239] ^^^ DISINTEGRATION OF THE OPEN FIELDS 83 



Just as the services of a promoter are needed in the for- 

 mation of a modern industrial combination, pressure from 

 above was usually necessary in order to overcome the diffi- 

 culties of the situation. The Lord of Berkeley (1281-1321) 



drewe much profitt to his Tenants and increase of fines to him- 

 selfe ... by makeing and procuringe to bee made exchanges 

 of land mutually one with an other, thereby casting convenient 

 Parcells togeather, fitting it for an inclosure and conversion. 

 And by freeinge such inclosures from all comonage of others.^ 



A landlord of this sort would do much to override the op- 

 position of those who, through conservatism, fear of per- 

 sonal loss, or insistence upon more than their share of the 

 benefits of the readjustment, made it impossible for tenants 

 to carry out these changes unassisted. 



Where tenants with or without the assistance of the lord 

 had managed to enclose some of their land and free it from ^ 

 right of common, they were in a position to devote it td 

 sheep- farming if they chose to do so. Ordinarily they did 

 not do this. If, as has been claimed, the large-scale en- 

 closures which shall be considered later were made because 

 of an increasing demand for wool, it is surprising that these 

 husbandmen were willing to keep enclosed land under culti- 

 vation, and even to plow up enclosed pasture. The land 

 had to be kept under grass for a part of the time, whether 

 it was open or enclosed, because if kept continuously under 

 the plow it became unproductive ; and it was better to have 

 this land enclosed so that it could be used advantageously 

 as pasture during the period when it was recovering its 

 strength. But the profits of pasturage were not high enough 

 to prevent men from plowing up the land when it was again 

 in fit condition. 



1 Smyth, Lives of the Berkeleys, vol. ii, pp. 159-160. 



