shire, the southern half of Leicestershire, the eastern side of Norfolk, and probably the Isle of Wight.1

3. With sporadic enclosures: the greater part of Norfolk (excluding the eastern side),5 and probably the southern portion

there is abundant evidence to the contrary in the Enclosure Acts, and in Young's Northern Tour, i., pp. 59, 62. There may possibly have been a good deal of enclosing just before the pamphlet referred to was written; though it must soon have come to an end, owing either to the force of public opinion, or to the discovery that pasture farming was not so profitable as had been anticipated.

1 Survey of 1794 (in Marshall's Western Dep., p. 173): "This county does not contain much common-field lands, most of these having been formerly enclosed, and before Acts of Parliament for that purpose were in use."

2 That a very considerable amount of enclosing had taken place in the southern and western part of Leicestershire before the middle of the seventeenth century is apparent from the lists given in Lee's Regulated Enclosure, 5, 8. On the other hand, Leicester, to the author of a Briefe Conceipt, was the awful example of the evils of champion, (though it is true he probably wrote a hundred years earlier); and the Survey of 1809 (Marshall, Midland Dep., p. 201) says that "a very large proportion of this county has been enclosed in modern times, and within the last thirty or forty years."

The returns to the Inquest of 1517 show that enclosures had already taken place sporadically all over the county of Norfolk, but in most cases the number of acres was small-16, 18, 22, 30, 60 (i.e. a half virgate, three-fourths of a virgate, a virgate, two virgates); although in three or four instances it was as large as 300 acres, and in one even 600. The severe measures of the Government probably prevented any further violent enclosures. For there is no suggestion of the enclosure of arable in the Grievances of the Norfolk Rebels (see Russell, Ket's Rebellion) and Tusser, whose experience was obtained at West Dereham and Norwich (pp. xiv., xv.) takes from Norfolk his illustrations of the evils of champion (p. 142). According to the Survey of 1796 (in Marshall, Eastern Dep., p. 301) one fourth of the arable land was even then in common fields; and Marshall (Rural Econ. Norfolk, p. 8) tells us that "towards the north coast some pretty extensive common field still remained open." East Norfolk was, however, generally enclosed, and Marshall declares that, "upon the whole, East Norfolk at large may be said to be a very old enclosed country" (ibid., p. 4). The probable explanation is that this had come about gradually and by piecemeal during the period 1550-1650, as each owner or copyholder succeeded in getting control of a few adjacent strips. Thus the Survey of 1796 (u.s.) remarks: “The natural industry of the people is such that, wherever a person can get four or five acres together, he plants a whitethorn hedge around it, and sets an oak at every rod distance, which is consented to by a kind of general courtesy from one neighbour to another. . . . In this way many or most of the common fields of East Norfolk appear to have been enclosed." For isolated strips of glebe or other land still remaining in the midst of such enclosures, see Marshall, Norfolk, p. 8.

I have come across no estimates for the Isle of Wight. It was thought necessary to pass a special Act in 1488-9 to prevent depopulation, and the Act states that "many towns and villages had been let down," etc. (Stat. of Realm, ii. 540). On the other hand, in 1808 (Survey, p. 123) there were still "some common fields."

• See note 3, supra.

of Bedfordshire (adjoining the enclosed parts of Hertfordshire),1 and the northern part of Wiltshire.

4. Scarcely, if at all, disturbed: most of the other counties, and portions of counties; and certainly Yorkshire,3 Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire," Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, the greater part of Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire,10 Middlesex,11 Oxfordshire, Berkshire,12 the southern

In 1794, out of eighty-four thousand acres of arable, twenty-four thousand were still in open fields; but out of the eighty-one cases of enclosure given in the Survey of 1813, p. 218, ten are called "old," and sometimes " very old;" and Leland found "woody and enclosed ground" for eight miles from Luton to St. Albans, v., p. 124.

* See Aubrey, quoted in Scrutton, p. 79.

Yorkshire. For the East Riding, see the Enclosure Acts; the Survey of 1812, p. 89; Young's Northern Tour, i., pp. 146–178; ii., pp. 3-14, 33-34; iii., p. 417. For the North Riding, the Enclosure Acts; the Survey of 1800, p. 353; and for the Vale of Pickering, Marshall, Rur. Econ. of Yorks., i., p. 50. For the West Riding, see Survey of 1799 (in Marshall, North Dep., p. 343). Mr. Scrutton's remark, that in the North and East Ridings few common fields remained (p. 114), though probably true of 1800, would be hardly correct for 1760.

Lincolnshire: Enclosure Acts; Survey of 1794 (in Marshall's Eastern D., p. 16); Survey of 1799 by Arthur Young, pp. 17, 18, 79, 80 (Isle of Axholme), and also pp. 83, 84; Young's Northern Tour, i., pp. 77-94.

5

Nottinghamshire : a large part of the shire was occupied by the Forest of Sherwood. For the rest see Enclosure Acts, and the Survey of 1798.

• Derbyshire: Survey of 1794, p. 33; Farley's Survey of 1813, vol. ii., pp. 71–78. 'Huntingdonshire. According to the Survey of 1793 (in Marshall's Midl. D., p. 407), only 41 out of the 106 towns and hamlets were wholly enclosed. The Survey of 1813, p. 87, gives a list of parishes, from which it would seem that almost all those that were enclosed had been so transformed during the previous fifty years. It mentions, however (p. 90), that "Gidding Parva has been enclosed 306 years by quick hedges, with a little timber in the rows, into fields of from five to thirty-six acres," and at Keystone "there are two open field farms; the remainder of the parish has been enclosed three hundred years."

8

Cambridgeshire: The Survey of 1794 (in Marshall's Midl. D., p. 612), states that 132,000 acres of arable out of 147,000, were still in open field.

See note 1, supra.

10 Buckinghamshire: Survey of 1794 (in Marshall's Midl. D., p. 497): “The county contains about 91,906 acres of common fields, exclusive of wastes."

11 Middlesex: Survey of 1794 (in Marshall's South. D., p. 102): "The common fields in the county of Middlesex, which are at present on a good course of husbandry, form a large proportion as to the number of acres, when compared to the cultivated enclosures in the county." During the five years 1802-1807, 11,520 acres in common fields were enclosed; and there still remained ten or twelve thousand acres open (Tuke's Survey, 2nd ed., pp. 121, 132).

12 Berkshire: Survey of 1794 (in Marshall's South. D., p. 48), "A moiety at least of the arable land of Berkshire is still lying in common field."

part of Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire. The case of Oxfordshire is a peculiarly interesting one, since it illustrates the need of caution in dealing with the loose statements of sixteenth-century writers. A pamphlet, dating probably from about 1550, which is frequently quoted by modern writers, complains especially of the enclosures in the three counties of Oxford, Buckingham, and Northampton. The writer calculates that in Oxfordshire alone forty ploughs had been rendered idle since the accession of Henry VII., and that thus 260 persons had been deprived of employment. In another passage he reckons that 80 ploughs had been lost in each of these shires.1 We have seen that for Northamptonshire he had some justification; but it is certain that in Oxfordshire no considerable enclosures took place. In 1809 almost half the parishes were still unenclosed; although, as Arthur Young, the writer of the second Survey, tells us, more land had been enclosed in that shire, in proportion to its extent, since first he travelled in it forty years before, than in any other county in England.5

5. Counties concerning which there is insufficient information: Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire, Dorset, Somerset, Stafford, Cheshire, Lancashire, Westmoreland, Cumberland. For Wales and for Devonshire and Cornwall I have made no attempt to come to any conclusion: for although such arable land as they possessed was undoubtedly tilled on an open field plan, it is certain that in Wales, and it is probable that in the western peninsula the agrarian system was very different from that which prevailed in England.

1 Wiltshire: Survey of 1794 (u.s., p. 191) " At this time the greater half of the parishes in this district are wholly or partly in a common field state."

2 Gloucestershire: Survey of 1794 (in Marshall's Western D., p. 397). "The common field and common meadow system of agriculture, we find scarcely anywhere more prevalent than in Gloucestershire." Cf. Rur. Econ. of Gloucestershire, i., p. 16 ; ii. p. 69.

Herefordshire: Survey of 1794 (u.s., p. 266).

• Certain Causes in Four Supplications, [E.E.T.S.], pp. 98, 99.

5 Cf. Young's Southern Counties, pp. 145, 146.

See Palmer, Ancient Tenures in the Marshes of N. Wales, pp. 25, 26; and Hamssen, Agrarhistorische Athandlungen, p. 217.

See Prothero, English Farming, pp. 2, 3.

The conclusions thus stated are, it will be remembered, but rough generalizations. There is, doubtless, much information to be found, especially in county histories, which is at present not accessible to me, and I shall be grateful for suggestions from any of the readers of this paper. Yet even a very unsatisfactory attempt to introduce precision into the history of the agrarian evolution, may be useful as a basis for further construction.

W. J. ASHLEY.

IN

AN ARTISAN'S VIEW OF THE EIGHT-HOURS

QUESTION.

N the conventional treatment of this subject, too much attention is paid to its bearings upon production and upon the physical needs of the labourers. This is a mistake of method that leads to much misconception and false reasoning. The demand for eight hours does not come so much from the producers as from the great army of distributors. The so-called unskilled labourers, railway servants, and shop assistants are most concerned, while the cotton operatives of Lancashire are actually hostile. Moreover, the arguments for eight hours are not so much in the interests of the body as of the mind. Enfranchisement, education, and access to literature have made the worker dissatisfied with his material environment-which is too often long hours, low pay, and liquor-shops, and have stirred within him the desire, not only for better material conditions, but even more for the higher moral advantages of a true civilization. Political liberty has created a longing for social leisure, and these changed aspirations in the thinking labourers must be recognized before economic consequences can be appreciated. In view of this changed position, which demands for the village labourer, in spite of his supposed light duties, as much leisure as his brother of the city-and further, remembering that “ they also serve who only stand and wait,"-I propose to consider some economic consequences of an all-round eight hours per day; or, where this is not convenient, of not more than fortyeight hours per week.

In the first place, there would be a vast increase of leisure amongst the labourers, and the question how this spare time would be utilized is of the utmost importance. To assume that the drink-shop would occupy it, is not only gratuitous, but