ENCLOSURES, 1770-1820 VI 



used. In more modern times commons were divided by 

 consent of the interested parties, or by private Acts of 

 Parliament. Here, again, formidable obstacles impeded 

 enclosures. It was difficult to obtain the consent of per- 

 sons whose interests were opposed ; but four-fifths of the 

 commoners, the lord of the manor, and the tithe-owner 

 must agree before a Parliamentary sanction could be ob- 

 tained. Cottagers were attached to the idle system of 

 keej)ing a few half-starved cows upon the commons ; small 

 freeholders feared the legal expense ; small common-field 

 farmers dreaded a rise of rent ; landlords hesitated to 

 invest capital for the benefit of tithe-owners ; tithe-owners 

 were unwilling to take land in exchange for their tenths 

 of the produce. Finally, the expenses of private Acts were 

 almost prohibitive. A General Enclosure Act was impera- 

 tively needed, but if such a measure was passed, ' what,' 

 as a reporter asks, ' would become of the j)oor but honest 

 attorney, officers of Parliament, and a long train of &c. &c., 

 who obtain a decent livelihood from the trifling fees of 

 every individual Enclosure Bill ? The waste lands in the 

 dribbling, difficult way in which they are at present enclosed 

 will cost the country upwards of 20 millions to these 

 gentry, which under a general Enclosure Bill would be 

 done for less than one million.' Partly from social causes,* 

 partly in consequence of the recommendations of the Board 

 of Agriculture, partly through the zeal of Arthur Young, 

 but mainly through the necessity ivhich presses upon a pro- 

 tectionist country, engcKjed in a European war, to feed its 

 cjrowing poptdation out of its homeresoiirces, the first general 

 Enclosure Act was passed in 1801. From 1777 to 1793, 

 599 Enclosure Acts were passed. Between 1793 and 

 1809 the number rose to 1,052. It has been calculated 

 that 44 million acres of land were thus added to the 



