Commoners: Common Right, Enclosure and Social Change in England, 1700–1820 (Past and Present Publications)

by J.M. Neeson

This is a paperback edition of one of the most important and original contributions to English rural history published in the past generation. Winner of the Whitfield Prize of the Royal Historical Society in 1994, Commoners challenges the view that England had no peasantry or that it had disappeared before rather it shows that common right and petty landholding shaped social relations in English villages, and that their loss at enclosure sharpened social antagonisms and imprinted on popular culture a pervasive sense of loss.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Economics

400 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

Reviews

[jean marc desfilhes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read al long time ago this book was of considerable importance to me. It explains clearly and above all analyzing facts and not smoky theories the way the industrialists have destroyed the villages and their social organization to have arms and workers for the growing factories. The hatred towards farmers was total and their main problem was that there laziness and their absence of willingness to accept the very simple idea of progress which is THE illustration of their stupidity.
The nobility and the industrialists used all possible means to close the commons and to force villagers and peasants to get out of the countryside. The result was a vast pool of misery and kids ready to work 14 hours in factories. Dickens is one of the great witness ot the dire consequences.

For those interested in that issue I will recommend the wonderful study republished a few weeks ago in France and in French “Lenine face aux Moujiks” (for those who still have some difficulties with Voltaire’s language this could be a good practice) in which Chantal Crisenoix explains how Lenin’s had exactly the same reaction toward peasants. They were the enemy and even when they had no land they would become the future enemy. Their class was lazy and unwilling to adapt to the capitalism. The first goal of this pseudo communist revolution was exactly the same that what is observed by Neeson in England : force the rednecks out of their land and create the huge capitalistic state farms, indispensable step toward the glory of socialism.

Unfortunately, the same happened in France during the ill qualified French Revolution (Tocqueville), and now is erasing farmers and villagers communities all around the world. I witness it in the 1980 in Paraguay and in 2005 in Mali during Via Campesina Food Sovereignty Forum where this world organization is now trying to destroy itself what remains of the collective structure on this planet. Communists and capitalist share the same hatred and despise for farmers, for anarchism and auto organizations (see De Revolution Hannah Arendt). To them people or the people have to be educated and remain unable to think by themselves.

Whether you whish to better understand the present, or just want to grasp the past I recommend you those two books keeping in mind that farmers communities were different, could have offer a different option without being the lost paradise on earth.

[Ryan Ward · Rating 4 out of 5]

A meticulously researched and exhaustively comprehensive study of commoners and the impact of enclosure in 18th and early 19th century England. Well worth a read, if a bit dry. Neeson analyzes thousands of archival records to demonstrate the ruin that enclosure brought on the poor, dispelling the myths of progress and positive effects of enclosure. She also argues that the social fabric and community relationships were irrevocably changed with enclosure as the poor were forced into wage labor and the lines between classes became more sharply defined.

[Brutus Bellamy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Detailed almost to a fault, Neeson provides a great examination and reconsideration of the Enclosure movement and its seamless reshaping of English social life. The foundations for the nineteenth century class structures were so clearly espoused here, and a case for the localized systems/customs of common-right similarly very strong, even when their flaws were realized. Could be a bit dry at points for someone such as myself who does not care much for financial topics, but the persistence of the author’s research shines through and overshadows these parts.

[A.L. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting but also very specifically focussed on Northamptonshire, which makes it less useful for highland areas.

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

More of a 3.5, really.

Confusing at times since there were a lot of words that I didn't know, but the ideas were powerful and I loved learning about how commoners actually lived.

[Jas · Rating 2 out of 5]

too narrow - it is too focused on Southamptonshire
too pedantic