4-24 
FIF.LD-GARDENING FOR 
this country, by their thereby losing the hos- 
pitality of those establishments ; but there is 
every reason to believe that the charitable 
doles thus distributed were only enjoyed by 
those immediately belonging to their own 
demesnes. Sir F. Eden gives it as his opinion, 
that the abbeys distributed of their substance 
amongst the rich rather than the poor; and 
there is, at any rate, little risk in waiving for 
the present an}' claims which those wealthy 
bodies might have had in relieving the masses 
of needy labourers. The system, moreover, 
was more apt to foster a habit of indolence 
and contentment, rather than excite the laud- 
able spirit which should ever be set before the 
peasantry of a country — a reasonable hope of 
independence through industry and foresight. 
From this view of the case, therefore, the 
Reformation may be fairly exonerated from 
producing anything like that degree of misery 
amongst the poor which is generally attributed 
to it. 
Of the effects which the important act of 
Elizabeth had upon the agricultural population, 
it is not necessary that I should directly speak. 
Under the administration of this act, up to the 
year 1709, or about that time, our rural popu- 
lation appear to have been enjoying all the 
immunities which they had temporarily lost 
during the fourteenth century ; and indeed it 
may be safely asserted that their extended and 
uninterrupted privileges during this period 
indicate one of the happiest eras in their 
history. From this time, however, must be 
dated a series of the most disastrous changes 
in their condition, arising from the inclosing 
and consolidating of lands which had become 
the joint inheritance of the poor. The evil, 
in my opinion, did not necessarily proceed 
from the inclosure acts which were granted at 
the period alluded to ; for my firm conviction 
is, that had the lands apportioned in lieu of 
those taken from the poor, been protected from 
subsequent alienation, the rural population of 
our country would have been, at this moment, 
in a much better position than we now find 
them occupying. Of the various other ways 
in which our agricultural peasantry have lost 
their small allotments, any history of an 
English parish will afford an ample illustra- 
tion. Such a history I have not the means of 
consulting at the present moment, but, from 
other available sources, 1 select, almost at 
random, as follows : — " Sir Thomas Franshaw, 
knight, left by indenture bearing date 26th 
July, 1662, one-fifth part of the rents and 
profits of an estate, for the poor of Barking in 
Essex, payable on the 20th of December, 
yearly, by the owner of a farm called Jenkins. 
Sir Charles Hulse, who is the lord of the 
manor, and the present owner of a farm in the 
parish called Jenkins, does not interfere in the 
distribution of the charity ; and the "one-fifth 
part of the surplus rent which should be 
yearly bestowed on objects selected by him is 
not therefore so applied.' "* " It appears, 
from a brass tablet in the parish church of 
Netteswell, that Thomas Lawrence, who was 
buried there in 1522, gave 5s. a year for ever 
to the poor, payable out of lands. Nothing is 
now known of this donation. "| " Fifty-six 
acres one rood and thirty-nine perches of 
land was left by Thomas Edward Freeman, 
Esq. of Batsford, Gloucester, for the poor 
parishioners of Great Tew. This land was 
afterwards exchanged for seventy-five acres 
and thirty-six perches, by which the persons 
concerned in the transfer were supposed to 
have gained 1,200^., and the trustees have 
not accounted for the above charity for twenty- 
eight years."^ " A person who had lands in 
an adjoining parish died in the century before 
the last, as is supposed, and left lands charged 
with an annual payment of 21. to three differ- 
ent parishes, of which Great "Waldingfield was 
one, to be distributed amongst tl.e poor ; 
which sum has been regularly received by the 
churchwardens till within the last three or 
four years, from the person supposed to be in 
possession of the estates ; but he being dead, 
and the property divided among his three 
children, none of them will pay the Charity, 
each denying that the lands so charged are in 
his possession."^ " An estate of about 701. 
per annum was left for the use of the poor of 
Spratton, in Northamptonshire, but from which 
they derive no benefit, as it is not expressly 
stated which way the poor are to enjoy it, 
and the farmers apply the whole to help the 
levies."|| With regard to the alienation of 
lands belonging in common to the poor 
throughout the villages of England, I may 
instance two cases which I have ascertained 
from personal inquiry to be correct. The 
first is Snettisham, in the county of Norfolk. 
The commons of this parish were enclosed 
under an act passed in 1761, when about 
forty cottagers were found entitled to allot- 
ments of three acres each in lieu of their 
rights. In the course of time those allotments 
were gradually given up to neighbouring 
proprietors, who were anxiously waiting for 
every opportunity that might occur to take 
lawful possession of them by purchase, so that 
in 1804 only ten cottagers remained in the 
parish occupying land ; and at the date at 
* Report of Commissioners for Inquiring concerning 
Charities, part i. p. 1 18. 
t Ibid, p. 199. 
X Samuel Nash, Vicar, in Report on Education of 
the Poor, (181S) vol. ii. p. 731. 
§ Francis Cresswell and Thomas 'Wallace, Ministers, 
"Waldingfield, Suffolk, in Report, &c. p. 911. 
|| Thomas Jones, Curate, ibid. p. 66'0. 
