198 READINGS IN RURAL ECONOMICS 



The meager information from the Land Tax records is some- 

 what extended by the evidence of the enclosure awards. These 

 are available for forty-seven of the fifty-six parishes. In some of 

 these, allotments made in lieu of newly purchased estates mention 

 the recent purchases. In this way we discover preenclosure pur- 

 chases in five parishes. In not more than two of them, however, 

 is there any tendency toward forming large estates ; and one of 

 these two estates is acquired by the Duke of Marlborough at 

 Black Bourton. Again, by comparing enclosure awards with the 

 Land Tax assessments of 1785 we discover traces of post-enclosure 

 consolidation in three other parishes. 



Taken together there are fourteen parishes out of the fifty-six 

 enclosed between 1758 and 1785 which show traces of engross- 

 ing of estates either before or after enclosure. But of these cases 

 four are not significant, two others not markedly so, while half 

 of the remainder are directly connected with the Duke of Marl- 

 borough. On the other hand, in the awards of thirty-three par- 

 ishes there is no mention of estates purchased nor is there any 

 evidence of engrossing between the date of enclosure and 1785. 

 What is especially noticeable is that in groups A and B the seven- 

 teen parishes which underwent enclosure retained a large yeoman 

 population and show no growth of large estates. We may well 

 surmise that their experience was very like that of parishes en- 

 closed after 1785. Fifteen of the seventeen lie in the northern 

 region about Banbury, the stronghold of the small farmer. In 

 view of all this, our general conclusion regarding enclosure be- 

 tween 1755 and 1785 must be that in the majority of cases, and 

 especially in the north of the county, it was accompanied by no 

 growth of large estates, no consolidation after enclosure, probably 

 not much before it, and little or no disappearance of the independ- 

 ent farmer ; but we must add that in certain parishes, especially 

 those in the southwest of the county where the Duke of Marl- 

 borough had interests, some estates were bought up, a part of 

 which may have come from independent farmers. 



A final and difficult question is the connection between enclosure 

 prior to 1760 and the disappearance of the independent farmer. 

 It may be assumed that enclosure had been taking place for two 



