1921.] The ExcLOsriiK of Open-Fieli> Farms. 905 



they laid down arable to pasture with the " intente " that such 

 " Grownde shall recover Harte and Strengthe." The change 

 was welcomed by an agricultural member of the- House ot 

 Commons in the debate on the Bill. " For it fareth with the 

 earth," he says, as with other creatures that through continual 

 " labour grow faint and feeble-hearted, and therefore if it be 

 " so far driven as to be out of breath, we may now by this 

 " law resort to a more lusty and proud piece of ground while 

 " the first gathers strength .... And this did the former 

 " lawgivers over slip, tyeing the land once tilled to a perpetual 



bondage and servitude of being ever tilled." Even in Tudor 

 times it would seem that Parliament sometimes misunderstood 

 or neglected agricultural difficulties. 



It would be interesting to trace the influence of soil on the 

 progress of enclosure. If, for instance, it could be established 

 that the lighter soils were the first to be enclosed, and that, 

 where the soil was deep and rich, the open-field system retained 

 its hold, the view that soil exhaustion was one of the principal 

 causes behind the movement, would be strikingly confirmed. 

 It is obvious that the loss of fertility would be first felt on the 

 lighter land, and that the richer soils w^ould hold out longest. 

 Much evidence might perhaps be quoted in support of this 

 opinion. But there was so little uniformity in the movement, 

 and it w^as affected by so many other local considerations, that 

 any generalisations w^ould be unsafe. New industrial districts 

 w^ere opening out as w^oollen manufactures developed ; towns 

 were increasing in size ; means of communication were improving. 

 Agriculture could not. in these changing circumstances, long 

 continue in the self-supporting stage to which open-field" farms 

 were adapted. It was no longer enough that producers should 

 feed themselves. Surplus produce was needed for the support 

 of industrial districts and urban populations. Before the end 

 of the 16th century much of the old arable acreage w^hich had 

 been enclosed and rested as grass was brought back into tillage, 

 and the process of reconversion continued throughout the fol- 

 lowing century. New land was also brought into cultivation. 

 Where it was reclaimed from forests, it did not interfere with 

 village farms. But when it meant the approvement of common 

 and w^aste. over which an association of village partners exer- 

 cised common rights, it struck a fatal blow^ at the older system. 

 It cut at its root. It deprived the village farmers of privileges 

 which were essential to the tenure of their arable holdings. It 

 was the principal cause of 'the rural discontent of the 16th and 



