i Formal Agreements and the Process: The Evidence from * By JOHN CHAPMAN and SYLVIA SEELIGE1K

Abstract Writings on enclosure after I7OO often concentrate largely on the parliamentary movement, and any discussion of non-parliamentary aspects tends to ignore the distinction between the different processes involved. Amounts and types of are rarely specified with any precision. An extensive survey of Hampshire casts some light on the progress of enclosure by formal agreement, one specific type of non- parliamentary enclosure. It is shown that this type of enclosure occurred more frequently and covered more land than previously thought, forming a testing ground for techniques employed by parliamentary act. Estimates are given, from the statistics collected, for the acreage involved, and the types of land are shown. The temporal and spatial distribution of formal agreement enclosure is analysed, and a comparison with the extent of parliamentary enclosure is made. Finally, the importance of piecemeal enclosure in Hampshire is highlighted.

T IS GENERALLY accepted that some that 'through the eighteenth century and 75 per cent of escaped the the first half of the nineteenth, parliamen- I effects of parliamentary enclosure, but tary were accompanied by div- the extent and timing of other methods isions and enclosures neither ratified nor of enclosure have remained a matter of authorized by ', he then controversy. In much of the literature of says that 'in 17oo about one-quarter of the the enclosure movement there tends to be enclosure of England and Wales remained an assumption, sometimes explicitly stated, to be undertaken'. By imp~cation, virtu- that the story of enclosure during the ally the whole of his quarter would be eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is to accounted for by the parliamentary move- all intents and purposes that of the parlia- ment. 2 Gonner's calculations point in the mentary movement, and that these other same direction, for he estimated that the methods were largely a feature of earlier parliamentary enclosure total needed to be centuries. Wordie, for example, allows a raised by only 3 to 5 per cent to allow for mere I per cent of the area of England for other types of enclosure after 175o. 3 enclosure by agreement after I76o and, on On the other hand, a minority of writers the basis of evidence from Durham and have argued for the importance of non- , suggests that 'between I7oo parliamentary means. McCloskey, for and I76o the enclosure by agreement example, suggests that enclosure other than movement had run out of momentum', by private act was a major during though he gives a figure of some 3 per these centuries. Yelling draws attention to cent for such enclosures during the whole the significance of piecemeal enclosure, century.' The comments of Kerridge are though he implies a regional separation, similarly dismissive since, although he states for he states that 'in most piecemeal enclos-

* The authors would like to thank ESP,.C for funding the collection "E Kerridge, The Ag&ultural Revolution, I967, p 24. For calculations of the data upon which this work is based, and BiJl Johnson of the of parliamentary enclosure, see M Turner, English Parliamentary Cartographic Unit of the University of Portsnmuth for preparing Endosure, Folkestone, z98o, pp I78-9, andJ Chapman, 'The nature the figures. They would also like to thank the anonymous referees and extent of parliamentary enclosure', Ag Hist Rev, 35, z987, for their helpful comments. pp 25-35. 'J P, Wordie, 'The chronology of English enclosure, I5OO-I914', 3E C K Gonner, and Endosure, I966 (originaUy Econ Hist Rev, 2nd series, XX.XVI, t983, pp 488, 498 and 502. published I912), p 53. ij Ag Hist Rev, 43, I, pp 35-46 35 36 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW ure districts there is no extensive coverage with an interest in the land. The first of of parliamentary awards that can be used these tended to perpetuate holding frag- to provide a regional framework for the mentation; the second left the landholder study of enclosure history'.4 Butlin stresses with complete freedom of action. Formal the importance of enclosure by agreement, agreements, on the other hand, produced at least in the first half of the eighteenth effects which were very similar to par- century) liamentary enclosure, with a substantial Part of the problem lies in the absence degree of replanning in most cases. Many, of precise and detailed statistics relating indeed, followed closely the procedures of to non-parliamentary enclosures, which the parliamentary process, with full powers might form the basis for testing the validity to interpret the agreement and carry out of the opposing views. A few authors, such reorganization being delegated to com- as Hodgson and Mills, have offered figures missioners, who were then charged with for the numbers of non-parliamentary drawing-up a formal award. An agreement enclosures in specific local regions, but drawn up in proper legal form provided a evefl these have normally shrunk from degree of security which was lacking in providing acreages, especially of the types informal piecemeal enclosures, and also of land involved.6 The difficulty is further avoided some of the heavy costs invol- compounded by the fact that non- ved in piloting a private act through parliamentary enclosure was not a single Parliament. s It had the further advantage process, and the distinction between the over an act that the time taken to complete different types has rarely been made explicit the enclosure was likely to be substantially in the literature. shorter, without the inevitable delays A classification of enclosures on the basis involved in the formal parliamentary pro- of legal criteria was provided by Gonner cess. The parliamentary route did not avoid in the early years of this century, but such the wrangling and horse-trading necessary a definition does not adequately reflect the to achieve an agreement, since a high differences in landscape or holding layout measure of consensus was necessary which may be produced/From a practical between the , the tithe viewpoint, it is important to distinguish owners and the principal landowners between piecemeal enclosure, often carried before it was worth attempting to procure out over a long period of time with the a private act. 9 The advantages of parliamen- tacit approval of the other parties to the tary action were, therefore, not always system, enclosure by a landowner or land- obvious unless there was limited but deter- holder who succeeded in consolidating all mined opposition, or there was some the land into one hand, and enclosure by specific legal barrier, such as the minority formal agreement amongst all the parties or lunacy of one of the major parties, which might have been held to invalidate D N McCloskey, 'The enclosure of open fields: preface to a study an agreement. In the circumstances, it is of its impact on the efficiency of English in the not surprising that formal agreements eighteenth century',J Econ Hist, 32, 1972, p i6, note 2; J A Yelling, Conunon Field and Enclosure in England, 145o-185o, 1977, pp 71-93 (specifically p 90. ' For the costs of parliamentary enclosures see J M Martin, 'The cost s Ik A Budin, 'The enclosure of open fields and the extinction of of parliamentary enclosure in Warwickshire', in E L Jones, ed, common rights in England, c 16oo-175o: a review', in H S A Fox Agriculture and Economic Growth in England, 165o-1815, 1967, and Ik A Budin, eds, Change in the Countryside: Essays on Rural pp 128-5I; M E Turner, 'The cost of parliamentary enclosure in England, 15oo-19oo, Institute of British Geographers Special Buckinghamshire', Ag Hist Rev, 21, I973, pp 35-46; also evidence Publication, No Io, 1979, pp 65-82. in House of Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century, a lk I Hodgson, 'The progress of enclosure in , Reports and Papers, 1799 to 1Boo, 13o, pp zI-3 I. 55o-187o', in Fox and Budin, Change in the Countryside, pp 83--102; '~ See, for example, correspondence relating to the D Mills, 'Enclosure in Kesteven', Ag Hist Rev, 7, 1959, pp 82-97. Act of 182o in Cathedral Archives (hereafter WCA), 7 Gonner, Common Land and Enclosure, p 53. T3A/I/3/5-7. FORMAL AGREEMENTS AND THE ENCLOSURE PROCESS 37 played a significant role in the enclosure challenges. ~I The opposite case occurred at 7 process even during the eighteenth and Wonston, where a proposed parliamentary nineteenth centuries when the parliamen- enclosure was abandoned when it proved tary alternative was firmly established. possible to come to a unanimous agree- Formal agreements, as here defined, ment. ~2 Indeed, the threat of parliamentary were legally binding documents indicating action was sometimes used as a lever to the consent of all the parties involved in persuade the parties to settle their differ- the enclosure. They were a common fea- ences, as at Itchen Stoke. ~3 ture of various parts of the country, ,° and Representatives acting on behalf of insti- undoubtedly played a significant part in tutions tended to take a cautious line and the enclosure movement of several south prefer an act, though they were neverthe- coast counties. The remainder of this paper less represented amongst the parties to explores the significance of this particular agreements. The Dean and Chapter of aspect of non-parliamentary enclosure as it Winchester, one of the principal lords of affected the historic county of Hampshire the manor in the county, showed an over- (excluding the ) during the whelming preference for the use of an eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. act, but were nevertheless involved in the agreement at , possibly because, by 1856, the general enclosure legislation I had ~ven some legal backing to the idea There is nothing in the Hampshire material of enclosures by agreement. Officials rep- to suggest that the use of agreement or act resenting other institutional owners were was determined by anything other than similarly inhibited, though this did not legal necessity. Private owners such as Sir necessarily prove a complete barrier to Chaloner Ogle and Sir Charles Mill appear enclosure by this means. Correspondence to have used agreements where possible between Ralph Etwall and the bursar of and acts where they had to, and their Corpus Christi College, Oxford, in 1789 names appear indiscriminately in both over the enclosure shows con- types. Occasionally such private owners siderable doubt in the mind of the latter were pushed into the expense of an act over his fight to commit his successors, when an agreement ran into difficulties. At though he eventually overcame his doubts, North Stoneham it had been agreed in encouraged by the willingness of Magdalen 1736 to enclose the conunon, but diffi- College, Oxford, another of the interested culties arose when John Dummer, whose parties at Longstock, to go ahead. I4 legal guardian had signed on his behalf The various published lists have tended during his minority, repudiated the agree- to obscure the contribution of formal ment on attaining his majority. A revised agreements to the enclosure history of agreement was patched up, but Sir Richard Hampshire. The fact that the parliamentary Flenfing, the original lord, had died in the enclosure lists of both Tare and Taverner mean time, leaving the estate in the hands contain appendices of formal agreements of his brother, a lunatic. In the circum- showing only one and two respectively, stances, the parties prudently sought a con- firmatory act in I744 to avoid any further

'°B English ' enclosure awards', University of Hull Studies " Hampshire R.ecord Office (hereafter H1LO), I5M54/1. in Regional and Local Histoo,, 5, 1985; Joint Archives Conunittee " Handwritten note dated t 3 September t 800, WCA, T',A/-,/I/64t". for the Counties of Cu,nberland and Westmorland and the City '~ HILO, 2.7M9z/51. of Carlisle, Cumberland Enclosure Awards, I968. ,4 Corpus Christi Arclfives, pkt Cbi8 and Cg]. 38 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW may mislead the unwary./5 Naish's unpub- including the six confirmed agreements, fished thesis offers a rather more com- and 123 in the nineteenth, including the prehensive picture, mentioning twelve single confirmed case? I In other words, agreements for the period Wo6-55 and over 53 per cent of formal eighteenth- three for 1755-91, but this covers only the century enclosures in Hampshire were, challdands, and gives no detailed break- in effect, by agreement, and 45 per cent down into open field and other types of involved no recourse to Parliament at all. land. ~6 Jones also restricts his comments to Even for the nineteenth century, ahnost 7 the challdands, and there is confusion in per cent were achieved without invoking his account between agreements to con- any acts of Parliament, private or general. vert common to other uses in Unfortunately, it is not possible to pre- common, and those creating land in sever- sent a complete picture of all enclosures by alty: 7 A number of what are at first sight private agreement. There is, obviously, a enclosure agreements are actually agree- possibility that some formal agreements ments to convert common down to have not survived, or have not yet been common arable, such as that for Meonstoke discovered. However, a parish-by-parish in I679, or to allow reseeding of land survey has revealed the means of enclosure which was then to revert to common, as for almost all the open-field systems which at in I623. I8 existed in 17oo, and only a handful remain Present investigations have uncovered a where a lost formal agreement is a possibil- total of sixty-four formal enclosure agree- ity. 22 Not all the awards seem to have ments within Hampshire, thirty-eight of survived, a feature not unknown even which took place during the eighteenth amongst parliamentary enclosures, and sev- century and a further ten during the nine- eral agreements probably never involved a teenth. ~9 If the convention established by formal award, since the land may merely Tate and Turner is followed, six of the have been staked out in the field. eighteenth-century and one of the nine- Furthermore, some awards which do exist teenth-century agreements would be omit some of the essential details, usually regarded as parliamentary, since subsequent because they allot an unspecified 'residue' to the agreement they were confirmed by to the principal owner. The award a private act. r-i,-~.t~ms . leaves thirty-two and of I737, for example, omits the acreages nine respectively, as being purely by private of two of the five allotments and records agreement (Appendix 1). 20 For compari- the surrender by one owner of unspecified son, there were thirty-nine parliamentary common rights, thus leaving the other in enclosures during the eighteenth century, unfettered possession? 3 In consequence, analysis of the whole group is not possible, '~ W E Tate, 'A new Domesday of (Georgian) enclosure. Hampshire Section', Papers and Proc Hampshire Field Club and Archaeol Sot, 15, and the statistics presented in Appendix 2 I943, pp 292-6, and 'Field systems and enclosures in Hampshire', refer only to the twenty-three awards Papers and Proc Hampshire Field Club and Arcltaeol Soc, t6, I947, pp 257-79; L E Tavemer, The Common of Hampshire, Winchester, I957, p 95. :'These totals include the Warblington fields enclosure of 1812, 'rM C Naish, 'The agricultural landscape of the Hampshire chalk- much of which involved parishes lying in Sussex. They exclude lands, I7oo-I84o', unpublished MA thesis, University of Portsea (1753), which was not an enclosure, Bashley (1815), which , i96L was purely an agreement, and Newland Marsh (I86I) and Crofton ~TE L Jones, Agriculture and the Industrial Revohttion, Oxford, I974, Marsh 086i), which were parts of other enclosures: from the lists pp 26-3 I. in M E Turner, ed, A Donlesday of English Endosure Acts and 'S Winchester College Muniments, I3553; WCA, T2A/'-/I/64f Awards by WE "Fate, Reading, I978, pp I24-3t. (which is actually endorsed 'licence to enclose'). ': See J Chapman and S Seeliger, A Guide to Enclosure in Hampshire, 'gThat is, including the area in the Boumemouth district which was 17oo-19oo, , forthconring 0995). For transferred to in the modem period. example, a map of Wield dated 1779 (HrZO, io5M88/3) shows ~°The seven, with act dates, were Odiham 0739), Charlton 074o), an 'Allotment' in White Lain Field which does not appear to refer Chawton 074I), North Stoneham 0744), (1749), to any known enclosure. 0757), and 0815). :3 HRO, 38M48/92/I 4.

i Y

!!/ FORMAL AGREEMENTS AND THE ENCLOSURE PROCESS 39 dating from after I7oo for which acreage hardly surprising, since it might be and details are complete. The expected that there would be a general surviving agreement enclosures of the tendency for unanimous agreement to be eighteenth and nineteenth centuries could easier to achieve where the area and the be argued to be representative of the number of individuals involved were whole, since those agreements without smaller. However, the mean area for agree- figures have descriptions of land and ments is nevertheless substantial, and it is owners that are indistinguishable from interesting to note that none of them those which do contain them. There are involved very small acreages, as was some- only three instances of agreements in this times the case with parliamentary enclos- period where there is no direct surviving ures. Only three agreements covered less documentation of any kind, their existence than IOO acres, the smallest being Nea being referred to m passing in other Common in Christchurch with 4o.5; par- sources. It seems reasonable to treat the liamentary awards, on the other hand, fell existing awards as representative of the under 7 acres at , and four whole, since survival or otherwise appears involved less than 15. It seems highly likely to have been a matter of chance. that for such very small areas formal agree- Thus, a rough estimate of the amount ments were unnecessary: they could usually of land affected by formal agreements after be dealt with informally, as at Lower 17o0, excluding those later confirmed, may Common, Stamshaw, or Hum Bottom, be produced by multiplying the total l:~ng-. 26 Where this was not possible, number, forty-one, by the mean acreage then the full power of the parliamentary per agreement, 523.28. On this basis it may process was necessary to achieve the be suggested that fomaal agreements required result. accounted for some 21,454 acres in As far as the type of land enclosed is Hampshire, or 2.23 per cent of the whole concerned, the situation was very far from county area. Against this, the parliamentary that implied by Jones, who states that movement covered 138,291 acres, or 14.42 agreements were primarily for waste and per cent. ~4 Once again, the significance acts for open field. =7 In fact, agreement of agreements to the eighteenth-century enclosures show an almost equal balance enclosure movement is stressed if this between open field and pasture, 49 per period is treated separately. The acreage cent as against 46, in marked contrast to dealt with by agreement may be estimated Hampshire parliamentary enclosures where at 16,745 or 1.74 per cent of the county, the proportion of open-field land was a while acts of Parliament of the same period mere 27 per cent, with pasture making up disposed of 46,368, or 4.83 per cent. 63 .'-s It might seem logical to attribute From these figures it will be apparent these differences to the different nature of that formal agreements, on average, tended the two processes, since it would be reason- to deal with smaller acreages than acts. In able to postulate that agreement should be comparison to the mean figure of 523.28 much easier to achieve for open-field land acres for the surviving awards, the parlia- and meadow. The splitting of such lands mentary mean is 88o.4o. -'s Such a result is into individual ownership offered fewer

:4 The parliamentary figure was produced by totalling all allotments in all actual awards, and substituting estimates for those where no 'ej Chapman, 'The common lands of Port.sea Island', award exists. The county acreage (958,896) is derived from John Papers, 29, 1979, PP4 and i6-i8; HI~O, xIM61/57 and HRO, Bartholomew and Son's Gazeteer of the , 9th ed, 5 IM74/I. Edinburgh, 1966 reprint. "wJones, Agriculture and the hldustrial Revolution, pp "6-3 I. 's All these figures were derived by totalling the individual allotments :" In each case the missing percentages are made up of conmmn in each award. meadow and of old enclosures which were redistributed. 4O THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW problems and opportunities for dispute 2o. 3~ In contrast, parliamentary enclosures than the division of the commons. Apart ranged from I to 369 allottees, and 59 per from possible difficulties over compen- cent involved 20 or more. As was indicated sation for tithes, which could always be earlier, parliamentary awards with few overcome by the simple expedient of con- allottees tended to reflect doubts about the ! tinuing to pay them in kind, field division powers of particular individuals to enter ! was relatively straightforward, since all into legally-binding agreements on behalf rights were in proportion to the existing of their successors rather than an inability strips. In contrast, rights on the common to come to an amicable arrangement: the might be claimed under a wide range of single-owner enclosure at Harfley Wintney different headings and might be exercised appears to have arisen from a desire to over the same piece of land, forcing would- clarify the legal status of the common, the be enclosers to value, for example, fuel- lord of the manor being awarded all the gathering rights against pasture-rights, a far ordinary allotments and purchasing all the more complex problem which was likely land sold to raise expenses. 3~ to make voluntary agreement much more difficult. One factor in this difference would II appear to be simply a chronological one. A striking feature of the formal agreements Agreement enclosures were predominantly is that they offer marked patterns both eighteenth century rather than nineteenth spatially and temporally. Spatially (Fig I) century in date, and nationally even they avoid almost entirely the heathlands amongst parliamentary enclosures field of the county; temporally, they show a enclosures tended to dominate during the series of upsurges and troughs of activity, eighteenth century. ~9 More detailed exam- with peaks in the I73OS and '4os, and in ination of the temporal patterns confirms the I79OS (Fig 2). Taken together, the pic- this argument. Eighteenth-century agree- ture presented accords very well with that ments show a slight majority for field land, produced by parliamentary enclosures. In 53 per cent arable against 45 common and crude terms, the latter affected the chalk- waste, and eighteenth-century parliamen- lands first, spreading to the south only tary awards for Hampshire show an essen- during the Napoleonic War period and tially similar pattern, with 57 per cent and reaching the heathlands of the east of the 37 per cent respectively. county later still, largely after the General Contrasts between the profiles of agree- Enclosure Act of 1845. The predominantly ment enclosures and those by parliamentary eighteenth-century agreements fill in many act or order emerge in other respects) ° As of the gaps left in the challdands by the would be expected, the forn~er affected contemporaneous parliamentary phase and, noticeably smaller numbers of allottees, interestingly, the handful of later agree- with a mean of only 12.7 against the latter's ments show a more southerly and easterly 35.1. Once more, the range is also mark- tendency, reflecting the similar shift in the edly different: as can be seen from centre of gravity of the parliamentary Appendix 2, the agreements involved movement. They thus reinforce the geo- between 3 and 53, and only two exceeded graphical pattern presented by the parlia- mentary movement, indicating that there

•9 Chapman, 'Nature and extent', p 33; Turner, Etz~lish Parliamentary Endos,~re, pp I86-7 and I90--L 3°After the General Inclosure Act of I845 most enclosures were by 'Order', subsequently confirnled by Parliament, rather than by the 3, The incomplete Herriard award of 1737 involved only two parties. earlier procedure of individual private acts. ~'~H1KO, Q23/2/64.

ii, FORMAL AGREEMENTS AND THE ENCLOSURE PROCESS 4I

~, Sixteenth Century x Seventeenth Century .! • Eighteenth Century, /% [] ,! :t [] Nineteenth Century il • • X O0 O • x X • x X 0 o, O x OnoO 5 x 0 X • • [] [] O [] X O X X ,t, 10 miles L I

[] • [] ~E SOLENT

FIGURE I Location of Hampshire enclosure agreements

was a genuine spatial spread of enclosure coast and the immediate vicinity of the itself through time, rather than mere growing urban centres of Portsmouth and differences m the date of take-up of , even though both open- different methods of enclosure in differ- field systems and common wastes were ent areas. numerous in these areas. Nor were these Ease of access to urban markets was early-enclosed areas particularly favoured clearly of no significance in determining with inland waterways or turnpikes. A case the pattern, for the eighteenth-century might be made for Portsmouth exerting a agreements conspicuously avoided the limited influence, for Portsea Island lost 42 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW 10

m *" 8 e.. Q E Q 6

4 O

o 2 "Z

0 1700-19 1720-39 1740-59 1760-79 1780-99

FIGURE 2, Chronology of Hampshire enclosure agreements

two of its cormnunal systems, at challdands would fit logically with such and Milton, to seventeenth-century agree- arguments: landowners wishing to take ments, and a further one, , appar- advantage of these new methods would ently to piecemeal enclosure before 1700. have had an obvious incentive to enclose However, the Portsmouth system itself by whatever means seemed most con- took a further i40 years to disappear, suc- venient to them. cumbing piecemeal to urban expansion rather than agricultural influences, and beyond the confines of Portsea Island no III impact can be detected. 33 The foregoing discussion has concerned A stronger case can be made for the itself with the eighteenth and nineteenth influence of localized agricultural improve- centuries, but it may be noted that the ments. The progress of agriculture in the available evidence strongly suggests that chalklands prior to I75O is well attested, formal agreements had their greatest impact and Kerridge has argued persuasively that on Hampshire during this period. The significant changes in agricultural methods parish-by-parish survey mentioned earlier and systems had affected the Wiltshire indicates that the overwhelming majority chalklands in the seventeenth century. 34 of field systems existing in I6OO were still The tight clustering of the early Hampshire present in I7oo. The same applies, though agreements on the adjoining Hampshire with a rather greater mar~n of uncertainty, to cormnon pastures and wastes. 35 Though

33 Chapman, 'Common lands of Portsea Island'. 35 Chapman and Seeliger, Enclosure in Hampshire. 3*Kerridge, The Agricultural Revolution, especially pp 42-51. I

k

12

-4 . FORMAL AGREEMENTS AND THE ENCLOSURE PROCESS 43 further investigations may well add to the present state of knowledge, it is quite clear fifteen seventeenth-century agreements that an enclosure movement by formal referred to here, it seems highly unlikely agreement was in progress in the southern that these can be more than doubled, counties during the eighteenth and nine- which is what would be required to equal teenth centuries, and it seems reasonable the eighteenth-century total. There is, to speculate that it was roughly pro- indeed, good reason to suggest that it was portional in numbers to the incidence of the I69os which saw the use of formal parliamentary enclosure in each county. methods become well-established, for four J Evidence from elsewhere in England makes of the seventeenth-century agreements it clear that such a picture was not unique were made in this decade, and that there- to the southern counties. The lists pro- after formal agreements and acts persisted duced some years ago by the then side-by-side until the nineteenth century, Cumberland County Record Office give with the latter being used prior to ~8oo no fewer than sixty agreements as against only in more complex or legally difficult I2 7 parliamentary enclosures, and Lyons situations. Though enclosure by act was has recently offered evidence from dominant in the eighteenth century, to . 3s Whether it was confined to ignore agreements is to understate the the peripheral counties or extended to the amount of formal enclosure by almost a midland core cannot yet be determined, third in areal terms: in terms of numbers but in either case significant questions are of individual enclosures, agreements were raised about the nature of eighteenth- and even more significant, for they made up nineteenth-century enclosures. If the mid- approaching half the total. Concentration lands were largely unaffected, agreements on the acts also tends to distort the picture elsewhere would go some way to balance of the type of land enclosed: in pro- the preponderance of enclosures by act portional terms, field land was more likely there, and indicate that the enclosure to be dealt with by private agreement, and movement was far less regionally concen- common pasture and waste by act over the trated in the eighteenth century than has two centuries under consideration. been postulated. One would also need to Though these results apply specifically ask why the midlands found it necessary to Hampshire, they present a picture sig- to adopt the act of Parliament, very largely nificantly different from the one given by for open-field land, when other areas of the existing literature for the county, and the country were contemporaneously the question must be posed as to how far making use of a cheaper and generally such patterns might be reflected elsewhere. quicker means of achieving precisely the There is certainly evidence of substantial same ends. If, on the other hand, enclosure numbers of formal agreements in Dorset, by agreement was equally active there it and published work indicates even more would imply that enclosure in some count- for Wiltshire. 36 It is also clear that there ies was almost entirely a product of the are more agreements in Sussex than shown eighteenth century. on Tate's list) 7 Though it is not possible As a final comment, it must be stressed to offer a comprehensive picture in the that the above analysis applies only to enclosures carried out by a formal agree-

36The Dorset total was derived from a search of the catalogues in the county record office. IL E Sandell, 'Abstracts of Wiltshire inclosure awards and agreements', Wiltshire Record Society, ::5, 1969, provides totals for Wiltshire. ~SJoint Archives Committee of Cumberland and Westmorland, ~TW E Tate, 'A handlist of Sussex and awards', East Cumberland Enclosure Awards, I968; N Lyons, ed, Enclosure it, attd West Sussex County Councils, Record Publication, z, 195o. Context in North West Lincolnshire, I992. ill 44 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW ment. There is, in fact, increasing evidence decay and neglect of communal rights. 39 It that much enclosure in eighteenth- and seems highly likely that the neglected nineteenth-century Hampshire was carried formal agreements are themselves merely out without either a formal agreement or the tip of a far greater hidden iceberg of an act of Parliament. Instances of lords of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century the manor or their tenants enclosing by enclosures. bringing whole townships into their own hands occur in the literature, as do 39 S WJ Waight, 'Corpus Christi College, Oxford - major landowner in Hampshire 1517-i88i' , unpublished Diploma in English Local examples of fields disappearing by simple History dissertation, , 1993,

APPENDIX I Hampshire agreements Parish Date Reference 1599 Agreement: no award I9M6I/I59 Fratton 16oo Complete PRO E 178 2059 Sutton, Long 1618 Agreement: no award PRO C78/494/lO 1621 Agreement: no award 2IM58/LI-2 1622 References ISM6I/Box33/ Bundle3/2 Clanfield 1648 Agreement: no award Winchester Cathedral Archives T3 A/2/3/I9 Oxenboume 1661 Agreement: no award I IM59/EI/I58/3/f.I38 Swarraton 1662 Agreement: no award VCH IV, p 195 Sutton Warblington I667 Agreement: no award Winchester Cathedral Archives T2A/3/I/114 a-n1 Andover 169o Agreement: no award Copy/4I I 1693 Complete 75M75/E/T4o Milton (Portsmouth) 1683 Complete Portsmouth Record Office 142o A/I Milton (Portsmouth) I693 Complete Portsmouth Record Office 43A/1/6-7 Sutton, Bishop's 1694 Agreement: no award 11M59/EI/I52/4/42 1698 Agreement: no award 75M75/E/T43 Candover, Preston I7th Agreement: no award Winchester College Estate Records 144o3 Ibthorpe 17o6 Agreement: no award Corpus Christi College, CL6/5 171I Agreement: no award 2M37/I8 Sombome, Kings (i) 1715 Complete 2M37/I IO 1729 Complete 5M52/E7o Christchurch 1731 Complete 7M54/2o Deane 1733 Document not found Reference in Naish Hunton 1733 Complete 2M52/66 Candover, Brown (ii) 1737 Complete 8M58/22 Herriard 1737 Incomplete 38M48/92/I4 Vemham Dean 1734 Complete Winchester College Muniments 9126 Compton 1741 Complete Q23/2/29 Knights Enham 174I Complete? Queen's College Oxford, Box 52, 4.I.56 East Aston 1742 Complete 8M87, unlisted Farringdon 1749 Complete I8M61/MapI9 Stock Charity 1749 Reference to agreement of c 1749 63M84/I96 St Mary Bourne 1753 Complete Copy/66

l FORMAL AGREEMENTS AND THE ENCLOSURE PROCESS 45 APPENDIX 1 (continued) Parish Date Reference Sparsholt 1755 Complete 11M59/E2/595o5 MiUbrook 1756 Agreement: no award 23M58/242 Dogmersfield 1758 Agreement: no award I5M5o/7z5 Basing 1764 Agreement: no award 1oM57/T5 Freefolk Priors 1771 Complete 5M52/E72 Deane 1773 Complete I2M49/Box3 Church Oakley 1773 Agreement: no award 3 IzM87/E2 Clafford, Goodworth 1777 Complete IM63/I Micheldever 1783 Agreement: no award 4M62/3o7 Houghton 1786 Agreement: no award W/H3/24 Itchen Stoke 1788 Agreement: no award QI/2I, pp 133-9 Micheldever (Weston) 1788 Complete 4M62/3o9 Longstock 1789 Agreement: no award Corpus Christi CoUege, Cb 18/6-7 Candover, Brown (i) 1791 Complete IIM52/647 Herriard 1795 Complete 38M48/92/I5 Sutton Scotney I8th? Document not found 37M85/I/9/4 Millbrook 18o6 Agreement: no award 23M58/244 Wonston 18o8 Agreement: no award 33M62 Dean, East 18o9 Agreement: no award zM37/555 Christchurch 181 I Complete Copy/288/41 Milton () 1815 Complete Q23/2/86 Somborne, Kings (ii) I815 Complete Q23/2/74 Litdeton 182I Agreement: no award 38M48/lO48 Baughurst 1856 Complete ioM57/16 Chilcomb 1884 Complete 38M48/54/I5 All referencesto documentsare to tile HampshireRecord Office,unless otherwise stated: for the referenceto Naish, see footnote t6.

i. 7 46 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW

0 ~ $ .~- 0 oo ~ oO O'x o~ 00 t"~oo 0000 v'~ 00 0 0000 0oo 0 0 ~ 0 o~

I

oo b.. 000000000 '~t;O d o o o o ~.~ 000 0 O0 o~

'~" ',', 0 '~oo 0 0 0'0 •'d'- 0 ~. ~ ,'2. q o,~ ~- ~do~.o~ o ~ ~o~o o~- o ~o ~,"~"0 ~ 0 ~0 oo o~

~0 ~R O0000000000 0 00~ 000 0 O0 0

0 '.,~ O~ I~e~ ~1 o~'~0 ~'~ ~ "d" ~1 ~.o,Aq. oo o o~,~ o ~ ~q o o H o ~4 d o H q-4 i .~. ~ 0 0

~" '~ ,.,~ ,.,aoo O ~ ~"~" ~ ~o 0'o ~ 0 ~ ,.,'~ ~ ~" ,.~ ~-~D ~ (D~ ~I'~I ~'~oo ~l C~ 0~oo ~0 ~0 ~'~ ~ ~l

1',1

~l~O ~ b'.~ ~ ~ 0 ~ OxO~ ~ ~0 '~"~ e~ D-. ~o0 ~ ,,~ '.~ ,~'~ ~.~

~ 2.~o~ o ~o ~ ~ -

-

J i ,j