The Industrial Revolution

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1027928145

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-159926

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Cunningham, William http://d-nb.info/gnd/128907487

Title:: The Industrial Revolution

Place of publication:: Cambridge

Publisher:: The University Press

Year of publication:: 1922

Scope:: xxii S., S. 404-886

Digitisation:: 2021

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

MOTIVES FOR AND RESULTS OF ENCLOSURE 555 as enclosure went on, there was less and less room for the A008 small farmer who carried on a traditional husbandry with a ’ view to subsistence. As these men were replaced by tenants who farmed for the market, another change became more noticeable ; there was a tendency to unite small holdings in the hands of one man’; a successful yeoman? who had saved some capital and could do his marketing to advantage, would be glad to take additional lands. The consolidation of holdings was favoured by manorial lords® who found that they were put to less expense in connection with farm buildings. There were in consequence, as enclosure proceeded, fewer farm houses; and during the seventeenth century, when so much attention was given to grazing, there was probably a diminished demand for labour; in the eighteenth century, it was alleged that enclosed land gave employment to a larger number of hands than unenclosed*, but there would not necessarily be a larger population. The number of cottages had diminished, so that the rural labourers opportunities of marrying and settling would be curtailed’, as well as his chance of bettering his position, Hence it came about that the anticipations of Fitzherbert and others, who had argued in favour of enclosure for improved husbandry, as an all round benefit” were falsified. The progress of enclosure brought about a decrease in the and the number of farm households and of cottages in one village splace: after another, so that the depopulation of the rural districts8, 77a Pop 1 On this and other points I am much indebted to the excellent paper by E. M. Leonard on The Inclosure of Common Fields. Royal Hist. Soc. Trans. N. 8. zm. 118. 2 For early instances of yeomen who prospered and rose in the world, see E. C. Lodge, Victoria County History, Berkshire, mm. 208; also 8. J. Elyard, dnnals of Purton in Wiltshire Notes and Quertes (1895), 1. 582. 8 Pennington, who was an advocate of enclosure, deprecates this practice, which be regards as injurious; he held that it was commonly but not necessarily asso. ciated with enclosare. Reflections on the various advantages, p. 56. 4 Hale, Compleat Book of Husbandry (1758), 1. 208. 5 Enquiry into the advantages and disadvantages resulting from Bills of Inclosure, Brit. Mus. T. 1950 (1), (1780). This is an admirable statement of the case against enclosures, and deals specially with the unfair methods by which they were carried through. See below, p. 558. 9 See below p. 714. 7 Compare the argument in John Houghton's Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry and Trade, 1. (8 Sept. 1681), p. 10. % This is implied in Moore's argument (see below, p. 557 n. 8) in the time of Cromwell: alsoin Cowper's vigorous tract An Essay proving that enclosing commons

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: The Industrial Revolution

Monograph

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation