The Inclosure of Common Fields in the Seventeenth Century1

E. M. Leonard

doi:10.2307/3678229

The Inclosure of Common Fields in the Seventeenth Century1

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009

E. M. Leonard

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

In the present day we are often reminded that the farmhouse surrounded by hedged fields has not always formed a prominent feature of our English landscape.

At the close of the sixteenth century many fields now inclosed were still forest, fen, or rough waste land. Some formed portions of the so-called pastures where the village herds grazed in common, tended by the village herdsman, and others, again, were included in the great cornfields and meadows, known as the ‘common fields,’ which were often hundreds, and even thousands, of acres in extent.

Type: Research Article
Information: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 19 , December 1905 , pp. 101 - 146

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3678229 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1904

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 101 note 2} ‘Depopulatores agrorum’ are mentioned in a statute, 4 Hen. IV., c. z. An early complaint of illegal inclosure occurs in 1414 where the inhabitants of Darleton and Ragenell in Notts petition against Richard Stanhope, who had inclosed the lands there by force of arms (Rolls of Parl., iv., 29b, no. 7).

^{page 101 note 3} Inclosure of common fields still occasionally takes place. In 1901 the inclosures of common fields in Sutton, Northamptonshire, and Skipwith, Yorkshire, were approved, and in 1902 some acres of Sodbury, Chipping, Gloucestershire (Reports of Inclosure Commissioners, 1902, 1903)Google Scholar. The fields at Ewelme in Oxfordshire have never been legally inclosed, but for many years the proprietors have agreed to keep to their own fields, and most rights of common have been abandoned.

^{page 102 note 1} Ashley, W. J., Economic History, 1898, ii. 286Google Scholar: ‘Speaking generally, we may say that the common fields bad been undistuibed for a century and a half, when, about the time of the accession of George III., the fresh wave of agricultural innovation set in.’

Social England, illus. ed., 1902, iii. 478: ‘With the close of the wars ot the Roses and the dawn of the Tudor period an agricultural revolution began which continued in progress till the middle of the reign of Elizabeth, and after more than two centuries of quiescence recommenced in the eighteenth century.’

Cheyney, Edward P., Industrial and Social History of England, 1901, p. 217Google Scholar: ‘In the early years of the eighteenth century there had been signs of a revival of the old process of inclosures which had been suspended for more than a hundred years.’

Cunningham, W., Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times, p. 102Google Scholar: ‘Though there was a revived outcry about inclosures in 1607, the Council appear to have thought there was no real grievance from this cause; occasional instances can be detected later, but the movement was no longer regarded as a serious danger to the realm.’ In speaking of inclosure for the improvement of husbandry he writes: ‘It does not seem, however, that the movement advanced very rapidly’ (p. 555).

Thomas E. Scrutton (Commons and Common Fields) quotes Joseph Lee, and gives instances of seventeenth-century inclosure by agreement and Chancery decree, but lays little stress on the seventeenth-century inclosure of common fields. He speaks of 1760 as ‘before the tide of inclosure had begun to set in’ (p. 113).

Leadam, I. S. (Trans, of Royal Hist. Soc. 1892, v. 192)Google Scholar refers to ‘the concluding years of the agricultural revolution which extended from 1450 to 1550.’ Also p. 169.

To Professor Gay's researches on the inclosing movement I am greatly indebted. He is well aware that complaints of the change continued throughout the century, and I have made use of many of the authorities cited by him; but the position he assigns to Midland inclosure leads him, I believe, to underestimate the extent of the movement. He thinks that ‘the characteristic inclosures of the fifteenth to the seventeenth century were largely confined to the Midlands’; that Northamptonshire was 'the incloser's county par excellence,? and that even ‘where the set of the current towards agrarian innovation was at its strongest it had only succeeded in cutting numerous, but narrow and scattered, channels through the sand-bars of custom and prejudice’ (‘Inclosures in England,’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1903, pp. 592, 594, 595).

^{page 104 note 1} Duchy of Lancaster, Misc. Bis. 113, 117, f. 100.

^{page 104 note 2} In the survey it is stated that Daventry ‘standeth somethinge drie in a champion countrie and contayneth within the same the towne and burroughe of Daventree, being a markett towne and a thoroughfaire moost usuall from London to the north partes. The soile wherof is apte for corne and graine, and thereof yealdeth plentie. And hath reasonable good comons and pastures for sheepe, but verie barren for rother cattell.’

^{page 104 note 3} West field, 368½ acres; East field, 383a. 3r.; North field, 524a. 2½r. = 1,276 acres 3½ roods all together.

^{page 105 note 1} This was the furlcmg ‘joyninge east of London way,’ and was one of the largest. Another large furlong was ‘Monkstyppet’ furlong, 27¾ acres in extent, while ‘the furlong ioyninge to Starton wey’ contained only 3 acres and a half, and was divided as follows:

Here the last two lands appear, to be only ¼ acre.

^{page 105 note 2} The terms ‘butts’ and ‘swaths’ are used for some of the divisions of the meadow, but the normal division is still the ‘land,’ which appears usually to be only ¼ acre of meadow-land, though it is sometimes ½ acre, as in the arable fields.

^{page 105 note 3} The 50 acres included 3a. 3½r., called Foredole, and assigned as follows:

^{page 105 note 4} Burrough Hill contained 121a. 2r. 25p., and two little pastures under the hill were 23 acres more. On these pastures the freeholders and the Queen's tenants had the right to the wood; other pastures, measuring 152 acres 7 poles, were let by ‘justments’ to the tenants.

^{page 106 note 1} Christ Church College, Oxford, held the greatest quantity of freehold land, and must have had many sub-tenants.

^{page 106 note 2} Exall Field Book, in my own possession, c. 1619.

^{page 106 note 3} Report of 1879 Proceedings under the Commons Act of 1876.

^{page 107 note 1} Morton, T., Nat. Hist. of Northampton, 1712, p. 476Google Scholar; and Plot, , Nat. Hist, of Oxon., 1676, pp. 240–244Google Scholar. Clay lands, however, often lay in four fields, and were sown with (1) wheat, (2) beans, and (3) barley, lying fellow every fourth year; occasionally there were only two fields, the land being then sown on alternate years twice with wheat and once with barley. Other soils had other courses: on the white clay and chalk ground peas were sown instead of beans, while the sandy soil was only sown every other year with (1) wheat or miscellyn, (2) barley.

^{page 107 note 1} S.P. Dom., Chas. I. vol. clxxvi, no. 11; D. K., 43rd Report, Cal of Privy Seals, 1632, no. 505; 160 acres at Woddenho, in Northampton, and 160 acres at Woodstone, in Hants. In order to facilitate her inclosures she gave the commoners advantages, and also promised to keep as much land in tillage as before. These particular acres, however, were to be used for pasture. The King's licence was accessary for the exchange; and though he finally granted permission he delayed doing so for a time, and the Countess was very indignant that she might not do as she would with her own. In 1594 complaints were made that townships were decayed because the landlords have taken the demesnes into their own hand. Cal. State Papers Add. 1580–1625; 1594, Jan. 15, p. 358.

^{page 108 note 1} In the West field about ‘fourteene acres of the common fields lyinge on y^e south or backside o those houses att New Chelsey that are in Chelsey parish are inclosed. And about five acres on part whereof Mr. Nichs. Harman's house hath beene erected and garden enclosed.’ The justices leave to the consideration of the Council whether these were offences ‘agaynst the statute made a° 35° Eliz. forbidding Inclosures w^thin three miles of the Citty of London or otherwise as ill examples inducinge oppression to the wrong of his Majesty's subjects and discouraging their life and industry or any other way pernicious or inconvenient.’

^{page 108 note 2} ‘An Act for the better provision of meadow and pasture for necessary maintenance of husbandry and tillage in the manors, lordships, and parishes of Marden alias Mawarden, Bodenham, Wellington, Sutton St. Michael, Murton, and the parish of Pipe and everie of them in the Countye of Hereford.’ The Act enables the commoners to inclose a third of their lands.

^{page 108 note 3} 4 Wm. & Mary, no. 31; 7 & 8 Will., c. 3.

^{page 108 note 4} 15 Car. II., c. 17; 16 Car. II., c. 5: Inclosure of Fens. 16 Car. II.: Inclosure of Malvem Chase. 19 & 20 Car. II., c. 8: Inclosure of Waste. There are other Inclosure Acts in the reign of Anne—12 Anne, Stat. II., c. 17; 2 & 3 Anne, c. 20—although some of the authorities assert there are none (Scrutton, , Commons and Common Fields, p. 133Google Scholar, following Williams, on Commons, p. 249Google Scholar).

^{page 108 note 5} This method of inclosure by agreement is that advocated by Fitzherbert, in his Book of Surveying, and examples as early as 1338 are quoted by Scrutton, , p. 58Google Scholar. An inclosure of this kind was made at Padiham in 1529 (Whitaker, , Whalley, II. p. 53Google Scholar). The speech of the doctor in The Commonweal o this Realm of England (ed. Lamon, , p. 124)Google Scholar seems to show, however, that in 1549 this plan of inclosure was coming into fashion but was not at all general.

^{page 109 note 1} Chancery Enrolled Decrees, Roll 605, no. 3.

^{page 109 note 2} For instance, in the inclosure of the waste at Claxton, county York, a man named Wilkinson objected, but the inclosure was decreed (Chancery Enrolled Decrees, Roll 598, no. 2).

^{page 110 note 1} The enclosure should also have been held for twenty years. Journals of the Rouse of Lords, Oct. 30, 1666 (Hist. Man. Com. viii., p. 102. The case of the commoners of the town of Epworth shows the lengthened disputes such decrees often caused.

^{page 110 note 2} Exch. Spec. Com., 42 Eliz., Southants Survey and division of the common fields in her Majesty's manors of Frodington and Portsey. The commission conferred ‘plenam potestatem et auctoritatem … per presentes ad supervidendum, perlustrandum, mensurandum, valuandum, dividendum separates partes includendum et apportiandum omnia terra, tenementa, prata, pascua, pasturas communes et hereditamenta infra manerium de Frodington’ etc. The return sets out the award in full, and says the division was made with the consent of the lord of the manor and also of all the farmers and customary tenants. More generally special Commissions of the Exchequer relate to the inclosure of wastes.

^{page 110 note 3} A Chancery decree relating to Stoke, Warwickshire, is printed at full length in Blyth's, History of Stoke, p. 68Google Scholar. Among other Chancery decrees relating to Warwickshire common fields are Allesly, Co. Warwick, , Decree Roll 555, No. 15, 1652Google Scholar, 600 acres of open cornfields; Bilton Co. Warwick, , Chancery Decree Book, B 1661Google Scholar, f. 263b, relating to agreement to inclose four years ago. There is also among the Exchequer records a case relating to the piecemeal inclosure of Warwickshire villages during the forty-five years before 1628 (Exch. Depositions, 4 Car. I., Mich. 6). Yorkshire inclosures, besides that of Brandsburton, occur at Walsgrave Agreement, 1665, Decree Roll 557, No. 2; arable land in four fields, Claxton Agreement, 1638, 598, no. 2; Rillington pasture land, Roll 598, no. 6; and Settrington, 1668, 692, no. 6; and the custom of piecemeal inclosure is confirmed at Threlkeld, , Decree Roll 1205, no. 7, 1635Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 1} This was kindly shown me by Mr. Overend, of the Public Record Office.

^{page 111 note 2} For tables see next page.

^{page 111 note 3} Durham Records, Orders in Chancery. ‘Hetton in the Hole,’ March 27, 1617, Watson v. Todd. ‘Blackwell,’ 1620, Doison v. Parkinson. ‘Cornforth,’ 1628, no. 17.

Great Lumley seems to have been inclosed 27 Eliz., and Morton, in the parish of Dal ton, was inclosed at about the same time (Registrar's Book, K, f. 633).

Midleton-on-Row, also was inclosed, Durham Records, Orders in Chancery, 1632Google Scholar, no. 122, and Thomely is said to have been lately inclosed (4 Jac. I. Exch. Spec. Com., 3748).

^{page 113 note 1} Thus at Norton, in the manor of Stockton, four acres were to be inclosed Out of every oxgang, , Durham Orders in Chancery, 1631Google Scholar, no. 30; forty-four acres were to be separated for two oxgangs of land in Dunsdale, July 31, 14 Jam. I.

^{page 113 note 2} Reg. Book, Durham, K, f. 469.

^{page 113 note 3} At Bishop Auckland the divisions of 1661, 1663, 1670 were confirmed, but others in 1634 and 1640 are mentioned. Reg. Book, Durham, L, 464.

^{page 113 note 4} See below and ‘The Midland Revolt and the Inquisitions of Depopulation,’ Edwin F. Gay (Trans.Royal Hist. Soc.).

^{page 113 note 5} There were four Inclosure Acts in the reign of Geo. II., all involving the inclosure of waste only; twenty-two others in the eighteenth century in addition to an Amending Act, and fifteen during the nineteenth century: only seven of these relate to the inclosure of common arable fields, while three others extinguish rights of common over them.

^{page 114 note 1} Norden, , Surveyor, p. 97Google Scholar, ed. of 1607. Fortrey says that land in common field was only worth a third of land inclosed (England, Interest and Improvement, 1663, p. 228Google Scholar).

^{page 114 note 2} At Cottesbatch an estate worth 24l. a year was bought for 750l. by a man named Quarks, who carried out the inclosure about 1602, but tailed to reap as much profit as he had expected. After a while the inhabitants rioted and pulled down his fences, and the incloser was unable to pay his debts. Exch. Depositions Leic., 9 James I., Mich., No. 25; Chancery Enrolled Decrees, 273, No. 7.

^{page 115 note 1} S.P. Dom. Chas. I., cxcii. 24; clxxxvii. 83.

^{page 115 note 2} Reg. Books, Durham, M, f. 43, L, 318b. At Middridge the richer sort were to fence the allotments of the poor, and they were also to have a large piece of ground for their swine and geese. Reg. Bk., K, 508d; Greatham, , Reg. Bk. L, f. 118Google Scholar.

^{page 115 note 3} Halhead, , Inclosure Thrown Open, 1650, p. 8Google Scholar; Moore, , The Crying Sin of England, p. 13Google Scholar.

^{page 115 note 4} Exch. Depositions, 16 Car. I., Easter, no. 17. Ampney Crucis had been inclosed eleven or twelve years before.

^{page 116 note 1} Hist. of Agric. and Prices, iv. 328, v. 408). Wheat rises from 5s 11¾d., 1401–1540, to 13s. 10½, 1540–1582.

There are several years of exceptional scarcity in the price of wheat during the seventeenth century; the decennial averages rise for the first three decades, are highest during the Civil War, and fall slightly towards the close ot the century. Oxen rise suddenly in price after 1592, and show a rise of over fifty per cent, between the last decade of the sixteenth century and the last decade of the seventeenth. The weekly wages of labourer or artisan appear to double in the same period; but in both cases the greatest rise occurs in the closing decade of the century.

Lord Coke's notes on the Lord Keeper's speech, ascribed to 1633, mention ‘the general complaint’ of a sore want of servants at reasonable wages, which ‘makes men grow wearie of tillage.’ S.P. Dom. Chas. I., cclv. 44.

^{page 117 note 1} Sherburn, , Durham Reg., Bk. K, f. 262Google Scholar. Shadforth and Cletham do., f. 273. f 300 etc.

^{page 117 note 2} Sedgfield do., f. 306. Middle Herrington, f. 631. Seaton Carew, M, f. 699.

^{page 117 note 3} Chester do., K, f. 469. Morton, f. 633. Middridge, f. 508b. Shotton, M, f. 594. Durham Chancery Orders, 1632, no. 122.

^{page 117 note 4} See below.

^{page 117 note 5} Exch. Dep., 10 Car. I., Trin., no. 12.

^{page 117 note 6} Exch. Depositions, Leicester (16 Jas. I., Hil. no. 18). Wm. Reade bought the land about three years ago, and it is now hedged and ditched, while half the arable is turned to pasture.

^{page 118 note 1} A Scripture Word against Inclosure, p. 9. Trigge is equally emphatic in 1604: The Humble Petition of Two Sisters. ‘But inclosure decayeth tillage and turneth good arable land to pasture.’

^{page 118 note 2} Rural England, ii. 122.

^{page 118 note 3} Enrolled Decrees Chancery, 1928, no. 12. Confirmed 25 Car. II.

^{page 119 note 1} D. of L. Bills and Answers, Bundle, Chancery217, Lent, 1603Google Scholar. At Battleden and Potsgrove, in Bedfordshire also, inclosure was alleged to be accompanied by consolidation of property and of holdings (Enrolled Decrees Chancery, Roll, 494, no. 2, 1621)Google Scholar.

^{page 119 note 2} Trigge, The Humble Petition of Two Sisters (D. 3).

^{page 119 note 3} Lupton, D., ‘London and the Country Carbonadoed’ (Harlcian Misc. ix. 326)Google Scholar.

^{page 119 note 4} Bentham, Joseph, Christian Conflict, p. 326Google Scholar.

^{page 119 note 5} The Crying Sin of England, 1603, p. 9.

^{page 119 note 6} Enrolled Decrees Chancery, Roll, 669, no. 18Google Scholar; Easter, 1664.

^{page 120 note 1} A Discourse of the Poor, by the late Roger North; published 1753 but written much earlier, pp. 57, 65.

^{page 121 note 1} Marshall, , ‘Review of Reports of Board of Agriculture,’ Midlands, pp. 348–9Google Scholar; do. Southern and Peninsular, p. 206; also in Beds. ‘Prevalence of enclosing has diminished the number of farms in last fifty years, and in Rutland the farms were greater in the inclosed parishes’ (Midlands, p. 250).

^{page 121 note 2} Burton, , Anatomy of Melancholy (Democritus, p. 113, ed. 1893Google Scholar, to the Reader). The writer approves of inclosures, but ‘not one domineering house greedily to swallow up all which is too common with us.’

^{page 122 note 1} Holy State, 1642, p. 117: ‘An ancient credible man’ informed Bentham that formerly there were six or seven and thirty farmers in the neighbouring town now inclosed, ‘twenty of which farmers he was persuaded did constantly keep as good houses and hospitality as he who after ruined himselfe and the towne’ (Christian Conflict, p. 319).

^{page 122 note 2} S.F. Dom. Chas. I., ccvi., no. 70.

^{page 123 note 1} Inclosure Thrown Open, p. 5. The Crying Sin of England, p. II. ‘And hence (from enclosure) it comes to pass that the open fielden towns have above double the number of cottiers they had wont to have, so that they cannot live one by another, and so put the fielden towns to vast expenees in caring for those poor that these enclosures have made’.

^{page 123 note 2} S.P. Dom. Chas. I., clxxxv. 86 (see Appendix).

^{page 123 note 3} Book of Orders and Directions, Jan. 163frac01. Eden, I., p. 158.

^{page 123 note 4} The following are the principal Acts relating to the inclosure of common fields, though there are others relating to the inclosure of waste:

4 Hen. VII., c. 16, relates to the Isle of Wight, and recites the same complaint of decay of people because the fields have been ‘diked and made pastures for bestes,’ and because many dwelling-houses, farms, etc. have been ‘taken by one man.’ No one, therefore, was to have a farm worth more than ten marks a year. Owners of houses with twenty acres of land are to maintain the houses and buildings necessary for tillage.

4 Hen. VII., c. 19. Where houses are let to farm with twenty acres of land attached, the houses and buildings necessary for tillage are to be maintained.

6 Hen. VIII., c. 5, orders houses of husbandry in existence at the first day of Parliament to be re-edified, and lands occupied in tillage to continue under the plough.

7 Hen. VIII., c. I, reiterates 6 Hen. VIII., c. 5.

25 Hen. VIII., c. 13, recites practice of gathering many farms into one hand for sheep-walks, which has enhanced rent or increased fines of land so ‘that no poor man is able to medall with it,’ while some men have 23,000 sheep on the land. Number of sheep for one man limited to 2,000, and number of farms to two.

27 Hen. VIII., c. 22, recites 4 Hen. VII., c. 19, and states that this Act had been inforced only on lands of the King. The King was to have half the profits of inclosed land when the lord neglected to enforce the Act. Confined to counties of Lincoln, Notts, Leicester, Warwick, Rutland, Northants, Beds, Bucks, Oxon, Berks, Isle of Wight, Worcester, Herts, and Cambs.

27 Hen. VIII., c. 28, applies to monastic land. All who were granted this land were to maintain a household on the site of the monastery, and to keep as much land in tillage as was so employed twenty years before the Act.

5 & 6 Edw. VI., c. 5. By 1553 as much land was to be put in tillage as in 1 Hen. VIII. Commissioners were to be appointed to ascertain by inquest how much land was in tillage.

2 & 3 Phil. & Mary, c. 1, gives power to commissioners to order re-edifying of houses or inclosing for tillage within twenty miles of the Scottish border.

2 & 3 Phil. & Mary, c. 2, recites 4 Hen. VII., c. 19. Extends it to houses with twenty acres of land, whether employed in tillage or not. Orders enforcement of Act on land converted from tillage to pasture since 20 Hen. VIII., and also destruction of new warrens made near cornland.

5 Eliz., c. 2, confirms 4 Hen. VII., c. 19; 7 Hen. VIII., c. 1; 27 Hen. VIII, c. 22; 27 Hen. VIII., c. 28; and repeals the statutes of Edw. and Phil. & Mary as to tillage and houses of husbandry. Now enacts that all lands tilled for four years since 25 Hen. VIII. shall be kept in tillage.

The whole series of Acts, except 25 Hen. VIII., c. 13, are variations of the principles enacted by 4 Hen. VII., c. 19, and 6 Hen. VIII., c. 5. The later Acts merely state their definition of a house of husbandry, and vary as to the area and period in which the Act shall be enforced and as to the machinery for putting the provisions into execution.

^{page 125 note 1} Mr. Leadam was the first to make known the details of the evidence furnished by any of these commissions in ‘The Domesday of Inclosures’ relating to the inquiries of the commissioners of 1517–19. Other inquiries were made in 1548, 1566, 1607, 1632–36, and in Lincolnshire, 1614.

^{page 125 note 2} The percentage of acreage affected to the total county area are given by Mr. Gay as follows: Warwick, 0.93; Leicester, 2.32; Northants, 4.30; Bucks, 1.48; Beds, 3.32; Hunts, 3.29. Average, 2.53.

^{page 126 note 1} S.P. Dom. James I., xl. 85.

^{page 126 note 2} Cal. of State Papers, pp. 432, 464.

^{page 126 note 3} North Riding Records Soc. Quarter Sessions Records, i. 78Google Scholar.

^{page 126 note 4} S.P, Dom. James I., xlviii. 4, Sept. 2, 1609.

^{page 126 note 5} Dom. Corres. May 11, 1614. See Appendix.

^{page 126 note 6} Privy Co. Reg. f. III, July 25, 1617. Here a Sir Thos. Chamberlain, a justice of Chester, took legal proceedings against T. Halliheade and others with regard to the right of common in the fields of Wickham and Colthorpe. Lord Say intervened in the dispute, stating if Chamberlain did not refer the matter to him, Chamberlain's inclosed ground should again be made common. Certain ‘riotous persons' therefore dug up a hedge of twenty years’ growth on the property of a clerk in Chancery and threatened to do the like in the fields of Chamberlain himself, Lord Say, a justice of the peace, being present in the fields at the time. The Privy Council were alarmed, and wrote to Lord Wallingford reminding him of the disturbances in Northampton and asking him to take great care to quell this outbreak. The letters say that the ‘general speech’ is that now Lord Say has ‘begunn to digg and levell downe hedges and ditches in the behalf of commones there would more downe shortely after.’

^{page 127 note 1} Ingleby, , Shakespeare and Welcombe Inclosure, p. 2Google Scholar. This order was again confirmed at the Assizes 15 James I.

^{page 127 note 2} Privy Co. Reg. f. 100, Feb. 15, 1618. Vol. iv. See Appendix II. infra.

^{page 127 note 3} Ibid.. 26,

^{page 128 note 1} Privy Co. Reg. vi., f. 199.

^{page 128 note 2} Ibid. f. 385, Mar. 7, 1630.

^{page 129 note 1} S.P. Dom. Chas. I., ccxxix., no. 112. This is an undated document assigned in 1632:—Commissions to be prepared to inquire into depopulation and conversion of arable land into pasture for the following counties: Lincoln, Leicester, Northants, Somerset, Wilts, Gloucester. John Pym and Thomas Hughes were among the commissioners. The name of Thomas Hughes furnishes proof that commissioners were actually appointed about 1632, for Powell mentions Hughes as the commissioner for whom he made inquiries, Powell's book being entered at Stationers' Hall in 1635 (Depopulation Arraigned, A, 2b). Hughes's name does not occur in the later commissions.

^{page 127 note 2} Patent, 11 Chas. I., pt. 23, no. 2706, no. 3, dors. Commission to Archbishop of Canterbury, William Bishop of London etc., for inquiring into depopulations and conversions since 10 Eliz.; dated March 23 (1636). Patent, II Chas. I., pt. 5, no. 2688, no. 31, dors. Commission to the same people for the same purpose since 30 Eliz. May 8 (1635).

^{page 127 note 3} Priv. Co. Reg. ix., f. 267, Oct. 18, 1633.

^{page 127 note 4} 21 Jac. I. The 25 Hen. VIII., c. 13, remained in force.

^{page 127 note 5} Powell, , Depopulation Arraigned, p. 84Google Scholar.

^{page 127 note 6} Coke Institutes, bk. iii., p. 205, 1644 edition. ‘That which may be lawfully prohibited before it is done may be justly punished after it be done.’

^{page 127 note 7} ‘The decay of tillage and houses of husbandry are the undoubted causes and grounds of depopulation, and a crime against the common laws of this realm. And every continuance thereof is a new crime as hath been lately declared by sentence in the Starre Chamber in Sir Anthonye Rooper's case,’ clxxxvii., no. 95, Chas. I., S.P.D. ‘His Maj. Att. General preferred an information in his Ma^ts High Court of Star Chamber for depopulating the towne of Coulderton’ etc. Do. cccxlii. 45. Certain witnesses in this case complain that as a consequence of their giving evidence ‘St. John drove them out of the towne where they were borne and their fathers and ancestors hath lived as farmers— tenants by the space of an 100 yeares and more—and will not suffer them to have anything there to live upon for the maintenance of the poore wives and children.’

^{page 130 note 1} Other instances of the action of the Government occur in connection with South Leverton and Cottham, Notts, , Privy Co. Reg. viii., f. 351Google Scholar; Eastfield, Barton Stacy, Hants, Nov. 29, 1634, x., f. 252; Harpham, Yorks, June 27, 1634; Privy Co. Reg. vol.x., f. 50; Mitcham, Surrey, Nov. 10, 1637, vol. xii., f. 356.

^{page 130 note 2} Cal. State Papers, Nov. 14, 1655.

^{page 130 note 3} The pamphlets of Moore, Taylor, and Pseudomisus appeared between 1650 and 1656.

^{page 130 note 4} Journal of House of Commons, Dec. 19, 1656—‘A Bill for improvement of waste grounds and regulating of commons and commonable lands and preventing depopulation was read a first time and afterwards rejected.’

^{page 131 note 1}

^{page 131 note 2} The return for Leicestershire in 1517–1519 is complete. The figures given by Mr. Gay are as follows:—1517–1590 (1485–1517), 5,780 acres; total acreage affected, 1.09 per cent, of county area, of which 4,622 acres were converted to pasture. In the return of 1607 (1578–1607) 12,290 acres were affected, or 2.32 of the county area, of which 4,973 acres were converted to pasture (Trans. Royal Hist. Sec. xviii., p. 233).

^{page 132 note 1} S.P. Dom. Chas. I., cxcii. 24.

^{page 132 note 2} S.P. Dom. and Privy Co. Reg., viii., f. 506, April 10, 1632. Inclosure three years before.

^{page 132 note 3} S.P. Dom. clxxxiv. 7.

^{page 132 note 4} See above Privy Council letter.

^{page 133 note 1} From Normancross Hundred we hear that 73 acres were converted to pasture (S.P. Dom. Chas. I., clxxxvii. 7) and 160 acres of the counties of Westmoreland to be inclosed and to be used for pasture, though she will till other lands instead = 233 acres. In another report, 820a. 1r., 20p. are reported as actually inclosed, while 300 others are about to be inclosed. The inclosures are mostly in small pieces; about 300 acres are definitely said to be converted to pasture, while a very few acres (under 10) are reported as still under the plough. Two entries relate to land formerly inclosed, but only lately converted to pasture, involving 85 acres, while 25 acres of land have been inclosed which were formerly pasture and remains in the same state. Of the next, inclosure is stated, the conversion to pasture being left doubtful (S.P. Dom. clxxxix. 94). The Nottingham inclosures are of the same character, amounting to 1,135 acres (S.P. Dom. cxcii. 94, 93). In Derbyshire very few inclosures are reported, and the Justices of one division say there is a desire to increase and maintain tillage (S.P. Dom. clxxxi. 7).

^{page 133 note 2} Apparently the old inclosures remained, but new ones did not proceed. In Huntingdon the inclosure of 300 acres was abandoned in deference to the Council, and 50 acres at Breedon in Leicestershire. In a letter from the Council, May 1631, it is stated that gentlemen wish to proceed, but they are only to do so if they will be bound by a decree in Chancery not to ‘decay tillage’ or houses of husbandry (S.P. Dom. Chas. l., cxci. no. 56).

^{page 133 note 3} Coke's notes of the Lord Keeper's speech in 1633 allude to ‘the error’ that men thought they might depopulate because the tillage statutes were repealed, and state also that there was a special charge ‘against depopulating enclosures’ (S.P. Dom. Chas. l., cclv. 44). The case of the depopulation of Famingham, Kent, by Sir Anthony Roper came up at Milton Assizes in 1633 (ibid. ccxxxiii. 36).

^{page 133 note 4} See above.

^{page 134 note 1} S.P. Dom. Chas. l., cclvii., 129. The names both in this paper and in that relating to Lincolnshire suggest that these belong to an earlier date, possibly to the proceedings of 1607 in the case of Warwickshire, and in 1609 in that of Lincoln.

^{page 134 note 2} Ibid. vol. ccvi. no. 71.

^{page 134 note 3} In February 163⅚ Sir William Pelhara says his father had a pardon under the Great Seal in recompense for services in which he shed his blood. In March 163⅚ he wants to attend the lords commissioners for conversion (ibid. cccxiv. 29; cccxvi. 58). Lord Brudenell states he was fined 1,000l. for depopulation of Hougham. Says he has only depopulated to a slight extent, and has paid 500l.; wants to be excused the rest. Admits that others have depopulated much (ibid. cccxlii. 47).

^{page 135 note 1} Morton's, Northamptonshire, p. 15Google Scholar.

^{page 135 note 2} Considerations concerning Common Fields, Pseudomisus, p. 38.

^{page 135 note 3} Ogilby, , Itinerarium Anglia, 1675Google Scholar. This is not the case with Leicester, but in Leicester very few roads are marked.

^{page 135 note 4} These figures are obtained from the official calculations in the case of inclosures from 1702–1797; from the figures given in the official lists from 1801–1869; and from the Acts themselves from 1797–1801. All are based on the figures contained in the Acts themselves when these are stated, and by averaging for the cases where the figures are not given. The average is made (1) for each county, because the Acts from the same county usually resemble each other, and (2) for the periods 1702–1797, 1798–1815, 1816–1843, 1844–1869. The later Acts have been neglected, but there were none between 1869 and 1874, and the estimated area of waste and common field in 1874 has been stated. It is noticeable that the Acts after 1844 affect smaller areas, as a rule, than the earlier Acts, while those between 1798 and 1815 affect larger areas.

The following are the figures for Northampton:

Total Extent of Land Area, 636,123. Agricultural Statement, 1903.

Total per cent. of Area inclosed by Private Acts.

^{page 136 note 1} The figures are approximately as follows:

^{page 136 note 2}

^{page 136 note 3} For example: Devon, about 2 per cent.; Kent, under I per cent.; Cornwall, rather over 1 per cent.

^{page 136 note 4} Norfolk appears also to be an average county in this respect, but the figures are seldom given, so that the result of averaging is not very trustworthy.

The proportion of Acts relating to common field inclosure appears to be greatest where the total inclosure is greatest.

^{page 137 note 1} Fisher, , Forest of Essex, p. 268Google Scholar.

^{page 137 note 2} What this date is remains uncertain. The districts inclosed in the time of Domesday have been suggested; but the fact that the open-field system was used in New England suggests that some districts first cultivated from the twelfth to the sixteenth century in England may have been cultivated in common fields. DrCunningham, suggests that this may be a revival rather than a survival (English Industry and Commerce, p. 348)Google Scholar.

^{page 137 note 3} Trigge, , Humble Petition of Two Sisters, B 1Google Scholar.

^{page 137 note 4} Whalley, , Whitaker, i. 289Google Scholar.

^{page 137 note 5} Somerset retained some common fields, but was an inclosed county in Norden's time (Norden, , Surveyor, p. 232Google Scholar). See Cunningham, , English Industry and Commerce, p. 898Google Scholar.

Kent, and also Essex and Devonshire (The Common Weal of this Realm of England, p. 49)Google Scholar.

Suffolk: Tusser.

Cornwall: Carey, , Survey of Cornwall, 1602, p. 66Google Scholar. He speaks of the hard times suffered by the landman, who ‘in times not past the remembrance of some yet living rubbed forth their estate in the poorest plight, their grounds lay all in common or onely divided by stitchmeal.’ He contrasts this state of things with their more prosperous condition when he writes. This evidence seems to show that some system of common or common ownership had been the rule in Cornwall, though, owing to the barren soil and backward agriculture, it may not have resembled the common fields of Daventry.

^{page 137 note 6} Of Norfolk we are told ‘the parte of it towards the sea and much of the west westwards is champion; the other parte toward Suffolk is woodland and pasture ground’. There are 'above 200 townes in the champion parte and commaonly in everye of them is 20, 30 ploughes and 1000, 1500, 2, 3 or 4000 combes of corne yearely growing. When export allowed between Lynn and Wells 30,000l. has been taken of ‘outlandish gould for corne transported the country.’

Camden and Leland contrast the two parts of Warwickshire (Camden, Britannia, ed. 1695, p. 499Google Scholar).

^{page 138 note 1} Norden, , Surveyor, p. 232Google Scholar.

Moreover, the earlier depopulation returns of 1517–1519 show that conversion to pasture and consolidation of farms proceeded more rapidly in the Midlands than elsewhere, for they relate to twenty-six counties, and in 1517–1519 figures of the area converted to pasture or affected by the consolidation of farms would bear a much closer relation to the total area of inclosure than similar figures in 1631, because the inducements to convert to pasture were greater, and inclosure piece by piece was the rule rather than the inclosure of the whole lordship.

^{page 138 note 2} Northampton, however, is quoted as typically champion in 1607. See ‘A Consideration of the cause in question before the Lords touchinge depopulation,’ printed in Cunningham's, English Industry and Commerce, part ii., p. 898Google Scholar.

^{page 139 note 1} S.P. Dom. Chas. I., vol. ccvi., no. 70.

^{page 139 note 2} Norden, , Northampton, p. 341Google Scholar. ‘No shire within this land hath so little waste grounds.’

^{page 139 note 3} Moore, A Scripture Word against Inclosurt, Introd.

^{page 140 note 1} 1602. Carew, Richard, Survey of Cornwall, pp. 37 and 38Google Scholar. Thoroton, Nottinghamshire. ‘This prevailing mischief in some parts of this shire have taken away and destroyed more private families of good account than time itself within the compass of my observations.’ Pref. xvi., xvii. See Appendix I.

1685. Aubrey, , Nat. History of Wilts, p. 104Google Scholar. ‘Anciently in the hundreds of Malmesbury and Chippenham were but very few enclosures, and that near houses. The north part of Wiltshire was in those days admirable for field sports. All vast champian fields as now about Sherston and Mansfield. … About 1595 all between Easton Piers and Castle Combe was a Campania like Coteswold upon which it borders, and then Yatton and Castle Combe did intercommon together. Between these two parishes much hath been enclosure in my remembrance, and every day more and more. … I doe remember about 1633, but one enclosure to Chipnam field which was at the north end, and by this time I thinke it is all enclosed. So all between Kington St. Michael and Dracot Cerne was common field and the west field of Kington S. Michael ben Easton Piers and Haywood was inclosed in 1664. … Then were a world of labouring people maintained by the plough as they were likewise in Northamptonshire.

A History of Northumberland, 1895, etc. The following inclosures are among those mentioned:

Probably Bilston, ii. 458.

Acomb, iv. 1694, p. 139.

Togston, v. 1632–3 and 1686, p. 332.

Acklington, lately divided 1702, v. 372.

Over Burton, v. 1621, p. 212; see also v. 285.

West Thirston, vii. 1657, p. 315.

Warwick, Camden'sBritannia, 1607Google Scholar, states that the fielden part of Warwickshire had been largely inclosed since the reign of Henry IV. Gibson, in his additions of 1695, states that the change from tillage to pasture had been made largely within living memory. For Chancery decree see above.

Bentham, Joseph, Christian Conflict, 1635, pp. 319, 322Google Scholar. This volume contains sermons preached at Kettering, and relates mainly to the county of Northampton. He refers to the inclosures of several towns adjoining Kettering, and particularly cites eleven cases within his experience where the inclosing owner has not prospered.

The following are examples of inclosures by agreement quoted in George Baker's Northampton:

Bray brook also was inclosed by agreement in 1646, and reduced to articles in 1649 (Chancery Orders, 1655, A, f. 135).

Leicestershire: a Vindication of a Regulated Inclosure, 1656, Lee, JosephGoogle Scholar. He defends the inclosure of Calthorp in Leicestershire, and quoted the names of nineteen places in which inclosures have taken place without depopulation (p. 5); and of fifteen also where in most cases the land has been ploughed within thirty years (p. 8). Two towns occur in both lists. Moore states that two of the towns mentioned by Lee have ‘no house at all left in either of them but the minister's,’ and states that England, especially Leicestershire and the counties adjacent, is guilty of depopulating inclosure (A Scripture Word against Inclosure, Moore, John, 1656, p. 10Google Scholar. See above for Chancery Decrees in Yorkshire).

^{page 143 note 1} Many of these authorities are those quoted by Mr. Gay.

1604. Francis Trigge, The Humble Petition of Two Sisters. See also Epist. Ded. ‘There is a mighty Thorne sprung up of late in divers places in this realme … which doeth not onely goe about to impouerish your Majesties subiects but quite to roote them out. I meane inclosure of fields and commons.’

1612. The Curtaine Drawer of the World, p. 3.

1636. Powell, , Depopulation Arraigned, p. 57Google Scholar.

1656. Pseudomisus: a Vindication of the Considerations, 1656, p. 15.

1664. Forster, , England's Happiness Increased, p. 22Google Scholar.

1681. Houghton's, Letters on Husbandry etc., 09 8, 1681Google Scholar.

Article contents

The Inclosure of Common Fields in the Seventeenth Century1

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests