MOTIVES FOR AND RESULTS OF ENCLOSURE 557
of this fresh soil, and Aubrey describes how in Wiltshire, A.D. 1689
“as ten thousand pounds is gained in the Hill Country, so —*7'%
the Vale does lose as much, which brings it to an equation.”
The same sort of change was taking place over larger areas;
Leicestershire and Northamptonshire had been great corn-
growing areas, but in the seventeenth century, tillage gave
place to pasture farming; the inland shires were? apparently
at a disadvantage in disposing of their grain; cattle-breeding
and sheep-farming were the most profitable uses of the soil.
The Council of James I and Charles 13 had taken active
measures to check the movement of turning arable land to
pasture in these districts, both by writing to the justices and
by instituting proceedings in the Star Chambers, With the and no
fall of the monarchy, there was no longer any effective means 27 12%
of attempting to maintain the special conditions of either Fo
agriculture or industry in particular localities, and pasture markets.
farming spread more rapidly®
The movement for enclosure does not appear to have
Vales, thongh not quite so much....In Wiltshire it appears to be so very significant
that if a Farmer has a Thousand of Sheep, and no Fallows to fold them on, his
Neighbour will give him Ten Shillings a Night for every Thousand.” Defoe, Tour
(1724), Vol. 11. Letter 1. 49.
1 Natural History of Wiltshire, 111. His own rents at Chalke had fallen £60
since the Civil War.
3 See above p. 544 n. 2,
8 Leonard, op. cst. 126. 4 7b. 129,
® Some discussion arose on the subject during the Intervegnum, in consequence
of the allegations of the Rev. John Moore of Knaptoft, who seems to have thought
that a great deal of enclosure with depopulation had recently occurred in
Leicestershire (Crying sin of England of not caring for the poor wherein
Inclosure viz. auch, as doth unpeople Townes and uncorn fields is arraigned),
and that as a consequence tenants were unable to get farms, and cottiers were
deprived of employment in various agricultural operations which he enumerates
bp. 11). ‘Pseudonismus’ replied that the law provided sufficiently against any
danger of depopulating, and that this could only arise from carelessness in
enforcing it. Considerations concerning Common Fields (1654), p.8. This answer
to Moore's pamphlet has been attributed, by Nichols (History and Antiquities of
the County of Leicester (1807), 1v. i. 85), to the Rev. Joseph Lee, Rector of
Cottesbach in Leicestershire. See also A Scripture word against Inclosure (1656),
from which it appears that petitions on the subject from Leicestershire were pre-
sented to the Lord Protector and his Council. The further reply of Pseudo.
nismus, Vindication of the Considerations, includes a vigorous statement from a
Leicestershire gentleman of the waste and mischief which arose from the common
fields (p. 41); this is quoted by Nichols, op. eit. 1v. i. 93. Lee distinguished the
enclosing he approved from that of Tudor Times. Eirafia 708 dypot, or 4 Fin-
dication of a regulated Enclosure, (1656). Considerable extracts are printed by
Nichols. History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester, Iv. i. 94.
