YEOMAN FARMING IN OXFORDSHIRE 195 



one-half between the end of the sixteenth century and the late 

 eighteenth. Of the twenty-six parishes it happens that nine are 

 among those which in 1785 had more than 20 per cent of their 

 areas in the hands of occupying owners. Even so, five of 

 these show a distinct falling off in the number of freeholders and 

 copyholders, together with a decrease of about one-third in the 

 area of freeholds and copyholds. The other four seem not to 

 have changed greatly. The remaining eighteen townships, two- 

 thirds of the total number, have lost more than one-half of their 

 freeholds and copyholds, some being left with none at all. This 

 proportion is not unlike what we have been led to expect from 

 the conditions of 1785. At that time in one-third of the town- 

 ships of the county the yeomanry constituted about 20 per cent 

 of the population ; in the other two-thirds only a little more than 

 2 per cent. We seem now to have reason for adding that in the 

 latter group it had shrunk to 2 per cent. Putting the matter in 

 its most favorable light and allowing that one-third of the county 

 lost few or none of its independent farmers during the two cen- 

 turies, we must yet conclude that the remainder lost heavily. 



Corroborative evidence is given by nine Gloucestershire town- 

 ships for which we have data similar to those just adduced. In 

 them the average falling off of copyholders and copyhold acreage 

 was upwards of two-thirds, somewhat greater than that east of 

 the Cotswolds. Something, however, may be due to the uniformly 

 early date of the surveys. 



To explain the decline in yeoman farming which thus seems 

 actually to have taken place, enclosure has received its share of 

 attention. Enclosures of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries 

 have been recently discussed by Hasbach, Mantoux, Slater, and 

 Johnson. All cite and discuss contemporary reports and pam- 

 phlets, particularly the county reports to the board of agriculture 

 and the writings of William Marshall and Arthur Young. Has- 

 bach thinks that enclosures were fatal for the smaller farmer 

 (" lesser yeoman ") and the cottager. Mantoux, generalizing from 

 a few instances, states that " presque partout, la cloture des open 

 fields et la division des communaux ont eu pour suite la vente d'un 

 grand nombre de propri^tes. Slater has chapters on enclosure 



