Agricultural History Review, Volume 64 Part 2 (2016), p. 263

Enclosure, as readers of the Review will appreciate, took various forms and occurred in several phases. This book, an addition to the University of Hertfordshire Press’s Explorations in Local and Regional History series, arises from the author’s doctoral research at Durham University, which explored the post-medieval enclosure process in the north east of England. It offers a valuable regional perspective focusing on five case study townships namely Learmouth, Milfield, Howick, Longhorsley and Elsdon and drawing on the estate collections of the Greys of Howick and Howards of Naworth. Close attention is given to local detail revealing how events that are seen as part or related to enclosure – for example, farm consolidation – were more complex than often assumed, taking place before and after enclosure rather than simply being the outcome.

The introduction provides a summary of enclosure historiography and crucially emphasizes the need for small-scale studies to counteract the large-scale national studies of enclosure. It points out that enclosure processes ‘were performed by individual people who lived and worked at the level of villages, townships and farms, not that of nations, continents and worlds’ (p. 2) This argument supports the numerous county and local studies of enclosure, particularly of the parliamentary period. There follows a synopsis of the regional context and the reasons behind the selection of the case studies. This structure is applied consistently throughout the chapters, aiding comparison. In the last sub-section of the chapter the author outlines the different types of enclosure, how it changed over time in different regional settings – for example, the midlands and Cumbria – and the different forms and chronologies of improvement that have been linked to the agricultural revolution debate. Agricultural and rural historians rarely engage with social theory, which is often more readily employed by landscape archaeologists and cultural geographers. Approaching the much-studied subject of enclosure from the standpoint of Actor-Network Theory (ANT), O’Donnell explores the role of numerous local ‘actors’ including landowners, tenants and even the landscape in shaping the enclosure process in Northumberland during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Thematic chapters consider specific aspects of the enclosure process, for example, the abolition of common rights, consolidation and ring-fencing of farms, rearrangement of land-use patterns, dispersal of settlement and the adoption of new technology and methods, all familiar to agrarian historians. Chapter 2 outlines each township’s enclosure history with formal and informal or piecemeal enclosure being identified. For example, at Longhorsley and Milfield there was enclosure by agreement in 1664 and 1789, at Howick and Learmouth by unity of possession in 1635 and 1799, whilst Elsdon was enclosed by Act of Parliament in 1731. Emphasis is placed on individual or group decision-making and the significant influence of human agency in the enclosure process. As O’Donnell argues, ‘the context of each particular enclosure event, the number of landowners, their wealth and status, their knowledge of enclosure, the type of land to be enclosed and the details of its tenure are all highly significant to the way in which the process actually played out’ (p. 32). Chapter 3 examines the creation of ring-fenced farms in the post-medieval landscape through engrossment and land consolidation associated with late seventeenth and eighteenth-century estate management. Discussion is not centred solely on enclosure but rather related factors such as the role of tenants and the pattern of boundaries. This leads onto a consideration of the conversion of land between arable and pasture. As shown, the land-use pattern changed in the post-medieval period as the extent of arable and pasture varied regionally between lowland and upland areas. Similarly commons were intermittently cultivated and arable converted into grass. Although it is recognized that these changes were often not permanent and the processes complex, enclosure is cited as an influential factor in speeding up this transition in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Settlement dispersal, which is usually viewed as a consequence of enclosure, is addressed in Chapter 5, the case studies underlining the importance of local conditions. Settlement patterns resulted from different circumstances with enclosure, engrossment and the creation of ring-fenced farms all being causes for dispersal, which occurred alongside increases in farm size, consolidation and land-use change.

In Chapter 6 the local uptake of agricultural improvement is examined showing how the economic motives of improvement reflected a wider national movement. The case studies exhibit the typical features of improved estate landscapes including the building of cottages and model farmsteads, the establishment of plantations, drainage improvements, the reorganization of field boundaries and the adoption of improved husbandry practices. Changes in labour organization and leasing arrangements during the nineteenth century are also outlined. It is suggested these are indicative of the contemporary awareness of improvement through published material and the desire of landlords and tenants to benefit from greater profit and status. The penultimate chapter proposes a new approach to enclosure emphasizing the proactivity not only of gentleman farmers but also those of humbler social standing, notably, small tenant farmers. Other aspects discussed include the availability of capital and the role of landlords, tenants and land agents in pursuing policies of estate improvement. It is rightly emphasized that factors such as family relationships, marriage and inheritance were significant in leading to the creation and division of estates.

The concluding chapter summarizes findings, reaffirming the value of ANT for history and archaeology. It identifies further questions as to how enclosure can be interpreted at different levels, whether locally, regionally, nationally or globally, demonstrating local history’s relevance in testing larger-scale models or hypothesis. Although concerned with only five townships, the book is a useful addition to the long-established historiography, having the potential to be extended geographically, and is innovative in its theoretical underpinning. Does this approach constitute a new theoretical history of enclosure? And if it does, to what extent will the current generation of historians engage with this viewpoint and what insights, not hitherto revealed by the traditional historiography, will it shed light on? It certainly does adopt an interesting theoretical perspective, which will enhance the current enclosure debate. The book is illustrated with farm and township plans and photographs and has a bibliography and index. It will be relevant to landscape archaeologists, historical geographers and economic and social historians studying enclosure, and local historians interested in the rural landscape of the north east of England.