CHAPTER X.

ENCLOSURE AND DEPOPULATION.

The very word “enclosure” to a historical student suggests “depopulation.” The two words are almost treated as synonyms in Acts of Parliament, tracts, and official documents of the sixteenth century. In the seventeenth century we find the proverbs, “Horn and thorn shall make England forlorn,” “Inclosures make fat beasts and lean poor people,” while the superstition grew up that inclosed land was cursed, and must within three generations pass away from the families of “these madded and irreligious depopulators,” these “dispeoplers of towns, ruiners of commonwealths, occasioners of beggary ... cruell inclosiers.”

After the Restoration, the literary attack on enclosure becomes more feeble, the defence more powerful. W. Wales in 1781, the Rev. J. Howlett in 1786, published statistics to show that enclosure had the effect of increasing the population, the latter tract being widely quoted; there ceased to be any opposition from the Central Government to enclosure, and private Acts were passed in continually increasing numbers; finally the one practical measure carried through by the Board of Agriculture was the General Enclosure Act of 1801, to simplify and cheapen Parliamentary proceedings. Dr. Cunningham sums up the case as follows: “He (Joseph Massie) was aware that enclosing had meant rural depopulation in the sixteenth century, and he too hastily assumed that the enclosing which had been proceeding in the eighteenth century was attended with similar results; but the conditions of the time were entirely changed. Despite the reiterated allegation,[36] it is impossible to believe that enclosing in the eighteenth century implied either more pasture farming or less employment for labour. The prohibition of export kept down the price of wool; the bounty on exportation gave direct encouragement to corn-growing; the improved agriculture gave more employment to labour than the old.”[37]

[36] By the opponents of enclosure.

[37] “Growth of English Industry and Commerce,” Vol. II., p. 384 (1892).

Taken in one sense, I must admit the substantial accuracy of this opinion. On the other hand I am disposed to maintain the general accuracy of the statements with regard to depopulation made by the opponents of enclosure, (_a_) provided these statements are understood in the sense in which they are meant, and (_b_) statements only with regard to the part of the country the writer is familiar with are regarded, and his inferences with regard to other parts are neglected.

For it must be remembered that side by side with the movement for the enclosure of arable fields, there was going on a movement for the enclosure of wastes. From Appendix A. it will be seen that 577 Acts for enclosing wastes and common pastures were passed between 1702 and 1802, and over 800,000 acres were so added to the cultivated area of England and Wales. There were besides enclosures occasionally on a large scale by landed proprietors of wastes on which either common rights were not exercised, or on which they were too feebly maintained to necessitate an Act. The Board of Agriculture report for Notts records that 10,666 acres had recently been so enclosed from Sherwood Forest alone.[38] Lastly there was the continual pushing forward of cultivation by farmers, squatters, etc. It is impossible to do more than form a vague guess as to the quantity of land so enclosed, but reasons will be given later for the belief that it was far greater than the area of commons and waste enclosed by Act of Parliament.

[38] Robert Lowe, “Nottingham,” Appendix.

Now the opponents of enclosure of the sixteenth, seventeenth _and_ eighteenth centuries almost without exception opposed simply the enclosure of arable common fields; they usually expressly approve the enclosure of waste, as increasing the means of subsistence of the people. The advocates of enclosure on the other hand are equally concerned in advocating both kinds of enclosure. Hence we have statements to the effect that the enclosure of arable fields in the “champion” districts of England (_i.e._, the part much shaded on the map) caused rural depopulation, met by statistics and arguments to prove that all kinds of enclosure proceeding over all parts of England and Wales, on the whole, tended to increase population, urban and rural. Through looseness of wording on both sides, the controversialists seem to be contradicting one another; whereas, in reality, both might equally be right.

At the present day this particular issue is dead, though a similar question, the question whether by means of the modern representative of the open field, viz., the allotment field, and modern representative of the ancient co-operative ploughing, viz., co-operative purchase of machines, manures and seeds, borrowing of capital, sale of produce, and perhaps co-operative stockbreeding, the decay of the agricultural population can be arrested, is a living issue. Nor is there any period of the nineteenth century in which any serious rural depopulation as a result of enclosure, and consequent laying down in pasture, of common fields, could be asserted. Since Free Trade began to seriously affect the prices of British grain--and that was not for a good many years after 1846--the common fields have been too few, and the other forces tending towards rural depopulation too great, for this particular force to be felt. And if it were felt, no one would seriously urge that the hardly pressed farmer should be compelled to cultivate the land in a manner wasteful of labour, in order that more labourers might be employed. In the earlier part of the nineteenth century war, protection and a rapidly growing wealth and population so effectively encouraged tillage that attempted prohibition of conversion of arable to grass would have been superfluous.

Yet much, I think, can be learnt on the historical question from the present aspect of the country, even by anyone who merely travels by express train through the Midlands. Having spent a day in traversing the length and breadth of the great fields of Castor and Ailesworth, yellow with wheat and barley or recently cut stubble, I went straight through the county of Northamptonshire, seeing on either side scarcely anything but permanent pasture. From Northampton to Leicester was the same thing; again from Leicester to Uppingham. Just beyond Uppingham the cornfields become far more extensive; what were the Rutlandshire common fields till 1881 are still mainly under tillage. All this country of permanent pasture was mainly enclosed during the eighteenth century. Very frequently one can see on heavy land the old ridges piled up in the middle, ending in the middle of one field, crossing hedges, and showing plainly that very little, if any, ploughing has been done since the enclosure was effected.[39] The impression made on my mind by this apparent confirmation of all that the denouncers of “cruell Inclosiers” alleged was a very powerful one.

[39] Arthur Young (“Eastern Tour,” Vol. I., p. 54) noticed this in 1771 in the great pasture closes of Northamptonshire: “All this fine grass on so excellent a soil lies all in the broad ridge and furrow.”

Before examining the evidence for and against rural depopulation in particular parts of England as the result of the extinction of common fields, it is well to consider the _a priori_ arguments put forward by Dr. Cunningham.

It is urged, in the first place, that owing to the relatively high price of corn and low price of wool, there was no motive for lay-down arable as pasture. Dr. Cunningham seems to ignore the fact that sheep and cattle produce mutton, beef, milk, butter, cheese, and hides, as well as wool, and it is by the profit to be derived from all of these products together, and not from any one of them, that the question of laying down in pasture will be determined. That laying down arable in pasture was profitable is indicated by the surprise Arthur Young expressed in 1768 that landlords did not enclose, and put the land to grass, on passing through Bedfordshire,[40] and by Adam Smith’s reference in “The Wealth of Nations” to the exceptional rent commanded by enclosed pasture.[41] We have, further, the clear statement of the Board of Agriculture: “Whereas the price of corn from 1760 to 1794 was almost stationary, the products of grass land have risen greatly throughout nearly the whole of that period.”[42] William Pitt, again, in a pamphlet published by the Board in 1812 on the “Food Produced from Arable and Grass Land,” says that through the “increased luxury of the times more beef and mutton and butter are used than formerly, even by equal numbers, and consequently more inducement to throw all the best corn to grass” (p. 35). William Culley adds in a footnote that “In the Northern Counties more rent per acre is given for ploughing than for grazing farms ... more rent is given for grazing than for arable farms in the Southern Counties.” If this was so when famine prices were paid for wheat, how much more in normal times?

[40] “Northern Tour,” 2nd. ed., p. 56.

[41] McCulloch’s ed., p. 69.

[42] “General Report on Enclosures,” p. 41.

It is said, in the second place, that “the new agriculture gave more employment to labour than the old.” No doubt such an improvement as the substitution of well-hoed turnips for a fallow, the sowing of grass seeds with barley so as to produce a second crop, or feed for cattle after the barley was carried, both gave increased employment to labour, and tended to increased prosperity for the labouring as well as other classes. But these changes, as we have seen, and as Dr. Cunningham himself points out, might take place independently of enclosure, and might not follow if enclosure did take place. Whether they usually did follow upon enclosure is a question that has to be settled by an appeal to contemporary evidence. In taking this evidence reference must always be carefully made to the _time_ and the _place_.

The Board of Agriculture’s General Report on Enclosures (1808) quotes with approval an anonymous pamphlet published in 1772: “The advantages and disadvantages of enclosing waste lands and common fields,” by “A Country Gentleman.” This tract appears to be a very able and impartial attempt to estimate the effects of enclosure on all the classes interested. The way in which Acts then originated, and the manner in which proposals were received, is described thus:--

“The landowner, seeing the great increase of rent made by his neighbour, conceives a desire of following his example; the village is alarmed; the great farmer dreads an increase of rent, and being constrained to a system of agriculture which neither his experience nor his inclination tempt him into; the small farmer, that his farm will be taken from him and consolidated with the larger; the cottager not only expects to lose his commons, but the inheritable consequence of the diminution of labour, the being obliged to quit his native place in search of work; the inhabitants of the larger towns, a scarcity of provisions; and the Kingdom in general, the loss of inhabitants” (p. 1).

The general conclusion seems to be that all these anticipations and fears, with the exception of the last two--a scarcity of provisions for large towns, and a general loss of inhabitants for the kingdom, are well founded. With regard to the landowner and tithe-owner:--

“There can be no dispute that it is the landowners’ interest to promote inclosures; but I verily believe, the improprietor of tithes reaps the greatest proportional benefit, whilst the small freeholder, from his expenses increasing inversely to the smallness of his allotment, undoubtedly receives the least” (p. 25).[43]

[43] This is badly expressed. He refers to the fact that a small allotment is more expensive to fence, proportionally to its size, than a large one.

Of the small farmer:--“Indeed I doubt it is too true, he must of necessity give over farming, and betake himself to labour for the support of his family” (p. 31).

With regard to the increase or diminution of employment for labourers, he gives the following statistical table, an estimate based on his observation:--

┌───────────────────────────┬──────────────────┬─────────────────┐ │ │ Before Enclosure │ After Enclosure │ │ 1,000 Acres of │ gives │ gives │ │ │ Employment to │ Employment to │ ├───────────────────────────┼──────────────────┼─────────────────┤ │ A Rich Arable Land │ 20 families │ 5 families │ │ B Inferior Arable │ 20 ″ │ 16¼ ″ │ │ C Stinted Common Pastures │ ½ a family │ 5 ″ │ │ D Heaths, Wastes, etc. │ ½ ″ │ 16¼ ″ │ └───────────────────────────┴──────────────────┴─────────────────┘

It will be seen that his observation is that enclosed arable employs 16¼ families per 1000 acres, open field arable 20 families per 1000 acres; that common pastures, heaths, wastes, etc., employ only 1 family per 2000 acres; but enclosed pasture employs 5 families per 1000 acres. It will also be seen that his observation is that after enclosure rich land becomes pasture, inferior land arable.[44]

[44] This is in harmony with all other eighteenth century information with regard to the Midland Counties. As one example we may cite the Vale of Belvoir, the north-eastern corner of Leicestershire. Here, in consequence of enclosure, “all the richest land in the vale, formerly under tillage, was laid down in grass, but the skirtings of the Vale, formerly sheep-walk, were brought into tillage.” The landlord, the Duke of Rutland, forbade any land worth more than a guinea per acre to be tilled. The enclosure of the twelve parishes in the Vale took place between 1766 and 1792. (William Pitt, “Agriculture of Leicestershire,” 1809.)

With regard to the effect of this on population, he names in one passage[45] Northamptonshire, Leicestershire and Lincolnshire perhaps, as containing “an infinitely greater proportion of common fields, while Northumberland, Westmoreland and Yorkshire exceed in moors, heaths and commons,” and in another he mentions Oxfordshire, Buckingham, Northamptonshire and part of Leicester as counties in which rich arable land would be the main subject of an Enclosure Act. A typical parish in this district might include 1000 acres of rich arable land, 500 acres of inferior arable, 500 acres of stinted common, with no heath or waste. Before enclosure it would provide employment for 30¼ labouring families according to the table, after enclosure to 15⅝. If eight such parishes were enclosed, 117 families would be sent adrift--families of poor and ignorant labourers, looking for new homes under all the disabilities and difficulties springing from Acts of Settlement, and a Poor Law administration based on the assumption that those who wander from their native place are all that is implied in the words “vagrants” and “vagabonds.” Not eight, but a hundred and twenty-six Acts for enclosing common fields were passed for the four counties he names in the ten years 1762–1772, immediately preceding the publication of this pamphlet. Assuming the accuracy of the “Country Gentleman’s” statement, this would mean that some 1800 odd families, comprising about 9000 individuals, would, in consequence of enclosure, be sent adrift in that short period in the four counties. The quotations given below from three other authors, indicate that even this was an under-statement. The process continued without intermission for many years afterwards.

[45] Page 43.

A specially interesting tract, published in 1786, entitled “Thoughts on Inclosures, by a Country Farmer,” gives a detailed account of the results of one case of enclosure. The locality is not named, but it is pretty clear that it was within this Midland country in which enclosure was attended by the conversion of arable to pasture.

On the general question the writer says:--“To obtain an Act of Parliament to inclose a common field, two witnesses are produced, to swear that the lands thereof, in their present state, are not worth occupying, though at the same time they are lands of the best soil in the kingdom, and produce corn in the greatest abundance, and of the best quality. And by inclosing such lands, they are generally prevented from producing any corn at all, as the landowner converts twenty small farms into about four large ones, and at the same time the tenants of those large farms are tied down in their leases not to plough any of the premises, so lett to farm,[46] by which means of several hundred villages, that forty years ago contained between four and five hundred inhabitants, very few will now be found to exceed eighty, and some not half that number; nay some contain only one poor decripid man or woman, housed by the occupiers of lands who live in another parish, to prevent them being obliged to pay towards the support of the poor who live in the next parish” (p. 2).

The profit of enclosing, he maintains, was dependent upon simultaneous conversion into pasture, for “In some places the lands inclosed do not answer the ends of pasturage, and in that case tillage is still to be pursued; because the rents cannot be raised so high as in respect of pasturage, therefore the landowner has not the advantage as in case the land turns out fit for pasturage, and is oftener the loser by that proceeding than the gainer.”[46]

[46] Arthur Young (“Eastern Tour,” 1771, p. 96) remarks that in Leicestershire “Landlords in general will not allow an inch to be ploughed on grazing farms.”

The particular enclosure he cites is that of a parish enclosed about forty years previously. Before enclosure it contained eighty-two houses, of which twenty were small farms and forty-two were cottages with common rights. It had 1800 acres of common field arable, 200 acres of rich common cow pasture, and 200 acres of meadow, commonable after hay harvest. The common pasture fed two hundred milch cows and sixty dry ones till hay harvest, at which time they were turned into the meadows, and their place taken by about one hundred horses. Twelve hundred sheep were fed on the stubbles.

The gross produce of the parish before enclosure he values as follows:--

£ _s. d._

1,100 quarters of wheat at 28_s._ per quarter 1,540 0 0 1,200 quarters of barley at 16_s._ per quarter 960 0 0 900 quarters of beans at 15_s._ per quarter 675 0 0 250 todds of wool at 16_s._ per todd 200 0 0 600 lambs at 10_s._ each 300 0 0 5,000 lbs. of cheese at 1½_d._ per lb. 31 5 0 6,000 lbs. of butter at 5_d._ per lb. 125 0 0 100 calves at 20_s._ each 100 0 0 150 pigs at 12_s._ each 90 0 0 Poultry and eggs 80 0 0 ─────────── £4,101 5 0 ═══════════

The quantities estimated are eminently reasonable, and in harmony with other statements available with regard to the produce of the common fields of the Midlands; the prices also are clearly not over-stated.

As the result of enclosure the twenty farms were consolidated into four, the whole area was devoted to grazing, sixty cottages were pulled down or otherwise disappeared, and the necessary work was done by four herds (one for each farm) at £25 a year each, board included, and eight maidservants at £18 a year each, board included.

The gross produce of the parish after enclosure was:--

£ _s. d._ Fat beasts 960 0 0 Sheep and lambs 760 0 0 Calves 165 0 0 Wool 235 0 0 Butter 190 0 0 Cheese 100 0 0 Horses 250 0 0 ─────────── £2,660 0 0 ═══════════

But while the gross produce was thus reduced by about one-third, the gross rent was raised from £1137 17_s._ 0_d._ to £1801 12_s._ 2_d._[47]

[47] According to the “Country Gentleman’s” calculations, the gross produce of the 1800 acres of common field and 200 acres of common pasture would be before enclosure £1419 8_s._, and after, £3000, which agrees very closely with the “Country Farmer’s” statement, the absolute amounts being greater, the ratio between them practically identical.

Though unfortunately the parish is not identified, and the witness is anonymous, the whole statement appears to have been carefully and exactly made. In this case we have no fewer than sixty families of small farmers or agricultural labourers expelled from their homes in a single parish of about 2300 acres.

An even more striking example of local depopulation caused by enclosure is supplied by the Rev. John Howlett, one of the strongest advocates of enclosure. He quotes from a private correspondent: “As to Inclosure, I can mention two villages in this County (Leicestershire) within two miles of each other, Wistow and Foston,[48] which formerly contained thirty-four or thirty-five dwellings, but by enclosure Foston is reduced to three habitations: the parsonage house accommodates one family, and the two other buildings are occupied by shepherds, who manage the stock for their different renters, as the whole of the parish belongs to one person. And as to Wistow, the thirty-four mansions have vanished in a very few years, and no dwelling remains but the late Sir Charles Halford’s hall house, who owns the lordship; and these are called improvements, for double or treble rents ensue.” (“Enclosures and Depopulation,” p. 12.)

[48] Each of these was enclosed without an Act of Parliament.

What became of these farmers and labourers? The “Country Farmer” says: “Many of the small farmers who have been deprived of their livelihood have sold their stock-in-trade and have raised from £50 to £100, with which they have procured themselves, their families, and money, a passage to America.”

John Wedge, the Board of Agriculture reporter for Warwick, says seven years later: “About forty years ago the southern and eastern parts of this county consisted mostly of open fields. There are still about 50,000 acres of open field land, which in a few years will probably all be inclosed.... These lands being now grazed want much fewer hands to manage them than they did in the former open state. Upon all enclosures of open fields the farms have generally been made much larger; from these causes the hardy yeomanry of country villages have been driven for employment to Birmingham, Coventry, and other manufacturing towns.”[49] Such information, given by the representative of an enclosure-advocating corporation, circulated among the members for correction before final adoption, is unimpeachable evidence for the particular time and place.

[49] John Wedge, “Warwickshire” p. 40 (1793).

The rising industries of Birmingham and other Midland towns found employment, no doubt, for many of the exiles from the villages. On the whole, the ruling opinion seems to have found all this very satisfactory. The gross produce of food by these Midland parishes might be diminished on enclosure, but the net produce, as was shown by the increase of rent, certainly increased, and an abundant supply of labour was furnished for those metal working industries which were of the greatest importance in times of war.[50] When we think of the horrible sanitary conditions of English towns during the eighteenth century, of Fielding’s description of the London lodging-houses, of Colquhoun’s attempts at a statistical account of London thieves, of Hogarth’s pictures, which interpret for us the meaning of the terrible fact that right through the eighteenth century the deaths “within the bills of mortality” regularly far exceeded the births, we feel that there was another side to the shield, though possibly the sanitary and social condition of Midland towns was less terrible than that of London.

[50] 1756–1763, 1775–1784, 1792–1815 were times of war.

The connection between enclosure of common fields and rising poor rates in the eighteenth century is illustrated repeatedly in Eden’s “Condition of the Poor.”

In Buckinghamshire we find the two neighbouring parishes of Maids Morton and Winslow. The former contained 30 acres of old enclosure, 60 to 70 acres of commons, and the rest of the parish, about 800 acres, was common field. The poor-rates in the years 1792 to 1795 were 3_s._ 6_d._, 3_s._, 3_s._, 3_s._ 6_d._ There were “several roundsmen.” Wages were nominally 1_s._ to 1_s._ 2_d._ per day, but piecework was general, and 1_s._ 3_d._ to 1_s._ 6_d._ was generally earned. The rent of farms varied from £17 to £90 per farm, and from 18_s._ to 20_s._ per acre.

Winslow contained 1400 acres, and was entirely enclosed in 1744 and 1766. Only 200 acres remained arable. The farms varied from £60 to £400 per annum each, the wages were 6_s._ to 7_s._ per week, “most of the labourers are on rounds,” and the poor rates from 1792 to 1795 were 5_s._ 8_d._, 4_s._, 5_s._, and 6_s._ “The rise of the Rates is chiefly ascribed to the Enclosure of common fields; which it is said has lessened the number of farms, and from the conversion of arable into pasture, has much reduced the demand for labourers. An old man of the parish says, before the enclosures took place, land did not let for 10_s._ per acre.” (Vol. II., pp. 27–33.)

In judging the rise of poor rate, it must not be forgotten that where the rent rises at the same time as the nominal rate, the sum of money actually raised for Poor Law purposes is increased in a greater ratio than the nominal poor rate. If, for example, by enclosure the rental of a parish is increased 50 per cent., but the poor rate doubled, the yield of the poor rate is increased threefold. And if a considerable number of labourers are driven elsewhere, the amount of destitution produced by the change is far greater even than that indicated by a threefold increase in the amount of relief given.

The latter side of the process is illustrated in the case of Deddington in Oxfordshire. Here, “the high rates in this parish are ascribed to the common field of which the land principally consists; whereas the neighbouring parishes have been enclosed many years, and many small farms in them have been consolidated; so that many small farmers with little capitals have been obliged, either to turn labourers or to procure small farms in Deddington, or other parishes that possess common fields. Besides this, the neighbouring parishes are, many of them, possessed by a few individuals, who are cautious in permitting new comers to obtain a settlement.” (Vol. II., p. 891.)

In Leicestershire the complaint is naturally more loud and general. In the account of Kibworth Beauchamp we read as follows:--

“No account of the Rates in any of the divisions, previous to the enclosure of the common fields, can be obtained; but it is said that they were not one-third of what they are at present; and the people attribute the rise to the enclosures; for they say ‘That before the fields were enclosed, they were solely applied to the production of corn; that the poor had then plenty of employment in weeding, reaping, threshing, etc., and could also collect a great quantity of corn by gleaning; but that the fields being now in pasturage, the farmers have little occasion for labourers, and the poor being thereby thrown out of employment, must of course be employed by the parish.’ There is some truth in these observations: _one-third or perhaps one-fourth_ of the number of hands which were required twenty years ago, would now be sufficient, according to the present system of agriculture, to perform all the farming work of the parish.”

He adds that if it were not for the fact that many labourers were getting employment in canal cutting, the rates would be much higher still, and “the tradesmen, small farmers, and labourers are very loud in their complaints against those whom they call monopolising farmers and graziers, an evil which, they say, increases every year.” (Vol. II., p. 383.)

In Northamptonshire we find the case of Brixworth, enclosed in 1780, a parish of 3300 acres. Before enclosure it consisted almost entirely of common fields. At the time of Eden’s writing, sixteen years later, only one-third remained arable. The expenditure on the poor in 1776, before the enclosure, was £121 6_s._, in the six years 1787 to 1792 it averaged £325 (Vol. II., p. 529). Again, with regard to local urban opinion, he notes that “the lands round Kettering are chiefly open field: they produce rich crops of corn. The people of the town seem averse to enclosures, which they think will raise the price of provisions, from these lands being all turned to pasture, when inclosed, as was the case in Leicestershire, which was a great corn country, and is now, almost entirely, converted into pasture.”

Arthur Young, a little more than twenty years previously (in “Political Arithmetic,” published in 1774), while arguing in favour of enclosure on the depopulation count, makes an admission against it with regard to pauperism. “Very many of the labouring poor have become chargeable to their parishes, but this has nothing to do with depopulation; on the contrary, the constantly seeing such vast sums distributed in this way, must be an inducement to marriage among all the idle poor--and certainly has proved so.” (Pp. 75, 76.)

As a general rule it may be said that where after enclosure pasturage was increased at the expense of tillage, rural depopulation resulted; where the amount of land under tillage was increased the rural population increased. Further, that enclosure in the northern and western parts of England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries increased the area under tillage; that the balance between the production of bread and meat for the whole country, so disturbed, was maintained by the conversion into pasture, on enclosure, of much of the “champion” corn growing land, particularly in those midland counties nearest to the northern and western ones in which the complementary change was taking place. By means of the Enclosure Acts, interpreted by the light of the above statements, we can trace these two compensating movements through the eighteenth century.

The following passage in Arthur Young’s “Political Arithmetic,” published in 1774, at the time, that is, when he was an eager advocate not only of enclosure of all sorts, but also of the engrossing of farms and the raising of rents, sums up the two movements:--

“The fact is this: in the central counties of the kingdom, particularly Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, and parts of Warwick, Huntingdonshire, and Buckinghamshire, there have been within thirty years large tracts of the open field arable under that vile course, 1. fallow, 2. wheat, 3. spring corn, inclosed and laid down to grass, being much more suited to the wetness of the soil than corn.” Here he admits local depopulation takes place, though he claims that a greater _net_ produce is, as the result of enclosure, supplied by such districts to the rest of the kingdom. But then, he asks with regard to the opponents of such enclosure, “What will they say to the inclosures in _Norfolk_, _Suffolk_, _Nottinghamshire_, _Derbyshire_, _Lincolnshire_, _Yorkshire_ and all the northern counties? What say they to the sands of _Norfolk, Suffolk and Nottinghamshire_, which yield corn and mutton from _the force of INCLOSURE alone_? What say they to the Wolds of _York_ and _Lincoln_, which from barren heaths at 1_s._ per acre, are _by INCLOSURE alone_ rendered profitable farms? Ask _Sir Cecil Wray_ if without Inclosure he could advance his heaths by sainfoine from 1_s._ to 20_s._ an acre:--What say they to the vast tracts in the peak of Derby which _by INCLOSURE alone_ are changed from black regions of ling to fertile fields covered with cattle? What say they to the improvements of moors in the northern counties, where INCLOSURES alone have made these countries smile with culture which before were black as night?”

He then proceeds to ridicule the view of his opponents, that the enclosure of waste, though desirable in itself, should as far as possible be so conducted as to create small farms and small properties, a view with which in later years, and after his tour in France, he very much sympathised. Into the merits of this controversy we need not go; what we have to note here is Arthur Young’s evidence to the fact that from about 1744 to 1774 there was simultaneously proceeding a rapid enclosure of waste in Norfolk, Suffolk, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire, and Lincolnshire and the northern counties, by which the acreage under tillage was vastly increased, and a compensating enclosure of arable common fields in Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Huntingdonshire and Buckinghamshire, involving the conversion of arable to pasture, of small farms into much larger ones, and of the peasantry into urban labourers.

It only remains to be added that the former movement, if it was on at all as great a scale as Arthur Young gives us to understand (and I don’t see why one should doubt this) must have proceeded largely, if not mainly, without the intervention of Parliament. This is in the first place antecedently probable. Secondly, whereas between 1727 and 1774 there were 273 common field parishes enclosed by Acts of Parliament in the five counties of Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Warwick, Huntingdonshire and Buckinghamshire, the commons, fens, moors, etc., attached to only 109 parishes in Norfolk, Suffolk, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland were so enclosed. Unless the area of about 100,000 acres thus enclosed in these 109 parishes was merely a fraction of the total area of waste enclosed by all sorts of methods in this latter group of counties, Arthur Young was misleading his readers, for he certainly intends to give the impression that the enclosure of arable fields in the Midlands was on a much smaller scale than the reclamation of heaths, moors and fens in the northern and eastern counties. Thirdly, with regard to Norfolk, Arthur Young specifies enclosure without Acts of Parliament as one of the causes of the great agricultural improvement in parts of Norfolk (“Eastern Tour,” 1771, Vol. II., p. 150):--“From forty to sixty years ago, all the Northern and Western and a great part of the Eastern tracts of the country were sheep-walks, let so low as from 6_d._ to 1_s._ 6_d._ and 2_s._ an acre. Much of it was in this condition only thirty years ago. The great improvements have been made by reason of the following circumstances:--(1) By inclosing without assistance of Parliament.”

Six other reasons follow, then the remark: “Parliamentary enclosures are scarcely ever so complete and general as in Norfolk,” _i.e._, as the enclosures without the assistance of Parliament in Norfolk. I have only been able to find eleven Acts of Enclosure for Norfolk before 1771; seven of these were for the enclosure of common field parishes, and four for the enclosure of waste. In other words, the Parliamentary enclosure of these sheep-walks at the time when Arthur Young wrote had proceeded to a merely trifling extent.

We have, then, by Arthur Young’s confession, in the five counties of Northampton, Leicester, Warwick, Huntingdon, and Buckingham enclosure admittedly accompanied by decay of tillage and rural depopulation. From “A Country Gentleman’s” list we can add Oxfordshire and parts of Lincolnshire. That the same prevailing economic motive operated in Bedfordshire can be shown from Arthur Young’s “Tour through the North of England.” The country in June, 1768, from St. Neots to Kimbolton was in general open--“the open fields let at 7_s._ and 7_s._ 6_d._ per acre, and the _inclosed pastures_ about 17_s._ Hence we find a profit of 10_s._ an acre _by inclosing and laying to grass_.” He might here ask, as he does with regard to the district in Buckinghamshire between Aylesbury and Buckingham, which he found in 1771 in the condition of open field arable, under a course of fallow, wheat, beans, fallow, barley, beans. “As to the landlords, what in the name of wonder can be the reason of their not inclosing! All this vale would make as fine meadows as any in the world.”

As for Gloucestershire, William Marshall (“Rural Economy of Gloucestershire,” 1789, p. 21), estimates the rents in the Vale of Evesham at 10_s._ to 15_s._ per acre for common field arable, 10_s._ to 20_s._ per acre for enclosed arable, and 20_s._ to 50_s._ per acre for enclosed pasture. Here again there can be no doubt that enclosure implied laying down at least all the good land in grass.

A Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to consider the high prices of food in December, 1800 (1800 and 1801 being famine years), made enquiry, by the help of the parish clergy, into the increase or decrease of land under different crops, and of cattle, sheep, and pigs in the districts which had been enclosed in the previous 45 years by private Acts (_i.e._, since 1755). The total result showed a net gain in area under wheat in 1,767,651 acres enclosed of 10,625 acres; the area under wheat being before enclosure 155,572 acres; after, 165,837 acres. But these figures included all sorts of enclosure. The Board of Agriculture (“Gen. Report,” pp. 39 and 232), by leaving out cases where waste only was enclosed, obtained the following result for cases of enclosure of all commonable lands, under Acts passed between 1761 and 1799, in parishes where commonable arable was included. Taking the counties in groups we have:--

┌────────────────────┬───────────────────────┬───────────────────────┐ │ │ Wheat Acreage │ Wheat Acreage │ │ │ Increased │ Decreased │ │ ---- ├───────────┬───────────┼───────────┬───────────┤ │ │ in Cases. │ by Acres. │ in Cases. │ by Acres. │ ├────────────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┤ │ MIDLAND COUNTIES. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Rutland │ 0 │ -- │ 10 │ 596 │ │ Warwick │ 2 │ 93 │ 30 │ 2,871 │ │ Leicester │ 11 │ 453 │ 63 │ 4,340 │ │ Northampton │ 11 │ 450 │ 75 │ 7,016 │ │ Nottingham │ 14 │ 923 │ 28 │ 1,823 │ │ Oxford │ 8 │ 285 │ 11 │ 508 │ │ Buckingham │ 6 │ 161 │ 32 │ 3,085 │ │ Bedford │ 7 │ 668 │ 23 │ 1,801 │ │ ├───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┤ │ Total │ 59 │ 3033 │ 262 │ 22,036 │ │ ╞═══════════╪═══════════╪═══════════╪═══════════╡ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ EASTERN COUNTIES. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Norfolk │ 8 │ 627 │ 1 │ 10 │ │ Suffolk │ 3 │ 150 │ 0 │ │ │ Huntingdon │ 7 │ 469 │ 9 │ 530 │ │ Cambridge │ 7 │ 895 │ 2 │ 184 │ │ Essex │ 1 │ 40 │ 0 │ │ │ Hertford │ 3 │ 174 │ 1 │ 7 │ │ ├───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┤ │ Total │ 29 │ 2,355 │ 13 │ 731 │ │ ╞═══════════╪═══════════╪═══════════╪═══════════╡ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ NORTHERN COUNTIES. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Northumberland │ 2 │ 80 │ 1 │ 93 │ │ Durham │ 1 │ 20 │ 2 │ 172 │ │ Yorkshire │ 40 │ 3,411 │ 22 │ 1,991 │ │ Lincoln │ 48 │ 2,422 │ 41 │ 2,843 │ │ Derby │ 3 │ 60 │ 10 │ 345 │ │ ├───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┤ │ Total │ 94 │ 5,993 │ 76 │ 5,444 │ │ ╞═══════════╪═══════════╪═══════════╪═══════════╡ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ SOUTHERN COUNTIES. │ │ │ │ │ │ (South of Thames). │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Berkshire │ 5 │ 312 │ 3 │ 249 │ │ Wiltshire │ 12 │ 884 │ 11 │ 528 │ │ Hampshire │ 6 │ 256 │ 2 │ 90 │ │ Dorset │ 4 │ 105 │ 5 │ 177 │ │ Somerset │ 1 │ 50 │ 1 │ 33 │ │ Sussex │ 1 │ 180 │ 0 │ │ │ ├───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┤ │ Total │ 29 │ 1,787 │ 22 │ 1,077 │ │ ╞═══════════╪═══════════╪═══════════╪═══════════╡ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ WESTERN COUNTIES. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Gloucester │ 17 │ 948 │ 20 │ 988 │ │ Hereford │ 1 │ 40 │ │ │ │ Shropshire │ 2 │ 115 │ │ │ │ Staffordshire │ -- │ -- │ 1 │ 300 │ │ Worcester │ 9 │ 345 │ 3 │ 155 │ ├────────────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┤ │ Total │ 29 │ 1,448 │ 24 │ 1,343 │ │ ╞═══════════╪═══════════╪═══════════╪═══════════╡ │ GRAND TOTAL │ 239 │ 14,507 │ 407 │ 30,894 │ │ ╘═══════════╧═══════════╧═══════════╧═══════════╡ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

In estimating the significance of these figures it must be borne in mind that the figures for acreage in wheat after enclosure were collected at a time of famine prices for wheat. Probably many thousands of acres of old arable common field, which had been enclosed and laid down in grass, in each of these counties, were again ploughed under the stimulus of wheat prices exceeding 100_s._ per quarter.

So much with regard to the connexion between depopulation and enclosure in the second half of the eighteenth century. With regard to the first half, the following account is supplied by a certain John Cowper, “Inclosing Commons and Common field lands is contrary to the interest of the Nation” (1732):--

“When these commons come to be inclosed and converted into pasture, the Ruin of the Poor is a natural consequence; they being bought out by the lord of the _Manor_, or some other person of substance.

“In most open field parishes there are at a medium 40 farmers and 80 cottagers who hold their lands in common, and have right of commonage one with another. Suppose each person employs 6 labourers, we have in all 660 persons, men, women and children, who besides their Employment in Husbandry, carry on large branches of the Woollen and Linnen Manufactures.”

With regard to the plea that hedging and ditching will employ many hands, he says: “This is so contrary to constant experience, that it hardly deserves to be taken notice of. I myself, within these 30 years past, have seen above 20 Lordships or Parishes inclosed, and everyone of them has been in a manner depopulated. If we take all the inclosed Parishes one with another, we shall find hardly ten inhabitants remaining, where there were an hundred before Inclosures were made. And in some parishes 120 families of Farmers and Cottagers, have in a few years been reduced to four, to two, aye, and sometimes to but one family. And if this practice of inclosing continues much longer, we may expect to see all the great estates ingrossed by a few Hands, and the industrious Farmers and Cottagers almost intirely rooted out of the kingdom. Raising Hedges and sinking ditches may indeed employ several hands for a year, or hardly so long, but when that is once over, the work is at an end.... Owners of inclosed Lands, if they have but a little corn to get in, are already forced to send several miles to open field parishes for Harvest men.”

Six open field farms, averaging 150 acres each, and the little holdings of twelve cottagers, would be let together, after enclosure, as one grazing farm, and the total rent thus be raised from £300 to £600. But whereas one acre of arable land would previously have produced 20 bushels at 3_s._ per bushel, a gross return of £3; after enclosure it would contribute to the fattening of a bullock to the extent of 25_s._ The gross produce is decreased; but the net produce is increased. Of the £3 produced by the acre of common field under wheat, 50_s._ would go in expenses, leaving 6_s._ 8_d._ to the landlord and 3_s._ 4_d._ to the tenant. Of the 25_s._ produced by the same acre enclosed under grass, 13_s._ 4_d._ would go to the landlord, 11_s._ 8_d._ to the grazier.

It is interesting in passing to note the association of common field agriculture with manufacture in the domestic stage indicated by this passage.

We have also direct evidence of the same movements in the seventeenth century. On the one hand Walter Blyth (“The English Improver,” 1649, p. 40) has the passage:--“Consider but the Woodlands, who before Enclosure, were wont to be relieved by the Fieldon, with corne of all sorts. And now growne as gallant Corne Countries as be in England, as the Western part of Warwickshire, and the northern parts of Worcestershire, Staffordshire, Shropshire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire, and all the countries thereabouts.” On the other hand, from the controversy between the two John Moores on the one hand, and Joseph Lee and an anonymous controversialist on the other, we can pick out certain statements of matters of fact that passed uncontradicted.

This controversy arose out of the enclosure of Catthorp, a parish in the extreme south-west corner of Leicestershire, bordering on Northamptonshire and Warwickshire. Lee was the parish priest of Catthorp, and a party to the enclosure. In his “Vindication of Regulated Inclosure,” he gives a list of fifteen parishes within three miles of Catthorp which had been enclosed. He also gives a list of nineteen parishes, enclosed from twenty to fifty years, in which depopulation had not yet taken place. This second list, as John Moore remarks, “they were forced to fish up out of the counties of Leicester, Warwick, Northampton, etc.,” and it is significant that two only of the fifteen parishes enclosed near Catthorp are asserted by Lee not to have been attended by depopulation. If we go a little earlier we find in 1607 an insurrection against enclosures, followed by a searching enquiry by James I.’s government, and no doubt by renewed vigilance, for a while, in the enforcement of the Depopulation Acts. It may be regarded as axiomatic that in a corn-growing country,[51] enclosure which does not diminish tillage, does not provoke riot and insurrection.

[51] Riots may occur on the enclosure of waste, where the enclosed waste gave a livelihood to a considerable specialised population, as in Hatfield Chase and the Fens. See Dr. Cunningham’s “Growth of English Industry and Commerce,” Vol. II., pp. 187, 188.

While, however, enclosure which does not diminish the land under tillage does not, as a rule, cause rural depopulation, it is a rule not altogether without exception. One of the most striking passages in Cobbett’s “Rural Rides” is that written in August, 1826, in which he describes the valley of the Wiltshire Avon:--

“It is manifest enough, that the population of this valley was, at one time, many times over what it is now; for, in the first place, what were the twenty-nine churches built for? The population of the twenty-nine parishes is now but little more than one-half of the single parish of Kensington,[52] and there are several of the churches bigger than the church at Kensington.... In three instances, Fifield, Milston, and Roach-Fen, the _church porches_ would hold all the inhabitants, even down to the bedridden and the babies. What then, will any man believe that these churches were built for such little knots of people?... But, in fact, you plainly see all the traces of a great ancient population. The churches were almost all large, and built in the best manner. Many of them are very fine edifices; very costly in the building; and, in the cases where the body of the church has been altered in the repairing of it, so as to make it smaller, the tower, which everywhere defies the hostility of time, shows you what the church must formerly have been.... There are now no less than nine of the parishes out of the twenty-nine, that have either no parsonage houses or have such as are in such a state that a parson will not, or cannot, live in them.... The land remains, and the crops and the sheep come as abundantly as ever; but they are now sent almost wholly away.... In the distance of about thirty miles, there stood fifty mansion houses. Where are they now? I believe there are but eight, that are at all worthy of the name of mansion houses.... In taking my leave of this beautiful vale I have to express my deep shame, as an Englishman, at beholding the general extreme poverty of those who cause this vale to produce such quantities of food and raiment. This is, I verily believe it, the worst-used labouring population upon the face of the earth.”[53]

[52] Just above he states it at 9,116.

[53] “Rural Rides,” 1830 edition, pp. 375–390.

When Cobbett wrote, the process of Enclosure for this corner of Wiltshire was practically complete. Thomas Davis, whose account of the agriculture of Wiltshire is the most interesting of the whole series of county surveys, wrote when the process was in its early stage, and wrote predicting depopulation. He says, “The greater part of this country was formerly, and at no very remote period, in the hands of great proprietors. Almost every manor had its resident lord, who held part of the lands in demesne, and granted out the rest by copy or lease to under tenants, usually for three lives renewable. A state of commonage, and particularly of open common fields, was particularly favourable to this tenure.... The north-west of Wiltshire being much better adapted to inclosures and to sub-division of property, than the rest, was inclosed first; while the south-east, or Down district, has undergone few inclosures and still fewer sub-divisions.”[54]

[54] Thos. Davis, Wiltshire, p. 8.

The common field system was called “tenantry.”[55] The tenants ordinarily were occupiers of single “yardlands,” rented at about £20 a year each. A typical yardland consisted,[56] besides the homestead, of 2 acres of meadow, 18 acres in the arable fields, usually in 18 to 20 pieces, a right on the common meadows, common fields, and downs for forty sheep, and as many cattle as the tenant could winter with the fodder he grew.[57] His forty sheep were kept with those of his neighbours, in the common flock of the manor, in charge of the common shepherd. They were taken every day to the downs, and brought back every night to be folded on the arable fields, the usual rule being to fold one thousand sheep on a “tenantry” acre (but ¾ of a statute acre) per night. In breeding sheep regard was had to what may be termed folding quality (_i.e._, the propensity to drop manure only after being folded at night) as much as to quality or quantity of wool or meat.[58]

[55] _Ibid._, p. 14.

[56] Contrast with such farms those described by Cobbett 30 years later: “At one farm 27 ricks, at another 400 acres of wheat stubble in one piece, at a third a sheepfold about 4,000 sheep and lambs, at a fourth 300 hogs in one stubble, a fifth farm at Milton had 600 qrs. of wheat, 1,200 qrs. of barley of the year’s crop, and kept on an average 1,400 sheep” (pp. 363, 4, 5). “The farms are all large” (p. 361).

[57] _Ibid._, p. 15.

[58] _Ibid._, p. 61.

On the enclosure of such a manor the common flock was broken up, and the position of the small farmer became untenable. It is true, says our author, that he has the convenience of having his arable land in fewer pieces; but if he has his 18 acres all in one piece instead of in 20, he cannot plough them with fewer than the three horses he previously ploughed with. Then he has no enclosure to put his horses in; he no longer has the common to turn them on. His right on the down would entitle him to an allotment of sheepdown of about 20 acres, perhaps two miles from home. This is too small for him to be able to take it up, so he accepts instead an increase of arable land. But now he has no down on which to feed his sheep, no common shepherd to take charge of his sheep, which are too few to enable him individually to employ a shepherd. He, therefore, must part with his flock and then has no sheep to manure his land; further, having no cow-common, and very little pasture land, he cannot keep cows to make dung with his straw. Lastly, the arable land being in general entirely unsuited to turn to grass, he is prevented from enclosing his allotment, and laying it down in pasture.[59] Obviously in such circumstances the small farmer, after for a few years raising diminishing crops from his impoverished arable land, must succumb, and in some cases help as a labourer to till his fields for another man, in other cases drift to the towns or enlist.

[59] _Ibid._, p. 80.

The contemporaneous decay of rural manufacturing industry,[60] of course, greatly aggravated the depopulating effects of enclosure. It may even have precipitated enclosure by weakening the position of the small farmer during the period of the French wars: during a time, that is, in which a combination of causes, apart from enclosure, was favouring the extension of large farms at the expense of small farms.[61]

[60] “The villages down this Valley of Avon, and indeed, it was the same in almost every part of this county, and in the North and West of Hampshire also, used to have great employment for the women and children in the carding and spinning of wool for the making of broadcloth. This was a very general employment for the women and girls, but it is now wholly gone.” (Cobbett, “Rural Rides,” p. 385, 1830 edition, written August, 1826.)

[61] These causes were (_a_) the great fluctuations in prices of agricultural produce; (_b_) the custom of using poor relief as a supplement to agricultural wages. The way in which these operated is ably dealt with by Dr. Cunningham.

In the south-east of Wiltshire, then, enclosure was followed by no increase of pasture farming, but it was followed by local depopulation. Whether the depopulation was merely local, or national as well, would depend upon whether, after enclosure, the total production of food of the parish were increased or diminished. Thomas Davis tells us that in many cases it was diminished, the reason, no doubt, being that there was a lack of farmers with sufficient enterprise and control of capital to absorb the small farms, as their occupiers began to drift towards bankruptcy. That such a result as this was felt to be an impending danger is shown by his statement:--“In some late inclosures allotments of arable land to small farmers have been set out adjoining to each other, directing the same to remain in an uninclosed state with a common right of sheep-feed over the whole, and a common allotment of down land and another of water-meadows, and some inclosed pasture to each if necessary.”

In this district, consisting of open downs, stretching for miles along the summits and higher slopes of the chalk hills; intersected by winding rivers bordered by flat alluvial land of naturally rich pasture, but converted by irrigation into the famous Wiltshire water meadows, the long lower slopes of the hills, as it were, decreed by nature to be noble corn fields, cultivation had to be on a large scale; the unit of cultivation had to be a piece of land of reasonable width, stretching from the river to the summit of the downs. Hence small farms could not exist without some degree of organised mutual help. When that organisation, which in this district was furnished by the common field system, was terminated by Enclosure Acts, consolidation of farms became necessary.

Nowhere else are these conditions present in quite so fully developed a degree as in Wiltshire, which contains the central hub from which radiate the three great belts of chalk down, the South Downs, the North Downs, and the range containing the Chilterns, the chalk hills of Hertfordshire, the Gog-Magogs of Cambridgeshire, and their continuation into Norfolk. But the most essential feature of Wiltshire agriculture, viz., the combination of sheep down and arable field, may be said to be characteristic of all this country. This is the country from which in the sixteenth century came the great indignant outcry against enclosure, which in More’s “Utopia” enters into the classic literature of our country. When it is remembered that the economic motive of enclosure then was the high price of wool, that private individuals are stated to have owned flocks of ten thousand, twenty thousand, and even of twenty-four thousand sheep[62], it is easy to conceive of whole parishes being converted into great sheep runs.

[62] Preamble to 25 Henry VIII. c. 13.