Laws Changing Use of the Land in Britain

Land is the source of wealth and income. Land and property, which support family and dependents through occupations such as agriculture, herding, milling, mining—or renting to produce income or goods in kind—have long been the way to survive and to build economic wealth. In Britain after the time of the Roman Republic, land was a largely a common resource until the feudal era and the coming of the Black Plague. This abruptly changed when up to a third of the population of Europe died. The use and distribution of land was historically largely for related kin groups rather than individuals. Gender and class factored into the equation as to who could own and inherit land and how obligations were structured for those who rented or leased land from an owner.

Before and After the Norman Conquest in 1086

Land possession in the time before the Norman Conquest in 1086 was of two types. “Book” land, similar to modern ownership, was property that could be disposed of by the holder, or in the terminology used, it could be “alienated.” The second kind was “folkland,” which could not be alienated from the holder’s relations except under special circumstances. According to Anglo-Saxon custom, one’s property, if of the “book” type, could be disposed of by listing it in the Shire or church book. It was also possible to will one’s holdings to male offspring, and if there were none, then to one’s female offspring. This reveals the gendered preference of sons in this patriarchal society (Hudson, 1997).

Alan the Red, Lord of Richmond (right), swears fealty to William the Conqueror

With the Norman Conquest in 1086, land ownership changed when England was overcome by William the Conqueror from Normandy (the part of present-day France just opposite the English Channel). He brought with him the land ownership structure called feudalism. In this structure, the king owned all of the land. He granted fiefs (portions of land) to nobles, called vassals (lords or barons), in return for loyalty, protection, and service. The vassals/lords, in turn, provided protection in exchange for bondage to service to villeins, also called serfs or peasants (Hudson, 1997; Hallam & Thirsk, 2011).

Accompanying the right to work the land, the vassals/lords were obligated to the king by the law of “Trinoda necessitas” with specified obligations owed. This “three-knotted” obligation required service from the lord to the king: repairing bridges and roads, helping to build and repair defense fortifications, and serving the “fyrd” or militia for a specified period of time. In exchange, vassals/lords were permitted to make use of the land by cultivating, grazing stock, cutting wood, and so on, at certain times of year. The vassal extended these privileges to their villeins/serfs (Hudson, 1997; Hallam & Thirsk, 2011).

Land was allotted for cultivation by the peasants or serfs, who paid by rent in money, part of the yield, service owed the land holder, and loyalty. In exchange for farming the land, they were given protection by the vassal/lord, who expected it in exchange for loyalty and service. Peasants were committed to work the land for their lord and could not leave it without the lord’s permission. They provided their lord with wealth in the form of food and products. Although not slaves, who were bound to a person, serfs were bound to the land (Hudson, 1997; Hallam & Thirsk, 2011).

The feudal system, as it was called, was a highly hierarchical structure centered on service in exchange for protection. With feudalism came a new upper class in England that spoke French. Anglo-Saxon ways, and even Anglo-Saxon words, were superseded by the French. For example, animals on the farm were called their Anglo-Saxon names of pig, cow, sheep, and calf. When they were cooked and served, they were called by their Anglo-Norman names of pork (porc), beef (beouf), mutton (mouton), and veal (veau) (Hudson, 1997; Hallam & Thirsk, 2011).

In 1086, when Britain came under the feudal system of social ordering, the Doomsday Book was created. Land that had been folkland was superseded by privileged tenure, meaning all land was the property of the king. As a consequence, all laws pertaining to ownership and transfer were standardized and came under the king’s jurisdiction, laws such as those pertaining to property value and ownership. In this way, taxes and dues owed by the vassal/lord to the king were determined (Hallam & Thirsk, 2011).

Land policy was formalized under the rule of the Normans when the concept of “common law” was gradually established. Leading to a codified body of law based on prior judicial decisions. Whereas the former custom has been to pass alienated land on to kinfolk, a new basis of succession came into practice, attested to in wills and grants and subject to the levying of fines (Hallam & Thirsk, 2011).

In 1236 the Common Act enabled the lord of the manor to enclose property that had before been common land. This compounded the right of privilege afforded to the upper-class lord (Hallam & Thirsk, 2011).

The Statute of Westminster was enacted in 1285, which prescribed that land could only be passed on to the heirs of the lord. As noted earlier in Module 4, the Black Death dramatically changed this situation, as so many who worked the land died in the plague. With labor scarce, serfs could bargain for wages and get the lord to agree to payment of rent as opposed to requiring service. Offers of freedom to bonded serfs with the payment for the manumission (release from servitude) were increasingly made. In addition, Norman common law made provision for the freeing of villeins or serfs if they lived in a town or on free soil for a year and a day. By 1485, the reordering of social position had dramatically changed so that a mere 1% of the population was by that time living under the terms of bondage (Hallam & Thirsk, 2011).

Gaining their new social standing by virtue of being freed did not at the same time mean that the majority of peasants (no longer villeins or serfs) had land. Because land continued to be held by the wealthy and the aristocratic, it was their desire to privatize for their own benefit what was formerly common pasture and open farm land. By the 16th century, peasant revolts were occurring with the enclosure of land formerly farmed as fences went up and sheep brought in to support the wool trade. Critiques and complaints were made, none more piercing than that offered by Thomas Moore in his work, Utopia:

Your shepe that were wont to be so meke and tame, and so smal eaters, now, as I heare saye, be become so great devowerers and so wylde, that they eate up and swallow down the very men them selfes. They consume, destroye, and devoure whole fields, howses and cities. . . . Noble man and gentleman, yea and certeyn Abbottes leave no ground for tillage, thei inclose all into pastures; they throw down houses; they pluck down townes, and leave nothing standynge but only the churche to be made a shepehowse. (Cited in Fairlie, 2009)

The Agrarian Revolution, Agrarian Reform, and Enclosure

Proposals for changes in land use, such as enclosure, were influenced by changes in the effective use of land and increases in population. The cumulative impact of which was called ‘the agrarian revolution’. One aspect of this were changes to crop rotation. Whereas traditionally fields lay fallow every seventh year, methods introduced by 1650 encouraged the planting of clover in the fallow years, leading to nitrogen-enriched soil. In addition, turnips were planted as food for sheep and cows. Farmers also switched from lower-yield rye to higher-yield wheat and barley. Each worker produced more food, enabling a reduction in the agricultural workforce, freeing workers from farm labor. The development of agrarian capitalism led to more efficient management of farm workers. Changes in plows and farm equipment also led to greater efficiencies. The agrarian revolution preceded the industrial revolution that followed (Fairlie, 2009).

Impacts of Agrarian Reform on Different Levels of Society

Sheep in field above Lower Cwmcoched Farm. The England/Wales border follows the hedge on the left of this field.

Standing in opposition to the move to enclose were the agrarian working class because enclosing of common land cut them off from the lands they had worked and their livelihood. Support for enclosure came from the large land owners who wanted to raise sheep, which had become very profitable. Social commentary argued against the enclosure trend, claiming rightly that it impoverished the landless who had relied on use of the land to live, compelling them to resort to living in the slums of the nation’s cities and having so moved, to depopulate those areas left behind (Fairlie, 2009).

The final and most contentious wave of land enclosures in England occurred between about 1750 and 1850. Where, as noted, the purpose of most previous enclosures had been to turn productive arable land into sheep pasture, the new advocates of enclosure were prompted to change open fields, pastures, and wastelands back into more productive arable farm land, when sheep raising became less profitable due to the availability of cotton from foreign markets (such as the United States and India). The advocates of additional enclosure maintained it would create more efficient land use and result in the employment of many who needed gainful work. Between 1760 and 1870, an additional 7 million acres of British land were enclosed, shutting out millions from land they had formerly had customary and legal access to (Fairlie, 2009).

The enclosure movement was brought to an end when it started to upset the middle classes. By the 1860s, influential city-dwellers noticed that areas for recreation were getting thin. In the annual enclosure bills for 1869, out of 6,916 acres of land scheduled for enclosure, just 3 acres were allocated for recreation and 6 acres for allotments. Those who acted on this concern formed the Commons Preservation Society and, with strong support in Parliament, produced the 1876 Commons Act, which ruled that enclosure should only take place if there was some public benefit. John Muir in the United States paralleled these efforts by using his journalistic skills, starting in the 1870s to bring national attention to the importance of preserving locations such as Yosemite Valley, Grand Canyon, and the Sequoia rain forest. He was founder and first president of the Sierra Club (Fairlie, 2009).

Due to the agricultural depression that prevailed, by 1875 the notion of improvement was no longer a priority, and in the final years of the 19th century, only a handful of parliamentary enclosures took place (Fairlie, 2009).

The issues of land enclosure are a classic example in Britain of class warfare, with the powerful using the mechanism of governance and legislative action for self-advantage. In the process, those dispossessed of their land were at the same time often impoverished and deprived of their historic and in many cases centuries-long means of livelihood (Fairlie, 2009).