// This is quick and dirty rather than a proper notes file
1. Humphries aim is to show that enclosure did have a bigger (and more negative impact) on poor (women in particular) than has been allowed.
2. Shows that income that could be derived from working common land was substantial and compared with wage labour (at least for women for whom it also offered flexibility and the ability to look after children at same time). Working common land (or rights) consisted of keeping a cow or pig. Gleaning. Gathering fuel. Picking berries etc. Estimates income for cow at between £5-9 per annum (in which case a cow could pay for itself in a year).
3. Repeatedly emphasizes the class interest of 'capitalist farmers' in removing this supplement to labourers living. They wished to do this because it would lead to more dependent, more reliable labourers. This is the 'proletarianization' of the title. Has significant impact on women as they either become wage labourers or become more dependent on male wage-earning partners as these alternative sources of income disappear -} reduces womens' independance.
4. Also simple transfers were involved since implicitly she assumes/states that labourers were not adequately compensated for their lost common rights under enclosure.
5. She does not provide any extensive data but rather a raft of anecdote and quotation from contemporary sources. This is almost certainly due to the paucity of available data. However it does make it difficult to evaluate her argument. Exactly HOW much did WHICH people lose or gain under enclosure. Much of her argument seems to depend on assertion about losses for poorer groups under enclosure. But to find evidence on this one would have to look elsewhere. Main achievement of the article is to demonstrate that use of common land could be a valuable and significant source on income for some people.