SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY 



forest of Galtres with stoopes, narrow gates and ditches, being an usuall high waie for cartes and 

 carriages,' time the memory of man not being to the contrary.^" Twelve similar presentments occur 

 within a short time.^^ In 1 640 Howgrave was so depopulated by the rapid inclosing that no one 

 remained to act as constable.^^ The following year, in the neighbourhood of Rillington, the new 

 landlord, Philip Wheath, convinced that inclosure would increase the value of the soil, approached 

 the freeholders with a scheme on a large scale for fencing ' arable land, meadow ground, common 

 moors and wastes.' After many meetings and long debates he induced his neighbours to further 

 his schemes. The evil eiFects of the prolongation of the common-field system are summed up in 

 the description of the condition of the place. 



Considering that the tillage of the said town and lordship was very much decayed and like to be 

 quite destroyed for want of enclosure, and also considering that the multiplicity of the stock goods and 

 cattle of all sorts and kinds kept upon the grounds and wastes of the said manor were daily increased, 

 whereby the said grounds were eaten up, trodden under foot and consumed, that many of them were 

 starved and diverse of the said free holders thereby totally disabled to manure and till their grounds.'' 



But it seems necessary to judge each case of inclosing on its own merits, for the reverse side 

 of the picture is forcibly represented in the Sutton case. 



From these depositions valuable contemporary views of the anti-inclosers can be gained. 

 The village of Sutton, in the forest of Galtres,^* consisted of eighty-eight cottages, with pasture 

 and turbary rights extending over 1,500 acres of common. Some of these cottagers were small 

 farmers with a little land ; others had only houses, garths, and common rights. It was suggested 

 that the common, which consisted of heath, ling, and barren ground, should be subdivided, and 

 inclosed into eighty-eight small allotments. The witnesses were unanimously adverse to such a 

 change. One argued that the inclosed land would not be worth 35. 4^. an acre. He clinched his 

 argument by a concrete local example. A district of about 400 acres, called Bohemia, adjoining 

 upon the best part of Sutton Common, of similar soil, was improved and subdivided. It still lets 

 at 3^. 4^. an acre. The land was ploughed and riven up, ' and sown with corn, but is so dear 

 even at the low rental that if the landlord had not been at the sole charge of enclosing the same, 

 the tenants had been undone with the charge thereof.' He added : ' Some of the tenants are 

 beggared by it and other some have left it and others fit to leave it.' Another example of 

 depreciation on account of inclosure is given. The tithes of ' wool and lamb ' yielded when the 

 land was in common at Huby, a neighbouring village, £^12 a year, but since the subdivision they 

 are not worth ^^3 bs. Sel. Another point urged against inclosure is that many of the inhabitants of 

 Sutton ' want ability and means ' to fence the land already in their possession. Another witness 

 observed that the common served a useful purpose in supplying turf in a neighbourhood where it 

 was scarce and dear. It served, too, as a pasturage for 3,000 sheep, and doubts were expressed 

 whether tillage could be continued unless sheep were kept. Besides, more money was made by 

 sheep than by land, when soil was so poor. Lack of initiative was not at the root of the resistance 

 to the change ; for many witnesses declared that endless experiments had been made in ' ploughing, 

 burning and corning ' several parcels of land near the common, but all had been unsuccessful. 

 Several of the farmers were tenants for the life of Mr. Kirk. This uncertainty of tenure, added to 

 ' the barronesse of the earth,' rendered the innovation impracticable. ' The high waies on horseback 

 and on foote and for carte and carriage ' from the North Riding to York lay across the common. 

 The onerous duty of keeping up the road would devolve on the inclosers ; this, one witness says, 

 ' would tyre the most of them.' 



The whole evidence may be tersely summed up in the words of the last deponent : ' He 

 verily believeth that the subdivision of the fifteen hundred acres of common will be an advantage to 

 thre or four of the richest of the inhabitants but will be prejudicial to the rest and utter undoing of 

 the poorest sort.' ^* 



No part of Yorkshire has a more stormy economic history than the tract of country called 

 Hatfield Chase, which, by the ingenuity of Dutch engineers, had been reclaimed from waste in the 

 early years of Charles I. An interesting case in this district was dealt with by special commission 

 in 1670. It is clear from the evidence that the right of inclosing land where Crown rights 

 prevailed, without legal proceedings or agreement, was an accepted theory, although the only 

 excuse urged was 'that other towns did the same.' About 80 acres of the King's Moor had been 

 inclosed by Mr. Belton, and was kept inclosed for four or five years ' during Oliver Cromwell's 

 time.' But the towns of Snaith and Cowick ^' obliged him to lay it down again as common. A 



" Quarter Session! Rec. (North Riding Rec. Soc), iv, 71, 72. *' Ibid. 73, 80. '^ Ibid. 176. 



^ Chan. Enr. Dec. R. 598, no. 6, referred to by Miss Leonard, op. cit. 1 1 1. 

 '* Three thousand acres were inclosed in 1748 by Act of Parliament. 

 " Exch. Dep. Yorks. Trin. 1656, no. 5. 



'^ One thousand one hundred and sixty acres were inclosed at Snaith and Cowick in 1773 by Act of 

 Parliament. 



3 481 61 



