He has, he asserts, a calculation by 
 him which proves this. Pennington, W., Reflections, etc., p. 19. 
 
 2B 
 
386 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 seems the general tenor of the argument of the author of 
 the comparison between the counties of Somerset and 
 Northampton. It is put more clearly in 1656, when Mr. 
 Moore writes : " I complain not of inclosure in Kent and 
 Essex, where they have other callings and trades.'' From 
 that time the absorption into other work, often in the 
 same locality, of those driven out of agricultural labour, 
 gains increased prominence, owing without doubt to the 
 growth in industrial employments of all kinds. Conse- 
 quently emphasis is laid, particularly by those who 
 questioned or opposed inclosure, on the hardships involved 
 in the change of employment.^ Some, of course, amongst 
 whom Dr. Price occupies a special pre-eminence, still remain 
 faithful to the more pessimistic interpretation of the 
 situation, as is shown by the pertinacious declaration of 
 the absolute decline in the population. The new industrial 
 growth was responsible for another point. Change of 
 work often meant change from the country into town,^ and, 
 as some saw, the conditions of the town, through lack of 
 sanitation and owing to overcrowding, were prejudicial to 
 health and physique. On the other hand, there were not 
 wanting those who viewed the industries and the towns as 
 in part the cause of the drift out of the countrj'. Accord- 
 ing to one, agriculture was suffering because the best 
 labourers were attracted into other employments,^ while 
 another speaks of the great difference in habits between 
 the early part of his century and the later, to him the 
 present part, when " people are no longer content to 
 remain in the country." * A third says that migration 
 out of inclosed parishes was often due to prejudice and 
 dislike to the new conditions.^ 
 
 It is quite possible that alterations in the method of 
 cultivation in some cases in the eighteenth century may 
 
 ^ Addington, Inqttiry into reasoTisfor and against, p. 24. 
 
 ^Agric. Report, Leicester (1809), p. 166. Cf. Addington, id. p. 32. 
 
 ^ Agric. Report, Hampshire (\%\-^, pp. 384-5. 
 
 ^ A general view of England, by M. V. D. M. (1766), p. 25. 
 
 ° Stone, Suggestions, p. 39. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 387 
 
 have occurred because of a decrease in good labour, owing 
 to the offer of other work and the specious attractions of 
 town life. In addition to the field of industrial employ- 
 ment, inclosure under and in the service of progressive 
 agriculture operated in the direction of new work. Not 
 only was there less waste in unnecessary fallow as already 
 indicated, but the labour connected with the new crops, 
 as for instance turnips, must be taken into account. 
 Even without an increase of the land under cereals the 
 total employment was increased in many districts. 
 
 The question of fact still remains. To determine it, a 
 somewhat detailed consideration of different periods is 
 necessary. 
 
 With regard to it, certain preliminary matters must be 
 borne in mind with regard to the evidence as to depopula- 
 tion. The mere fact of inclosure cannot be regarded as 
 evidence, since, as has been seen, under certain conditions 
 no such effect or even the very contrary effect would be 
 occasioned. In addition to what has been already said, 
 it must be remembered that in many cases new land 
 from the mountain side or the forest was being taken in 
 while the more settled village land was inclosed, with 
 the result that the conversion of some of the latter from 
 arable to pasture produced little effect in the directions 
 under consideration, and further that in the very process 
 of inclosure the reduction of fallow and other causes 
 involved an increase in the amount of land in effective use. 
 
 (a) Till middle of sixteenth century. — In the early period, 
 that is before the middle of the sixteenth century, the 
 indirect evidence tends almost uniformly to substantiate 
 the general charge that inclosure led to a diminution in 
 employment and a decrease in the population of certain 
 large districts. Sheep and sheep farms grew very rapidly 
 and at the expense of land previously in arable. In 
 support of this we have not merely public clamour but 
 the detailed assertions of men like Latimer and Fitz 
 Herbert, the latter of whom, at any rate, was no indis- 
 criminate opponent Side by side with this may be placed 
 
388 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the great development of the English wool and cloth 
 industry. But of course depopulation, even if only local, 
 remains to be shown. That such was produced in certain 
 districts at any rate is well authenticated. Dugdale, for 
 instance, in the case of Warwickshire, supplies many 
 instances of villages or hamlets stripped of their popula- 
 tion in the time of Henry VI I.,^ and his statements 
 find support from the passage in the history by J. Rossus 
 where the writer, speaking of a district known to him as 
 a boy, tells of the inconvenience now caused to a rider 
 by having to dismount and open gates where once the 
 land was open and uninclosed. Again, the risings in the 
 time of Henry VIII. in Somerset and the eastern counties 
 were partly due to inclosure of some order. The Com- 
 mission of Hales and its findings prove that the move- 
 ment was widespread. The fact, however, that these 
 findings were sometimes reversed, as was the case, affects 
 their value as evidence not indeed of inclosure but as to 
 its ♦esults. In many instances complaint and popular 
 discontent appear to have arisen by reason of a loss of 
 common right and a consequent deprivation of advantages 
 guaranteed by custom if not by law, rather than owing 
 to conversion from arable to pasture. On the other hand, 
 there is little actual evidence in support of the theory 
 of compensation or of inclosure taking place for arable 
 improvement. In some places, no doubt, waste was 
 inclosed, probably, however, towards the end of the 
 period, since the re-enactment of the statute of West- 
 minster seems a proof that approvement which would, of 
 course, have been the normal way of dealing with conjmons 
 and wastes was not in frequent use. To judge ' from 
 Fitz Herbert's language, the chief form of inclosure! was 
 an inclosure of demesne lands, accompanied by licenses to 
 tenants to likewise inclose their lands, both allowing an 
 increase of pasture. Agriculture, too, was at a low ebb. 
 So little was the profit of arable that, as has been seen in 
 a passage already quoted, there was more gain to be got 
 
 'For instances see Dugdale, i. pp. 24, Whitchurch ; 51, Stretton, etc. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 389 
 
 from land left in furse than when under corn. So far as 
 can be seen the relentless use of the land in the common 
 field system had led to its natural consequence. The 
 soil, especially when light, was exhausted, and time and 
 rest were needed for its restoration. Nor can it be said 
 that available employment which might absorb those thus 
 cut adrift, offered itself in other directions. On the 
 contrary, save in certain districts, towns in the early part 
 of the sixteenth century seemed to have been lacking in 
 progress, while over the whole country a veritable flood of 
 vagrancy was let loose. No doubt this latter feature was 
 attributable to many causes, amongst which the growth of 
 sheep farming was only one ; but even if not occasioned 
 by inclosure, its existence and magnitude indicate a 
 condition of things when want was rampant and wide- 
 spread. Hence, indeed, those who passed out of agricul- 
 ture could find little employment elsewhere. Even if it 
 existed it was in many cases too far off. and quite out of 
 reach. 
 
 There was of course little direct evidence as t» de- 
 population,^ except so far as the incidental allusions to 
 different localities may be construed as such. Possibly, 
 however, the Commission of John Hales should be added, 
 since in the main the real concern of the State with 
 inclosure lay in its general effect on the population. 
 
 It should be remembered, however, that most of the 
 statements as to the general tendency of inclosure during 
 this period are very general, and that in particular some 
 part of the complaint, as already said, may be due to a 
 deprivation of common. Further, there may have been 
 considerable inclosure from a wild state, despite the later 
 references to waste and unused land which point in an 
 opposite direction. Probably there was some.^ 
 
 ' In a passage already quoted, p. 1 56, it is asserted by Sir Anthony Cope 
 that those dispossessed are often driven into great towns where they may die 
 in the streets. Lansdown MS., 83, f. 68. But this is a general and vague 
 statement. 
 
 » Bk. ii. App. E. 
 
390 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 (J>) From middle of sixteenth to end of seventeenth 
 century. — During the latter years of the sixteenth century, 
 and in the first half of that which followed, anxiety as to 
 the effect on the population is clearly shown. The same 
 feeling which found expression in the preamble to the 
 statute on "Husbandry" in 1597 instigates many 
 pamphlets, and leads to communications to the Govern- 
 ment by way of advice. Further, there is the inquiry 
 at the end of the century with the returns of 1607, 
 and the Commission of 163 1-2, appointed as part of 
 the continued policy of the Privy Council with regard 
 to this matter. A clear distinction was drawn between 
 inclosures which led to depopulation and those which, 
 whatever other results they might have, had no necessary 
 tendency in this direction. The action of the State was 
 determined by this consideration. It formed the initial 
 charge in respect to different cases disclosed to the 
 Board, and was obviously the point on which they require 
 to be satisfied. If satisfied that depopulation was not 
 likely to ensue, the question of inclosure assumed a 
 less important aspect, and in most cases further action in 
 restraint was foregone. So much at least may be said 
 of the recorded cases which were discussed before the 
 Council, forming the subject of careful inquiry, constant 
 communication and administrative action. That the 
 Council could interfere, and, when deemed necessary on 
 account of depopulation, did interfere, sometimes with 
 immediate effect, is evident. On the other hand, the 
 large number of inclosures of recent date, recorded in 
 consequence of the Commission, and yet leading to few 
 attempts towards the restoration of earlier conditions, 
 requires some explanation. It may be that the approach 
 of grave political trouble intervened to prevent remedy ; 
 it may be that the royal exigencies substituted punish- 
 ment by fine to the king for punishment by restoration of 
 the dispossessed, or by re-conversion to arable, but it 
 is difficult to avoid the inference that, taken as a whole, 
 the inclosures thus ascertained, had not resulted in the 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 391 
 
 depopulation, which was the principal ground for interven- 
 tion and action by the king and Council. Yet the list 
 of compositions for inclosures imposed during the years 
 1635-8 shows how numerous and widespread were those 
 open, at least, to this particular charge during the early 
 part of the seventeenth century ; but, of course, the system 
 of composition, while adding a fiscal advantage to punish- 
 ment, does not effect restoration. Nor is it accompanied 
 by any attempt, such as that embodied in the old tillage 
 lawa 
 
 The explanation here offered of this absence of any 
 real attempt at remedial action receives additional 
 support from its harmony with other evidence. The 
 record of the cases brought before the consideration of 
 the Council shows two things. On the one hand, the 
 existence of inclosure, other than of wastes, without 
 depopulation, is clearly recognised, and evidence on 
 this latter point, altogether apart from that relating to the 
 inclosure itself, is required ; on the other hand, in certain 
 instances, the testimony on this last matter is clearly 
 inadequate. Further acknowledgment of the two kinds 
 of inclosure is abundant. Observers taking different 
 views join in the admission, though, of course, they do 
 not agree as to the extent to which each kind has 
 prevailed. Thus, the author of the Considerations {16 fiT,), 
 both in that pamphlet and in his Rejoinder (1656), and 
 Joseph Lee, urge that depopulation is not a usual 
 accompaniment or consequence, while Moore,^ on the 
 other side with Powell and others,- obviously consider as 
 rare, cases where this evil result has not ensued. Fuller, 
 in The Holy State, writes of the good landlord that he 
 " detests and abhors all inclosure with depopulation." 
 Differing opinions, such as these, cannot be construed 
 otherwise than as proving the occurrence of inclosures with 
 
 ' The titles of Moore's pamphlets emphasise his attack on inclosures which 
 " unpeople towns and uncorn fields." 
 
 ' E.g. Joseph Bentham, The Society of Saints, p. 67, etc. ; Fuller, Holy 
 State, bk. iL c. 13. 
 
392 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 different results as regards the population, and of these, 
 in both cases, in no inconsiderable amount. Like 
 testimony is at hand in the lists and mentions of places 
 where the presence or absence of depopulation has been 
 observed. Moore says of the hundred or more town- 
 ships, which he declares to have been inclosed in Leicester- 
 shire, " how few among them are not unpeopled or 
 uncorned or both " ; ^ but he gives neither names nor 
 details. In the same strain is Bentham's'' statement 
 of eleven manors in Northamptonshire which lost their 
 population. On the other hand, a list of nineteen town- 
 ships is given by Lee^ where no depopulation has taken 
 place, taken from the area of South Leicestershire and 
 the adjoining counties, which, he says, ought to be added 
 to. Indeed, he himself gives a further list of places 
 in the same district where the inclosures either have 
 been or are now about to be plowed. Moore's querulous 
 complaint of writers who " fish out some few examples of 
 inclosure not followed by evil result," carries little con- 
 viction, especially in view of the fact that where he speaks 
 in general terms his opponents give precise instances. 
 Aubrey, in his account of the inclosures in North Wilts, 
 says definitely that in that case there was depopulation. 
 The only general conclusion possible is that both results 
 could be perceived in fairly considerable amounts in 
 the districts treated of. But there were many other 
 districts where the charge of depopulation does not 
 occur. 
 
 A more important matter than the local result occa- 
 sioned in each particular case, is the general result in 
 a district, a county, or the country at large. Here 
 the evidence seems more harmonious. Thus, Moore's 
 statement already quoted : " I complain not of inclosure 
 in Kent and Essex where they have other callings and 
 
 ' This statement by Moore is cited in the Vindication of the Considerations, 
 p. 14, as from a " Reply " in a printed sheet 
 ^Bentham, Christian Conflict, cited "Considerations," p. 40. 
 ' Lee, A Vindication, etc., pp. 5, 8. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 393 
 
 trades to maintain their country by, or of places near the 
 sea or city," may be compared with Lee's words : " Are 
 there not many places in England, Essex, Hereford, 
 Devonshire, Shropshire, Worcester, wholly inclosed and 
 yet no such results follow ? " and with the vindication 
 of inclosure in the case of Somerset As will be seen 
 other counties or parts of counties might be added, as 
 far as inclosure is concerned, but there is no record even 
 of this general kind, as to their condition with regard 
 to population. In some of the cases mentioned, the 
 conditions at the time were such as to secure the easy 
 employment, and so the reabsorption, as it were, of even 
 large numbers thrown out of agricultural work, if such 
 there were. It seems certain that some local disturbance 
 must have taken place, and it is possible, though im- 
 probable, that the total agricultural employment in some 
 counties underwent diminution. In Devonshire the busy 
 woollen industry obviously offered increased employment, 
 since, at the beginning of the century, wool had to be 
 brought in for manufacture from many other counties, as 
 from Dorset and Cornwall on the one side, and on the 
 other from Worcester and Warwick. So busied were 
 the people in industry that food also had to be imported 
 into the county.^ To some extent this was probably 
 true of Somerset, but here inclosure had partly taken 
 the form of bringing common and waste into general 
 cultivation. The cases of Essex and Kent are sufficiently 
 explained. In Shropshire and Hereford land had been 
 taken in and inclosed from a state of waste, or something 
 very like waste, and the same was true of districts in other 
 counties formerly under wood, as is stated both by Blith, 
 a supporter, and the author of The Humble Petition of 
 Two Sisters, an opponent of inclosure. The actual date 
 of inclosure in these counties is doubtful. 
 
 As a matter of fact, a careful distinction must be made 
 between the circumstances of counties like Devonshire, 
 Kent, and Essex and those of many others, including those 
 
 'Thomas Westcott, A View of Devonshire in 1630, p. 60. 
 
394 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 inland counties " where inclosure is now so much inveighed 
 against." In the former case, a decrease in one form of 
 agriculture, if such occurred, might be shorn of effect by 
 the growth of new forms of employment within reasonable 
 reach. In the more agricultural counties where " the 
 great manufacture and trade ... is tillage," such means of 
 remedy was not present. But even in the then agricultural 
 circumstances of the country certain new opportunities for 
 those deprived of farm work in one or other township, 
 offered themselves elsewhere. In the first place, it must be 
 remembered that by the very inclosure the effective area 
 of cultivation was enlarged. Unnecessary fallows were 
 abandoned, and the cultivation of these offered new work.^ 
 In the second place, the draining of the Fens and of the 
 Bedford Level added so largely to the land under crop 
 that deduction elsewhere might take place without any 
 diminution in the total arable amount In the third place, 
 during this period, some of the land formerly laid down 
 under grass was now being ploughed up, having regained 
 its fertility with rest. The greatest yield of corn, according 
 to the suggestion of one writer, is from old inclosures now 
 broken up to tillage.- In the fourth place, land in many 
 different regions was taken in from a wild and forest 
 state. While the extent to which this took place is 
 difficult to estimate, there is no doubt that it was very 
 considerable. The period was one of progressive agri- 
 culture, and the spirit of reclamation which exhibited 
 itself in the great drainage schemes was likely to encourage 
 the utilization of land lying in an unreclaimed condition. 
 Careful observers like Gibson and Morton, elsewhere cited, 
 writing respectively of Warwickshire and Northampton- 
 shire, employ this as the true cause of conversions from 
 arable to pasture which took place in other parts of 
 these counties. While not peculiar to the seventeenth 
 
 ' Lee, Vindication, 21, etc In the Summary affixed to A Vindication of the 
 Considerations, strong complaint is made of the loss of ground for the crop of 
 corn under the open field system. See answer to objection i. 
 
 - Considerations, p. 10 ; Lee, Vindication, etc. , pp. 8, g. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 395 
 
 century it was probably more operative on a large scale 
 in that century than previously. The exhaustion of the 
 woods and forests during this period lends probability to 
 this view, and it may be that some of the inclosure which 
 took place in the west and elsewhere without the inter- 
 vention of any common field system, as suggested by 
 Marshall, may be ascribed to this time.^ At the end of 
 the sixteenth century, it was suggested, as has been already 
 pointed out, that the easiest remedy for the decay of arable 
 was not the reconversion of the land now and recently 
 laid down to pasture, but the bringing of the wastes 
 largely overgrown and of little value into cultivation ; 
 and the extent of these was stated to be very great." 
 Taking into account the nature of the inclosures during 
 the eighteenth century, about which good information 
 exists, the reclamation of waste in that century, save in 
 the north of England, does not seem sufficiently extensive 
 to account for an area of waste, as large as would be 
 gathered from the above account and also from Leland's 
 Itinerary. 
 
 From the various accounts dealt with, and in the various 
 ways described, it may be concluded that the whole area 
 of cultivation was greatly enlarged. 
 
 The results on employment and population may be 
 summarised. Local disturbance took place without doubt, 
 a process which occasioned suffering and poverty, and 
 combined with other causes to bring about migration, thus 
 aiding the movement which the Act of Settlement of the 
 Poor (1662) sought to restrain. But this disturbance was 
 
 ^ It is difficult to speak precisely as to dates. The author of The Humble 
 Petition makes his attack on inclosure in 1604 " not condemning the inclosure 
 of Essex, Hartfordshire and Devonshire, and such woodland counties." Blith 
 in 1652 gives as the places where " woodlands now enclosed are grown as 
 gallant cornfields as be in England," western parts of Warwick, the northern 
 parts of Worcester, Stafford, Shropshire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire, and all the 
 counties thereabouts. But neither of them say anything to show whether 
 the inclosure referred to was novel and in progress, or past, but yet not too long 
 past to be forgotten. 
 
 ■•"Address by Alderman Box, Lansdown MS., cxxxi. 22. 
 
396 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 not uniform and was probably confined to particular 
 villages and districts, and even then not operative to any 
 very great degree save in the inland, or rather the midland, 
 counties. Any wide general effect in the direction of 
 depopulation was checked in many counties by the large 
 addition made to the total land under cultivation, and in 
 other cases by the development of local industries and 
 occupations. 
 
 From evidence already adduced as to the course of in- 
 closure towards the end of the same century, there is even 
 less probability of depopulation. Some change in the use 
 of particular fields and farms must have taken place, but 
 the balance of testimony is in favour of an increase of 
 arable at the expense of pasture. During this time there 
 is little complaint about inclosure,^ and little if any sug- 
 gestion of a decrease in the population, arising from this 
 or any other cause. Gregory King and Davenant both 
 asserted an increase. 
 
 (c) Eighteenth Century. When, with the growth of 
 private acts, open field inclosure becomes a predominant 
 feature of the movement, at least in many parts of 
 the country, complaints as to the effect upon employ- 
 ment and population are revived. Certain differences 
 distinguish the outcry at this time from that of an 
 earlier date. Clearer knowledge as to the results of 
 the movement restricts the attack to particular forms. 
 Though still the gravest complaint, others are added to it, 
 while further it is urged with more discrimination and less 
 as a general charge. Again, save in a few instances, the 
 real complaint is rather that local depopulation injures 
 those thrown out of one trade and forced to emigrate or 
 to resort to some other calling than that the number of the 
 people in the country is diminished. Lastly, the social and 
 unhealthy lot of those forced into towns insanitary in their 
 condition and prematurely increased, occupies attention. 
 Dr. Price, of course, was conspicuous among those who 
 
 'J. Co-v^x xa An Essay proving that inclosing commons attd common fields 
 is contrary to the interests of the nation, 1732, fnmishes an exception. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 397 
 
 asserted depopulation.^ His denunciation of inclosures 
 had this peculiarity, that unlike that by others, it pro- 
 ceeded less from objection to them than from the evident 
 desire to assign some adequate cause for what was then his 
 favourite doctrine, the decline of the population. The 
 inaccuracy of his calculations on this point, often exposed, 
 were finally disposed of by the census of 1801. But his 
 pertinacity had the merit of evoking able criticism which 
 extended beyond the bare statistical matter to the question 
 of cause, and hence the effect of the inclosures on popula- 
 tion during the latter part of the century was very effect- 
 ively examined. It was kept well to the front in all 
 discussions. 
 
 Very fortunately during this period there is more direct 
 evidence as to the result of inclosure, both in the country 
 at large and in different districts, than in earlier times. 
 Thus the amount of inclosure and its nature in the various 
 counties can be at least approximately determined from 
 the investigation of the acts and awards. Next, the 
 evidence of the writers of the County Reports and of 
 other observers gives the views entertained by those who 
 had specific knowledge derived from inspection. In the 
 third place, a detailed attempt made by Hewlett to arrive 
 at an estimate of the effect upon population in certain 
 counties, was published in 1786; while, in the last place, 
 data exist for a more complete calculation at the end of 
 the century and the beginning of the nineteenth century. 
 
 Dealing with the first matter, it is obvious that in 
 certain counties the amount of land which may be esti- 
 mated as inclosed under private acts before 1 800 was too 
 slight to occasion any great or serious change, as may be 
 seen from its percentage to the area of the counties in 
 question.^ This is certainly the case in Westmoreland, 
 Lancashire, Cheshire, Shropshire, Hereford, Cornwall, 
 Devonshire, Kent, Essex, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex. In 
 
 •The exaggerated popular view is well illustrated in Goldsmith's Deserted 
 Village, esp. Preface. 
 ^ Bk. ii. Appendix D. 
 
398 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 other counties, Hampshire, Stafford, Somerset, Dorset, 
 Westmoreland, the quantity, though about 5 per cent, is 
 not great. In nearly all these cases the characteristic was 
 inclosure of commons or waste. Only in some few did 
 the movement affect land in open field. In Suffolk and 
 Hereford the two are about equal, in Stafford inclosure 
 was mainly of common, while only in Hampshire and 
 Dorset did open field predominate. In the remaining 
 counties mentioned above, commons and wastes formed 
 the land thus dealt with. But to the districts where little 
 if any effect on population could thus be produced, a con- 
 siderable addition must be made when account is taken of 
 counties where inclosure was large in amount and yet 
 wholly or largely of waste, wild land or commons. To 
 the above must be added the northern counties, Northum- 
 berland, Cumberland, Durham and part of Yorkshire. In 
 Norfolk the two kinds had been going on simultaneously. 
 In both Nottingham and Derby, a considerable amount of 
 common was taken in, while in both Worcester and Lin- 
 coln^ inclosures of this kind were neither infrequent nor 
 in their total amount unimportant. Even this does not 
 exhaust the matter. On many soils inclosure had but 
 little effect so far as labour and population were concerned, 
 for the simple reason that it affected the use of the land 
 slightly if at all. In these instances it would have, in the 
 main, a beneficial effect, since more continuous cultivation 
 was introduced and a new call for labour was made in 
 respect of the turnip crop and of artificial grasses. It is 
 probably due, at any rate in part, to these causes, that in 
 Huntingdon and Cambridge, in Nottingham and Derby, in 
 Lincoln and in Gloucester, the complaint of rural depopu- 
 lation does not appear to have been raised. The result of 
 the above is to restrict to narrow and somewhat particular 
 
 'A good deal of fen land and comparative waste remained in Lincoln. 
 Probably the appearance of this led one traveller to urge that the Lincolnshire 
 inclosures must be beneficial to the nation even if hurtful to a few, and that 
 they would increase population; "Tour in Midland Counties in 1772," 
 Gentleman^! Mag. , xliv. p. 206. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 399 
 
 limits the regions where any very marked results might be 
 apprehended. Thus we have Wiltshire, together with 
 probably some portion of Dorset. Again, the midland 
 counties, Leicester, Northampton, Bedford and Rutland, 
 and in another group, Oxford, Berkshire, and some part 
 of Buckingham, present themselves for separate examina- 
 tion. Possibly, too, Warwick and Worcester on the one 
 hand, and Nottingham and Derby on the other, require 
 a word. 
 
 With regard to these latter it should be remembered 
 that they were necessarily affected by the growth of 
 manufacture and the needs of a manufacturing population. 
 In counties abutting on the new industries conversion 
 from arable to pasture often took place by reason of the 
 immediate demand for milk and meat, but this might be 
 wholly independent of inclosure, as, for instance, in 
 Lancashire.^ Further, in them as in the home counties 
 and in Lancashire and Cheshire, growth in manufacture 
 produced new employments, which tended to attract 
 people away from the more rural districts in the immediate 
 proximity. 
 
 Turning to the midland group first mentioned, namely, 
 Leicester, Northampton, Bedford and Rutland, information 
 is to be found in the evidence of contemporary observers. 
 So far as Leicester is concerned, there was little doubt 
 among contemporaries that a marked conversion into 
 pasture, resulting in the diminution of the labour on some 
 farms and of population in some rural districts, took place. 
 With very few exceptions, indeed, the Enclosures by act up 
 to 1800 were of land in cultivation, and thus in large 
 measure of open fields. Both the direct evidence of 
 careful observers of all kinds and the acknowledged 
 development in the county of breeding point in the same 
 direction. It is no doubt true that the growth of manu- 
 facture in certain centres provided additional work 
 throughout the county, but this does not disprove the 
 results on rural employment and population. In North- 
 
 ' Agric. Report, Lancashire (1813), p. 393. 
 
400 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 ampton these results are not so uniform. While the 
 nature of the inclosures was the same as in Leicester, the 
 results differ at any rate as far as one part of the county 
 is concerned. According to the Report to the Board of 
 Agriculture a difference in soil was in large measure 
 responsible for this ; one part becoming a great grazing 
 district,^ from which, the writer surmises, many had to 
 migrate, while the others still continued in mixed cultiva- 
 tion. Where arable continued, improved methods and 
 new crops may have led to an increased demand for 
 labour.^ In Rutland few wastes or separate commons 
 were inclosed, and we are told that there was a decrease 
 in the arable area. The case of Bedford remains. There 
 is no doubt that in certain places conversion took place 
 on a sufficiently large scale to attract observation. Of 
 this instances occur in the north of the county, but the 
 writer of the Report to the Board of Agriculture doubts if 
 there was much effect produced on the population as a 
 whole.* He agrees that it has taken place in certain 
 cases. If the area under wheat can be taken as a trust- 
 worthy index of the land under arable, the returns to the 
 inquiry instituted by a Committee of the House of 
 Commons in 1800 can be adduced in corroboration of the 
 conclusions thus arrived at In all four counties, as far as 
 returns reach, the acreage under wheat on the inclosures 
 concerned during the periods 1 760- 1 800 had undergone, 
 after the inclosure, a diminution, amounting in Leicester 
 to 37 per cent, in Northampton to 29 per cent, in 
 Bedford to 1 3 per cent, and in Rutland to 5 4 per cent. ; * 
 in the last case the amount taken into account is perhaps 
 too small to justify any very definite conclusion. The 
 
 '^ Agric. Report, Northampton (1809), p. 137, forming a great grazing 
 district, supplying tlie towns and London with meat. 
 
 -See Stone, Suggestions, p. 30, etc. 
 
 ^Agric. Report, Beiifoni (iSoj), pp. 270-1. 
 
 ■* These percentages relate to the inclosures in parishes in respect of which 
 returns are made. It is far from certain that they can be taken as representative 
 of inclosure throughout the entire country. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 401 
 
 position of the various counties, showing decline in the 
 wheat area as alleged, may be set out as follows : 
 
 Decrease in Wheat acreage 
 INCLOSURE BEFORE iBoa in Parishes for which 
 
 returns are made. 
 
 Bedford, 1 1 57 
 
 Berkshire, 122 
 
 Buckingham, - 3297 
 
 Cambridge, 297 
 
 Leicester, 3793 
 
 Northampton, 5787 
 
 Nottingham, - 984 
 
 Oxford, - 112 
 
 Rutland, 498 
 
 Warwick, 2180 
 
 These figures relate to the net effect on the wheat 
 .acreage of the inclosures of all land, not common field 
 alone, in respect of which returns were received. In 
 certain cases the decrease forms a considerable percentage 
 of the area for which returns were made. As a general 
 rule decrease occurs in counties where the amount of in- 
 closure was great, and often, as a reference to the table 
 shows, where inclosure took place mainly before 1 780. 
 
 Another list gives the effect produced on the wheat 
 acreage in open field inclosures in 646 cases. Of these 
 646 places increase occurs in 239 of 14,507 acres and 
 decrease in 407 of 30,894 acres. 
 
 
 
 Barley. 
 
 A. 
 
 
 
 Oats. 
 
 
 
 Number 
 
 of 
 Returns. 
 
 Places 
 
 showing 
 Increase. 
 
 Places 
 showing 
 Decrease- 
 
 Number 
 
 of 
 Returns. 
 
 Places 
 showing 
 Increase. 
 
 Places 
 showing 
 Decrease. 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 23 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 21 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 Buckingham, - 
 
 28 
 
 18 
 
 6 
 
 28 
 
 13 
 
 12 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 72 
 
 28 
 
 37 
 
 69 
 
 59 
 
 8 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 78 
 
 36 
 
 29 
 
 74 
 
 50 
 
 14 
 
 Nottingham, - 
 
 5° 
 
 33 
 
 9 
 
 46 
 
 34 
 
 5 
 
 Oxford, - 
 
 29 
 
 14 
 
 13 
 
 31 
 
 29 
 
 2 
 
 Rutland, - 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 35 
 
 14 
 
 18 
 
 35 
 
 19 
 
 II 
 
 2C 
 
402 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 To determine the land under some form of grain 
 requires some account of the land under barley and oats 
 both before and after inclosure. Though figures in acres 
 are not given, some estimate as to extent of change may 
 be formed from the number of inclosures in which either 
 increase or decrease took place. These are set out for 
 the counties enumerated above. 
 
 When these figures are taken into account, the total 
 acreage under grain in certain of these counties may be 
 regarded as not having decreased. This would seem true 
 of Berkshire, Cambridge, Oxford, and probably of Notting- 
 ham. Further, the decrease in grain acreage is certainly 
 considerably less than that in wheat acreage in Bucking- 
 ham and Northampton. The position in Bedford, Leicester, 
 Rutland and Warwick is not greatly modified. Now, 
 taking into account the great increase in stock displaying 
 itself in most of these counties, especially where that 
 increase includes dairy cows, the probability of decrease 
 in employment cannot be said to present itself in many 
 cases.' The additional labour required for root crops must 
 also be borne in mind. 
 
 The increase of stock is so great in some cases as to 
 compensate for some decrease in arable if such took place. 
 The counties where there is. initial ground for treating 
 diminution in rural employment and population as probable 
 are Bedford, Leicester, Warwick, and also Northampton, 
 Buckingham and Rutland. In the latter three cases the 
 probability is much less strong than when wheat acreage 
 alone is considered, while in the former three there is 
 some modification. It is doubtful if sufficient instances 
 are given in Rutland to justify much conclusion. 
 
 The matter may be approached from another point of 
 view. A further list in the General Report furnishes the 
 quantity of waste or common included in the inclosures, 
 whether of open field or not, in the various counties. 
 Taking these, and comparing the amount thus stated for 
 the different parishes with open field inclosure with the 
 
 ' Opposite page. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 403 
 
 total acreage of such inclosures, the percentage of com- 
 mons or waste in open field inclosure works out at 
 20 or 25 per cent. In Bedford it is 20 per cent, in 
 Leicester 28 per cent But this represents an addition 
 to the land capable of close cultivation. If to this be 
 added some 2 5 per cent of the remainder for the fallow, 
 
 
 rn m u-i fO 00 N 
 
 
 g-r rt vO <*^ <^ 
 
 
 •^ O r-vr>.ro\Ooo N o> 
 
 <0 W -^ Tf ir> 
 
 
 to rs. « «-! CO j> 
 
 o\ u-» r^ 
 
 
 ro m in r^ CO Tf 
 
 N u^ CO CO 
 
 en \o CO 
 
 , 
 
 , 
 
 E 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 y 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 ^ 
 
 bo 
 
 '9 
 
 1h 
 
 bo 
 c 
 
 73. 
 
 
 
 tn 
 
 
 .s 
 
 13 
 
 ^ 
 
 b 
 
 
 E 
 
 2 S 
 
 in ^ C ^ C -g 
 
 u — -- 1; eg S 
 
 u t :S v2 •= '^ 
 o o 
 
 
404 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 the increase of land brought at any rate within the sphere 
 of cultivation will be seen to be considerable. In the 
 case of Rutland, the writer of the Agricultural Report, 
 seeking an estimate of the amount of land in existing 
 open parishes actually under crop, points out that J 6 per 
 cent of the total was in actual open field, and then 
 deducts one-third for the fallow. On the basis of these 
 two calculations a deduction of two-fifths from open field 
 inclosures for land not under crop seems a fair though 
 not an excessive allowance. If this method be adopted, 
 and if the pastures, wastes or commons inclosed outside 
 the open field inclosures be added, the result is different 
 from that before the mind when in the various counties 
 the amount of open field inclosure is given. The bare 
 statement of this often reads as though this amount were 
 composed of land actually in arable at the time.'^ 
 
 Taking the counties where there was much open field 
 inclosure before 1800, the estimate on this plan reads as 
 follows in round figures, for inclosures before that date : 
 
 Perctntagt of lajid Percentage inclosed 
 
 inclosed out of ^^^ ^^^^f ^y^ 
 
 actual arable. 
 
 Bedford, 15 lo 
 
 Berks, 6 4 
 
 Bucks, 1 3 8 
 
 Cambridge, - 4 6 
 
 Derby, 5.5 5.5 
 
 Gloucester, 7 5 
 
 Huntingdon, 18 12 
 
 Leicester,- 23.5 18.5 
 
 Lincoln, - 12.5 11.5 
 
 Middlesex, 2.5 2 
 
 Norfolk, - 4.5 4.5 
 
 Northampton, 23 14.5 
 
 Nottingham, 14 11 
 
 Oxford, - 14.5 10 
 
 Rutland, 24.5 16 
 
 Warwick, - 12 9 
 
 Wilts, - - 7 6 
 
 Worcester, - 4.5 5.5 
 
 Yorkshire, E.R., - 14 12.5 
 ' Some part of the error involved in this was most clearly indicated by Blith 
 in the seventeenth century. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 405 
 
 Apart from the foregoing considerations some attempt 
 may be made to classify the various counties so as to show 
 those in which the charge of depopulation or decreased 
 employment arising out of inclosure has some initial 
 probability. The possibility of decrease in either of these 
 two directions must be distinguished from the possibility 
 of migration within the county — that is, of increase in one 
 parish at the expense of another. That subject will be 
 discussed later. Moreover, as far as causes or results of 
 change are concerned, conversion of arable to pasture, and 
 so decrease of population, if such be associated with it, 
 might arise from the growth of industry and the attraction 
 of labour to such employment and away from rural pur- 
 suits and districts. 
 
 I. Counties where amount of total inclosure up to 1800 small. 
 Common field inclosures given in brackets where such occur. 
 
 A. Inclosure mainly or wholly of uncultivated lands. 
 
 Cheshire, - .4 Lancashire, 
 
 Cornwall, - .0 Shropshire, 
 
 Devonshire, .1 Sussex, 
 
 Essex, .1 Westmoreland, 
 
 Kent, .0 
 
 B. Inclosure partly or mainly of open fields. 
 
 Dorset, 4.3 (3.7) Hertford, 
 
 Hampshire, 4 (3.7) Suffolk, 
 
 Hereford, .8 (.7) Surrey, 
 
 II. Counties where amount of inclosure up to 1800 considerable. 
 
 A. Inclosure largely or wholly of waste. 
 
 Cumberland, 5.8 (.2) Somerset, - 7-S (-3) 
 
 Durham, - 15 (.1) Stafford, 5.7 (2.5) 
 
 Northumberland, 5.8 {X) Yorkshire, N., 6.7 (3.7) 
 
 B. Where though inclosure of open field considerable, little 
 
 change in cultivation probable. 
 Cambridge, lo.i (7.1) Lincoln,- 23.8 (20.4) 
 
 Gloucester, 12 (12) Norfolk, - 8.9 (6.4) 
 
 Huntingdon, 30 (30) 
 
 C. Change in cultivation possible. 
 
 (i) Change largely associated with urban growth. 
 
 Derby, - - 11.3 (8.6) Warwick, 20.7 (i9-8) 
 
 Middlesex, 4.7 (4.7) Yorkshire, W., 11.6 (4.6) 
 
 Nottingham, 25 (23) 
 
 2.2 
 
 (*) 
 
 2.1 
 
 (.2) 
 
 •3 
 
 (*) 
 
 ■4 
 
 
 S-3 
 
 (3-8) 
 
 1-5 
 
 (•7) 
 
 1-7 
 
 (1-3) 
 
4o6 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 (ii) Considerable change possible. 
 
 Bedford, 25.1 (25.1) Northampton, 37.6 (36.9) 
 
 Buckingham, 20.9 (20.9) Yorkshire, E., 26.7 (23.4) 
 
 Leicester, 42.2 (39.6) 
 
 (iii) Change, though less marked. 
 
 Berkshire, 10.2 (lo.i) Wiltshire, 13.1 (12) 
 
 Oxford, 24.6 (24.6) Worcester, 10 (7.6) 
 
 Rutland, - 40.7 (40.7) 
 
 As, however, the complaints as to the evil results of 
 inclosure, and especially as to the effect upon population, 
 date from 1780 or thereabouts, the counties requiring 
 attention are obviously those in which the movement had 
 made itself felt in some perceptible degree prior to that 
 date, 1780. These may be stated as follows, distin- 
 guishing the amounts inclosed, which include common 
 fields and those which are from common or waste. 
 
 County. 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 Yorkshire, E., 
 *Huntingdon, 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 Oxford, 
 *Lincoln, - 
 
 Nottingham, 
 
 Buckingham, 
 ♦Gloucester, 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 Worcester, 
 
 Derby, 
 *Durham, 
 ♦Yorkshire, W., 
 
 If those marked with an asterisk be left out, the remainder, 
 omitting the East Riding, correspond with the list already 
 determined. Those left out are counties where, for sundry 
 reasons, the change, though considerable, cannot be held 
 to have affected the use of the soil as between crops and 
 pasture. It is very doubtful if any but the first seven 
 
 Common field. 
 
 Common. 
 
 31.2 
 
 1.2 
 
 30.8 
 
 ■7 
 
 20.4 
 
 — 
 
 197 
 
 2.7 
 
 17-9 
 
 — 
 
 16.3 
 
 •4 
 
 iS-i 
 
 .1 
 
 14.9 
 
 1-7 
 
 14-3 
 
 ■9 
 
 12.5 
 
 — 
 
 7-6 
 
 — 
 
 7.6 
 
 — 
 
 6.4 
 
 .1 
 
 5-9 
 
 1.4 
 
 3-9 
 
 2.1 
 
 — 
 
 8.4 
 
 2.4 
 
 7-1 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 407 
 
 are sufificiently subject to inclosure to justify the gloomy 
 prognostications met with in contemporary literature, even 
 could it be shown that inclosure was attended with the 
 alleged evils. But be that as it may, it will be well to 
 consider all in our inquiries. The question is not whether 
 some diminution of population was probable, but whether 
 there is any ground for alleging that such took place. 
 
 The statistics and facts in respect of which these need 
 to be examined can be placed under two headings, those 
 affecting the whole county areas, and those where 
 inclosed parishes in the various counties can be compared 
 with those which did not pass under inclosure at this 
 date. 
 
 Taking the first we may compare the counties subject 
 to inclosure and those not subject to inclosure according 
 to their estimated increase of population between 1750 
 and 1 80 1 and the increase 1801-11, and the rate of 
 increase in the expenditure on poor relief''^ Something, 
 however, must be said as to the value of these tests. 
 Whatever they prove as to the counties, they cannot be 
 conclusive as to the more local migration within the 
 county areas, since diminution in one or more districts 
 may be compensated for by increase elsewhere. But on 
 the other hand it would be a remarkable coincidence if 
 such were to occur so systematically as to nullify con- 
 clusions as to the influence of the factor of inclosure as 
 shown in a considerable number of cases. Again, other 
 factors must not be ignored. Both alterations in popula- 
 tion and variations in the expenditure on the poor are 
 due to many and various causes, of which inclosure if one 
 is only one. Hence, indeed, the absence of any apparent 
 connection between this factor and the changes in either 
 of these two departments may be ofiset by the intrusion 
 of other elements. But here a careful inspection of the 
 various conditions of the respective counties should enable 
 us to arrive at some, though perhaps only a general result. 
 A more difficult point is raised when the position of all 
 ' Appendices A and B. 
 
4o8 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 inclosed counties is considered, irrespective of the date of 
 inclosure whether effected during this half century or 
 before. Old as well as recently inclosed land is obviously 
 more liable to an alteration in its use than land which 
 remains open. The difference, however, between the two 
 is that land inclosed during the period under survey is 
 more likely to exhibit a marked change because the 
 obstacles to change are suddenly removed. At the same 
 time in examining counties in respect of these particulars 
 it will be well to note if inclosed counties in general show 
 less increase of population or greater rise in poor rates 
 than counties where more of the area is still open and so 
 less liable to any alteration in its use. Other criticisms 
 may be advanced. Thus it may be urged that whereas 
 inclosure up to 1780 was more liable to conversion to 
 pasture, the reverse was true of the inclosures towards the 
 end of the century. This is possibly true in some measure. 
 It is, however, shown elsewhere that of the inclosures 
 made during 1780-1800 much took place on land which 
 was undoubtedly used for grain and arable in general.^ It is 
 improbable that any considerable portion of the land turned 
 to pasture at the earlier epoch was reconverted or that when 
 inclosure continued on similar land to that inclosed before 
 1780, other results than those previously experienced 
 ensued. The lists of parishes given in the Appendix to 
 the General Report on Inclosure indicating the alteration in 
 the wheat area show on examination that in such counties 
 as Leicester, Northampton and Warwick, to take the 
 more prominent, the inclosures during the two periods 
 are attended with much the same results in this particular. 
 The wheat area does not decrease in one period and 
 increase or remain the same in the other. Further, as is 
 shown later, the slow increase of population, 1801-11, in 
 the great pasture district of Leicester and Northampton 
 does not indicate reconversion to arable if that is attended 
 with rapid and marked change in population. Likewise, 
 the same complaints as to population are repeated, though 
 
 ' See pp. 226-8, 237, 413. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 409 
 
 less importance must be attached to this since an outcry 
 once raised is always liable to repetition. So far as the 
 population estimate for 1750 is concerned there is un- 
 doubtedly room for criticism. The estimate of population 
 from the related baptisms, marriages, and burials is not 
 certain ; but in this case where the figures are collected 
 from the parishes included in the counties, the error is not 
 one likely to seriously impair the comparison between 
 county and county. On the average the error, if any, 
 in each county is likely to be much the same. As to the 
 validity of the returns of the early expenditure on the 
 poor much may be said. Very probably there is some 
 inaccuracy, but when all is said, when broad results alone 
 are sought, comparisons such as the above may be 
 expected to afford some general trial of the accuracy of 
 the statement that inclosure was followed by a decrease 
 in the population and in the general employment of 
 considerable districts. 
 
 Turning to the tests suggested under the second head- 
 ing where the cases of parishes inclosed by act and 
 those not so inclosed are compared, a more precise method 
 is undoubtedly afforded in one respect. On the other 
 hand the statistics at our command are different and in 
 certain respects less satisfactory. In the first place, the 
 tables^ compiled by Howlett from replies to some 500 
 letters sent out to the clergy in parishes both recently 
 inclosed and not inclosed may be taken. From the 
 answers received he constructed, a table comparing the 
 two classes of parishes in each county concerned in 
 respect of the baptism for the two quinquennial periods, 
 1760-5 and 1775-80. Despite the comparatively small 
 number of parishes the table is of value as affording some 
 test of the accuracy of the assertion that inclosure led 
 generally to a decline in the population. 
 
 In the second place the census returns of the popula- 
 tion in 1 80 1 as compared with 1 8 1 1 can be utilised for a 
 comparison between the parishes inclosed during the 
 
 ' Appendix C. 
 
4IO COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 eighteenth century and those not so inclosed in certain 
 counties, including those singled out above. This is 
 attempted in two ways. On the one hand open field 
 parishes inclosed during the eighteenth century are com- 
 pared with the county and with open field parish subse- 
 quently inclosed, that is, after 1 800, in respect of density.^ 
 If population decreased owing to inclosure, parishes 
 subject to this process may be reasonably expected to 
 show some trace in their density not only when compared 
 with parishes where open fields remained but also with 
 the county at large, care being taken of course to exclude 
 so far as possible parishes of urban rather than rural 
 characteristics. This latter necessity involves some little 
 trouble, as no precise definition can be laid down ; but 
 this matters less when the same method is applied in the 
 case of a large number of counties. On the other hand the 
 parishes inclosed and the county may be compared with 
 regard to the increase in population from 1801-1811.^ 
 This is not so certain a test, as reduction might take 
 place to be followed by increase. Some light, however, 
 is thrown on the truth of the statements that inclosure 
 involved wholesale conversion and that conversion implied 
 lack of progress and development in population and 
 occupation. In this connection the possibility of some 
 change in the results following inclosure during the latter 
 years of the century from that encountered in the period 
 1 750-1780 must be borne in mind, but for reasons 
 already given this is of much less moment when 
 counties or districts are taken separately than it would 
 be if the inclosures of the whole country were taken 
 together. 
 
 Taking the tests considered under the first heading 
 where the figures for population and poor relief are 
 treated together, a table ^ is appended giving (a) the 
 amount of open field land inclosed under act in the 
 whole eighteenth century, that prior to 1780, and that 
 
 ' Appendix G. " Appendices D, E, F. 
 
 ^ Appendix A. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 411 
 
 for 1801-1810 inclusive; (b) the rates of increase in the 
 population from 1750 to 1801 and between 1801 and 
 1 8 1 1 ; (c) the poor rates per head of the population for 
 1748-50 (average), for 1803 ^"d for 18 13. Another 
 table ^ gives the increase of poor law expenditure between 
 average of 1748-50 and 1783-5, between 1783-5 and 
 1803, and from 1803 to 1813. 
 
 An examination shows that there is no close, if indeed 
 any, correspondence between the amount of inclosure and 
 the rate of increase in the population. No doubt with 
 the many factors at work this is but to be expected ; but 
 if it be true it shows that so far as the county areas are 
 concerned, decline in particular places if due to inclosure 
 was compensated for by increase elsewhere. In other 
 words the matter at issue is rather one of local migration 
 than of decrease in population and restriction in amount 
 of occupation. Nor is it possible to assert that but for 
 this alleged decline in the inclosed parishes the total 
 population for the county would have been greater, since 
 that ignores what is, after all, one of the most important 
 questions at issue, that is, whether the inclosure was not 
 necessary to secure for the population, increasing from 
 other causes, its necessary supplies. That there is no 
 general connection between inclosure during this century 
 and population becomes more evident if the figures be 
 looked at in more detail. For this purpose it will be 
 well to single out the counties where the inclosure both in 
 amount and kind was likely to produce an effect on the 
 population, distinguishing between those where any 
 appreciable decrease in the wheat area is noted in 1800, 
 on the basis of the returns received, and those where no 
 such appreciable decline presents itself or when an increase 
 is noted. This list may be compared with one of the 
 counties where the amount of inclosure is too small to 
 affect the population of the whole. Counties where 
 marked industrial causes of increase exist are denoted by 
 an asterisk. 
 
 'Appendix B. 
 
412 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Counties in which population might conceivably be affected by 
 inclosure (percentages in round figures). 
 
 Without perceptible decrease or 
 With decrease in wJuat acreage. with increase. 
 
 
 Open Field 
 
 inclosure to 
 
 1800. 
 
 Increase of 
 Population 
 1750-1801. 
 
 Open Field 
 
 inclosure to 
 
 1800. 
 
 Increase of 
 Population 
 1750-1801. 
 
 *Leicester,- 
 
 40% 
 
 32% 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 28% 
 
 15% 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 41 
 
 30 
 
 Oxford, 
 
 25 
 
 14 
 
 Northampton, 37 
 
 9 
 
 Lincoln, 
 
 21 
 
 26 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 26 
 
 6 
 
 ♦Yorkshire, 
 
 8 
 
 50 
 
 ♦Nottingham, 
 
 23 
 
 53 
 
 Wiltshire, 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 ♦Derby, 
 
 9 
 
 48 
 
 *Warwick, 
 
 20 
 
 55 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 7 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 
 ♦Worcester, 
 
 8 
 
 35 
 
 Counties in which such effect would not be produced. 
 
 
 
 Open Field 
 
 inclosure to 
 
 iSoo. 
 
 Increase of 
 Population 
 1 750- 1801. 
 
 Open Field 
 
 inclosure to 
 
 1800. 
 
 Increase of 
 
 Population 
 1750-1801. 
 
 Cornwall, 
 
 — 
 
 33% 
 
 Suffolk, 
 
 1% 
 
 23% 
 
 Devon, 
 
 - — 
 
 4 
 
 Cumberland, 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 Essex, 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 Durham, 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 Northumberland, 1 % 
 
 5 
 
 Somerset, 
 
 . 
 
 15 
 
 Shropshire, 
 
 — 
 
 24 
 
 Westmoreland, — 
 
 8 
 
 Hereford, 
 
 I 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 While the length of the period and the presence of 
 other and varying factors render any very definite and 
 positive conclusion impossible, these tables are, as a 
 whole, against the alleged general connection between 
 common field inclosure and decline in population. They 
 do not even support the view that population in these 
 counties progressed as a rule at a less rapid rate. The 
 two counties where there are at once high percentage of 
 inclosure, considerable apparent decrease in wheat area 
 and a small rate of increase in population are North- 
 ampton and Bedford ; but then, on the other hand, we 
 have Wiltshire, where the wheat acreage increased with a 
 rate of increase in population about the same as that of 
 Northampton. Still, these two counties deserve attention 
 when we come to other considerations, and it is, of course, 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 413 
 
 possible that the same should be said of Leicester, though 
 industrial causes of population were probably operative, 
 even if to an uncertain degree, in that county. In both 
 Rutland and Buckingham the rate of increase of popula- 
 tion is very fairly high for non-urban counties. 
 
 Two other matters require a word. Even were it 
 possible in the face of these lists and of the conclusions 
 stated above to assume a connection between inclosure 
 and population, these tables and calculations afford no 
 means of determining the question as to the existence or 
 non-existence of a tendency towards the end of the 
 century either to reconvert to arable, land laid down to 
 pasture on its inclosure earlier in the century or to retain 
 land at that time in arable which would have been converted 
 to pasture if inclosed earlier. It is known that much 
 of the inclosure towards the end of the century was of 
 land obviously suited to arable, and certainly .used for 
 what it was suited ; but the matter raised relates not to 
 land such as this which is the main subject of the period 
 of inclosure, but to the land well suited for grazing, as, 
 for instance, in Leicester or in the breeding and grazing 
 district of Northampton. It is quite possible that the 
 higher prices of grain prevalent at the end of the century 
 may have affected the use made of such of this land as 
 came into inclosure at that time ; but these tables afford 
 no evidence one way or the other. Moreover, it should 
 be remembered that it has already been pointed out * that, 
 taking the lists of inclosed parishes which show alteration 
 in the wheat area, diminution occurs as often towards the 
 end as earlier in the century, even in such counties as 
 Leicester, Northampton and Warwick. Secondly, what 
 evidence, it may be asked, is provided as to any difference 
 between inclosed counties, whether recently inclosed or of 
 old inclosure, and those where some land is open? The 
 only conclusion which can be reached appears to be this, 
 that there is no uniform distinction. Despite recent 
 changes, the counties in which there is much land in 
 'Above, p. 408. 
 
414 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 open field at the end of the century are fairly numerous, 
 the chief being : 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 25.7. 
 
 Middlesex, 
 
 14- 3- 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 25.2. 
 
 Norfolk, - 
 
 12.8. 
 
 Berkshire, - 
 
 20.1. 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 1 1.9. 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 18.9. 
 
 Wiltshire, 
 
 10.7. 
 
 Oxford, 
 
 16.3. 
 
 Hertford, 
 
 8.1. 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 14.5. 
 
 
 
 Now, if it were true that the existence of inclosed land, 
 which, of course, being in separate properties, is more 
 amenable to the use most profitable at the time, and that, 
 further, the result of such an exercise of individual power 
 results in a use coincident with a diminished population, 
 these counties would exhibit in general a greater rate of 
 increase in population than those where all the land is 
 inclosed.^ This is not the case. Indeed, the reverse 
 tends to hold good. The matter, however, is undoubtedly 
 complicated by the fact that many, if not most, of the 
 counties appearing in this list occupy a prominent place 
 among those showing a high percentage of inclosure 
 prior to 1800. 
 
 Counties with open 
 
 field IncIostiTe at or 
 
 Cotinties with little or no 
 
 exceeding 5 pe] 
 
 : cent. (1801 
 
 -10). 
 
 applicable Inclosure. 
 
 
 Inclosure. 
 
 Incr. Pop. 
 
 1 
 
 [nclosure. 
 
 Incr. Pop. 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 16% 
 
 12% 
 
 Suffolk, - 
 
 1% 
 
 9% 
 
 Cambridge, - 
 
 12 
 
 IS 
 
 Somerset, 
 
 I 
 
 II 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 II 
 
 10 
 
 Hereford, 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 Shropshire, 
 
 — 
 
 9 
 
 Norfolk, 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 Devon, 
 
 — 
 
 12 
 
 Hampshire, 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 Gloucester, 
 
 2 
 
 14 
 
 Yorkshire, E.R., 
 
 7 
 
 19 
 
 Dorset, 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 Cornwall, 
 
 — 
 
 14 
 
 Lincoln, 
 
 5 
 
 13 
 
 Northumberland, 
 
 I 
 
 9 
 
 0.\ford, 
 
 S 
 
 7 
 
 Cumberland, 
 
 — 
 
 14 
 
 Wiltshire, - 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 Westmoreland, 
 
 — 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 Rutland, - 
 
 2 
 
 -7 
 
 
 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 1 
 ^ See Appendix A. 
 
 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 415 
 
 The theory that inclosure led to a less rapid increase 
 in population, or even to depopulation, derives no support 
 from the comparison of these two factors in the first 
 decade of the nineteenth century, as may be seen from 
 the table ^ appended. But to make this still clearer, on 
 the previous page, the counties with an appreciable amount 
 of inclosure are set out and contrasted with some of those 
 where the variation in population could not be due to 
 inclosure by reason of its complete, or nearly complete, 
 absence.^ Counties with an industrial development are, so 
 far as possible, excluded. 
 
 Of the counties with little or no inclosure given by way 
 of contrast, there are some which probably should be 
 excluded. In the northern counties land wholly or little 
 cultivated was coming into use under the influence of 
 high prices, and the same was probably true in some 
 measure of Devon and Cornwall. Leicester, again, may 
 have been affected by this time by the spread of the 
 textile industry. If we compare the more purely agri- 
 cultural counties in both lists, it would seem that the 
 inclosing counties present a slightly higher rate of 
 increase in population. No doubt this was a time when 
 prices added a stimulus to cultivation, to the advantage 
 of those able to cultivate as they chose, and without 
 hindrance from tradition or the bad habits of their 
 neighbours. 
 
 The next matter calling for attention is the position of 
 the inclosed counties, and especially of those specially 
 indicated, in the matter of the expenditure in the relief 
 of the poor, since it may be taken as probable that a lack 
 of agricultural employment and the consequent need of 
 migration in search of work would be reflected in the 
 need and demand for relief The statistics are of two 
 kinds. On the one hand, the percentage increase of the 
 total poor relief is given in round figures for three periods 
 — 1748-9-SO to 1783-4-S, 1783-4-S to 1803, 1803 to 
 
 ' Appendix A. 
 
 *Inclosures iSoi-lo inclusive ; population 1801 to 181 1. 
 
41 6 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 1813. This leaves out of account the population, and 
 variations in population naturally affect the amount of 
 pauperism. On the other hand, the amount expended in 
 relief is distributed per head of the population, taking 
 the returns for the above years, with the exception of 
 1783-4-5, and for population the estimate for 1750 and 
 the actual census figures for 1801 and 181 1. In the case 
 of the latter half of the eighteenth century, perhaps the 
 best method of comparing the counties is to viewr their state 
 as regards poor relief expenditure in 1803 per head of 
 the population with reference to the extent to which they 
 underwent inclosure in the preceding century, the figures 
 for the middle of the eighteenth century being more 
 open to criticism. In the case of the first decade of the 
 nineteenth century, when the figures both of population 
 and of relief are much more certain, it is possible to com- 
 pare the amount of increase in population with that of 
 increase in poor relief But it must be remembered that, 
 quite apart from inclosure, there were other factors oper- 
 ating differently in the various counties and capable of 
 affecting the poor relief very greatly, the most important 
 being the changes in industrial method and the localisation 
 of industries, and the alteration in the system of relief 
 Consequently only marked and definite correspondences 
 and results can be taken as indicative of a connection 
 between inclosure and the state of pauperism as shown 
 in these figures. To assist in the comparison, certain 
 counties are set out below : 
 
 I. Counties with decrease in wheat acreage at 1800. 
 
 
 Common Field Ind. 
 
 percentage 
 
 before 1800. 1801-1811. 
 
 Poor Rate Expenditure 
 
 per head. 
 
 1803. 1813. 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 40 
 
 2 
 
 12.8 
 
 15.4 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 41 
 
 2 
 
 10.5 
 
 14.1 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 37 
 
 7 
 
 14.8 
 
 20.3 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 26 
 
 II 
 
 12.0 
 
 17.9 
 
 Nottingham, 
 
 23 
 
 3 
 
 6.7 
 
 10.4 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 21 
 
 6 
 
 16.S 
 
 23.6 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 II.8 
 
 14.7 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 417 
 
 II. Counties without decrease in wheat acreage or with increase at 
 1800. 
 
 
 Common Field Incl. 
 
 Poor Rate 
 
 Expenditure 
 
 
 percentage 
 
 per 
 
 head. 
 
 
 before iSoo. 
 
 1801-Z811. 
 
 1803. 
 
 1813. 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 28 
 
 16 
 
 13-2 
 
 17.2 
 
 Oxford, 
 
 25 
 
 5 
 
 16.6 
 
 24.5 
 
 Lincoln, - 
 
 21 
 
 5 
 
 9-7 
 
 1 1.8 
 
 Wiltshire, 
 
 12 
 
 5 
 
 14.2 
 
 25.0 
 
 Derby, 
 
 9 
 
 5 
 
 7.2 
 
 10.8 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 12.5 
 
 17-7 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 15.6 
 
 26.8 
 
 Worcester, 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 10.7 
 
 12.5 
 
 Gloucester, 
 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 9.0 
 
 1 2.0 
 
 Taking these counties in particular, and also those 
 others only included in the general lists,^ certain con- 
 clusions may be indicated. 
 
 Firstly, while there is no close correspondence between 
 inclosure and the state of poverty, as far as that is dis- 
 closed in the figures cited, there seems sufficient ground 
 for the opinion thdX considerable inclosure tended to produce 
 some increase in the amount of relief Thus, if we take 
 the first period, the counties in which inclosure before 
 1800 reached seven per cent, of the land, we have Bedford, 
 Berkshire, Buckingham, Cambridge, Derby, Gloucester, 
 Huntingdon, Leicester, Lincoln, Nottingham, Northampton, 
 Oxford, Rutland, Warwick, Wiltshire and Worcester. Of 
 these sixteen counties all save three, namely, Derby, 
 Lincoln and Nottingham exhibit a poor relief expenditure 
 in 1803 exceeding lo.o shillings per head of the popula- 
 tion. Derb}' and Nottingham were counties in which the 
 new textile manufactures were advancing, and thus may 
 be taken as not constituting exceptions so far as the 
 particular relationship under consideration is concerned. 
 The other counties in which there is a like expenditure 
 are Dorset, Essex, Hampshire, Hereford, Hertford, Kent, 
 Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex. Of these ten counties 
 Norfolk has inclosure of six per cent, of its area. The 
 three eastern counties, moreover, were affected by the 
 
 ' Appendices A and B. 
 2D 
 
41 8 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 decline in the eastern woollens due to the rise of other 
 districts and the development of the machine industry. 
 Making allowance for these various causes, and also for 
 the special position of the southern counties near the 
 metropolis, this seems sufficient ground for the general 
 conclusion indicated above. Further, of the twelve counties 
 where the expenditure reaches 12.0 shillings per head of 
 the population, all save Norfolk, Essex, Kent and Hert- 
 ford had been inclosed above seven per cent. Turning 
 next to the figures relating to the first decade of the 
 nineteenth century, it will be noticed that there was a 
 general increase in relief expenditure, due probably to bad 
 administration, though it is possible that this was assisted 
 by conditions of distress. An allowance being made 
 for this, the counties may be taken where the increase 
 exceeded 4.0 shillings per head of the population. This 
 occurs in eight of the enumerated counties, that is, in 
 Northampton, Bedford, Buckingham, Huntingdon, Oxford, 
 Wiltshire, Cambridge, Berkshire. Of these all exhibit 
 inclosure between 1 801-18 10 amounting to five per cent. 
 of the area. To these must be added from the complete 
 list Essex, Hereford, Suffolk, Norfolk, Hampshire, Kent, 
 and Sussex. There are only two counties with inclosure 
 amounting to five per cent, which show an increase in poor 
 relief less than 4.0 shillings, namely, Derby where the 
 increase is 3.6 shillings, and Lincoln where it is only 2. i 
 shillings. These results are somewhat similar to those 
 obtained in the case of the earlier period. It is important 
 to notice that the connection, such as it is, between 
 inclosure and poor relief is quite as marked in the latter 
 as in the former period. 
 
 Secondly, any such connection holds good, irrespective 
 of the alleged conversion of land from arable to pasture. 
 This is easily seen by a reference to the tables. Thus in 
 the first period, the poor relief expenditure proportioned 
 to the population is, if we take counties inclosing over 
 seven per cent, of the area, slightly higher on the whole 
 in the second group of counties, where there is no reason for 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 419 
 
 apprehending net conversion than in the first group where 
 such may have taken place to some extent ; and it must 
 be remembered that in this group, the latter, the average 
 percentage of inclosure was greater. Of course there 
 may have been conversion in some places compensated for 
 by conversion in the contrary direction elsewhere. The 
 above relates to the result on the county at large. 
 Similarly, in the second period, the same result 
 appears though here in a somewhat more marked 
 degree. Moreover, it must be remembered that the 
 soil passing under inclosure during these later years 
 was more distinctly arable, and that the inclosures of this 
 time appear to have been directed to its better arable 
 cultivation. This is quite independent of the contention 
 that at the end of the eighteenth century there was a 
 tendency both to reconversion and of retention in grain 
 of land which would have been converted to pasture at an 
 earlier date. Irrespective of this contention, which has 
 been criticised in earlier pages, the character of the soil 
 was different. But if this is so, inclosure if it leads to an 
 increase in poor relief expenditure, achieves this result 
 from other reasons than because it occasioned, as has been 
 assumed, conversion from arable to pasture. 
 
 Thirdly, in neither case do old inclosed lands appear to 
 have been connected with increased symptoms of poverty. 
 In other words, these symptoms if connected, and as far as 
 connected with inclosure, are occasioned by the change 
 and by its more recent results. Counties wholly or mainly 
 inclosed before the movement in the eighteenth century 
 had apparently settled into a stable condition and were 
 not more susceptible to changes involving an increase 
 in poverty than counties which remained to a much greater 
 extent in the open field cultivation environed by custom 
 and impervious to change. 
 
 The results arrived at in the foregoing pages, when 
 taken together, appear to indicate the presence in certain 
 agricultural counties of a force or forces unsettling the 
 people and involving change and some increase in poverty. 
 
420 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 It is impossible to interpret the facts as evidence of a general 
 restriction on the amount of employment in the counties 
 concerned, or even in all probability in any large areas 
 within these counties. Had such been the case, popula- 
 tion would have been more definitely affected, and this, 
 as has been pointed out, was not the case in any consider- 
 able number of instances. Indeed, it is only in one of the 
 two periods examined, and then only in ^:he case of two 
 counties, Bedford and Northampton, that any such result 
 seems reasonably probable. Even these cases are doubtful. 
 Moreover, the change occurs not only in counties where 
 on other evidence a decrease in the grain area can be pre- 
 mised. A decrease in actual wheat area if small is no 
 proof of a decrease in the total area under some course of 
 arable cultivation as distinct from pasturage. It occurs 
 as well during a later period when there is no ground for 
 assuming conversion from arable to pasture, as during the 
 earlier period when in some districts there was such a 
 change. It is of course possible that while decrease in 
 employment and population occurred in some parishes or 
 districts within the county, such was fairly well balanced 
 b}'^ a converse tendency in other parishes and districts. 
 But this is mere assumption, and an assumption untenable 
 save in conjunction with the further assumption that there 
 was a connection between the two. If such existed, it 
 existed because, as seems indeed probable, the tendency 
 towards inclosure was the result of the increased demands 
 made for the produce of the earth. In this sense, inclosure 
 would be the means of maintaining a larger population, 
 and one of the incidents in its growth, even if some 
 decrease of population took place in particular and very 
 limited districts or parishes. This will require some 
 further investigation. Meanwhile other aspects require 
 our attention. No doubt inclosure implied change. It 
 implied considerable alteration in the methods of cultiva- 
 tion, and in the uses of particular lands or even of particular 
 parishes. With this came the need for a change in work 
 or in the habitation of those working on the land. Again, 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 421 
 
 there is no doubt that considerable changes took place in 
 the ownership of land, especially in its relation to farming. 
 The small farming class received a grave blow, and the 
 class of the simple agricultural labourer was increased and 
 established. Hence, too, a new element of precariousness, 
 and of precariousness most conspicuous at or about the 
 time of the change. This aspect, however, is mainly of 
 importance in conjunction with that previously delineated, 
 since had the altered system of labour employment been 
 the chief cause, it would have wrought its effects in old 
 inclosed counties. In these, on the other hand, the results 
 are not particularly apparent, if apparent at all. Inclosure 
 then may be taken as involving a change of a somewhat 
 twofold nature which probably affected the condition of life. 
 
 It remains, however, to canvass the point raised above, 
 that is, the existence of evidence, one way or the other, as 
 to the effects produced on population and the amount of 
 employment not only in the large districts in the county 
 but in the smaller districts, or, speaking generally, in the 
 parishes inclosed.'^ 
 
 We turn, then, to the examination of the results in respect 
 of population in the parishes where inclosures took place. 
 To assist such, two sets of tables have been prepared. 
 
 There are three tables ^ comparing the inclosed parishes 
 in each of certain counties with the whole county in respect 
 of the alteration in population between 1801 and 181 1. 
 The selected counties are those where inclosure was ante- 
 cedently most likely to affect population, namely, Bedford, 
 Berkshire, Buckingham, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Leicester, 
 Northampton, Nottingham, Oxford, Rutland and Warwick. 
 
 In the first table ^ the increase, and in the solitary case of 
 Rutland, the decrease, in population during the decade 
 1801-11 is stated in one column for all the parishes 
 recorded as inclosed up to 1800, in the next column for 
 those inclosed 1791-1800, and finally for the whole 
 county. The county in this instance is the registration 
 
 ' Inclosed, i.e. recorded as inclosed. ' Appendices D, E, F. 
 
 'Appendix D. 
 
422 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 county, since the various parishes have been treated in 
 their respective registration districts. As the aim of the 
 comparison is to discover whether there is any suggestive 
 difference in the movement of population between the 
 inclosed townships and the whole area or region, the use of 
 the registration county in place of the county proper is of 
 no real consequence. As towns, except in special cases, and 
 the more urban townships are included, and as these increase 
 faster and also are generally more prominent in the whole 
 area, that is, the county, than in the parishes or townships 
 where inclosure occurs the rate of increase for the former 
 is overstated. An examination of the table shows that 
 there is no general tendency for population to increase less 
 rapidly at this period in townships subject to inclosure than 
 in the county at large. To facilitate a more thorough con- 
 sideration of the matter dealt with, another table ^ gives the 
 rates of variation both for the parishes inclosed up to 1790 
 and for those inclosed in 1791-1800 as they are grouped 
 in the various registration districts, as also the rate of 
 increase for the separate registration districts. About 
 these tables there are several things to notice. The 
 counties where the difference between the rate of increase 
 in parishes coming under inclosure and the whole area is 
 marked are Berkshire and Cambridge, and in a less degree 
 Rutland, Buckingham and Oxford. In the first three of 
 these the inclosure movement becomes more prominent 
 after i ^f^ than before. It is prominent also in the others, 
 though here a considerable amount of inclosure had taken 
 place before. In Buckingham, the districts where the 
 inclosure after 1790 was most marked are Newport, 
 Pagnell and Buckingham ; while in Oxford, Bicester, 
 Woodstock and Witney occupy a like prominence. In 
 both cases it is in these particular districts that the inclosed 
 parishes show a lower rate of increase than the whole. 
 On the other hand, Bedford and Huntingdon, which mainly 
 conform as to time of inclosure to the same type as Cam- 
 bridge, are quite dissimilar in this respect. It should be 
 
 ' Appendix F. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 423 
 
 noticed that in Northampton, Warwick and Leicester, 
 where very heavy inclosures ruled at an earh'er time, there 
 is but little difference in the rate of increase for the total 
 inclosed parishes and that for the whole county. What 
 difference, indeed, there is, is to the advantage of these 
 parishes. Taking the detailed list of districts given in 
 Appendix F, it is clear that the parishes inclosed, 1791- 
 1800, oftener show a less rate of increase than do other 
 inclosed parishes. This, however, is very far from being 
 invariable. All that can be safely said is that inclosure 
 effected during this period is in more cases coincident with 
 such less rapid increase. 
 
 The counties singled out above are not, with the excep- 
 tion of Buckingham, counties where the wheat acreage in 
 1800 showed any particular decrease. Further, taking 
 the general rate of increase in the population, they com- 
 pare favourably with most agricultural counties. This, 
 however, cannot be said of Rutland. 
 
 As to actual instances of decrease it will be seen from 
 another table ^ that parishes or townships where the 
 population declines, 1801-11, are often parishes where 
 there is no recorded inclosure during the eighteenth 
 century, and but seldom parishes undergoing inclosure, 
 1 791-1800, or for the matter of that, 181 1-20. In many 
 cases decline occurs in parishes where such inclosure as 
 occurs takes place after 1 8 1 0. 
 
 In face of these tables, and the facts concerning them 
 which have been pointed out, the only conclusions possible 
 are necessarily of a tentative character. In the first place, 
 if any disturbance of population ensued in the great 
 grazing district as a whole no trace is left by this period. 
 Secondly, the effect of comparatively recent inclosure is 
 slight and mainly confined to certain areas, where there is 
 no reason for assuming any decrease in the acreage under 
 arable. The counties and districts where the soil is best 
 or where agriculture had been most developed show the 
 least signs. It seems indeed probable that much of the 
 
 ' Appendix E. 
 
424 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 land coming under inclosure in those counties where 
 inclosed parishes increased less rapidly was land of poorer 
 quality, and hence less likely to permit of much increase 
 in population. Of consequent decrease in population over 
 any fair sized area there is no sign whatever. 
 
 But it has been urged sometimes that this period 
 affords little test ; that, in the first place, the older 
 inclosures had wrought their effect, and that, in the second 
 place, at this time the increased demand for grain had 
 led to the retention of land in grain, if not to the recon- 
 version. If this latter hypothesis were correct, the former 
 inclosures should show a uniform higher rate of increase 
 in population, which they do not, while in addition the 
 recent inclosures in counties, like Berkshire and Cambridge, 
 ought to increase at a higher rate than the county at 
 large where some open field land still remained. 
 
 To investigate this whole point, however, another table 
 is required.^ Here are set out for the above counties, the 
 density of population at 1801 per 100 acres in the 
 common field parishes inclosed by 1800, in the parishes 
 where common field inclosure takes place after, and also 
 in the whole county. In these tables care has been taken 
 to exclude, so far as possible, towns and town population^ 
 including most market towns. This is of course a matter 
 of some difficulty ; but it is very obvious that unless such 
 are left out the figures would not be pertinent, since in 
 numerous cases a town parish, with its naturally higher 
 population, would be included in an agricultural district. 
 The same and like deductions have been made in the 
 inclosed parishes and the whole county. Owing to the 
 comparatively small number of inclosures, and the small 
 amount of land inclosed under act after 1 800 in Rutland 
 and Leicester, the figures in the last column are of little 
 value in these two counties. Speaking generally, the last 
 column is less reliable than the two others. 
 
 These statistics point to the general conclusions, that,, 
 whatever the use made of inclosure, and whatever its 
 
 ' Appendix G. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 425 
 
 immediate result, in 180 1 the total land which had been 
 subject to this treatment was at least as thickly peopled 
 as that in the rest of the county, and that, moreover, 
 land where inclosure occurred after 1800 was as a rule 
 less thickly peopled. This latter fact is easily explicable 
 in certain counties, since in these where inclosure had 
 been the fashion little land of value had escaped the 
 process. This, however, was not invariably true, as may 
 be seen from the Flegg district in Norfolk and the south- 
 west of Middlesex, as also from the Amersham district of 
 Buckingham. But a movement which tended towards 
 depopulation, even though but local in character, would 
 certainly not leave the districts affected by it more 
 populated than those surrounding them. 
 
 It is possible to go one step further. In an Appendix 
 to the General Report on Inclosure a list is given of the 
 parishes in the respective counties where, as a result of 
 the inclosure of open field, the wheat acreage had varied.^ 
 As the returns from the clergy do not cover all and often 
 not many cases, the total inclosures before 1 800 can- 
 not be separated into the two classes. But in certain 
 counties a sufficient number of instances is forthcoming to 
 make worth while an inquiry into the respective density of 
 those showing decrease and those showing increase in 
 wheat acreage. This has been done for the following: 
 
 Density per 100 Acres in 1801. 
 
 Wheat acreage (1800) 
 
 County. 
 
 Decreased. 
 No. Density. 
 
 No. 
 
 Increased. 
 
 Density. 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 18 17-6 
 
 4 
 
 21.5 
 
 Buckingham, 
 Leicester, 
 
 17 20.7 
 45 21 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 21.9 
 18.8 
 
 Northampton, 
 Oxford, 
 
 60 20.5 
 10 19.1 
 
 10 
 8 
 
 25 
 18.6 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 9 16.8 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 — 17 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Gloucester, 
 
 16 14-6 
 
 IS 
 
 14. 1 
 
 ' General Report, Appendix. 
 
426 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 These returns were not, it must be remembered, selected 
 by the Board of Agriculture, and even when presented by 
 them were not applied to any such purpose as the above. 
 Where the number of parishes is small, they are of less 
 importance, but this only holds in the main of the last 
 column. The densities in the first column should be com- 
 pared with the densities in an appended Table} The 
 correspondence between the two is sufficiently close to be 
 important in itself, and it is significant that only in three 
 cases do the total parishes, with a decrease in wheat 
 acreage, show a lower density than that of the inclosed 
 open field parishes generally, while in four cases the 
 density is higher. 
 
 To complete this branch of the investigation a further 
 table is added as to the increase of poor rates from 1776 
 to 1783-4-5 (average), and from 1783-4-5 (average) to 
 I 803 for certain counties, distinguishing that for the whole 
 county, that for open field parishes inclosed 1776-1782, 
 and that for open field parishes inclosed 1783-1802. 
 The counties chosen are typical counties — Leicester, 
 Northampton, Buckingham, Berkshire, and Cambridge. 
 In the last-named county the number of parishes in- 
 closed 177 6- 1782 is too small to make any conclusion 
 trustworthy. 
 
 TABLE showing comparative Increase of Poor Rates. 
 
 
 Per cent. Increase of Poor Rates in period 
 1776-1783 (av.). 
 
 COONTY. 
 
 Total County. 
 
 Open Field Town- 
 ship inclosed. 
 Years 1776-82 
 (inclusive). 
 
 Open Field Town- 
 ship inclosed. 
 Years 1783-1803 
 (inclusive). 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 26 
 
 6 
 
 35 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 30 
 
 37 
 
 69 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 42 
 
 59 
 
 40 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 27 
 
 deer. 
 
 22 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 45 
 
 — 
 
 97 
 
 ' Appendix G. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 427 
 
 
 Per cenL Increa.se of Poor Rates in period 
 i783(av.).i8o3. 
 
 County. 
 
 Total County. 
 
 Open Field Town- 
 ship inclosed. 
 Years 1776-82 
 (inclusive). 
 
 Open Field Town- 
 ship inclosed. 
 Years 1783-1803 
 (inclusive). 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 171 
 112 
 
 95 
 
 74 
 
 115 
 
 187 
 
 117 
 
 76 
 
 73 
 
 159 
 
 126 
 
 118 
 
 98 
 
 66 
 
 These figures do not lend support to the view that 
 inclosure was responsible for the increase of poverty in 
 the parishes affected, the point now under consideration. 
 Indeed, taken together, they are not significant of any 
 causal relationship between inclosure and poor relief 
 
 Before stating any general conclusions a few words may 
 be devoted to summarise the position of the counties 
 selected for examination, as being specially liable to any 
 injurious effects of inclosure in respect of population or 
 employment. Now, so far as the reports in 1800 con- 
 cerning wheat acreage in all inclosures go, the only 
 counties where decrease was really marked are Leicester, 
 Northampton, Warwick, Bedford, Buckingham, and per- 
 haps Rutland and Nottingham. The returns in the case 
 of Rutland are "too scanty to allow of any fair estimate. 
 We may begin with these two, obviously the more 
 doubtful cases. 
 
 Rutland, so far from showing any decrease of population, 
 shows a high rate of increase from 1750-1801, taking the 
 estimate for 1750. In addition Hewlett gave for this 
 county the militia returns for the decade 1769-79, 
 according to which the population increased more or 
 diminished less in the inclosed than in the uninclosed 
 parishes. As the large inclosures were from 1 791- 1800 
 some reflection might be expected in the table, comparing 
 the census returns of 1801 and 1811. In the Oakham 
 union the parishes inclosed in the eighteenth century show 
 
428 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 a decrease of .4 per cent., while the others increase .5 per 
 cent. On the other hand, in the Uppingham, while the 
 inclosed parishes decrease about .6 per cent., the others 
 decrease about 1.7 per cent. Taking the figures of 
 parishes inclosed before 1790 — for Oakham an increase 
 of 3.2, and for Uppingham an increase of .4 — it would 
 seem that any initial tendency to decrease was followed 
 by subsequent increase. The tables giving density of 
 population show a higher density of population for all 
 inclosed parishes than for the county ; nor was decrease of 
 wheat an apparent cause of reduction in the density of 
 population when it took place. The density of the 
 parishes passing under common field inclosure after 1800 
 is also higher. From the account given in the Agricultural 
 Report (1808) it seems that inclosure in this county 
 reduced the amount of land in arable.^ 
 
 In Nottingham the industrial grov.-th both augmented 
 population and forced on inclosures, adding to those 
 made under the sanction of law, many made by private 
 proprietors and without Act.^ The population increases 
 very considerably from 1750 to 1801. By the density 
 tables we see that population in the inclosed parishes was 
 denser than in the whole of the county. The increase 
 in 1801-iiis also greater. 
 
 Turning next to Bedford and Buckingham, the rate 
 ofincrease in Bedford for the estimated period 1750-1801 
 was unusually low. On the other hand, in the returns 
 presented by Hewlett, the three parishes with recent 
 inclosures show a marked increase, and the six parishes 
 
 ^ Agric. Repo7-t, Rutland (i^xX), pp. 2-10, 31, etc. : From the figures given 
 of nine parishes remaining open, it appears that 76 per cent, is in arable field. 
 Deducting for fallow this leaves a minimum of 50 or 51 per cent, under crop. 
 The percentage of land in the rest of the county in arable crop is 43. Accord- 
 ing to this, some diminution probable in land in active arable. The number of 
 parishes open is, however, small. It must be remembered that this small 
 diminution would not necessarily imply decrease in work or population, since 
 increased stock and keener cultivation must be put on the other side. 
 
 '^ Agricultural Repo7-t, Nottingham (i-i<j%), p. 180, Appendix iv., a list given 
 of thirteen inclosures, totalling over 10,000 acres, achieved without Act. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 429 
 
 without such a total decrease. At the end of the century 
 the increase in the inclosed parishes, both in all those 
 inclosed during the eighteenth century and in those 
 inclosed in the last decade, is considerably higher than in 
 the whole county. Moreover, the density of these inclosed 
 parishes is greater than that of the whole or of those where 
 inclosure subsequently occurred. In the detailed account 
 of increase in the unions for i8oi-li, it will be noticed 
 that in Luton and Leighton Buzzard, the increase for the 
 whole union is greater than that for inclosed parishes. 
 This may, of course, be accidental as the number of 
 inclosures in this district prior to 1 800 is small ; other- 
 wise it is distinctly curious since these districts lie on 
 the chalk substratum where inclosure was late, and 
 usually implied more arable use than before. Population 
 in the parishes recorded with a decrease in wheat acreage 
 does not increase so rapidly, but these do not occur 
 in Luton or Leighton Buzzard. That certain inclosures 
 affected population detrimentally seems probable ; the 
 writer of the Agricultural Report admits some decreases, 
 but deems them unusual. There is certainly no sufficient 
 evidence of any such general results. In Buckingham 
 the rate of increase (1750 to 1801) compares favourably 
 with other counties ; on the other hand, the four parishes 
 with recent inclosures returned to Hovvlett show a slight 
 decrease, while in the eight not inclosed there is a 
 considerable increase. For the decade 1801-11 the 
 increase for the whole county is rather greater than for 
 the total parishes inclosed in the eighteenth century, 
 though less than for those inclosed 1791-1800; but 
 if Eton, Amersham, and Wycombe, where few inclosures 
 before 1800 occur, be excluded the increase is practically 
 the same in both. On the other hand, the more detailed 
 tables show that in most unions the rate is somewhat 
 greater than the rate for the inclosed parishes. In the 
 district of Buckingham there is very considerable increase 
 all round. The density of population is less for the 
 county than for the inclosed parishes, and particularly 
 
430 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 so in the northern part of the county ; and where 
 the wheat acreage is returned as decreased, the density 
 is but little affected. 
 
 The three counties of Leicester, Northampton, and 
 Warwick may be taken next. In all, the wheat acreage 
 in the parishes sending reports in 1 8oo shows decrease ; 
 in all the percentage of inclosure was high. On the 
 other hand, in all three the density of population for 
 the parishes inclosed before 1800 was greater than 
 for the whole county or for the parishes where common 
 field inclosures occurred after 1800; and, finally, in 
 all, the rate of increase 1801-11 for the county is about 
 the same, if not lower than for the inclosed parishes. 
 The important differences between these counties lie 
 in the greater influence and importance of industry in 
 parts of Warwick and Leicester, and the differences in 
 soil. Where the counties adjoin, these causes of variety 
 are less potent. As to the detail of fact, Northampton 
 does not figure in the accounts returned to Hewlett. 
 The rate of increase for the half century 1750-1801 is 
 certainly lower than in the best agricultural counties. 
 Against this must be set the greater density of the 
 inclosed parishes over the county, and the absence of any 
 tendency on the part of these in general towards any 
 falling off from the average increase of 1801-11. Con- 
 trasting the densities of parishes with a decline and 
 with an increase in wheat acreage, it appears as if the 
 latter, where such could and did take place, produced 
 a decided effect on population. It may seem anomalous 
 that the rate of increase 1801-11 and of density of 
 population was so high in the inclosed parishes. One 
 explanation offered for this, namely, the possibility of a 
 reconversion to grain on inclosed land, which, it must 
 be remembered, was largely inclosed before 1780, seems 
 hardly tenable in face of the population of the districts 
 where wheat acreage had diminished. The most probable 
 explanation lies in the marked difference between districts 
 in the north-east and districts in the south-west. The 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 431 
 
 increase in inclosed parishes is less than that for the 
 district, in Brackley, Northampton, Potterspury and 
 Daventry. The two are about the same in Hardingstone 
 and Wellingborough. It is greater in Peterborough, Oundle, 
 Kettering, Thrapston, Brixworth and Towcester. On the 
 north and east the soil was different from what it was 
 on the south and west, perhaps more markedly so from 
 what it was on the northern side of this particular region, 
 that is on the confines of Leicester. This latter was 
 the grazing district, while the soil in the east was suitable 
 also for wheat and the new rotations. 
 
 Though Warwick offers some variety within its borders, 
 facts seem to show that in no considerable district or 
 area was any detrimental result on population effected 
 by inclosure. The rate of increase for the period 1750- 
 180 1 is on the estimated population a high one, but 
 that is to be expected from the urban growth in the 
 west of the county. Twelve parishes recently inclosed 
 are returned to Hewlett, showing an increase of some 
 twenty-six per cent. The parishes, seven in number, 
 without recent inclosure also increased. The rate of 
 increase i8oi-i8ii for all inclosed parishes was 7.3, 
 and for the county, excluding Birmingham and Aston 
 parish, 7.1. Of the districts, the rate for the southern 
 and eastern districts is lower than that of the parishes, 
 so far as parishes inclosed to 1790 are concerned, but 
 some recent inclosures, that is, 1791-1800 are higher 
 in Shipston and Southam, but lower in Rugby, Warwick 
 and Stratford. The density of population for parishes 
 inclosed up to 1800 is slightly greater than that for 
 the county. On the other hand, parishes with wheat 
 acreage decreased, according to the returns of 1800, are 
 lower. There is little compensation for decrease of 
 wheat acreage in an increase of land under other cereals, 
 the barley land diminishing and that under oats rising. 
 According to the Report of the Board of Agriculture, 
 " land that primarily kept a few half-starved sheep is now 
 yielding abundance of both grass and corn." This, of 
 
432 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 course, can only apply to some of the land, but the 
 facts and figures given above certainly do not indicate 
 decrease of population, but rather increase, even if there 
 was temporary decrease after some of the inclosures. 
 
 Leicester, like Warwick, has a high rate of increase 
 1750-1801, also exhibiting increase in the recently 
 inclosed parishes returned to Hovvlett. The population 
 of the inclosed parishes considerably exceeds in density 
 that of the county in 1801, while the parishes with 
 decreased wheat acreage have a high density, higher 
 than that of the county. This was probably due, as may 
 be judged from the Report to the Board of Agriculture to 
 the stocking trade, which in certain places both provided 
 increased employment, and, like other urban developments, 
 led to inclosure and sometimes to inclosure for pasture. 
 In addition to the decrease in wheat acreage, there appears 
 to have been a decrease in barley. There vs^as, however, an 
 increase in the land used for oats. It is clear, however, that 
 a distinction must be made between the inclosure in the 
 west and north-west and that in the east, and especially 
 the south-east. 
 
 The four counties which remain may be most con- 
 veniently considered in two divisions, Berkshire with 
 Oxford, and Cambridge with Huntingdon. 
 
 Berkshire and Oxford have many points in common. 
 Both present a considerable and somewhat similar variety 
 of soil, though of course an exception must be made as to 
 south and west Berkshire. In neither county are there initial 
 grounds for believing that the wheat acreage was seriously 
 diminished. The amount shown in such returns as were 
 received in 1800 is insignificant, while there was a marked 
 increase in Berkshire in the cultivation of both barley and 
 oats, and in Oxfordshire of oats. In both counties a large 
 amount of inclosure took place after 1800; indeed, in 
 Berkshire by far the greater quantity is after that date, 
 but this was largely due to the inclosure in the chalky 
 lands. Both exhibit a somewhat average rural rate of 
 increase for the period 1750-1801. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 433 
 
 The statistics both of density in 180 1 and of increase 
 i8oi-li show certain particular features. In Berkshire 
 the density rate for the parishes inclosed by 1800 is con- 
 siderably lower than for the county, in Oxford it is very 
 slightly lower. Likewise, too, parishes increase in Berk- 
 shire at a much slower rate, and in Oxford at a somewhat 
 slower rate. In both counties it should be noticed that 
 inclosure before 1800 takes place but rarely in the districts 
 bordering the Thames, and that in those districts, more 
 especially in those belonging to Berkshire, the population 
 runs high in many parishes. There is more inclosure in 
 this area after 1800. Berkshire is the more marked in 
 these respects throughout, the difference in both density 
 of population and rate of increase being correspondingly 
 greater, and the Thames districts playing a more dominant 
 part. These facts make some separation of the very 
 different regions essential. If this be done, and if, as is 
 shown in the table, Henley, Thame, Headington and 
 Oxford be withdrawn from Oxfordshire, and similarly the 
 districts running along the Thames valley from Berkshire, 
 a great difference is perceptible. In both counties the 
 difference between the county rate of increase and that 
 for the inclosed parishes is much reduced, while so far as 
 density is concerned all significant difference vanishes. In 
 Oxford, where inclosure and decrease of wheat acreage 
 occurred, the density was higher than where there was 
 increase in wheat acreage recorded. 
 
 In neither Cambridge nor Huntingdon are there any 
 grounds for suggesting that inclosure affected the popula- 
 tion detrimentally. The returns of 1800 even suggest an 
 increase of arable. In Cambridge there is a very slight 
 decrease in wheat acreage, while the land under both 
 barley and oats seems to increase. In Huntingdon, while 
 this latter remains much as it was, there is a slight 
 increase in the acres under wheat. In both cases, the 
 increase in the population, 17 50-1801, is normal for 
 agricultural counties. Howlett's table does not add to 
 our knowlege. In Cambridge, while the density of the 
 
434 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 inclosed parishes is greater than that of the county, this 
 latter increases more rapidly. In Huntingdon, both density 
 and rate of increase are much the same, what difference 
 there is indicating a slight superiority in the parishes 
 inclosed. 
 
 To further illustrate the points raised in the foregoing 
 pages, an investigation may be attempted of two ver}' 
 different agricultural districts, one in the midlands and one 
 extending along the Thames valley. 
 
 The Midland Region is one to which contemporary 
 evidence points as the scene of very considerable con- 
 versions from arable to pasture. It is marked by a high 
 rate of inclosure, mainly achieved in the eighteenth century, 
 and largely before 1780-90. It consists of that region 
 covering the junction of the counties of Warwick, North- 
 ampton, Leicester, and Rutland, its area being that of the 
 following registration districts : 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 Market Harborough. 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 Meriden. 
 
 
 Melton Mowbray. 
 
 
 Foleshill. 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 Uppingham. 
 
 
 Rugby. 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 Brixworth . 
 
 
 Warwick. 
 
 
 Kettering. 
 
 
 Southam. 
 
 In all these districts, with the exception of Melton 
 Mowbray, the percentage of parishes which show an 
 actual diminution in population, i8oi-i i, is forty or over. 
 In Melton Mowbray the percentage is lower, taking the 
 district as a whole, though in the southern sub-district it 
 is as high as in the other districts. 
 
 The following table shows the density of population 
 and the percentage of parishes diminishing in population, 
 i8oi-i8ii, respectively for the whole district and for 
 those parishes affected by eighteenth century inclosure 
 and those affected by inclosure after 1800. It should be 
 observed that urban areas are excluded from the figures 
 of the inclosed parishes as well as from those for the 
 districts. In the tables only common field inclosures are 
 taken into account. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 435 
 
 District, Etc 
 
 Density of 
 Population. 
 
 Percentage of 
 
 Parishes decreasing 
 
 in population 
 
 i8oi-i8ir. 
 
 Increase of 
 population 
 l8ot-i8n. 
 
 Whole district, urban areas 
 
 
 
 
 and towns included. 
 
 20.2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Whole district with urban 
 
 
 
 
 areas excluded. 
 
 16.2 
 
 44 
 
 2.6 
 
 Total parishes with inclos- 
 
 
 
 
 ures before 1800, urban 
 
 
 
 
 excluded, 
 
 19. 1 
 
 40 
 
 — 
 
 Parishes with inclosures 
 
 
 
 
 after 1800, urban ex- 
 
 
 
 
 cluded, 
 
 17 
 
 56 
 
 — 
 
 From these details one thing at least is quite clear. 
 The inclosures of the eighteenth century which occurred 
 in over one-third of the parishes in this region, excluding 
 town parishes, which are indeed few, cannot be held 
 responsible either for a decline in population, which does 
 not take place, or for a lower density of population. 
 There is, indeed, no ground for attributing to this phase 
 of the inclosure movement any particular importance in 
 the changes which occur in respect of local migration. 
 The number of parishes showing decline, 1801-11, in this 
 region, is very large. The degree of inclosure is high. 
 But, on the other hand, it is not in the inclosed districts 
 that these local decreases are most marked. If the 
 parishes with inclosures of open field after 1800 were 
 more numerous the difference in density in these parishes 
 and in those where inclosure had preceded the census 
 would be even more important. 
 
 Turning west, to the Region of the Thames valley, the 
 following districts are dealt with : 
 
 Oxford, 
 Buckingham, 
 
 Henley. 
 
 Thame. 
 
 Heading^on. 
 
 Amersham. 
 
 Eton. 
 
 Berkshire. 
 
 , Abingdon. 
 Wallingford. 
 Bradfield. 
 Wokingham. 
 Cookham. 
 
 
 Wycombe. 
 
 
 Easthampstead. 
 Windsor. 
 
436 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 Here the following table presents the chief features of 
 
 III teres I. 
 
 District, Etc- 
 Whole district 
 
 Density of 
 population. 
 
 Percentage of 
 
 parishes decreasing 
 
 in population 
 
 1801-11. 
 
 Increase 
 i8oi-ti. 
 
 (towns included), 
 
 23.6 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Whole district, towns and 
 
 
 
 
 urban excluded, - 
 
 19.2 
 
 28 
 
 9-5 
 
 Total parishes with inclos- 
 
 
 
 
 ures before 1800, urban 
 
 
 
 
 excluded. 
 
 19.6 
 
 31 
 
 — 
 
 Total parishes with inclos- 
 
 
 
 
 ures after 1800 (urban 
 
 
 
 
 excluded), 
 
 — 
 
 31 
 
 — 
 
 The same conclusion as to the relation of the eighteenth 
 century inclosure with the rest of the district holds good. 
 It should be noticed that there is comparatively little 
 difference between the population of the eighteenth 
 century inclosures in this district and in that previously 
 considered, while the difference in the two districts is 
 considerable. 
 
 The two districts were different in character, and this 
 difference is reflected in the figures given above. In the 
 one, that is in the North Midlands, where grazing and 
 feeding was in the course of development, the district was 
 lower in density and less rapid in increase than in the 
 other portions of the counties into which it extends. In 
 respect of density an exception must be made for Rut- 
 land, where the district itself is obviously below the average 
 density. In the other, that is in the Thames valley, the 
 conditions are reversed. Soil and agriculture are alike 
 different, the latter being more mixed. The district, both 
 in respect of density and rate of increase, surpasses the 
 other and surrounding parts of the three counties. Yet 
 in neither case are the parishes inclosed in the eighteenth 
 century less dense and more marked by parishes with a 
 decline, 1801-11, than in the respective district. 
 
 The fact and figures adduced and the considerations 
 brought forward point to some general conclusions. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 437 
 
 The general ideas as to the effects of inclosure, gathered 
 from the utterances of those who criticised and condemned 
 the movement, can be stated under three headings. They 
 regarded the inclosures as implying, at least, as a rule, 
 large conversions from arable to pasture. These con- 
 versions in their turn are treated as the cause of a lack of 
 rural employment and of a decrease in population, which, 
 if not apparent in the total population, was not apparent 
 because outbalanced by the growth of industrial popu- 
 lation and by the rise of the towns into which people 
 formerly employed on the land were now driven by a 
 want of occupation. Lastly, emphasis is laid on the 
 hardships occasioned by change and consequent migration. 
 
 With regard to these contentions, the first two cannot 
 be substantiated in anything like the sense in which they 
 were put forward. 
 
 In the first place, quite apart from the possibility or 
 probability of such wholesale conversion to pasture, a 
 change curiously coupled by some with complaints as to 
 the rise in the price of meat, any such tendency, where it 
 did exist, was subject to modifying influences. It was 
 checked or partially checked in many cases by concurrent 
 inclosures of commons or wastes. From former tables ^ the 
 counties where such inclosures took place may be seen. In 
 Stafford and Derby the two kinds of inclosure are fairly 
 well balanced, while in Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincoln, Warwick 
 and Worcester, the quantity of inclosed wastes and com- 
 mons is sufficient to be of importance in this respect. 
 Further, in Cambridge, Berkshire, Nottingham, Hamp- 
 shire and Dorset, commons or wastes, though not in large 
 quantities, are still apparent. Again, in the so-called open 
 field inclosure, common, waste and pasture were frequently 
 and in a great many instances conspicuously included. 
 Judging from the returns obtained in 1800,^ the extent 
 
 'pp. 405-6. Cf. Bk. II. Appendix D. 
 
 ' General Report, pp. 1S4-209, Appendix viL As those wastes are given in 
 detail for the different inclosures in respect of which figures are returned, the 
 total of the inclosures has been taken and the total of waste or common in those 
 inclosures for certain counties. It works out as given in the text. Cf. p. 404. 
 
438 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 of such included wastes or commons has been put in 
 most counties at something like one-fifth or one-fourth 
 of the open field inclosures. Thus, in Leicester and 
 Halifax, it has been reckoned at something like the 
 fourth ; in Bedford it was about 20 per cent. ; while 
 there is some ground for surmise that it was particularly 
 important in Norfolk and Cambridge. 
 
 But even where there was conversion and where the 
 finger of pessimistic triumph could be pointed to a 
 decrease in the wheat acreage, the situation was not 
 necessarily bad. So far as the actual supply of wheat was 
 concerned, it was generally conceded, though not of 
 course conceded by all, that as a rule the actual quantity 
 and quality of wheat was increased. But when this was 
 so, and when at the same time land once lying to some 
 extent in waste, was now used for more skilled breeding, 
 and for dairy purposes, and for inclosed pasture, there was 
 no probable decrease in rural occupation. As Stone pointed 
 out, there was a considerable growth in the need for 
 labour for purposes before little known and largely 
 neglected. To secure this larger yield, more labour and 
 not less was required on the land in close cultivation. 
 Even where wheat decreased in acreage, such decrease 
 might be accompanied by an increase in other grain crops, 
 and in root crops. Taking the counties mentioned above 
 for a decrease in wheat acreage, and taking the returns 
 made in 1800, both barley and oats increase in Berkshire, 
 Cambridge, Northampton, Nottingham ; oats increase in 
 Bedford, Leicester, Oxford, and Warwick, while in 
 Buckingham there is an increase in barley. Outside 
 these counties a quite perceptible increase in both barley 
 and oats takes place in Derby, Gloucester, Hampshire, 
 Lincoln, Norfolk, Shropshire, Somerset, Stafford, and 
 Yorkshire, while many other counties, and especially those 
 of the north, show some increase in one or other, but 
 usually in oats. Again, there were root crops to take 
 into account, for these crops, it must be remembered, call 
 for labour, whatever their purpose. Except in particular 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 439 
 
 districts, and possibly in the case of one or two counties, 
 the assumption as to a wide conversion of land from 
 general arable purposes to pasture seems not only im- 
 probable, but, so far as can be seen, incorrect. Of course 
 much land in any locality, now freed from restrictions, 
 varied in its use, being put to the purpose it was best 
 fitted for ; but this did not always mean pasture instead of 
 arable use. Of county areas, there are comparatively few 
 where there is any reasonable ground for the suggestion 
 that inclosure was attended by conversion to such an 
 extent as to involve a diminution of the land under 
 arable. Leicester, Warwick and Rutland are all accredited 
 with decrease in wheat acreage, but in the first two there 
 appears an increase in the land under oats. The position 
 of Bedford is much the same. In Northampton there is 
 increase both of barley and oats, and in Buckingham an 
 increase in barley. 
 
 So far as rural employment was concerned, the com- 
 parison of land under wheat in common field and inclosure 
 is quite inconclusive, since one of the objects actually 
 sought was relief from exhausting cropping by the substi- 
 tution of a rotation in which wheat appeared less frequently. 
 Hence it was only to be expected that common field 
 would contain a larger proportion under wheat. Any 
 diminution in the food supply was offset either by the 
 bringing of other land under wheat or by an improvement 
 in the quantity or quality of the crop. Employment, 
 however, would not be diminished by an actual decrease 
 of the land under wheat, but only, if then, by a decrease 
 in the amount under all arable crops. As previously 
 pointed out, other cereals and crops besides wheat must 
 be taken into account. The reasonable view is that put 
 forward by Stone, namely, that on inclosure without 
 conversion agricultural work was considerably increased. 
 On open fields, he adds, a comparatively small amount of 
 labour is required, as there are no hedges to keep up, no 
 peas or beans to drill, and no turnips to hoe ; thus 
 labourers are mostly wanted for harvest and threshing. In 
 
440 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 some counties, and particularly in Cambridge, Huntingdon, 
 and some parts of Northampton as the hay harvest 
 advanced, labourers proceeded down to the fens to take up 
 mowing. Further, account must also be taken of the care 
 required for the improved stock, and in the dairy districts. 
 In the second place, we have to consider the evidence 
 of actual diminution of employment on the land, and of 
 the population. So far as whole counties are concerned, 
 there are no signs of actual decrease ; and the only 
 counties indeed among those affected by inclosure which 
 exhibit any unusually low rate of increase, from 175O" 
 I So I, are Bedford and Northampton. On turning to the 
 density Table^ for 1801, it will be seen that, comparing 
 the parishes inclosed during the eighteenth century and 
 the whole county, and excluding as far as possible the 
 urban places, the parishes thus inclosed are almost in- 
 variably the more densely peopled. This is so in Bedford, 
 Cambridge, Huntingdon, Leicester, Northampton, Not- 
 tingham, Rutland and Warwick. It is so also in the 
 districts of Berkshire, Buckingham, and Oxford, outside 
 the Thames valley, where comparatively few inclosures 
 took place in the eighteenth century. It is equally true, 
 however, of the more thickly populated Thames valley. 
 Again comparing with those parishes inclosed before 
 1800, those in which there was some common field 
 inclosure after 1800, the former are again the more 
 populated, except in Huntingdon, Cambridge and Rut- 
 land ; and in the two latter there is very little difference. 
 Oxford, Berkshire and Buckingham must be left out of 
 the reckoning, as the earlier and later inclosures take place 
 so largely in different districts. Even in respect of the 
 rate of increase, there is comparatively little significance in 
 the differences, and here in most counties,^ the towns are 
 
 'Appendix G. 
 
 ^ In Berkshire, Buckingham and Oxford, for reasons given previously in the 
 text, certain districts are excluded in some figures, and this involves the 
 exclusion of certain towns. In Warwick, Nottingham and Leicester, the indus- 
 trial cities are excluded, namely, Birmingham (with Aston), Nottingham and 
 Leicester. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 441 
 
 reckoned in the rate of increase in the county, thus 
 increasing it unduly, since the parishes with inclosure are 
 rarely town parishes. There is no general rule either in 
 the county table or in that dealing with the districts. 
 According to the county table Cambridge and Berkshire 
 are the two counties where the county rate of increase is 
 most conspicuously in excess of that of parishes inclosed 
 in the eighteenth century. One interesting feature is 
 disclosed in the detailed tables. It is possible to compare 
 the parishes inclosed before 1790, and the whole union 
 districts in 57 cases, and in 23 the parishes inclosed 
 increase less rapidly than the district, that is, in some 
 40 per cent, of the cases. On the other hand, if the 
 comparison be between parishes inclosed 1791-1800 and 
 the whole unions, which can be made in 47 cases, the 
 former increase less rapidly in 30 instances, or in the 
 percentage of 63. The conclusion does not favour 
 the theory that on like soils the inclosures very late in 
 the century were more favourable to arable and rural 
 population than those of an earlier date. Indeed, the 
 general indication points to temporary disturbance fol- 
 lowed by more regular and equal development when 
 matters settled down. 
 
 But inclosure as a movement deserves to be treated 
 from another point of view, as a consequence rather than 
 as a cause. When it is said that, if inclosure had not 
 taken place, changes in employment and in the use of 
 certain soils would not have occurred, it may well be 
 answered that in that case other features would have been 
 different, and that many demands would have gone 
 unsatisfied. These demands were often those of the 
 district or the neighbourhood. If we take the dictum of 
 Moore, who particularly said that he did not object to 
 inclosure when other means of employment existed, and 
 apply it to many of the districts affected by the movement 
 in the eighteenth century, it will be seen that the question 
 at issue is the locality where such employment existed. 
 In some cases, indeed, inclosure was the response to a 
 
442 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 demand felt locally, and a demand often involving some 
 conversion. Elsewhere the close connection of the move- 
 ment in general with the growth of population^nd of 
 home industries has been dealt with. According to 
 Horner, in his time the use of animal food was on the 
 increase, a view shared by the author of the Agricultural 
 Report on Derbyshire. The latter says that some con- 
 version in that county was due to the local manufacture of 
 cheese and to the local demand for animal food. A like 
 statement is made in the case of Lancashire. Both dairy 
 work and careful breeding implied a not inconsiderable 
 amount of work. When this took place, as they neces- 
 sarily had to take place, in the districts rising in manu- 
 facture, largely in home industries, it is difficult to see how 
 any diminution of work would occur. Moreover, it seems 
 quite conclusively shown by the various statistics adduced 
 that, so far as any considerable area was concerned, the 
 inclosed parishes held their own either with those inclosed 
 long ago or with open field still remaining. This was 
 true alike of the Midland district, where no doubt breeding 
 did increase and conversion occur, and of the Thames 
 valley. 
 
 In connection with the assertion that people were 
 driven into the towns, an assertion which had been made 
 at different times during the preceding two centuries, it 
 must be remembered that with the divorce between 
 agricultural and industrial occupations, and the early 
 growth of factory organisation, towns both by reason 
 of the sole opportunity offered for manufacture and 
 also of a growing and specious difference in wage 
 were beginning ' to exercise that force of attraction 
 which subsequently becomes the great cause of rural 
 depopulation. 
 
 While, however, there is no doubt that the general 
 statement that inclosure occasioned depopulation is incor- 
 rect, so far as this period is concerned, there may well be 
 cases in which tendencies in this direction were caused. 
 These were within somewhat narrow limits. Depopulation 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 443 
 
 or at any rate a lower comparative rate of increase in 
 population, might well occur where the inclosure of 
 common field was accompanied by large conversions, and 
 when . such conversions were not in response to local 
 needs nor offset by other inclosures of commons or 
 wastes. If the various counties be passed in review, it 
 will be seen that cases of this kind were by way of 
 exception. There is no reason, for instance, to endorse 
 the assertion that they occurred in the great grazing 
 district of the North Midlands. There conversion took 
 place, but conversion to pasture used for careful breeding, 
 itself employed some labour, both directly and indirectly, 
 as for instance in root crops, and further, owing to 
 coincident industrial growth, implied local demand. So 
 the evidence of statistics is substantiated. Similarly, 
 when we turn to the more southern counties along the 
 Thames, where, however, the greatest development of 
 inclosure occurs when the chalk and brashy lands come 
 under the influence of the movement, to a great extent 
 after 1800, with a corresponding development in their 
 arable use. In Cambridge and Huntingdon, also, there 
 seems little ground for attributing a lack of increase to 
 the effects of inclosure for pasture. The two counties 
 where there seems most ground for the suggestion, so far 
 as large districts are concerned, are Bedford and Rutland, 
 where possibly there were fewer causes of other local 
 growth. 
 
 The matter may be briefly summarised. So far as the 
 counties, or even large districts or portions of counties are 
 concerned, there is reallj' no evidence of depopulation. 
 Nor indeed, save under certain circumstances, does the 
 inclosure of this period occasion a lower rate of increase. 
 On the other hand, it is probably true that in certain 
 places inclosure did restrict increase, that in many town- 
 ships there was actual decline owing no doubt to change 
 in the use of land, and so a need for population to migrate 
 to neighbouring townships, and, further, that on land con- 
 verted to pasture the subsequent rate of increase was 
 
444 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 lower than elsewhere, as, for instance, in the North Mid- 
 land district. 
 
 With this cause of local migration, that is within a 
 district rather than from a district, was another feature 
 further tending to change and unsettle a population 
 previously organised on a basis of unyielding custom. 
 Inclosure was at once a cause in itself and a step in a 
 general movement, leading to larger farming, the dis- 
 appearance of the small farmer and the growth of a large 
 wage paid class of labour less certainly attached to the 
 land than was previously the case. The direct effects of 
 inclosure are dealt with elsewhere. Here it is only neces- 
 sary to indicate firstly, that a considerable temporary 
 unsettlement was occasioned ; and secondly, that as in 
 manufacture so in agriculture changes occurred which 
 accelerated the development of two classes, a very small 
 class of employers and a very large class of employed. 
 The results of the change at the time seem to be reflected, 
 though, it must be admitted, somewhat uncertainly in the 
 returns as to poor relief. The new system is one of 
 change and competition instead of custom. 
 
 The real results of inclosures, wholly apart from those 
 either merely alleged and incorrect, or those erroneously 
 attributed to them, must be distinguished into those which 
 were not necessar}', and those which were necessary. 
 Among the former must be placed the great assistance 
 lent to the consolidation of farms and holdings and the 
 incidental difficulties imposed upon the small farmers, 
 largelj' arising from the expenses involved either in 
 obtaining the act or at the time of allotment. Among the 
 latter, however, rank the changes made in the use of 
 land. With regard to this latter matter, the attacks made 
 at the time and the criticism of the movement even by 
 some later writers appear unjustifiable. The old open 
 field system while suited to a period of local isolation had 
 one inevitable defect in that it prevented land being put 
 to the use to which it was best fitted either by soil or 
 climate. It was not to the interest of the people at large 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 445 
 
 that land should not be put to its best use. That change 
 might result in some local distress is true. But facts, so 
 far as they exist, show that this was not the case of the 
 movement in the eighteenth century in general, or indeed 
 so far as any moderately large district was concerned. 
 
 No one of the tests employed to investigate the truth of 
 the general allegation as to the effect of inclosure on 
 population is, perhaps, absolutely conclusive ; but taken 
 together they form very strong evidence. In general, they 
 are mutually corroborative ; and it is quite clear that a 
 decline in population or occupation far less marked or 
 widespread than that depicted by the adverse critics of the 
 day would have left definite traces in these statistics. 
 Moreover, their strength is made the more apparent by 
 the singular paucity of the testimony adduced on the 
 other side. Those who decried the movement based 
 their case either on personal observation of a very limited 
 number of instances or an assumption of an a prion 
 character which leaves out of sight the many counteracting 
 tendencies. The statistics show a disturbance of a re- 
 stricted character and a variation within narrow limits ; 
 they do not show anything like a decline in the counties or 
 regions where inclosure was most frequent, and they give 
 no reason for believing that had such inclosure not occurred 
 either these counties or these districts would have been a 
 whit the better off in respect of total employment 
 
 On the other hand there were certain positive results 
 associated with and largely due to inclosure. 
 
 In the first place, local change in the use of particular 
 soils was made easier and so encouraged. This was largely 
 the immediate result of the change in system, and when, 
 owing to the nature of the soil or the nature of local 
 demand, the need arose for a change towards pasture there 
 was some alteration in employment, certain parishes 
 decreasing and others increasing. 
 
 In the second place, some pasture districts when formed 
 tend to increase at a slower rate than elsewhere. Of this 
 the North Midlands furnish an excellent illustration. 
 
446 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 In the third place, the alteration in the system of 
 farming accentuated by the temporary results of inclosure 
 introduces a new uncertainty into employment. 
 
 In the fourth place, districts when once inclosed are 
 more free to be converted to any agricultural use which 
 the circumstances of the time may make advantageous, 
 and hence inclosure in a certain far off sense may be held 
 responsible at any rate in part for the decline or compara- 
 tive decline in rural population which was to ensue a half 
 century or even a century after their date. Here, how- 
 ever, it is but one among several causes. 
 
 The careful examination of the truth of general state- 
 ments as to the effect of inclosure on population and 
 employment in the latter part of the eighteenth century, 
 in the light of statistics is important for a particular reason. 
 It emphasises certain defects in the evidence of contempo- 
 rary observers. Unless they exercised great care they 
 were liable to be misled by appearance, as when arable 
 strips were succeeded by pasture land. Moreover, they 
 obviously argue too much from particular instances within 
 their knowledge, taking little note of compensatory factors 
 even when these were operating near at hand. But these 
 defects are equally if not more important in earlier periods, 
 when the range of observation was equally if not more 
 restricted. In the seventeenth century in particular 
 caution is required in accepting these statements. New 
 land was coming into the cultivated area with the result 
 that change in the use of old land was necessary, and yet 
 depopulation or lack of work except in a very narrow 
 sense was no necessary consequence. New employment 
 in other words might be afforded within reasonable reach. 
 Further, the spread of domestic industries occurring at that 
 time was of importance in two ways. Not only was 
 demand increased, and the best use of the land made 
 more pressing, but it is probable that the inclosed 
 system was more compatible with the circumstances of 
 people largely occupied in industry and only partially 
 employed in agriculture. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 447 
 
 In the eighteenth century especially, it must be remem- 
 bered that the general economic movement in the country 
 could not be without influence. As Horner said, in a 
 passage already quoted, agriculture from being " a means 
 of subsistence to particular families," had become " a 
 source of wealth to the public," a change which he con- 
 sidered of importance in examining the results of inclosure. 
 Local production for home use yielded to localised indus- 
 tries and differentiated agriculture, and inclosure played 
 its part in the development. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 Inclosure, Population and Poor Rates. 
 
 
 Percentage of 
 
 Percentage 
 
 
 
 
 
 Common Field 
 
 Increase 
 
 Poor Rates per head of 
 
 
 inclosure 
 
 of 
 
 Population in Shillings. 
 
 
 in round figures 
 
 Population in 
 
 Approximate for Years 
 
 
 during 
 
 round figures. 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 8th 
 Cen- 
 
 Be- 
 fore 
 
 i8oi- 
 
 1750- 
 
 i8oi- 
 
 Average 
 of 
 
 1803. 
 
 1813. 
 
 
 tury 
 
 -1800- 
 
 1780. 
 
 10. 
 
 z8oi. 
 
 1811. 
 
 1748-9-50. 
 
 
 
 Bedford, - 
 
 26 
 
 8 
 
 II 
 
 6.6 
 
 10 
 
 2.8 
 
 12.0 
 
 17.9 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 17-1 
 
 8 
 
 3-4 
 
 15-6 
 
 26.8. 
 
 , Buckingham, 
 
 21 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 22.3 
 
 ID 
 
 3-8 
 
 16.5 
 
 23.6. 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 7 
 
 I 
 
 12 
 
 14.5 
 
 IS 
 
 2.4 
 
 12.5 
 
 17.7 
 
 Cheshire, 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 65.8 
 
 17 
 
 2.6 
 
 7-2 
 
 10.8 
 
 Cornwall, 
 
 . — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 32-9 
 
 14 
 
 1-3 
 
 6.0 
 
 8.2 
 
 Cumberland, 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 34-6 
 
 14 
 
 •S 
 
 5.0 
 
 7-2 
 
 -, Derby, 
 
 9 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 48.8 
 
 15 
 
 1.4 
 
 7.2 
 
 I0.8- 
 
 Devonshire, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 4.1 
 
 12 
 
 2.1 
 
 8.6 
 
 11.8 
 
 Dorset, 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 2 
 
 21.5 
 
 8 
 
 2-5 
 
 1 1.6 
 
 i8-o 
 
 Durham, 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 14.7 
 
 10 
 
 I.O 
 
 6.8 
 
 10.4 
 
 Essex, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 16.8 
 
 II 
 
 3-9 
 
 16.2 
 
 25.7 
 
 Gloucester, 
 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 15.0 
 
 14 
 
 2.2 
 
 9.0 
 
 12.0 
 
 Hampshire, 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 52.4 
 
 12 
 
 2.8 
 
 1 1.7 
 
 18.7 
 
 Hereford, - 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 17.8 
 
 6 
 
 1-3 
 
 10.7 
 
 18.3 
 
 Hertford, 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 18.9 
 
 12 
 
 4.0 
 
 12.0 
 
 14.3 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 28 
 
 18 
 
 16 
 
 iS-7 
 
 12 
 
 2.0 
 
 13.2 
 
 17.2 
 
 Kent, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 69.7 
 
 18 
 
 4.6 
 
 14.0 
 
 18.3 
 
 Lancashire, 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 97.0 
 
 22 
 
 1.2 
 
 4-7 
 
 8.1 
 
 " Leicester, - 
 
 40 
 
 31 
 
 2 
 
 32.1 
 
 15 
 
 i-S 
 
 12.8 
 
 15.4 
 
 — Lincoln, 
 
 21 
 
 IS 
 
 S 
 
 26.7 
 
 13 
 
 1-7 
 
 9-7 
 
 \\A 
 
 Middlesex, 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 47-9 
 
 18 
 
 2.9 
 
 8.9 
 
 1 1.0 
 
 c Norfolk, 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 15.0 
 
 6 
 
 2-5 
 
 12.8 
 
 20.6~ 
 
 Northumberland, 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 5.2 
 
 9 
 
 .5 
 
 6.9 
 
 8.4 
 
 - Nottingham, 
 
 23 
 
 14 
 
 3 
 
 S3-6 
 
 16 
 
 •9 
 
 6.7 
 
 10.4 
 
 » Northampton, 
 
 37 
 
 51 
 
 7 
 
 9-7 
 
 9 
 
 2.0 
 
 14.8 
 
 20.3 
 
 Oxford, 
 
 25 
 
 IS 
 
 5 
 
 14-3 
 
 7 
 
 2.6 
 
 16.6 
 
 24-5 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 41 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 30.2 
 
 --7 
 
 1-3 
 
 10.5 
 
 14. 1 
 
 Shropshire, 
 
 — 1 — 
 
 — 
 
 24.0 
 
 9 
 
 I.I 
 
 8.3 
 
 12.0 
 
 Somerset, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 14.5 
 
 II 
 
 2.1 
 
 9.2 
 
 12.8 
 
 Stafford, 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 S8-3 
 
 21 
 
 1.2 
 
 7-4 
 
 91 
 
 - Suffolk, 
 
 I 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 22.7 
 
 9 
 
 3.2 
 
 11.8 
 
 20.0 
 
 Surrey, 
 
 I 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 87.6 
 
 13 
 
 2r1 
 
 10.5 
 
 14. 1 
 
 Sussex, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 57-1 
 
 19 
 
 4.8 
 
 23-3 
 
 34-0 
 
 — Warwick, - 
 
 20 
 
 16 
 
 2 
 
 S5-3 
 
 10 
 
 i-S 
 
 1 1.8 
 
 14-7 
 
 Westmoreland, - 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 7.8 
 
 12 
 
 .9 
 
 6.8 
 
 10. 1 
 
 Wiltshire, - 
 
 12 
 
 s 
 
 S 
 
 9.6 
 
 4 
 
 1.6 
 
 14.2 
 
 25.0 
 
 • Worcester. 
 
 8 
 
 s 
 
 2 
 
 3S-4 
 
 14 
 
 1-9 
 
 10.7 
 
 12.5 
 
 - Yorkshire, E., 
 
 23 
 
 20 
 
 7 
 
 71 
 
 19 
 
 I 
 
 6.5 
 
 II. s 
 
 N., 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 36 
 
 II 
 
 •9 
 
 6.4 
 
 8.7 
 
 w., - 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 73 
 
 16 
 
 1.2 
 
 6.9 
 
 10.5 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 449 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 Increase of Poor Rates ir 
 
 I certain periods given in percentages. 
 
 
 1748-9-S0— 1783-4-5 
 
 1783-4-3—1803 
 
 i8o3-r3. 
 
 
 Average. Average. 
 
 Average. 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 I4S 
 
 81 
 
 66 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 194 
 
 82 
 
 92 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 164 
 
 95 
 
 57 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 i8s 
 
 114 
 
 59 
 
 Cheshire, - 
 
 129 
 
 n 
 
 75 
 
 Cornwall, - 
 
 195 
 
 102 
 
 87 
 
 Cumberland, 
 
 376 
 
 iSS 
 
 63 
 
 Derby, 
 
 198 
 
 155 
 
 71 
 
 Devonshire, 
 
 130 
 
 84 
 
 52 
 
 Dorset, 
 
 157 
 
 112 
 
 68 
 
 Durham, 
 
 «73 
 
 180 
 
 58 
 
 Essex, 
 
 147 
 
 95 
 
 76 
 
 Gloucester, 
 
 152 
 
 74 
 
 52 
 
 Hampshire, 
 
 187 
 
 119 
 
 79 
 
 Hereford, - 
 
 231 
 
 187 
 
 80 
 
 Hertford, 
 
 199 
 
 79 
 
 36 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 268 
 
 105 
 
 46 
 
 Kent, - 
 
 153 
 
 102 
 
 55 
 
 Lancaster, - 
 
 245 
 
 119 
 
 109 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 308 
 
 172 
 
 39 
 
 Lincoln, 
 
 190 
 
 t34 
 
 39 
 
 Middlesex, - 
 
 141 
 
 87 
 
 44 
 
 Norfolk, 
 
 227 
 
 85 
 
 65 
 
 Northumberland, 
 
 447 
 
 163 
 
 42 
 
 Nottingham, 
 
 313 
 
 163 
 
 100 
 
 Northampton, - 
 
 272 
 
 112 
 
 47_, 
 
 Oxford, 
 
 180 
 
 154 
 
 51 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 310 
 
 145 
 
 33 
 
 Shropshire, 
 
 328 
 
 106 
 
 58 
 
 Somerset, - 
 
 158 
 
 91 
 
 53 
 
 Stafford, 
 
 317 
 
 116 
 
 52 
 
 Suffolk, 
 
 147 
 
 79 
 
 87 
 
 Surrey, 
 
 148 
 
 "5 
 
 60 
 
 Sussex, 
 
 199 
 
 154 
 
 74 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 470 
 
 106 
 
 37 
 
 Westmoreland, 
 
 212 
 
 154 
 
 63 
 
 Wiltshire, 
 
 162 
 
 110 
 
 81 
 
 Worcester, 
 
 25s 
 
 116 
 
 40 
 
 Yorkshire, E., - 
 
 276 
 
 187 
 
 99 
 
 „ N., 
 
 23s 
 
 172 
 
 45 
 
 „ w, - - 
 
 227 
 
 19s 
 
 76 
 
 2F 
 
450 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 Table exhibiting rate of increase in Baptisms in certain parishes 
 in certain counties, distinguishing between those lately inclosed and 
 those not lately inclosed. (Hewlett, An Enquiry, etc.) 
 
 
 Baptisms in Parishes 
 
 Baptisms in Parishes 
 
 
 lately inclosed. 
 
 not lately inclosed. 
 
 
 No. of 
 Parishes. 
 
 1760-65. 
 
 1775-80. 
 
 No. 
 
 1760-65. 
 
 1775-80. 
 
 Northumberland, 
 
 2 
 
 349 
 
 441 
 
 32 
 
 5977 
 
 6302 
 
 Durham, 
 
 3 
 
 525 
 
 600 
 
 10 
 
 2735 
 
 3202 
 
 Cumberland, 
 
 3 
 
 956 
 
 1147 
 
 20 
 
 2431 
 
 2823 
 
 Shropshire, - 
 
 
 390 
 
 517 
 
 17 
 
 1729 
 
 1782 
 
 Norfolk, 
 
 8 
 
 447 
 
 558 
 
 69 
 
 4384 
 
 5224 
 
 Essex, - 
 
 2 
 
 165 
 
 248 
 
 19 
 
 1517 
 
 1920 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 3 
 
 151 
 
 221 
 
 6 
 
 981 
 
 935 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 4 
 
 343 
 
 335 
 
 S 
 
 1490 
 
 1748 
 
 Leicester, - 
 
 7 
 
 1255 
 
 1450 
 
 8 
 
 1021 
 
 1340 
 
 Stafford, 
 
 2 
 
 320 
 
 356 
 
 10 
 
 2394 
 
 2860 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 12 
 
 1269 
 
 1609 
 
 7 
 
 1154 
 
 1446 
 
 Derby and Berkshire, 
 
 5 
 
 546 
 
 621 
 
 25 
 
 2135 
 
 2413 
 
 Middlesex, 
 
 I 
 
 34 
 
 47 
 
 4 
 
 827 
 
 1073 
 
 Worcester, 
 
 7 
 
 1490 
 
 1946 
 
 17 
 
 201 1 
 
 2493 
 
 Gloucester, 
 
 lO 
 
 463 
 
 588 
 
 175 
 
 13,163 
 
 14,639 
 
 Wiltshire, 
 
 13 
 
 1888 
 
 2187 
 
 48 
 
 5774 
 
 4210 
 
 Hampshire, - 
 
 4 
 
 213 
 
 267 
 
 15 
 
 3008 
 
 3374 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 451 
 
 APPENDIX D. 
 
 Rate of increase of population (1801-1811) in all parishes inclosed 
 during eighteenth century, in parishes inclosed in decade 1791-1800, 
 and in whole counties. — Registration Counties. 
 
 [In this table towns not excluded save in instances noted.] 
 
 
 All Parishes 
 
 
 
 Place. 
 
 inclosed 
 
 in Eighteenth 
 
 Century. 
 
 Parishes inclosed 
 1791-1800, 
 
 COONTV. 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 13.8 
 
 16.7 
 
 10.8 
 
 Berkshire, - 
 
 3-1 
 
 2.9 
 
 18.2 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 7-5 
 
 lO.O 
 
 29.1 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 7-7 
 
 4-9 
 
 14.8 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 12.0 
 
 14.7 
 
 1 1-9 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 12. 1 
 
 d. 
 
 12.4 
 
 (Excluding Leicester.) 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 8.0 
 
 8.6 
 
 7-4 
 
 Nottingham, 
 
 17.2 
 
 20.1 
 
 15.4 
 
 (Excluding Nottingham.) 
 
 Oxford, 
 
 5-7 
 
 • 4 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 rf.5 
 
 d.%.i 
 
 d.l.O 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 7-3 
 
 5-5 
 
 7-1 
 
 (Excluding Birmingham 
 
 with Aston.) 
 
 APPENDIX E. 
 
 Parishes with decrease in populaton i8oi-i8ir distributed. 
 
 Place. 
 
 Total 
 number 
 
 with 
 decrease. 
 
 In parishes 
 not inclosed 
 
 i8th Cen- 
 tury and up 
 to 1840. 
 
 Parishes In-closed. 
 
 Before 
 1790. 
 
 I791-1800. 
 
 rSoi-io. 
 
 1811-40. 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 Buckingham, - 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 Nottingham, - 
 
 Oxford, 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 23 
 
 88 
 57 
 27 
 20 
 89 
 91 
 74 
 73 
 29 
 
 95 
 
 II 
 
 i 
 
 52 
 54 
 46 
 18 
 46 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 10 
 
 i 
 
 23 
 
 II 
 II 
 
 4 
 23 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 7 
 6 
 2 
 8 
 2 
 2 
 9 
 4 
 6 
 
 14 
 II 
 
 I 
 II 
 
 3 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 2 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 ' Excluding districts of Eton, Amersham, Wycombe, the rate for county is 7.4. 
 'Excluding Henley, Thame, Headington, Oxford, the rate for county is 6.9. 
 ' Excluding Abingdon, Wallingford, Bradfield, Reading, Wokingham, 
 (Tookham, Easthampton, Windsor, the rate for the county is 5. 2. 
 
452 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 APPENDIX F. 
 
 Rate of increase of population in inclosed parishes and registration 
 districts of various counties — i8or-i8ri. 
 
 
 District. 
 
 Increase of Population 
 in percentages. 
 
 County. 
 
 Parishes 
 Incl. 
 -1790. 
 
 Parishes 
 
 Incl. 
 1791-1800. 
 
 Total 
 
 District. 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 Caxton, 
 Chesterton, 
 Linton, - 
 Newmarket, 
 Ely, - 
 N. Witchford, 
 
 12-3 
 10.6 
 
 9-4 
 10.4 
 
 d. 
 
 6.1 
 
 4.6 
 9-4 
 
 3-4 
 
 II.O 
 
 12.2 
 
 8.3 
 
 14.0 
 
 16.S 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 Biggleswade, 
 
 Ampthill, 
 
 Woburn,- 
 
 Leighton Buzzard, 
 
 Luton, 
 
 d. 
 
 11.1 
 
 II. 
 
 17-9 
 
 •5 
 
 d. 
 
 10.3 
 4-6 
 
 10.8 
 8.8 
 d. 
 
 18.7 
 
 10.8 
 7.0 
 9.0 
 5-8 
 8.8 
 
 19.9 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 Eton, 
 Wycombe, 
 Aylesbury, 
 Winslow, 
 Newport Pagnell, 
 Buckingham, - 
 
 21.0 
 
 6.9 
 4.1 
 3-5 
 91 
 
 10.5 
 10.7 
 .2 
 3-2 
 13-6 
 10.8 
 
 16.6 
 9.6 
 7.2 
 4-3 
 5-3 
 
 11.6 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 St. Ives, - 
 St. Neots, 
 
 4-8 
 12.3 
 12.8 
 
 2.4 
 14-5 
 15-7 
 
 1 1-3 
 1 1.8 
 12.8 
 
 Oxford, 
 
 Henley, 
 Bicester, - 
 Woodstock, 
 Witney, - 
 Chipping Norton, 
 Banbury, 
 
 4.8 
 10.3 
 7-8 
 7.0 
 7.7 
 
 d. 
 15.11 
 12.8 
 
 d. , 
 
 d. 
 
 d 
 
 9-7 
 7.6 
 
 5-7 
 4-1 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 453 
 
 
 
 Increase of Popu 
 
 ation 
 
 
 District. 
 
 in percentages. 
 
 County. 
 
 Parishes 
 Incl. 
 
 Parishes 
 Incl. 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 
 
 District. 
 
 
 
 -1790. 
 
 1791-1800 
 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 Brackley, 
 
 3-3 
 
 4.6 
 
 5-1 
 
 
 Towcester, 
 
 9-3 
 
 5-1 
 
 6.1 
 
 
 Potterspury, 
 
 d. 
 
 
 2-3 
 
 
 Hardingstone, 
 
 12.9 
 
 — 
 
 12.5 
 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 9-5 
 
 — 
 
 15.0 
 
 
 Daventry, 
 
 4-4 
 
 — 
 
 4.8 
 
 
 Brixworth, 
 
 9.8 
 
 d 
 
 6.4 
 
 
 Wellingborough, 
 
 15-3 
 
 9-1 
 
 13-9 
 
 
 Kettering, 
 
 i.i 
 
 
 •5 
 
 
 Thrapstone, 
 
 2.0 
 
 9.0 
 
 6.8 
 
 
 Oundle, 
 
 4.8 
 
 38-3 
 
 3-2 
 
 
 Peterborough, 
 
 33-1 
 
 
 9-9 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 Newbury, 
 
 13-8 
 
 
 11.8 
 
 
 Hungerford, 
 
 d. 
 
 4.0 
 
 .5 
 
 
 Faringdon, 
 
 7-9 
 
 d 
 
 6.0 
 
 
 Abingdon, 
 
 7-2 
 
 6-5 
 
 8.7 
 
 
 Wantage, 
 
 6.8 
 
 d. 
 
 2.6 
 
 
 Wallingford, 
 
 10.9 
 
 37-2 
 
 4-6 
 
 
 Bradfield, 
 
 d. 
 
 
 7.0 
 
 
 Reading, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 13-5 
 
 
 Wokingham, 
 
 -9 
 
 — 
 
 8.0 
 
 
 Cookham, 
 
 d. 
 
 — 
 
 d 
 
 
 Easthampstead, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 7-7 
 
 
 Windsor, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 26.8 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 Oakham, 
 
 3.2 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 
 Uppingham, 
 
 -4 
 
 d 
 
 d. 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 Aston, 
 
 
 d 
 
 17-5 
 
 
 Meriden, 
 
 9-4 
 
 5-9 
 
 3-3 
 
 
 Atherstone, 
 
 10.2 
 
 
 8-3 
 
 
 Nuneaton, 
 
 Z-1 
 
 1-9 
 
 3-7 
 
 
 Foleshill, 
 
 2-3 
 
 27.9 
 
 3-2 
 
 
 Rugby, 
 
 8.7 
 
 d 
 
 4.6 
 
 
 Solihull, - 
 
 6.9 
 
 d. 
 
 3-7 
 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 16.4 
 
 5-6 
 
 9-9 
 
 
 Stratford, 
 
 7-9 
 
 d. 
 
 6.9 
 
 
 Alcester, 
 
 12.0 
 
 — 
 
 1 1.4 
 
 
 Shipston, 
 
 4-9 
 
 4-3 
 
 2.7 
 
 -,'*» 
 
 Southam, 
 
 4-4 
 
 13-5 
 
 3-8 
 
454 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 
 
 Increase of Population 
 
 
 District. 
 
 in percentages. 
 
 COUKTY. 
 
 Parishes 
 
 Incl. 
 
 Parishes 
 Incl. 
 
 Total 
 District. 
 
 
 
 -I7QO. 
 
 1791.1800. 
 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 Lutterworth, ■ 
 
 12.2 
 
 
 10.5 
 
 
 M. Harborough, 
 
 •9 
 
 — 
 
 d..7 
 
 
 Billesdon, 
 
 4-5 
 
 — 
 
 4-8 
 
 
 Blaby, - 
 
 I8.2 
 
 — 
 
 20.8 
 
 
 Hinckley, 
 
 16.3 
 
 — 
 
 18. 1 
 
 
 M. Bosworth, - 
 
 13.0 
 
 — 
 
 9-8 
 
 
 Ashby de la Zouch, 
 
 13.8 
 
 — 
 
 11.6 
 
 
 Loughborough, 
 
 17.4 
 
 — 
 
 16.0 
 
 
 Barrow, 
 
 10.0 
 
 — 
 
 11.9 
 
 
 Melton Mowbray, 
 
 8.8 
 
 — 
 
 8.6 
 
 Nottingham, 
 
 E. Retford, 
 
 II.O 
 
 6-3 
 
 6.8 
 
 
 Worksop, 
 
 135 
 
 
 7-5 
 
 
 Mansfield, 
 
 22.1 
 
 — 
 
 14.4 
 
 
 Basford, - 
 
 21. 1 
 
 29.4 
 
 22.6 
 
 
 Radford, - 
 
 50.4 
 
 56.7 
 
 48.8 
 
 
 Southwell, 
 
 10.4 
 
 3-9 
 
 10.3 
 
 
 Newark, - 
 
 8.7 
 
 7.2 
 
 8.9 
 
 
 Bingham, 
 
 16.4 
 
 2.6 
 
 13-7 
 
 Note i. — In 75 cases it is possible to compare rates of increase, etc., in 
 parishes inclosed before 1800 and those for the related unions. In 29 cases 
 rate of increase greater for the union than for the included inclosed parishes, 
 that is in 38 per cent, of the cases. 
 
 In 53 cases it is possible to compare rates of increase, etc., of parishes 
 inclosed 1791-1800 and those for related union. In 34 cases rate of increase 
 greater for union than for included inclosed parishes, that is in 64 per cent, of 
 the cases. 
 
 Note 2. — Taking the three counties Leicester, Northampton and Warwick 
 comparison of parishes inclosed before 1800 and the union feasible in 33 cases. 
 In 10 the rate for the union greater than for included inclosed parishes, that 
 is in 30 per cent, of the cases. These are counties in respect of which much 
 conversion is alleged. 
 
 Note 3.— In the foregoing tables the number of parishes in the union 
 affected by inclosure 179 1- 1800 often inadequate to allow of a fair average. 
 So in many cases the percentage is omitted. The parishes are of course 
 ncluded in all cases in the figures for inclosure before 1800. 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 455 
 
 APPENDIX G. 
 
 Density of population to loo acres. (1801.) 
 [In this table towns are deducted.] 
 
 Name of County. 
 
 Parishes 
 incld. before 
 tSoo (com- 
 mon iield). 
 
 Whole 
 County. 
 
 Parishes 
 incld. after 
 1800 (com- 
 mon field). 
 
 Incl. Par- 
 ishes with 
 decreased 
 
 wheat 
 acreage. 
 
 Incl. Par- 
 ishes with 
 increased 
 
 wheat 
 acreage. 
 
 Bedford, 
 
 20.0 
 
 17-5 
 
 19.0 
 
 17.6 
 
 21.5 
 
 Berkshire, ■ -. 
 
 14.8 
 
 18.0 
 
 16.8 
 
 
 
 Do. 1 
 
 14.4 
 
 15.2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 20.1 
 
 19.2 
 
 21. 1 
 
 20.7 
 
 21.9 
 
 Do. 2 
 
 19.7 
 
 17.6 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 14-3 
 
 12.7 
 
 14-5 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 14.4 
 
 137 
 
 17.2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 21.8 
 
 19.9 
 
 17.7 
 
 21.0 
 
 18.8 
 
 Northampton, 
 
 20.0 
 
 17-3 
 
 18.5 
 
 20.5 
 
 25.0 
 
 Nottingham, 
 
 18.8 
 
 17.2 
 
 16.2 
 
 
 
 Oxford, 
 
 16.7 
 
 17-3 
 
 19-3 
 
 19. 1 
 
 18.6 
 
 Do. 3 
 
 16.9 
 
 i6.g 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Rutland, 
 
 16.2 
 
 14.S 
 
 16.9 
 
 16.8 
 
 — 
 
 Warwick, 
 
 19.0 
 
 18.3 
 
 18.4 
 
 17.0 
 
 — 
 
 Gloucester, 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 14.6 
 
 14. 1 
 
 ^ Excluding districts of Abingdon, Wallingford, Bradfield, Reading, 
 Wokingham, Cookham, Easthampton, Windsor, in which total number of 
 parishes inclosed before 1800 is ten. 
 
 ' Excluding Amersham, Eton, Wycombe, in which total number of parishes 
 inclosed before 1800 is two. 
 
 ^ Excluding Henley, Thame, Headington, Oxford, in which total number of 
 parishes inclosed before 1800 is six. 
 
 The present iSoo and past 1800 inclosures in these counties take place 
 in different parts of these counties. 
 
 In Berkshire many inclosed parishes or hamlets are omitted because population 
 not given separately. 
 
456 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE 
 
 APPENDIX H. 
 
 INVESTIGATION OF TWO SPECIAL DISTRICTS. 
 
 Warwick. — Meriden. 
 Foleshill. 
 Rugby. 
 Warwick. 
 Southam. 
 
 (a) N. Midland Pasture — 
 
 Leicester. — Market Harbro. 
 Melton Mowbray. 
 
 Rutland. — Uppingham. 
 Northampton. — Brixworth. 
 Kettering. 
 
 AH showing tnany instances (1801-1 1) of Parishes actually 
 decreased in population. 
 
 Taile (Towns omitted) — 
 
 Whole District Density, 16.2 
 
 Per cent, of Parishes, decrease in population, 44 
 
 Increase of population, 1801-11, 2.5 
 
 Inclosed Parishes (c.f.) Density, 19. i 
 
 Per cent, of Parishes, decrease in population, 40.6 
 
 Parishes with subsequent c.f. Inclosure Density, 17 
 
 Per cent, decrease, 54 
 
 Density of District with Towns, 20.2 
 
 (b) Thames District — 
 Oxford. — Henley. 
 Thame. 
 Headington. 
 Bucks. — Amersham. 
 Eton. 
 Wycombe. 
 
 Berks. — Abingdon. 
 
 Wallingford. 
 Bradfield. 
 Wokingham. 
 Cookham. 
 Easthampstead. 
 Windsor. 
 Tnile (Towns omitted) — 
 
 Whole District Density, 19.2 
 
 Per cent, of Parishes, decrease in population, 28 
 Increase of population, 1801-11, 9.5 
 
 Inclosed Parishes c.f (?too few) Density, 19.6 
 
 Per cent, of Parishes with decrease, 31 
 
 Parishes with subsequent Inclosure, per cent, of 
 
 Parishes with decrease, - 31 
 
 Density of District with Towns,- 23.6 
 
EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE 
 
 457 
 
 APPENDIX J. 
 
 Increase per cent of Poor Rates in certain Counties during periods 
 1776-1783-4-5 and 1783-4-5-1803, distinguishing total County — Town- 
 ships c.f. inclosed 1776-1782 and Townships inclosed 17S3-1S02. 
 
 
 Per cent, increase Poor Rates during 
 period r776-l783. 
 
 County. 
 
 Total County. 
 
 Township c.f. 
 
 inclosed during 
 
 period 1776-1782 
 
 inclusive. 
 
 Township c-f 
 
 inclosed during 
 
 periods 1783-1802 
 
 inclusive. 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 Northants, 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 26 
 
 39 
 
 42 
 27 
 45 
 
 6 
 
 59 
 deer. 
 
 35 
 69 
 40 
 22 
 97 
 
 
 Per cent, increase Poor Rates during 
 period 1783-1803. 
 
 County. 
 
 Total County. 
 
 Township c.f. 
 inclosed 
 1776-17S2 
 inclxisive. 
 
 Township c.f. 
 inclosed 
 I 783-1802 
 inclusive. 
 
 Leicester, 
 
 Northants, 
 
 Buckingham, 
 
 Berkshire, 
 
 Cambridge, 
 
 171 
 112 
 
 95 
 
 74 
 115 
 
 187 
 
 117 
 
 76 
 
 73 
 
 159 
 
 126 
 
 118 
 
 98 
 
 66 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Abstract rights in inclosure, 79. 
 Acreage in acts and awards com- 
 pared, 194-5. 
 Admeasurement of common, 100. 
 Agricultural progress and inclosure, 
 
 121, etc. 
 Agriculture, past and present systems 
 
 of, 191 -2. 
 Agriculture, Board of, its influence 
 
 on movement, 67. 
 Agreements to vary common usage, 32. 
 Agreements to inclose, compulsion, 
 
 54 ; in seventeenth century, 53 ; 
 
 eighteenth century, 52-3, 187-190. 
 Allotments under private act, 64, 
 
 79-83. 
 Ancient inclosure, 38, 47 ; marks of, 
 
 82 n. ; and shackage, 47. 
 Appendant, z: Common. 
 Approvement, origin of, 49 ; efficacy 
 
 varies with times, 50, etc. ; nature 
 
 of, 48-9. 
 Appurtenant, v. Common. 
 Arable, proportion between it and 
 
 pasture in early cultivation, 24-5 : 
 
 and inclosure in eighteenth centurv, 
 
 228. 
 Awards described, 91, etc. 
 
 B. 
 
 Bote, hedge, hay, house, plough, 14. 
 Breeding, improved by inclosure, 
 
 339- 
 Butter, improved after inclosures 
 introduced, 340. 
 
 Capitalistic farming, growth and 
 
 influence of, 378. 
 Chancery suits and decrees, 54, etc. 
 Civil wars of fifteenth century, effect 
 
 of, 44. 
 
 Claims, non-legal claims of common, 
 
 365- 
 
 Closes, 108. 
 
 Clover, introduction of, and influence 
 of, 319- 
 
 Commissioners, appointment of, 63, 
 74-S ; duties of, 63-4, S3 ; number 
 of, 74-5 ; powers of, 63 ; procedure 
 ^3', 75"6 ; and treatment of small 
 owners and farmers, 373, etc. 
 
 Common, system of, early use and 
 advantages of, 17, 34-5 ; distance 
 between houses and fields, 22 ; 
 difference between system in early 
 and late times, 3 ; extent of 
 system, 18 ; legal nature and 
 definition, 7-8, 96, etc. ; part of an 
 agricultural system, 3 ; purport and 
 use, 7 ; separate cultivation at- 
 tempted under, 21 ; conditions 
 under which suitability, 35, etc. ; 
 growing unsuitability, 33, 36-S ; 
 withdrawal from, 46 ; rights and 
 uses resembling, 13, etc. ; v. Pas- 
 ture, Estover, Turbary, Piscary. 
 
 Common in eighteenth century, 
 described, 18, etc., 21 ; modifica- 
 tions gradually introduced, 29. 
 
 Common appendant, 8, etc 
 
 Common appurtenant, 10, etc. 
 
 Common in gross, II. 
 
 Common without number, 102-3. 
 
 Common fields, exhaustion of soil, 
 307 ; fertility in earlier times, 
 304-6 ; and inclosure, 1 14. 
 
 Commons, idleness of dwellers near, 
 360-2 ; poor feeding on, 337 ; in- 
 cluded often in common field inclo- 
 sure, 193. 
 
 Compact farms in inclosures, 308. 
 
 Compositions for inclosure, 166-7. 
 
 Consolidation of farms, 368, etc. 
 
 Counties compared in respect of 
 population and poor relief, 427, etc. 
 
INDEX 
 
 459 
 
 Dairy districts and inclosure, I2I-2, 
 212, 216, 229, 234. 
 
 Decrees in chancery, 168, 181. 
 
 Depopulation, why attributed to in- 
 closnre, 381 ; counties with a ^««rt 
 possibility of such, 406-7 ; different 
 views as to connection of, with 
 inclosure, 385 ; alleged connection 
 fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, 
 controversy as to, in seventeenth 
 century, 391-5. 
 
 Drainage, as an aim of inclosure, 
 320, etc. 
 
 E. 
 
 East Anglia, soil and enclosure in, 
 205, etc. 
 
 Eighteenth century, periods of in- 
 closure in, 201. 
 
 Employment, alleged decrease of, 
 discussed, 400-7. 
 
 Estover, common of, 14, 28. 
 
 Expenses of inclosure, 78-9, 87-91, 
 201-2. 
 
 Extinction of common in legal pro- 
 cess, 43, etc. 
 
 Fallow field, 311. 
 
 Farmers, unfortunate position of 
 small farmers in eighteenth cen- 
 tury, 371. 
 
 Farming, progress of, and inclosure, 
 
 313- 
 Fen, and inclosure, 113, 167, 230-1. 
 Fields, large fields under common 
 
 system, 23. 
 Foldage, and like customs, 14. 
 Forest and inclosure, m, 138-40; 
 
 V. Woods. 
 Foxhunting, and inclosure, 299. 
 Fruit trees, and inclosure, 331. 
 Fuel, and inclosure, 332-3. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gavelkind, 144. 
 
 General Act, early demands for, 66 ; 
 
 parliamentary struggle for, 67 ; 
 
 nature and form of, 62-3, 70 ; 
 
 represents a gradual evolution, 70. 
 Grain, and inclosure discussed, 
 
 35°. etc. 
 Grazing butchers, taking up land, 160. 
 Grazing districts, their inclosure, 229. 
 Gross, V. Common in gross. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hedges, effect on cultivation, 312-3; 
 
 shelter for flocks, 336. 
 Hedging and ditching, 64. 
 Hitchland, or hitching the field, 32-3. 
 Hookland, 34. 
 
 Inclosed pasture and its increase, 29. 
 
 Inclosure, complex nature and diffe- 
 rent kinds of, 107-8 ; factors affect- 
 ing, 115, etc. ; general progress 
 traced, 130 d., 268-9; methods of, 
 43, etc ; after Statute of Merton, 
 109 ; in fifteenth and sixteenth 
 centuries, 132, etc. ; in seventeenth 
 century, i8l, etc. ; nature of and 
 changes in nineteenth century 
 under 8 and 9 Vict., 92-3 ; signifi- 
 cance of inclosure by Act, 193 ; of 
 land reclaimed from fen, 57 ; of 
 land reclaimed from sea, 57 ; 
 allowed in return for yearly pay- 
 ments to rates, etc., 62 ; relation 
 with industrial growth, 116, etc. ; 
 effects on land taxation, 300-301 ; 
 on management of land, 308 ; on 
 grain, 350 ; on farming, 322-5 ; on 
 bad farmers, 322 ; on butter and 
 feeding, 335, etc. ; on infection, 
 339 ; on miscellaneous products, 
 330-1. 
 
 Intakes, ». Temporary Inclosures. 
 
 Invasion, less risk under inclosure, 299. 
 
 Joist, cattle or ley cattle, 28. 
 
 Legal processes, extinguishing com- 
 mon, 44. 
 
 Levant and couchant, a measure of 
 common right, 9, 102. 
 
 Light soils, suitable for inclosure, 
 23s. 297. 
 
 Locality of inclosure discussed, no, 
 etc., 122-6, 175-9. 
 
 Locomotion, improvement in, and its 
 effect on inclosure movement, 297. 
 
 M. 
 
 Manure, better utilised after inclo- 
 sure, 310. 
 
 Mast, nature and subject to common, 
 14- 
 
460 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Meat supply, an aim in inclosure, 
 344. etc. 
 
 Merton, Statute of, 49 ; its re-enact- 
 ment, 51. 
 
 Milk, improvement after inclosure, 
 340. 
 
 Mismanagement of inclosures com- 
 plained of, 298. 
 
 Monasteries, dissolution of, 44. 
 
 N. 
 Needs, town needs and inclosure, 218. 
 
 O. 
 Ogilby, map and evidence from, 
 
 170, etc. 
 Open field, v. Common field, common. 
 Overstocking, frequent subject of 
 
 complaint, 50. 
 
 Pannage, 14. 
 
 Parishes vrith and without inclosure 
 
 in eighteenth century compared, 
 
 409, etc., 421, etc. 
 Parliamentary powers for inclosure 
 
 sought, 56-8. 
 Pasture, common, of its nature, 8, etc. ; 
 
 kinds, 29, 30 n. 
 Pasture, inclosed, 5, 29. 
 Planting, and inclosure, 334. 
 Poor, effect of inclosure on, 360-4, 
 
 367- 
 
 Poor law sj'stem, effect on small 
 farmers, 376-8. 
 
 Poor rates, effect of inclosure con- 
 sidered, 366, 415-9. 
 
 Population of country, growth and 
 distribution of, 128, etc. 
 
 Population, controversy as to effect of 
 inclosure, 396, etc. 
 
 Private acts, application for, 72 ; 
 growth in use and nature of, 58-60 ; 
 periods of, 196-7 ; procedure under, 
 63, 93-5 ; structural growth, 65, 
 etc. ; standing orders affecting, 65 ; 
 statement as to acreage criticised, 
 
 193-4- 
 Pri^T Council, action of, relative to 
 
 inclosures, 164-6. 
 Proprietors, large, powers of, in 
 
 inclosure, 73. 
 Publicity of proceedings on inclosure, 
 
 77- 
 
 R. 
 
 Reclamation, inclosure of reclaimed 
 
 land, 57, 181 n. 
 Red soil, inclosures on red soil, 225. 
 
 Roads, and inclosure, 64, 83-6, 300 ; 
 inclusion of roads in acreage in 
 private acts, 195 ; making of roads 
 in eighteenth century, 85-7 ; v. 
 Turnpike. 
 
 Rotation, new rotations and influence 
 in inclosure, 318. 
 
 Rural conditions affected by inclosure, 
 359. etc 
 
 S. 
 
 Shack or shackage, 12, 46-7, 126. 
 
 Separation of common right from 
 lands, 103. 
 
 Sheep rot and common fields, 339. 
 
 Sheep-walk, nature, 14 ; in eighteenth 
 century, 26. 
 
 Small farmers, disappearance of, 
 368, etc. 
 
 Soil, infinence of soil as factor in 
 inclosure, 115, 199, 203, 225-7; 
 difference of effect of inclosure in 
 different soils, 297 ; connection 
 with inclosure in Midlands, 219, etc. 
 
 Soil belts, great soil belts and in- 
 closure, 220, etc. 
 
 South-East, time and nature of in- 
 closure, 151. 
 
 Standing orders, relative to inclosure, 
 65. 
 
 Statistics of act inclosure, light thrown 
 on previous condition, 147-51. 
 
 Stock, increase and improvement 
 after inclosure, 39. 
 
 Sun"ey, 61 n., 63. 
 
 T. 
 
 Temporary inclosures, 31 n., 108. 
 Tillage Laws, doubtful effect of, 
 
 352-4- 
 Tithe, burden of, on farming, 315; 
 
 exoneration under inclosure, 315-6 ; 
 
 this not uniform, 316-8 ; its locality, 
 
 316-8. 
 Topography, effect of, on inclosure, 
 
 115. _ 
 Town, influence on inclosure, 329. 
 Trespass, less risk of, after inclosure, 
 
 314-5- 
 Turnip, introduction and use of, and 
 
 inclosure, 226, 234-5, 319-20. 
 Turbarj-, 15; in eighteenth century, 
 
 27. 
 Turnpike Trusts, 85. 
 
 V. 
 Valuation, nature of, on inclosure, 
 77-8. 
 
INDEX 
 
 .61 
 
 Vicinage, and common, 12 ; u. 
 
 Common. 
 Village, early agricultural village 
 
 described, 4, etc, 
 
 W. 
 
 Water, presence of, as affecting 
 
 settlement, 1 16. 
 West, inclosure in west, 125, 209-16. 
 Westminster, Statute of, 49. 
 Wheat acre^e, diminution of, after 
 
 inclosure, discussed, 401, 408. 
 
 Wild, inclosure direct from wild, and 
 effects, no, 118, etc. ; 146, 282, 
 etc 
 
 Woodland and inclosures, 231, 282, 
 etc. 
 
 Wool, effect of inclosure on, 340-2. 
 
 Y. 
 
 Yardland, 4. 
 
 Yeoman farmer, disappearance of, 
 268-9, 
 
 ■GLASGOW ; PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITV PRESS BV ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO. LTD. 
 
5° Lon;;. 4'W. of Gr. 3' 
 
 Stan/brt^ lj»-iff'£ttJt'toni^O^ 
 
 D.ion. MacmJl: 
 
Londo.Ti ^^i^^. mi^lan J>;*Io._L'^ 
 
London. MfLcmllliii -^CoX' 
 
l.ioil> MliClJlTl-Uu-. ■i:'::-:L''^ 
 
By PROFESSOR E. C. K. CONNER 
 
 INTEREST AND SAVING 
 
 Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. net. 
 
 Daily News. — " Should be welcomed by students of economics. . . . Will 
 be found to contain many interesting condosions and much clear-sighted 
 reasoning." 
 
 Athenaum. — " We ancerely thank Professor Conner for his laboar on this 
 subject." 
 
 Globe. — "A thoughtful and well-reasoned little volume." 
 i 
 
 Commercial Geography. Globe 8vo. 3s. 
 
 SOME RECENT WORKS. 
 
 Principles of Economics. By Prof. f. w. Taussig. 
 
 2 vols. 8vo. 17s. net. 
 
 Monopoly and Competition. A Study in Eng- 
 lish Industrial Organisation. By Prof. Hermann 
 
 Levy, Ph.D. 8vo. los. net 
 
 Unemployment. A Social Study. By b. s. rown- 
 TREE and Bruno Lasker. 8vo. 5s. net. 
 
 Seems So ! A Working-Class View of Politics. 
 By Stephen Reynolds and Bob and Tom Woolley. Extra 
 Crown 8vo. 55. net. 
 
 Vox Clamantis. By Numa Minimus. Extra Crown 8vo. 
 3s. 6d. net. 
 
 The Making of Northern Nigeria. By Captain 
 
 C. W. J. Ork, R.A. With Maps. 8vo. 8s. 6d. net 
 
 LONDON : MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD. 
 
A Selection of 
 
 NEW WORKS 
 
 The True Temper of Empire with Corollary 
 Essays. By Sir Charles Bruce, G.C.M.G. 8vo. 
 
 National Insurance. By A. s. comyns Carr, w. h. 
 
 Stuart Garnett, Barristers-at-Law, and J. H. Taylor, 
 M.A., M.B., Member of the Central Council of the British 
 Medical Association. With a Preface by the Right Hon. 
 D. Lloyd George, M.P. 8vo. 6s. net. 
 
 The Referendum among the English. A Manual 
 of "Submissions to the People" in the Ameri- 
 can States. By Samuel Robertson Honey. With an 
 
 •* '' Introduction by J. St. Loe Strachey. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. net 
 
 The Distribution of Income. By Prof. William 
 
 Smart, M.A., D.Phil., LL.D. Second Edition. Extra Crown 
 8vo. 3s. 6d. net. 
 
 Manual of Statistics. By the late sir Robert Giffen. 8vo. 
 
 Principles and Methods of Municipal Trading. 
 By Douglas Knoop, M.A. 8vo. 
 
 The Modern Prison Curriculum. A General 
 Review of our Penal System. By R. F. Quinton, 
 
 M.D., late Governor and Medical Officer of H.M. Prison, 
 Holloway. Crown 8vo. 5s. net 
 
 Social Conditions in Provincial Towns. First 
 
 Series: PORTSMOUTH, WORCESTER, CAMBRIDGE, 
 LIVERPOOL, EDINBURGH, OXFORD, LEEDS. Edited 
 by Mrs. Bernard Bosanquet. 8vo. Sewed, is. net. 
 
 LONDON: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.