The results are given of an investigation into the results of sixty-eight Enclosure Acts, chiefly in the Eastern Counties; testimony having been obtained from the clergy and others considered to be impartial witnesses. In fifteen cases it is asserted that the poor were not injured by the enclosure; in fifty-three cases that they were. The general tenour of the statement in these cases is to the effect that the condition of the poor has become very much worse, that they have lost all their cows,[64] and they no longer are able to buy milk for their children. Here are a few of the more striking descriptions:—
- [64] This is specifically asserted in 17 cases.
Ackworth, Yorkshire. The parish belonged to near 200 owners; nearly the whole of whom have come to the parish since the enclosure, or changed the quantity of their lands.
Todenham, Gloucester. Nothing increased but the poor. Eight farmhouses filled with them.
Tingewick, Bucks. Milk to be had at 1d. a quart before; not to be had now at any rate.
Passenham, Northamptonshire. (The poor) deprived of their cows, and great sufferers by the loss of their hogs.
Tulvy, Bedfordshire. Cows lessened from 110 to 40.
Letcomb, Berkshire. The poor can no longer keep a cow, and they are therefore now maintained by the parish.[65]
- [65] “General Report on Enclosures,” pp. 150–152.
Alconbury, Huntingdon. (1791, c. 70.) Several who kept cows before were, upon enclosure, forced to part with them, and have kept none since. The cottage allotments going to the landlords were thrown together, and the inhabitants left without cows or land. Those who had allotments given in lieu of their rights, not being able to enclose them,[66] were forced to sell, and became as the rest in this respect. Before enclosure milk could readily be bought, poor people could lay out a half-penny or a penny every day, but nothing of the sort could be got since.[67]