Enclosure, the consolidation of land for the purpose of making it more productive, was a significant factor in the Industrial Revolution. The British Enclosure Acts removed the prior rights of local people to rural land they had used for generations, leading to increased crop yields and livestock output while also creating a surplus of labor. This increased labor supply is considered one of the factors facilitating the Industrial Revolution.
The main reason behind the Enclosure Acts was the desire to modernize agriculture and increase productivity. By enclosing common lands, landowners could implement more efficient farming methods, leading to improved agricultural practices and increased labor supply. However, landlords’ substantial influence heavily swayed outcomes, with an average increase in agricultural yields by 1830.
The movement accelerated agricultural productivity through advancements in farming techniques, crop rotation, and selective breeding of livestock. Enclosure has long been linked to industrialization as part of a series of material and technical changes in farming that increased supply, enabling industrial development. There is widespread agreement that profit-making opportunities were better with enclosed land, and by 1830, there was an average increase of 45 percent in agricultural yields.
Inequality in land ownership, measured by the value of land held by different owners, also contributed to the rise of enclosures. Parliamentary enclosures increased agricultural yields and inequality in the distribution of landholdings in enclosing parishes. Enclosure greatly improved agricultural productivity from the late 18th century by bringing more land into effective use.
In summary, enclosure acts were legal mechanisms that expropriated commons, aiming to increase agricultural productivity and promote efficient farming practices. Land enclosures significantly increased agricultural productivity pre-industrialization by promoting efficient farming methods and crop specialization.
📹 Enclosure: How the English Lost Their Lands
Kings and Generals’ historical animated documentary series on medieval history continues with a video on the process of …
What was the impact of the enclosure Act?
The Enclosure Movement in England resulted in a notable increase in agricultural profits and productivity. However, it also had the unintended consequence of leaving poorer farmers without the necessary resources for crop cultivation and animal feed. This ultimately led to the privatization of approximately 30 acres by the 1800s.
How did enclosure acts increase productivity?
Common land is owned collectively by individuals or groups with certain traditional rights, such as grazing livestock, collecting firewood, or cutting turf for fuel. A commoner is someone who has a right in or over common land jointly with others. Most of the medieval common land in England was lost due to enclosure, which ended traditional rights on common land formerly held in the open field system. Once enclosed, these land uses were restricted to the owner and the land ceased to be for the use of commoners.
Enclosure became a widespread feature of the English agricultural landscape during the 16th century. By the 19th century, unenclosed commons were largely restricted to large rough pastures in mountainous areas and relatively small residual parcels of land in the lowlands. Enclosure could be accomplished by buying ground rights and all common rights to accomplish exclusive rights of use, which increased the value of the land. The other method was by passing laws causing or forcing enclosure, such as parliamentary enclosures.
Enclosure faced popular resistance due to its effects on the household economies of smallholders and landless laborers, who were often pushed out of rural areas. Enclosure is considered one of the causes of the Agricultural Revolution, as it allowed farmers to adopt better farming practices and increase crop yields and livestock output while creating a surplus of labor. This increased labor supply is considered one of the factors facilitating the Industrial Revolution.
In medieval England, the common was an integral part of the manor, which was part of the estate held by the lord of the manor under a feudal grant from the Crown or a superior peer. This manorial system, founded on feudalism, granted rights of land use to different classes, known as appurtenant rights. Commoners were the people who occupied a particular plot of land at the time.
In England and Wales, the term “enclosure” also refers to the process that ended the ancient system of arable farming in open fields. Under enclosure, such land was fenced (enclosed) and deeded or entitled to one or more owners.
What were the positive effects of enclosure?
Common land is owned collectively by individuals or groups with certain traditional rights, such as grazing livestock, collecting firewood, or cutting turf for fuel. A commoner is someone who has a right in or over common land jointly with others. Most of the medieval common land in England was lost due to enclosure, which ended traditional rights on common land formerly held in the open field system. Once enclosed, these land uses were restricted to the owner and the land ceased to be for the use of commoners.
Enclosure became a widespread feature of the English agricultural landscape during the 16th century. By the 19th century, unenclosed commons were largely restricted to large rough pastures in mountainous areas and relatively small residual parcels of land in the lowlands. Enclosure could be accomplished by buying ground rights and all common rights to accomplish exclusive rights of use, which increased the value of the land. The other method was by passing laws causing or forcing enclosure, such as parliamentary enclosures.
Enclosure faced popular resistance due to its effects on the household economies of smallholders and landless laborers, who were often pushed out of rural areas. Enclosure is considered one of the causes of the Agricultural Revolution, as it allowed farmers to adopt better farming practices and increase crop yields and livestock output while creating a surplus of labor. This increased labor supply is considered one of the factors facilitating the Industrial Revolution.
In medieval England, the common was an integral part of the manor, which was part of the estate held by the lord of the manor under a feudal grant from the Crown or a superior peer. This manorial system, founded on feudalism, granted rights of land use to different classes, known as appurtenant rights. Commoners were the people who occupied a particular plot of land at the time.
In England and Wales, the term “enclosure” also refers to the process that ended the ancient system of arable farming in open fields. Under enclosure, such land was fenced (enclosed) and deeded or entitled to one or more owners.
How did enclosure increase food production?
Common land is owned collectively by individuals or groups with certain traditional rights, such as grazing livestock, collecting firewood, or cutting turf for fuel. A commoner is someone who has a right in or over common land jointly with others. Most of the medieval common land in England was lost due to enclosure, which ended traditional rights on common land formerly held in the open field system. Once enclosed, these land uses were restricted to the owner and the land ceased to be for the use of commoners.
Enclosure became a widespread feature of the English agricultural landscape during the 16th century. By the 19th century, unenclosed commons were largely restricted to large rough pastures in mountainous areas and relatively small residual parcels of land in the lowlands. Enclosure could be accomplished by buying ground rights and all common rights to accomplish exclusive rights of use, which increased the value of the land. The other method was by passing laws causing or forcing enclosure, such as parliamentary enclosures.
Enclosure faced popular resistance due to its effects on the household economies of smallholders and landless laborers, who were often pushed out of rural areas. Enclosure is considered one of the causes of the Agricultural Revolution, as it allowed farmers to adopt better farming practices and increase crop yields and livestock output while creating a surplus of labor. This increased labor supply is considered one of the factors facilitating the Industrial Revolution.
In medieval England, the common was an integral part of the manor, which was part of the estate held by the lord of the manor under a feudal grant from the Crown or a superior peer. This manorial system, founded on feudalism, granted rights of land use to different classes, known as appurtenant rights. Commoners were the people who occupied a particular plot of land at the time.
In England and Wales, the term “enclosure” also refers to the process that ended the ancient system of arable farming in open fields. Under enclosure, such land was fenced (enclosed) and deeded or entitled to one or more owners.
Who benefited the most from the Enclosure Movement?
The Enclosure Movements, which began in the late 15th century, were a series of acts by Parliament to enclose common land. They led to increased agricultural productivity by consolidating small plots into larger, more efficient farms, which could implement new agricultural techniques. However, many displaced peasants were forced to move to cities for work, contributing to the rapid urbanization during the Industrial Revolution. The movement was met with resistance from rural communities, who relied on common land for their livelihoods, leading to social unrest and protests.
The Enclosure Movements significantly influenced agricultural practices by transforming communal farming methods into privately managed farms. Large landowners implemented new farming techniques and crop rotations, boosting productivity and encouraging innovation in agriculture. However, the movement had profound social consequences for rural communities, displacing many small farmers who relied on common land for their livelihoods.
This led to increased urbanization, disrupting traditional rural life and intensifying class divisions, as wealthier landowners gained control over agricultural resources while poorer peasants lost their means of survival.
How did the Enclosure Movement lead to urbanization?
The enclosure of land resulted in a reduction of employment opportunities in rural areas, compelling those who lacked property to seek work in urban settings during a period of rapid industrialization and urbanization.
How did the Enclosure Movement contribute to industrialization?
Common land is owned collectively by individuals or groups with certain traditional rights, such as grazing livestock, collecting firewood, or cutting turf for fuel. A commoner is someone who has a right in or over common land jointly with others. Most of the medieval common land in England was lost due to enclosure, which ended traditional rights on common land formerly held in the open field system. Once enclosed, these land uses were restricted to the owner and the land ceased to be for the use of commoners.
Enclosure became a widespread feature of the English agricultural landscape during the 16th century. By the 19th century, unenclosed commons were largely restricted to large rough pastures in mountainous areas and relatively small residual parcels of land in the lowlands. Enclosure could be accomplished by buying ground rights and all common rights to accomplish exclusive rights of use, which increased the value of the land. The other method was by passing laws causing or forcing enclosure, such as parliamentary enclosures.
Enclosure faced popular resistance due to its effects on the household economies of smallholders and landless laborers, who were often pushed out of rural areas. Enclosure is considered one of the causes of the Agricultural Revolution, as it allowed farmers to adopt better farming practices and increase crop yields and livestock output while creating a surplus of labor. This increased labor supply is considered one of the factors facilitating the Industrial Revolution.
In medieval England, the common was an integral part of the manor, which was part of the estate held by the lord of the manor under a feudal grant from the Crown or a superior peer. This manorial system, founded on feudalism, granted rights of land use to different classes, known as appurtenant rights. Commoners were the people who occupied a particular plot of land at the time.
In England and Wales, the term “enclosure” also refers to the process that ended the ancient system of arable farming in open fields. Under enclosure, such land was fenced (enclosed) and deeded or entitled to one or more owners.
Why was there an increase in enclosures?
Enclosure was a policy introduced by William I of England in 1066 to improve agricultural efficiency and increase the value of land. However, it also led to social consequences, with protests against the removal of rights from the common people. After his invasion, 180 barons were distributed the land, establishing a feudal system. The original contract bound the occupants to provide service, which later evolved into a financial agreement.
The introduction of the feudal system led to economic growth and urban expansion, but peasants faced increasing costs and dwindled their landholding. The Black Death in the 14th century led to a decline in population and crop yields, leaving surviving farm workers in high demand. Landowners faced the choice of raising wages to compete for workers or letting their lands go unused. This led to inflation and the abandonment of land and the demise of the feudal system. Some historians suggest that the Black Death may have accelerated an already ongoing process. Overall, the policy of enclosure led to social and economic changes in England.
Was enclosure good or bad?
Since the late 20th century, historians and economists like M. E. Turner and D. McCloskey have challenged the notion that the Enclosure movement destroyed traditional peasant life, causing landless peasants to become laborers. They have found that the difference in efficiency between open field systems and enclosures is not as obvious, as evidenced by figures from Home Office returns. The paper “English Open Field and Enclosures: Retardation or Productivity Improvements” highlights the importance of understanding the differences between the two systems.
What did the process of enclosure increase?
Enclosure in the late 18th century significantly improved agricultural productivity by bringing more land into effective use and altering the local landscape. It led to the disappearance of old boundaries and the creation of hedged and fenced off areas. However, historians remain divided on the extent to which enclosure forced agricultural laborers to permanently leave the land for work in towns.
What was the major result of the enclosure movement?
The enclosure movement in England resulted in substantial economic and social transformations, marking a shift from communal to private large-scale agriculture and the emergence of a landless, jobless proletariat.
📹 The Enclosure Movement: Transforming British Agriculture and Society
The Enclosure Movement, spanning from the 16th to the 19th centuries, was a pivotal phase in British agricultural history.
Interesting to see you covering socioeconomic history. It would be great if you would make a article about serfdom and how it died out in parts of Europe during the Late Medieval and Early Modern period, while getting entrenched and intensifying in other parts. The river Elbe in Germany being the approximate border. I think that this topic isn’t talked about much, and when it is, it’s full of misconceptions and simplifications.
The law locks up the man or woman Who steals the goose off the common But leaves the greater villain loose Who steals the common from the goose. The law demands that we atone When we take things we do not own But leaves the lords and ladies fine Who takes things that are yours and mine. The poor and wretched don’t escape If they conspire the law to break; This must be so but they endure Those who conspire to make the law. The law locks up the man or woman Who steals the goose from off the common And geese will still a common lack Till they go and steal it back.
The enclosing of private land that was in common use so that it could be in private use of the landlord also happened in Mexico. It would be one of the causes of the Mexican Revolution. Where ever there is a rural movement, their concerns are often similar: the landless want land to use, those in debt want to be free, and peace.
There’s a docudrama series about the Norman Invasion called “Battle for Middle Earth”. They gave out some fascinating info at the end: When William conquered England in 1066 he took half the land for himself, gave a quarter to the church and the rest he divided among 190ish Noble Norman families. The descendants of William and just those families still own 20% of the land in the entire UK today…
Something on Israel’s war on and control of Lebanon, the subsequent displacement by Hezbollah and SLA’s rise and fall will be AWESOME. There aren’t too many documentaries on those and none even come close to your method of elaboration and visualization. Keep up the unbiased and AWESOME work. This is GOLD!
🇮🇳 In India currently Indian govt is in process of passing series of laws & acts which many farmers think, will cause same reactions (as to English peasants in 17-18 centuries). Indian farmers are protesting against it by peaceful demonstrations and Marched to capital New Delhi. Apparently stopped at border of Delhi by police violently in name of Corona virus restrictions. These peasants are still protesting on gates of Delhi but biased media corporates chose to be silent. Some independent youtubers and small regional news outlets are publishing their stories, you can search- Indian farmers protest Love to Kings and General website from INDIA 🇮🇳
I just thought of something as I was perusal this. Since most peasants were uneducated and couldn’t read or write or understand complex legalese and they couldn’t afford to send their children off for higher education, they didn’t have a lot of intellectual people to represent and protect their interests – so I was thinking, I know they were poor as dirt, but why couldn’t have some of these villages just picked a handful of the smartest and brightest kids and all pitch in and send them off for higher education so there would at least be a few people from their village who were educated and literate and could understand contracts, agreements, laws, etc to help watch out for them and their interests?
Hello! Thank you for this great presentation. Instead of getting stuck in a University hall I can educate myself on such valuable subjects by clicking a thumbnail on my smartphone. And even join a conversation in this comments section. Wonderful. Now let me add a personal experience about enclosure in the UK. Years ago I travelled for the first time ever with a large Camping Car over the website to Britain. I had already a good experience as a Camping Car user on the continent and I quickly noticed that in the UK it is not going to be that easy to use my vehicle and travelling style. Of course what I describe now will just be my impressions of those days and I may not have had the chance to get a better picture. But anyhow I started to notice quite quickly that there were not many places to just stop and rest. There were signs in most places where a vehicle could stop mentioning a time limit and pointing to a business. No parking spaces as we know them in France, Germany and many other continental Europe regions were stopping is welcome and you will not feel under pressure to leave. So these stopping limiting signs were my first annoying surprise although I could suspect that maybe in the UK there may be too many people abusing parking spaces by dwelling on these for too long.. no idea.. We submitted to the local rules and never got a chance to just rest on such parking spaces. We never tried to do some kind of camping of course.. but when you travel and want to sleep a couple hours.
And another watershed effect the enclosure movement had was the specialization and modernization of private property laws which carried over to the US and other Common Law countries. In essence, the economics that drove enclosure helped transform the legal and technological development of surveying/possessing land in the legal system.
At least the reasoning that enclosure was necessary to improve land productivity seems to me invalid. In the Netherlands, ground remained in ownership of the farmers, but patches were exchanged to make mechanical working the land possible (ruilverkaveling). The later approach combines larger area of arable land with individual ownership, which I think leads to higher crop yields.
This is great history. Thanks for making this K&G, very comfy shift in tone from normal content. Helping people see the holistic, interconnected nature of life: socio-economic, ecclesiastical, military, political. As an Englishman and a follower of William Morris & John Ruskin, however, it is deplorable stuff to learn about. Really godawful that we paved the way for such stupendously systematic greed.
Love insights on economic history and for anyone interested on a recent book on the subject I can really recommend The Verge Reformation, Renaissance, and Forty Years that Shook the World by Patrick Wyman which does have a chapter on the dynamics of the English enclosure system. Since the author of that book has an history podcast a collab between Wyman’s tides of history and K&G would be a dream come true
Could someone please tell me, whatever happened to the ancient Mesopotamia series? You get to Hammurabi, and then it skips ahead 1000 years to a Neo-Assyrian article, but I can’t find anything in between. And the end of the Hammurabi article even alludes to an immediate continuation. Were there ever other articles covering that interim? It seems strange that they just cut off.
There’s an issue with the picture you’ve used in that fields used to be much bigger before enclosure and in the ‘open field system’, a strip wouldn’t be one of those ‘smaller’ fields as seen in the picture but a tiny strip of land on one of (usually 3, but could vary from 2 up to 7-8) mammoth fields, with accompanying common greens and waste land. You also missed the inclusion of likely the second biggest land owner in any village, glebe land, land which belonged to the church and which was controlled by the parish priest.
It is not ironic that the ‘diggers’, also known as the ‘True Levellers’, supported social progress while opposing economic injustice. There is no contradiction. Also, the limited enclosures before the 17th century do not especially undermine the trend of lords throwing people off their land to run sheep at the height of the practice. Less controversial sources are commonly available.
“This primitive accumulation plays in political economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone-by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. (…) Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work. Such childishness is every day preached to us in the defence of property.” – Marx
One thing they didn’t mention was that homeless people were legally classified as vagabonds, and simultaneous to the development of the enclosure process, the government to on the task of controlling vagrancy by basically criminalizing it. Any one who begged without a license (they literally had begging licenses) and failed to submit themselves to a workhouse/poor house, could be whipped or even executed. Many those confined to workhouses didn’t get paid. They worked to pay off their room and board and thus few made it out. One of the only sure ways out of the workhouse was a contract of indenture, which would get you transported to the colonies to do deadly work on the plantation of the South and Caribbean.
In Russia there existed a property distinction to that practiced in the west. When a noble of the wetern european country asked a russian counterpart, he would get a different answer to one expected. “‘I don’t know how much land do I own, aĺ I know is how many souls are in my domain”. When the emancipation of the serfs took place, multitudes took of to the towns. Tsar himself seeded his own demise by not forseeing the result of his policy.
I don’t even need to watch the article to know the plot. It’s happening today. As a child I lived on a large farm 300+ acres of land. Over the years the “feudal lords” began to move in and buy up large swaths of land around us. They improved and improved and drove the cost of land up considerably and ergo drove up personal property taxes. Then they started complaining that our lands were not as improved as their lands. They complained that our “peasant” lands were devaluing the price of their paradise by looking rural and featureless. And so it went, until no longer able to afford the rising costs, we sold and moved away. Then our lands were gobbled up and for all I know are no longer peasant friendly and looking unnaturally, and ironically, un-rural.
The history of the people of Britain has been one of subjugation for much of it’s history. I don’t hold any modern “guilt” that they try to put on us, as my ancestors were poor farmers and many of them eventually fled the country, having never oppressed anyone else, just seeking means to better survival. The country today is still firmly under the grip of the government and now big business lobbying cultural/social/economic changes, whilst we are scared to offer any kind of resistance or unified cultural change amongst the people.
Another side of this topic I haven’t seen done is peasants running away from what is essentially a form of slavery (you belong to the land and the land belongs to some rich guy) to live freely in the wilderness. It happened alot in America and Eastern Europe (cossacks) that I know of, though I’m sure it happened everywhere. The struggle between civilization and freedom was only really lost when the gunpowder age began.
Fantastic article and a crucially important event in British history (as enclosures affected Scotland and Ireland as well, being a major factor in the emigration of Gaelic speakers to the new world and irreparably uprooting entire communities) and you should feel happy that the right-wing trolls are coming out to express their dissatisfaction at actual socio-economic historical analysis that disturbs their cretinous and toxic worldview.
The most astonishing revelation in this article, is that even now, just under half of England’s land is currently owned by 0.06% of the English population! In a housing crisis, where a whole generation cannot afford to leave their parents home and purchase their own property, this is a national disgrace. This land needs to be nationalised, and shared much more fairly, so that everybody in England has an opportunity at owning their own home and garden.
…and with the enclosure, everything ultimately leads to the Great Transition Debate,first initiated by Dobb vs. Sweezy, that locked dozens of medieval historians in an all-out-brawl against each other, each presenting papers with gazillion words in trying to get the last word in on how feudalism moved on to capitalism. Good times.
Age of Empires 4 sent me here. I play the English and they have farms (which gather food) and you can upgrade them in the castle age to enclosure which then gives you gold too. Quite amazing how much the game has taught me and urged me to watch articles like this when i wouldn’t never of even thought of it.
How did this system manifest in the New World? I wonder if colonists implemented a system like this or if the relative abundance of land resulted in little need for it. I think a article on colonial property laws and rights would be just as interesting as this one was. Thanks for the article and keep up the great work.
Its interesting to note how economics is tied in with money. Economics a Greek word essentially meaning Home Management is far removed from profit driven debt driven finances and money. I think most of us can agree that home management is made difficult or for many impossible by money, and the greed of those that profit and want more and more. Its interesting like this article shows – how when you dare to mention we should scrap doing things because they don’t actually do any good or necessary people often say well because that’s the way it has/ has to be. These people didn’t think that though, they changed the entire reality of the system because it suited them. When are people going to realise a small group of people who dared to do stuff because it suited them has been impacting negatively on the majority for too long with their own self interest. All we have to do is stop choosing this madness and force a change. Its almost like people have forgot to dream or accept reality but keep choosing a reality that for most sucks badly. History teaches us this it shows us the reasons, the mistakes and how people created what we have and do now.
The article covers the Statute of Merton, but completely overlooks the single most important aspect of it. Land ownership frequently was accompanied by a military obligation. Understandably, this made the buying and selling of land difficult. The Statute of Merton abolished the practice of subinfeudation, or the sub-dividing of feudal obligations.
“The increase in urban population was the among the factors of the rapid industrialization England” I would claim that is getting it back to front. I would rather say that industrialization spawned the increase in urban population. The thing is that industrialization didn´t start with the steam engine. No, industrialization started about 200 years earlier.Steam engines was only a mechanical power source. And for the first 150 years, only a stationary one. Prior to the steam engine there was other stationary power sources. Hydro, wind and muscle. Wind didn´t work well in England. Hydro was just available in limited quantity due to the countryside being fairly flat, and muscle power was getting increasingly expensive. This spawned the development of the practical steam engine. Steam engine have actually existed 2000 year prior, but they was never developed to something useful becasue they was to complicated compare to wind and hydro. Theoretical design for working efficient steam engines had been floating around Europe for 150 years by the time the first commercially available was built in England. The lack of available power was the push needed to build a fist steam usable engine. A lot of people think of invasion as someone having and idea, this is pretty much never the case. Innovation pretty much always happened due to a need, or a technological unlock. Steam engines was unlocked by a need. UK was actually heavily industrialized prior to the steam engine. Most people think of the steam engine as the industrialization.
A well made article, interesting, but still… all these beautiful little stories of English history, Royal history, etc…made so comprehensive and still not mention of some of the main things that are related to the economics of England like stealing from others, slavery? I understand, English kids learn at school something that make them proud….so they have to lie to comply with the beautiful stories…kind of like fairy tails sories…but that’s not the real history…Fake history I studied too, in Romania when I was little, but we in Romania learned that we been conquered and conquered every time…when actually is not truth, later on I study myself and I find out the real history(real and beautiful too), the Romania is one of the greatest and I’m very proud of it now, I’m not ashamed as some idiots wants…Later on I find out that our history were mainly written by foreigners and if any Romanian were trying to write a proper book, or mention anything about the real history was brang to silence… Like how they done it with Mihai Eminescu, he was a jurnalist that exposed the corruption of Romanian government 150 years ago( a government that was mainly made by foreigners, west Europe always played dirty games), even today they make some stupid programs about Romanians…to damage our image…Today many Romanians think Mihai Eminescu’s main job was poetry… Bustards poison him with mercury….I can give you many examples… Please, search and display the real history because in time(in special now with the speed of information.
The reason the enclosures don’t seem to be necessary to explain the exodus of British peasants to cities in the 19th century, is that even population movements like that happened in India, China and Brazil in the 20th century during industrialization, without enclosures of any type. It seem to be more about population explosion.
After S8 of GOT I moved away from the series but looking at this it instantly made me think of Jon Snow and the wildlings. I can see Jon giving 100 acres of land to each family. 25 Acres for pasture/fallow, 25 Acres for farming, 12 Acres for Orchards, 36 Acres of 🌳 1.5 Acre Pond and .5 Acre for a Barn/Home. Sending herds of 🐑 🐂🐖🦌🐎south along the river on common land to WH while the smallfolk farmers used the 💩 on their farms while the tavern keepers gained 💰 from the ranchers and the lords gained 💵 from taxes.
To Kings and Generals. It’s worth noting that there was no English parliament before that of de Montfort’s ‘model’ parliament of 1265. The Statute of Merton 1235 was one of those arbitrary laws (not parliamentary statutes) passed by the monarch on behalf of his titled ‘barons’, privileged courtiers and the great landowners, who profited from its passage. Beware the current miseducation non-history of google et al., such as: “the Ancient Statute of Merton was a statute (sic) passed by the Parliament (sic) of England in 1235 during the reign of Henry III. Merton is (incorrectly) considered to be the first English statute, and is printed as the first statute in ‘The Statutes of the Realm’ publication.” This latter statement is also incorrect because the Articles of Constitutional Legem Terrae, the People’s longstanding permanent Supreme Law of the Land collated by Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton into the original Magna Carta issued in 1215, is actually the first law misnamed “statute” listed in that document edited by John Raithby!
Interesting to compare the system of communal ownership that prevailed in European Russia at the turn of the (19th-into-20th) century. Resentment of privatization and belief in a “Black Repartition” that would reinstate a golden age of pure communal ownership helped the Bolsheviks to prevail. Russian peasants believed in commune-ism before they (well, quite a number of them) believed in Communism.
Enclosure was horrendously expensive, so only the richer landowners could afford the expense. …… Returns were very low, and estates thought in terms of decades, even centuries. …… In the 1870s, cheap meat and grain from the Americas and Australia severely damaged British agriculture, followed by Death Duty, and 2 World Wars. To show you how brutal taxation was, a lord and his son and heir were killed by a bomb in WW2 London. …… Unable to say which died first, the law decided the lord died first, meaning that the taxman had TWO lots of death duties. With the loss of great estates, the planting of trees was greatly reduced, and many areas of woodland were stripped for a quick profit. …… This was a real problem in WW2, and resulted in the Forestry Commission – ironic that what the state caused, the state claimed to fix, with it’s soulless monoculture green deserts of larch and spruce. The Bedford Estate around Tavistock invested huge sums turning low moorland into fields, and building roads and farmhouses – all ripped from them long before they had settled in, let alone turn a profit. The City People are very short sighted in their politics! One day it will be seen just HOW short sighted, when food is no longer available from abroad, and the inadequate nature of British farming means that the City People starve.
Independence Day or Freedom Day in the UK didn’t come with leaving the EU or not wearing masks as buffons would have people believe. True independence and freedom will come when British people get rid of their landlords. After all, they became landlords from having conquered and subjugated the people of Britain.
You should expand and do a article on the most radical groups of the English Civil War. As Oliver Cromwell came to power and the parliamentarians would create the Commonwealth there were radical groups worth noting. The Levellers were liberal Republicans. They supported private ownership but in the classical economic sense still viewed it as helpful to the peasants to tax the ground rent (the only tax supported) and use the treasury for the commonwealth. Then the True Levellers (Diggers) were opposed to much private property and called for communalization of land and the abundance for all. Also supported spreading advancing techniques and technologies to the commonwealth whenever found. In many ways proto-communists. Related to them were the Ranters. The “hippies” of the three. The Ranters were spiritualists who supported freedom and libertine loving as sacred in itself. Precursors to Free Love
Actually the English lost all our lands in 1066. William said “I won so all the land is mine.” He then parcelled it out to his supporters. Less than 1% was left as Common land, and that was the marginal less productive “scrub” land. Up to about 1780 most enclosures were of land that was owned by a land owner and farmed by tenants. Enclosure enabled the owner to rearrange how his tenants farmed.
Same sort of thing is going on in the US. Small farms are squeezed out by taxes and productivity gains of large farms, coops, and big ag. They just can’t compete, and farming isn’t the labor intensive industry that it used to be. Same thing with manufacturing. Despite the rapid increases in capacity, the productivity benefits of the information age and automation has preempted the need for more workers. That’s the real cause of the Rust Belt phenomenon.
There is no logical number at which to cap the amount of land a person can own. Once you set some arbitrary number, it will get revised down and down, until the state can come to ANY person of ANY level at ANY time and simply take anything they want from you, like food, your children, your life, etc. I am willing to let Richard Branson have a few acres to keep the government away from my nest egg.
Enclosures were inevitable and essential for increased agricultural efficiency, especially after the Black Death and later, as the industrial revolution took hold with less and less rural labour supplying more and more urbanites. In this way, enclosures and the enclosures act was very forward thinking. Enclosed fields were in any case essential for the efficient management, specifically rotations of animals and crops to increase productivity and land fertility. Yes at that time great big estates were created with tenants renting from them but today most land is privately owned by the farmers themselves, partly because tax and poor profitability has broken many of the estates up over time. There are still big estates, such as the Dutchy of Cornwall and Royal lands, the Westminster Estates in Cheshire and London and many others but nothing like what it was in the past.
Another process leading to enclosure, which you have alluded to, was the donation of land by the gentry to monastic orders in exchange for masses to be said for the donors in perpetuity. This started under the Anglo-Saxon kings of England and continued until it was reversed by Henry VIII. It also happened in Scotland. I don’t have figures, but a significant proportion of the land fell into the hands of the church. I don’t know if the monks also evicted the peasants, but they often had their lands cultivated by squads of lay brothers who lived communally. That was a form of “collectivisation,” but unlike what happened under Stalin it was for the benefit of the monks rather than the peasants.
On a Minecraft server, my brothers, cousins, and I created the Kingdom of Normandy. The Kingdom consisted of seven fiefdoms, one for each of us. I founded my fiefdom around a village that was very fertile but near a cliff. I started out as the richest player by growing and selling back pumpkins to villagers but then disaster struct when I was forty minutes in. One the villagers, (the green one which does nothing), kept damaging my crops by walking on them. I tried to eliminate him by punching him but the moment I hit him, he ran towards the edge of the cliff. The rest of my villagers followed suite within a split second and they all died thus destroying my fiefdom. After the fiasco, one of my brothers, the Duke of Ireland, let me rule Dublin to make me feel better.
england is a small country that just doesn’t have very much land…..the UK is the same size as the province of Saskatchewan Canada……Saskatchewan has under 1 million people and is full of large farms and the UK has 66 million people and comes nowhere near close to feeding itself from its own land…..it probably doesn’t matter who owns the land in the UK….there just isn’t enough land to justify giving every citizen an acreage to own…..i suspect the same number of britons own land in the UK as citizens of Saskatchewan own lands…………….owning small parcels of farm land hasn’t been a sustainable way of life for over 100 years in the western world.
I’m a little puzzled. Was Enclosure openly simply people declaring, “mine, now?” or did they have some sort of claim to the land that was to be enclosed prior to enclosing it? With enclosure acts, what prevented the peasants from enclosing their own strips of land? I’m not actually claiming they could have; I’m legitimately asking. How was it determined who got to enclose a given plot of land?
Looks like if agricultural co-operatives are not as bad as it is told. The communists may have been right to merge the agricultural productive ressources to allow the application of machinery and to raise the efficiency of labour and marketing. In the case of England this would also have enabled the peasants to stand together against the Lords.