William Marshall on Enclosure in the Vale of Pickering, Yorkshire, 1788
(William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Yorkshire (1788), Vol. 1, pp. 48-57, 97-100; in
in J. F. C. Harrison, ed., Society and Politics in England, 1780-1960, New York: Harper
& Row, 1965, pp. 27-32.)
There has no doubt been a time (and not perhaps many centuries past) when the entire
country lay open; when common fields, common meadows, common pastures, open
woods, and extensive forests and wastes, were the only division of lands in this kingdom.
Even the demesne lands of the feudal lords appear to have once lain open with the lands
of their tenants. . . .
In the present century, more especially within the last-fifty years, enclosure has made
a rapid progress; . . .
The garden is the highest state of cultivation; open fields and common pastures the
lowest; separate enclosures a middle state which seems to be well adapted to the present
population of this country.
Be this as it may, the spirit of enclosure continues to be such, that in half a century
more an open field, or an undivided common may be rare, and the remembrance of them
will of course soon wear away. This is therefore the proper time to register interesting
facts relative to the subject, and this the proper place for adducing them.
In my own remembrance, more than half the Vale under observation lay open: now
scarcely an open field or an undivided common remains. Besides, the largest parish in the
Vale-one of the most extensive parishes in the kingdom-is now under enclosure; and the
circumstances attending it are such as have seldom occurred: a suitable opportunity this
for endeavouring to ascertain just ideas of a subject, which, though it has of late years
been much agitated, appears to be, even yet, imperfectly understood.
In the beginning of the present century, the immediate township of PICKERING
remained in its ancient uninclosed state.
Having been thought too large to be laid out conveniently as one township, it had
been judiciously split into two divisions by a natural line, a considerable brook which
runs through it.
On each side of the brook lay a suite of COMMON FIELDS; three in number; for the
unvarying round of wheat, &e. beans, &c. fallow. These common fields were
respectively divided into oxgangs evenly scattered over every field; so that each occupier
might have an equal or similar share of good and bad, near and distant land; the houses
being in this, as in every other common field township, placed in the town. Each field
consisted of twenty-two oxgangs; each of which, on one side of the township, contained
twenty-four acres-on the other twelve acres: consequently the six fields contained 2376
acres.
Each division had likewise its COMMON MEADOW.
Other portions of the township were laid out in STINTED PASTURES, wholly
appendant to the common-field land; each oxgang of which having a right to a limited
number of gaits for cows and working oxen.
The remainder of the township, containing many thousand acres, was common.
During this century the common fields and common meadows have been gradually
contracting by amicable exchanges and transfers, and are now in a manner wholly
inclosed. The stinted pastures have, at different times, been inclosed “by commission;”
namely, by the unanimous reference of the parties concerned, to certain arbitrators or
com- missioners appointed by themselves; without calling in the aid of parliament. The
commons are now under enclosure, pursuant to a bill procured for that purpose.
This bill, and the circumstances attending the procurement of it, afford a striking picture
of modem enclosures by act of parliament.
The lands to be appropriated in this case consisted of 3,700 acres of culturable soil,
valued (by the commission under the enclosure) at 3s. to 50s. an acre rent; and of still
greater quantity of heathy barren land, reaching to the center of the morelands, valued
(by the same) from below 3s. down to 3d. an acre. The quantity of oxgang or
common-field land (as above ascertained) 2376 acres; and the number of ancient
common-right houses, or sites of such houses, two hundred and sixty.
To those 2376 acres, and these 260 houses or sites, the commons belonged; but in
what proportion had not for ages perhaps been clearly understood. Within memory, it
seems, an attempt was made to stint them; but the regulation lasted only one year. Before
and since that time they have been, in the strictest sense of the word, unstinted
commmons, for all kinds of commonable stock; excepting sheep and working oxen,
which last were, by the bylaws of the township, confined to the stinted pastures and the
upland commons; and the former to the upland commons only.
It may be taken for granted, that the first mover to an enclosure is private interest,
rather than public spirit. In the case of Pickering, the LAND-OWNERS in general were
satisfied with the open state of the commons. Some of them who bad inherited, or
purchased, at an advanced price, lands which lay conveniently to the commons, were of
course adverse to an enclosure; and the mere HOUSE-OWNERS were either
apprehensive of the smallness of their claim, or their voices were too weak to be heard
among those of the land-owners.
Under these circumstances the commons lay open, and would probably have
continued in that state, had there been no other interest in the township than that of the
owners of its LANDS and HOUSES.
But the tithe of three or four thousand acres of corn land was an object of too great
magnitude to be overlooked by the lessee (for lives under the Dean of York); and, being
seen, had charms in it too fascinating to be lost sight of.
Actuated thus powerfully, the lessee of the tithes applied to the LAND-OWNEIRS to
join him in an application to parliament for an in- closure. The land-owners refused: their
conduct, however, was impolitic and ill-judged; and a fair opportunity lost is not easily
regained.
The lessee of the tithes acted under a restless impulse; and no matter the instruments
he made use of, so they answered his purpose. He therefore, applied to the HOUSEOWNERS; who, seeing riches within their reach which till then they had never thought
of, grew frantic with expectation.
A law-agent well suited to the design was pitched upon; and other agents, no less
qualified, gave him their best assistance. An equal division of the commons among the
houses only was the prize held out, and a bill, framed for the purpose of obtaining it, was
sent up to Parliament.
A faint ill-conducted opposition was made by the land-owners; but a more powerful
interest, well applied, having got there before them, their intentions of throwing out the
bill were frustrated.
Parliament, however, seeing probably the iniquity of the bill, without being willing to
enter into a minute investigation, or able at their distance to ascertain with conveniency
sufficient facts, left a principal matter open to a trial at law; namely, whether the
commons should be divided among the houses only; or whether one moiety of them
should remain with "the lands of the township, which upon the first of January 1784,
belonged to the owners of ancient common-right messuages, cottages or sites."
In consequence of this order of Parliament, the question was tried, on a feigned issue, at
the assize for the county, in the summer of 1785.
The trial was conducted with the same exertions on the part of the promoters of the
bill, and with the same tameness and ill-judged confidence on the part of its opposers, as
had been evident in every stage of the business. These circumstances co-operating with
the "uncertainty of the law," a verdict was obtained in favour of the houses.
Thus; by manoeuvre; without even the shadow of right being offered; the owner of a
mere cottage without a garden-place, or of a heap of stones which had long lain as ruins,
and who could have no rightful advantage whatever from the commons in their open
state, became entitled to an equal share, under the enclosure, with the largest land- owner;
who, perhaps, previous to the passing of this law, occupied rightfully some hundred
acres.
It is true, many poor families may gain a temporary relief by this inequitable
transaction; and so far the bill may have operated beneficially. But it must be evident to
those who have a knowledge of the township, and who think impartially on the subject,
that they might with equal propriety have been relieved out of the inclosed lands, or the
personal property of the land-owners; and it could not be the intention of Parliament to be
instrumental in transferring the property of one man to another without a sufficient cause:
we may therefore safely conclude, that Parliament either in this case were imposed upon,
or judged erroneously; or that they are in want of some general principles of inclosure. . .
Before I take leave of this subject, I will note the effects of the three different means
of Inclosure which have been, in different townships, made use of in this District:
namely,
1. Inclosure by Exchanges, &e.
2. Inclosure by private commission.
3. Inclosure by Act of Parliament.
1. Inclosure by Exchanges. In the north-west division of the Vale, the common fields
and common meadows have mostly been inclosed progressively, piece after piece; either
in the original slips, singly; or more than one of them have been joined by purchase, or by
private exchanges between the several proprietors: by which means the whole of the
appropriated lands of the townships in which this species of Inclosure has taken place,
have been, in process of time, inclosed and held in severalty.
This method of Inclosure is attended with at least one disagreeable consequence. The
common field lands having lain principally in single ridges, some of them perhaps near a
mile in length, the Inclosures are badly proportioned. They are either too long for their
width, many of them resembling lanes rather than fields-- or, if cut into lengths, there are
no drift-ways to the inner divisions: -besides, much unnecessary fencing, with all its
attendant evils, is by this mode of Inclosure incurred; and what is yet worse, each man
s property is still, perhaps, scattered over the township.
2. Inclosure by private commission. Some entire townships (except perhaps the
unstinted commons), and many stinted pastures, have been laid out by commissioners,
chosen unanimously by the several interests concerned, without soliciting the assistance
of Parliament.
By this means the distinct properties are laid together, in well-sized and wellproportioned Inclosures, with proper roads and driftways; and this without the
expence, the inconveniency, or the hazard attending an application to Parliament.
3. Inclosure by Act of Parliament. By this expedient the advantages above-mentioned
are obtained in their fullest extent; but they are unavoidably burdened with a train of
attendant evils, which render this mode of Inclosure much less eligible than that of
enclosing by general consent.
This, however, is frequently impracticable: obstinacy has its adherents in every township;
and where various interests are concerned, as in the case of dividing unstinted
commons, it is scarcely possible that every interest, and every individual of each
interest should be of one mind. Therefore, without some exertion of legal authority,
un- stinted commons in general must continue to lie open.