GG ENCLOSUEES, 1770-1820 



instead of euriching the land of individual owners. Without 

 a general agreement among a large body of small, suspi- 

 cious, and ignorant independent proprietors, alternate 

 husbandry could not be adopted by the open-field farmer ; 

 turnips and clover, the philosopher's stones which turned 

 sand into gold, were beyond his reach. Where no interest 

 was individual, no private person would improve, drain, or 

 reclaim wastes ; no would-be follower of Bake well could 

 pursue the science of stock-breeding. The pastures on 

 which the live stock of the township fed generated the 

 rot ; promiscuous herding propagated infectious disorders. 

 On every common were crowded together half-starved 

 horses, cattle, and sheep, a disgrace to their respective 

 breeds, a fruitful cause of disease, because no individual 

 farmer could improve his breed of live stock. Not only 

 was the arable land badly tilled, but the wastes and com- 

 mons were a standing reproach, from a productive point 

 of view, to the rural economy of the country. It is not 

 surprising that Young should have demanded a general 

 system of enclosure. 



His crusade against the old common-field system was 

 assisted by other causes. It required little to turn a 

 peasant proprietor into a wage-eaniing labourer. Every 

 step in the industrial development of the nation tended to 

 the consolidation of farms, the extinction of the common- 

 field system, and the disappearance of small owners. Com- 

 merce drew the peasantry to centres of trade. Even in the 

 reign of Charles TI. petitions were presented against the 

 denudation of country districts and the consequent scarcity 

 of agricultural labour. Thousands of the rural population 

 ■were attracted from agriculture to manufacture ; the small 

 farmer no longer had the aid of his family in the cultiva- 

 tion of the soil, and he could not afibrd to pay wages. 



