“The landowner, seeing the great increase of rent made by his neighbour, conceives a desire of following his example; the village is alarmed; the great farmer dreads an increase of rent, and being constrained to a system of agriculture which neither his experience nor his inclination tempt him into; the small farmer, that his farm will be taken from him and consolidated with the larger; the cottager not only expects to lose his commons, but the inheritable consequence of the diminution of labour, the being obliged to quit his native place in search of work; the inhabitants of the larger towns, a scarcity of provisions; and the Kingdom in general, the loss of inhabitants” (p. 1).
The general conclusion seems to be that all these anticipations and fears, with the exception of the last two—a scarcity of provisions for large towns, and a general loss of inhabitants for the kingdom, are well founded. With regard to the landowner and tithe-owner:—
“There can be no dispute that it is the landowners’ interest to promote inclosures; but I verily believe, the improprietor of tithes reaps the greatest proportional benefit, whilst the small freeholder, from his expenses increasing inversely to the smallness of his allotment, undoubtedly receives the least” (p. 25).[43]
- [43] This is badly expressed. He refers to the fact that a small allotment is more expensive to fence, proportionally to its size, than a large one.
Of the small farmer:—“Indeed I doubt it is too true, he must of necessity give over farming, and betake himself to labour for the support of his family” (p. 31).
With regard to the increase or diminution of employment for labourers, he gives the following statistical table, an estimate based on his observation:—
| 1,000 Acres of | Before Enclosure gives Employment to | After Enclosure gives Employment to | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A Rich Arable Land | 20 | families | 5 | families |
| B Inferior Arable | 20 | ″ | 16¼ | ″ |
| C Stinted Common Pastures | ½ | a family | 5 | ″ |
| D Heaths, Wastes, etc. | ½ | ″ | 16¼ | ″ |
It will be seen that his observation is that enclosed arable employs 16¼ families per 1000 acres, open field arable 20 families per 1000 acres; that common pastures, heaths, wastes, etc., employ only 1 family per 2000 acres; but enclosed pasture employs 5 families per 1000 acres. It will also be seen that his observation is that after enclosure rich land becomes pasture, inferior land arable.[44]
- [44] This is in harmony with all other eighteenth century information with regard to the Midland Counties. As one example we may cite the Vale of Belvoir, the north-eastern corner of Leicestershire. Here, in consequence of enclosure, “all the richest land in the vale, formerly under tillage, was laid down in grass, but the skirtings of the Vale, formerly sheep-walk, were brought into tillage.” The landlord, the Duke of Rutland, forbade any land worth more than a guinea per acre to be tilled. The enclosure of the twelve parishes in the Vale took place between 1766 and 1792. (William Pitt, “Agriculture of Leicestershire,” 1809.)