Induction and the Future

Williams, D. G.

doi:10.1093/mind/lvii.226.226

Mind

1948

DOI: 10.1093/mind/lvii.226.226

|View full text |Cite

Induction and the Future

D. G. Williams¹

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2006

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8 On the other hand, Holderness and Williams have suggested that the expense of enclosing waste should have been greater owing to the additional cost of land improvement. 9 Some costs would have been incurred regardless of the type of land enclosed, including the legal expenses of obtaining the act, ring fencing the allotments and providing access roads. In addition to this, land reclaimed from common pasture for cultivation may have required liming, paring and burning, the removal of stones and drainage.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Costs of Parliamentary Enclosure in an Upland Setting: South and East Cumbriac. 1760–1860

Whyte¹

2006

Northern History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

THERE IS GENERAL AGREEMENT that the cost of parliamentary enclosure was high, and Turner has suggested that, whatever figures have been quoted, they are underestimates. Such high costs had important implications for the structure of rural communities, especially the survival of small owner-occupiers. 1 The Marxist view of parliamentary enclosure claims that high costs forced small owner-occupiers to sell out to their larger, wealthier neighbours, costs per acre being greater for small owners. 2 On the other hand, costs were very variable within regions at the same period. 3 Williams has shown that, in Somerset, costs per acre could vary by 100 per cent between different enclosures at the same period and on similar terrain, but there have been few attempts to identify and explain such variations. 4 In any parliamentary enclosure process costs can be divided into two main categories. First, there were public costs, ranging from the legal fees involved in putting a bill before parliament to making multiple copies of the award. 5 Secondly, there were private costs, such as ring fencing allotments, making internal boundaries and improving the land. The debate has focused on the cost of enclosing open-field arable and commons in lowland England where most of the enclosure was accomplished in the 1 M. E.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Costs of Parliamentary Enclosure in an Upland Setting: South and East Cumbriac. 1760–1860

Whyte¹

2006

Northern History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Induction and the Future

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

The Costs of Parliamentary Enclosure in an Upland Setting: South and East Cumbriac. 1760–1860

The Costs of Parliamentary Enclosure in an Upland Setting: South and East Cumbriac. 1760–1860

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About