40 AN INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH RURAL HISTORY 



which they had cleared and fenced. There they built for 

 themselves a hut or cottage, and probably ke] t a few 

 fowls, pigs, goats, or even a cow. They took no part 

 in the open-field work, for they really " held " no land 

 at all. 



Enclosures. 



At the beginning of the eighteenth century, as already 

 noted, enclosures and open fields were still found side by 

 side. It has been estimated that three-fifths of the culti- 

 vated land was still " open-field " in 1700. But a great 

 change was pending. 



Much of the land hitherto enclosed had been fenced in 

 contrary to the law of the land. It is true that some of it 

 had been enclosed by some sort of agreement with the 

 original holders. For the most part, however, the small- 

 holder had been deprived of his estate on account of the 

 greed of a powerful lord and had thus been reduced to 

 the "landless" condition. Briefly, it may be stated that 

 the greater part of the enclosures which had been effected 

 prior to 1710 had taken place contrary to the law of the 

 land. 



The millions of acres still unenclosed afforded a liveli- 

 hood for a multitude of small yeomen farmers. But the 

 " fencing-in " of land was about to receive the sanction of 

 Parliament. In the first Report of the Royal Commission 

 on Agriculture it is recorded that over seven and a half 

 million acres were enclosed between 1710 and 1867. This 

 was made possible by the numerous Enclosure Acts passed 

 during the period. 



Between 1727 and 1845 no less than 1,385 separate 

 Acts of Parliament were passed authorizing enclosures. 

 Before 1801, however, such Acts were only sanctioned in 

 response to petitions presented by a certain number of 

 village landholders who had agreed among themselves that 

 enclosure was desirable. 



Only the better educated people understood the advan- 

 tages to agriculture thereby derived. If, however, the lord 

 of the manor and four-fifths of the commoners agreed to 

 seek a private Act of Parliament, it became possible to 

 carry it through. This was the more easy because the 

 commissioners sent down to supervise the carrying-out 

 of the scheme were usually wealthy landowners. The 

 rights of poor men were therefore frequently ovcrlo< 



