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