68 ENCLOSURES, 1770-1820 



incomes, or escaped the necessity of selling their produce, 

 were now supplanted by manufactures. Basket or brush 

 making, pillow lace, straw plait for hats, hand-loom weaving, 

 spinning silk, hemp, or wool, stitching gloves for the trade 

 of Hereford or Leominster, the woollen or worsted manu- 

 facturers of Norfolk and Suffolk, the broadcloth trade of 

 Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, the iron manufacturers of 

 Kent and Sussex, the baizes of Colchester and Sturmin- 

 ster, were gradually centred in the cities of the north, 

 instead of being disseminated through the villages of the 

 south, A change of fashion, like the decay of the taste for 

 Derbyshire ' ribs,' brought Brandreth to the gallows. The 

 cheapness of manufactured goods encouraged the depend- 

 ence of the farmer on the manufacturer; the separation 

 of the two industries was essential for the perfection of 

 both. The gigantic increase of the population, together 

 with the withdrawal of a large part of the labouring 

 classes from agriculture, demanded the utmost development 

 of the resources of the soil. Small farmers and peasant 

 occupiers were picturesque obstacles to improvement, whose 

 removal was necessary and inevitable. 



On agricultural grounds the open-field system was 

 indefensible ; enclosures indisputably increased both rent 

 and produce. The arguments used in its support are 

 based on the damage done to the poor, and the depopula- 

 tion of enclosed parishes. ' A Country Gentleman,' who, 

 in 1772, wrote a pamphlet upon ' The Advantages and 

 Disadvantages of Inclosing Waste Land,' did not exagge- 

 rate the profits of enclosure. He says that rich open-field 

 land was often let in its open state at 6s. to 7s. per acre. 

 Open farms were divided into two, three, or four fields : if 

 three, one field lay fallow, depastured by sheep ; the second 

 was wheat or barley ; the third, beans, peas, or oats. He 



