pecific enclosures that illustrate what was previously discussed. This is meant as a means to not only prove my argument but provide some substance to the matter so that readers may relate and realize the truth of the subject.
             After the Second World War, revisionist historians such as A. Johnson, H. Gray, and Davies argue that enclosure after 1780 had little effect on the number of small farmers. They argued that the peasant class had already disappeared. A somewhat unbiased writer, Mark Overton, provides a contradictory claim that "...enclosure did indeed contribute to the creation of a class of landless labourers and to the disappearance of a distinctive social class..." (pp. 174) To prove that Parliamentary enclosures were involved (to some degree) in the decline of the small farmers, we will first determine that the newly incurred costs of enclosure were most definitely a deterrent to holding small land as they were unfair and for many unbearable. It is not a surprise that the cost structure of the acts imposed by Parliament were viewed by many small owners as unjust. Michael Turner points out that "It was landownership strength measured in property rather than numbers which influenced Parliament, through the custom that to pass an act for enclosure it was usually necessary to gain the consent of those who owned two-thirds or more of the acres proposed for enclosure, rather than the consent of two-thirds or more of the total number of landowners." (Turner1, pp. 64) For example, this means that the most powerful were those four holders of over five hundred acres instead of those one hundred holders of fifty acres or less. Table 1 depicts this view. The Table focuses on the two sides of the landownership spectrum; the large landowners as proponents of enclosure, small in number but large in land owned; and the smallest owners, who were large in number but small in land owned, and who may have opposed en...