Industry and Community - View of the Agriculture of Middlesex, 1807.

Middleton’s enthusiasm for enclosure was obviously detached from the reality faced by the smallholder and his possible loss of livelihood. Defenders of the commons saw the Enclosure Acts as instruments of oppression, by which the small freeholder was coerced into participating in changes which were against his interests, and in which he suffered by the loss of access to the commons and waste. This relates to the Marxist interpretation of enclosure as a ’systematic robbery of the communal lands’ and the decline of the small farmer.Eric Hobsbawm adheres to this remarking enclosure reduced the marginal cottagers and smallholders to simple wage earners, dependant on the rich. Generally, historians are in agreement that enclosure denied the poor to access to the commons and removed elements of individual independence. A contemporary farmer claimed ‘all were fenced out of their livelihood and prey to the ambitious and aspiring’ by enclosure. This suggests enclosure and the denial of common-right destroyed individual equality, although Mingay puts forward the argument that inequalities in land already existed before enclosure. From an economic perspective in relation to the landowner, enclosure was favourable and advantageous. To the small holder and the landless, parliamentary enclosure was destructive.

Middleton states enclosure offered the farmer unlimited opportunities with regards to farming improvements and techniques. He suggests from the new arrangements, a superior breed of livestock will emerge. This he contrasts to the present race of wretched half starved animals, a common theme amongst contemporary writers and one that is a moot point. Chambers and Mingay discuss the weaknesses of open-field farming and remark upon ‘the impossibility of improving the livestock, and the risks of wildfire spread of disease among beast herded together on the commons and fields’ which supports Middleton’s report. However, Neeson asserts that the image of scabby and pitiful beasts, uncared for and promiscuously herded together, does not accord with the regulations on common rights applied by the parishes. Yet Daunton supports Middleton’s thesis claiming ‘the common pastures were over-stocked and unimproved, so that the animals were prey to the spread of disease and lacked shelter. Improvement of stock was nigh impossible. As to selective breeding and improvements in animal husbandry it is clear innovations did occur, but it is unlikely enclosure alone stimulated this. Progressive farmers prior to enclosure recognized the need to improve livestock and herds of improved cattle had been established early in the first half of the eighteenth century.Additionally, due to the strict controls of entry on bulls and rams onto common fields, the risk of unplanned breeding was no greater risk than on enclosed fields. On this aspect enclosure was beneficial to the farmer, as the erection of fences would prevent the straying and loss of livestock.

An aspect that needs to be considered is the success of enclosure was variable from region to region. T. Davis, Commissioner to Wiltshire, believed enclosure led to deterioration if farmers extended their arable pasture without adopting new rotations and at the same time allowed their sheep flocks to decline. Arguably this would apply to all regions, as would the improvements in crop cultivation if the soil was not ideal. On the other hand his peer Arthur Young believed ‘there can be no doubt of the superior profit to the farmer by cultivating enclosures, rather than open-field farming. If Middleton and Young’s assumption were correct then crop yields would have increased. Yet Daunton remarks ‘the gains from enclosure were less than Young imagined, and even on the most generous estimate can only account for a small part of the doubling of yields between the Middle Ages and the nineteenth century. Overall, enclosure did offer many benefits and the opportunities were numerous, but as Chambers and Mingay remark ‘enclosure generally accelerated or intensified trends towards more productive farming, but it was not always the initiating force of these trends.’ Ultimately, enclosure provided the farmer the opportunity to transform his agricultural practices and review his outlook.

In the second paragraph Middleton emphasizes the defectiveness of labour on the commons and attempts to convince the reader of the socio-economic benefits enclosure will offer to the land worker. Here Middleton implies an element of inactivity amongst the workforce and this was a common theme portrayed by the Reporters to the Board of Agriculture. Reporter John Clark from Herefordshire claimed ‘the farmers in this country are often at a loss for labourers: the inclosure of the wastes would increase the numbers of hands for labour by removing the means of subsisting in idleness.’ Contemporary Arthur Young shared Middleton’s views stating, ‘enclosure was the best possible route to economic strength and full employment.’ However, he modified his stance, when he discovered full employment and adequate wages would not follow enclosure. An accepted argument amongst historians is that immediately after enclosure the supply of rural employment increased. Enclosure would place an immediate demand on farmers to fence their land and rural employment would benefit from other toils as Middleton details. However these activities would curtail eventually and it is likely the labour requirements then fell. Kenneth Morgan doubts enclosure created long-term employment on farms because hedging and fencing were only carried out once a decade and he suggests enclosure only provided short-term working opportunities. This seems to extinguish Middleton’s supposition of an abundance of work for all even after the temporary exertions. On a positive note Chambers and Mingay remark the increase in volume and regularity of employment after enclosure compensated for the loss of commons. Although they add that where permanent pasture increased at the expense of arable the labour requirement was likely to fall.’ On the other hand Deane argues it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that the numbers engaged in agriculture began to show an absolute decline.

Whether the new regular system of husbandry did provide both food and employment for the very increased population is a debatable issue. Deane claims the substantial contribution of the wastes to the nation’s land resources was an important part of the explanation for its ability to feed a rapidly growing population, even if at deteriorating standards of diet. The rate of agricultural productivity was able to supply the nation with food, but at a cost. To this Morgan remarks ‘the economic benefits of enclosure aided productivity on the land but the social effects were often seriously damaging to village communities. The social consequence for the rural population was devastation and misery, particularly for the cottager and the squatter. Peter King argues enclosure completely reshaped the physical and organizational structure of rural communities, destroying much of the poor’s grid of customary rights and particularly their access to pasture. This viewpoint is generally the accepted on amongst the defenders and opponents of enclosure. Drummond and Wilbraham comment ‘the system of enclosures has taken away their pasturage and the land where they collected the fuel for cooking their hot meals.’ Daunton agrees adding ‘enclosure could spell disaster for landless families who supplemented their income by gathering fuel, grazing a few sheep or a cow.’ Hudson reinforces this view and argues that enclosure also removed an important pillar of family earnings by denying women access to the commons. Women had always gleaned from the commons and waste and they provided a vital part of the family economy. However, earlier on in Middleton’s Report he claims the Middlesex commons ‘provided only the worst sort of firing and only enough pasture to keep the cattle from starving,’ and the opportunities offered had only ‘trifling advantages.’ Neeson seems to justify Middleton’s thesis by inferring ‘if commoners who lost common right at enclosure had long ceased to benefit from it, or the stock they fed on the commons was inferior and diseased, then enclosure impoverished no one.’ Overall enclosure had a destabilizing effect on the rural communities and the structure of society changed. It is important to acknowledge that whilst enclosure did cause hardship, unemployment and poverty would have existed anyway.

Middleton’s portrayal of enclosure and the improvements enclosure would bring create a mythical image. From his report it would appear life would improve for all members of society, when this was clearly not the case. The social effects of enclosure on the rural community have long been controversial for in general, only the landowners and the larger farmer gained from them. The Hammonds state this succinctly claiming ‘before enclosure the cottager was a labourer with land, after enclosure he was a labourer without land.’ This does return to the Marxist proletarianisation debate, but it is not without substance. After enclosure the labourer became dependant on wages and in doing so they lost their independence. Morgan supports this theory arguing ‘enclosure reduced the independence of many poorer folk in the countryside by enlarging the pool of day labourers and it took away from the cottagers their ‘valuable stake in the soil.’ In fact the Board of Agriculture recommended the creation of complete wage dependence, believing the discipline created was vital. Middleton follows this line of thought in his report, whether it’s his own or not by ignoring the social consequences of enclosure.

Lastly, Middleton’s excerpt illustrates the contemporary beliefs of the defenders of enclosure in the second half of the eighteenth century. Neeson argues the reporters to the Board of Agriculture supported enclosure and were necessarily hostile to common right and he claims it discounted the large volume of anti-enclosure opinion. There is some truth in this. When Arthur Young recommended an allotment of land should be legally compensated to commoners at enclosure, he was immediately marginalized and his work censored. Throughout Middleton’s passage he does not include the possible negative aspects of enclosure. However, to the defenders of enclosure, Middleton’s survey is convincing. He stresses what he believes to be the modern efficient way of organising agriculture and he does so by embracing change. Turner claims ‘enclosure does appear to have opened the door to a more efficient balance between arable and animal farming’ which would suggest ultimately Middleton’s thesis was correct. Whilst Hudson believes other explanations, rather than enclosure, loom large in this.Overall, the motivation for Middleton’s report does seem to stem from government directives to promote improvements in farming techniques. Although Chambers and Mingay suggest its objective was to press for one of the country gentlemen’s most favoured reforms, a Bill to cheapen enclosure. From a national viewpoint, enclosure was desirable and the driving force was the growing population. Neeson acknowledges that enclosure was vital to the national interest and states writers were making a case, not conducting an enquiry. Middleton unmistakably made his case and didn’t stray from his objective to convince the reader of the benefits of enclosure. His survey was conducive and methodical, even if controversial.

---