The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Common Fields — Text and Context

Co-aration and the Shifting of Strips

Slater draws a careful distinction between two features of open-field agriculture: co-aration (ploughing in partnership) and the periodic re-division of land. He notes that in the Hebrides, run-rig persisted after co-aration ceased, with land re-allotted annually by lot. In contrast, English common fields tended toward permanent occupation of strips once individual ploughing replaced cooperative teams. Slater cites Mr. Maclean of Coll, who in 1811 compelled tenants to divide run-rig land—a change they initially resisted but later accepted. The author also references A. N. Palmer's work on North Wales, where co-aration and land shifting supposedly ended by Henry VI's reign. These comparisons illuminate the diversity of tenure systems across Britain.

Parliamentary Enclosure as a Documentary Record

The core evidence for Slater's study is the set of maps held by the London School of Economics, which show parishes enclosed by Act of Parliament, color-coded by date. He recommends readers consult the Victoria County History for county-specific enclosure details. The thesis itself consisted of these maps plus manuscript matter later revised for publication. Slater's method is explicitly empirical: he traces the legal and administrative process by which common fields were divided, without relying on theoretical models. The maps remain a key resource for researchers, though the excerpts provide only a glimpse of their analytical power.

The Kelp Industry and Subdivision in Scotland

Slater examines how the kelp industry's temporary prosperity in the Hebrides led to extreme subdivision of holdings through sub-letting. Small crofters relied on kelp for livelihood, treating their crofts as subsidiary. This pattern, described by Skene in Celtic Scotland, contrasts with English enclosure, where parliamentary acts often consolidated holdings. The author notes that run-rig's disappearance in these islands occurred around the mid-nineteenth century, driven by economic shifts rather than legislative fiat. This case study shows Slater's willingness to integrate regional economic history into his broader narrative of land tenure change.

Readers should approach this book as a specialized monograph rooted in cartographic and archival evidence, not as a general history of English agriculture. The catalog subject "Gardening" is misleading; the work is best understood alongside studies of economic history, historical geography, and land law. Slater's maps and parliamentary data offer a concrete foundation for understanding how enclosure reshaped rural England, though the excerpts alone cannot reveal the full scope of his argument.

I have always found something tender in Slater's careful maps of old fields, those vanished strips of common land. It reminds me of an older gardener’s patience—tending a patch that gives quietly back. There is a kinship in that stewardship, between soil and statute. Success with Small Fruits — Inside the Classic holds the same gentle attention, the same respect for what grows when we simply let it be.