1920.] The Enclosure of Open-Field Farms. 831 



THE ENCLOSURE OF OPEN-FIELD 



FARMS. 



The Eight Hon. Lord Ernle, M.V.O. 



The threefold division of the agricultural interests into land- 

 lord, tenant-farmer and wage-earning labourer, as well as the 

 individual occupation and cultivation of agricultural land, are 

 relatively recent growths in many parts of this country. As 

 compared with the much older system of open-field farms, 

 cultivated in common on co-operative principles by associations 

 of occupying co-partners, they are a modern development. The 

 change from the one to the other has been a slow but continuous 

 process. Already in progress at least as early as the reign of 

 Henry III, it was not completed until the first half of the 

 nineteenth century. Even then the older system has lingered 

 on in remote country districts. Many of us have seen it in 

 active operation. Though now it has been completely super- 

 seded, it has left traces, which, to the eyes of all who have 

 studied the subject, are broad and deep, on the general aspect 

 of almost every county in England, but especially in the east 

 and centre, on the laying out of roads, on place and field 

 names, and on the surnames of the rural population. 



The substitution of the individual occupation and use of 

 agricultural land for the older system of common cultivation 

 was carried out by enclosures. In its effects on the rural popu- 

 lation the enclosing movement is an important, and, in some 

 aspects, regrettable development in the social, if not the 

 economic, history of the country. Its character, causes and 

 conditions have within the last quarter of a century attracted 

 the increasing attention of historical students. Of recent' 

 years it has become, for obvious reasons, a favourite battle- 

 ground of political theorists. For the most part the move- 

 ment has been exclusively studied in its social and political 

 effects. Stress has been rightly laid on the distress caused by 

 the break-up of the agrarian partnerships and on the disastrous 

 consequences of the divorce of the peasantry from the soil. 

 Use has been freely made of a considerable literature of protest 

 and denunciation. The vigorous, picturesque language of 

 sermons, pamphlets and popular verse has been liberally quoted 

 without much discrimination. But very little attention has 

 been paid to the practical questions involved. There is, in 

 'fact, a side of the movement which has been unduly ignored 



