ISO KKA DINGS IN RURAL ECONOMICS 



which he reaches is " that by far the most serious period for the 

 small owner was at the close of the seventeenth and during the 

 first half of the eighteenth century . . . and that the changes since 

 the middle of the eighteenth century have not been nearly so 

 radical as they have been generally supposed to be." This view 

 is supported by the evidence about to be more specifically set forth. 



The parochial records of the assessment of the Land Tax seem 

 to have been carefully made from the time of the levy of ship 

 money ; a complete and continuous series exists only from about 

 1785. At this time, too, the returns, for Oxfordshire at least, 

 incorporate an additional item of unusual value. In nearly all 

 cases they begin to state not only the owner of the real property 

 assessed but also its occupier. Thereby it becomes possible to 

 discover which farmers are tilling their own land and which are 

 tenants only. Occupying owners, that is, independent yeoman 

 farmers, stand in clear juxtaposition to non-occupying landlords. 

 The purpose of this paper is to point out to what extent the 

 former existed in Oxfordshire in 1785 ; to trace their fortunes 

 from 1785 to 1832 ; to ascertain whether their numbers had de- 

 creased since the sixteenth century ; to note the effect upon them 

 of such enclosures as occurred between 1785 and 1832 ; and, 

 lastly, to inquire how far enclosures of an earlier period should be 

 called a cause of their disappearance. 



In the use of the Land Tax returns, comparisons are the 

 easier, since the rate of four shillings the pound remained un- 

 changed from 1775 to 1789, and in the latter year Pitt made it 

 unchangeable. Certain limitations and sources of possible error, 

 however, have to be kept in mind. In the first place boroughs 

 and market towns of any size have to be excluded, the assessment 

 there relating largely to houses, shops, and inns. In a few cases 

 lessees for long terms of years are substituted for owners. Often 

 a careless use of the term or sign " ditto " causes confusion, which 

 can be cleared up only by examining the writer's usage and com- 

 paring the returns for successive years. Occasionally the distinc- 

 tion between owners and occupiers is not noted until some years 

 after 1785 ; and again, as certain owners begin to redeem their 

 assessment after 1798, the same discrimination is neglected relative 



