They undoubtedly suffered when the lord himself or one of the large leaseholders insisted on enclosing some of the land. If the commonable area was reduced, or if the land enclosed was converted from arable to pasture (as it usually was), the means by which they made their living was diminished. The occasional day's wages for labor spent on the land converted was now withdrawn, and the pasturage for the little flock was cut down. The practical effect of even the most innocent-looking enclosures, then, must have been to deprive the poorer families of the means of livelihood, even though they were not evicted from their worthless holdings. Enclosures and depopulation were inseparably linked in the minds of contemporaries, even when the greatest care was taken by the enclosing authorities to safeguard the rights of the tenants. These rights, however, seriously interfered with the most advantageous use of land, and often were disregarded. Not only did the small holders have rights of common over the rest of the land, but their own strips were intermingled with those of the lord and the large holders. The typical problem confronting the enclosing landlord is shown below: HOLDINGS IN OPEN FIELD, WEST LEXHAM, NORFOLK, 1575[126] _Strips in Furlong A_ _Strips in Furlong B_ 1. Will Yelverton, freeholder. 1. Robert Clemente, freeholder. 2. Demesne. 2. Demesne. 3. Demesne. 3. Demesne. 4. Will Yelverton. 4. Demesne. 5. Demesne. 5. Demesne. 6. Demesne. 6. Demesne. 7. Demesne. 7. Demesne. 8. Demesne. 8. Demesne. 9. Demesne. 9. Will Lee, freeholder. 10. Glebe. 10. Will Gell, copyholder. 11. Demesne. 11. Demesne. 12. Demesne. 12. Demesne. 13. Glebe. 13. Demesne.