VII DECLINE OF SMALL LANDOWNER 147 



[ of consolidation or the local circumstances favourable. 



, Thus, during the period up to about 1785 enclosures were 



often followed by that result, but in the ensuing period, 



1785-1804, it certainly was not generally the case. 



I It is also worth noting that Kent, where there were 



certainly no common fields in 1803, and where there 



probably were never many, is one of the favourite haunts 



of the small owner. 



After the year 1892, the worst seems to have been 



I passed, and between this year and 1907 the returns seem 



[to indicate a general improvement in the condition and 



\ numbers of the small landowner, though that improvement 



is neither universal nor great. 



But, after all, I have been forced to two conclusions. 

 [First, that by far the most serious period for the small 

 [owner was at the close of the seventeenth and during the first 

 i half of the eighteenth century ; in short, the period of the 

 ffinal transition from mediaeval to modern agricultural con- 

 Witions; and secondly, that the changes since the middle 

 [of the eighteenth century have not been nearly so radical 

 ; as they have been generally supposed to be. 



To this opinion I have been brought by the evidence of 

 [the Land Tax assessments, which, I confess, has very 

 [much surprised me. It is true that most of my returns 

 [come from counties which were not very closely influenced 

 Hby the industrial revolution, and that Lancashire, the 

 lone county of this kind of which I have returns, does 

 appear to have been more seriously affected than others. 

 [There may have been some mistakes made in the returns, 

 especially in failing to carefully note where one owner is 

 sparately assessed for separate properties, and thus count- 

 fng him twice or even three times over, but these mistakes 

 innot, I think, have been frequent. I may have been 

 ifortunate in the counties I selected, and a wider survey 



K 2 



