The collapse of this system may be attributed to the scarcity of labour brought about especially by the Black Death. When men could not be had in sufficient number, the necessary consequences was the expansion of pasture and the contraction of tillage; and this dual process was assisted by the stampede of labourers to the towns and the policy of enclosure to which landowners resorted as a remedy. Deprived of their quit-rents, and not having resources for the payment of wages on an adequate scale, supposing that labour was obtainable on reasonable terms, the landholders fell back upon the only expedients that remained to them. They had land, and they had stock; and, as an escape from absolute ruin, they let the land to tenants who took over the stock and, probably, as the need arose, replaced it with their own beasts. This revolution, already in full swing in the fourteenth century, paved the way for the present order of things, under which the tenant pays a fixed rent for the use of land and buildings, and finds the capital for farming.

The Waste

We have next to deal with the waste. The meaning of the term is clear—it signifies land which, from the poverty of the soil or other reasons, had never been brought under cultivation. The commons that still survive are mostly of that description, the more valuable land having been resumed during one of the successive periods of enclosure, or—piecemeal.

Originally, there is little doubt, such land belonged to the family or sept, by whom it was used as forest for game or as pasturage for cattle. Unlike the arable field or the common meadow, it was not distributed into sets, but enjoyed in common by all who possessed the right of stocking it. In a genial article in the "Antiquary" describing how the world wagged in his parish of Blewbury, Berks, in the eighteenth century, the Rev. N. L. Whitchurch observes: "There were 'cow commons' on the downs in those days, and a road from the village is still called the 'cow way.' In the early morning a man would collect the various cows of the village, which he drove to pasture for the day. The ancient bell which he rang at the foot of the 'cow road' is still preserved in the village."

In Saxon times the purchase of stock by an individual was a matter of general concern to the community in which he lived. By a law of King Edgar, if a man in the course of a journey bought cattle, he was required on his return to turn them out into the common pasture, "with the witness of the township." If he omitted to do so within five nights, the townsmen were to acquaint the hundred elder, and the cattle were forfeited, the lord receiving one-half and the hundred the other. If the townsmen failed in their duty, their herdsman was subjected to a flogging. For the purchase of cattle the witness of the township was not enough. Twelve standing witnesses were appointed for every hundred, and the buyer had to make it his business to seek out two or three of them so as to secure their presence at the transaction.

Whatever the primitive constitution of society may have been, in historical times three parties possessed an interest in the waste. Blackstone defines common as "a profit which a man hath in the land of another, as to feed his beasts, to catch fish, to dig turf, to cut wood, and the like." In theory, the waste belonged to the King, who vested portions of it in individual lords or religious houses, and they thus became recognized owners of the soil. In case of outlawry or attainder, the waste reverted to the Crown, which, according to custom, held possession of it for a year and a day. Thirdly, the use of the soil, for various specified purposes, resided in the inhabitants of certain townships or hundreds, was appendant to certain tenements, or was reserved as easement on the sale of the land.

Some very interesting questions, arising out of this joint occupancy, were raised in the courts at the close of the thirteenth century—notably the right of search for the object of ascertaining whether there were on the common more animals than any of the parties was entitled to place there, and, if so, of impounding them. Was this right appurtenant to the manor, or was it also appendant to a frank tenement in a particular vill? In one case where the lord had depastured an excess of beasts, the court decided against him, and in favour of a commoner whom he accused of "tortiously" taking his cattle. But, notwithstanding this judgment, there is some uncertainty on the point, as appears from the report of an action tried in the Middlesex Iter of 1294.

"Robert Fitznel brought the Replegiare against Richard, the son of John, saying that he had tortiously taken his beasts in the wood of the Abbat of Horwede, formerly the forest of King Henry, by whom it was given as a chace to N., ancestor of Richard."

"Warwick: 'Sir, we offer to aver that Robert and all those who have held the land in N., which he holds have been seised for all time, &c., of the common in the wood where his taking was made as appurtenant to their frank tenement....'

"Gosefield imparted, and returned and said: 'Sir, we will tell you the truth of this matter; and we tell you that the place where the taking was made was King Henry's forest; and Henry granted what was the forest to our ancestor by way of chace; and that in that chace, according to the custom of the chace, no person could put to common more beasts than could be fed or wintered on the produce of the land which he held in the same chace; and because Robert brought his beasts from his lands which he held elsewhere, which beasts could not be fed or wintered on the land which he held within the chace, contrary to the usage and custom of the said chace, he (Richard) took them, &c....'