The Enclosfre of Open-Field Farms. 



1)09 



immense advance which wtis made in English farming from 

 IIK) onwards. It is from this new point of view that open- 

 field farms are discussed. New and formidable arguments are 

 based on the new means of agricultural progress. On the 

 arable land of open-fields, subject to common rigiits w^iile 

 fallow or from corn harvest to seed-time, it was impossible 

 to introduce the new crops. Eotations were limited and fixed 

 by inniiemorial usage. No individual could move hand or foot 

 to effect improvements, without the unanimous agreement of 

 the whole body of joint occupiers. If one man sow^ed turnips, 

 it would be the live stock of the community that would profit. 

 Better stock breeding was impossible when all the grazing w^as 

 in common. The difficulties of drainage were enormously 

 increased by the necessity of securing co-operation. To these 

 new arguments must be added the agricultural condition of 

 many of the village farms. The evidence on this point may be, 

 to some extent, prejudiced, because it comes from the advocates 

 of progress. But it is so uniform in tenor and character, so 

 confirmed by previous experience, and so consistent with the 

 natural results to be expected from the rigidity of open-field 

 farming, that it must be allowed some w^eight. The yield of 

 the arable land w^as comparatively small and poor in quality. 

 The commons w-ere " pest-houses of disease," and the live 

 stock that were reared on them w^ere dwarfed and undersized. 

 Large quantities both of the arable and pasture w^ere worn 

 out. ]Manv open-field farmers lived " worse than in Bride- 

 well." 



The argument draw^n from improved methods and increased 

 resources w^ould have been more forcible if the suggested 

 changes had been put in practice on enclosed land. For the 

 farmers' reluctance to accept their advice agricultural writers 

 were themselves frequently to blame. Their folly was often 

 as conspicuous as their wisdom. Their promises w^ere 

 ridiculously extravagant. Moreover, several of them had failed 

 in practical life. Tusser, " teaching thrift, never throve" ; 

 Gabriel Plattes, the " corn-setter " and inventor of a drill, 

 is said to have died shirtless, in the streets of London, for w^ant 

 of bread. Arthur Young had failed twice in farm management, 

 before he began his Farming Tours and his crusade in favour 

 of large farms, long leases and capitalist farmers. Even Bake- 

 well, of Dishley, the pioneer of scientific stock breeding, went 

 through the Bankruptcy Court. Apart from the low standard 

 of education and the isolation of rural districts, the contempt 



B 



