The Impact of the Spread of Enclosure on the Rural Population (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes

The Impact of the Spread of Enclosure on the Rural Population

What was enclosure?

Enclosure was a farming practice that transformed traditional communal agricultural land into privately controlled, enclosed fields. Many people at the time held enclosure responsible for increasing poverty and vagrancy throughout Tudor England. The practice was particularly common in regions of the south-east and Midlands, where land could be used for either arable farming (growing crops) or sheep farming.

The medieval open-field system

Before enclosure became widespread, England operated under the medieval open-field system. This traditional approach to agriculture divided land between the inhabitants of each village, who used it to grow crops and raise animals for their own survival—a practice known as subsistence farming. Importantly, common land was shared by everyone in the community and typically used to graze animals. This system ensured that even the poorest members of society had access to land for survival.

Why did landlords turn to enclosure?

Landlords increasingly adopted enclosure for important economic reasons. They recognised the significant financial opportunities available from rearing sheep for the growing cloth trade. Sheep farming required very little manpower compared to traditional arable farming, yet it could generate substantial profits. The scale of these enterprises could be enormous—for example, Sir William Fermour of Norfolk owned approximately 17,000 sheep.

Additionally, landlords faced pressure from rising inflation, which meant their traditional incomes from tenant rents were becoming less valuable in real terms. They needed to increase their income to maintain their standard of living, and sheep farming offered an attractive solution.

Different forms of enclosure

Enclosure was not a single practice but took several different forms, and it had been occurring since at least the 15th century:

Response to depopulation: Sometimes enclosure happened in areas where tenants had died or left and had not been replaced. This type of enclosure was less controversial as it made use of abandoned land.

Enclosing common lands: More seriously, some landlords enclosed village common lands that had previously been shared by all community members. This particularly affected the poorest people, who relied heavily on these commons to graze their animals. The consequences extended beyond just losing grazing land—common grazing provided manure for village crops, so without access to the commons, it became much harder for communities to grow enough food to survive.

Engrossing: Landlords also practised engrossing, which meant amalgamating (combining) two or more farms into one larger unit. The buildings on the smaller farms were often left to decay whilst their former occupants were forced to move elsewhere and seek work or poor relief.

Raising rents: Some landlords deliberately increased rents to unsustainable levels, forcing tenants out of their homes. This practice attracted particular criticism from contemporary thinkers like Thomas More.

Who were copyhold tenants and why were they vulnerable?

Copyhold tenants were a particularly vulnerable group in Tudor society. These tenants held their land under a specific type of lease arrangement—they kept a copy of their lease agreement, whilst another copy was stored in the official records (rolls) of their manor.

The security of copyhold tenants varied significantly depending on the type of lease they held:

• Inherited leases were generally the most secure, passing from one generation to the next within a family, though tenants could still be forced out by the fines they had to pay when they inherited the land
• Leases for life or for a specified number of years offered moderate security
• Leases 'by the will of the lord of the manor' were the least secure, with no fixed terms and depending entirely on the landlord's discretion

Any copyholder faced a serious risk: they could be evicted if the records proving their right to the lease were lost or destroyed. This made them particularly vulnerable when landlords wanted to enclose land for sheep farming, as the landlord might conveniently 'lose' records or challenge the validity of leases.

Impact on the landless poor

The landless poor—those who owned no land of their own—were even more vulnerable than copyhold tenants. They depended entirely on common lands for survival, using them to graze animals and gather resources. When landlords enclosed these commons, the landless found themselves with no means of support and were often forced into poverty and vagrancy.

Both copyhold tenants and the landless were the groups most likely to find themselves forced out of their homes and communities, contributing to the visible growth of poverty and homelessness in Tudor society.

Contemporary criticism and social unrest

The practice of enclosure attracted severe criticism from contemporary thinkers and writers. Thomas More, in his famous work Utopia (1516), launched a powerful attack on enclosure, memorably describing sheep as becoming so greedy that "they eat up, and swallow down the very men themselves." More argued that enclosure destroyed communities, with landlords throwing down houses and entire towns, leaving families—men, women, children, and widows—homeless and destitute.

John Hales similarly blamed enclosure for many of Tudor England's social problems. The concerns raised by these influential thinkers, combined with more widespread anxiety about the damage enclosure appeared to be causing, pushed the government to take action.

The discontent caused by enclosure was not merely theoretical—it led to serious social and political instability. In the period 1548-49, widespread riots against enclosure erupted across the Midlands and South East. Most seriously, rebellion broke out in East Anglia in 1549, causing major difficulties for the Duke of Somerset's government. These disturbances demonstrated that enclosure was not just an economic issue but a source of genuine popular anger and potential unrest.

Government responses to enclosure

Tudor governments recognised the problems caused by enclosure and attempted to address them through commissions of enquiry and legislation:

Commissions of enquiry: In 1517, Cardinal Wolsey issued a commission to investigate illegal enclosures. Later, in 1548, the Duke of Somerset conducted a similar enquiry. However, Somerset's commission had disastrous consequences for social and political stability when it contributed to the outbreak of rebellion in 1549.

The 1533 Sheep and Farms Act: This legislation attempted to restrict the number of sheep that any individual farmer could keep to a maximum of 2,400. The Act permitted engrossing, but only allowed landlords to combine a maximum of two farms together.

1549 sheep tax: From March to November 1549, the government introduced a tax on sheep ownership, attempting to make large-scale sheep farming less profitable.

The 1555 Act: This legislation required farmers who kept more than 120 sheep to also keep two cows and rear a calf. The aim was to encourage a more balanced approach to farming that included livestock other than sheep.

Despite these various attempts at regulation, government measures proved largely ineffective whilst sheep farming remained highly profitable.

The situation under Elizabeth I

Under Elizabeth's reign (1558-1603), enclosure became significantly less of a concern for the government until the 1590s. This change occurred for several important reasons:

Decline of the cloth trade: After 1551, the cloth trade experienced a temporary decline. This economic shift meant that landowners found sheep farming less profitable and turned back to arable farming instead. Consequently, there was a noticeable drop in the trend for farmers to enclose land specifically for sheep farming.

Improved economic conditions: The 1570s and 1580s saw improved economic stability, which increased standards of living for many people and reduced the levels of visible poverty. With fewer people falling into destitution, there was less need to blame enclosure for social problems than there had been under earlier Tudor monarchs like Henry VIII and Edward VI.

Enclosure and poverty: The real causes

It is crucial to understand that enclosure was not the root cause of poverty in Tudor England, despite contemporary belief. The fundamental causes of poverty during this period were:

• Population growth: The Tudor period saw significant population increase, putting pressure on resources and employment
• Inflation: Rising prices meant that wages bought less, pushing more people into poverty

However, enclosure certainly made these underlying problems worse. It reduced the land available for small-scale farming and removed access to common resources that had helped the poor survive. Because influential contemporaries like Thomas More blamed enclosure so publicly and vividly for social ills, it became a focus of popular discontent and a source of potential unrest, particularly during the crisis years of 1548-49.

Remember!