24 Large and Small Holdings 



Accordingly the tendency among landowners was increasingly 

 in favour of the enlargement of the size of holding. But they also 

 looked about them to see if it were not possible to obtain control 

 of more land and so to form more of these very profitable large 

 farms. The open fields, mostly held in small holdings, and above all 

 the common pastures, presented themselves as possible objects of this 

 transformation. With the profits of pasture-farming decreasing and 

 the importance of corn-growing increasing it seemed to be desirable 

 from an economic point of view to turn the commons into wheat- 

 fields and to put both them and the open-field strips at the disposal 

 of progressive individuals. Nor was it very difficult for the great 

 landowners to effect this, since they were almost always the chief 

 owners of land and chief holders of common rights in any given 

 parish, or at any rate, by purchasing land, they could if they wished 

 become so 1 . 



The increase in the number of Enclosure Acts in the course of the 

 eighteenth century illustrates the rapidity with which the division 

 of the commons and the consolidation of the open-field holdings 

 proceeded. Between 1702 and 1760 only 246 Acts were passed, 

 affecting about 400,000 acres. In the next fifty years the Acts 

 reached the enormous total of 2438, and affected almost five million 

 acres 2 . 



The immediate result of the enclosures was a further disappear- 

 ance of small holders. The enclosures took place at the instance of 

 the landlords with a view to the enhancement of rents 3 , and therefore 

 to the formation of large holdings to be let to the corn-producing 

 large farmer. This was accordingly the usual consequence of a Bill of 

 Enclosure. 



The firstMtq disappear were the landholding day-labourers or 

 cottiers. These received no land in consideration of their common 

 rights "unless they could actually prove them : very often their claims 

 were altogether disregarded. But even in cases where they did 

 receive a small allotment, they could not maintain their position. 

 The scrap of land they received was not sufficient to feed a cow ; nor 

 had they the capital with which to do the necessary fencing. There 

 was nothing for it but to sell their bit of ground 4 . The buyer was 



1 Cp. Hasbach, op. cit. pp. 61 ff. and no. 



2 Cp. Levy, op. cit. p. 127. 



3 Cp. Hasbach, op. cit. p. 56. 



4 Cp. the General Report on Enclosures, 1808, pp. 55 f. Thus, as to the parish of 

 Alconbury : " Many kept cows that have not since (the enclosure) : they could not enclose, 



