Enclosure (sometimes inclosure) was the legal process in England of
consolidating (enclosing) small landholdings into larger farms.
Once enclosed, use of the land became restricted to the owner, and it
ceased to be common land for communal use. In
England and Wales
England and Wales the
term is also used for the process that ended the ancient system of
arable farming in open fields. Under enclosure, such land is fenced
(enclosed) and deeded or entitled to one or more owners. The process
of enclosure began to be a widespread feature of the English
agricultural landscape during the 16th century. By the 19th century,
unenclosed commons had become largely restricted to rough pasture in
mountainous areas and to relatively small parts of the lowlands.
Enclosure could be accomplished by buying the 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 enclosure involving an
Inclosure Act. The latter process of enclosure was sometimes
accompanied by force, resistance, and bloodshed, and remains among the
most controversial areas of agricultural and economic history in
England. Marxist and neo-Marxist historians argue that rich landowners
used their control of state processes to appropriate public land for
their private benefit. During the Georgian era, the process of
enclosure created a landless working class that provided the labour
required in the new industries developing in the north of England. For
example: "In agriculture the years between 1760 and 1820 are the years
of wholesale enclosure in which, in village after village, common
rights are lost". Thompson argues that "
Enclosure (when all the
sophistications are allowed for) was a plain enough case of class
W. A. Armstrong, among others, argued that this is perhaps an
oversimplification, that the better-off members of the European
peasantry encouraged and participated actively in enclosure, seeking
to end the perpetual poverty of subsistence farming. "We should be
careful not to ascribe to [enclosure] developments that were the
consequence of a much broader and more complex process of historical
change." "The impact of eighteenth and nineteenth century enclosure
has been grossly exaggerated ..."
Enclosure is considered one of the causes of the British Agricultural
Revolution. Enclosed land was under control of the farmer who was free
to adopt better farming practices. There was widespread agreement in
contemporary accounts that profit making opportunities were better
with enclosed land. Following enclosure, crop yields increased
while at the same time labour productivity increased enough to create
a surplus of labour. The increased labour supply is considered one of
the causes of the Industrial Revolution. Marx argued in Capital
that enclosure played a constitutive role in the revolutionary
transformation of feudalism into capitalism, both by transforming land
from a means of subsistence into a means to realize profit on
commodity markets (primarily wool in the English case), and by
creating the conditions for the modern labour market by transforming
small peasant proprietors and serfs into agricultural wage-labourers,
whose opportunities to exit the market declined as the common lands
1 Early history
2 Tudor enclosures
2.1 Anti-enclosure legislation
Inflation and enclosure
2.3.1 Midland Revolt
2.3.2 Newton Rebellion: 8 June 1607
2.3.3 Western Rising 1630–32 and forest enclosure
3 Parliamentary enclosure and open fields
5 Contemporary movements against enclosure
6 See also
6.2 In other countries
9 Further reading
10 External links
Conjectural map of a mediaeval English manor. The part allocated to
'common pasture' is shown in the north-east section, shaded green.
Decaying hedges mark the lines of the straight field boundaries
created by the 1768 Parliamentary Act of
Enclosure of Boldron Moor,
Enclosure of manorial common land was authorized by the Statute of
Merton (1235) and the Statute of Westminster (1285).
Throughout the medieval and modern periods, piecemeal enclosure took
place in which adjacent strips were fenced off from the common field.
This was sometimes undertaken by small landowners, but more often by
large landowners and lords of the manor. Significant enclosures (or
emparkments) took place to establish deer parks. Some (but not all) of
these enclosures took place with local agreement. Most if not all
emparkments were of already fenced land.
There was a significant rise in enclosure during the Tudor period.
These enclosures largely resulted in conversion of land use from
arable to pasture – usually sheep farming. These enclosures were
often undertaken unilaterally by the landowner. Enclosures during the
Tudor period were often accompanied by a loss of common rights and
could result in the destruction of whole villages.
English champaign (extensive, open land) had been commonly enclosed as
pastureland for sheep from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century as
populations declined. Foreign demand for English wool also helped
encourage increased production, and the wool industry was often
thought to be more profitable for landowners who had large decaying
farmlands. Some manorial lands lay in disrepair from a lack of
tenants, which made them undesirable to both prospective tenants and
landowners who could be fined and ordered to make repairs. Enclosure
and sheep herding (which required very few labourers) were a solution
to the problem, but of course this created other problems:
unemployment, the displacement of impoverished rural labourers, and
decreased domestic grain production which made England more
susceptible to famine and higher prices for domestic and foreign
grain. From as early as the 12th century, some open fields in
Britain were being enclosed into individually owned fields. In Great
Britain, the process sped up during the 15th and 16th centuries
as sheep farming grew more profitable. In the 16th and early
17th centuries, the practice of enclosure, particularly of
depopulating enclosure, was denounced by the Church and the government
and legislation was drawn up against it. But elite opinion began to
turn towards support for enclosure, and rate of enclosure increased in
the seventeenth century. This led to a series of government acts
addressing individual regions, which were given a common framework in
the Inclosure Consolidation Act of 1801.
Sir Thomas More, in his 1516 work Utopia suggests that the practice of
enclosure was responsible for some of the social problems affecting
England at the time, specifically theft:
"But I do not think that this necessity of stealing arises only from
hence; there is another cause of it, more peculiar to England." "What
is that?" said the Cardinal. "The increase of pasture," said I, "by
which your sheep, which are naturally mild, and easily kept in order,
may be said now to devour men and unpeople, not only villages, but
towns; for wherever it is found that the sheep of any soil yield a
softer and richer wool than ordinary, there the nobility and gentry,
and even those holy men, the abbots not contented with the old rents
which their farms yielded, nor thinking it enough that they, living at
their ease, do no good to the public, resolve to do it hurt instead of
good. They stop the course of agriculture, destroying houses and towns
– reserving only the churches – and enclose grounds that they may
lodge their sheep in them."
The loss of agricultural labour also hurt others like millers whose
livelihood relied on agricultural produce.
Fynes Moryson reported on
these problems in his 1617 work An Itinerary:
England abounds with corn [wheat and other grains], which they may
transport, when a quarter (in some places containing six, in others
eight bushels) is sold for twenty shillings, or under; and this corn
not only serves England, but also served the English army in the civil
wars of Ireland, at which time they also exported great quantity
thereof into foreign parts, and by God's mercy England scarce once in
ten years needs a supply of foreign corn, which want commonly proceeds
of the covetousness of private men, exporting or hiding it. Yet I must
confess, that daily this plenty of corn decreaseth, by reason that
private men, finding greater commodity in feeding of sheep and cattle
than in the plow, requiring the hands of many servants, can by no law
be restrained from turning cornfields into enclosed pastures,
especially since great men are the first to break these laws.
The enclosure of common land for sheep farming and the consequent
eviction of villagers from their homes and their livelihoods became an
important political issue for the Tudors. Reflecting royal opposition
to this practice, the anti-enclosure acts of 1489 and 1516 were aimed
at stopping the waste of structures and farmland, which would lead to
lower tax revenues, fewer potential military conscripts for the crown,
and more potential underclass rebels. The Tudor authorities were
extremely nervous about how the villagers who had lost their homes
would react. In the sixteenth century, lack of income made one a
pauper. If one lost one's home as well, one became a vagrant; and
vagrants were regarded (and treated) as criminals. The authorities saw
many people becoming what they regarded as vagabonds and thieves as a
result of enclosure and depopulation of villages. From the time of
Henry VII onwards, Parliament began passing Acts to stop enclosure, to
limit its effects, or at least to fine those responsible. The first
such law was in 1489. Over the next 150 years, there were 11 more Acts
of Parliament and eight commissions of enquiry on the subject.
Initially, enclosure was not itself an offence, but where it was
accompanied by the destruction of houses, half the profits would go to
the Crown until the lost houses were rebuilt (the 1489 Act gave
half the profits to the superior landlord, who might not be the Crown,
but an Act of 1536 allowed the Crown to receive this half share if the
superior landlord had not taken action). In 1515, conversion from
arable to pasture became an offence. Once again, half the profits from
conversion would go to the Crown until the arable land was restored.
Neither the 1515 Act nor the previous laws were effective in stopping
enclosure, so in 1517
Cardinal Wolsey established a commission of
enquiry to determine where offences had taken place – and to ensure
the Crown received its half of the profits.
Inflation and enclosure
Alongside population growth, inflation was a major reason for
enclosure. When Henry VIII became King in 1509, he found the
royal finances in good shape thanks to the prudence of his father
Henry VII (reigned 1485–1509). But this soon changed as Henry
VIII doubled household expenditure and started costly wars against
both France and Scotland. With his wealth rapidly decreasing,
Henry VIII imposed a series of taxes devised by his Chancellor,
Thomas Wolsey (in office 1515–1529). Soon the people began to resent
Wolsey's taxes and the administration had to find a new source of
finance: in 1544, Henry reduced the silver content of new coins by
about 50%; he repeated the process to a lesser extent the following
year. This, combined with injection of bullion from the New World,
increased the money supply in England, which led to continuing price
inflation. This threatened landowners' wealth, which encouraged the
landowners to become more efficient, and they saw enclosure as a way
of doing this.
The debasement of the coinage was not seen as a cause of inflation
(and therefore of enclosures) until the Duke of Somerset became Lord
Protector (1547–1549) during the reign of Edward VI (1547–1553).
Until then enclosures were seen as the cause of inflation, not the
outcome. When Thomas Smith advised Somerset that enclosure resulted
from inflation, Somerset ignored him. It was not until John Dudley,
1st Duke of Northumberland became de facto ruler that his Secretary of
State William Cecil (in office 1550–1553) took action on debasement
to try to stop enclosure.
After 1529 or so, the problem of untended farmland disappeared with
the rising population. There was a desire for more arable land along
with much antagonism toward the tenant-graziers with their flocks and
herds. Increased demand along with a scarcity of tillable land caused
rents to rise dramatically in the 1520s to mid-century. The 1520s
appear to have been the point at which the rent increases became
extreme, with complaints of rack-rent appearing in popular literature,
such as the works of Robert Crowley. There were popular efforts to
remove old enclosures, and much legislation of the 1530s and 1540s
concerns this shift. Angry tenants impatient to reclaim pastures for
tillage were illegally destroying enclosures. Beginning with Kett's
Rebellion in 1549, agrarian revolts swept all over the nation, and
other revolts occurred periodically throughout the century. The
popular rural mentality was to restore the security, stability, and
functionality of the old commons system. Historians would write that
they were asserting ancient traditional and constitutional rights
granted to the free and sturdy English yeoman as opposed to the
enslaved and effeminate French. This emphasis on rights was to have a
pivotal role in the modern era unfolding from the Enlightenment.
D. C. Coleman writes that the English commons were disturbed by
the loss of common rights under enclosure which might involve the
right "to cut underwood, to run pigs".
Further information: Midland Revolt
In 1607, beginning on May Eve in Haselbech, Northamptonshire and
spreading to Warwickshire and Leicestershire throughout May, riots
took place as a protest against the enclosure of common land. Now
known as the Midland Revolt, it drew considerable support and was led
by John Reynolds, otherwise known as 'Captain Pouch', a tinker said to
be from Desborough, Northamptonshire. He told the protesters he had
authority from the King and the Lord of Heaven to destroy enclosures
and promised to protect protesters by the contents of his pouch,
carried by his side, which he said would keep them from all harm
(after he was captured, his pouch was opened; all that was in it was a
piece of green cheese). Thousands of people were recorded at
Hillmorton, Warwickshire and at Cotesbach, Leicestershire. A curfew
was imposed in the city of Leicester, as it was feared citizens would
stream out of the city to join the riots. A gibbet was erected in
Leicester as a warning, and was pulled down by the citizens.
Newton Rebellion: 8 June 1607
The Newton Rebellion was one of the last times that the peasantry of
England and the gentry were in open armed conflict.
Things had come to a head in early June. James I issued a
Proclamation and ordered his Deputy Lieutenants in Northamptonshire to
put down the riots. It is recorded that women and children were part
of the protest. Over a thousand had gathered at Newton, near
Kettering, pulling down hedges and filling ditches, to protest against
the enclosures of Thomas Tresham.
The Treshams were unpopular for their voracious enclosing of land –
both the family at Newton and their better-known Roman Catholic
cousins at nearby Rushton, the family of Francis Tresham, who had been
involved two years earlier in the
Gunpowder Plot and had apparently
died in The Tower. Sir Thomas Tresham of Rushton was known as 'the
most odious man in the county'. The old Roman Catholic gentry family
of the Treshams had long argued with the emerging Puritan gentry
family, the Montagus of Boughton, about territory. Now Tresham of
Newton was enclosing common land – The Brand – that had been part
of Rockingham Forest.
Edward Montagu, one of the Deputy Lieutenants, had stood up against
enclosure in Parliament some years earlier, but was now placed by the
King in the position effectively of defending the Treshams. The local
armed bands and militia refused the call-up, so the landowners were
forced to use their own servants to suppress the rioters on
8 June 1607. The Royal Proclamation was read twice. The rioters
continued in their actions, although at the second reading some ran
away. The gentry and their forces charged. A pitched battle ensued in
which 40–50 people were killed; the ringleaders were hanged and
A memorial stone to those killed now stands at the former church of St
Faith, Newton, Northamptonshire.
The Tresham family declined soon after 1607. The Montagu family went
on through marriage to become the Dukes of Buccleuch, one of the
largest landowners in Britain.
Western Rising 1630–32 and forest enclosure
Royal forests were not technically commons, they were used as
such from at least the 1500s onwards. By the 1600s, when Stuart Kings
examined their estates in order to find new revenues, it had become
necessary to offer compensation to at least some of those using the
lands as commons when the forests were divided and enclosed. The
majority of the disafforestation took place between 1629–40, during
Charles I of England's Personal Rule. Most of the beneficiaries were
Royal courtiers, who paid large sums in order to enclose and sublet
the forests. Those dispossessed of the commons, especially recent
cottagers and those who were outside of tenanted lands belonging to
manors, were granted little or no compensation, and rioted in
Parliamentary enclosure and open fields
Inclosure Act and British Agricultural Revolution
View of the Scafell massif from Yewbarrow, Wasdale, Cumbria. In the
valley are older enclosures and higher up on the fell-side are the
parliamentary enclosures following straight lines regardless of
During the 18th and 19th centuries, enclosures were by means of local
acts of Parliament, called the Inclosure Acts. These parliamentary
enclosures consolidated strips in the open fields into more compact
units, and enclosed much of the remaining pasture commons or wastes.
Parliamentary enclosures usually provided commoners with some other
land in compensation for the loss of common rights, although often of
poor quality and limited extent.
Enclosure consisted of exchange in
land, and an extinguishing of common rights. This allowed farmers
consolidated and fenced off plots of land, in contrast to multiple
small strips spread out and separated.
Parliamentary enclosure was also used for the division and
privatisation of common "wastes" (in the original sense of uninhabited
places), such as fens, marshes, heathland, downland, moors. Voluntary
enclosure was also frequent at that time.
At the time of the parliamentary enclosures, each manor had seen de
facto consolidation of farms into multiple large landholdings.
Multiple larger landholders already held the bulk of the land.
They 'held' but did not legally own in today's sense. They also had to
respect the open field system rights, when demanded, even when in
practice the rights were not widely in use. Similarly each large
landholding would consist of scattered patches, not consolidated
farms. In many cases enclosures were largely an exchange and
consolidation of land, and exchange not otherwise possible under the
legal system. It did also involve the extinguishing of common rights.
Without extinguishment, one man in an entire village could
unilaterally impose the common field system, even if everyone else did
not desire to continue the practice. De jure rights were not in accord
with de facto practice. With land one held, one could not formally
exchange the land, consolidate fields, or entirely exclude others.
Parliamentary enclosure was seen as the most cost-effective method of
creating a legally binding settlement. This is because of the costs
(time, money, complexity) of using the common law and equity legal
systems. Parliament required consent of the owners of 4/5-ths of the
land (copy and freeholders).
The primary benefits to large land holders came from increased value
of their own land, not from expropriation. Smaller holders could
sell their land to larger ones for a higher price post enclosure.
There was not much evidence that the common rights were particularly
valuable. Protests against Parliamentary
sometimes in Parliament itself, frequently in the villages affected,
and sometimes as organised mass revolts. Voluntary enclosure was
frequent at that time. Enclosed land was twice as valuable, a
price which could be sustained only by its higher productivity.
Marxist historians have focused on enclosure as a part of the class
conflict that eventually eliminated the English peasantry and saw the
emergence of the bourgeoisie. From this viewpoint, the English Civil
War provided the basis for a major acceleration of enclosures. The
parliamentary leaders supported the rights of landlords vis-a-vis the
Star Chamber court, abolished in 1641, had provided the
primary legal brake on the enclosure process. By dealing an ultimately
crippling blow to the monarchy (which, even after the Restoration, no
longer posed a significant challenge to enclosures) the Civil War
paved the way for the eventual rise to power in the 18th century of
what has been called a "committee of Landlords", a prelude to the
UK's parliamentary system. The economics of enclosures also changed.
Whereas earlier land had been enclosed in order to make it available
for sheep farming, by 1650 the steep rise in wool prices had come to
an end. Thereafter, the focus shifted to implementation of new
agricultural techniques, including fertilizer, new crops, and crop
rotation, all of which greatly increased the profitability of
large-scale farms. The enclosure movement probably peaked from
1760 to 1832; by the latter date it had essentially completed the
destruction of the medieval peasant community.
Before enclosure, much of the arable land in the central region of
England was organised into an open field system.
Enclosure was not
simply the fencing of existing holdings, but led to fundamental
changes in agricultural practice. Scattered holdings of strips in the
common field were consolidated to create individual farms that could
be managed independently of other holdings. Prior to enclosure, rights
to use the land were shared between land owners and villagers
(commoners). For example, commoners would have the right (common
right) to graze their animals when crops or hay were not being grown,
and on common pasture land. The land in a manor under this system
would consist of:
Two or three very large common arable fields
Several very large common hay meadows
Closes – small areas of enclosed private land such as paddocks,
orchards or gardens, mostly near houses
In some cases, a park around the principal house, the manor house
Common waste – rough pasture land (effectively everything not in the
Note that at this time field meant only the unenclosed and open arable
land; most of what would now be called 'fields' would then have been
called closes. The only boundaries would be those separating the
various types of land, and around the closes.
In each of the two waves of enclosure, two different processes were
used. One was the division of the large open fields and meadows into
privately controlled plots of land, usually hedged and known at the
time as severals. In the course of enclosure, the large fields and
meadows were divided and common access restricted. Most open-field
manors in England were enclosed in this manner, with the notable
Laxton, Nottinghamshire and parts of the Isle of Axholme
in North Lincolnshire.
The history of enclosure in England is different from region to
region. Not all areas of England had open-field farming in the
medieval period. Parts of south-east England (notably parts of Essex
and Kent) retained a pre-Roman system of farming in small enclosed
fields. Similarly in much of west and north-west England, fields were
either never open, or were enclosed early. The primary area of open
field management was in the lowland areas of England in a broad band
Lincolnshire diagonally across England to the
south, taking in parts of Norfolk and Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, large
areas of the Midlands, and most of south central England. These areas
were most affected by the first type of enclosure, particularly in the
more densely settled areas where grazing was scarce and farmers relied
on open field grazing after the harvest and on the fallow to support
The second form of enclosure affected those areas, such as the north,
the far south-west, and some other regions such as the East Anglian
Fens, and the Weald, where grazing had been plentiful on otherwise
marginal lands, such as marshes and moors. Access to these common
resources had been an essential part of the economic life in these
strongly pastoral regions, and in the Fens, large riots broke out in
the seventeenth century, when attempts to drain the peat and silt
marshes were combined with proposals to partially enclose them.
Both economic and social factors drove the enclosure movement. In
particular, the demand for land in the seventeenth century, increasing
regional specialisation, engrossment in landholding and a shift in
beliefs regarding the importance of "common wealth" (usually implying
common livelihoods) as opposed to the "public good" (the wealth of the
nation or the GDP) all laid the groundwork for a shift of support
among elites to favour enclosure. Enclosures were conducted by
agreement among the landholders (not necessarily the tenants)
throughout the seventeenth century; enclosure by Parliamentary Act
began in the eighteenth century. Enclosed lands normally could demand
higher rents than unenclosed, and thus landlords had an economic stake
in enclosure, even if they did not intend to farm the land directly.
While many villagers received plots in the newly enclosed manor, for
small landholders this compensation was not always enough to offset
the costs of enclosure and fencing. Many historians believe that
enclosure was an important factor in the reduction of small
landholders in England, as compared to the Continent, though others
believe that this process had already begun from the seventeenth and
Enclosure faced a great deal of popular
resistance because of its effects on the household economies of
smallholders and landless labourers. Common rights had included not
just the right of cattle or sheep grazing, but also the grazing of
geese, foraging for pigs, gleaning, berrying, and fuel gathering.
During the period of parliamentary enclosure, employment in
agriculture did not fall, but failed to keep pace with the growing
population. Consequently, large numbers of people left rural areas
to move into the cities where they became labourers in the Industrial
Revolution. Thus in a real way the English Parliament, seeking to
increase profits on farm land also created the workers needed to
increase the rapid expansion of the factory work force, by forcing
people out of the surround county into cities.
By the end of the 19th century the process of enclosure was largely
complete, in most areas just leaving a few pasture commons and village
greens, and the foreshore below the high-tide mark.
Many landowners became rich through the enclosure of the commons,
while many ordinary folk had a centuries-old right taken away. Land
enclosure has been condemned as a gigantic swindle on the part of
large landowners. In 1770
Oliver Goldsmith wrote The Deserted Village,
deploring rural depopulation. An anonymous protest poem from the
17th century summed up the anti-enclosure feeling, and has been
repeated in many variants since, even being applied to the
contemporary privatization of the Internet:
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common,
But lets the greater felon loose
Who steals the common from the goose.
George Orwell wrote in 1944:
Stop to consider how the so-called owners of the land got hold of it.
They simply seized it by force, afterwards hiring lawyers to provide
them with title-deeds. In the case of the enclosure of the common
lands, which was going on from about 1600 to 1850, the land-grabbers
did not even have the excuse of being foreign conquerors; they were
quite frankly taking the heritage of their own countrymen, upon no
sort of pretext except that they had the power to do so.
In April 1772, a paper signed "near Dorchester", was addressed to the
King (the newspapers taking notice of His Majesty's desire to see the
price of provisions lowered), to lay before him the evils of
forestalling and engrossing. As examples of engrossing in the
neighborhood of Dorchester, the writer instances the manors of Came,
Whitcomb, Muncton, and Bockhampton. The first, he says, about thirty
years before, had many inhabitants, many holding leasehold estates
under the lord of the manor for three lives. Some of these had estates
of 15l., 20l., and 30l. a year, being for the most part careful,
industrious people, obliged to be careful to keep a little cash in
order to keep the estate in the family if a life should drop. Their
corn was brought to market, and they were content with the market
price. Their cattle were sold in the same manner.
Their children when of proper age were married, and children begotten,
without fear of poverty. But the lord had since turned out all the
people, and the whole place was in his own hands, while not half the
quantity of corn was sown that formerly had been. The writer also
gives an account how one Wm. Taunton, though only a tenant of the
Dean and Chapter of Exon, was gradually getting the whole parish into
his own hands. He says, comparing his own with past times, that
formerly a farmer that occupied 100l. a year was thought a tolerable
one, and he that occupied four or five hundred pounds a very great one
indeed; but now they had farmers that occupied from one thousand to
two thousand per annum, who did not want money to pay their rent, as
did the little farmers, who were obliged to sell their corn, etc. The
writer gives it as the general opinion that the kingdom had become
greatly depopulated, some averring the population to have decreased by
a fourth within the preceding hundred years. He further says:
Your Majesty must put a stop to inclosures, or oblige ye lord of ye
manor to keep up ye antient custom of it, and not suffer him to buy
his tenant's interest; to have all the houses pulled down, and ye
whole parish turn'd into a farm: this is a fashionable practice, and
by none more yn Jn° Damer, Esq., ye owner of Came, and his brother
A parliamentary enclosure road near Lazonby in Cumbria. The roads were
made as straight as possible, and the boundaries much wider than a
cart width to reduce the ground damage of driving sheep and cattle.
Public roads through enclosed common land were made to an accepted
width between boundaries. In the late eighteenth century this was at
least 60 feet, but from the 1790s this was decreased to 40 feet, and
later 30 feet as the normal maximum width. The reason for these wide
roads to was to prevent excessive churning of the road bed, and allow
easy movement of flocks and herds of animals.
Contemporary movements against enclosure
Abahlali baseMjondolo in South Africa
Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee in India
Zapatista Army of National Liberation
Zapatista Army of National Liberation in Mexico
Fanmi Lavalas in Haiti
Homeless Workers' Movement
Homeless Workers' Movement in Brazil
Landless Peoples Movement
Landless Peoples Movement in South Africa
Landless Workers' Movement
Landless Workers' Movement in Brazil
Narmada Bachao Andolan
Narmada Bachao Andolan in India
Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign
Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign in South Africa
British Agricultural Revolution
Das Kapital (Capital), Vol. 1, Ch. 27
Deserted medieval village
Law of rent
Natural resource economics
Primitive accumulation of capital
Tragedy of the anticommons
Tragedy of the commons
British Agricultural Revolution
Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggers
In other countries
^ The Cultural Landscape: An Introduction to Human Geography, James M.
Rubenstein, Pearson Publishing (2011)
^ Karl Marx. "Chapter 27 Das Kapital". Retrieved 16 April 2017.
^ Thompson 1991, p. 217.
^ Thompson 1991, p. 237.
^ A comparison of the English historical enclosures with the (much
later) German 19th century Landflucht. Engels, Friedrich (1882).
Die Mark (in German). Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie
zur Wissenschaft. Hottingen (Zurich). Marx, Karl; Engels,
Friedrich. Werke (in German) (1973 reprint of 196t 1st ed.). Berlin:
^ Chambers & Mingay 1982, p. 104.
^ Armstrong 1981, p. 79.
^ Hey 2008, pp. 177–240.
^ Overton 1996, pp. 165
^ Overton, Mark (1996). Agricultural Revolution in England: The
transformation if the agrarian economy 1500–1850. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-56859-3.
^ Marx, Karl. "Capital Volume I, Ch. 27 The
Expropriation of the
Agricultural Population". Penguin Classics, 1990 . Trans. Ben
^ Hammond & Hammond 1912, pp. 4–5.
^ Beresford 1998, p. 28.
^ Holeton, David R. "Fynes Moryson's Itinerary: A Sixteenth Century
English Traveller's Observations on Bohemia, its Reformation, and its
Liturgy" (PDF). The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice.
Prague. pp. 379–410. Retrieved 4 March 2012.
^ Beresford 1998, pp. 102 et seq.
^ Thirsk, Joan (1984). The Rural Economy of England.
25. A&C Black. p. 71. ISBN 9780826444424. Retrieved
2014-08-04. [O]nly the overwhelming compulsion of population increase,
together with accompanying price rises, can explain why enclosure made
such swift progress and was such a burning issue in two separate
periods […], the sixteenth and late eighteenth and early nineteenth
^ Thirsk 1958, p. 9.
^ Monbiot, George (22 February 1995). "A Land Reform Manifesto". The
Guardian. Retrieved 4 March 2012.
^ Buchanan Sharp (1980), In contempt of all authority, Berkeley:
University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-03681-6,
^ a b McCloskey 1975, pp. 146.
^ McCloskey 1975, pp. 149–50.
^ McCloskey 1975, pp. 128–133.
^ McCloskey 1975, pp. 147.
^ McCloskey 1975, pp. 142–144.
^ Hammond J.L. and Barbara, The Village Labourer 1760–1832
^ McCloskey 1975, pp. 156.
^ Moore 1966, pp. 17, 19–29.
^ Moore 1966, p. 7.
^ Moore 1966, p. 23.
^ Moore 1966, pp. 25–29.
^ Thirsk 1958, p. 4.
^ Chambers & Mingay 1982, p. 99.
^ "Industrial Revolution". www.let.leidenuniv.nl. Retrieved
^ Bastick, Zach (2012). "Our Internet and Freedom of Speech 'Hobbled
by History': Introducing Plural Control Structures Needed to Redress a
Decade of Linear Policy" (PDF). European Commission: European Journal
of ePractice. Policy lessons from a decade of eGovernment, eHealth
& eInclusion (15): 97–111.
^ "The Goose and the Commons". wealthandwant.com. Retrieved 4 March
^ Orwell, George (18 August 1944). "On the Origins of
Land". cooperativindividualism.org. Archived from the original on 4
November 2010. Retrieved 4 March 2012.
^ Watt, Robert, ed. (1772). "A letter to a Member of Parliament on the
present High Price of P.s". Bibliotheca Britannica. Calendar of Home
Office Papers, 1770–1772. Google Books. p. 479. Retrieved 4
^ Transforming Fell and Valley, Ian Whyte. Published by Centre for
North West regional Studies, University of Lancaster 2003
Armstrong, W A (1981). The Influence of Demographic Factors on the
Position of the Agricultural Labourer in England and Wales,
c.1750–1914". in "Agricultural
History Review.". The Agricultural
History Review. 29. British Agricultural
Beresford, Maurice (1998). The Lost Villages of England (Revised ed.).
Chambers, J. D.; Mingay, G. E. (1982). The Agricultural Revolution
1750–1850 (Reprinted ed.). Batsford.
Court, W. H. B. (1954). A Concise Economic
History of Britain.
Cambridge University Press.
Hammond, J. L.; Hammond, Barbara (1912). The Village Labourer
1760–1832. London: Longman. ASIN B000876AAE.
Hey, David; Halstead, John L.; Hoyle, R. W.; Short, Brian M. (2008).
David Hey, ed. Themes in The Oxford Companion to Family and Local
History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, Arthur H. (1909). The Disappearance of the Small Landowner.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kropotkin, Peter (1902). "7. Mutual aid amongst ourselves". Mutual
Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Retrieved 4 March 2012.
Lindley, Keith (1982). Fenland Riots and the English Revolution.
McCloskey, Donald. (1975) The
Economics of Enclosure. 
Moore, Barrington (1966). Social Origins of Dictatorship and
Democracy: Lord and
Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston,
Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
Neeson, J. M. (1993). Commoners: Common Right,
Enclosure and Social
Change in England, 1700–1820. Cambridge University Press.
Polanyi, Karl (1944). The Great Transformation.
Shaw-Taylor, Leigh (2001). "Parliamentary
Enclosure and the Emergence
of an English Agricultural Proletariat". Journal of Economic
Thirsk, Joan (1958). Tudor Enclosures (oft reprinted ed.). The
Thompson, E. P. (1991). The Making of the English Working Class.
Beckett, J. V. (1991). "The Disappearance of the Cottager and the
Squatter from the English Countryside: The Hammonds Revisited.". In
Holderness, B. A.; Turner, Michael. Land, Labour and Agriculture,
1700 1920. London: Hambledon Press.
Chambers, Jonathan D. "
Enclosure and labour supply in the industrial
History Review 5.3 (1953): 319-343. in JSTOR
Dahlman, Carl J (1980). The Open Field System and Beyond: A Property
Rights Analysis of an Economic Institution. Cambridge University
Everitt, Alan (2000). "Common Land". In Thirsk, Joan. The English
Rural Landscape. Oxford University Press.
Gonner, E. C. K (1912). Common Land and Inclosure. London: Macmillan
& Co. 
Humphries, J. (1990). "Enclosures, commons rights, and women". Journal
of Economic History. 50 (1): 17–42.
Thirsk, Joan (29 December 1964). "The Common Fields". Past and
Present. pp. 3 25.
James Boyle. 2008. The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the
Judt, Tony (25 March 2010). Ill Fares the Land. Allen Lane/Penguin.
ISBN 978-1-84614-359-5. (Title taken from Goldsmith's work
The Deserted Village)
Marx, Karl. "27.
Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the
Das Kapital [Capital]. Marxists.org (in German). 1. Retrieved 4
The Yellow Admiral
The Yellow Admiral by Patrick O'Brian
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Enclosure
Look up enclosure in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Look up champaign in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Laxton (open field village)
Enclosure as it affected an English Midlands village in the nineteenth
Marital property (USA)
Estate in land
Bundle of rights
Common good (economics)
Free rider problem
Labor theory of property
Law of rent
Right to property
Tragedy of the commons
Ejido (agrarian land)
restraint on alienation
Freedom to roam
Right of way
Two Treatises of Government
John Stuart Mill
The Great Transformation
What Is Property?
Murray N. Rothbard
The Ethics of Liberty
The Social Contract
The Wealth of Nations
Agriculture in the United Kingdom
Economy of the United Kingdom
Arla Foods UK
Bernard Matthews Farms
Müller Wiseman Dairies
Rare Breeds Survival Trust
Agricultural Land Classification
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency
British Cattle Movement Service
The Country Code
Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland)
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Institute for Animal Health
Meat and Livestock Commission
Rights of way in Scotland
Rural Development Council
Rural Payments Agency
Scottish Government Enterprise and Environment Directorate
Single Payment Scheme
British timber trade
Highland Potato Famine
Rural Reconstruction Association
Scottish Agricultural Revolution
Women's Land Army
Nations and regions
Agriculture in London
Royal Highland Show
Royal Welsh Show
Farmers' Union of Wales
National Farmers' Union of England and Wales
National Farmers' Union of Scotland
Ulster Farmers' Union
Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster
British Egg Industry Council
British Poultry Council
Country Land and Business Association
Fresh Start Initiative
Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences
James Hutton Institute
Museum of English Rural Life
National Museum of Rural Life
National Non-Food Crops Centre
Nottingham Arabidopsis Stock Centre
Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland
Tenant Farmers Association
Universities and colleges
Royal Agricultural University
Scotland's Rural College