ENCLOSUEES, 1770-1820 73 



already quoted, recognises this as an inevitable result. 

 The landlord, the farmer, and the nation must gain by en- 

 closure, but ' the small common-field farmer ' must become 

 ' a hired labourer.' He recommends that the lot of these 

 ' reduced farmers ' be rendered as easy as possible ' by lay- 

 ing to their cottages a sufficient portion of land to enable 

 them to keep a cow or two.' Had this advice been followed, 

 England might have escaped the deplorable effects of the 

 poor-law in the next fifty years. 



The claims of commoners were frequently disregarded 

 by Commissioners. Young strongly advocated enclosures, 

 but he laments the disastrous effect of the change upon 

 the general condition of the labouring population. He in- 

 stances numerous enclosures which, without adequate com- 

 pensation, depi'ived commoners of their live stock, made it 

 difficult or impossible to procure milk for their children at 

 any price, cut off" their chief incentive to frugality, reduced 

 them to hired labourers solely dependent upon their weekly 

 wages. ' Many kept cows that have not since,' is his oft- 

 recurring summary of results. Out of thirty-seven parishes 

 he found only twelve in which the position of the poor was 

 improved by the enclosure of commons.^ Many commoners 

 received no allotment because they failed to prove their legal 

 right ; others were assigned too little land to keep a cow, and 

 both land and cow were sold to wealthy farmers ; others were 

 bought out for comparatively small sums before the award 

 was made ; others sold their allotments because they could 

 not spend the sums necessary to enclose their portions ; in 

 some cases allotments were made to the owners and not to 

 the occupiers of cottages. On the other hand, in some 

 parishes the interests of the poor were carefully protected ; 

 they were not required to give strict proof of their legal 

 ' Arthur Young, On Wastes, 1801. 



