The Enclosure Movement

This enclosure movement, or the consolidation of smaller agrarian holdings into larger estates, was not a new phenomenon in the 18th century. Some enclosures had occurred in the 1200s and again in the 16th century. In fact, Sir Anthony Fitzherbert’s 1523 work Bake of Husbandrie observed that the latest agrarian trends were better suited to consolidation of larger tracts of land rather than the smaller farm estates common in his day. These earlier enclosures involved a relatively small number of land holdings and had little relationship to meeting the subsistence needs of the populace but rather focused on the production of wool for the growing textile and leather industries. However, in the 17th and 18th centuries, the pace of enclosures quickened and the ancient pattern of small land holdings began to wane rapidly as more acreage fell into the hands of larger landowners. This group comprised a successful and confident class of individuals who had become wealthy through trade or political office and desired the social status that came from the ownership of land and the old landed aristocracy which had begun to reassert itself by the first half of the 18th century. In reality, these landowners had formed a successful marriage of agrarian and urban means and were a secure and enterprising agricultural capitalist class. These men sought profits by increasing production for the growing agricultural market. A substantial amount of capital was required to meet the demands being placed on farm production through the use of new agricultural techniques and practices. Thus, these groups took advantage of low interest rates and on occasion mortgaged their estates to acquire the capital to purchase additional land, an approach that was beyond the means of the smaller land owners.2

Until the late 18th century, enclosures generally consisted of private contractual agreements between proprietors. If one or more larger landowners obtained property rights in an area, substantial pressure might be placed on the many small land holders to sell their property. Enclosures accelerated in the period 1730 to 1750 as cheaper food prices encouraged some of the yeomen farmers to sell their small holdings to those large landowners and use the profit to set up leasehold farms or become involved in the growing manufacturing enterprises. By 1770, the situation had become increasingly difficult for the poorer cottagers who farmed only a few strips of land in the open fields and supplemented their income by working part-time as laborers for their wealthy neighbors. They might be granted some tiny plot as the land was restructured. But their previous ability to graze cattle in common areas or to gather wood for fuel disappeared as waste lands increasingly became the property of larger land owners. On the fringe of these groups were the squatters who secured their livelihoods through wage earning, poaching, begging, and at times thieving. As the enclosure movement gained momentum, particularly after 1770, this group found their rickety abodes torn down to place more land under cultivation, and they ended up on the periphery of society, unskilled, and frequently unemployed and relying on the government to provide minimal subsistence through poor law administration. Many contemporary observers who chronicled the enclosure movement in the 18th century praised the trend because, in their opinion, it further subordinated the lower agrarian classes, forced them into perpetual labor, and denied their economic independence. For example, In 1732 Robert Walpole advocated a tax on salt, not candles, because such a levy would force the poor to work since they made their own candles. Such a view, while difficult to comprehend today, was the acceptable norm for the elites of the 18th century, who had little sympathy for the plight of the lower classes and looked how best to meet their interests of personal and national wealth.

After 1640, the government did not attempt to check the trend to enclose the land. All questions regarding enclosure fell to the interpretation of property rights under the provisions of common law. Naturally, this development led to a weakening of the position of the small and tenant farmers in relation to the more influential large land holders. Beginning in the early 18th century, more aggressive parliamentary action spurred on the enclosure movement. From 1727 to 1844, Parliament passed 4,000 acts approving the enclosure of 7 million acres of land. Over the next half century an additional 1,000 parliamentary acts enclosed 1 million acres more.3

During the early period of parliamentary involvement, Parliament generally did not work out the specific details of an enclosure act but rather left those provisions to the sponsors once it had passed. However, the large number of enclosure requests that occurred in the 18th century forced Parliament to pass the first Public General Act in 1801 in order to refine the procedures and save that body’s time. Later the General Enclosure Acts of 1836 and 1840 permitted landowners to enclose land without referring the proposal to Parliament as long as a majority (consisting of both numbers and value of the land) opted to do so. The last major act in 1845 amended the earlier ones in order to protect the interests of smaller landholders. For the most part, each enclosure act appointed commissioners whose role was to administer the process. This General Enclosure Act of 1845 appointed permanent commissioners who drew a salary. These commissioners had the authority to award enclosures without submitting legislation to Parliament and to allocate plots deemed as fair equivalents of the previous open lands and common rights.4

That is not to say that those affected, the small farmers, cottagers, and the like, had no recourse. For example, in the period 1730 to 1839 in Surrey County, 101 enclosure bills were sent to Parliament and only fifty gained passage. While this is a higher percentage of failed legislation than found in most other counties, the statistics highlight that opposition did exist and was not necessarily meek. Some persons sought to modify only portions of the legislation to gain personal advantage in the bill, while the more serious opponents filed counter petitions. In Surrey County, some twenty-five counter petitions were filed against the enclosure proposals. These tactics might cause a new bill to be introduced or delay a decision on the original proposal, perhaps for years. Such opposition potentially was fraught with several challenges. At least one person amongst the group would have to be literate enough to read and understand the bill and explain it to fellow dissenters. Such opposition might lead to the hiring of a lawyer to represent their views. In addition, someone might be required to travel to London and spend perhaps weeks in the capital while the bill was being debated, an expensive and sometimes fruitless endeavor requiring substantial sacrifices for the group of farmers opposing the bill. So, in theory the small farmers and cottagers might have a free decision to make when the pressure arose to enclose lands in their community. However, it is obvious that no matter the outcome of legislation or persuasion, opposition might incur the ire of those powerful landlords who sought enclosure in the first place and result in the loss of common rights, increased expenses for rents and fertilizer, and perhaps even a voluntary departure from the village. In the end, 21% of British land had been affected by enclosures, two-thirds of the total arable land and one-third waste or common land.5