ThiseditiondiffersfrompreviouseditionsofTheVillageLabourerintworespects。TheoriginalChapterOnehasbeenomitted：thischapter
describedtheconcentrationofpowerinthehandsofasmallclass，which
wastheleadingfeatureofourpoliticaldevelopmentintheeighteenthcentury。
Secondly，theAppendiceshavebeenreduced，butthestudentwhowishesto
pursuethesubjectofenclosurefurtherwillfind，attheendofthisvolume，
fulldetailsoffourimportantandrepresentativeenclosures。
Intheirprefacetotheeditionpublishedin1913theauthorsdiscussed
someofthecontroversiesthathadarisenonthetopicoftheenclosures。
Itseemsworthwhiletoreproduceherethesubstanceofthatpreface。Two
maincriticismshavebeenpassedonthetreatmentofenclosuresinthese
pages：thefirst，thatthewritershavedrawnanunjustpicture，because
theydeliberatelyexcludedtheimportanceofenclosureinincreasingthe
foodsuppliesofthenation；thesecond，thatthehardshipsofthepoorhave
beenexaggerated，andthat，thoughthesystemofenclosurelentitselfto
abuses，therewasnoevidencethatwrongwasdoneinthemassofenclosures。
Thewriterssubmitthefollowingconsiderations：1Ithasbeentheaccepted
viewofallmoderncritics，withthesingleexceptionofdrHasbach，that
theenclosuresofthisperiod，oratanyratetheenclosuresthattookplace
after1795，madethesoilofEnglandimmediatelymoreproductive。Thatthis
istheusualviewwasstatedinthetext；itscorrectnesswasnotdiscussed
orquestioned。ThesubjectofthisvolumeisthefateoftheVillageLabourer，
andsofarasheisconcerned，thefactswhichtheyareaccusedofneglecting
suggesttworeflections：athefeedingofManchesterandLeedsdidnot
makelifecheapertohim；andbifagriculturesuddenlybecameagreat
industry，multiplyingassomesayEngland’sresourcestwenty-fold，anequitable
readjustmentmusthaveincreasedtheprosperityofallclassesengagedin
thatindustry。Thegreaterthestresslaidontheprogressofagriculture，
thegreaterappeartheperversityandinjusticeofthearrangementsofa
societyunderwhichthelabourerbecameimpoverished。Ifitisarguedthat
themiseryofthelabourerwasthepricethenationhadtopayforthatadvance，
itisworthwhiletopointoutthatthatwasnottheviewofYoung，orDavies，
orEden，orSinclair，orCobbett，andthattheactualrevolutionthatwas
accomplishedwasnottheonlyalternativetotheoldunreformedcommonfield
system。2Theauthorsdesiretopointouthowlittletheyhavereliedon
solitaryinstancesfortheirgeneralstatements。Complainthasbeenmade
ofthepublishingofthestoryoftheattemptedenclosureofSedgmoor，but
thosewhoreadthataccountcarefullywillseethatthepassagefromSelwyn’s
lettersareimportantasdisclosingthestateofmindofachairmanofan
EnclosureCommittee；theywillnotealsothathislettersshowthatitwas
acommonpracticeforMembersofParliamenttoarrangemeetingsinorder
tomanipulateCommitteesintheinterestofprivatepersons。Selwyn’sview
oftheresponsibilitiesofachairmanofoneoftheseCommitteeshastherefore
aspecialsignificance。Themainquestionforthehistorianisthis：Were
thepoorsacrificedornotintheenclosuresastheywerecarriedout？The
writershavegiventheirreasonsforthinkingthattheyweresacrificed，
andneedlesslysacrificed，andnoevidencehascomeundertheirnoticein
thecriticismspublishedtoshakethatview。Theyhavesetouttheactual
methodsofprocedurethatwereadoptedforconvertingEnglandfromtheold
tothenewsystem，andtheythinkitisclearthatthosemethodsweresuch
thatthepoorwereboundtosufferunlessParliamentexpresslyintervened
fortheirprotection。Thiswasapparent，orbecameapparent，toobservers
atthetime，andproposalsthatwouldhavehelpedthepoorweremadebyArthur
Young，byEden，byDavies，bySuffield，andbytheBoardofAgriculture。
Thoseproposalsweredisregarded，notnecessarilyfromwickednessorrapacity，
butbecausetheatmosphereoftherulingclasswasunfavourable。Youngreferred
tohisownproposalsixyearslaterinapassagewhichisworthquoting：
’IhavebeenreadingovermyInquiryintotheProprietyofapplyingWastes
tothebetterMaintenanceofthePoor。Ihadalmostforgottenit，butof
alltheessaysandpapersIhaveproduced，noneIthinksopardonableas
this，soconvincingbyfacts，andsosatisfactorytoanycandidreader。Thank
GodIwroteit，forthoughitneverhadthesmallesteffectexceptinexciting
oppositionandridicule，itwill，Itrust，remainaproofofwhatoughtto
havebeendone；andhaditbeenexecuted，wouldhavediffusedmorecomfort
amongthepoorthananypropositionthateverwasmade’Autobiography，
July14，1806。
Onefurtherfactofinterestandimportanceinthisconnectionmaybe
mentioned。MichaelSadler，theFactoryReformer，was，unhappilyforEngland，
thrownoutofParliamentafterthepassingoftheReformBill。Hewasin
theHouseofCommonsforonlythreeyears。Oneofthemostimportantspeeches
thathemadeinhisbriefcareerthere，wasalongspeechreviewingthedisastrous
changethathadcomeovertheagriculturallabourersinrecenttimes。The
chiefcausehefoundinthedisappearanceofthesmallfarmer，thepulling
downofcottages，andtheenclosures。Hesaidthattheenclosureshadinflicted
onthepoorasaclass’themostirreparableinjuries。’LikeThelwall，with
whomhewouldhavebeenslowtorecogniseanyaffinity，hearguedthatenclosure
mighthavebenefitedthepoor，butthatinpracticeithadruinedthem。’Inclosures
mightindeedhavebeensoconductedastohavebenefitedallparties；but
now，coupledwithotherfeaturesofthesystem，theyformapartofwhat
Blackstonedenominatesa“fatalruralpolicy“；onewhichhascompleted
thedegradationandruinofyouragriculturalpoor。’
Twosubjectsarediscussedfullyinthisvolumeforthefirsttime。One
istheactualmethodandprocedureofParliamentaryEnclosure；theother
thelabourers’risingof1830。Morethanoneimportantbookhasbeenwritten
onenclosuresduringthelastfewyears，butnowherecanthestudentfind
afullanalysisoftheprocedureandstagesbywhichtheoldvillagewas
destroyed。Therisingof1830hasonlybeenmentionedincidentallyingeneral
histories：ithasnowherebeentreatedasadefinitedemandforbetterconditions，
anditscourse，scope，significanceandpunishmenthavereceivedlittleattention。
Thewritersofthisbookhavetreateditfully，usingforthatpurposethe
HomeOfficePapersaccessibletostudentsintheRecordOffice。Theywish
toexpresstheirgratitudetoMrHubertHallforhishelpandguidancein
thispartoftheirwork。
Theobligationsofthewriterstotheimportantbookspublishedinrecent
yearsoneighteenth-centurylocalgovernmentinthetext，butthearemanifest，
andtheyareacknowledgedwritersdesiretomentionspeciallytheirgreat
debttoMrHobson’sIndustrialSystem，aworkthatseemstothemtothrow
anewandmostilluminatinglightontheeconomicsignificanceofthehistory
oftheearlyyearsofthelastcentury。
MrandMrsArthurPonsonbyandMissM。K。Bradbyhavedonethewriters
thegreatserviceofreadingtheentirebookandsuggestingmanyimportant
improvements。MrandMrsC。R。Buxton，MrA。CluttonBrock，ProfessorL。
T。Hobhouse，andMrH。W。Massinghamhavegiventhemvaluablehelpandadvice
onvariouspartsofthework。
TheVillageBeforeEnclosureToelucidatethesechapters，andtosupplyfurtherinformationforthose
whoareinterestedinthesubject，wepublishanAppendixcontainingthe
history，andtolerablyfullparticulars，offourseparateenclosuresatCroydon，
HauteHuntre，StanwellandWakefield。
AtthetimeofthegreatWhigRevolution，Englandwasinthemainacountry
ofcommonsandofcommonfields；1*atthetimeoftheReformBill，England
wasinthemainacountryofindividualistagricultureandoflargeenclosed
farms。TherehasprobablybeennochangeinEuropeinthelasttwocenturies
comparabletothisinimportanceofwhichsolittleisknownto-day，orof
whichsolittleistobelearntfromthegeneralhistoriesofthetime。The
acceptedviewisthatthischangemarksagreatnationaladvance，andthat
thehardshipswhichincidentallyfollowedcouldnothavebeenavoided：that
itmeantavastincreaseinthefoodresourcesofEnglandincomparisonwith
whichthesufferingsofindividualscountedforlittle：andthatthegreat
estateswhichthencameintoexistencewereratherthegiftofeconomicforces
thanthedeliberateacquisitionsofpowerfulmen。Wearenotconcernedto
corroborateortodisputethecontentionthatenclosuremadeEnglandmore
productive，2*ortodiscussthemeritsofenclosureitselfasapublic
policyorameanstoagriculturalprogressintheeighteenthcentury。Our
businessiswiththechangesthattheenclosurescausedinthesocialstructure
ofEngland，fromthemannerinwhichtheywereinpracticecarriedout。We
propose，therefore，todescribetheactualoperationsbywhichsocietypassed
throughthisrevolution，theoldvillagevanished，andrurallifeassumed
itsmodernformandcharacter。
Itisdifficultforus，whothinkofacommonasawildsweepofheather
andbeautyandfreedom，savedfortheenjoymentoftheworldinthemidst
ofguardedparksandforbiddenmeadows，torealisethatthecommonsthat
disappearedfromsomanyanEnglishvillageintheeighteenthcenturybelonged
toaveryelaborate，complex，andancienteconomy。Theantiquityofthat
elaborateeconomyhasbeenthesubjectoffiercecontention，andthecontroversies
thatrageroundthenurseryoftheEnglishvillagerecallthecontroversies
thatragedroundthenurseryofHomer。Themainsubjectofcontentionhas
beenthis。Wasthemanororthetownship，orwhatevernameweliketogive
totheprimitiveunitofagriculturallife，anorganisationimposedbya
despoticlandowneronhisdependents，orwasitcreatedbytheco-operation
ofagroupoffreetribesmen，afterwardsdominatedbyamilitaryoverlord？
DiditowemoretoRomantraditionortoTeutonictendencies？ProfessorVinogradoff，
thelatesthistorian，inclinestoacompromisebetweentheseconflicting
theories。Hethinksthatitisimpossibletotracetheopen-fieldsystem
ofcultivationtoanyexclusiverightofownershiportothepowerofcoercion，
andthatthecommunalorganisationofthepeasantry，avillagecommunity
ofshareholderswhocultivatedthelandontheopen-fieldsystemandtreated
theotherrequisitesofrurallifeasappendanttoit，ismoreancientthan
themanorialorder。Itderives，inhisview，fromtheoldEnglishsociety。
Themanoritself，aninstitutionwhichpartakesatonceofthecharacter
ofanestateandofaunitoflocalgovernment，wasproducedbytheneeds
ofgovernmentandthedevelopmentofindividualisthusbandry，sidebyside
withthiscommunalvillage。Theseconditionsleadtothecreationoflordships，
andaftertheConquesttheytakeforminthemanor。Themanorialelement，
infact，issuperimposedonthecommunal，andisnotthefoundationofit：
themedievalvillageisafreevillagegraduallyfeudalised。Fortunately
itisnotincumbentonustodomorethantouchonthisfascinatingstudy，
asitisenoughforourpurposestonotethatthegreaterpartofEngland
incultivationatthebeginningoftheeighteenthcenturywascultivated
onasystemwhich，withcertainlocalvariations，belongedtoacommontype，
representingthiscommonancestry。
Theterm’common’wasusedofthreekindsoflandintheeighteenth-century
village，andthethreewereintimatelyconnectedwitheachother。Therewere
1thegablefields，2thecommonmeadowland，and3thecommonorwaste。
Thearablefieldsweredividedintostrips，withdifferentowners，someof
whomownedfewstrips，andsomemany。Thevariousstripsthatbelongedto
aparticularownerwerescatteredamongthefields。Stripsweredividedfrom
eachother，sometimesbyagrassbandcalledabalk，sometimesbyafurrow。
Theywerecultivatedonauniformsystembyagreement，andafterharvest
theywerethrownopentopasturage。Thecommonmeadowlandwasdividedup
bylot，peggedout，anddistributedamongtheownersofthestrips；after
thehaywascarried，thesemeadows，likethearablefields，wereusedfor
pasture。Thecommonorwaste，whichwasusedasacommonpastureatalltimes
oftheyear，consistedsometimesofwoodland，sometimesofroadsidestrips，
andsometimesofcommonsinthemodernsense。3*
Such，roughly，wasthemapoftheoldEnglishvillage。Whatweretheclasses
thatlivedinit，andwhatweretheirseveralrights？Inanormalvillage
therewouldbe1aLordoftheManor，2Freeholders，someofwhommight
belargeproprietors，andmanysmall，bothclassesgoingbythegeneralname
ofYeomanry，3Copyholders，4TenantFarmers，holdingbyvarioussorts
oftenure，fromtenantsatwilltofarmerswithleasesforthreelives，5
Cottagers，6Squatters，and7FarmServants，livingintheiremployers’
houses。Theproportionsoftheseclassesvariedgreatly，nodoubt，indifferent
villages，butwehaveanestimateofthetotalagriculturalpopulationin
thetablepreparedbyGregoryKingin1688，fromwhichitappearsthatin
additiontotheEsquiresandGentlemen，therewere40，000familiesoffreeholders
ofthebettersort，140，000familiesoffreeholdersofthelessersort，and
150，000farmers。AdamSmith，itwillberemembered，writingnearlyacentury
later，saidthatthelargenumberofyeomenwasatoncethestrengthand
thedistinctionofEnglishagriculture。
Letusnowdescriberathermorefullythedifferentpeoplerepresented
inthesedifferentcategories，andthedifferentrightsthattheyenjoyed。
Wehaveseeninthefirstchapterthatthemanorialcourtshadlostmany
oftheirpowersbythistime，andthatpartofthejurisdictionthatthe
LordoftheManorhadoriginallyexercisedhadpassedtotheJusticeofthe
Peace。Nosuchchangehadtakenplaceinhisrelationtotheeconomiclife
ofthevillage。Hemightorhemightnotstillownademesneland。Sofar
asthecommonarableorcommonmeadowwasconcerned，hewasinthesameposition
asanyotherproprietor：hemightownmanystripsorfewstripsornostrips
atall。Hispositionwithregardtothewastewasdifferent，thedifference
beingexpressedbyBlackstone’inthosewastegrounds，whichareusually
calledcommons，thepropertyofthesoilisgenerallyintheLordofthe