100 ENCLOSURES OF THE EIGHTEENTH 



I 



least in which it was in most cases carried out,^, serio 

 disadvantage to the small landowner. By the enclosure of 

 the common field the small freeholder or copyholder lost his 

 rights of turning out his cattle after hay and corn harvests, 

 and that of gleaning on the stubbles. The waste once 

 enclosed, he had no longer anywhere to go for his firing, 

 and no place where he could turn out his cattle in the 

 summer while he cultivated his little plot. 1 He received, 

 indeed, an allotment from the waste, but, until the later 

 Acts more carefully protected him, he often did not receive 

 even his equitable share, and even when he did, that share 

 would of necessity be small, 2 and, as he soon discovered, 

 no adequate compensation for his old rights on the 

 waste, without which it was difficult to work his holding 

 profitably. 



A contemporary somewhat exaggerated when he said, 

 < strip the small farms of the benefit of the commons and 

 they are all levelled at one stroke to the ground.' Yet his 

 opinion is confirmed by many others. 3 Later experience 



' Cf. Scruton, Commons, for these various rights and their technical 

 terms. 



2 One acre for the right of turning out two cows and three sheep 

 appears a usual allotment. A. Young, Annals, xxxvi. 513. 



3 Enquiry into advantages and disadvantages resulting from Bills 

 of Enclosure quoted authorities, Hasbach, p. 108 ; cf. Mantoux, 

 La Revolution industrielle, p. 172 ; Evidence from Board of Agri- 

 culture Report on Enclosure, 1808; Report 1844, Qs. 175, 811, 1643, 

 1662, 4292, &c. ; cf. Lord G. Somerset's opinion that they had not had 

 sufficient evidence from those likely to be most hurt, and his amend- 

 ment to the Report, ' that the utmost care was needed in legislating to 

 provide against the infringement of the rights or privileges of any 

 parties without compensation ' (though the amendment was lost). 

 Of course there are some instances to the contrary. Cf. Report 1844, 

 Q. 3990, where we learn that an enclosure of waste in a Cambridge- 

 shire parish was so unpopular that it had to be enforced by soldiery 

 and yet that the opponents subsequently laughed at their own folly, 

 for the common had been divided into gardens, and cottages worth only 



