Editing Enclosure (section)

==Methods of enclosure==
There were essentially two broad categories of enclosure, these were 'formal' or 'informal' agreements. Formal enclosure was achieved either through act of Parliament, or, from [[Tithe Act 1836|1836]] onwards, by a written agreement signed by all parties involved. The written record would probably also include a map.{{sfn|Kain|Chapman|Oliver|2004|pp=9–10}}

With informal agreements there was either minimal or no written record other than occasionally a map of the agreement. The most straightforward informal enclosure was through 'unity of possession'. Under this, if an individual managed to acquire all the disparate strips of land in an area and consolidate them in one whole piece, for example a manor, then any communal rights would cease to exist, since there was no one to exercise them.{{sfn|Kain|Chapman|Oliver|2004|pp=9–10}}

===Open-field system===
{{main|Open-field system}}

Before the enclosures in England, "[[Common land|common]]"{{efn|name=common}} land was under the control of the manorial lord. The usual manor consisted of two elements, the peasant tenantry and the lord's holding, known as the ''[[demesne]]'' farm. The land the lord held was for his benefit and was farmed by his own direct employees or by hired labour. The tenant farmers had to pay rent. This could either be cash, labour or produce.{{sfn|Bartlett|2000|pages=312–313}} Tenants had certain rights such as [[pasture]], [[pannage]], or [[estovers]] that could be held by neighbouring properties, or (occasionally) ''in gross''{{efn|Common in gross refers to a legal right granted to a person for access to another’s land, for example to graze their animals.{{sfn|British Government|2019}}}} by all manorial tenants. "Waste"{{efn|name=waste}} land was often very narrow areas, typically less than {{convert|1|yd|m}} wide, in awkward locations (such as cliff edges, or inconveniently shaped manorial borders), but also could be bare rock, it was not officially used by anyone, and so was often "farmed" by landless peasants.{{sfn|Clark|Clark|2001|pages=1009–1036}}

The remaining land was organised into a large number of narrow strips, each tenant possessing several disparate strips{{efn|There was no standard size for a strip of land and most holdings had between forty and eighty.{{sfn|Friar|2004|p=430}}}} throughout the manor, as would the [[lord of the manor|manorial lord]]. The [[open-field system]] was administered by [[court baron|manorial courts]], which exercised some collective control.{{sfn|Clark|Clark|2001|pages=1009–1036}}
The land in a [[Manorial system|manor]] under this system would consist of:
* Two or three very large common fields{{efn|Large area of arable land divided into strips.{{sfn|Friar|2004|p=300}}}}
* Several very large common hay meadows{{efn|Known as ''dole'' or ''dale'' meadow.{{sfn|Friar|2004|pages=120 and 272}}}}
* Closes.{{efn|name=closes}}
* In some cases, a [[park]].{{sfn|Friar|2004|p=145}}
* Common ''waste''.{{efn|name=waste}}
What might now be termed a single field would have been divided under this system among the lord and his tenants; poorer peasants ([[serfdom|serfs]] or [[copyhold]]ers, depending on the era) were allowed to live on the strips owned by the lord in return for cultivating his land.{{sfn|Friar|2004|page=299–300}} The open-field system was probably a development of the earlier [[Celtic field]] system, which it replaced.{{sfn|Friar|2004|page=300}} The open-field system used a three-field crop rotation system. [[Barley]], [[oats]], or [[legume]]s would be planted in one field in spring, wheat or [[rye]] in the second field in the autumn.{{sfn|Hopcroft|1999|pp=17–20}} There was no such thing as artificial fertilizer in mediaeval England, so the continual use of arable land for crops would exhaust the fertility of the soil. The open-field system solved that problem. It did this by allowing the third field, of the arable land, to be uncultivated each year and use that "fallow" field for grazing animals, on the stubble of the old crop. The manure the animals produced in the fallow field would help restore its fertility. The following year, the fields for planting and fallow would be rotated.{{sfn|Bartlett|2000|pages=308–309}}

{{multiple image|total_width=780px
| align=center
| image1=Plan mediaeval manor.jpg
| caption1=Conjectural map of a mediaeval English [[Manorialism|manor]]. The part allocated to 'common pasture' is shown in the north-east section, shaded green.
| image2=Three Field System.svg
| caption2=Three-field system with [[ridge and furrow]] fields ([[furlong]]s)
| image3=Anthropic Farm Units.png
| caption3=Division of farm land. 1 acre= 0.4 Ha. 1 [[virgate]]=30 acres{{efn|Although one virgate is shown to be 30 acres, as it was not standardised one virgate could range from 15 to 40 acres.{{sfn|Kanzaka|2002|pages=593–618}}}}
| footer_background = #BBDD99
| footer_align = center
| footer='''The open-field system'''
}}

The very nature of the three field rotation system imposed a discipline on lord and tenants in their management of the arable land. Every one had the freedom to do what they liked with their own land but had to follow the rhythms of the rotation system.{{sfn|Bartlett|2000|page=310}} The land-holding tenants had [[livestock]], including sheep, pigs, [[cattle]], horses, [[ox]]en, and [[poultry]], and after harvest, the fields became 'common' so they could graze animals on that land.{{sfn|Thompson|2008|pages=621–642}}{{sfn|Grant|1992|loc=Chapter 8}}  There are still examples of villages that use the open-field system, one example being [[Laxton, Nottinghamshire]].{{sfn|Friar|2004|p=300}}

===The end of the open-field system===
Seeking better financial returns, landowners looked for more efficient farming techniques.{{sfn|Motamed|Florax|Masters|2014|pages=339–368}}  They saw enclosure as a way to improve efficiency,{{efn|Efficiency meant improvements in per unit acre yields and in total parish output.{{sfn|Turner|1986|pages=669–692}}}} however it was not simply the fencing of existing holdings; there was also a fundamental change in agricultural practice.{{sfn|Friar|2004|pages=144–146}} One of the most important innovations was the development of the [[Norfolk four-course system]], which greatly increased crop and livestock yields by improving soil fertility and reducing [[fallow]] periods. Wheat was grown in the first year, turnips in the second, followed by barley, with clover and ryegrass in the third. The clover and ryegrass were grazed or cut for feed in the fourth year. The turnips were used for feeding cattle and sheep in the winter.{{sfn|Overton|1996|page=1}} The [[crop rotation|practice of growing a series of dissimilar types of crops]] in the same area in sequential seasons helped to restore plant nutrients and reduce the build-up of pathogens and pests. The system also improves soil structure and fertility by alternating deep-rooted and shallow-rooted plants. For example, turnips can recover nutrients from deep under the soil. Planting crops such as turnips and clover was not realistic under the open field system{{efn|M. E. Turner disagreed with this point of view. He posited that with a certain amount of organisation, turnips were grown in the open field system and were only grown marginally more under enclosure.{{sfn|Turner|1986|pages=669–692}}}} because the unrestricted access to the field meant that other villagers' livestock would graze on the turnips. Another important feature of the Norfolk system was that it used labour at times when demand was not at peak levels.{{sfn|Overton|1996|pages=117 and 167}}

From as early as the 12th&nbsp;century, some open fields in Britain were being enclosed into individually owned fields. After the [[Statute of Merton]] in 1235 manorial lords were able to reorganize strips of land such that they were brought together in one contiguous block.{{efn|Land owned by an individual, rather than in common, was known as [[wiktionary:several|Severals]]{{sfn|Friar|2004|p=390}}}}{{sfn|Friar|2004|pages=144–146}}

Copyholders{{efn|name=copyholder}} had a "customary tenancy"{{efn|name=ct1|The lord of the manor has the [[Freehold (law)|freehold]] to all the land of the estate. A "customary tenancy" is parcel of land, from the estate, held at the will of the lord according to the custom of the manor. A "copyhold tenancy" was a "customary tenancy" held by the copyholder. The [[manorial court]] was responsible for dealing with these tenancies.{{sfn|Chisolm|1911}}}} on their piece of land that was legally enforceable. The problem was that a "copyhold tenancy"{{efn|name=ct1}} was only valid for the holder's life. The heir would not have the right to inheritance although usually by custom, in exchange for a fee (known as a fine), the heir could have the copyhold transferred.{{sfn|Hoyle|1990|pages=1–20}} To remove their customary rights, the landlords converted the copyhold into a leasehold tenancy. Leasehold removed the customary rights but the advantage to the tenant was that the land could be inherited.{{sfn|Hoyle|1990|pages=1–20}}

<span class="anchor" id="Tudor enclosures"></span>
There was a significant rise in enclosure during the [[Tudor period]]. Enclosure was quite often undertaken unilaterally by the landowner, sometimes illegally.{{sfn|Friar|2004|pages=144–146}}{{sfn|Beresford|1998|p=28}} The widespread eviction of people from their lands resulted in the collapse of the open field system in those areas. The deprivations of the displaced workers has been seen by historians as a cause of subsequent social unrest.{{sfn|Friar|2004|pages=144–146}}

===Legislation===
In Tudor England the ever increasing demand for wool had a dramatic effect on the landscape. The attraction of large profits to be made from wool encouraged manorial lords to enclose common land and convert it from arable to (mainly) sheep pasture. The consequent eviction of commoners or villagers from their homes and loss of their livelihoods became an important political issue for the Tudors.{{sfn|Bowden|2015|pp=110–111}} The resulting depopulation was financially disadvantageous to the Crown. The authorities were concerned that many of the people subsequently dispossessed would become [[vagabond (person)|vagabonds]] and thieves. Also the [[depopulation]] of villages would produce a weakened workforce and enfeeble the military strength of the state.{{sfn|Bowden|2015|pp=110–111}}

From the time of Henry VII, Parliament began passing acts either to stop enclosure, to limit its effects, or at least to fine those responsible. The so-called 'tillage acts', were passed between 1489 and 1597.{{efn|The first being in 1489, the [[Tillage Act 1488]] ([[4 Hen. 7]]. c. 19); this was followed by four acts under Henry VIII, the [[Tillage Act 1514]] ([[6 Hen. 8]]. c. 5), the [[Tillage Act 1515]] ([[7 Hen. 8]]. c. 1), the [[Tillage Act 1533]] ([[25 Hen. 8]]. c. 13) and the [[Tillage Act 1535]] ([[27 Hen. 8]]. c. 22); one under Edward VI, the [[Tillage Act 1551]] ([[5 & 6 Edw. 6]]. c. 5); one under Mary, the [[Tillage Act 1555]] ([[2 & 3 Ph. & M.]] c. 2); and three under Elizabeth I, including the [[Tillage Act 1562]] ([[5 Eliz. 1]]. c. 2), the [[Tillage Act 1571]] ([[13 Eliz. 1]]. c. 13) and the [[Tillage Act 1597]] ([[39 Eliz. 1]]. c. 2).{{sfn|Thompson|2008|pages=621–642}}}}

The people who were responsible for the enforcement of the acts were the same people who were actually opposed to them. Consequently, the acts were not strictly enforced.{{efn|The government also appointed eight [[royal commission]]s between 1517 and 1636.{{sfn|Bowden|2015|pp=110–111}}}} Ultimately with rising popular opposition to sheep farming, the [[Tillage Act 1533]] ([[25 Hen. 8]]. c. 13) restricted the size of flocks of sheep to no more than 2,400. Then the [[Taxation Act 1549]] ([[3 & 4 Edw. 6]]. c. 23)  was introduced that imposed a [[poll tax]] on sheep that was coupled with a levy on home produced cloth. The result made sheep farming less profitable.{{sfn|Bowden|2015|pp=110–111}} However, in the end it was market forces that were responsible for stopping the conversion of arable into pasture. An increase in corn prices during the second half of the 16th century made arable farming more attractive, so although enclosures continued the emphasis was more on efficient use of the arable land.{{sfn|Bowden|2015|pp=110–111}}