Over the decades, enclosures spread across England and eventually became common in the 17th and 18th centuries. Land fencing would enclose public lands to benefit wealthy landowners. The enclosure movement allowed these landowners to better support their animals and the crops that covered their land. However, fences did not benefit everyone in England. Indeed, peasants in rural England suffered from the negative effects of enclosure during this controversial movement. Does Julian Hoppit describe seclusion in Land of Liberty? England 1689-1727 as “the enclosing or subsidence of the land, bringing it even more completely under individual ownership” (358). There were many ways to enclose the land such as building hedges, digging ditches, building dry stone walls and other barriers. Enclosures occurred on open fields and common land. In the sixteenth century, enclosure was considered a negative event because it was linked to sheep farming, which required less manpower than agriculture. However, in the 1700s people changed their opinion of the fence because they saw it as a way to improve agriculture. The goal of the landowners was to expand their lands and extend their holdings. They tried to transform public property into private property. Private ownership would require accountability and encourage industry and innovation. Landowners took advantage of this new ownership and sought to make innovations that would benefit them and their families. However, these landowners knew they could not be prejudiced against the poor. The peasants worked on the common lands, so the landowners knew that this would have a great effect on them. Population decline was agriculture's main concern. Wealthy landowners produced new methods of cultivation; and the lucky farmers who found work worked in the factories. Land was considered valuable when the Industrial Revolution was underway because it allowed landowners to make agricultural improvements. Smith states in his book This Realm of England 1399 to 1688: “Records indicate that between 1455 and 1607 in thirty-four counties only 516,573 acres of land were enclosed, or 2.76% of the total, and about 50,000 people were evicted from their properties” (73). These statistics may not be extremely high, but one thing has really affected farmers: change. The lives of farmers have changed, and not for the better. They suffered from the effects of food, labor, and land due to the enclosure movement. Overall, there are more cons than pros to the effects of fencing on farmers in rural England.