Common Land and Inclosure

E.C.K. Gonner

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN:
  9780714613116
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781136234248
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

First published in 1966. 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.

BOOK III

EFFECTS OF INCLOSURE

I

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.¹ 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 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 period, it is necessary to pass in review the effects attributed to it in respect of particular details. These fall under three headings, 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 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 temporary 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 proprietors are often rendered nugatory by the virtual monopoly¹ 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,² 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 different as Leicester, Yorks, Berkshire, and Gloucester.¹ Indeed it is not too much to say that the advantages of inclosing wastes and commons are accepted as indubitable² even by those whose judgment was not otherwise favourable to the new policy.³ One writer indeed couples with his benediction a word of caution as to the need of regard to the wants of the poor.⁴ 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 increase of grain, and also in population.⁵ 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.⁶ This difference in character is of great importance 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, Westmoreland 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.⁷ It must, however, be remembered that the so-called common field inclosures included common and often wastes.

Another cause of difference is due to the soil. Here there is a fairly general¹ 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 produced on arable cultivation. The Report to the Board of Agriculture on Leicester remarks² 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 produced on the sands of Norfolk by inclosure and the use of clover.³ 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.⁴ 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 I 3 G. III.⁵ On such lands turnips and clover can now be introduced.⁶ 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 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.”¹ The effect on cold clay soil is questioned by some.²

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.³ What the mismanagement amounted to can be seen from a few examples. In many cases the allotments were too small to allow of adequately sized fields. The small inclosed fields were evidently condemned.⁴ Again, in other cases, the wants and wishes of the small proprietors⁵ were ignored, and the lot of the poor cottagers insufficiently considered, though this must not be taken as a fair general charge ;⁶ or bad methods of road-making might be adopted.⁷ Mismanagement, however, 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.¹

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.² Such considerations were of peculiar pertinence in early times when locomotion and migration were more difficult and isolation greater.

In the ardour of controversy a number of minor advantages 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,³ 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 as through an open one.¹ 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,² 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...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Preface to First Edition
• Contents
• Introduction to Second Edition
• Book I: Common and Inclosure
• Book II: Progress of Inclosure
• Book III: Effects of Inclosure
• Index