It must be remembered, however, that the number of Acts is not a conclusive test of the amount of enclosure, as there was a large amount that was non-parliamentary:  by the principal landlord, and by freeholders who agreed to amicable changes and transfer, as at Pickering, in Yorkshire.[563] Roughly speaking, about one-third of the Acts were for enclosing commonable waste, the rest for enclosing open and commonable fields and lands.[564] Owing to the expense an Act was only obtained in the last resource.  It was also because of the expense[565] that many landlords desirous to enclose were unable to do so, and therefore devoted their attention to the improvement of the common fields.  That agriculture benefited by enclosure there is no possible doubt, but it was attended with great hardships.  The landowner generally gained, for his rents increased largely.  In twenty-three parishes of Lincolnshire, for instance, his rents doubled on enclosure.  But the expenses were so heavy that his gain was often very small, and sometimes he was a loser by the process.  As for the farmers, the poorer ones suffered, for more capital was needed for enclosed lands, and the process generally was so slow, taking from two to six years before the final award was given, that many farmers were thrown out in the management of their farms, for they did not know where their future lands would be allotted.  That the poor suffered greatly is indubitable:  ’By nineteen Enclosure Acts out of twenty the poor are injured, in some cases grossly injured,’ wrote Young in 1801.[566] In the Acts it was endeavoured to treat them fairly,[567] and allotments were made to them, or money paid on enclosure in lieu of their rights of common, or small plots of land; but the expense of enclosing small allotments was proportionately very great, generally too great, and they had to be sold, while the sums of money were often spent in the alehouse.  The results of sixty-eight Acts were investigated in the eastern counties, with the result that in all but fifteen the poor were injured.  It was generally found that they had lost their cows.

Its effect on the smallholder is well described by Davis in his Report on Wilts.[568] There, before enclosure, the tenants usually occupied yard-lands consisting of a homestead, 2 acres of meadow, 18 acres of arable, generally in eighteen or twenty strips, with a right on the common meadows, common fields and downs for 40 sheep, and as many cattle as the tenant could winter with the fodder he grew.  The 40 sheep were kept by a common shepherd with the common herd, were taken every day to the downs and brought back every night to be folded on the arable fields, the rule being to fold 1,000 sheep on a ‘tenantry’ acre (three-quarters of a statute acre) every night.[569] In breeding sheep regard was had to ‘folding quality,’ i.e. the propensity to drop manure only after being folded at night, as much as to quality and quantity of wool and meat.  On enclosure the