[718] _Hist. MSS. Com._, MSS. of Marquis of Salisbury, Part.

VII., pp. 541-543.

[719] Pseudonismus, _A Vindication of the Considerations

concerning Common Fields and Enclosures_, 1656: "The Statute of

Tillage hath excited some and affrighted others that the land in

each field is not and cannot be husbanded as it ought." The

"Statute" alluded to is the Bill introduced in this year which

did not become law.

[720] Harrington's Works (1700 edition), pp. 388-389.

[721] _Kalm's Account of his Visit to England on his Way to

America in 1748_, translated by Joseph Lucas, p. 282. I am

indebted for this reference to Dr. Gilbert Slater. The exact

words are: "Nor had they any turnip land to feed sheep upon.

Therefore they were deprived of the advantage of getting to sell

any fat sheep or other cattle. The reason they gave for all this

was that their arable was common field, and thus came to lie

every other year fallow, when one commoner always had to

accommodate his crops to the others; but the principal reason of

all was said to be that," and so on as in text. I am not sure

that I have interpreted the passage rightly in assuming that it

alludes to the _illegality_ of enclosure without Act of

Parliament. It may merely mean that, without an Act of

Parliament, the necessary agreement could not be obtained among

all those interested. I follow Dr. Slater's interpretation.

What weight is to be attached to this body of opinion that enclosure and

conversion to pasture were in practice checked by the opposition of the

Government, it is not easy to say. If it is hardly compatible with the

view that interference was entirely ineffective, it nevertheless need

not imply anything more than a temporary retardation of the movement on

those special occasions and in those particular parts of the country

that were the object of peculiar attention. The test of comparison with

facts by which one would like to try it is difficult to apply. Our

knowledge of the real extent of enclosure in the sixteenth century is

too scanty to permit of our following with confidence the line of

argument which has been ingeniously worked out by Miss Leonard,[722] and

which, starting from the indisputable fact that in those Midland

counties where enclosure had been felt most acutely in the sixteenth

century, there was still much land unenclosed in the seventeenth and

eighteenth, suggests that the explanation is to be found in its

temporary cessation under the authoritative pressure of the Tudor and

Stuart Governments. Nevertheless, without going beyond our evidence, we

may venture to put forward two propositions. The first is that it is

extremely improbable that the anti-enclosing policy which we have traced

succeeded in altering permanently or on a large scale the course of

economic development. That suggestion is surely incredible in view of

the continuance of the complaints against enclosure, and of what we know

of the slack and biassed routine of rural administration. To expect the

justices to stop enclosing, unless actually compelled to do so, was

almost as Utopian as it was to expect them to administer the early

Factory Acts two centuries later. The second is that the intervention of

the Government certainly mitigated the hardships of the movement to the

rural classes. The protection which the Court of Star Chamber and the

Court of Requests offered to the equitable interests of tenants, while

it could not turn the general course of events, tempered its harshness

to individuals. A landlord who was determined to depopulate could hardly

in the long run be prevented from succeeding in his object. But he might

have to wait till leases or life tenancies had expired, instead of being

able to clear his estate at one sweep. He might be compelled, as the St.

Johns[723] were in the reign of Henry VIII., as Sir John Yorke in 1553,

or Lloyd under Elizabeth, to bind himself to respect the titles of the

existing generation of tenants. In the same way the occasional campaigns

undertaken for the reconversion of pasture to arable, while they could

not turn the tide, almost certainly slackened its course. There is no

way of escaping from the positive evidence which we possess that in

parts of the country houses which had been pulled down were rebuilt, and

that land which had been turned from arable to pasture was turned back

again, at the command of the Government, from pasture to arable. We have

already described the doings of the justices under James I. Look for a

moment at the similar agitation which was started in 1630. The agrarian

policy of the Council is seen at its worst under Charles I., because the

whole of it is smeared with the trail of finance. Some of the offenders

were allowed to compound upon payment of a fine, and one's first

inclination is to believe that the Commissions of 1632, 1635, and 1636

were nothing but one of those odious financial engines, like the revival

of forest claims and the exaction of fines for knighthood, by which

Charles tried to dispense with Parliamentary taxation. That they were

this among other things is certain. That they were nothing more than

this must be denied, for we have clear evidence from enclosers

themselves to the contrary. They do not only, like Lord Brudenell, write

to the Council begging that their fines may be reduced from £1000 to

£500, and explaining that "the enclosures made within man's memory

amount not to the decay of one farm."[724] They are not only haled

before the Star Chamber to be rebuked by Laud.[725] They beg to be

allowed to pay a fine instead of being imprisoned. They reconvert

pasture to arable. In Northamptonshire[726] a man turns thirty-five

acres of arable into pasture. But he ploughs up ninety-five acres of

ancient pasture to set off against it. From Nottinghamshire[727] comes a

letter explaining that the petitioner has complied with the orders of

the Commissioners of Depopulation to throw open all his enclosures, and

apologising humbly for keeping hedges round three acres on the ground

that they are necessary to mark the boundaries.

[722] _Trans. Royal Hist. Soc._, vol. xix.

[723] For the St. Johns, see pp. 362 and 380. For Sir John

Yorke, pp. 285 and 381, and Selden Society, _Court of Requests_,

Inhabitants of Whitby _v._ Yorke, 1553: "Be yt remembred that

the cause brought before the Queen's Counsaill in her Majestie's

Court of Requests.... Ys now ordered by the saide Councill by

thagreement of the saide Syr John who hathe promised that the

saide parties aforenamed, and every one of them, shall have and

quietly eujoye theyr tenements and holdings during the yeres and

termes in theyr leases and copies yet enduring, paying theyr

Rentes and ffermes accustomed." For Lloyd and the tenants of

Hewlington in Denbighshire, see pp. 302-303.

[724] _S. P. D._, Ch. I., cccxlii., No. 47.

[725] _Ibid._, cccxiv., No. 29, and Appendix I., No. VIII.

[726] _Ibid._, cccclxxv., No. 72.

[727] _Ibid._, cccciv., No. 142.

On the whole one is inclined to regard the Government's intervention in

this matter as resembling in its effects the attempts which were made at

the same time to fix prices and wages. It retarded, though it could not

check altogether, economic changes. It imposed a brake which somewhat

eased the shock of sudden movements. But when the hand of authority was

removed, when Commissions were called in and justices ceased to be

admonished by the Council, affairs swung back into their original

position. A rough attempt to illustrate the occasional retardation of

pasture-farming by these spasmodic attacks upon it is given in the

diagram opposite.

The figures are taken from a list of Final Concords as to land lying

mainly in Staffordshire, but occasionally in other counties as well. The

period selected is one in which there were two agitations among the

peasants, two important Acts against depopulation, and a Royal

Commission. It will be seen that while some of the fluctuations in the

percentages of arable and pasture bear no relation to any known activity

on the part of the Government, the repeal in 1593 of the Acts for the

maintenance of tillage comes as a climax to a well-defined increase in

the percentage of pasture, the passage of the two Acts of 1599 is

followed by a similar though less marked rise in the percentage of

arable, and the riots of 1607, which resulted in the appointment of a

Royal Commission, appear to be accompanied by another increase in the

area under the plough. Of course the acreage represented is absurdly

small, and it is possible that the apparent correlation is a mere

coincidence. Still, one is inclined to think that the fluctuations on

the chart fit in very well with what we know from other sources of the

temporary effect and subsequent ineffectiveness of these transient

eruptions of governmental activity. The creation of social habits by

continuous pressure, such as is exercised by modern states through their

paid inspectorates, is quite foreign to the ideas of the age. The

Government, when it is most active, never gets beyond making an example

of a few notorious offenders whose sins are sufficiently black to bring

in good round sums to the Exchequer, and having vindicated the majesty

of the law and pocketed their fines, it leaves the small fry to wonder,

and hastily set their house in order against the coming of the Judges of

Assize, and then gradually to slide back into the ancient ways when the

storm has blown over. After all, the fact that A was punished for

enclosing last year is in itself sufficient to make it extremely

probable that this year B will escape.

[Illustration: _The figures for 1592-3 and 1593-4 have been combined, as

the latter are too small to be given separately._]

Such "occasional conformity" was, however, too much the rule in all

economic matters that were the object of authoritative regulation--and

few were not--to be by itself any cause for abandoning it. The real

reason for the cessation of interference in the land question which we

notice after 1640 is to be found, not in the fact that intervention had

invariably proved too ineffective to be worth continuing, but in the

change of policy caused by the unchecked domination of Parliament in

domestic affairs. The victory of the Parliamentary forces over the Crown

meant the triumph of the landed gentry over the only power which was

strong enough to enforce the administration of unpopular Statutes in the

teeth of their opposition. It prepared the way for the reign of the

great landlord who regards himself as charged with a peculiar

responsibility for promoting the needs of agriculture, which he alone is

presumed to understand--and in fact, to do him justice, does sometimes

understand very thoroughly--a weary Titan who pushes forward enclosure

from a sheer sense of public duty. On the one hand there is a change in

the standpoint from which agrarian policy is regarded. The aim of

maintaining a prosperous peasantry becomes subordinate to that of

obtaining the maximum output from the soil. This change materially

affects the attitude adopted towards enclosure. The Tudor Governments

had endeavoured to protect the rights of commoners, because commons were

an indispensable adjunct to small-scale subsistence farming. The new

view is that commons are waste lands which had much better be improved,

and which are most likely to be improved if they pass into the control

of men who have capital to spend upon them. Even under the Stuarts this

doctrine begins to gather weight, and naturally so, for it both

flattered their ambitious conception of the monarchy as a cornucopia

whence all economic improvements should flow, and was in line with their

general policy of trying to secure cheap food by regulating the supplies

of grain. In 1623 Commissioners are busy improving Tiptree Heath, which

squatters have occupied without any legal title.[728] In 1637 the King

is approached by an influential syndicate which asks for a concession

permitting it to reclaim the heaths and barren commons belonging to

the Crown, and which displays a glowing prospectus of the advantages

which will accrue in the shape of increased supplies of

food-stuffs.[729] In 1629 the Commission of Sewers had engaged Vermuyden

on his celebrated task of draining the great Level, and, in spite of the

fierce opposition of the fenmen, the work was in 1637 adjudged to be

completed.[730] All this is quite in the vein of the eighteenth century.

It is quite in that vein also for a strong line to be taken against the

wastefulness of those who impede good farming, even though the farmer be

a grazier, by sowing a few acres here and a few acres there, instead of

cultivating a compact holding; in short, by the immemorial system of

strip cultivation. The last but one of the Statutes against

depopulation[731] was itself the first expressly to authorise that

exchanging of holdings for the purposes of more business-like husbandry,

which, as we have seen, had been going on informally from an early date.

In 1606 we get what may be called the first Enclosure Act of the modern

pattern, under which certain Herefordshire parishes are allowed to

separate and enclose one-third of the land lying in common in each

parish.[732] In 1627 a case arising out of a dispute about fold-courses

comes before the courts, and sound agricultural doctrine is laid down

with a confidence of which Arthur Young himself might have approved.

"This Court," say the judges, "was now of opinion that the plowing and

sowing of small quantities of land dispersedlye or disorderlye within ye

shacks and winter feedinge of ye said ffouldcourses, and the refusal of

a few wilfull persons to lett ye owners of ffouldcourses have their

quillets of land (Llying intermixt in the places where ye sheep pasture

is layd) upon indifferent exchange or other recompense for the same, are

things very mischievous and will tend to ye overthrow of very many fould

courses."[733] Their opinion is enforced with a judgment decreeing an

exchange of lands.

[728] _S. P. D._, Ch. I., cl., No. 7.

[729] _S. P. D._, ccclxi., No. 15: "There are many thousand

acres of heath and barren commons in England and Wales, not

annually worth 6d. an acre, to which your Majesty has right of

soil but no benefit thereby, which may be improved to a great

value, cause plenty of provision, enrich many thousands, supply

the poor."

[730] Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_,

Modern Times, Part I., pp. 112-119.

[731] 39 Eliz., c. 2.

[732] 4 James I., c. 11.

[733] _Original Papers of the Norfolk and Norwich Archæological

Society_, 1907, pp. 70-73.

When the whole question comes up again towards the close of the

Commonwealth, the old attitude is maintained by the opponents of

enclosure, who protest, with all the fervour of Latimer, against the

greed of landlords and the pauperising of commoners. But its defenders

have overhauled their arguments, and the lines on which the controversy

will be fought out for the next century and a half are already obvious.

In the eyes of the austere moralists of the Restoration commoners are

lewd people, who would be much better employed if at work for wages. All

beneath the "nobility and gentry" are "the poor," and the poor

themselves (it is well known) are of two kinds, "the industrious poor,"

who make a living by working for their betters, and "the idle poor," who

make a living by working for themselves. Christianity and patriotism

require that the latter should enter some "productive employment," and

this can best be secured by excluding them from the commons on which

their distressingly irregular livelihood depends. Even so Europeans

to-day teach habits of industry to the African savage, by taxing him

until he can no longer live upon the lands which Europeans desire to

exploit. Moreover, the commercial spirit of the later seventeenth

century is impatient of antiquated restrictions, and is already groping

blindly after some formula which may prove them to be superfluous.

Enclosures will increase the output of wool and grain. Each man knows

best what his land is best suited to produce, and the general interest

will be best served by leaving him a free hand to produce it. "It is an

undeniable maxim," writes a pamphleteer, "that every one by the light of

nature and reason will do that which makes for his greatest advantage.

Whensoever corn bear a considerable rate, viz., wheat four or five

shillings, and barley two shillings and sixpence, men may make more

profit by ploughing their pasture, and consequently will plough for

their own advantage."[734] Hales had said something like this a hundred

years before. He had said it to show the need of special measures to

divert agricultural enterprise into beneficial channels. Now an

identity between the interests of landowners and those of the public is

assumed as part of a pre-established harmony, which human intervention

may disturb, but which it is neither needed nor competent to secure.

Authoritative statecraft fades out in the dawn of reason and the light

of nature. With such a wind of doctrine in their sails men are steering

for uncharted waters.

[734] Lee, _A Vindication of a Regulated Enclosure_, 1656.

While opinion on the subject of enclosing was beginning to change even

before the Civil War, the final blow at the maintenance of the old

policy was struck by the destruction of the Court of Requests and Court

of Star Chamber. The abandonment by Governments of all attempts to

protect the peasantry against oppression was an indirect consequence of

the victory of the Common Law over the prerogative jurisdiction of the

Crown. The interference in agrarian matters of the administrative courts

of the Tudor monarchy had always been detested by the landed gentry for

the very reasons which made it popular with the peasantry. They were the

last resort of men who could not get what they considered justice

elsewhere. One finds a defendant in whose favour the Common Law Courts

have given three decisions being sued again before the Court of

Requests.[735] They were the only authority which could prevent a

landlord from asserting his claims to a common or to a copyhold by means

which the poorer classes found it impossible to resist. Complaints from

aggrieved landowners that they are undermining the right of the lord of

the manor to exercise jurisdiction over his own copyholders, by trying

cases which ought to be heard in manorial courts, that they are

interfering with the course of Common Law, that they make it impossible

for a lord to "rule his lands" by the countenance which they lend to

discontent, are not infrequent[736] in the sixteenth century, and both

Wolsey and Somerset were in turn attacked by the upper classes for the

favour which they showed to such unconstitutional interference with

the rights of property. Such protests are the best proof that the

Court of Requests and the Court of Star Chamber had exercised functions

which were in some respects beneficial. The strictest constitutionalist

will have some sympathy to spare for the address in which Lord Coventry

in 1635 charges the Judges of Assize to "beware of the corruptions of

sheriffs and their deputies, partiality of jurors, the bearing and

siding with men of power and countenance in their country," and to set

on foot "strict inquiry after depopulation and enclosures, an oppression

of a high nature and commonly done by the greatest persons that keep the

juries under their awe, which was the cause there are no more presented

and brought in question."[737] Such words paint the ideal of Government

by prerogative, _parcere subjectis et debellare superbos_, which may

have floated before the minds of a Bacon or a Strafford, and which had

been partially realised under the Government of Elizabeth. When set side

by side with the actual practice of the Council under Charles I. they

are its final and self-recorded condemnation. For we look for them to be

made good in action, and we look, save during a few years, in vain. If

much may be forgiven those who boldly do wrong believing it to be right,

there is no mercy for "the unlit lamp and the ungirt loin" of a body

which, believing a certain system of government to be right, entangles

its execution with sloth, and makes a sordid financial instrument out of

the very prerogative which itself has declared to be the gift of God for

the protection of the poor. The defence which the Council and its

courts had offered to the peasantry against economic evils, though real,

was too irregular to do more than slightly mitigate the verdict which

history has passed upon their employment in the hands of Charles I.

Whether the peasants regretted their disappearance we do not know. To

those contemporaries whose opinion counted, the occasional onslaughts

made by the Council and Star Chamber upon enclosing landlords were an

aggravation, not an extenuation, of the indictment brought against them.

Though the Grand Remonstrance, in which the Long Parliament sought to

unite all classes with a recital of grievance accumulated upon

grievance, taunted the Government with its failure to check the

conversion of arable land to pasture,[738] the authors of that

tremendous indictment had no substitute to suggest for the interference

by the Council with "freeholds, estates, suits, and actions," which they

denounced; and Laud, who, according to even a friendly critic, "did a

little too much countenance the Commission for Depopulation,"[739] lived

to be reminded in the day of his ruin of the sharp words with which he

had barbed the fine imposed by that body upon an enclosing

landlord.[740] The Court of Requests was never formally abolished, but

from the closing decade of the sixteenth century it had been gradually

stripped of its powers by prohibitions issued by the Common Law Judges,

and forbidding plaintiffs to proceed with their cases before it, and

after 1642 it quietly disappeared. With the destruction in 1641 of the

Court of Star Chamber and the Councils of Wales and of the North, an end

was put to the last administrative organs which could bridle the great

landed proprietors. Clarendon, himself a relic of an age before the

deluge, would seem to have added to his other offences by trying to

revive the old policy in a world which would have none of it.[741] But

the royalist squirearchy who in 1660 streamed back to their plundered

manors, were, when their property was at stake, as sound

constitutionalists as Hampden himself, and after 1688 that absorption of

the "State" by "Society" which Gneist, a worshipper of the eighteenth

century régime, dates with curious perversity from 1832, was, in his

sense of the words, complete. Henceforward there was to be no obstacle

to enclosure, to evictions, to rack-renting, other than the shadowy

protection of the Common Law; and for men who were very poor or easily

intimidated, or in enjoyment of rights for which no clear legal title

could be shown, the Common Law, with its expense, its packed juries, its

strict rules of procedure, had little help. Thus the good side of the

Absolute Monarchy was swept away with the bad. Its epitaph was written

by Locke:[742]--"The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of

his property without his own consent." But it was forgotten as soon as

it was written. For to the upper classes in the eighteenth century the

possession of landed property by a poor man seemed in itself a

surprising impertinence which it was the duty of Parliament to correct,

and Parliament responded to the call of its relatives outside the House

with the pious zeal of family affection.

[735] Holkham MSS., Sparham Bdle., No. 5, see back, p. 374.

[736] Selden Society, _Select Cases in the Court of Requests_,

Customarye Tenants of Bradford _v._ Fraunceys: "The seyd

defendant seythe that the said bill of complaint ... is mater

... determinable at the comen land and not in this honourable

court, whereunto he prayeth to be remitted." Also Gairdner, _L.

& P. Henry VIII._, i., 334, Earl of Derby to Cromwell; and

Leadam, _E. H. R._, vol. viii. pp. 684-696. For attacks on

Wolsey's land policy see Herbert, _History of King Henry VIII._,

pp. 297-298 (ed. of 1672): "Also the said Cardinal hath examined

divers and many matters in the Chancery, after judgment thereof

given at the Common Law, in subversion of your laws, and made

some persons restore again to the other party condemned that

they had in execution by virtue of the judgment in the Common

Law."

[737] Gardiner, _History of England_, 1603-1642, vol. viii., p.

78. Compare the Instructions for the President and Council of

the North, 1603 (Prothero, _Statutes and Constitutional

Documents_, 1558-1625, pp. 363-378), Article XXVIII.: "Further

our pleasure is that the said Lord P. and Council shall from

time to time make diligent and effectual inquisition of the

wrongful taking in of commons and other grounds and the decay of

tillage and of towns or houses of husbandry contrary to the

laws,... and leaving all respect and affection apart they shall

take such order for redress of enormities used in the same as

the poor people be not oppressed and forced to go begging ...

and ... if they find any notorious malefactor in this behalf of

any great wealth, cause the extremity of the law to be executed

against him publicly."

[738] Gardiner, _Constitutional Documents of the Puritan

Revolution_, 1625-1660, pp. 212-213, "Conversion of arable into

pasture, continuance of pasture, under the name of depopulation,

have driven many millions out of the subject's purses, without

any considerable profit to his Majesty."

[739] Clarendon's _History of the Rebellion_, I. 204, IV. 63.

Clarendon's account of the Grand Remonstrance suggests that the

principal grievance was not depopulation, but the fines exacted

for it; see the words "with the vexations upon pretence of

nuisances in building ... and of depopulation, that men might

pay fines to continue the same misdemeanour."

[740] Appendix I., No. VIII.

[741] I make this statement on the authority of Dr. Slater,

_Sociological Review_, vol. iv., No. 4, p. 349, but I have been

unable to trace his evidence. The only reference I can find

bearing on the subject is contained in Article XIII. of the

heads of the accusation against Lord Clarendon: "That he hath in

an arbitrary way examined and drawn into question divers of his

Majesty's subjects concerning their lands, tenements, goods,

chattells, and properties, determined thereof at the Council

Table, and stopped proceedings at law by the order of the

Council Table, and threatened some that pleaded the Statute of

17 Car. I." (The proceedings in the House of Commons touching

the impeachment of Edward, late Earl of Clarendon, 1700.)

[742] Locke, _Two Treatises of Government_, Book II., chap. xi.

CHAPTER II

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Those who have had the patience to follow the detailed changes in rural

organisation which have been described above will naturally ask, "What

is the upshot of it all? What are the main landmarks which stand out

from the bewildering variety of scenery? How does the agrarian England

which is sleepily hunting out old guns and older bows on the eve of the

Civil War differ from the England which saw the first Tudor 'with

general applause and joy, in a kind of military election or recognition,

saluted King?'"

At first sight it differs but little. To see our subject in its proper

perspective we must emphasise the continuity of economic life between

1485 and 1642 as much as in the preceding pages we have emphasised the

novelty of some of its experiments. We must turn from Fitzherbert and

Hales to Arthur Young. We must set Latimer's lamentations over the decay

of the yeomanry side by side with the figures of Gregory King and the

boasts of Chamberlayne and Defoe. We must compare our sporadic

enclosures with the two thousand six hundred Enclosure Acts which were

passed between 1702 and 1810. The outward appearance of many English

villages at the Revolution would be quite unrecognisable to-day, but it

can have been but little altered from what it had been at the time of

the Peasants' Revolt. It could still be said that three-fifths of the

cultivated land of England was unenclosed. And if Piers Plowman had

dreamed for four centuries on Malvern Hills he might still have woken to

plough his half acre between the balks of a still open field, like that

"very wide field," with crooked ways butting upon it and a wicket-gate

on its shining horizon, through which Christian sped from Evangelist,

crying "Life, Life, Eternal Life."

Ought we, then, to say that the agrarian revolution of the sixteenth

century was insignificant, and that it has been magnified into

importance only by the rhetorical complaints of unskilful observers? The

answer has been given by implication in the preceding pages. The fact

that statistical evidence reveals no startling disturbance in area

enclosed or population displaced, is no bar to the belief that, both in

immediate consequences and in ultimate effects, the heavy blows dealt in

that age at the traditional organisation of agriculture were an episode

of the first importance in economic and social development. The

barometer which registers climatic variations yields no clue to their

influence on the human constitution, and the quantitative rule by which

we measure economic changes bends in our hands when we use it to

appraise their results. The difference between prosperity and distress,

or enterprise and routine, or security and its opposite, is scarcely

more susceptible of expression in figures than is the difference between

civilisation and barbarism itself. In the infinite complexity of human

relationships, with their interplay of law with economics, and of

economics with politics, and of all with the shifting hopes and fears,

baseless anticipations and futile regrets, of countless individuals, a

change which to the statistician concerned with quantities seems

insignificant, may turn a wheel whose motion sets a world of unseen

forces grinding painfully round into a new equilibrium. Not only our

estimate of the importance of social alterations, but their actual

importance itself, depends upon what we are accustomed to and what we

expect. Just as modern manufacturing nations groan over a reduction in

exports, which in the reign of Henry VIII. would have passed unnoticed,

or are convulsed by a rise in general prices, which, when expressed in

percentages, seems ridiculously small, so the stationary rural society

of Tudor England may well have been shaken to its core by agrarian

changes which, in a world where rural emigration is the rule, would

appear almost too minute to be recorded. If contemporaries, to whom the

very foundation of a healthy economic life seemed to be shattered,

underestimated the capacity of society for readjustment, they were not

mistaken in their supposition that the readjustment required would be so

vast and painful as to involve the depression of important orders of

men, and the recognition of new responsibilities by the State in the

agony of transition. If we are busy planting small holders to-day, it is

partly because sixteenth century Governments were so often busy with

them in vain. The crude barbarities of tramp ward and workhouse were

first struck out in an age when most of those who tramped and toiled,

who sat in stocks and were whipped from town to town, were not the

victims of trade depression or casual employment, but peasants thrown on

the labour market by the agrarian revolution.

For, in truth, the change which was coming upon the world in the guise

of mere technical improvements was vaster than in their highest hopes or

their deepest despondency the men of the Tudor age could have foreseen,

and its immediate effects on the technique of agriculture and the

standard of rural prosperity were but the tiny beginnings of movements

whose origins are overshadowed by their tremendous consequences. It is a

shallow view which has no interest to spare for the rivulet because it

is not yet a river. Though many tributaries from many sources must

converge before economic society assumes a shape that is recognisable as

modern, it is none the less true that in the sixteenth century we are

among the hills from which great waters descend. By 1642 the channels

which will carry some of them have been carved deep and sure. By that

time the expansion of the woollen industry has made it certain that

England will be a considerable manufacturing nation, and consequently

that the ancient stable routine of subsistence farming will gradually

give place to agricultural methods which swing this way and that, now

towards pasture, now towards arable, according to the fluctuations of

the market. It is certain that, sooner or later, the new and more

profitable economy of enclosure will triumph. It is certain that the

small holder will have a hard struggle to hold his own against the

capitalist farmer. It is certain that, owing to the substitution of

variable for fixed fines on admission to copyholds, and the conversion

of many copyholds into leases for years, a great part of the fruits of

economic progress will no longer be retained, as in the fifteenth

century, by the mass of the peasants, but will pass, in the shape of

increased payments for land, into the pockets of the great landed

proprietors. It is almost certain that to any new developments which may

be detrimental to them the peasants will be able to offer a much less

effective resistance than they have in the past. For the security of

many of their class has been undermined; the gulf which separates them

from the landed gentry, though still bridged by the existence of many

prosperous freeholders, has been widened; and, above all, the

destruction of the absolute monarchy has entrenched the great landlords

inexpugnably at the heart of government, both central and local, and has

made their power as great as their ambitions. Both from below and from

above they are unassailable. For a century and a half after the

Revolution they have what power a Government can have to make and ruin

England as they please.

If we cast our eye over the agrarian changes of our period, with a view

to grouping their main elements under a few easily distinguishable

categories, we do not find that they present themselves as a simple

series of economic sequences. Behind them all there is, it is true, the

fundamental economic fact of the decay of subsistence husbandry. The

movement away from the strict communal organisation of the open field

village was inevitable as soon as markets were sufficiently developed to

make agricultural experiments profitable, because experiments could not

easily be undertaken without to some extent individualising the methods

of cultivation. In particular, the grand innovation of substituting

pasture-farming for tillage, whether carried out on a large scale or on

a small, was only practicable if individuals were able to break away

from the established course of agriculture. But the relaxation of

village customs, which allowed a wider scope to individual initiative,

did not necessarily involve that formation of large estates out of

peasant holdings, which was the special note of the sixteenth century

problem, and in fact the gradual nibbling away of customary restrictions

went on to some degree among quite small men, long before the enclosure

of land by great capitalists became a serious grievance. In the

fourteenth century, and even earlier, holdings are becoming partible and

unequal, and strips are being interchanged for the purpose of more

convenient, because compacter, management. In the sixteenth century

there is a good deal of enclosure by the peasants themselves with a view

to better arable cultivation or to the more successful keeping of stock.

Nor must we forget the example of Kent, Essex, Devonshire,

Somersetshire, and Cornwall. Without raising the question whether the

predominance of small enclosures in the Western Counties is not partly

to be ascribed to peculiarities in their original settlement, we may say

without fear of contradiction that the early enclosures of Kent and

Essex are the outcome of the spread of commercial forces in those

seaboard counties at an earlier date than was possible in the inland

districts. Even in the more conservative parts of the country, like the

Midlands and Wiltshire, whose geographical position made them the last

to respond to the influence of trade its gradual extension was slowly,

and in isolated villages, bringing the same departure from the rigid

arrangements of mediæval agriculture which in the East of England had

developed much more swiftly. How far such enclosure by consent would

have proceeded if no other forces had come into play we cannot say. It

is not safe, however, to assume that, because in the eighteenth century

many villages seemed to observers like Arthur Young to be living in a

condition of organised torpor, therefore its effects in facilitating a

more economical utilisation of the land are to be dismissed as

negligible. Quite apart from the obvious bias given to Young's

observations by his questionable doctrine that a high pecuniary return

from the soil is the final criterion of successful agriculture, it may

well be the case that the decline in the condition of the peasantry,

which took place in the sixteenth century, discouraged initiative on the

part of small men, and that, since one agent in that decline had been a

movement which went by the name of enclosure, its effect was to make

them cling all the more closely to the established routine in those

parts of the country where they had not been violently shaken out of

it.

On such conjectures, however, we need not enter. Even if the movement

towards the rearrangement of holdings which has been traced among the

peasants themselves was insignificant, and if the larger capitalists

were the sole agents through whom a more alert and progressive agrarian

régime could be introduced, it is none the less the case that the

improvements in the technique of agriculture do not by themselves

account for the special social consequences which flowed from the

agrarian changes of the sixteenth century. The situation then is not at

all similar to that which arose at a later date, when small landholders

voluntarily threw up their holdings in order to engage in the more

profitable urban industries, and when yeomen like the Peels of their own

choice decided that the career of a cotton-spinner was more attractive

than that of a farmer. In the period which we have been discussing men

do not only leave the land; they are forced off it. Not only economic,

but legal, issues are involved, and the latter give a decisive twist to

the former. What made the new methods of agriculture not simply an

important technical advance in the utilisation of the soil, but the

beginning of a social revolution, was the insecurity of the tenure of

large numbers of the peasantry, in the absence of which they might

gradually have adapted themselves to the altered conditions, without any

overwhelming shock to rural life such as was produced by the evictions

and by the loss of rights of common. The way in which the economic

movement towards enclosure and pasture-farming is crossed, and its

consequences heightened, by the law of land tenure, is proved by the

comparative immunity of the freeholders from the worst forms of agrarian

oppression, by the fact that, even in the middle of the eighteenth

century, the purely economic conditions of much of England were by no

means unfavourable to small scale farming, and by the anxiety of

landlords to induce tenants who had estates of inheritance to surrender

them for leases. We cannot therefore agree with those writers who regard

the decline in the position of the smaller landed classes, which took

place in our period, as an inevitable step in economic progress, similar

to the decay of one type of industry before the competition of another.

If economic causes made a new system of farming profitable, it is none

the less true that legal causes decided by whom the profits should be

enjoyed. We have already pointed out that many customary tenants

practised sheep-farming upon a considerable scale, and it is not easy to

discover any economic reason why the cheap wool required for the

development of the cloth-manufacturing industry should not have been

supplied by the very peasants in whose cottages it was carded and spun

and woven. The decisive factor, which ruled out this method of meeting

the new situation created by the spread of pasture-farming, was the fact

that the tenure of the vast majority of small cultivation left them free

to be squeezed out by exorbitant fines, and to be evicted when the lives

for which most of them held their copies came to an end. It was their

misfortune that the protection given by the courts since the fifteenth

century to copyholders did not extend to more than the enforcement of

existing manorial customs. When, in our own day, the same causes which

raised the cry of depopulation in sixteenth century England have

operated in other countries, their influence has been circumscribed by

governmental power, which has stepped ready armed into the field, and

has turned customary titles into freeholds and cut back private

jurisdictions with a heavy hand. To find a parallel to the sufferings of

the English copyholders in the sixteenth century, we must turn to the

sweeping invasion of tenant right which at one time made almost every

Irishman into a Ket. But the comparison, incomplete in other respects,

is most incomplete in this, that even if Tudor Governments, moved by

considerations of national strength and order, would have helped the

peasants if they could, they could hardly have helped them materially if

they would, without a social and administrative revolution which was

unthinkable, and which, if carried out, could only have meant political

absolutism. Living, as they did, with the marks of villein tenure still

upon them, the small cultivators of our period were fettered by the

remnants of the legal rightlessness of the Middle Ages, without enjoying

the practical security given by mediæval custom, and felt the bitter

breath of modern commercialism, undefended by the protection of the

all-inclusive modern State which alone can make it tolerable.

For, indeed, it is as a link in the development of modern economic

relationships and modern conceptions of economic expediency, that the

changes which we have been considering possess their greatest interest.

The department of economic life in which, both for good and evil, the

modern spirit comes in the sixteenth century most irresistibly to its

own, is not agriculture but foreign commerce, company promoting, and the

money market, where the relations of man to man are already conceived of

as the necessary parts of a vast and complicated mechanism, whose iron

levers thrust the individual into actions for the consequences of which

he is not responsible, and under whose pressure unknown is driven by

unknown to do that which he did not intend. But if the intoxication with

dreams of boundless material possibilities, the divorce of economic from

moral considerations, the restless experiment and initiative and

contempt for restrictions that fetter them, which are the marks of that

spirit's operations, are never quite so victorious in agriculture as

they are in finance, it is nevertheless in transforming agrarian

conditions that its nature and characteristics are most impressively

revealed, not because it is felt there first or proceeds there furthest,

but because the material which it encounters is so dense, so firmly

organised, so intractable, that changes, which in a more mobile

environment pass unnoticed, are seen there in high relief against the

stable society which they undermine. In truth the agrarian revolution is

but a current in the wake of mightier movements. The new world, which is

painfully rising in so many English villages, is a tiny mirror of the

new world which, on a mightier stage, is ushering modern history in amid

storms and convulsions. The spirit which revolts against authority,

frames a science that will subdue nature to its service, and thrusts the

walls of the universe asunder into space, is the same--we must not

hesitate to say it--as that which on the lips of grasping landlords and

stubborn peasants wrangles over the respective merits of "several" and

"common," weighs the profits of pasture in an economic scale against the

profits of arable, batters down immemorial customs, and, regarding

neither the honour of God nor the welfare of this realm of England,

brings the livings of many into the hands of one. To the modern

economist, who uses an ancient field map to trace the bewildering

confusion of an open field village beneath the orderly lines of the

dignified estate which lies upon it like a well written manuscript on

the crabbed scrawl of a palimpsest, the wastefulness of the old régime,

compared with the productiveness of the new, may well seem too obvious

to leave room for any discussion of their relative advantages; and

indeed the accession of material wealth which followed the first feeble

approach towards the methods of modern agriculture is unquestionable.

But the difference between such a standpoint and that of our peasants is

not one of methods only but of objects, not of means but of ends. We can

imagine that to an exposition of the advantages of large scale farming

and enclosure, such as many stewards must have made to the juries of

many manors, they would have answered something after this

fashion:--"True, our system is wasteful, and fruitful of many small

disputes. True, a large estate can be managed more economically than a

small one. True, pasture-farming yields higher profits than tillage.

Nevertheless, master steward, our wasteful husbandry feeds many

households where your economical methods would feed few. In our

ill-arranged fields and scrubby commons most families hold a share,

though it be but a few roods. In our unenclosed village there are few

rich, but there are few destitute, save when God sends a bad harvest,

and we all starve together. We do not like your improvements which ruin

half the honest men affected by them. We do not choose that the ancient

customs of our village should be changed!" Such differences lie too deep

to be settled by argument, whether they appear in the sixteenth century

or in our own day.

APPENDIX I

(I)

[LETTER FROM A BAILIFF, ILLUSTRATING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN FARMER AND

LORD, AND DIFFICULTIES WITH FREEHOLDERS]

_Merton MSS., No. 4381_

Good Sir lett me intreat you yf the colledge determyne to make survay

this springe of the lands at Kibworth and Barkby to send Mr. Kay or me

word a month or 3 weeks before your coming that we may have Beare and

other necessaries. And I desire you to gather up all evidences that may

be needful for ye Lordshipp, for all testimony will be little enough,

the colledge land is soo mingled with Mr. Pochin's frehold and others in

our towne. There is an awarde for the keepinge in of the old wol close

in our ffields for [from?] Mr. Pochin's occupation, very needefulle for

the ynhabitants yf that awarde can be founde at the colledge where yt

was loste.

The composition betwixt Mr. Stanford and the towne wold we very gladly

see, yt is for tythe willows and partinge grasse, wee thinke that they

challenge more than of right they should have. I pray you gather upp

what evidence you can for the rents due to the college out of [?], for

when some of them are denied I know not where to distraine for them.

I pray you also give order that the evidences may be sought up for the

lands lyinge in Barkby Thorpend alias Thurmaston in our parish and

parcell of our lordship of the rent per ann. 3/4d. as alsoe the

evidences of Peppers frehold rent per annum 1d. This rent is denied and

not paidd this 20 yeares, and I cannot learne where I should distraine

for the same, neither will he pay it unlesse he may knowe for what he

payeth the same; he is towards the land [?], and his frehold lyeth in

Thurmaston ut supra. And soe with remembrance of my duty desiringe you

to pardon my breach of promise for the lease at last Michaelmas, and I

hope before this yeare be ended to be as good as my worde, yf it will

please you and the company to spare me with your favours untill then,

ffor God is my judge I did not breake my promise wilfully nor willingly,

but necessity hath noe law. I have lost this sum̃er 6 horses and was

forced to buy in these for my carte. Day [?] groweth scant, therefore I

must spare to write, only hoping and desiringe your favour at this tyme

I humbly take my leave and rest as I have ever beene your wo{ps} at

commandment. Henry Sayer.

Barkby, February 26{th}, 1608.

To the w{ll} his very singular

ffriend Mr. Brent subwarden

at Merton College in Oxon.

(II)

[IN ILLUSTRATION OF MANORIAL CUSTOMS, _cf._ pp. 124-131 and 297-301.]

_Manor of Aldeburgh, R.O., Misc. Bks., Treas. of Receipt, Vol. 163,

Henry VIII._

The said Manor has one lete by the year ... and hath also the Court from

3 weeks to 3 weeks called the 3 weeks Court.

Item.--Every tenant payeth for a cottage ground not

buylded if it conteyn 80 ft. every way 1d.

Item.--Every tenant payeth for half a cottage which

is 40 ft. every way 1/2d.

Item.--For every curtilage containing 40 ft. or under 1/2d.

Item.--For every fyne of every cotage buylded 2/-

Item.--For every fyne of every cotage ground unbuilded 1/-

Item.--Every tenant that taketh any cotage ground to

build upon if he build not within three years he

forfeiteth the ground by him taken.

Item.--Every tenant having a cotage or parcel of a cotage

wherein any tenant dwelleth and keepeth a fire,

they owe to pay for the same a Russhe hen or

else 2d. which is for the rushes that they

gather upon the lord's common there.

Item.--If 2 tenants dwell in one house having 2 severall

rooms in the same they to pay yearlie 2 rush

hennes or 4d. for them.

Item.--Every freeholder having by copy any arable land

or pasture ground in the field payeth yearly

for the same at terms accustomed the rent of

old time due at [Michaelmas & Easter] by even

porcions; and for all fines cessed upon the

tenaunts for land in the fields is at the will of

the lord, as well at the alienations made as at

the death of any tenant.

Item.--The tenants and copyholders shall do no waste

upon the lord's common ne otherwise upon pain

of forfeiture of their tenements.

Item.--All the freeholders shall [pay] double their rent

at every death or alienation made, as relief.

Item.--Certain freeholders and copyholders pay heriot

after the death of any tenant.

Item.--Neither the freeholders nor copyholders shall not

surcharge the lord's comon but to keep after

the rate of his tenure. If he otherwise do he

shall be amerced.

Item.--No man shall encroche on lord's lands on pain of

forfeiture of his tenure.

Item.--Every boat going to the sea on fishing and having

4 men therein payeth yearly to the lord 8d.,

and 6 men 12d., and so after the rate, for

each man 2d., which is by a late composition.

Item.--There is a service paid by certain tenants there

called Oryell, which is for the liberty of the

common that tenants have in the said lordship.

Item.--The lords of Aldeburgh have the moietie of all

wreck of the sea being cast on land or found

near the shore within the limits of the same

lordship, and the finder thereof hath the other

half.

(III)

[IN ILLUSTRATION OF THE PEASANTS' GRIEVANCES]

_Holkham MSS., Fulmordeston MSS., Bdle. 6_

To the Right Honble. Sir Edward Cooke, Knight, Attorney-Generall unto

the King's Ma{tie}.

Humblie sheweth unto your good lord yo{r} poore and dayley orators

Thomas Ffawcett, Thomas Humphry, and Nicolas Farnes [?] yo{r} worshippes

tenants of the Manor of Ffulmordeston cum Croxton in the Duchie of

Lancaster and the moste parte of the tenants of the same Manor that

whereas yo{r} said orators in the Hillary Term laste commenced suite in

the Duchie Courte against Thomas Odbert and Roger Salisbury, Gent., who

have enclosed their grounds contrary to the custom of the Manor, whereby

your wor. loseth your shack due out of those grounds, common lane or way

for passengers is stopped up, and your worshippes poore orators lose

their accustomed shack in those grounds, and the said Roger Salisbury

taketh also the whole benefit of theire comons from them, keepinge there

his sheepe in grasinge and debarringe them of their libertie there which

for comon right belongeth unto them:--

Which suite and controversie, forasmuch as the same manor is nowe come

unto your lordshippe's hands by his most excellent Ma{ties} gracious

disposinge thereof, youre poore oratours thought it theire duty to

impart and lay open unto your wor{pp}, and doe most humblie pray and

beseech your wor{pp} that they may have your lawfull favour herein for

the furtherance of their proceedings in this theire suite of lawe, so

that the greatness of the said parties adversant unto them, on which

they much relie, may not be the more strengthened by your worship's

favour, whereby your poore orators may have and enjoy theire former

liberties in peace, and be the better able to maintaine themselves in

their callings rights and dueties which unto your wor. is belonging and

due uppon their Tenures in the saide Mannor.

And according to theire bounden duety your sayde poor orators shall

dayly pray to God for your wor. in all encrease of prosperitie and

worshippe long to continew.

21 Aug. 1604. I have considered of this peticion,

and seeinge I am lord of the mannor

I will do my best endeavour upon

hearing of both parties to end the

controversie and the defend{ts} need

not appeare nor the cause to proceed

in the duchy.

EDW. COKE.

(IV)

[IN ILLUSTRATION OF THE PEASANTS' GRIEVANCES]

_S. P. Dom. Charles I. Vol. 151, No. 38._

To the Kings most Excellent Ma{tie}.

The humble peticoɳ of yo{r} Ma{te} poore and distressed Tennants of

yo{r} Mannor of North Wheatley in the Countie of Nottingham belonging to

yo{r} Ma{ties} Duchie of Lancaster.

Most humbly shewing. That yo{r} poore Subiects have tyme out of mynd byn

Coppieholders of lands of inheritaunce to them and their heires for ever

of the Mannor aforesaid, and paid for every Oxgang of land xvj{s}

viijᵭ rent, and paid heretofore vpon every Alienacoɳ xijᵭ for

every Oxgang, but nowe of late, about 4{0} Jacobi by an order of the

Duchie Court they paie ij{s} s vj{d} d vpon euery Alienacoɳ for every

acre, w{ch} ch amounteth nowe to 45{s} an Oxgang.

And whereas some of yo{r} Tennants of the said Mannor have heretofore

held and doe nowe hold certayne Oxganges of lands belonging to the said

Manor by Coppie from xxj yeres to xxj yeares, and have paid for the same

vpon eⱱy Coppy ij{s}, and for every Oxgang xvj{s} viij{d} ᵱ

Anɳ; they nowe of late by an order in the Duchie Court hold the same

by lease vnder the Duchie Seale, and paie vj{li} xiij{s} iiij{d} for a

Fyne vpon every lease and xvj{s} viij{d} rent w{th} an increase of vj{s}

viij{d} more towards yo{r} Ma{ties} prouision.

And whereas in 11{0} Edw: 4{0} yo{r} peticon͠ers did by Copy of Court

Roll hold the demeanes of the said Mannor for tearme of yeres att ix{li}

vj{s} viij{d} ᵱ anɳ, they afterwards in 6{0} Eliz: held the same

demeanes by lease vnder the seale of the duchie for xxj yeares, att the

like rent; and Tenne yeres before their lease was expired, they ymployed

one M{r} Markham in trust to gett their lease renewed, whoe procured a

newe lease of the demeanes in his owne name for xxj yeres att the old

rent, and afterwards contrary to the trust Comitted to him increased and

raised the rent thereof vpon the Tenants to his owne privat benefitt to

56{li} ᵱ annư.

And whereas the woods belonging to the said Mannor hath within the

memory of Man byn the only Com̃on belonging to the said Towne, paying

yerelie for the herbage and pannage thereof vj{s} viijᵭ, they nowe

alsoe hold the same vnder the Duchie Seale att xvj{li} li xvj{s} ijᵭ

ᵱ annư.

And whereas the Court Rolls and Records of the said Mannor, have alwaies

heretofore byn kept vnder severall Locks and Keys, whereof yo{r} Ma{ts}

Stewards have kepte one key and yo{r} Ma{ties} Tennant (in regard it

Concerned their ᵱticuler inheritances) have kept an other keye. But

nowe they are att the pleasure of the Stewards and Officers transported

from place to place, and the nowe purchasers doe demaund the Custody of

them, w{ch} may be most preiudiciall to yo{r} Ma{te} te poore Tennants.

Now for asmuch as yo{r} Matie: hath byn pleased to sell the said Mannor

vnto the Cittie of London, whoe have sold the same vnto M{r} John

Cartwright and M{r} Tho: Brudnell gent: And for that yo{r} petico͠ners

and Tennants there (beinge in nomber Two hundred poore men, and there

being xj of yo{r} Ma{te} Tennants there that beare Armes for the defence

of yo{r} Ma{te} Realme, and xij that paie yo{r} Ma{tie} Subsidies

fifteens and Loanes) are all nowe like to be vtterlie vndon, in Case the

said M{r} Cartwright and M{r} Brudnell should (as they saie they will)

take awaie from yo{r} Tennants the said demeanes and woods after

thexpiracoɳ of their leases, and that yo{r} poore Tennants should be

left to the wills of the purchasers for their Fynes, or that the Records

and Court rowles should not be kept as in former tymes in some private

place, where the purchasers and Tennants maie both have the custody and

viewe of them as occasion shall serve.

Maie it therefore please yo{r} Sacred Maj{tie} That such order may be

taken in the premisses for the reliefe of yo{r} poore Tennants of the

Mannor aforesaid That they maie not be dispossessed of the demeanes and

leases, and that they may knowe the Certayntie of their Fynes for the

Coppieholds demeanes and leases and maie have the Court Rolls & Records

safely kepte as formerly they have byn. And that yo{r} Ma{tie} wilbe

further pleased to referr the Consideracoɳ hearing, ordering and

determynacoɳ of the premisses vnto such Noble men, or other 4 gent:

of esteeme in the Country whome yo{r} Ma{tie} shalbe pleased to appoint,

that are neighbours vnto yo{r} Ten{ã}nts, and doe best knowe their

estate & greevances. That they or any two or three of them may take such

order, and soe Cettell the busynes betweene the purchasers & yo{r} poore

Tennants, as they in their wisdoms and discressions shall judge to be

reasonable and fitting, or to Certifie yo{r} Ma{tie} howe they fynd the

same, and in whose defalt it is they cannot determyne thereof. And yo{r}

poore Tennn͠ts as in all humble dutie bound will daielie pray for yo{r}

Ma{tie}.

Whitehall this 10 of Novemb{r} 1629.

His Ma[~] is graciously pleased to referre the consideration of this

request to the Com̃ission{rs} for sale of his lands, that vpon the

report vnto his Ma[~] of their opinion and advise his Ma[~] may give

further order therein. DORCHESTER.

[Endorsed.] Divers Tenants of his Ma{te} mañor of North Wheatley

in the Countie of Nottingham.

(V)

[PAPER ON THE EVILS OF ENCLOSURE, BY AN APPLICANT FOR GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYMENT]

_S. P. Dom. Charles I. Vol. 206, No. 70_

Right Ho{le}

Uppon the ix{th} of July and also the 23{d} of Septemb{r} I deliⱱd

petitions vnto yo{r} Lo{pp} desireinge to shew y{e} great hurt y{t} ys

done to his Ma{tie} & y{e} land by inclosiers w{ch} decay tillage, &

depopulate townes in ye best naturall corne countryes, w{ch} affore

supplyed the wants of others every way beinge in y{e} middle of y{e}

land, for yt their is dearths vppon any vnseasonable seedes tyme or

springe, and is a great cause of decayinge of trades and vndoeinge many

thousands w{ch} before lived well & now for want of Imployment & dearth

of corne, y{er} is multitudes of poor & vagrants complayninge of their

miseryes; and are dangerous to y{e} peacable state of y{e} land, by

y{er} desire of troubles to revenge them selves. Ye know what lamentable

broyles & bloodshedinges were betwixt ye gileadites & ephramites &

Israelites & benjamites for ye levits wife & Abia & Jeroboam & Ahay &

Peka where was slaine above 700,000 men of warr & many of other sorts,

w{ch} was more crewell then by any foraigne enymyes, & wee have

incrochinge enemyes y{t} would take y{er} advantage vppon such

opertunytyes as y{ei} did when y{e} leaguers in France made warrs

against theire Kinge ... for many are of oppinyon that ye Kinges Ma{tie}

nor ye lordes doe not truly vnderstand ye secret mischief es w{ch} is

done by covetous men by ye cuninge misterie of depopulation nor ye

oppressions and causes of dearthes and poverty nor know y{e} readyest

waye for remedyes, y{et} beinge as unacquainted in tyllage & husbandrye

as in other arts: as appeared by y{e} booke of orders y{e} last yere

w{ch} shewed that his Ma{tie} and the lordes had a good desire to remedy

the dearth but y{e} corn masters & malsters &c. used such closse

dealinges y{t} y{e} dearth was worse as y{e} like in former tymes: soe

that no orders will ease dearthes but by causeing more tyllage & y{t}

would make plenty & then every man will sell willinglye....

Also many are much deceived by inclosier because there are countries are

enclosed & be rich, but these were inclosed when there were but few

people & these maintain tyllage husbandry & hospitallyty & sett people

on work & have tenements for labourers, these are lyable to musters &

all services requirable for ye Kinge & country & taxes & charitable

collections but y{e} depopulators in ye champian countryes destroy all

meanes of doeinge help or servise for ye Kinge & country what neede

soever come.

And although this was the fruitfullest somer that was in many yeares,

yet corne holds almost duble price to that which most men expected,

because rich men will sell but litle corne before they see the strength

of May past & if corne does not prosper then they will keep it expecting

a dearth the next yere. Another cause is that all men see how tyllag is

yearly decayed in the best champian countryes & people & drunknes

increased & no hope of remedy because of y{e} inyquity of y{e} tyme &

gentlemen & other have great friends & favour & may doe what they list.

And maltsters & ingrossers buy corn as fast as they can, & doe use wayes

to have it brought home what lawes or orders to the contrary expectinge

a dearth if ye next spring prove not very fruitfull. And if his Ma{ty} &

ye lords doe not take some speedy course to cause more tyllage there

beinge good ground enough before wete seeds tymes come, then will dearth

ensue. And y{n} ye poore hungry people may cry ... where ys corne; And

y{n} it will be too late to remedy dearths by any lawes or orders. And

now it might be done there beinge aboundance of old resty fatt ground in

y{e} champian countryes which if it were plowed & sowne w{t} corne, no

wett seeds tyme could hurt it soe that they would yield corne to supply

all wants beinge in y{e} midle of y{e} land my lord if you please to

give me leave I will give you y{e} names of many decayed townes in ye

counties of Leic{s} & Northampt, &c., and who decayed them & now the

Lord hath swept away y{e} inclosiers & their posterity out of all &

strangers have their houses & pastures. And my desire is y{t} yo{r}

Lo{p} might be acquainted with y{e} country dissorders & the remydes to

reforme y{e} evills and then ye may better judge of them & acquaint his

Ma{tie} & y{e} lords, that by his & their good directions, we shall have

plenty and bring much more to his ma{ties} treasures & the whole

land....

Also I doe humbly intreate yo{r} Lo{ps} favor to let me shew how there

may be ymploym{t} for people & wealth to ye Kinge & ye Kingdome & plenty

& cheapnes & have ingrossers frustrated of their game & have lesse wast

of corne in ale & beer & less sinninge: & lesse dangers & soe ye lorde

keepe you: w{th} my humble sute, to accept of my poore desires for ye

deede, with my attendance vpon your Lop{s} pleasure.

Your Lop{s} to Com̃and

[Endorsed:--] RICHARD SANDES.

Sandes touching Indigence.

(VI)

[IN ILLUSTRATION OF ACTION AGAINST ENCLOSURES BY JUSTICES]

_S. P. Dom. Charles I. Vol. 185, No. 86_

Most Honor{ble}

Wee have caused a view to bee made according to yo{r} Lo{ps} Late

Lrẽs of all _Inclosures and conv{r}sions of Arrable Land to meadow

and pasture_, w{ch} are now in hand or haue beene made w{th}in two

yeares Last past, And wee haue signifyed yo{r} Lo{ps} direcco͠ns vnto

such ᵱsons as are causers of any such Inclosures & Conⱱtions and have

given them notice that they ought not to ᵱcede w{th} hedgeing or

dytchinge in of any such grounds but to Let them so rest vntill wee

shall have furder orders from yo{r}: hon{ors}: And wee further conceaue

that if depopulaco͠ns may bee reformed it will bring a great good to

the whole Kingƌ: for where houses are pulled downe the People are forced

to seeke new habitations. In other townes & cuntryes by meanes whereof

those Townes where they get a setling are pestred so as they are hardly

able to live one by an other, and it is likewise the cause of erecting

new Cottages vppon the wasts and other places who are not able to

releive themselves nor any such townes able to sustaine or set them on

worke w{ch} Causes Rogues & vagabonds to encrease. Moreover it doth

appeare that in those townes w{ch} are depopulated the People being

expelled There are few or none Left to serve the King when Souldjours

are to bee lodged to appeare at Musters for his Ma{te} seruice w{ch} is

also a cause that poore Townes where many people are, are put to greater

charg in setting forth of souldjours & depopulated Townes are much eased

and the Subsidie decayed. All w{ch} wee humbly submit to yo{r} Lo{ps}

great wisdome. And will eⱱ rest.

At yo{r} hon{ble} service

humbly to bee comaunded

Fran: Thornhagh Ro: Sutton vic.

Matth Palmer

W. Cooper Gervas Fevery

Tym: Pilsy Gilᵬt Millington

W̴iɫl Coke Will Moseley

Jo: Woods

Wee doe herew{th}

ᵱsent vnto yo{r}

Hon{rs} the names of

all such as have

made any Inclosures

or conⱱsions w{th} in two

yeares Last past or that

were in hand to make the same.

[Addressed:] To the right hon{ble} the Lords

of his Mat{s} hon{ble} Privy

Counsell humbly present these.

[Endorsed:] Feb. 1630. From the County of

Nottingham touching Inclosures.

The inconveniencies of Depopulation.

[No Enclosures]

[This letter is printed by Miss Leonard, _Trans. Royal Hist. Soc._, New

Series, vol. xix. She refers it to Norfolk, which is apparently a

mistake.]

(VII)

[IN ILLUSTRATION OF ACTION AGAINST ENCLOSURES BY JUSTICES]

_S. P. Dom. Charles I. Vol. 206, No. 71_

Lincoln

An abstract of such depopulators as have bene hetherto dealt

withall in Lincolnshyre, & receyued their pardon.

The persons in number 9

The som?e of their fynes 300_l_

The number of houses by bond to bee erected 33

The tyme for the erecco? within one yere.

The number of farmes to be contynued that

are now standing 22

The fynes are already payd.

Sir Charles Hussey Kn{t.} Fyne, 80ɫ. Bond of 200 ᶆkes, w{th} Condicoɳ

to sett up in Homingtoɳ 8 farmhouses w{th} Barnes &c. and

to lay to eⱱye house 30 acres of land, and to keepe 10 acres

thereof yearlye in tyllage.

S{r} Henry Ayscough Knt. Fyne, 20ɫ.

Bond 200 ᶆkes. To sett vp 8 farmhouses in Blibroughe

w{th} 30 acres to eⱱy farme, and 12 thereof to be kept

yearlie in tylthe.

S{r} Hamond Whichcoote Knt. Fyne, 40ɫ.

Bond 200 ᶆkes. To set up 8 farmhouses &c. in Harpswell,

w{th} 40 acres to eưy house; and 16 thereof in

tyllage.

S{r} Edward Carre Kt. Fyne, 30ɫ.

Bond 100ɫ. To sett vp 2 Farmhouses in Branswell, and

1 in Aswarby w{th} 40 acres to eưy house, 16 in tyllage.

S{r} Willᶆ Wraye, Kn{t.} Fyne, 30ɫ.

Bond 100ɫ. To sett up in Graynesby 2 farmhouses w{th} 2

acres at least to either, 10 in tyllage & to contynue 2

farmes more in Grainsby & 3 in Newbell & Longworth,

w{th} the same quantity, as is now used them, a third ᵱte

in tylthe.

͠

S{r} Edmund Bussye K{t.} Fyne, 10ɫ.

Bond 100ɫ. To set vp one farmhouse in Thorpe w{th} 40

acres, 14 thereof in tyllage, And to contynue 14 farmes

in Hedor, Oseby, Aseby, & Thorpe, as they now are, w{th} a

third ᵱte in tyllage.

Richard Roseto{r} Esq{ṛ} Fyne, 10ɫ.

Bond 50ɫ. To set vp one farme in Lymber w{th} 40 acres,

16 in tyllage, and to continewe 1 farme in Limber, and 2

in Sereby, vt sup{ạ}

Robert Tirwhilt Esq{ṛ} Fyne, 10ɫ. Bond 50ɫ.

To set vp one farme in Camtringt{a}un w{th} 40 acres. 16 in

tyllage.

John Fredway gent. Fyne, 10ɫ. Bond 40ɫ.

To set up one farme in Gelson w{th} 30 acres, 10 thereof in

tyllage.

[Endorsed:] Lincolɳ Depopulatoɽ Fyned & pardoned and the

reformacons to bee made.

[No date]

(VIII)

[COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE PROCEDURE OF ARCHBISHOP LAUD IN DEALING WITH

ENCLOSURES]

_S. P. Dom. Charles I. Vol. 499, No. 10_

That vpon the Commission of enquiry after depopulacoñ The Lord

Archbishopp of Canȶ and other the Commissioners at the solicitacoñ of

Tho: Hussey gent. did direct a leɽ in nature of a Coᶆission to

certain persons w{th} in the County of Wilts to certifie what number of

Acres in South Marston in the ᵱish of Highworth were converted from

arable to pasture and what number of ploughes were laid downe &c.

Wherevpon the Archdeacon with two others did retourne Certificate, to

the Lord Archbishopp &c.

Upon this Certificate, M{r} Anth: Hungerford, M{r} Southby with 15

others were convented before his Grace and the other Commissioners at

the Councell Board, where being charged with Conversion.

M{r} Anth: Hungerford & M{r} Southby with some others did averre that

they had made noe conversion, other then they had when they came to be

owners thereof.

His Grace said that they were to looke noe further then to the owners,

And Certificate was retourned that soe many Acres were converted and soe

many ploughes let downe.

They alladged that this Certificate was false & made without their

privity, and therefore M{r} Hungerford in the behalfe of the rest did

desire that they might not be iudged upon that Certificate. But that

they might haue the like favour as M{r} Hussey had, to have Ceɽs of

the same nature directed to other Commissioners, or a Commission if it

might be granted to examine vpon oath whereby the trueth might better

appeare.

His Grace replyed to M{r} Hungerford since you desire it & are soe

earnest for it you shall not have it.

They did offer to make prove that since the conversion there were more

habitacoɳs of men of ability & fewer poore. And that whereas the King

had before 4 or 5 souldiers of the Trayned Band he had nowe 9 there.

That the Impropriacoɳ was much better to be lett.

His Grace said to the rest of the Lords, wee must deale with these

genȶ as with those of Tedbury to take 150ɫ fine, and to lay

open the inclosures.

Which they refusing to doe they were there threatned with an

informacoñ to be brought ag{t} them in the Starrchamᵬ And

accordingly were within a shorte tyme after by the said M{r} Hussey

served with sub penas at M{r} Attorney his suite in the Starr chamber:

And this as M{r} Hussey told M{r} Hungf{d} was done by my Lo: Archbp his

command.

[Endorsed:] Depopulation--M{r} Hungerford & M{r} Southby [1641].

APPENDIX II

TABLE I (p. 25)

This table is based on documents relating to the following manors:--

1. Northumberland.

Acklington (1567, _Northumberland County History_, vol. v. pp. 367-8);

Buston (1567, _ibid._, vol. v. p. 209); Thirston (1567, _ibid._, vol.

vii. pp. 305-6); Birling (1567, _ibid._, vol. v. pp. 200-1); Amble

(1608, _ibid._, vol. v. p. 281); Hexham (1608, _ibid._, vol. iii. pp.

86-104).

2. Lancashire.

Warton (Hen. VIII., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf. 19, No.

7, ff. 79-87); Whyttington (Hen. VIII., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen.

Ser., Portf. 19, No. 7, ff. 47-9); Ashton (Hen. VIII., R.O. Rentals and

Surveys, Portf. 19, No. 7, ff. 69-72); Overton (4 Eliz. R.O. Duchy of

Lanc., Special Commission, No. 67); Widnes (10 Eliz. R.O. Duchy of

Lanc., Special Commission, No. 181); Cartmel (Hen. VIII.(?) R.O. Rentals

and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf. 22, No. 75); Rochdale (1626, from

information kindly supplied by Lieut.-Colonel Fishwick of Rochdale, from

a Survey in the Chetham Library, Manchester), Lands of Cockersand Abbey

(1501, _Chetham Miscellanies_, vol. iii.).

3. Staffordshire.

Barton (Ph. and M.(?) R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf. 14,

No. 70); Burton Bondend (1597, R.O. Land Rev. Misc. Bks., vol. 185, ff.

70-74); Drayton Basset (1579, R.O. Land Rev. Misc. Bks., vol. 185, ff.

54-68); Wotton in Elishall (1 Ed. VI., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen.

Ser., Portf. 14, No. 83); Agarsley (1611, R.O. Rentals and Surveys,

Duchy of Lancs., Bdle. 8, No. 29).

4. Leicestershire.

Ulverscroft Priory (31 Hen. VIII., R.O. Land Rev. Misc. Bks., vol. 182,

f. 35); Broughton Astley (Eliz. R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser.,

Bdle. 10, No. 4); Barkby (Hen. VIII., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Roll

382); Stapleford (10 Eliz., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Duchy of Lanc.,

Portf. 6, No. 15); Priory of Launde (31 Hen. VIII, R.O. Land Rev. Misc.

Bks. 182, f. 1); College of St. Mary, Leicester (1595, R.O. Rentals,

Duchy of Lanc. 6/12); Garradon Abbey (Hen. VIII., R.O. Augm. Off., Misc.

Bks. 403, f. 123); Kibworth Beauchamp (1 & 2 Ph. and M., R.O. Land Rev.

Misc. Bks. 182, f. 284); Kibworth Harcourt (1636, Merton MSS., Book

labelled Kibworth and Barkby, 1636).

5. Northamptonshire.

Duston (3 Eliz., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Portf. 13, No. 23);

Yelvertoft (11 Eliz., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Portf. 13, No. 52);

Warmington and Eaglethorpe (30 Eliz., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Portf.

13, No. 21); Brigstock (4 James I., R.O. Land Rev. Misc. Bks., vol. 221,

f. l); Higham Ferrers (8 James I., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Portf. 13,

No. 34); Paulspurie, _alias_ Westpury (32 Hen. VIII., R.O. Rentals and

Surveys, vol. 419, f. 3).

6. Norfolk.

Ormesby (7 Hen. VIII., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf. 22,

No. 18); Barney (29 Hen. VIII., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser.,

Portf. 26, No. 57); Great Walsingham (29 Hen. VIII., _ibid._); Gunthorpe

(29 Hen. VIII., _ibid._); Skerning (Ed. VI., R.O. Rentals and Surveys,

Gen. Ser., Portf. 3, No. 23); Metherwolde (1575, R.O. Duchy of Lanc.,

Rentals and Surveys, Bdle. 7, No. 29_a_); Brisingham (31 Eliz., R.O.

Misc. Bks., Land Rev., vol. 220, f. 220); Aylsham (James I., R.O. Misc.

Bks., Augm. Off., vol. 360, f. 1); Scratbye Bardolphes (date uncertain,

R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf. 12, No. 52); Burghe Vaux

(1620, R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf. 12, No. 52); Castons

(_c._ 1620(?), R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf. 12, No. 52 p.

10d); Massingham (Hen. VIII.(?), R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser.,

Portf. 30, No. 25); Northendall (date uncertain, R.O. Rentals and

Surveys, Roll 478, m. 3); Drayton Hall (date uncertain, R.O. Rentals and

Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf. 20, No. 53); East Dereham (1649, R.O.

Parliamentary Surveys, Norfolk, No. 10); West Lexham (1595, Holkham

MSS., West Lexham MSS., No. 87); Longham Hall and Gunton (1611, Holkham

MSS., Tittleshall Bks., No. 62); Longham and Watlington (1611, Holkham

MSS., Tittleshall Bks., No. 62); Watlington and Priors (1611, Holkham

MSS., Tittleshall Bks., No. 62); Billingford (1565, Holkham MSS.,

Billingford and Bintry MSS., Bdle. No. 9); Foxley (1568, Holkham MSS.,

Billingford and Bintry MSS., Bdle. No. 9); Peakhall (1578, Holkham MSS.,

Tittleshall Bks., No. 12); Wellingham (1611, Holkham MSS., Tittleshall

Bks., No. 62); Tittleshall Newhall (Holkham MSS., Tittleshall Bks., No.

62). I have included one manor (R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser.,

Portf. 3, No. 21), of which I have mislaid the name.

7. Suffolk.

Snape (Hen. VIII., R.O. Misc. Bks., Treas. of Receipt, vol. 163, f.

187); Ashfield (Hen. VIII., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf.

14, No. 85); Otley (Hen. VIII., R.O. Misc. Bks., Treas. of Receipt, vol.

163, f. 145); Rodstrete and Brimdishe (Ed. VI., R.O. Misc. Bks., Augm.

Off., vol. 414, f. 19-22); Dennington (Ed. VI., R.O. Misc. Bks., vol.

414, f. 22b); Harrolds in Cretingham (Ed. VI., R.O. Aug. Off., vol. 414,

f. 25b); Stratford juxta Higham (17 James I., R.O. Duchy of Lanc.,

Rentals and Surveys, 9/13); Denham (date uncertain, R.O. Rentals and

Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf. 27, No. 32); Dunstall (date uncertain, R.O.

Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf. 27, No. 32); Dalham (date

uncertain, R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf. 27, No. 32);

Kentford (date uncertain, R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf.

27, No. 32); Nedham (date uncertain, R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen.

Ser., Portf. 27, No. 32); Desnage Talmaye, and Cressness[?] in Gaseleye

(date uncertain, R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf. 27, No.

32); Higham (date uncertain, R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf.

27, No. 32).

8. Wiltshire, Somerset, and Devon.

All are contained in the _Surveys of the Lands of William, Earl of

Pembroke_, published by the Roxburgh Club, and edited by Straton,

1565-1573. There are twenty-seven manors in Wiltshire, four in

Somersetshire, and one in Devonshire.

9. Hampshire.

Crondal, and Sutton Warblington (_Crondal Records_, Part I., Baigent).

10. Ten other manors in the South of England.

Castle Combe (Wilts, 1454, Scrope, _History of Castle Combe_); Ibstone

(Bucks, 1483, Merton MSS., No. 5902); Cuxham (Oxford, 1483, Merton MSS.,

No. 5902); Malden (Surrey, 1496, Merton MSS., Survey of Malden); Aspley

Guise (Bedford, 1542, from information kindly supplied by Mr. G.H.

Fowler, of Aspley Guise); Ewerne (Dorset, 1568, _Topographer and

Genealogist_, vol i.); Edgeware (Middlesex, 1597, All Souls Estate

Maps); Kingsbury (Middlesex, 1597, All Souls Estate Maps); Gamlingay

Merton (Cambridge, 1601, Merton Estate Maps); Gamlingay Avenells

(Cambridge, 1601, Merton Estate Maps).

* * * * *

The chief criticisms which may be made upon this table are:--

(i) Some of the documents from which the figures are taken are separated

from each other by a very long interval of time, so that they do not all

represent approximately the same stage of agrarian development. This is

a disadvantage. It is possible, for example, that, if the manor of

Rochdale could be examined in 1526 instead of in 1626, it would be found

that the proportion of copyholders to leaseholders was higher than it is

at the later date. This defect, however, is perhaps not so great as to

outweigh the value of the general picture of the relative proportion of

different classes given by the table. A great majority of the documents

from which it is compiled belong to the sixteenth century, and are dated

as follows: Those of 10 manors are of an uncertain date, those of 3 fall

between 1450 and 1485, of 2 in the reign of Henry VII., of 19 in that of

Henry VIII., of 5 in that of Edward VI., of 3 in that of Philip and

Mary, of 60 in that of Elizabeth, of 13 in that of James I., of 2 in

that of Charles I., of 1 in 1649.

(ii) The lists of tenants given by the surveyors may sometimes not be

exhaustive. I am not sure, for example, that all the freeholders on the

manor of Crondal, or all the leaseholders at Gamlingay Merton and

Gamlingay Avenells, are recorded.

(iii) It is sometimes not clear under what category a tenant should be

entered. When there is no clue at all I have entered such tenants as

"uncertain." In some cases, however, though there is no entry by the

surveyor, there are indications that the tenants are freeholders,

customary tenants, or leaseholders, and, when that is so, I have grouped

them in the table according to the probabilities of the case. But I do

not doubt that I have made some mistakes.

(iv) A special word must be said about Norfolk and Suffolk. In these

counties it is quite common to find the same tenant holding both by free

and by customary tenure. When this is so, I have entered him both under

"freeholders" and under "customary tenants" in the table. This means, of

course, that the numbers entered for these two counties in the table

exceed the number of individual landholders. As, however, my object was

to ascertain the distribution of different classes of tenures, this

course, though not satisfactory, seemed the best one to follow. In other

counties a similar difficulty hardly ever occurs, a fact which is of

some interest as showing the relatively advanced agrarian conditions of

Norfolk and Suffolk. In the few cases in which it does occur I have

followed the same plan as I have for those two counties.

TABLE II. (pp. 32 and 33)

This table is based on documents relating to the undermentioned manors.

The sources from which the information is taken are given in the

explanation of Table I., and I therefore do not repeat them.

1. Norfolk.

Metherwolde, Northendall, Brisingham, Massingham, Skerning Billingford.

2. Suffolk.

Ashfield, Stratford juxta Higham, Kentford, Dunstall.

3. Staffordshire.

Drayton Basset, Barton, Burton Bondend.

4. Lancashire.

Warton, Overton, Widnes.

5. Northamptonshire.

Paulespurie, Brigstock, Higham Ferrers, Duston.

6. Wiltshire.

South Newton.

7. Leicestershire.

Barkby.

I have thought it worth while to insert this table, but I am not

satisfied with it. (i) I am inclined to think that, as stated in the

text, fuller information would show that medium-sized holdings of

between 20 and 60 acres were more common than it suggests. It is plain

that surveyors often could not locate the properties of freeholders, and

the larger the property the harder their task. (ii) Even where the

holding is set out by the surveyor, one cannot always form an accurate

judgment of its size. For example, rights of common, though often

expressed in acres, are often expressed in some other way, _e.g._ in the

terms of the number of beasts which the tenant may graze; and, again, a

man is sometimes said to hold so many acres "cum pertinentiis." What I

have done is simply to enter the acreage as given in the surveys. In

some cases, therefore, the size of the holding is certainly

underestimated.

TABLE III. (p. 48)

The figures in this table are an analysis of the figures given under the

heading of "Customary Tenants" in Table I., and the source from which

they are taken will be found by looking at the explanation of that table

given above. As I have pointed out in the text, it is probable that not

all the "Tenants at Will" should have been entered as "Customary

Tenants" in that table. I hope that any error which may have arisen

through their inclusion under that heading there may be neutralised by

setting them out here. It will be seen that they are not numerous.

TABLE IV. (pp. 64 and 65)

This table is based on documents relating to the undermentioned manors.

The sources from which the information is taken are given, with a few

exceptions (see below), in the explanation of Table I.

1. Wiltshire and Somerset.

South Newton, Byshopeston, Washerne, Knyghton, Donnington, Estoverton

and Phipheld, Wynterbourne Basset (all in Wilts), South Brent and Huish

(Somerset).

2. Suffolk.

Stratford juxta Higham, Ashfield, Snape, Desnage Talmaye, Chaterham Hall

(the last Hen. VIII. R.O. Misc. Bks., Treas. of Receipt, vol. 163, ff.

109-114).

3. Norfolk.

Barney, Great Walsingham, Gunthorpe, Brisingham, Aylsham, Ormesby,

Northendall, and one manor, the name of which I have mislaid (see

explanation of Table I.).

4. Staffordshire.

Barton, Wotton in Elishall, Agarsley.

5. Lancashire.

Ashton, Whytyngton, Warton, Widnes.

6. Northamptonshire.

Higham Ferrers, Brigstock.

7. Leicestershire.

Launde Priory, Barkby, Kibworth.

8. Northumberland.

High Buston, Acklington, Birling, Thirston, Preston, East Chirton,

Middle Chirton, Whitney, Monkseaton, Eardon (the last six all 1539,

_Northumberland County History_, vol. viii. p. 230, ff.).

9. Nine manors elsewhere in South of England.

Crondal, Sutton Warblington, Edgeware, Kingsbury, Aspley Guise,

Gamlingay Merton, Gamlingay Avenells, Salford, Weedon Weston (two last

from surveys on back of All Souls Maps).

In this table are included a few landholders as to whose tenure I am not

certain. It has the defect stated in connection with Table I., that in a

considerable number of instances the holdings of tenants are not fully

expressed in terms of acres, and that therefore it probably somewhat

underestimates their area. On the other hand, the holdings of the

customary tenants are usually set out by the surveyors much more fully

than those of the freeholders.

TABLE V. (p. 107)

1. Northumberland and Lancashire.

Acklington, Birling, High Buston, Thirston, Whytyngton.

2. Wiltshire and Dorsetshire.

South Newton, Estoverton and Phipheld, Winterbourne Basset, Washerne,

Donyngton, Byshopeston, Knyghton, Ewerne (the last in Dorsetshire,

_Topographer and Genealogist_, vol. i. There are only three customary

tenants on this manor, and only one is represented in the table, as the

use made by the others of their land is not ascertainable).

3. Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire.

Salford, Weedon Weston, Wotton in Elishall, Kibworth Harcourt.

In connection with this table the following points should be noticed:--

(i) I am not certain that all the tenants represented in it are

customary tenants. But with one or two exceptions the holdings of all

are not larger than those of the customary tenants on other manors, so

that there is no reason to suppose that their agricultural economy

differed from that usually followed by the latter.

(ii) More serious, the figures are not completely accurate. I have

entered under each denomination, "arable," "meadow," or "pasture," land

so entered by the surveyor. In some cases, however, the character of the

land is not specified. _E.g._ it is described simply as a "close," or a

tenant is said to hold so many acres of arable "with appurtenances."

Further, tenants frequently possess rights of pasture which are not

expressed in terms of acres, but are either measured by the number of

beasts which they may graze, or are not measured at all (_e.g._ "catalla

sine extento"). In the latter case, which does not affect any except the

Wiltshire manors, I have not attempted to form any estimate, but have

simply taken their holdings as stated by the surveyor. When there is no

clue to the character of the land, I have omitted it. When it is plain

that the land falls under a special denomination, though this is not

specified in the survey, I have placed it under that denomination in my

table. _E.g._ at Donyngton nearly every tenant holds "unum clausum

noviter extractum de communia," and together they hold in such "closes"

132 acres. I have entered these as "pasture."

TABLE VI. (pp. 115-117)

1. Ingoldmells, Lincolnshire: Massingberd, Ingoldmells Court Rolls,

Preface, p. vii. I quote the words of the editor, "In 1086 the annual

value of the manor of Ingoldmells was £10.... In 1295 the rents of the

free and bondage tenants were £51, 17s. 1d.... In 1347 the same rents

were £61, 9s. 4d., and in 1421 they were £71, 10s. 3d.... But in 1485

£3, 7s. 4d. had to be deducted for lost rents ... from a total of £72,

6s. 8d.... When the manor was sold in 1628 by Charles I., the reserved

rent ... was only £73, 17s. 2d.... It is therefore clear that at

Ingoldmells the tenants appropriated virtually the whole of the increase

in the value of the land."

2. Crondall, Hampshire: Baigent, _Crondal Records_, Part I., pp. 135 and

383.

3. Sutton Warblington, Hampshire: _ibid._, pp. 141 and 383. At the later

date Sutton Warblington appears to have been treated as part of the

manor of Crondal, though still itself called a manor.

4. Birling, Northumberland: _Northumberland County History_, vol. v.

5. Acklington, Northumberland: _ibid._, vol. v.

6. High Buston, Northumberland: _ibid._, vol. v. (Tenants at will and

copyholders only).

7. Amble, Northumberland: _ibid._, vol. v.

8. Aspley Guise, Bedfordshire. These figures were kindly supplied me by

Dr. G.H. Fowler of Aspley Guise as the result of his researches in the

Record Office into the history of the manor.

9. South Newton, Wiltshire: Roxburghe Club, _Surveys of Lands of

William, first Earl of Pembroke_, edited by Straton. Note (a) The manor

of South Newton included the parishes of Childhampton, Stoford, Little

Wishford, and North Ugford. I have dealt here only with the Parish of

South Newton, (b) The figures relate only to the customary tenants, and

do not include the payments of freeholders and _convencionarii_. I have

obtained the figure of £8, 3s. 11-1/2d. by adding together the tenants'

money payments and the value of their works, which are set down in terms

of money. But I am not sure that it is correct. I have omitted the

payments of fowls (made at both dates) and the small payments for church

shot and maltsilver.

10. Cuxham, Oxfordshire: Merton MSS., Nos. 5902 and 5905.

11. Ibstone, Buckinghamshire: _ibid._, Nos. 5902 and 5209. (In the

earlier rental freeholders as well as customary tenants, and in the

later possibly leaseholders as well, are included.)

12. Malden, Surrey: Merton MSS. MSS. both headed "Maldon, Thorncroft,

and Farleigh 1841," and giving extracts from early court rolls and

rentals.

13. Kibworth, Leicestershire: Merton MSS., Nos. 6375 (Rental), 6362, and

6356 (ministers' accounts). The earliest entry is the payments of the

copyholders only: the two later entries are "rents of assize."

14. Standen, Hertfordshire: R.O. Mins. Accts., Gen. Ser., Bdle. 868, No.

17; Bdle. 869, No. 8; Bdle. 869, No. 15; Bdle. 870, No. 4. The earliest

entry is "Rents assized £18, 17s. 3d. Lands let at will of lord 60s."

The second, third, and fourth give the total income.

15. Feering, Essex: R.O. Mins. Accts., Gen. Ser., Bdle. 841, No. 5;

Bdle. 841, No. 23; Mins. Accts., Hen. VIII., No. 951. The first two

entries are totals of quarterly rents paid at Christmas, Easter, Birth

of St. John the Baptist, and Michaelmas. The last is "assized rent." It

is possible, therefore, that the apparent diminution is due to the

earlier rentals having included payments not given in the last.

16. Appledrum, Sussex: R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Rolls 643, 644, and

Mins. Accts., Gen. Ser., Bdle. 1019, No. 15.

17. Minchinhampton: R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Rolls 237 and

241. In the earlier documents the "total rent yearly" is given as £41,

14s. 4d., and the "sum total of works" as £4, 15s.

18. Langley Marish, Berkshire: R.O. Mins. Accts., Gen. Ser., Bdle. 761,

No. 4, and Bdle. 762, No. 5; Land Rev. Misc. Bks., vol. 188, f. 196ff.

The first entry is the sum total of rents paid quarterly, together with

7s. 4d. of a custom called "vaccage," and 13s. 4d. of common fine at

view of frank pledge. (Exactly the same items are entered in the

following year.) The second entry is "profits and issues of the manor,"

and is headed "account of the manor for 83 days," but the similarity of

the figure with that of the earlier date makes it hard to believe that

the "profits" relate to less than one quarter of the year. The third

entry is made up of rents of free and customary tenants, demesne lands

held by copy, and customary rents called "Hedage" and "Duply," producing

23s. 3-1/2d.

19. Lewisham, Kent: R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Roll 361; Misc.

Bks., Treas. of Receipt, vol. 174, f. 1-34; Misc. Bks., Aug. Off., vol.

414, f. 33-4. The first entry is "Rent of the tenants of the manor of

Lewisham," the second "Rental of the lordship of Lewisham." The third

"Rent of free tenants £17, 12s. 10-1/2d., Rent of tenants _per

dimissionem_ £72, 9s. 8-1/2d., Rents of tenants at will 9d."

20. Cuddington, Surrey: R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Rolls 669 and 624,

Aug. Off., Misc. Bks., vol. 414, f. 3-16. The first entry is "Rents

belonging to the manor at the terms of Easter and Michaelmas," i.e. it

is for half a year only, and therefore I have ventured to double it. The

second and third entries consist of the annual rent of all classes of

tenants.

21. Isleworth, Middlesex: R.O. Mins. Accts., Gen. Ser., Bdle. 916, Nos.

11, 21, and 25. The figures at each date refer to the assized rent. At

the two earlier dates the assized rent is given for all four quarters of

the year. At the last date it is given only for the Michaelmas quarter.

In order to make comparison possible, I have given the rents for the

Michaelmas quarter throughout. The full entries for the two earlier

dates are: 1314-15, £15, 5s. 6d. at Christmas, £17, 1s. 9-3/4d. at

Easter, £15, 5s. 6d. at June 24, £21, 16s. 10d. at Michaelmas, works

sold 22s. 1-1/2d; 1386-7, £14, 13s. at Christmas, £16, 19s. 7d. at

Easter, £13, 13s. at June 24, £23, 3s. 10-1/2d. at Michaelmas, works

sold 106s. 10d.

22. Wootton, Oxfordshire: R.O. Misc. Accts., Bdle. 962, No. 20; Bdle.

963, No. 14; Aug. Off., Misc. Bks., vol. 414, f. 38b. At the two earlier

dates the figures given are the assized rents of free and bond tenants

and _cotarii_, at the last date they are the rents of free and customary

tenants. At that time there was also a rent of 30s. 8-1/2d. from

assarts, and a rent of £13, 0s. 11d. from tenants by demission. I have

omitted the last two items as there is nothing comparable to them in the

earlier entries.

23. Speen, Berkshire: R.O. Mins. Accts., Gen. Ser., Bdle. 750, No. 22;

Misc. Bks. Land Revenue, vol. 187, f. 97-101. At the earlier date the

figures refer to the assized rents, at the later date to the rents of

free tenants, customary tenants, and "firms."

24. Schitlington, Bedfordshire: R.O. Mins. Accts., Gen. Ser., Bdle. 741,

Nos. 16, 19, and 27. At the first date the figures refer to the assized

rent, and include "Tallage of the vill £10." At the second date they

cover the same entries as at the first. At the last date they refer to

the rent as it appears in the Rental. At this time there are certain

additional entries, viz., "Firm of land £8, 5s. 0-1/4d., Firm of the

manor £4, 15s. 4d., Increase of Rent [of a mill(?)] 13s. 4d., Increase

of Rent of 1 messuage, 1 virgate with croft and meadow 13s. 7-1/2d."

These I have omitted.

25. Cranfield, Bedfordshire: R.O. Mins. Accts., Gen. Ser., Bdle. 740,

Nos. 18, and 25; Mins. Accts., Hen. VIII., No. 4. At the first two dates

the figures include rents of free and native tenants and ferm of lands.

At the last date the entry is "Rent of the vill, as by the rental, £72,

2s. 1-3/4d."

26. Holywell, Huntingdonshire: R.O. Mins. Accts., Gen. Ser., Bdle. 877,

No. 17, Bdle. 878, No. 1. At the first date the entries include rents

assized, and certain miscellaneous items such as "Hewesilver,"

"Heringsilver," "Brensilver"; at the later date "Rents assized of free

and villein tenants £4, 19s. 8d., customary rent lately in works and in

new rent £15, 6s. for 17 virgates paying 18s. each, £6, 15s., for 25

cotmen paying 9s. each, 6s. 8d. increment of rent."

The suggestion that it might be of interest to try to discover how far

rents were stationary over long periods came to me from reading the

article by Maitland on "The History of a Cambridgeshire Manor" in _E. H.

R._, vol. ix., where he points out that copyholders must have enjoyed a

considerable unearned increment. The table of rents explained above is

unsatisfactory, because of the difficulty of finding a basis for the

comparison of payments at different periods. Thus at the earlier dates

there are the tenants' works, and (occasionally) tallages to be

considered; at the later the rent obtained from leasing the demense. The

variety of the sources of manorial revenue makes it impossible to

discover a common form to which the payments on all manors can be

reduced. The ideal would be to take the villeins' payments and works in

(say) the fourteenth century, and to compare them with the payments of

the copyhold tenants in the sixteenth century. But since the commonest

entry is simply "rents of assize," which included the rents of

freeholders as well as of customary tenants, this simple procedure is

often impossible.

While the table given on pages 115-117 is certainly not what could be

desired, I am inclined to think its inaccuracies do not lie in the

direction of exaggerating the fixity of rents, but rather, if anything,

in underestimating it, because (i) when a total rent is given for the

fifteenth or sixteenth century, without further particulars, it probably

often included the rent paid by the farmer of the demesne, which at the

earlier period was non-existent, (ii) at the later period the total rent

often included payments made for new encroachments in the waste. When

this is evidently the case, as at Wootton, and the amount of the new

payments is stated, I have omitted them, my object being to compare,

when possible, the rents paid by customary tenants at different periods.

But often it is not possible to make such an allowance, and therefore I

am disposed to think that the figures for the later dates are more

likely to be weighted with irrelevant items than are the figures for the

earlier dates. This makes the comparatively slow increase in the rents

of some manors all the more worthy of notice.

TABLE VIII (p. 212)

1. Norfolk.

Massingham Priory (two farms, Hen. VIII., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen.

Ser., Portf. 24, No. 4, f. 46); Wymondham (Hen. VIII., R.O. Augm. Off.,

Misc. Bks. 408, f. 25); Marshams (Marham(?), Hen. VIII., Augm. Off.,

Misc. Bks. 408, f. 19); Thetford (Hen. VIII., Augm. Off., Misc. Bks.

408, f. 22); Bockenham (Hen. VIII., R.O. Augm. Off., Misc. Bks. 408, f.

9-10); Langley (Hen. VIII., R.O. Augm. Off., Misc. Bks. 399, f. 228-9);

Walsingham (Hen. VIII., R.O. Augm. Off., Misc. Bks. 399, f. 201);

Brisingham (31 Eliz., R.O. Misc. Bks. 220, f. 236); Farfield (31 Eliz.,

_ibid._); Wighton (17 Eliz., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Duchy of Lanc,

Bdle. 7, No. 34); Peakhall (1575, Holkham MSS., Tittleshall Bks., No.

12); West Lexham (1575, Holkham MSS., West Lexham MSS., No. 87); Foxley

(1568, Holkham MSS., Billingford and Bintry MSS., Bdle. No. 9); Sparham

(1590, Holkham MSS., Sparham MSS., Bdle. No. 5); Billingford (between

1564 and 1606, Holkham MSS., Billingford and Bintry MSS., Bdle. No. 9);

Fulmordeston (1614, Holkham MSS., Map No. 59).

2. Wiltshire.

South Newton, Estoverton, Wynterbourne Basset, Byshopeston, Donnington,

Knyghton, Domerham, Burdonsball, Foughlestone, Brudecomb, Westoverton,

Sutton Maundeville, Stockton, Albedeston, Chalke, Bulbridge, Dichampton,

Patney, Wyley, Berwick St. John, Remesbury, Staunton, Chilmerke (all

1565-73, Roxburgh Club, _Surveys of Lands of William, First Earl of

Pembroke_).

3. Manors in other counties.

Ashton (Lancs., Hen. VIII., R.O. Rentals and Surveys, Gen. Ser., Portf.

19, No. 7, ff. 69-72); Prestwood (Staffs., R.O. Misc. Bks. Land Rev.,

vol. 185, ff. 155b-7); Gamlingay Merton (Cambridgeshire, 1601, Merton

Estate Maps); Gamlingay Avenells (_ibid._); Salford (Bedfordshire, 1595,

All Souls Estate Maps); Weedon Weston (Northants, c. 1595, _ibid._);

Edgeware (Middlesex, 1597, All Souls Estate Maps); Kingsbury (Middlesex,

1597, _ibid._); Greenham (Bucks, 1595, _ibid._); Crendon (Bucks, c.

1595, _ibid._); Harlesden Farm (Middlesex, 1599, _ibid._); Land in the

Parish of Hendon (Middlesex, c. 1599, _ibid._); Whadborough

(Leicestershire, 1620, _ibid._).

The fact that this table is compiled from documents of different dates

makes it impossible to use it as an index of the size of the large

leasehold farms at any one period in the sixteenth century. Nor can I

hope to have escaped errors of calculation. I hope, however, it may be

of some use in illustrating the considerable scale on which some farms

were conducted.

TABLES IX, X, and XI (pp. 218, 225-226 and 227)

The farms from which these tables are compiled are included in the list

given in explanation of Table VIII. (with one exception, Ewerne in

Dorsetshire, _Topographer and Genealogist_, vol. i.), and it is

therefore unnecessary to set them out in detail here. The figures as to

arable, pasture, and meadow on the demesne of 41 monasteries are taken

from Savine, "English Monasteries on the Eve of the Dissolution,"

_Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History_, vol. i. p. 172.

TABLE XIII (p. 300)

This table is compiled from documents relating to the undermentioned

manors. When the reference has already been given I do not repeat it

here:--23 manors in Wilts, Somerset, and Devon, Roxburghe Club, _Surveys

of Lands of William, First Earl of Pembroke_. West Lexham (Norfolk),

Sparham (Norfolk), East Dereham (Norfolk), Wighton (Norfolk), Stockton

Socon (Norfolk, 1649, R.O. Parly. Surveys, Norf. No. 14); Aldeburgh

(Suffolk, Hen. VIII., R.O. Misc. Bks., Treas. of Receipt, vol. 163); St.

Edmund (Suffolk, 1650, R.O. Parly. Surveys, Suff. No. 14); Dodnash

(Suffolk, Hen. VIII., R.O. Misc. Bks., Treas. of Receipt, vol. 163, f.

79); Chatesham, Suffolk (Hen. VIII., R.O. Misc. Bks., Treas. of Receipt,

vol. 163, f. 91); Falkenham (Suffolk, Hen. VIII., R.O. Treas. of

Receipt, vol. 163, f. 181); Stratford juxta Higham (Suffolk), Mettingham

(Suffolk, _Victoria County History_, chapter on Social and Economic

History); Mark Soham (Suffolk, _ibid._); Bushey (Herts, 7 Eliz., from

Court Rolls lent me by the late Miss Toulmin Smith); Ewerne (Dorset,

1567, _Topographer and Genealogist_, vol. i.); Corton (Somerset,

_ibid._); Rolleston (Staffs., _ibid._); Hewlington (Denbighshire, 4

Eliz., Wrexham Library, Ancient Local Records, vol. ii.); Holt

(Denbighshire, _ibid._); Wotton in Elishall (Staffs.); Burton Bondend

(Staffs.); Agarsley (Staffs.); High Furness (Lancs., 28 Eliz., R.O.

Duchy of Lancs., Special Commissions, No. 398); Crondal (Hants);

Edgeware (Middlesex); Kingsbury (Middlesex); Malden (Surrey, Merton

MSS., book labelled Malden, Thorncroft, and Farleigh); Thorncroft

(Surrey, _ibid._); Farleigh (Surrey, _ibid._); 14 manors in

Northumberland (_Northumberland County History_, vol. viii., p. 238);

Bradford (Somerset, Selden Society, vol. xii., Leadam, Select Cases in

the Court of Requests); Shepton Mallet, Somerset (Calendar of

Proceedings in Chancery, _temp._ Eliz. H.h. i. 27); Newton Tracye

(Devon, _ibid._, H.h. 23, 17); Chudlye (Devon, _ibid._, L.l. 8, 31);

Powlton (Wilts, _ibid._, M.m. 13); Kibworth Harcourt (Leicestershire,

Merton MSS., book containing extracts from Merton Court Rolls); Barkby

(Leicestershire, _ibid._).

* * * * *

NOTE.--(i) The names of the manors from which Dr. Savine takes his

figures are not given. Consequently his information and mine may

sometimes overlap, (ii) The MSS. book from which the customs of

Farleigh, Thorncroft, and Malden are taken is dated 1841, but it

purports to give customs based on ancient court rolls. The same applies

to the information as to Kibworth Harcourt and Barkby.

GENERAL INDEX

Abbeys, _see_ Monasteries

Act of Parliament, Enclosure by in 18th century, 183-184

Acts of Parliament--

Statute of Merton, 1235, 87, 180, 248, 371-372

15 Hen. VI. c. 2, sanctioning export of corn, 113, 197

23 Hen. VI. c. 5, sanctioning export of corn, 113, 197

3 Ed. IV. c. 2, restricting import of corn, 113, 197

4 Hen. VII. c. 14, against depopulation, 11, 353

6 Hen. VIII. c. 5, against depopulation, 353

7 Hen. VIII. c. 1, against depopulation, 353

25 Hen. VIII. c. 13, against depopulation, 354

27 Hen. VIII. c. 25, for relieving impotent beggars, 269

1 Ed. VI. c. 2, legalising enslavement of vagabonds, 44, 269

2 and 3 Ed. VI. c. 12, giving good titles to Duke of Somerset's tenants,

294, 365

3 and 4 Ed. VI. c. 3, re-enacting Statute of Merton with amendments,

371-372

5 and 6 Ed. VI. c. 5, against depopulation, 354

2 and 3 Phil, and M. c. 2, against depopulation, 354

5 Eliz. c. 2, Statute of Artificers, 23, 45, 100, 353

14 Eliz. c. 5, directing compulsory assessment for relief of poor, 269

18 Eliz. c. 3, directing provision of materials for setting unemployed to

work, 269

31 Eliz. c. 7, requiring cottages to be let with 4 acres of land

attached, 277, 354

35 Eliz. c. 7, against depopulation, but repeating clauses in previous

Acts forbidding conversion to pasture, 354

39 Eliz. c. 1, against depopulation, 354-355

39 Eliz. c. 2, against depopulation, 354-355

4 Jac. I. c. 11, for enclosure of certain parishes in Herefordshire, 395

21 Jac. I. c. 28, continuing certain Acts and repealing others, 355

Action of trespass--

copyholders' remedy by, 289

freeholders' remedy by, 248

Administration--

of land by peasants, 102, 159-161, 244-246. _See also_ Agriculture,

Commons, Communism

of Acts against Depopulation--

difficulty of, 377-386

irregularity of, 391-393

occasional effectiveness of, 386-387, 390-392

opposition of landlords to, 367-368, 370, 397-398

petition of rebels for, 335, 337

Administrative Courts, _see_ Council, Courts

Administrative interference--

with economic matters, 355-357

with enclosures--

under Henry VII., 359-360

" Henry VIII., 360-362

" Edward VI., 362-372

" Elizabeth, 372-374

" James I., 374-375

" Charles I., 376-377

final cessation of, 397-400

Admission fines, _see_ Fines

Agrarian changes, the--

causes of, 6-7, 12-13, 185-200

contemporary accounts of, 6-8

general effect of, 403-404

localities most affected by, 153-154, 182, 262, 405

of fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 11-12, 79-95, 136-147, 161-162

of sixteenth century, 6-8, 147-173, 213-230, 301-310

of eighteenth century, 34, 183-184, 406

part played by capitalist farmers in, 200-202, 213-266

part played by peasants in, 136-173

reaction of on peasantry, 7-8, 231-280

resistance of peasants to, 302-304, 317-340

_See also_ Agriculture, Enclosure, Land, Pasture

Agreements to enclose, 151-153, 156-158, 180-182