CHAPTER XVIII 



ENCLOSURE-THE SMALL OWNER 



The war period was one of great activity in enclosure ; from 

 1798 to i8ro there were 956 Bills; from 1811-20, 771.^ 



It must be remembered, however, that the number of Acts 

 is not a conclusive test of the amount of enclosure, as there was 

 a large amount that was non-parliamentary : by the principal 

 landlord, and by freeholders who agreed to amicable changes 

 and transfer, as at Pickering, in Yorkshire.^ Roughly speaking, 

 about one-third of the Acts were for enclosing commonable 

 waste, the rest for enclosing open and commonable fields and 

 lands/' Owing to the expense an Act was only obtained 

 in the last resource^ It was also because of the expense * 

 that many landlords desirous to enclose were unable to do 

 so, and therefore devoted their attention to the improvement 

 of the common fields. That agriculture benefited by enclosure 

 there is no possible doubt, but it was attended with great 

 hardships. The landowner generally gained, for his rents 

 increased largely. In twenty-three parishes of Lincolnshire, 

 for instance, his rents doubled on enclosure. But the expenses 

 were so heavy that his gain was often very small, and some- 

 times he was a loser by the process. As for the farmers, 

 the poorer ones suffered, for more capital was needed for 

 enclosed lands, and the process generally was so slow, taking 



' Cf. supra, p. 163. 



"^ R. Marshall, Rural Economy of Yorkshire, p. 17 et seq. 



' Slater, English Peasantry and Enclosztre, p. 7. 



* It was stated in the Report of the Committee oft Enclosures (1844), 

 p. 31, that the ordinary expense of obtaining an Enclosure Act was from 

 ;^l,ooo to £\,tiOO. In 1814 the enclosure of three farms, amounting 

 to 570 acres, including subdivision fences and money paid to a tenant 

 for relinquishing his agreement, cost the landlord nearly ^^4,000.— 

 Agrictdtural State of the Kingdom {1816), p. 116. 



