171] INTRODUCTION 15 



fessor Gay has made a careful study of the evidence on this 

 question, and has analysed the reports of the government 

 commissions for enforcing the husbandry statutes before 

 1600/ and Miss Leonard has made the returns of the 

 commission of 1630 for Leicestershire available.^ The con- 

 ditions under which these commissions worked make the re- 

 turns somewhat unreliable even for the years covered by 

 their reports, and much interpolation is necessary, as there 

 are serious gaps in the series of years for which returns are 

 made. For dates outside of the period 1485- 1630 we must 

 rely entirely on literary references. Unsatisfactory as our 

 statistical information is on this important question, it is 

 far more complete than the evidence on the subject of the 

 reconversion to tillage of arable land which had been turned 

 into pasture. 



It is to the unfortunate social consequences of enclosure 

 that we owe the abundance of historical material on this 

 subject. Undoubtedly much land was converted to pasture 

 in a piece-meal fashion, as small holders saw the possibility 

 of making the change quietly, and without disturbing the rest 

 of the community. If enclosure had taken no other form 

 than this, no storm of public protest would have risen, to 

 express itself in pamphlets, sermons, statutes and govern- 

 ment reports. Enclosure on a large scale involved dis- 

 possession of the inhabitants, and a complete break with 

 traditional usage. For this reason the literature of the 

 subject is abundant. When, however, the process was re- 

 versed, and the land again brought under cultivation, there 

 was involved no interference with the rights of common 

 holders. It was to the interest of no one to oppose this 



iPw&. Am. Ec. Assoc, Third Series (1905), vol. vi, no. 2, pp. 146-160: 

 " Inclosure Movement in England." 



^ Royal Hist. Soc. Trans., New Series (1905), vol. xix, pp. 101-146: 

 " Inclosure of Common Fields." 



