1 68 READINGS IN RURAL ECONOMICS 



elucidated. These are but a few of the many perplexities. But, 

 with all allowance made for deficiencies of text and errors of 

 interpretation, the totals for the first inquisition of 1517 may at 

 any rate be taken as a minimum estimate of the inclosures of the 

 period 1485-15 17 and as a fair index of the relative extent of the 

 movement in different sections of England. 



The temptation lies near to attempt, by utilizing these partial 

 results as a basis, to form some rough general notion of the 

 whole progress of the agrarian change down to 1607. But, in 

 yielding to it, the rather hazardous nature of the venture must 

 be clearly kept in mind. Three gaps in our table must be filled, 

 the period of at least thirty years before 1485-, the sixty-year 

 span between 1518 and 1577, and the thirty years from 1578 to 

 1607 in those counties for which we have returns in 1517 but 

 not in 1607. What shall be the conjectural estimate of the 

 rate of the movement's progress during these intervals, was 

 it equal to that from 1485 to 1517, or was it greater or less? 

 We have, again, in the second place, figures from twenty-four 

 counties. Shall a hypothetical increment be added for possible 

 inclosures in the sixteen English counties not represented in 

 either of the two chief official inquiries ? And, if we are mainly 

 to operate, as we must, with the statistical results of the inqui- 

 sition of 1517, even supposing that we possess practically all the 

 work of the commissioners, can we be at all sure that they did 

 their work thoroughly, that they did not overlook or have con- 

 cealed from them or even themselves conceal or palliate a con- 

 siderable number of inclosure cases ? Can any reckoning, to ask 

 this third question, be made of a coefficient of error, intentional 

 or otherwise ? To the second and third queries, as far as any 

 statistical valuation is concerned, the answer must be a non 

 possumus. For the first, and for any merely general anwer to 

 the other questions, we are reduced to surmises to an uncer- 

 tain balance of probabilities derived from the vague evidence of 

 contemporary literature and legislation or from a few inade- 

 quate statistical data. A consideration here in detail of these 

 doubts would take us too far afield ; it must suffice to state 



