Section 1.

SIR, have you seen a little discourse lately published under this Title, The crying sinne of England, of not caring for the poor, and dedicated to the su­pream Authority of this Nation, the Par­liament of the Commonwealth of Eng­land, by John Moore Minister of the Church of Knaptost in Liecestershire?

Yes, I have seen it, and not seen it onely, but likewise seriously considered of it, having purposely perused it divers times.

I pray you then tell me your opinion of it. Hath the Author therein approved himselfe such an unanswerable advocate for com­mon Fields against Inclosures, as by report it is pretended that hee hath?

What others may doe I cannot tell: but for my part I doe not perceive, that he hath spoken any thing at all to that purpose [Page 2]It is true, that in the pathetick part of his discourse he appeareth very zealous in behalfe of the poor, and bitter enough against those that oppresse them, or do not take care for them: but the rationall part of his discourse, wherein he pretends that he hath set forth those oppressors to the life, is not indifferently extended unto all Inclosures, but expresly limited and restrained unto such as unpeo­ple towns and uncorne Fields, in the Title page: to the unsocia­ble, covetous, cruel brood of those wretches, that by their Inclo­sure doe unpeople towns and uncorne Fields, page 7. And in sun­dry other places of his discourse hee speaketh reservedly of these Inclosures, and such Inclosures, but never, that I can observe of In­closure in general, as if he understood all to be unlawful. Nay rather he seems to take it for granted, that Inclosure is not unlawfull, if it be not such as he complaineth of, which I the rather conceive to bee so, because I have heard, that M ^r Moore himselfe was once very ear­nest for an inclosure, if he could have had it effected according to his own desire. Yea more, my opinion of that discourse is, that from the Doctrine, the prosecution whereof he propoundeth to him­selfe, as much may be inferred against common Fields, as can bee against Inclosures in general, and in particular more reasonably a­gainst the abuses of common fields then of Inclosures, by how much, it is easier to reforme all the abuses of Inclosures, without turning the ground into common again, then those of common Feilds, without inclosing them. And to prove, not the lawfulnesse alone, but even the necessity of Inclosure, for the benefit of the Common­wealth and prevention of poverty; there, needeth, I think, no bet­ter argument, then may be gathered out of that discourse. So that the adversaries of Inclosure in general, I think, will give M ^r Moore but little thanks for it, when they truly understand the consequents thereof. Page 2. His doctrine is, That they are not ordinary sin­ners, but Judas-like sinners, that care not for the poor. It is no lit­tle sinne, but a wrath-provoking sinne, not to care for the poor: yea, God and Christ (saith he) care not for those Nations, those places, those persons, that care not for the poor. If to this Proposition you adde this Assumption, but they care not for the poor (under­stand it as they ought to doe) who by hindering those Inclosures, whereby the evils and abuses of common Fields may bee reformed, are means either to make or continue men poor, the conclusion will bee, therefore, they are not ordinary sinners, but Judas-like sinners, that hinder these Inclosures. It is no little sinne, but a [Page 3]wrath-provoking sinne, to hinder those inclosures: yea, God and Christ care not for those Nations, those places, those persons, that hinder those Inclosures, and thereby prevent the reformation of those evils and abuses in common Fields, which are means either to make or continue men poor.

This me thinks is somewhat strange: and yet, if you can make good the Assumption, I doe not see how the conclusion can be any way avoided.

The Assumption I beleive may be easily made good, by instancing the many particular evils and abuses, which abound, where the Fields lying open are used in common, and cannot bee reformed, but by Inclosure rightly ordered as it ought to be, or no way else so well.

I pray you then do me the favour to mention some of those particulars.

Sect. 2

I will, But first I think it not amisse to premise some general considerations, which are of much importance in this case.

One is, that sinne is alwaies an accursed thing: especially then, when it is most generally practised, with the least regret of consci­ence, and there, where the reformation of it is, not only not endea­voured, but purposely opposed, when it is sought.

Another is, that as sinne is alwayes the proper cause, so most an end it is, the speciall occasion, as of other miseries amongst men, so of povertie in particular.

A third is, that the most effectual means to prevent and to remove as other miseries amongst men, so povertie in particular, is to put an end to sinfull courses.

A fourth that then the best care is taken for the poor, when the most effectuall means is used to prevent, or to remove their po­vertie.

A fift, that it is a dutie incumbent upon all that are members of a Commonwealth, as they have means and opportunitie, to the best of their understandings & abilities, to endeavour the advance­ment of the publique benefit, which is but the summa totalis of all particular Items:

A sixt, that the greatest advantage to the Common-wealth, that can be raised out of land, is then, when it is imployed unto that use especially, for which it is fittest, and in such manner, that the great­est proportion of profit may be raised, with the least expence of charge.

Sect. 3.

These things premised, and taken for granted, which I think in reason cannot be denyed: The first particular instance that I wil give you, of the evils and abuses in Common-fields, is the injurious dealing of neighbours one with another, trespassing upon, and intruding into that which is not theirs, either carelesly, or wilfully. This, besides the curse which hangeth over the head of the wrong doer himself, is a great hinderance to the owner, whose right is taken by another, without any recompence to him. Thus, where fields lye open, and the land is used in Common, he that is rich, and full stocked, eateth, with his cattle, not his own part onely, but likewise his neighbours, who is poor, and out of stock. Besides that it is an ordinary practice with unconsciona­ble people to keep above their just proportion, untill they thinke there wil be notice taken of it, and then to remove their cattle out of sight, that they may not be observed. And with some, not onely to encroach upon other mens lands, and upon the Common by plowing further then they ought to doe, in balks and hades, but likewise to remove meer stones, to deface the marks of other mens lands, and where they finde leas not marked at all, to mark them as their own. And I beleeve it may be ob­served, that for the most part, the greatest complainers against, and op­posers of Inclosure, either in generall or upon equall and indifferent termes, are such as have been accustomed unto, or desire they may have liberty to practise such licentious courses.

But some of this me-thinks is not so much to be complained of, as you seem to conceive: For the poor man, that hath not stock of his own to store his Commons with, may set them unto other men, and so not be deprived of his right.

It is true that sometimes he may doe so, but not without much disadvantage to himself: For the benefit which he should have, if the stock were his own, accrews unto him, to whom he sets his Commons; who will be sure not to take them, but at such an under rate, as that hee may make advantage to himself thereby. Which if it be not damnum emergens, an encrease of losse, must of necessity be lucrum cessans, an a­batement of profit to the owner. And by this meanes in Common-fields many times, not Tenants alone, but even Freeholders also are eaten out of all, and reduced to beggary. But what meanes of redresse can you ima­gine may be had in Common-fields, for the rich mans eating up the poor mans Commons in case he can neither stock them himself, nor set them unto others?

As much I suppose, as if his land were inclosed, and that he could not have a Tenant for that part which hee could not stock himself.

No, therein you are deceived: For, in a ground inlosed, that grasse which he hath not cattle of his own to eat, if he cannot, or be not minded to set it to another, he may either mow, if it be fit for hay, or else preserve for his own use against another time, when he can get stock to put upon it, or if he cannot so soon as he would, yet the land at the least would be improved by it against another time; whereas in a Common-field it would bee eaten bare by others, without any re­compence at all to the owner. So the two great rules of Moral righte­ousnesse, Suum cui (que), Render to all their dues, Rom. 13.7. and, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris, All things whatsoever ye would that men should doe to you, doe ye even so to them, Mat. 7.12. are both transgressed, by meanes of this one unremediable evill, which fields ly­ing open, and used in common, are subject unto. And why should not all that Master Moor in his discourse hath said against oppression and wrong-doing, be applyed as well to oppression and wrong-doing in com­mon fields, as in grounds that are inclosed?

But why should you pretend a breach of those rules of morall righteousnesse, by the rich mans eating up the poor mans Commons, when the rich man Commoneth no more, then his proportion commeth to? For although it happeneth so, that the poor mans Commons not being stored, the rich mans cattle doe feed upon them, yet it is not the rich mans intent, or desire that it should be so.

If that were alwaies true, and you could likewise adde, that he took no content or pleasure in it, but were sorry for it, you should say something to free the rich man from being guilty of approving himself in doing wrong, though not to repair the poor mans losse. But then, why doe not such rich men, where the fields lye open, and are used in com­mon, shew their care of the poor, by recompencing them for those their Commons, according unto the proportion of the profit, that accrews unto themselves thereby? Is not neglect of the poor in this, which is a means both to make, and to keep them poor, as crying a sinne in Common­fields as it is in Inclosure not to relieve them out of a mans own, wherein they can challenge no interest or right at all, but of charity? Mee­thinkes it should not be denyed by any man, that pretendeth care of the poor. But what doe you say to trespasses and intrusions in Common fields?

I say they are not proper unto Common-fields alone, but the like objection may bee made against Inclosures, also. Hee that hath the conscience to put cattle upon Commons, either more then he hath right to doe, or where he hath no right at all, it is very like, will make little [Page 6]scruple to do so in ground inclosed also, if he can finde a fit oppor­tunity to serve his turne.

You doe well to say so, if he can finde a fit opportunitie to serve his turne: for that indeed makes a very great difference be­tween common Fields and grounds inclosed, namely, that ill con­ditioned unconsiderable people have not the like opportunities to serve their turnes in these, as they have in those. If the fences a­bout inclosed grounds be good, and the gates kept fast, other mens cattle cannot easily be turned in, or if they be, may quickly bee ob­served. But all the wrong in this kind is not done with loose cat­tle alone. It is a thing too usuall in common Fields for one man to trespasse upon another, when ground, either for grasing, or for mowing, is severally lotted out: those who have consciences large enough to do it, will lengthen their ropes, or stake them down so, that their horses may reach into other mens lotts, and either in mowing or in making their hey, will adde unto their own by ta­king from another mans. And for the removing or altering of land marks, the abuse is so grosse, that no man I think can bee so shame­lesse, as to offer any excuse for it, though many be neither ashamed nor affraid to practise it. Now all unrighteousnesse is sinne, 1 John 5.17. And God is the avenger of all such as goe beyond or defraud (the margin of our bibles hath it, oppresse, or overreach) their brethren in any matter. 1 Thes. 4.7. So that, if it were but for this one thing alone, inclosure rightly ordered, would be necessary to deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, that he may doe no wrong, Jer. 22.3. Yea to deliver them out of the hand of the Lord, who otherwise would commit a trespasse against him by wronging other men, Josh. 22.31.

It is true as you say; these evils are great, and such, as for which men may be justly punished by God himselfe, yea peradven­ture sometimes are. But there may be other means of redresse then by Inclosure onely. The parties that are wronged may be righted by law, and trespassers taught to take heed of doing wrong, by being made to pay dearly for it.

It is true, they may be so, when the wrong done, is not only taken notice of, but also may be proved against him that hath done it: and were it not for that, there were no living for honest men, where the Fields lying open are used in common. But would it not be better that the evill it selfe should be prevented, then honest men be necessitated, either to have recourse to that remedie, or suf­fer [Page 7]perpetually without redresse? Bonum est cauterium, sed quo mihi vulnus ut indigeam canterio. Physick is good, but not to have need of it is better. Besides that, the wrong done is not the lesse, nor will the punishment from God be the lighter, when it is done so secretly and subtilly, that either it is not taken notice of at all, or cannot be proved. Are not law suits, and actions of trespasse, par­ticularly complained of by M ^r Moore, as means to make men beg­gers, and undoe them? page 13. If causa causae, be causa causati, if effects must be attributed, not onely to the next immediatly prece­ding, but likewise to remote antecedent causes, then keeping Feilds in common, which gives opportunitie to trespasses, and conse­quently occasion to law suits, cannot but bee in some sort guilty of that poverty, which followeth upon such suits. And therefore they that will not permit the prevention of those suits, and so of that poverty, by giving way unto the removall of the occasion, by In­closure rightly ordered, sure care not for the poor, so as they ought to do. And yet this it not all the wrong, that usually is done in common Fields. In all, or most townes where the Fields lie open and are used in common, besides houses of husbandry, and ancient cottages, that have right of common, there is a new brood of up­start intruders, as inmates, and the inhabitants of unlawfull cotta­ges erected contrary unto law; who live upon the spoyle of other men, without making difference of any, rich or poor, whether they are able to bear it or no, they are sure to suffer by them. And if they be found with that, which any man may tell is not their own, because all men may be sure they should have nothing there: yet no man in particular can challenge them for it, unlesse he take them in the very act upon his own ground, not that which he hath right unto in common with others, but that which is distinctly known to be his: and then if they be but threatned that they shall be legally questioned, and punished for it, they on the otherside threaten to leave their charge, their wives and children, on the town to bee provided for. So that in most places, the old stocks are not able to maintain the new sprung branches, except they can draw more nourishment unto themselves, by preventing those disorders, which drain it away from them. When the best living in a town is hard­ly sufficient to finde maintenance and imployment for one familie, how shall three or four, as sometimes it hapeneth, be sustained upon it? And those for the most part not of labourers, but of loyterers, who will not usually be got to work, unlesse they may have such [Page 8]excessive wages, as they themselves desire, but choose rather to bee idle, if not worse imployed. Can any man in reason, and with a good conscience pretend, that to suffer such people to goe on in their sinnes, without reformation, or restraint is to have care of the poor? unlesse men may be said to have care of the poor then, when they take a course, that they may continue alwaies poor, and never be otherwise.

Sect. 4.

But do you think that by Inclosure this may be remedied?

Yes, very easily. Let every man that hath right unto any land, either as a freeholder, or as a tenant, have the same propor­tion of land allotted him to occupy in several, as before he had, or should have had, in common: and then, by raysing greater profit to himselfe, he shall be better able, both to pay weekly contribution for the relief of the impotent poor, and to bear his part in the ray­sing of a stock to set the able poor on work: which are the onely two courses, which the law hath provided, whereby care is to bee taken of the poor, and would bee fully sufficient to that purpose, if duly put in practise, as they ought to be: and both of them may be as well put in practise, where lands are inclosed, as where they lye open, and are used in common if not better.

It seems then, when the land belonging to a town is inclo­sed, you would not have any of the inhabitants turned out, or the houses pulled downe.

No, by no means, nor would they be at all, if conscionable care were taken for the due execution of that, which the law hath sufficiently provided for, namely, that houses of husbandry be not decayed, nor cottages unlawfully erected, or inmates entertained. But, where houses of habitation have been erected, or inmates en­tertained contrary unto law, as I would not have them presently pulled down, or the inhabitants turned out, so neither would I have them continued any longer, then of necessity they must bee, that is, untill they grow empty of inhabitants: unlesse that the con­tinuance of them by entertaining other inhabitants, may be found convenient for the town in generall, as well as for the owners in particular: and then I would have some land laid unto them; at least so much, as is required by the law. For ancient cottages, which are not houses of husbandry, in the interpretation of the law, as the law hath made no provision for them, so I would have them left to the owners discretion, when they grow voyd, either by the [Page 9]decease, or voluntary departure of the present inhabitants, to take them down, or to imploy them otherwise, or to take in new Te­nants, if they see good; So that be it not to the wrong of their neigh­bours, or to the prejudice of the other poor; who the fewer they are in any place, the better they may be there relieved, or other­wise provided for. And yet their madnesse is such many times, that they will bitterly exclaim against those men that will not give way to the increase of their numbers, by the bringing in of others a­mongst them; or that would have all idle Beggars, Rogues, and Va­grants, that wander up and down without a calling, to be restrained; to whom in most country towns there is commonly given by the inhabitants, almost every day, as much as might serve in a competent manner to relieve their own poor.

Although you may be of this mind as you pretend, yet it should seem that few Inclosers heretofore have been, or yet are so; as may appear by those complaints, which Mr. Moor hath mentioned pag. 9, 10, 11. of Tenants and Cottiers discharged of their Tene­ments, and turned out of their houses.

That such complaints are commonly made, and not without cause sometimes, is very likely to be true. But I can hardly believe that all, who make such complaints, have alwayes such cause as they pretend. For it is certaine, that some have been pretended to be discharged, and turned out, who voluntarily did choose to be gone, and might have tarryed, if they would. But as those who have been bred and brought up to be wandring beggars, will not be content with good entertainment in honest mens houses, especially if they bee constantly put to any good employment: So those that have been used to wrong doing, and trespassing upon others in common fields, cannot endure to live where they must be restrained of that liberty, and will be sure to pretend themselves wronged, if they be not permitted to doe wrong to others. But in case not one of all the complaints in that kind, which Master Moore hath heard, were causless, and unjust; yet this is certain, there have been Inclosures made which have not unpeopled Towns, where none, either Te­nants, or Cottiers have been discharged or turned out; and so may bee againe, without giving just occasion to any such complaints. Therefore to urge those complaints as an argument against all In­closure, to prove it unlawfull, were to inferre an universal conclu­sion upon particular premises; which no good disputant will doe.

Sect. 5.

This which you have sayd may be something, per­haps, in respect of Depopulation, or un-peopling of townes, but what will you say to the decay of Tillage, or un-corning of fields by Inclosure?

I say it is no necessary effect of Inclosure in generall, nor any effect of Inclosure at all, if it be rightly ordered, as it should bee; but rather the contrary. More Grain may be raised, and with lesse charge, in grounds inclosed, then in Common fields; if that which hath been tilled out of heart, and is weary of bearing, be laid down to rest, and that which is resty be broke up and tilled. Which may well bee done in grounds that are inclosed, but cannot be done in Common fields, where land must be used as hath been accustomed, and cannot be otherwise, without a joynt consent: which common­ly is as hard to be obtained, as agreement to Inclosure. By this means in common fields much land is continued in tillage, which for the present is not fit for it, but after a reasonable time of rest wold be: And much is continued in Grasing, which for a time were fitter to be Corned, and afterward, being layd down againe, would bear better Grasse then formerly it did. Thus to the great prejudice of the Commonwealth in generall, as well as of the owners in par­ticular, the land in common fields is not imployed to the use that it is fittest for, nor so much Corn as might be raised. For it is well known by experience, that a few Acres of resty ground inclosed, with one plowing only, and lesse seed, will ordinarily yeeld a grea­ter increase then more Acres, and a greater proportion of seed, are wont to doe in common fields with divers plowings. Besides that, in common fields, where divers mens lands lye intermixt, and e­very mans lands dispersed so, that many parcels in many places, and sometimes far asunder, goe to make up one Acre, there is occa­sion of great inconvenience, and charge to the owners divers waies. Many dayes workes are cast away, and much labour is lost in the plowing of the land, in the carriage of Manure, and inning of the crop, which might be spared, if the land lay all together, as it doth in Inclosures. Besides the wrong that is many times done to other men by carting over, and turning, and winding upon their lands; and so in the Meddows by treading down, and driving over one a­nothers Grasse.

Again, where the fields lying open are used in common, for the most part in the winter time cattle of all sorts, both small and great, are suffered at their pleasures to goe over the fields, where Corn is [Page 11]sown, and do more hurt with their feet then with their mouthes, e­specially when the weather is wet: and in the summer time, much cost and spoil is made in the corne, both whilst it is growing, and when it is cut, by horses breaking loose, and by the great heards of cattle, that are dayly driven up and down between the furlongs, sometimes in narrow passages: so that usually the lands lying, next to those passages on either side, or butting on the common grounds, have little or nothing left upon them at harvest, to the prejudice of the owners in particular, and of the Commonwealth in general, which proportionably suffers in every mans losse.

Again, in common Fields the land is much impoverished, not onely by being continually kept in tillage without rest, which in its kind is as necessary for it, as for living creatures, but likewise by the burning of dung, and of straw, for want of other fuel, with which the land might be manured. But usually the hedges upon grounds that are inclosed, serve in a good measure, if not altoge­ther, to supply that want: and besides the profit of fruit trees, if they be planted there, they likewise afford good shade and shelter for cattle, which in common Fields they cannot have, though it bee many times almost as necessary for them as their meat.

Sect. 6.

The supply that ariseth out of hedges for fewell I confesse is a good convenience, where wood is scarce, and coal not to be had, or only at excessive rates: but for the manuring of the arable land with dung and straw, that want is well supplyed in common Fields by the folding of sheep.

It may be not so well as you think: nor would it appear to be so, if all things should be well considered. For, first, The manu­ring of land with the fold serveth onely for one year: and after the first croppe the land is left as barren as before. The reason whereof I conceive to be, because the strength of the dung is much exhaled, spent and wasted by the weather, it lying long on the face of the earth not plowed in, and so being turned, either to dust in a dry, or unto dirt in a wet season. Secondly the manuring of land with the fold is many times dearly paid for, with the losse of the flock by the rot. Thirdly, in case the sheep escape the rot, yet nei­ther in their bodies, nor in their fleeces, doe they yeeld so much profit, as they might doe in grounds inclosed. Whereof the later, the fleece in grounds inclosed is usually fit to be combed for jersey, which in common Fields it is not: and combing of wooll for jer­sey is likely, by the new manufactures, to prove a farre greater bene­fit [Page 12]to the Commonwealth, then clothing along, either is or can be. And yet, if manuring of land with the fold be any way advantagi­ous, it may be practised as well in grounds inclosed, as in common Fields, or rather better: because, when the season is not fit for fold­ing, the sheep may be left at large in the pasture, without any dan­ger of trespassing in the meddowes, or on the corne, which in com­mon Fields they cannot be.

Sect. 7.

But in grounds inclosed there cannot be kept so many cattel either great or small, as usually are kept in common Fields.

It may be so: and yet fewer cattle kept in pasture grounds may yeild the owners greater profit, then more cattle of the same sorts kept in common Fields can doe: and that in divers respects.

As first, they require lesse attendance, and so put the owner to lesse charge.

Secondly, they are not subject to so much hazard. Sheep that are naturally quiet cattle, being hunted and hurried with doggs (as usually they are in common Fields, to keep them within their compasse) are apt to get heats, to grow scabbed and break, which is not so in grounds inclosed: besides that which was observed be­fore, concerning the losse of sheep in common Fields by rotts: which many times is as great as the yearly rent of the whole Lord­ship would amount unto. And amongst great cattle in the common Fields, the weaker are wont to be hurt by the stronger, when they are driven togeather in a throng, by fighting, rushing, goaring, and the like: and are apt to be tainted by one another in times of in­fection: all which in conveniences are much prevented by Inclo­sure.

Thirdly, where the Fields lying open are used in common, which kine being in the summer time kept fasting all night, and lodged on the hard stones, and in the day time driven up and down from place to place, their milk is not onely lesse in quantity, but likewise worse in quality, being often so heated in their udders, that it cannot bee so good for use in butter, and cheese, as other­wise it might bee, and is in grounds that are inclosed.

Fourthly, where the fields lying open are used in common, when the weather is wet, the cattle, by driving to and fro, make foul the wayes, and having therein first dirtied themselves, then stain the ground, and make the grasse unholsome: which is not so in grounds inclosed.

[Page 13] Fiftly, where the fields lying open are used in common both greater & lesser cattle, contrary to their natures, are constrained to rest, when they would feed, & feed when they would rest: yea some­times are not suffered to be quiet, even while they are feeding, but kept going & eating together; which is not so in grounds inclosed.

Sixtly, where grounds are inclosed, both the grounds and the cattle may be severally used, as is fittest for each: store cattle may be put upon grounds that are fittest for store, and feeding cattle upon feeding grounds. The owners may put off, or put on, ei­ther fewer, or more, from time to time, as they find it most con­venient, and wait the best times both for selling, and buying again with the greatest advantage, their grounds in the mean time ga­thering head, so long as they are not fully stockt: whereas in com­mon Fields, all sheep by themselves, and other cattle by themselves, go togeather, young and old, sick and sound, fat and lean: and when ever any are taken off, others must be presently put on in their steed or else the commons, in the mean time, will be lost from the ow­ner, and eaten up by other mens cattle, as was said before. So u­sually after maths in common Fields are never let grow to any good head: but, all being eaten bare before hand, long and hard winters make lean and hungry cattle, and poor distressed husband­men. And, as it is generally to be observed, that the richest coun­treys in the land are those that are inclosed, so in particular townes ir may be seen, that not freeholders only, but even tenants also, thrive better there, where their lands are inclosed, though they pay farre greater rents for them, then they doe in common fields, though the rents, which they pay, bee lesse by much. Yea, in some places it is certainly known, that the inclosure of their meddowes onely, though the rest of the land were still left open, hath been a great benefit to the inhabitants, and a means to redeem them from a poor unto a rich condition: much more might it have been so, if their pasture grounds also, as well as their medowes had been so in­closed: and yet more, if their tillage likewise had been laid to­gether, each mans by it selfe, whether they had inclosed it, or no, so that they had only put an end unto their custome of common: which is the great occasion of many disorders, where the fields lye open, and which without inclosure are never likely to be redressed. But, if all places were inclosed, upon equall and indifferent termes for all that have right there, and with due respect unto pro­vision for the poor, the scandall, I believe, would quickly [Page 14]cease, and all occasions of complaint be taken away.

Sect. 8.

That may be your opinion perhaps; but notwith­standing all that you have said, there are divers passages in Master Moores discourse, which some men (those that would have it so at least) will think doe make against inclosure in generall, even that which is ordered in the best sort that can be devised, and not onely against that, which alone (as you observed) it seemeth he did intend to speak of, viz. such as doth un-people towns, and un-corn fields. I pray you let me hear what you can say concerning them.

I easily believe, it may be so: For commonly things appeare to mens eyes, as if they were of the same colour with the glasses, thorough which they are looked upon; and usually such glasses, to the minds of men likewise, are prejudice, and partiality: with which that those passages, which you speak of, in Master Moores discourse, may not be discoloured, when you repeat the words, I shall quickly tel you what I think of them.

But first I have something more to say, concerning the inconve­niences. or mischiefs rather, which they are subject to, who live where the fields lying open are used in common. As this, that there is a great deal of land in common fields, which formerly hath been good, and might be so again, utterly spoyled for want of good hus­bandry. I know a place, where by this meanes the Commons were so impaired, that the inhabitants agreed to abate of their ancient usual stint one sheep in six, and one cow in three, and yet did con­fess, that formerly their cattle had fared better at the long stint, then afterward they did at the short; but they would not be perswaded to bestow better husbandry upon their land, though they thought it necessary to make a greater abatement in the number of the cattle which they kept upon it. And so by degrees, through the neglect of good husbandry, their Commons in time must needs have come to be but little worth: and yet they pretended, that they lived on their Commons onely, and that their tillage did not quit their cost.

But they might have bestowed better husbandry on the land if they would, and so the cause of that complaint might have been taken away.

By a generall agreement of all to that purpose they might; otherwise they could not, unless some alone should have been at the charge for all. And that is one great evil in common fields, that they who would be good husbands cannot, when other perverse conditioned people are not minded to permit them. But where [Page 15]grounds are inclosed, if any man wil be a good husband on the land which he holdeth, he may, if he wil not, he hurteth himself alone, and not his neighbours, nor needeth to be hurt by them, unless it be through his own default. Another thing, which in common fields is a great means of making and keeping men poor, and more of late then heretofore, is, that all publique paiments, as taxes and the like, are laid according to the number of the yard lands as they are usually accounted, and valewed alike, though some times there is scarce halfe so much profit made of one as of another. A poor man for a small yard land, and peradventure not halfe stocked, shall pay as much as a rich man doth for a great one stocked to the full: and so the poorer that a man is already, the poorer, and poor­er still it is like he shall be.

This might easily be prevented in common fields, as well as in grounds inclosed, if all payments were proportioned accor­ding unto the pound rent for the land, and the stocks valued seve­rally.

Peradventure not so easily as you imagine. For in com­mon fields although the yard lands be not equal, either in quantity, or in quality, yet because they have like proportions of commons appertaining unto them, whether they be furnished with stock or no, the inhabitants will never be perswaded to charge them other­wise then equally; as they have been accustomed. Whereas in grounds inclosed there is commonly consideration had, in the va­luation of them, both to the quantity and to the quality: or if un­to the quantity onely, yet it is upon supposition, that one with another there is no much considerable difference in the quality: And for the valuation of stocks, it is an endlesse piece of work to ex­amine whose they are, and a means to set all men at variance. Ano­ther thing is, that where grounds are inclosed, cattle cannot easily go away of themselves, or be driven out, but that they may quickly bee missed, and tracked: whereas in common fiields they may wander of themselves, or be driven away by others, long before the owners can tell, either whether they be there, or whether they be gone: and sometimes they are long in looking far for that, which at last they must find either neer at hand, or not at all. But, to trou­ble you no further now in this kind, let me hear, if you please, what it is in M ^r Moores discourse, which you think may be suspected to make against inclosure in general.

Sect. 9.

Page 7 hee saith, How great a shame is it for a [Page 16]Gospel magistracy not to suppresse make-beggers, which make such swarmes of beggers in countries, Cities, and Townes? That care not how many beggers they make, so themselves may be gentlemen; nor how many poor they make, so themselves may be rich. I mean the unsociable covetous cruel brood of those wretches that by their inclosure doe unpeople towns, and uncorne fields: who fall under the Prophets woe, Isa 5.8. That joyn house to house, and field to field, till there be no place, that they may bee placed alone in the middle, of the earth, and be ridd of all the poor. What say you to this?

To this Isay,

• 1. that for the general it answereth it selfe, as was before observed, in that it is expresly limitted and restrained unto those, that by their inclosure doe unpeople townes, and un­corne fields; making no more against all inclosures, then the woe denounced against drunkards, in the 21 verse of the same chapter doth prove all drinking to bee unlawfull.
• 2. That it is as great a shame for a Gospel magistracy not to suppresse make-beggers, which make such swarmes of beggers in Countreys, Cities, and Townes, where the Fields lying open are used in common, as where they are inclosed: and so much the more, by how much the evill is more general, and of longer continuance, and people make lesse consci­ence of those courses there, which produce such effects: I mean, as before, disorder, unjust dealing, and the like.
• 3. That for the text alleadged in particular, Isay, 5.8. it is a wonder unto me, how M ^r Moore, or any man of an ordinary capacity, can imagine, that the holy Ghost, who knoweth very well, and better then men, how to expresse himself, by laying field to field, till there be no place, should mean the inclosing of common fields, rather then the throwing o­pen of inclosures: whereas indeed to throw open inclosures, and to lay those grounds common, which before were several, that so there may be no place for any man to enjoy his own with peace and quietnesse, must needs be laying field to field, rather then to inclose those grounds, which before lay in common, that so, fields being orderly divided, every man may enjoy that which is his own in several to himselfe with peace and quietnesse, and that there may be place for others also to doe the like by theirs. But the truth is, as the word in the original translated field, doth indifferently sig­nify any ground, whether open or inclosed, that lyeth about an house, or a town, as belonging unto it: so the purpose of the holy Ghost is, to denounce a woe against all those, whether rich or poor, [Page 17]that either out of ambition or covetousnes enlarge their own, either houses or lands by adding unto them those of other men wrongfully wrested from the right owners, whether poor or rich, by fraud or by force, that there may be no place there lest for any, but only for themselves, though others have as much, or more, right unto it: paralel whereunto is that of Jer. 22.13, &c. and Habak. 2.6, &c.

But such unjust dealing may be, and is, for ought I know, as often pra­ctised there, where the fields lying open, are used in common, as where they are inclosed, if not oftner, as was before observed: And out of question make-beggers, be they what they will bee in com­mon fields fall under the Prophets woe, Isay 5.8. as well as there, where the grounds are inclosed.

Sect. 10.

Page 8. he saith, question many of our beggers, that goe from dore to dore, with wife and children after them, where they dwell, and why they goe a begging. Alas, master (say they) we were forced out of such a town, when it was inclosed, and since we have continued a generation of beggers.

For the truth of this relation, we must take it upon the cre­dit of Mr Moores own testimony: and I will not deny, but that it may be he hath heard some beggers sometimes say so. Yet I believe there are thousands in England, that in their owne particulars are as charitably affected, and have given as much unto the poor as Mr Moore, who never heard such expressions from any of them: It is like that Mr Moore, thus publiquely declaring himselfe against in­closure, although it be but reservedly, such as he mentioneth, shall not want those that will furnish him with such suggestions: but whether all that they tell him in that kind be true, or no, hee may doe well to enquire, and not take it upon trust. Haudrecte facit, qui facile credit. It is not the propertie of a wise man to believe all that he hears, Prov. 14.15. And if it be granted the complaint was just, yet nothing can be inferred upon it, but the particular fault of those parties only, by whom the occasion of it was given.

In the same page he further saith. When we take a view of the multitude of poore in market townes and fielden townes, we see how these poor wretches were driven out of their hive, their honey taken away, I mean their trade of plowing by such inclosure, and glad were they to find an old house any where to put their heads in, where they might have any imploiment to keep themselves and fa­milie alive.

This is largely spoken: and I believe, if Mr. Moore were put [Page 18]to prove it true, by an induction of particulars, hee could not name two Market-towns, wherein, I will not say all, but onely the greater part of the poor are such as he speaketh of, Bees that were driven out of their hives, and had their honey taken away, and not rather, either idle Drones, or angry Wasps, such as suck the sweet of other mens labours, and sting them with bitter words at the least, from whom they have their greatest relief. Howsoever, if that which Master Moor hath there said, were certainly true in every particular, yet to conclude from thence, that all Inclosure is unlawful, would but be still the same fallacious way of arguing, à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter.

Sect. 11.

Page 9. he saith. For a groundwork we must lay this undeniable truth, viz. That the great Manufacture and Trade of Leice­stershire, and many, if not most, of the inland Counties, is Tillage. It is the Plow whereby Tenants Cottiers, and their children were set a work, and lived very happily and comfortably before there was so much of such Inclosure.

That [such] doth make this argument also just such ano­ther as the former was, guilty of the like inconsequence, as to the proving of all Inclosure to be unlawful; and therefore I should passe it over lightly, with the rest of the same nature, but that I have some­thing to say concerning that which he termeth an undeniable truth, viz. That the great Manufacture, and Trade of Leicestershire, and many (if not most) of the in-land Countries, is Tillage, &c.

• First. Suppose it be so, yet Inclosure, as was said before, may be so ordered, that the Trade of Tillage shall not be decayed by it, but rather advanced: Yea that Tenants Cottiers, and their children may be set a work, and live more happily and comfortably after such Inclosure then they did before.
• Secondly. Suppose it be so now, or hath heretofore been so, it it therefore necessary that it must be so alwayes? May not those Counties hereafter have other Manufactures and Tradings, of as great or greater advantage, for the commonalty, yea for the Com­monwealth, as well, as Master Moore confesseth, other Counties have? Must Leicestershire, and other in-land Counties only, by be­ing kept open, and used in common, be condemned unto a perpe­tuall expence of greater pains and charge, for the raising of less pro­fit and advantage, when if they were inclosed, as other Counties are, they might, as they do, raise greater advantage and profit, with lesse expense of charge and paines? Master Moore saith it is the Plow whereby Tenants Cottiers, and their children were set on [Page 19]work. Wee must understand him in those places, where the fields lying open are used in common. But he doth not tell us how many Tenants Cottiers, and their children, yea even Freeholders also, in those places, through disorder and unjust dealing, have been ut­terly undone, and reduced to beggary. He doth not say, how many have there been trained up to idleness; and taught to doe almost nothing else, but to wait advantages of doing wrong to others. He doth not boast, how many of those, that in such places have been imployed about Husbandry in the summer time, in the winter time are turned off, either to beg, or steal, or starve; or, that if they con­tinue still with the same Masters, their Winters maintainance, to do little or nothing, brings greater charge with it then their sum­mers work was worth; so that many times the poor husbandman in his estate is fed upon, and eaten out of all, by them whose bodies he doth feed.

In the same page he further saith. Other Counties have other Manufactures and Trading for the Commonalty, we Tillage, and the Plough, whereby wee breed multitudes of hardy men, and horses for the service of the Commonwealth, if need be; whereby we also send forth abundance of all manner of Corn and Grain, and pease-fed cattle to the City, to victual our Shipping at Sea, and to countreyes round about us: all fed with the Plow in the Common fields.

What its fed with the Plow in common fields, may as well, yea and better he fed with the Plow in grounds inclosed, as was said before. And if we should appeale unto the City to say from whence the greatest abundance of provision both for sea and land doth come, whether from those countries, where the fields lying open are used in common, or from those, where grounds are in­closed, the question, I believe, would be quickly determined in the behalf of the countries inclosed, without any doubt or disputa­tion about it. And for the multitudes of hardy men, which hee speaketh of, if there could be seen a List of all that have served in the late Warres on every side, and that yet are in Arms, I believe there would be found but few that have come from the Plow to that im­ployment, in comparison of other Trades. Many horses indeed are used, or abused rather, where the fields lying open are used in common, but few bred there that are fit for good service any where, even then when they are most set forth to shew. Hardly in any other thing, or in any other place, but where the fields lye open, and are used in common, is [Page 20]there more, or so much cheating, cousenage, and deceitful dealing used. And, if question may be made concerning hardy men, for which I know no reason way it should, yet horses out of doubt may better be bred in grounds inclosed then in common fields; whereof experience is sufficient evidence.

Master Moor adds further in the same page. They make beggars of Tenants upon such Inclosure: For the Tenant forthwith is dischar­ged of Tillage and Farme to seek a living he knowes not where— And in some Towns there is fourteen, sixteen, or twenty Tenants dis­charged of plowing, all in this sad condition, besides many other teams and farmes of Freeholders layd down in the same Towns. What say you to this?

I say these restrictive termes of limitation, such, and some, [upon such Inclosure, in some Townes] make it needlesse for me to say any thins, more then I have said, to disable it from doing any service against Inclosure in generall; because, with those restrictive termes that which is so said is nothing to the purpose, and without them would be false. Yet this let me tell you, that for Tenants to be discharged of Tillage, and of their Farmes, and for Teams to be layd down, as it is no necessary effect, so neither is it any proper adjunct of Inclosure. It doth neither convenire omni, nor soli, nor semper. Not omni; for Inclosures may be, yea have been, made, and Tenants neither discharged of Tillage, nor of Farmes. Not soli; for Tenants have been, and may be, discharged of Tillage, and Farmes, and Teames layd down, in Common-fields. Not semper; for even in grounds inclosed, there where Tillage and Teames have been layd down, and Tenants discharged, at some times, at other times Tenants have been entertained, and Tillage, and Teames set up again. But whether the fields lying open are used in common, or be in­closed, why should not the Landlord have liberty to discharge the Te­nant, when his time is expired, and come himself to live upon his owne land, or take in another Tenant? If a Tenant so discharged complain, will Master Moore think the Landlord deserveth to be condemned for it? Sure, it is not sufficient for Master Moors or for any man else, out of charity to the Tenant, to take notice of his complaint alone, but hee must likewise, out of justice to the Landlord, duly consider whether the cause of his complaint is just; Lest he fall under the woe denounced by the Prophet, Isa. 5.22. against them that justifie the wicked, and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him. What find you next in Master Moore discourse, that you think may carry any colour of an argument against Inclosure in generall?

Sect. 12.

Page 10 he saith, Herein is the misery of the Tenant the greater, Those that have thus uncorned the said towns, and turned all into Pasture, and discharged their Tenants, these thus inclosed wretches become Tenants themselves, and rent land in the open fields round about them, or near unto them, to maintain their own families with corns, and their horses, with feeding, for which land they give (being able to pay for it out of their inclosed grounds) excessive rates, which if the poor Tenant should give, he and his must forthwith come to beggary. So that they do not only turn those poor tenants out of in­closed towns, but also rent those Farmes, and that land in the common fields, which the poor tenants else might have rented at an easier rate; so that in the conclusion most of these tenants become Cottiers.

The like complaint maybe made in behalf of Tenants that live upon lands that are inclosed. Those that live where the fields lying open are used in common become tenants themselves, and rent inclosed grounds round about them, or near unto them, that they may bee better able to maintain their own families, and mannage their tillage in the common fields with more advantage; for which inclosed grounds, in that respect, they can afford to give greater rents, then they that live on­ly upon inclosure can doe. So that this, as the other arguments urged a­gainst Inclosures, hath (the misfortune it may bee some men would think it, but I say rather) the good hap to conclude as much against common fields: If Inclosure make land in common fields scarcer, com­mon fields make grounds inclosed dearer. And therefore the wonder is lesse, that those, who live where the fields are inclosed, endeavour to hinder the inclosure of the common fields about them. They know very will their advantage would be lesse, if all men besides had the like op­portunity to make it, that they have: And, if there were not so much help, as there is, from them, who live when the fields lying open are used in common, from inclosed grounds in other places, they would the sooner find themselves necessitated to inclose: And then, those that live where the grounds are all inclosed, would finde it more profitable tilling some, then grasing all, so that there would need no law at all to com­pell them to it. When tillage is more profitable then pasturage, men will break up their pastures to till: And why should they not have li­berty then to lay down their Arable land for grasse, when pasturage is more profitable then tillage: I mean, as before, when the land is fitter for it. And so I make no question but they have, if the Statutes concern­ing Husbandry and Tillage were rightly understood, and well observed. Nor needeth any man in reason to desire greater freedom for laying down [Page 22]any land, which bath been used to tillage before, then is granted him by the Proviso's in those statutes. But it maybe the rate of the rents is the main matter that is stumbled at: which yet comes all to the same passe, whether the fields be inclosed or no: save that there is not so much casualty in grounds inclosed, as in common fields, as was before observed. Tenants may be oppressed and beg­gered by rents over-rated in common fields, as wel as Inclosures, and I beleive more often are: the over-rating of rents being not the ine­quality of them unto other rents, either in other places at the same time, or at other times in the same place, but the disproportion of them unto the profit, which ordinarily communibus annis, may bee raised of the land that is rented, over and above the necessary charge of the labour and stock, that is to be employed upon it. And for tenants becoming cottiers, I believe, if any man will examine his own experience impartially, hee may observe as many not tenants only, who alwayes paid great rents, but even freeholders also, who sometimes payd but little rent, or none at all, to have become cot­tiers, where the fields lying open are used in common, as where they have been inclosed. But some men, whom our saviour calls hy­pocrites. Mat. 7.5. will sooner observe and reprove a few small faults in others, then acknowledge and reforme many greater in themselves. And I doe not think M ^r Moore can shew so many com­mon fields without disorders, as another man may do inclosures without pulling down houses, and turning out tenants. What have you yet more ?

In the same 10 page, and so forward in the it he saith. In these inclosed towns in laying down the plow, and taking away the crop of corne, how many crops doe they rob the poor cottier of? This poor man had a crop and income of every tilth of the plow, in the following tilth, in the stirring tilth, in the arring tilth, in the sowing tilth: he had his income in the manuring, weeding, mowing, inning, gleaning, and threshing of the corne. And now alas, saith the poor cottier, there is no worke for me; I need not be thrust out of the town, I must be gone where I may get my living; and if I can get no house elsewhere, I and mine must stare. And hence it comes to passe that the open fielden townes have above double the number of cottiers they had wont to have, so that they not live one by another, & so put the fielden townes to vast expences in caring for those poor that these inclosures have made. And what enquiring everywhere is there of these poor cottiers (after the town [Page 23]is inclosed) to get an house in any place where they may have work?

All this goes stil upon the same false ground, that unpeop­ling towns and uncorning fields is the proper and necessary fruit and effect of inclosure: which experience shewes to be otherwise. I could instance a place, where within a short time after the fields were inclosed, more houses were built and repaired, then had been in many years before: where they that caled themselves the poor, yet thought they were able enough to take land out of other mens hands, and to offer more for it then other men paid: and even then, when they did complain that they could not get work, the other inhabitants complained that they could not get workmen. So that you must not al­wayes so much take heed to what such people say, as to the cause which they have to say so, which is not alwayes such as they pretend. For the incomes which M ^r Moore saith that the poor cottier had in every tilth of the plow, in the manuring, weeding, mowing, inning, and thresh­ing of the corne, if the husbandman (as usually it is in common fields, more then inclosures) had children and servants of his owne to doe his work, it is like the poor cottiers part was very little. And I believe it may be observed, that when townes are inclosed, although there be not so much use of houshold servants, as formerly there was, yet of day-la­bourers there is, or more,

But that M ^r Moore in the next words hath complained of, when he saith, such inclosure makes beggers of the children both of tenants and cottiers; the children of both usually become servants to the husband­man, and brought up at the plow &c. But now in such in closed towns where there were kept 30, 40, 50, servants, there is not above three or four. Hence the droves of poor children, when they are reproved for begging, are complaining, we would willingly work, if any would fet us on work.

It is well if M ^r Moore hath had the good hap to meet with no poor children, but such as are willing to work; I wish that all men else could say so. But rather I fear the most of those, which come out of com­monfields, have been so inured to idleness there, that they will not easily be brought to take any good pains any where. And if this objection drawn from the great disproportion in the number of servants usually kept there where the fields lying open are used in common, and where they are inclosed, carry any consequence with it against inclosure in generall (as I confesse in my apprehension it seemeth to do more then any of the rest) it must be upon this supposed principle, that all land in every place is to be used in such sort, as may occasion the imployment [Page 24]of most people; which for all the fair shew that it maketh, is false.

For

• 1. it is contrary to that generall rule, Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora. It is a needlesse, fruitlesse vanity (at least, if it be no worse) to use many meanes for effecting of that, which may as well be done with few.
• 2. It is not a practice agreeable to the pattern and example which both God and Nature have set; Deus & Natura nihil agunt frustra; God and Nature do nothing in vain. They are followers of neither, that purposely choose to do things in such sort, as that more men must be employed in doing them, then is either neces­sary, or convenient.
• 3. It is a great hinderance of the common good, when all those people are needlesly imployed in one place, whereof some might be more profitably employed elswhere.
• 4. If that principle were true, the practise accordingly must bee to put down teames, and instead of plowing, and harrowing, and carting, to dig, and rake, and carry on mens backs; which if it be absurd to doe, that rule, according unto which it is done, cannot be reasonable. What follows next?

Sect. 13.

A blow made at the root of all such Inclosure, as Master Moor doth speak against. In brief, saith he, is it not palpa­ble, that the main inducement unto such Inclosure is filthy lucre, and to be rid of Tenants, poor, and servants? So far are they from caring for the poor, and instead of bringing them into their houses, to rid them of their houses. As for example, they being hot upon such inclosure in a town I am well acquainted with, one of the in­habitants gave this reason why they must do it, in these words, viz. The poor increase like Fleas, and live, and these vermine will eat us up, unlesse we inclose. And sure it was plain dealing; for without question he spake the sence of most of the rest. What can you say to this?

To this I can say;

1. That all men who endeavour to provide for the prevention of a mischief, or of an inconvenience, before it come, or for the re­movall of it when it is come, are not induced thereunto by filthy lucre. Some men, for ought that Master Moor can tell to the con­trary, do it out of conscience of that duty which they owe to God, themselves, and others.

2. By this example, which Mr. Moor hath produced, it appear­eth, [Page 25]that poverty, in the towne which speaketh of, was not the follower, but the forerunner of Inclosure. And by that it should seem, that whether care were taken of the poor there, or no, yet care was not taken to prevent their poverty, whilst the fields lying open were used in common; or if it were, it had proved inef­fectuall till then, and so was like to have done still without in­closure.

3. Charity thinketh no evill, 1 Cor. 13.5. and if Master Moore be so charitable minded, as hee maketh shew, why could hee not take that speech, which he relateth, in the best sence, and think that hee by whom it was spoken, had a charitable intent to see the poor better provided for then they were, or could have been, if the fu­ture increase of them should not have been prevented? Is there no mean between eating up the poor, and being eaten up by them? Cannot those that are poor already be relieved, or maintained, un­lesse that others also may be added to increase the number? If the mans comparing those poor, concerning whom he spake, to fleas and lice, and calling them vermine, be that which Master Moore took offence at, I will not goe about to justifie it. But I wish, that as it is better to prevent the increase of Fleas, and Lice, by clean­liness and diligence, then to catch them, and kill them; so none that pretend they have care of the poor, may strengthen their hands, or give them encouragement in any of those evil courses, from whence occasion may bee taken to thinke that they deserve such a comparison.

Section 14.

Page 12. He saith, Depopulation comes by de­grees, and the next generation usually knows neither Tenant nor Cottier in such inclosed places; for townes we must call them no longer.

I think it will be hard for Master Moor to give instance of any such place, where towns have been un-peopled in another ge­neration, that were not at the first time of Inclosure. But in case he can, is there any necessity therefore that in all it must be so? Especi­ally considering what excellent Lawes have been provided for re­dresse of such abuses. Or, if such a thing might be feared indeed, for which the Law had not provided a remedy, in case it should happen, must present mischiefs, such as the abuses of common fields are, be perpetually continued without redress, because there is a possibility of an after inconvenience? Hicrogonon furor est nè mo iare mori? Doth any thing look more like the madnesse of de­spair [Page 26]then this? Not much unlike that of a simple Ideot in the daies of Queen Elizabeth, when the Wars in Ireland were on foot: Who being in waggery told by one, that the Rebels were coming, made all the haste home that he could; and begged of his aged Mother, that she would let him kil her himself, saying, he would do it hand­somly, that she might not be killed by the Rebels; & was so earnestly intent upon it, that the poor woman had much adoe by creeping under a bed to hide her self. Thus it seemes, for fear of having Te­nants and Cottiers turned out of a Town, he knows not when, Mr. Moor is so charitably affected to them, that he would not have In­closure brought in to prevent the continuance of those abuses, wher­by they run headlong into present poverty.

Sect. 15.

Page 13 he saith, If the Lord should slack his hand but a little, and withhold his more then usual encrease of corn from us, it is such, Inclosure would make a flat Famin: as within these few yeares, what crying for bread, and complaining in our streets of such Inclosure? If then, what will become of us now? since when there hath been so much inclosed; and even at this present they are so mad upon it, as though it was their project one time or other to ruin the poor.

For this, I told you before, that decay of Tillage and uncorn­ing of fields, is no necessary effect of inclosure in general, nor any effect of inclosure at all, if it be rightly ordered as it should be; but rather the contrary. And now I wil adde, that our prudent forefa­thers were of this mind: In whose stead we are risen up a genera­tion of men made as it were in the afternoon of nature, in whom weaknesse of judgement, and strength of passion strive for the ma­stery, upon such equal termes as it is not easie to determine, whether of the two we are, more witless, or more wilfull. Our prudent fore­thers, I say, knew this so wel, that when they set themselves of pur­pose to prevent the decay of Tillage, and to provide for the increase of Corn, they never prohibited Inclosure at all, but rather gave en­couragement unto it, by providing that for the better, and more commodious occupying of husbandry, of any the lands, meddows, or pastures, which shall bee allotted, or belonging to any house of husbandry, it shall be lawfull for any Lord to make exchange with any his tenants; or any tenant, or other person, with the assent of the Lord, to change the one with the other. An. 39 Eliz. cap. 1. Yea, how necessary they esteemed some Inclosure to bee, for the maintainance husbandry and tillage, may appear by the Statute [Page 27]made to that purpose, in the behalf of certain particular places in the County of Hereford, an. 4 Jacobi cap. 11. And when they stu­dyed to reform the abuses committed contrary to the Law by de­population and decay of tillage, they never commanded the laying open again of Inclosures, as if hedges and ditches had been any ei­ther causes or occasions of such abuses, but made as strict Laws, with as severe penalties, for the punishment of those riotous per­sons that goe about to pull down inclosures, as of others, 1 Eliz. cap. 16. Yea, if my memory deceive me not (for I cannot now tell where to finde it) I have long agoe read a provision made by Law, that if an Inclosure were pulled down, and the parties that did it could not be found, it should be made good again by the inhabitants of the next adjoyning town: And I cannot but wonder, that any man, who pretendeth so highly to honour the present Parliament, as Mr. Moor doth, should imagine that the Members thereof will forget themselves so much, as to suffer the solid wisdome of their predecessors to be (overweighed I will not say, but) overswayed, or rather cryed down by the empty noise of hollow heads. Far be it from me to harbour so poor an opinion of them. If my discre­tion did not, yet my charity would teach me better.

Sect. 16.

In the next words, page 13, he saith, I proceed to the fourth sort, which they make beggars, and they are those ho­nest hearts, who out of a tender conscience take such care for the poor, as they dare not comply with them in their uncharitable de­signes, nor consent to such inclosure. Against these they fret and storm, and tell them in plaine termes they will undoe them, and make them beggars: And so they doe indeed, in bringing multipli­city of Law suits, Actions of Trespasse for nothing, or at least for trifles, as for coming over their ground, &c. and vex them all with long tedious suits in Chancery, to force them to doe against their consciences—. Alasse how many amongst us are now persecuted in this manner, because they would keep faith and a good conscience, pure and unspotted, both before God and man?

Here Master Moor would have us believe, that all those who withstand & refuse to consent unto such inclosure, as he speak­eth of, are honest hearted, and tender conscienced men, such as have a care of the poor, and because they desire to keep faith and a good conscience, pure and unspotted, will not comply with uncharitable designes, although they be vexed and presented for it. Concerning all which I would I could say, as the Apostle doth, Tit. 1.13. This witnesse is true. But the contrary is so apparently evident, that if [Page 28]some of the men, whom Master Moor doth mean, be the same that it is conceived they are, should I name them onely, those that know them would wonder, how Mr. Moor could be so much mistaken in them. But leaving the men, let us come to the matter, and setting aside Master Moores restrictive termes, of uncharitable designs, and such Inclosure, let us consider whether it be such a cruel oppres­sion, and not to be suffered in the land of uprightnesse, as hee pre­tends, that some men should be forced by suits in Chancery to con­sent to inclosure, I mean when it may be done upon equall and in­different termes for all that have right, and with due respect unto provision for the poor: And whether such men refusing to give such consent; may not without transgression of the rules of righte­ousnesse, or breach of charity, have law suits, or actions of tres­pass brought against them.

For the former we know, that the most important affairs both of Church and Commonwealth are alwayes determined in publick assemblies, as Parliaments, and the like, by the major part, although many times in number but little exceeding the other. And can it then be reasonable, that in particular towns, when the far greater number of those that are interested doe agree upon a course (as of inclosure) for the general good of them all, upon equall and indif­ferent termes for every one of them, and with due respect unto the poor, who have no interest of right amongst them, one or two, or but a few in comparison of the rest, should have liberty to with­stand and hinder all? Especially, if it may appear that they do it meerly of perversness, or for evill ends? For a court of Consci­ence (as the Chancery) to take cognisance of such a case, and force the refractory to conformity, when Courts of Law cannot, I con­ceive to be not only lawfull, but likewise very convenient, if not necessary, in respect of that interest, which the Commonwealth in generall hath in the welfare and prosperity of all its members in particular; and therefore hath great cause to take care, that the wel-being, or wel-doing of many may not bee needlesly hin­dered by the wilfulnesse onely of a few. For the later, as it is a transgression of the rule of righteousnesse to bring suits and a­ctions at Law against any man for nothing, and a breach of cha­rity to multiply such suits and actions for trifles onely, so, in determining whether the ground of the suit or action bee nothing, or a trifle only, not the substance of the matter it self alone, but the circumstances also are to be considered. As for example, If your neighbour have an horse to sel you, and you offer him his ful [Page 29]price, if he refuse to let you have him, it is but a matter of unkind­nesse, nothing to ground a suit or action at law upon. But if hee promise you shal have his horse at such a time for such a price, and you trust upon him, having occasion at the time appointed to ride a journey upon businesse of importance, if in the mean time hee sell the horse unto another man, at a greater price, although hee bee willing to give you the overplus, so that you shall not need to su­stain any losse that way; yet being by that means disappointed of your journey, and so damnified in the businesse, which you should have gone upon, in that respect you have just cause of action against your neighbour. So your neighbours comming over your ground is in it selfe but a trifle, but if he practise it ordinarily, and will not take warning, intending to intitle himself to a way there with­out leave, where of right he hath none, it may be a just ground of a law suit, and action of Trespasse. Therefore that, which Master Moore hath added, concerning the evil consequences of Law suits, and suits in Chancery, that some parties have grown distracted, and others have never lived a comfortable hour after all the daies of their lives, is such as I can say nothing to, nor any man else to the purpose, unlesse I were acquainted with the particular cases, and the circumstances of them.

Sect. 17.

Page 14. he saith, They usually upon such in­closure treble the price of their land: and this they get by flaying the skin off the poor.

If any man impose a greater rent upon his land, then it is worth, I will not go about either to justifie or to excuse him: but that may be done upon land in common fields, as well as inclosure: and therefore this objection can be of no force against inclosure in general. Land may be inclosed, and yet no rent put upon it more then it is worth. And, if after inclosure, the profit of the land to the tenant be raised, to what proportion soever it bee, double or treble, what wrong can it be unto him if his rent be raised accord­ingly? But, if the profit to the tenant be not raised, it is in vain for the Landlord to expect that he should raise his rent, any more in grounds inclosed, then in common fields.

I tould you before, in answer unto that which you alleadged out of page 10. that the over-rating of rents is not the inequality of them, but their disproportion to the profit that may bee raised of the land: and so I say now. Besides that this objection makes nothing against inclosure there, where there are no tenants, but all [Page 30]men freeholders, that live upon their own lands. And more then that, to serve Master Moores purpose, it must presuppose all Land­lords rich men, and all Landlords of inclosed grounds, not Land­lords of those that lie in common fields, such as pant, thirst, and are enflamed, as he speaks, with covetousnesse; and all tenants poor, yea such as have nothing but skin left upon them, that is, according to his own interpretation, page, 26. very poor: none of all which is alwaies so. For tenants may be, and sometimes are, richer then their Landlords, and Landlords in common fields may pant, thirst, and be inflamed with covetousnesse, when Landlords of inclosed grounds may be pittifull and compassionate, yea bountiful and li­beral unto the poor. And therefore that which he addeth page 15. I must tell these that thus sell the poor for trifles, that I am suspi­cious they will sell their God for gold, and Judas-like their Christ to fill the bagge: their profession is nothing, if they care not for the poor. A Gospel spirit is a giving spirit &c. let him bestow upon covetous oppressors, wheresoever he finds them, either in common fields, or grounds inclosed: so that he be care­full not to mistake them, for fear he mark the sheep, with the brand that was made for none but for goats. Howsoever let this be ob­served, as given for granted by Master Moore, that upon such inclo­sure the price of the land may be trebled, which I confesse is some­times true, although not alwaies, and then it will follow, that by hindring such inclosure, a double benefit to the owner in particu­lar, and consequently in proportion unto the Common-wealth in general, is hindered: for upon such inclosure the price of the land could not be trebled, unlesse a treble profit might bee raised. And this, for as much as concernes the Common-wealth in general, is e­vident by experience, because upon inclosure, the proportion of the taxes is accordingly raised above the rate, which they were for­merly at, when the fields lay open, & the land was used in common.

Sect. 18.

Page 19. he saith, These worldlings are the un­profitable burdens of the earth, in whom there is no charity, libera­lity, hospitality nor humanity; such are greedy gripes, which by their inclosure would have no poor to live with them, nor by them, but delight to converse with beasts, and to this purpose turn corne into grasse, and men into beasts.

Such worldlings, as Master Moore there describeth (if there be any such) he may well call unprofitable burdens of the earth: but that all inclosers are such greedy gripes, as would have no poor to live with them, or by them, he hath not yet proved, not e­ver [Page 31]will doe. And yet to say, that some of them would have no poor to live with them, or by them, may be so understood, that it would be no disparagement at all, but an high commendation: I mean so, that they would have the poor, who live with them, to live by them, that is, by their means, so that they may in time out-live their poverty, and be no more poore: which would be the best course of caring for the poor, that they could take. But, why doth Master Moore describe such greedy gripes, such worldlings, as hee there speaketh of, by delighting to converse with beasts, and say, that to this purpose they turn corne into grasse, and men into beasts, Are oxen, kine, and sheep beasts, any more then horses are? Or do not plowmen delight to converse with horses, as much as Shepheards, or heardsmen, do to converse with other cattle? Or are not horses for the plowmans use maintained with grasse, as well as oxen, kine and sheep? and, more then they, even with corne it selfe also? doth Master Moore conceive, that a plowman, as a plowman, is, or may be, more spirituall, then a shepheard, or an heardsman? and a shep­heard, or an heardsman, as a shepheard, or an heardsman, more carnal, then a plowman? much good, if it can, may his conceit do him. But yet if he please, for the further satisfaction of others, let him tell them, which of the two it was, Abel a keeper of sheep, or Cain a tiller of the ground, unto whom the Lord had respect, and unto his offering, & unto which of the two he had not, Gen. 4.2. &c. And which doth he think were heardsmen and shepheards, which were plowmen and tillers of land, the Israelites in the land of Go­shen, or the Aegyptians in the land of Aegypt? whether it was from the sheepfolds, or from the threshing floores, from following the ewes great with yong, or from holding the plow, that God tooke David, a man after his own heart, to feed Jacob his people, and Is­rael his inheritance? Ps. 78.70. &c. Though page 22 Master Moore, is pleased to say, that flesh is but sawce as it were, to make our bread relish better, and goe down the glibber: yet he may observe, that Moses, Gen. 4.2. doth first make mention of Abels keeping sheep, although he were but the yonger brother, before he speaks of the elder brother Cains tilling the ground: and meat is not wont to be an after additament to sawce, but sawce to meat; yet all this is but little to the purpose, because, as I told you before, decay of tillage is no necessary effect, nor any proper adjunct of inclosure, but rather the contrary.

I pray you proceed: for I believe there is something yet be­hind [Page 32]unspoken to, which some men, if they can, will make a great matter of.

Sect. 19.

It is true: for page 22. hee saith, How nigh are they to a curse, that use such means, that there may bee no corne, nor seed time, nor harvest, in the places where they inhabit? These break our staffe of bread. This argument prevails much with a car­nal mind, and the natural conscience doth much perplex these op­pressours. Oh (say they) though wee have a good mind to this businesse, yet the curse that followes such inclosure! And none of us here can be ignorant how visibly God hath pursued such inclo­sure with his several judgements, having written this very sinne in the ludgement. I shall bee sparing of the particular vengeances that have followed this sinne: only thus much I shall say, that the prophesie of Isaiah 5.9. is fulfilled on them, Many houses are de­solate, even great and fair, without inhabitants: so that wee may say usually of them, as the Psalmist speaks of such. Ps. 37.35, 36. I have seen him in great power, and spreading himselfe like a green bay tree, yet he passed away, and loe he was not, yea I sought him, but he could not be found. His house and land hath vomited him out and his posteritie. Seldome the third generation can call those inclosed grounds his owne.

This natural conscience dot so terrifie them, when they are upon such cursed designes, that they can goe on with no complacency of spirit in it. When they are agreed upon Articles of such inclosure, how every one trembles to set his hand first to them, or to set the first spade in the ground of such inclosure, because God many times so visibly meets with the ringleaders. In one town being upon such inclosure, and to set their hands to the Articles, so terrible was the businesse, that no body would begin: at last one snatched the penne, subscribed his name, and bid them follow him all in the devils name. When they have thus inclosed, you shall hardly find who was the author of it, none will acknowledge themselves to be prin­cipal agents in it, though they have all done it. I have this one word to speak to these Mammonists that thus dare to stifle consci­ence, 1 John 3.20. If thy heart condemn thee, God is greater then thine heart, and knoweth all things.

I thank you, that you have repeated Mr. Moores words so at large: I hope to make some good use of them: For

• 1 His frequent inserting of those restrictive termes, such meanes, these oppressors, such inclosure, this sin, those inclosed grounds, [Page 33]such cursed designes, and the like, shew plainly that hee had no de­sire, that all men should understand him so, as it seemes you con­ceive some men may doe, namely, as speaking of inclosure in gene­rall. And therefore I say, as well as he, if any man whosoever bee conscious to himself, that hee hath an heart exercised with cove­tous practises, that have made, or would make use of oppressive, unjust, uncharitable actions for inclosure, or of inclosure for op­pressive, unjust, uncharitable ends, let him tremble at the expecta­tion of a curse, and if it conic let him not stick to charge the par­ticular vengeance that follows him, upon his own particular sinne that went before. But what I say of inclosure I will in like manner say of land in common, If any man be conscious to himself of an heart excercised with covetous practises, that hee hath made, or would make use of oppressive, unjust, uncharitable actions to hin­der inclosure; for oppressive, unjust, uncharitable ends, let him tremble at the expectation of a curse, and if it come, let him not stick to charge the particular vengeance that follows him, upon his own particular sin that went before. But, when Master Moor and I have said all this, we have sayd nothing at all against inclosure in generall, or against common fields, but only so farre forth as in common fields there is greater opportunity of covetous, vncon­scionable, oppressive, unjust, uncharitable practises, then there is in grounds inclosed.
• 2. When Mr. Moor saith of a covetous, unconscionable, oppressing, unjust, uncharitable incloser, his house and land hath vomited him out, seldom the third generation can call those inclosed grounds his own, either Mastes Moor must suppose him unblameable in o­ther respects, or else he cannot certainly tell, that such a particular judgement was inflicted for that particular sin. If besides that hee were likewise an idolater, a blasphemer, a murtherer, an adulterer, a drunkard, or the like, that particular judgement, for ought that Master Moor can tell, might bee brought upon him for some of those particular sins, as well, as for that, which hee is minded to ascribe it to. Yea it might bee for some antecedent sin of his Ance­stors, as well as for his own. So uncertain a thing it is, as well as presumptuous, and therefore the more presumptuous, because it is uncertain, without speciall revelation from God himself to meddle with his secret counsels, and take upon us to design the particular occasions of those things which are ordered and disposed of by his ei­ther operative, or permissive providence. You know what our Saviour [Page 34]answered his disciples concerning the man that was blind from his birth, John 9.2, 3. Who, say they, did sin, this man, or his parents, that hee was born blind? Neither hath this man sinned, saith he, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. And that ge­nerall rule of Solomon may serve to give answer unto a thousand such arguments as this. No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them: All things come alike to all, &c. Eccles. 9.1, 2, 3, and chap. 8.14. There be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked: Again there be wicked men, to whom it hap­peneth according to the work of the righteous. Therefore the Apostles either precept or advice is, Judge nothing before the time, untill the Lord come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darknesse, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. 1 Cor. 4.5.
• 3. When men of competent, yea of plentifull estates, who have not on­ly opposed, but likewise hindered inclosure in the places where they lived, have afterward been known to runne out of all, so that not the third, nor the second generation, only, but not themselves in their own life time could call those common grounds their own, which they had been the means to hinder the inclosure of: would Master Moor thinke it charity in me, or in any man else, to say their houses and their lands had vomited them out, and their posterity, because out of cursed designes of their own they had hindered inclosure? If not, then let him call to mind that of our Saviour, Mat. 7.1, 2. Judge not, that ye be not judged: For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what mea­sure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again: And that of the Apostle Rom. 2.1. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest, &c.
• 4. Complacency of spirit, or a trembling perplexity of conscience, in the things which men doe, or goe about, are not alwayes necessary evi­dences of lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse in the things themselves: And there may be other reasons, without stifling of their consciences, or be­cause their own hearts doe condemne them, that some men sometimes are not willing to own some actions (though lawful and laudable) or to acknowledge themselves to bee principall agents in them. I could give you instances enough to this purpose, but that I am loath to bee too tedious, and the matter is so plaine of it selfe, that it needs no proof.
• 5. I thinke it might not be amisse for Master Moor, and other men of his mind, to examine their own experiences concerning those Inclo­sers, whom they thinke God hath visibly pursued with this particular [Page 35]judgement, to be vomited out by their houses and lands, which they have inclosed, whether they are not decayed in their estates before, if not runne out of all, or so deeply indebted, that without such improvement, as they made of their estates by inclosure, they could not have been able to fatisfie their creditors, and reserve any thing to be a means of future subsistance to themselves, and their posterity. If all, or some, or any of them, were such, the parting with that estate afterwards, which before was inclosed, may rather seem to have been a blessing, then a curse, as a means of the creditors better satisfaction, and the owners future freedom from a former intanglement at least, if not bondage also. But I spend too many words upon a matter manifest enough of it self, if the prejudicate opinions and passions of men did not fiel up the eyes of their understand­ings, or render them resolute not to acknowledge even what they cannot choose but know. Yet one thing seemes a little strange unto mee.

What is that?

Sect. 20.

Master Moor, that hath filled his discourse in some places with froth that hath fallen from the mouthes of other men, hath not once that I remember made mention of one thing, more materiall, and more nearly concerning himselfe, then most of the rest, if not all, and that which I think hath been one of the most effectual meanes to hinder Inclosures, where they have been opposed. I meane the Churches right unto Tythes, and the wrong that is pretended would be done un­to Ministers, if fields lying open, and used in common should bee in­closed. I wonder how Master Moor could misse this? Were the poor so much in his heart, that they put the Church quite out of his head?

Whether Master Moor did purposely omit that particular, or no, I cannot tell. But, if hee did, I thinke hee deserves to be commended for it. Having spoken so plainly, as hee hath done, page 17. against selfish­nesse, which hee calls sowing to the flesh, and having sayd expresly, page 27, that Ministers must not onley preach, but likewise practise this duty of charity, to beware of covetousness, and to be of a giving spi­rit: me-thinks it was well done of him to forbear this argument, where­in hee himselfe is so nearly concerned, lest that, if hee should have urged it, as he hath done others, some might have taken occasion thereupon to have retorted this Text, and sayd of him, as St. John did of Judas, This he sayd, not that he cared for the poor. And indeed to what purpose should an argument against Inclosure bee urged now from Tythes, and the right of the Church to them, when not onely the right of the [Page 36]Church to tithes is questioned, but likewise tithes themselves cryed down by some, as not Jewish only, but Antichristian also. So that some men peradventure might suspect the urging of an argument against inclosure from tithes to be a designe for the continuance of tithes, as a necessary means for the preservation of common fields from inclosure, which usu­ally those that have interest in tithes are great opposers of. But what e­ver was the reason of Master Moores omitting it, I pray you let mee heare, what answer you would have given unto it, if he had urged it.

The same that I have done before, namely, that inclosure rightly ordered cannot be prejudicial to the right of the Church in tithes, or to any man, unto whom that right of tithes doth ap­pertain.

For

• first, If as I said before, decay of tillage bee no proper or ne­cessary adjunct, fruit and effect of inclosure rightly ordered, but rather the contrary: if more corne may be raised in grounds inclo­sed then in common fields, the tiths may be bettered, rather then impaired by inclosure.
• Secondly, In case those that have right to tithes are doubt­full of an uncertainty, in that whether men will doe what they might doe in that kind or no, their interest, as well as other mens, may be provided for in the agreement, and the tithes com­pounded for, either in money, or in land.
• Thirdly, If no agreement at all be made, yet if the tiths be all duly paid in kind, as they should be, what ever valew they be of, the right is preserved, and there is no wrong done; and that they may bee in grounds inclosed, as well as in common fields.

Since you are so willing to tell me your mind in that par­ticular, although it be not mentioned by Master Moore, I pray you do the like in one other thing.

What it that?

Sect. 21.

The Apostles rule is, Abstain from all appear­ance of evil. 1 Thes. 5.22. and Philip. 4.8. amongst the properties of the things that must be thought upon, one is, that they be of good report. But against inclosure generally it is objected by some men, that it is of evil report, that it hath an appearance of evil in it, and therefore must not be thought upon, but abstained from. What do you say to this?

To this I say,

• First, That an appearance of evil, and an evil report, are just oc­casions for men to suspend their resolutions of doing those things, [Page 37]wherein there is such an appearance, concerning which there is such a report, until they have seriously considered of the matter, and thorowly tryed whether the things themselves bee such indeed as they appear, and whether they ought to bee so reported of. But when they come to set up their rest, which side they will sit down upon, and settle their resolution what to doe indeed, it must not be according unto that which doth appear, but that which is, not according unto that which is reported, but according unto that which ought to be. It is the Apostles rule, 1 Thes. 5, 21. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good. and our Saviours, John 7.24. Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement.
• 2. That as evil indeed and the appearance of evill are two distinct things, so it is one thing to be ill reported of, and another thing to be of evill report. Those things alone are of evill report, which are evil indeed, and ought to bee so reported of. But many things are ill reported of, which only appears to be evill, and are not. Multa videntur, quae non sunt. So the way of Christian religion it self, the way wherein Paul pro­fessed to worship the God of his fathers, by his own confession, was cal­led heresie, Acts, 24.14. and, by the testimonie of the Jewes, was every where spoken against, Acts 28, 22. yea our saviour saith to his disci­ples, Mat. 5.11. Blessed are ye when men revile you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsly for sake.
• 3. That although in some inclosure there may bee, and too often is, not an appearance only of evill, but evill indeed, though some inclosures have been indeed of evil report, that is, such as deserve to be evil reported of; Yet all inclosures neither have been are, or need to be such.
• 4. That even in this particular also, as much may be said of common­fields, as of Inclosures; that in some at least, if not in all commonfields, there is not onely appearance of evil, but evill indeed, and that they are not only it reported of, but likewise deserve to bee so: as I think may sufficiently appear by that, which hath been said already. Is there any thing else in Master Moores discourse, which you make question of?

Sect. 22.

Not that I remember now. But I shall thankfully ac­knowledge it a further favour, if you will be pleased to answer my desire in one thing more.

What may that be?

I hear that now Master Moor doth intend to procure a Peti­tion against inclosure generally subscribed by the inhabitants of divers Counties, to be presented to the Parliament: which may peradventure give occasion to others to procure an Anti-petition in behalfe of inclo­sure [Page 38]subscribed in the same Counties. By which means it may truly appear, who they are, and of what condition, that stand for common fields, or for inclosure. In case such a course should be ta­ken, what forme of Petition doe you think fit to be presented in be­halfe of inclosure?

For that you shall pardon mee, I will not presume to take upon me so much, as to thinke of the forme of such a Petition, but leave it to men of more ability, and experience, better acquainted with such courses. And for the matter of such a Petition, I have told you so much of my mind already, that I need to say no more, either of what I think fit in such a case to be desired, or of what may be ur­ged as reason to induce to a concession of it. But peradventure, if this discourse, which now you and I have had, should be known to some of them, unto whom Mr. Moor presented his, they would think it more fit for him to bestow his pains in seeking to reform the evils and abuses in common fields, there where he is acquainted, then in solliciting strangers for a Petition against Inclosure. Howsoever, although I grant not your request in this, yet having already an­swered your desire in other things, give me leave likewise to pro­pose some questions unto you. I will not put you to the trouble now to answer them, but if you know any that are adversaries to inclosure in general, desire them, if they can, and will, to doe it for you.

• First, doth it appear by any text in Scripture, or by the testimony of any Author whatsoever, that ever any fields lay open, and were used in common, so as now they are in some places of England (those in-land Counties in particular, where inclosure is now so much inveighed against) either in the land of Canaan, the lot of Israels in­heritance, or in any other countrey whatsoever?
• Secondly, doth it appear, that breaking down walls, or taking a­way hedges, whereby grounds formerly inclosed, and kept severall, may again bee layd open, and used in common, is any where in Scripture spoken of otherwise, then as an accursed thing, either the fruit or punishment of sin?
• Thirdly, is there any probability, that it can be any more unlaw­full to inclose hereafter any land which is now in common, then it is necessary now, to lay open all the land, which hath been hereto­fore inclosed?
• Fourthly, is it true, or no, which hath been said by some, that it was a practise of policy in King William the Conqueror, to have [Page 39]mens lands layd scattered, as they are in common fields, of purpose to minister unto them so much occasion of contention with one a­nother, that they might not have opportunity and leisure to unite against him, in consideration whereof it hath been called the Con­querours curse?

I will say no more, but only trim up this homely discourse with a few fine lines borrowed from him, in all whose writings wit and art doe equally triumph together; Mr. Fuller I mean, who in the second book and thirteenth chapter of The holy State, concerning the good Landlord, amongst other things writeth thus. He detests and abhors all inclosure with depopulation. And, because this may seem a matter of importance, we will break it into severall Propositions.

1. Inclosure may bee without depopulating. Infinite examples shew this to be true. But depopulation hath cast a slander on Inclo­sure, which because often done with it, people suspect it cannot bee done without it.

2. Inclosure made without depopulating, is injurious unto none. I mean, if proportionable allotments bee made to the poor for their commonage, and free and lease-holders have a considerable share with the Lord of the Mannor.

3. Inclosure without depopulating is beneficiall to private per­sons. Then have they most power and comfort to improve their own parts, & for the time and manner thereof may mold it to their own conveniency. The Monarch of one Acre will make more profit thereof, then he that hath his share in forty in common.

4. Inclosure without depopulating is profitable to the Common­wealth. If injurious to no private person, and profitable to them all, it must needs be beneficial to the Commonwealth, which is but the summa totalis of sundry persons as several figures. Besides if a Mathematician should count the wood in the hedges, to what a mighty Forrest would it amount? This underwood serves for sup­plyes to save timber from burning, otherwise our woodden walls in the water must have been sent to the fire. Adde to this the strength of an inclosed country against a forrain Invasion. Hedges and coun­ter hedges (having in number what they want in height and depth) serve for barracadoes, and will stick as birdlime in the wings of the Horse, & scotch the wheeling about of the Foot. Small resistance will make the enemy to earn every mile of ground as he marches. Object not, That Inclosure destroyes Tillage, the staffe of a country, for it need not all bee converted to Pasturage: Cain and Abel may [Page 40]very wel agree in the Commonwealth, the Plowman and Shepheard part the Inclosures betwixt them.

5. Inclosure with Depopulation is a canker to the Common­wealth. It needs no proof, woful experience shews how it unhouses thousands of people, till desperate need thrusts them on the Gal­lows. Long time had this land been sick of a Pleurisie of people, if not let blood in the Western plantations.

6. Inclosure with depopulation endamageth the parties them­selves: 'Tis a Paradox, and yet a truth, that reason shews such in­closures to be gainfull, and experience proves them to be losse to the makers. It may bee because God being [...], a lover of mankind, and mens society, and having said unto then, Multiply and increase, counts it an affront unto him that men depopulate; where­as Bees daily swarm, men make the hives fewer. The Margin shall direct you to the Author, that counts eleven Man­nors in Northamptonshire thus inclosed, Mr. Benthams Chri­stian conflict, pag. 322. which Towns have vomited out (to use his own expres­sion) and unburthened themselves of their for­mer desolating owners, and I think their posterity.